We've Crossed A Tipping Point: Most Americans Now Receive Govt. Benefits (Happy Dependence Day!)

Forbes ^ | 7/02/2014 @ 4:45PM | Merill Matthews

[quesney]

Obamacare has pushed us over the entitlements tipping point. In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs—about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americans—according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.

Currently, around 6 million to 7 million Americans who have signed up for Obamacare are receiving taxpayer-provided subsidies (though the administration’s numbers cannot be trusted, it’s all we have to work with). There are another 3 million who have signed up for Medicaid.

That means some 10 million Americans—or a total of about 161 million—are now getting government subsidies (though the final number might be somewhat lower since some may have been receiving benefits already).

Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“I believe most receive a social security check. That would be an earned benefit that was not optional.”

My social security check is NOT a gov’t handout. I earned it, I paid for it. And my employers matched what I paid.

Let’s start over and let me put all that money into an ‘annuity’ or other means of compounding the interest on the money. And that was through some high interest rate times. I could have the income I have now and have a healthy principle to pass on to my heirs.

The fact that the gov’t has squandered the money I and my employers paid into social security is a part of the leftist monetary failings. That does not make social security payments to me a gov’t handout!

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“SS, if you live to be 80 you will probably take out far more than you put in.”

Well, glory be. If what I put in earned interest at the rates interest was being paid for much of my life there would be a whole hell of a lot more there for me to take out. Don’t give us that sh-t. I expect to take out more than I put in, if I have to live to be a hundred to do it! :-)

That was the whole idea sold to us when social security first came into being.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Smoke it Joe, I am on your side! Social Security is NOT an entitlement. It is a right...You and I each paid for our own Social Security that is coming due now!

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“The founding fathers risked ALL, even their lives. But we are now a nation that wants the status quo, even if it means going bankrupt or putting it on our Children’s backs.”

Think about it. There is a cause of all our economic problems. It goes back to the illegal establishment of the Federal Reserve...a bank holding company that now controls the government. It is time to abolish the Fed and tell the Banksters to honor their own created ‘Government Debt’. Let them eat it! Then we go back to the Constitutional system where the Treasury is responsible for money supply. And in all this we fire all the pols of both parties and start the whole thing over the way our Founders intended it to be.

This is war. All is fair in love and WAR! And this keeps it off the back of our descendents! They do not own it. Neither do we. The bansters own it...time for them to EAT it.

[Smokin' Joe]

I would not go so far as call it a Right. The whole program was well outside the Constitutional authority of the Government, and paved the way for the welfare system of today.

That said, generations have been paying more than a tithe (if self employed, directly, if not, the employer makes up the rest) into a program which assured them there would be a payout.

So I wouldn't say it was a Right so much as an agreement, an agreement even marketed as part of the "New Deal".

I honestly think Social Security should be phased out, and If I was a few decades younger, I would not be happy about paying into a program that would likely be gone long before I was eligible.

Maybe the 'lockbox' should be restocked from the assets of those who looted the fund to buy votes. It would only be a pittance compared to what is needed, but it would be a start.

It is also the reason we're all a number (XXX-XX-XXXX) not a name...even though that number was not to be used for anything but Social Security and Tax purposes.

The other robber in the roost is that inflation may have made the numbers look better, but as we go on, the money I paid in early on, back when silver coins were routinely found in change, is worth far less than it was when I paid it in, back in the days of a nickel candy bar and a ten cent coke (cigarettes were 32 cents a pack in MD then, and gas was under a quarter a gallon). Still, a % is a % is a %, and it was money you earned you didn't get, taken against the promise of a return down the road.

So, phase it out, with the understanding that those who have paid in and reached the age to collect should get the return they were promised, those younger have the option to opt out, but that they will not get a payment when older. That is an oversimplification, of course, but is the basic idea.

[kabar]

too many voting seniors out there. But, time is on your side. Keep on pushing'.

The population of seniors (65 and over) will double in the next 20 years. By 2030 one in five will be over 65.

[kabar]

SS is not a pension, but rather, a Ponzi scheme. The contributions you put in don't belong to you. Actuarily, SS is unsustainable.

Source: CBO “Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline” 26 Jan 2011.

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.

As recently as October, CBO was projecting that it would be 2016 before outlays regularly exceed revenues. But Social Security’s fiscal troubles are more severe than was thought, and the latest projections show the permanent deficits started several years ahead of earlier predictions.

Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.

And don’t be misled by those who say the system can pay full benefits until about 2033 without making any changes to the law. That’s true, but does not change the fact that Social Security taxes no longer cover those benefits. The government is now borrowing money to pay them, and will do so every year for the foreseeable future. And keep in mind, if nothing is done, when those trust funds are exhausted, benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent in 2033, and more each year after that, according to the most recent report of the system’s trustees. By 2084, the system will generate only enough revenue to pay for 75 percent of promised benefit levels.

FYI: The SS DI Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2016--two years from now according to the latest SS Trustee Report.

[GOPJ]

You’re right. Social Security is an earned benefit. All of us would be more than happy to have them re-figure contributions and give us our money back plus 6% compound interest.

[Dapper 26]

I never signed a loan agreement. If the government did, it still remains a receivable to me regardless how the government gets the money to pay me.

[Dapper 26]

The devil is always in the details. SS started of as strictly “voluntary”, 1% of the first $1,400, tax deductible,etc, etc. So, ref. your comment, it IS a Ponzi scheme run by our government.

[upchuck]

No. Under the Rule of Law I would expect the bank to be punished and my savings returned. Or a prorated amount to be returned.

[Eagles6]

Are you always this impolite?

The bare facts are that the fed gubmint forced you to contribute to a retirement fund. They did not invest the money, they spent it. It did not accrue interest. It's a Ponzi scheme by any definition.

If you live long enough you will take out more than you put in and your check depends on working people paying SS taxes.

Those are the facts. You are then riding in the wagon as opposed to pulling it.

The fact that if you had invested that money in very conservative investments you would have done far better is irrelevant to the premise of the article.

[quesney]

But logic dictates that ANYONE who works for the government (as defined by an outlay of labor, or something of value) and expects a government check in return, has no more call on the federal treasury than a Social Security recipient who also put up something of value (money).

---

Point is - you’re one of many calls on the treasury for income support that isn’t being provided in return for current/immediately needed labor (like that provided by currently active duty soliders).

Your contributions were stolen. Again, this isn’t to say it’s right/fair. Obviously, it’s not. It is what it is and what we’ve all collectively allowed it to become. And it will get ugly.

[quesney]

So the question becomes who do you stiff first? That is the argument. This current crop of seniors has an easy answer to that question - the young people who are currently working should be stiffed first. And, each day, we have between 10,000 and 11,000 people celebrating their 65th birthday - each day. And, they vote.

---

And young people don’t vote, so it’ll be Solyent Green/Living Dead. Old will eat the young.

But that assumes young people wont get serious about voting - they’ll certainly have more and more incentive to as their after-home pay shrinks.

[quesney]

does it include all the federal employees/military?.....include them and you can see how an obammination can get elected....I find the more one is given a check by the govt the more one tends to keep voting for that govt.....thus, the handouts but elections....

---

DeTocqueville: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

[quesney]

does it include all the federal employees/military?.....include them and you can see how an obammination can get elected....I find the more one is given a check by the govt the more one tends to keep voting for that govt.....thus, the handouts but elections....

---

DeTocqueville: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

[yorkiemom]

“... and start the whole thing over the way our Founders intended it to be.”

I’m with ya!

[yorkiemom]

The bank is omnipotent and your savings have vanished.

The only option is for new account holders to have to pay part of their savings tomyou.

But you will never admit this.

Being ‘entitled’ blinds some people. Most actually.

I’m not saying you are wrong to want what you paid in -we call want that. But it can’t happen, not the corrupt way the ‘bank’ has been set up.

[yorkiemom]

I read Walden once a year to reenergize my passion for simple living and nature. Along with a few other favorites like ‘Walking’ and ‘A Winter Walk.’. hmmm, I see a pattern. Hiking, or rather, sauntering about the forest with no destination and no time limits is my fav hobby.

The FSP sounds intriguing. But I have to stick to a conservative state - after escaping the idiocy of mexifornia, I refuse to live surrounded by liberals ever again. But could learn from your events in the porcfest, for sure.

[quesney]

You laid out the situation so well - and, boy, it’s pretty bad. How do you think it will all shake out over the next 50 years?