Social Security should be in the spotlight: Doing nothing is more destructive to Social Security than the passage of time

American Thinker ^ | 02/22/2023 | Breonton Smith

[SeekAndFind]

The mainstream media coverage concerning President Biden’s remarks about Social Security during his State of the Union address and the Republican reaction has been remarkable in its ability to miss the point. Pundits sparred over whether the Republicans or Democrats won, when the real story is who lost in this sideshow. After all, it is the average, hard-working American who has paid into and therefore deserves Social Security.

Unfortunately, everyday Americans who need to know whether or not they can rely on the trust fund received no worthy news coverage, and likely won’t for the next decade.

During his speech, Biden said, “So we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now?” In other words, we have agreed not to reduce benefits that weren’t materially at-risk anyway. It was an agreement to do nothing, and Congress erupted in applause.

That moment of unanimity made Congress look like a townhall of Yondu and the Ravagers, a spectacle of political theater through and through. 

As cosmetic as the exercise was, it spells real trouble for the millions of Americans who are in or approaching retirement. At this point, someone who is turning 76 years old today on average expects to outlive the system’s ability to pay scheduled benefits. That is, in a good economy.

If you are younger than 76 years old, the key point about the State of the Union Address to understand is simple: stop worrying about what the GOP is going to do to Social Security, and start paying attention to the nothingness that both parties are doing to stabilize the system on which millions depend for retirement security.

[Vigilanteman]

The remarkable thing about the Chile plan, aside from the fact that it worked, was the simplicity of the thing. Many public employees have similar plans.

Ever heard of TIAA-CREF going broke?

[Leaning Right]

> Then raid/ appropriate all 401k accounts. <

There was talk awhile back of allowing the government to seize tax-advantaged accounts, and replacing whatever you have in them with long-term government bonds paying 2% or so.

It’s not theft, see? You’re losing any money. You’re just changing investments.
Thankfully, that idea went nowhere. For now.

[SamAdams76]

Yep, why stop now?

Quadrillion dollar deficit? Who cares?

[Leaning Right]

Sorry, a typo in my post #22. It should read:

It’s not theft, see? You’re NOT losing any money. You’re just changing investments.

[flamberge]

As soon as the boomers kick it will be in the black again.

Medicare/Medicaid is waiting in the wings to take down the entire economy. Medicare already pays out more that it collects in taxes. Medicaid is completely unfunded by specific taxes. Both programs are expanding eligibility rolls and seeing costs go up exponentially for service delivery.

Mandatory mRNA treatments for healthcare providers are also reducing their ranks. Healthcare costs can easily double in a few more years. Or availability can vanish. Or both.

Killing off the boomers is not going to help you.

[uranium penguin]

I absolutely think that they will make this cash grab. (raiding/ nationalizing 401k’s) rolling all private 401ks into SS. Under the guise of taxes.

They may do something like jack up the taxes on withdraw/ disbursement or add some sort of Gov Oversight fee. Then offer a Gov “tax free” no “oversight penalty” option if rolled into a “gov managed” account.

of course, this would only be private 401ks. Gov/ Union pension funds will remain untouched.

[GOPJ]

What percentage of the gay and black 'communities' are collecting Social Security Disability?

There's a reason liberals won't tell you...

[minnesota_bound]

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform
http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/ba514

The democrats in congress during Ronald Reagan’s term raised the age to retire and blocked any future private investment that was already being done in places like Galveston, Texas where the monthly checks were much higher. See articles below about the plan from 1981.

Congress steals the social security money outright and leaves an IOU and little money for you every month.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/?sh=5e84d0373283

Excerpt: And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

[Retain Mike]

I have what is now a dim memory of an editorial during Johnson’s time saying that the FICA tax needed to increase to 8% to fund Medicare.

[Vigilanteman]

You dirty fighter, you!

Using logic and actual real world examples on liberals! Where is your compassion, man?

[trailboss800]

Social Security had a huge amount of dollars saved when Democrats decided to steal the money for their programs and said that future SS payees will cover the losses. BS. Leave SS alone and cancel other programs. Put all the money back into the SS fund, kept separate from the general fund.

[Carriage Hill]

Agreed.

[DesertRhino]

Oh yeah Galveston was great, and Chile was also a giant success story the same way.