Social Security and Medicare Will Cost More Than The Value Of Everything In The United States

The Business Insider ^ | 4/17/09

[FromLori]

Here's the good news: future costs of Social Security and Medicare won't require higher taxes. Now here's the bad news: the reason these programs won't require higher taxes is that they'll be so expensive that there's no possible way to pay for them through taxes. Everything in the US (not counting people) is worth about $50 trillion and those two programs will cost $80 trillion, unless they are reformed.

Wharton insurance and risk management professor Kent Smetters, a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary and economist for the Congressional Budget Office, explains that the only way for these problems to survive is by cutting them back drastically. From Wharton's Knowledge@Wharton:

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.

[Heartland Mom]

Well that’s okay because we will probably all be nuked before then anyway. /s

[kabar]

More than likely these programs will be means tested so that fewer people will receive benefits rather than just cut benefits.

[GOPJ]

So will the bailouts to multimillionaires and their banker friends.

[DennisR]

This is why we have to begin pushing back: http://pushbackuntil.com. Otherwise, Congress will continue to bankrupt us. They have no gut, courage, or vision - and it matters not which party is in power.

[GOPJ]

More than likely these programs will be means tested so that fewer people will receive benefits rather than just cut benefits.

Liberals want to make sure the middle class that paid into these programs doesn't get a dime. The only people who will benefit will be the "same old, same old". And we know who liberals vote money for - and it ain't us.

[FromLori]

Looks good here is another..

http://bluelori.blogspot.com/2009/04/this-is-act-we-should-all-get-behind-hr.html

[2banana]

The same government that wants you to trust them with your health care...

[Petronski]

That’s a kinda half-assed analysis, since those two programs cost $70-80T over many years, during which, at any given time, GDP is $10T+ per year.

In other words, Social Security & Medicare are not “due and payable” immediately, but over time.

[Tenacious 1]

I just recently received my SS benefits statement. It says right on there that the program is projecting that it will only be able to fund 78% of my legally due benefits under the current law. I think the accounts are still at the hooka pipe.

[Petronski]

In still other words, it's an apples and oranges comparison:

Everything in the US . . . is [<--PRESENT TENSE] worth about $50 trillion and those two programs will [<--FUTURE TENSE] cost $80 trillion

[tiki]

Back before 1986 self-employed and government workers and teacher and I don’t know who else didn’t pay SS taxes because these people all had pensions and/or net worth.

The government needed an infusion of cash into the SS system so they added all these people for the immediate money but no-one ever did the math about what was going to happen when these people retired.

[Mark319]

The Democrats insist that Social Security and Medicare are fine and don’t need to be fixed. They wouldn’t lie to us, would they ???

I’m convinced that it is the ultimate goal of the Democrats (with a little help from the Republicans) to destroy this country so that they can “rebuild” it according to their plan. There can be no other explanation...

[engrpat]

I received a long email today from a leftist gentleman I used to work with concerning the absolute need for government run single payer medical care. They just don’t understand the cost not only in money but lives lost under such a system. No reason to reply to him, can’t argue stupid and the discussions do jump to the stupid side.

[freekitty]

“Well that’s okay because we will probably all be nuked before then anyway. /s”

Yep, with our Pantywaist leaders, you are probably right.

[mulligan]

Who cares. Obama and his administration can just keep printing money. What’s wrong with a “little” inflation now and then. They just better hope there will be enough energy available to keep the presses running. It would be very hard to do it by hand.

[pabianice]

We veterans are just waiting for Obama to try and end military retirement pay and TRICARE...

[KarlInOhio]

$80 trillion? No problem, I've got it. You can even keep the change.

Seriously, we cannot inflate our way out of that bill because when we continue to print trillions of dollars to devalue the dollar that $80 trillion price will go up just as fast. Essentially the pyramid base is no longer big enough to keep the game going. Someone will either take the hit in lower benefits than expected or much higher taxes.

[kabar]

Actually it was 1983 when federal employees [new hires] were required to join SS. Reagan signed a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neill, which raised the retirement age for full benefits from 65 to 67, among other things. SS was paying out more than it was taking in, just as will do in 2017. The Reagan-O'Neill deal was supposed to fix SS, a pay as you go system, for the next 75 years, but the fix will only last until 2017.

SS is unsustainable as currently structured. In 1950, there were 16 workers to every retiree; today it is 3.3; and by 2030 it will be 2 to 1. And the benefits are not tied directly to revenue. They are on automatic pilot tied to COLA. And the cap is raised annually using a formula based on average wage index. In 2000, the cap was $76,000. Today it is $106,500, which is faster than inflation. Over 50 million Americans are collecting SS benefits, which includes survivor and disability payments along with retirees.