Lets Slash Entitlements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's the whole problem... SS is a pyramid scheme. Those that benefited the most are the original beneficiaries that did not pay anything to get into the system and reaped all the rewards. The whole premise on how it was created was flawed.

What the solution is, that is a good point of debate.

Not exactly. The first participants did get a higher rate of return than you or I will get. But we still will get a return. Some politicians like to pretend the government can and eventually will write off this debt to itself, but many of them know better and are just lying. Social Security is invested in non-marketable government debt, just like the savings bonds you may own. Like with savings bonds, the debt has to be paid off from general revenue, that's specified in federal law in the Social Security Act. Congress would have to pass a law to overturn the existing law. Do you think our craven congresspeople, even and especially the super-conservative ones, would risk their seats by supporting that? No way.

There are a lot of possible remedies and anybody who wants to save the system in good faith (which excludes a lot of folk on Capitol Hill) could probably easily reach a compromise on a balanced package of benefit cut and revenue increase measured that wouldn't hurt any given group too much. Go to the American Academy if Actuaries site, or SSA's research page, or even BPC, AARP or the Dominick-Rivlin commission. The menu of possible remedies is well known and has been debated and analyzed for many years. What we really need is political will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And this is why our budget is in such trouble. "Slash it, but give me mine."' Are you by any chance a Trump supporter?

nope. you don't want the money you put in? Interesting.

besides I was being sarcastic by saying "slash it". It would piss me off to have those programs go away as I am approaching retirement when I've put in money for my whole career.

Of course I'd like the money I put in. I never said I didn't want it. I'm a liberal dem, and while I won't need the money (lots of savings, traditional pension, and inheritance), it would be nice to have. I want it to be there for people whose employers never offered them a 401(k). Also the Social Security benefit is progressive, and I totally support that.

[Anonymous]

OP here. FYI. I voted for Hillary and would do so again, meaning I voted against my economic interests. But Trump "won" and his party wants to privatize SSA and slash Medicare/Medicaid. Not only do Red States fund the Blue States, but the Reddest of the Red States are in the bottom 10 of almost every list that ranks a state's education, poverty, health, etc level. So, I say give those voters what they voted for. You may call me "mean/etc" but I am not the one who voted for him. Our fellow citizens in Rural America did so give them what they apparently want. I will be enjoying that extra bottle of wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And this is why our budget is in such trouble. "Slash it, but give me mine."' Are you by any chance a Trump supporter?

nope. you don't want the money you put in? Interesting.

besides I was being sarcastic by saying "slash it". It would piss me off to have those programs go away as I am approaching retirement when I've put in money for my whole career.

Of course I'd like the money I put in. I never said I didn't want it. I'm a liberal dem, and while I won't need the money (lots of savings, traditional pension, and inheritance), it would be nice to have. I want it to be there for people whose employers never offered them a 401(k). Also the Social Security benefit is progressive, and I totally support that.

This is PP and I will need it. So yes it will hurt a lot if its not there. I have some savings but I really will need SS as well.

[Anonymous]

To the poster who said Trump never talked about slashing entitlements:

1) What Trump says and what he does are very loosely correlated. Pence is the one currently running the show.

2) Paul Ryan is the one who will control legislation and Trump will sign it. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, his plan for Medicare is to turn it in a tax credit private thing like Obamacare.

Prepare yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's the whole problem... SS is a pyramid scheme. Those that benefited the most are the original beneficiaries that did not pay anything to get into the system and reaped all the rewards. The whole premise on how it was created was flawed.

What the solution is, that is a good point of debate.

Not exactly. The first participants did get a higher rate of return than you or I will get. But we still will get a return. Some politicians like to pretend the government can and eventually will write off this debt to itself, but many of them know better and are just lying. Social Security is invested in non-marketable government debt, just like the savings bonds you may own. Like with savings bonds, the debt has to be paid off from general revenue, that's specified in federal law in the Social Security Act. Congress would have to pass a law to overturn the existing law. Do you think our craven congresspeople, even and especially the super-conservative ones, would risk their seats by supporting that? No way.

There are a lot of possible remedies and anybody who wants to save the system in good faith (which excludes a lot of folk on Capitol Hill) could probably easily reach a compromise on a balanced package of benefit cut and revenue increase measured that wouldn't hurt any given group too much. Go to the American Academy if Actuaries site, or SSA's research page, or even BPC, AARP or the Dominick-Rivlin commission. The menu of possible remedies is well known and has been debated and analyzed for many years. What we really need is political will.

My point here was that the first beneficiaries never paid into the system at all. Those that were already of retirement age when the law passed benefited the most, then it was a gradual phase in for those who were still working and their length of time to contribute before retirement. That's why it is similar to a legal pyramid scheme (not an exact, but similar).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. FYI. I voted for Hillary and would do so again, meaning I voted against my economic interests. But Trump "won" and his party wants to privatize SSA and slash Medicare/Medicaid. Not only do Red States fund the Blue States, but the Reddest of the Red States are in the bottom 10 of almost every list that ranks a state's education, poverty, health, etc level. So, I say give those voters what they voted for. You may call me "mean/etc" but I am not the one who voted for him. Our fellow citizens in Rural America did so give them what they apparently want. I will be enjoying that extra bottle of wine.

OP, Trump doesn't plan on cutting any entitlements. He wants to increase spending. He doesn't care about debt, he never has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. FYI. I voted for Hillary and would do so again, meaning I voted against my economic interests. But Trump "won" and his party wants to privatize SSA and slash Medicare/Medicaid. Not only do Red States fund the Blue States, but the Reddest of the Red States are in the bottom 10 of almost every list that ranks a state's education, poverty, health, etc level. So, I say give those voters what they voted for. You may call me "mean/etc" but I am not the one who voted for him. Our fellow citizens in Rural America did so give them what they apparently want. I will be enjoying that extra bottle of wine.

OP, Trump doesn't plan on cutting any entitlements. He wants to increase spending. He doesn't care about debt, he never has.

He also doesn't have an idiology and just follows whatever others suggest. He has surrounded himself with free marketers, so expect results in line with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who said Trump never talked about slashing entitlements:

1) What Trump says and what he does are very loosely correlated. Pence is the one currently running the show.

2) Paul Ryan is the one who will control legislation and Trump will sign it. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, his plan for Medicare is to turn it in a tax credit private thing like Obamacare.

Prepare yourself.

It's going to be horrifying when his voters get exactly what they voted for. The schadenfreude will be great.

[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.

Honestly, this is how I have been feeling even though I know morally and ethically it is wrong. It's not just seniors but all those "working class whites" of all ages. If people think "Obamacare" is crap then let's get rid of it, and while we're at it let's roll back the law that Reagan signed that ensures people without insurance have a right to medical treatment in an emergency. And raise the age of SS eligibility to 75. If you want to be poor and unhealthy and uneducated and live in squalor and have no one help you because government is bad, great. Let's make that reality happen and see how great you think that is. Show up at an emergency room bleeding to death with no insurance? Oh well, you're dead. I mean, what with personal responsibility and all, surely you can all pick yourselves up by your bootstraps and figure it out, right? Or, you know, just drop dead at 50 from a lifetime lack of preventative healthcare. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

since you pay more in taxes, you're vote counts more than a poor person living in a red state?

No, apparently the vote of the poor person in the red state counts more. That's how we got Trump.

Right. Do the math, dummies. They've capped our representatives in Congress at 535 regardless of population, and each state gets two senators and at least one representative. That means that people in states the size of DC get more power for their vote than states with growing populations like California where their members in the House represent 3-4 times as many people as those who represent Wyoming or Montana. How, exactly, is that fair and how does this fact support your argument?

It doesn't. You are a dumbass who can't figure out sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

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.

Okay great. Let's just fire 50% of federal employees and see how well that works. Easy peasy!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're an awful person. Wishing that on the most vulnerable people says a lot about you.

Wishing bad things on women, minorities and blue state coastal "elites" who are unamerican is what Trumpers do day in and day out.

+1

The irony of someone suggesting that Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare is okay, when he knows full well that the majority of Americans are financially ignorant and if left to their own devices would use that money for other things, is too much for me. Ryan's plan is the definition of leaving vulnerable people out in the cold, many of them innocent children or aging seniors.

[Anonymous]

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.

This "they go low we go high" thing really worked out great for the democrats, did it?

You know, it's called venting. No Democrat would actually vote for this plan or really wants to see it happen. Your party on the other hand could give two shits about the "vulnerable" unless they are a zygote. Then you care a whole hell of a lot. When they're born, fuck 'em, but before that, oh the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing and wailing.

Hypocrite. Put a sock in it.

[Anonymous]

The main problem is demographic. The number of workers per retiree has decreased over time. The best argument for lots of immigration is to skew the working population younger to provide more support for the retired population.