Lets Slash Entitlements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

SSA has overhead costs of less than 1% of their total expenditures. Can you name any other entity, public or private, that operates that efficiently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Any Vanguard fund.

Is Vanguard distributing checks to millions of people around the country? I'm not talking financial funds, I'm talking entities that actually do things. Like manage millions of transfer payments every month. Vanguard is charging you that amount to have a very small number of investment professionals sit in front of a computer and make trades, which is nowhere near as complex as what the SSA does.

Both entities get money, invest money, pay away money.

If it's so expensive to mail checks...don't. Pay via bank deposits, or issue debit cards.

(I do think the SS is pretty well run, but couldn't resist to take on your challenge above...)

95 percent of social security payments are made electronically, the other 5 percent are allowed to go by paper check or the Direct Express Debit card only in cases where the recipient has a documented disability and requests this or no personal bank account to use for direct deposit. The debit card is the most expensive for the government to administer given the fees, replacement costs, and cyber issues.

The real administrative costs of SSA that aren't at all comparable to Vangaurd is the costs of customer service both by phone and in thousands of walk in offices. SSA serves all Americans, unlike the higher educated and more financially sophisticated consumers who may have chosen to purchase Vangaurd funds, and they have to provide tons of special language and disability services to meet the needs of its customers. Most SSA customers are elderly and prefer to call or walk in a center rather than complete online applications. You are talking about two very different services for two very different populations. And yet SSA is extremely efficient in managing this more complex program.

[Anonymous]

You forgot to list the veterans who voted for Trump 2:1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1000. See this so often; maybe just from one person? Or two? Drive-by comments that are worthless.

[Anonymous]

You need to follow the money. The programs benefit many more people than just the poor beneficiaries. Food stamps were set up as vouchers paying retail so that farmers, big food companies, grocery chains, Walmart, et al get the money at their prices. If all we want is to feed poor people there are cheaper ways to do it. Medicaid money goes to hospitals, doctors, drug companies, nursing homes, labs et al. Without it, many small town hospitals would not survive because there would not be enough paying patients to support medical specialists, medical equipment, and other expensive capabilities. Housing programs are written to benefit developers, investors, and landlords. When the government spends money on poor people 100% of it goes directly back into the economy to pay for food, housing, health care, etc. and then those companies spend it on payroll, equipment, etc. A billion dollars of Medicaid spending provides much more overall benefit to the economy than a billion dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Food stamps
http://civileats.com/2014/10/09/youll-never-guess-where-food-stamps-are-in-highest-demand/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

This took 10 seconds. Use google and you will find hundreds of studies and reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

Another blue state imbecile. Have you looked at your social security statement recently? It clearly states that unless the system is reformed, there will be not enough funding to pay all the promised benefits by around 2022 or 2023. That's not restricted to red or blue states.

Like a typical liberal, you don't actually want to take any responsibility to fix the problem.

[Anonymous]

Obama tried for 8 years to fix the problem, but the GOP refused to work with him.

Same thing with adjusting ACA or allowing a Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

Another blue state imbecile. Have you looked at your social security statement recently? It clearly states that unless the system is reformed, there will be not enough funding to pay all the promised benefits by around 2022 or 2023. That's not restricted to red or blue states.

Like a typical liberal, you don't actually want to take any responsibility to fix the problem.

That is a entirely different subject and one you do not understand. Social Security fiscal problem issues are simply that (1) many people live a lot longer after retirement than in the past, in large-part due to Medicare and Medicaid, and (2) the baby boom is bringing a budget bubble as they transition from paying into Social Security and Medicare to receiving benefits for the next 30 to 40 years.

That is a completely different topic than the concern of the suburban middle class that they are paying for benefits for urban and rural areas. Their complaints are misplaced because they do not see the many ways that their suburban lives also are subsidized and because the benefits to rural and urban areas make their way back through the economy to the paychecks of the suburban workers.

[Anonymous]

I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

Another blue state imbecile. Have you looked at your social security statement recently? It clearly states that unless the system is reformed, there will be not enough funding to pay all the promised benefits by around 2022 or 2023. That's not restricted to red or blue states.

Like a typical liberal, you don't actually want to take any responsibility to fix the problem.

Actually, for decades, liberals have been promoting solutions like raising the contribution cap, which would make SS solvent for most of the remainder of this century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

I've been paying in for 35 years. If they slash it, that's THEFT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1. But you left out racist - that usually the first response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

The average person gets out, over time, much more than you pay in.

That's why it's (partially) an entitlement. A pay-in entitlement, if you prefer.

Which works fine as long as there's enough young workers to subsidize older ones--hence the need for more legal immigration--, or the whole program implodes like a pyramid scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

You would do me a favor cutting Medicare. I pay a lot of money each month and get nothing in return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

Maybe instead of opening another overpriced bottle of wine you could tutor a child for an hour or donate the money to weekend school food programs. It would do more for you than the hangover from the bottle of wine