Posted on 02/19/2023 7:20:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Social Security and Medicare are on an “unsustainable course” and will run out of funds by 2037. That’s the conclusion reached by the General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Social Security Administration.
There is no saving these programs without massive changes. And demagoguing the issue, as Joe Biden and the Democrats are doing, only delays the day of reckoning. To pretend these programs don’t need intervention now — right now — is to play with dynamite. The sooner we can get started, the less pain will be inflicted on senior citizens.
Pain there will be. In order to put these programs on the path to long-term viability, it will take political courage absent from today’s politicians.
Veronique de Rugy has been the Paul Revere on Social Security unsustainability for as long as I’ve been writing. Her article in Reason.com explains the problems with the two biggest government programs plainly and succinctly.
It’s important for people to grasp reality because no single issue will affect our fiscal future more than Social Security and Medicare. Spending on these two programs alone consumes 45 percent of the federal budget. Along with Medicaid, these programs are the drivers of our current and future debt. And to drive home the seriousness of our predicament, note that Medicare and Social Security together face a shortfall of $116 trillion over the next 30 years.
That’s more than five times the current gross domestic product. But Biden wants to demonize Republicans for trying to address these long-term problems?
There is no political consensus on what to do about these two programs. Democrats want to raise the retirement age and charge retirees more for Medicare. That’s a bandaid that won’t even extend the viability of the programs for much more than a decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Way to go, Thune and Lindsey.
America can no longer honorS its promises to Americans. The bassturds in the government are now concerned only with caring for all the sewage and garbage “assylum seekers” in the western hemisphere in return for their votes. ONLY BRAINDEAD RETARDS VOTE FOR “DEMOCRATS”.
Legalize all drugs for people over 60.
That might take care of the problem
Cutting SS and medicare benefits to the seniors who paid into them and are dependent on them will be the opening shot in the next civil war.
That makes too much sense.
And the Veronique person ties a can to Social Security and Medicare because they are the largest piece of spending. It's not the size that matters, Veronique; it's adequate funding.
After all, if there really was a "Social Security LockBox", that money could have been invested in something that would have provided a rate of return to fund the program. Instead, the Feds drained the lockbox to fund their spending.
Wait until the 10 million plus who rushed into the country under the Biden administration become eligible for benefits.
Every paycheck you got, for your entire life, showed the deductions you paid. They paid nothing but they will be eligible.
At least 116 trillion.
FDR signed this into law in 1935. The average lifespan for Americans back then was SIXTY years old.
Mother Government never expected to have to pay out on any of the Cash Bonanza that they invented in the first place!
You Old Folks REALLY need to die on time!
*SPIT*
(I’m 62, just started drawing SS this past Fall; been working since I was 15 years old. I got a raise ten minutes into the program! Tell me what’s wrong with this picture and how it is in any way sustainable?)
There is no saving these programs without massive changes.
Gee Moe wouldn’t it help if they stopped paying all the millions of illegals from cradle to grave cut other wasteful spending .....................................
That is how the Dems will pay for the illegals they are lettin g into the country.
The solution for Social Security has always been to convert it to a fully funded, individually owned, personal investment account basis. Once implemented, this eventually would pay retirees a significantly higher retirement income while creating an inheritable nest egg that would eventually give all families at least some intergenerational wealth. The big challenge is picking a mechanism to amortize the unfunded liability of the current system. Democrats demonize this as too risky, on the theory that kiting checks to future generations is better. At some point, future taxpayers will finally rebel, with the endgame being means testing that will throw anyone with a private pension or substantial retirement savings out of the system.
Medicare is harder because we simply cannot afford to give everyone everything modern medicine can provide. Decisions will have to be made about denial of care. IMHO, premium support and maximum consumer choice is the best solution. Let people pick their own poison. Given the very high percentage of medical costs that are incurred in the last six months or last year of life, I suspect that most people will choose to reduce end of life treatments. When the time draws near, give me whatever to ensure that I don’t suffer and let nature take its course.
Ukranians first, American last!
There isn't, and never was, any "lockbox" that ever contained any monies which the feds at some point "drained." That characterization has always been a partisan-driven fairy tale, trotted out periodically by those trying to gain political leverage in a given situation.
These fantasy stories have been useful, too, in establishing in people's minds the equally false notion that, in paying the Social Security payroll tax, they have somehow been "paying into" the Social Security program, akin to making contributions to a 401(k) plan or whatever. But that isn't how the program works, or ever has worked. A person is no more "paying into" anything, in paying Social Security taxes, then he or she is "paying into" a Pentagon defense program when they pay federal income taxes. The person is just paying taxes. That's all that's happening.
Revenue generated by the payroll tax goes (and always have gone) into the federal treasury, like all tax-generated revenue goes. Money to pay Social Security benefits is dispensed from the federal treasury. The so-called "trust fund" is an accounting mechanism, reflecting the "debt" the federal government "owes" to the Social Security program.
The "trust fund" doesn't contain, and never has contained, anything constituting actual money. Which is what is needed, of course, to pay out benefits: money.
All that is being talked about now is the reality that we are approaching a point where the amount of revenue generated by the Social Security payroll tax will not be sufficient to cover the projected benefits that the program would be paying out in the future. But even then, the feds could still pay out "full" benefits if it wished. There would still be money in the Treasury. Such payments would increase the budget deficit and, in turn, the debt, but they could still be paid.
Yes, this.
And stop running up massive debts for stupid stuff (free college, illegal alien hotels, etc) when folks who worked and paid into a system see future cuts.
In Social Security in 1940 there were 159.4 workers paying into the system for every beneficiary taking out. In 2013 that ratio was 2.8 to 1! You don't have to believe me here is the link.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
You can also take out far more then you put in. The case of Ida May Fuller.
“
Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits. ..”
There have been tens of thousands of Ida May Fullers. My father who lived until his late 90s calculated when he would be a drag on the system. I remember him giving me an ironic laugh and saying " I'm now stealing from the government!". Again, you don't have to believe me here is the SSA link.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay
Note: Mandatory Spending Consumes 77% of Budget by FY 2023 of a $6 trillion budget.
Major entitlements alone (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will comprise half of the entire budget by 2023. Medicaid will grow the fastest by 96 percent, followed by Social Security (75 percent) and Medicare (72 percent). In 2022 Social Security is 21% of the total budget.
Everything you described falls under discretionary spending. And it's nowhere near the totality of that, in other words nearly insignificant! The politicians particularly the demagogic Rat ones want to keep us focused on the insignificant part of the problem. Much easier than thinking hard and coming up with a plan that financially harms no current beneficiaries and gets us out of this financial mess. (Chile did it! Why can't we?) If we don't the Cloward-Piven dream of financially collapsing us will come true!
How old are you?
I would say the first point of change is to stop putting people on the SS programs who have never paid into them. ALL OF THEM.
The next point is the G is running a 2 trillion deficit now. IOW, receipts have to go up or spending down that amount to just break even. IMO, without changes to the entire federal approach, not going to happen by the way, the government will face the equivalent of a chapter 11 reorganization. Everything will be on the table. Keep well armed.
Retired!
That’s all you need to know!
Social Security and Medicare are easily sustainable in the future. All the government needs to do is to develop a novel chimeric virus that selectively kills off old people. Problem solved.
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.