Posted on 08/06/2011 12:25:41 PM PDT by re_tail20
If leadership is the capacity to take people where they need to go -- whether or not they realize it or want it -- then we've had almost no leadership in these weeks of frustrating and maddening debate over the budget and debt ceiling. There's been an unspoken consensus among President Obama, congressional Democrats and Republicans not to discuss the central issue underlying the standoff. We've heard lots about "compromise" or its absence. We've had dueling budgets with differing mixes of spending cuts and tax increases. But we've heard almost nothing of the main problem that makes the budget so intractable.
It's the elderly, stupid.
By now, it's obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government's main task into transferring income from workers to retirees. In 1960, national defense was the government's main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 -- even with two wars -- it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending.
These transfers have become so huge that, unless checked, they will sabotage America's future. The facts are known: By 2035, the 65 and over population will nearly double; health costs remain uncontrolled; the combination automatically expands federal spending (as a share of the economy) by about one-third from 2005 levels. This tidal wave of spending means one or all of the following: (a) much higher taxes; (b) the gutting of other government services, from the Weather Service to medical research; (c) a partial and dangerous disarmament; (d) large and unstable deficits.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Raise the age of “entitlement.”
Duh.
If Social Security existed today as it was originally intended, we would not have the massive debt problem we have today.
ELABORATE WELFARE HOUSING PROJECT - Social Security $ at Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu6ok5ykyuQ&feature=youtu.be
This is a $225Million project in Tacoma, Washington (Salishan) that was built for Illegal Immigrants! 1325 Homes created! Refugee Pay offers them $2642 per month in SSI benefits, plus Food Stamps, plus Section 8 Housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video.
Wouldn’t you like to get a free ride like the illegals?
Agree with Samuelson. Some big problems:
1. Elderly people (even conservatives) point out that they “paid into” the SS system. No one is denying this, but they will (on average) get out much more than they paid in—even with interest figured in.
2. As they are doing in Europe, the dangers of cutting defense are not immediately obvious. You can gradually cut defense down to zero and feel secure as long as no one is attacking or threatening you. The problem comes when you really need it and its not there. Of course, a smart enemy will wait until you’re totally disarmed and helpless before striking.
3. The American people want the deficit cut (in general), but consistently oppose any specific cuts in particular.
4. Politicians get elected far more on how much they hand out to their districts—not on how much they cut.
Until the above can be fixed, nothing will change.
I guess we should start telling people to stop paying into SS and tell the young not to get old because nobody will want you. It’s a shame that the elderly fought and got injured for this country.....it seems it’s not appreciated.
|
I have never understood why on one’ 65th birthday one becomes a ward of the state. I believe the more one paid into the social security and medicare programs, the more one should expect back. Of course that’s not how it works is it? Also, health insurance should be about protection from catastrophe, providing hospitalization, not paying for every routine expense that comes along. That would save taxpayers a lot of money.
Mega bump to this thread.
Find an old person and beat up on them. That should help the budget.
The guy is right...but the problem is that people have had medicare and social security taxes taken out of their wages for years (which of course was spent by the politicians) and believe that they deserve to get that money back (since it was sold to the public as an ‘insurance’ policy). Social security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that has finally run out of money. SO yes...older people who put aside money so that they WOULDN’T have to live hand-to-mouth in their retirement years are now going to have to suck it up again and pay the price for being intelligent about saving their money. Not sure what is fair about that...especially because the equity in houses have sunk to nothing since they can’t even sell their house! AT the same time, do I want my children to have to pay even more in taxes while wages go down? Let’s face it...LBJ’s war on poverty has bankrupted us
wow. taking money from working legal residents,
and giving it to people who came here illegally,
in violations of our laws.
instead of punishing those who break the law,
we are rewarding them,
and punishing the innocent.
Obamacare's Pelosi has the solution. Yes! PELOSI is the solution!
Palliative End of Life Optimum Serenity Initiative (PELOSI)
"Just give 'em a pill." Hee. Hee.
I don’t know if it is so much ...not appreciated as what SS created culturally.
SS allows our parents to remain quite independent of the family in most cases. The whole system attempts to remove responsibility for the elderly from the next generation.
“Raise the age of “entitlement.””
I’m conservative, 57 and I’ve been working 40 years. I hurt like a b*tch and can barely walk now. I’d like to retire, and I’ve put 25% of my income away for retirement for 10 years, but the economy took me down to $186,000 dollars. Before that, I worked but was laid off from several companies and never made their defined benefit retirement plan requirements. Then, all but two of those companies where bought up by Loral and folded leaving the retirees with nothing. It seems the only people who have retirement plans are public sector workers.
If I could cancel social security tomorrow, I’d do so for the good of the country. But, I’m in the minority on that.
This is where Republican politians fall short....they need to shout to the skies that we no longer need, require nor want agencies like the EPA and any number of others.
If so, why do I keep hearing that what put us under was “discretionary” spending, not entitlements?
. Above, FTA. And so I must ask...WHY?
The companies responsible for handling our 401K's were not allowed to use the money deducted from our paychecks to buy voters under gubmint penalty. so why did the politicians spend this money deducted from our paycheck, and MATCHED by our employers...people always for get this?
And if you want to argue that the usage of funds paid into SS today is not obligated to be put aside and not touched...so okay. But it's the bill of goods we were sold.
We were told that if we just had 6.2% of our paychecks withheld for our old age, and with an employer match...well gosh that 12.4% will give you a fine set of sunset years. If a young man were to go to a financial specialist today and ask what would be a good amount to save for his retirement, I'd bet the specialist would consider 12.4% a fine amount, if it were put away and allowed to grow in a conservative mutual fund. In fact that's how 401K's work and many of those same seniors also saved via 401K's from their paychecks.
Only the 401K companies didn't spend their money and the politicians did. THIS is why the politicians don't want to go talking about SS, because they didn't handle it very well.
We were TOLD it would there. We had NO choice in the matter, it's not like we could opt out. And btw, if all of a sudden today we were to decide that Joe Blow, now eligible to collect SS, has too much money so he don't get his, that's re-distribution of wealth, don't even call yourself a conservative if you fall for this scenario being called "means-testing". If you think Joe Blow makes too much money you shouldn't have deducted from his paycheck to begin with. You DON't get to take 6.2% of his, paycheck for a lifetime, WITH THAT EMPLOYER MATCH, then dedide some fifty years later....duh...never mind, you make too much money. Maybe Joe Blow would give his SS check to his church, invest in a retirement business dream. You don't want to go "means testing" Joe Blow's SS check to take his money and give it to politician's voters. Don't fall for this or call yourself a redistribution of wealth liberal that you are if you do.
I used to run payroll departments for hospitals in the past. As such we had a lot of foreign doctors who would come to America to serve internships and such. THEY DID NOT HAVE FICA DEDUCTED FROM THEIR PAYCHECKS!!
And why was this? Because they were never expected to collect on it. So if SS and Med were not meant as something that would be collected on in the future but were, merely, a tax to be used right away, what was the logic of not taking FICA out of these foreigners' pay for the same damn reason?
All that being said, Medicare is an out of control thing, I know this. And further, once upon a time people only lived until their 60's. It might be time to move up the retirement age, I think we all know this out here in la-la land where we carry this country on our backs.
The guy that wrote this article is way off the mark.
The politicians don't want to answer any questions about where our money went all those years. They spent it. They didn't allow the 401K companies to go spending our money, but THEY DID.
Which is not to say there aren't issues to be addressed, we get this. But it should be done by clear heads and sane minds, it should allow for those who worked for many years as the gubmint took 6.2% of their pay with an employer match who were told they could have these deductions in peace knowing it would be there when they retired.
It should NOT be laid on the shoulders of the retired, who paid into the plan unlike welfare/unemployment recipients.
And for sure we should not let SS become another wealth re-distribution scheme by allowing "means testing". You all for that scam you're as dumb as any perfectly coiffed, reaching across the aisle RINO in congress.
I'm 59 and want the program ended entirely. It must be phased out.
END social security entirely within 25 years by doing a few things to encourage baby boomers to drop out of the system while at the same time lessening it's financial burden on those who have to pay the taxes to support it. It's going to take this long to ease everyone out of the present failed scheme and into their own individual retirement plans that they would own themselves.
1. Get rid of parasites who paid nothing into the system and then FREEZE current benefits for those currently receiving them. This also means no more increases.
2. Entice as many of those within ten years of receiving benefits as possible into dropping out of the plan. I would suggest that some type of one-time buyout amount along with never having to pay social security taxes ever again would do the trick.
3. Those who are within twenty years of receiving benefits will still be eligible to receive them, but at whatever level they exist after legislation has re-defined what they might be. They will have anywhere from ten to twenty years to prepare privately to make up the difference.
4. If you are not within twenty years of receiving benefits, your reward will be a slow decline in the amount of social security taxes taken from your paycheck as those receiving benefits die off. This means that over a period of twenty to thirty years your paycheck would see a tax reduction of fifteen percent. As it goes down, your ability to invest into a private plan goes up.
I think this approach would sell politically as well as spread the sacrifice enough to encourage wide-spread acceptance across generational lines. No one is left out in the cold and there is a silver lining for all.
As you pointed out many 401ks have been destroyed by government created bubbles that you didn't have participate in to be destroyed by so you are not alone.
“Entice as many of those within ten years of receiving benefits as possible into dropping out of the plan.”
I understand and partially agree, however, as long as the Social Security mechanism exists, Congress will always be adding people and benefits to it. We need to get rid of the mechanism or somehow prevent future politicians from giving bennies to their constituents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.