Replies to post #106647 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

....how about you read from the actual reports ..

The financial outlook for Social Security is little changed from last year. The short term outlook is worsened by a deeper recession than was projected last year, but the overall 75-year outlook is nevertheless somewhat improved primarily because a provision of the ACA is expected to cause a higher share of labor compensation to be paid in the form of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax than would occur in the absence of the legislation. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, however, is now projected to become exhausted in 2018, two years earlier than in last year’s report. Thus, changes to improve the financial status of the DI program are needed soon.

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

then this one .. you can check the figures

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/lr6f8.html

[wbmw]

Sadly, I think it's a train wreck ready to happen. I wish it wouldn't, but Social Security, while meant with good intentions in it's original design, is unsustainable unless we change up our spending priorities.

I think you're misinformed. Social Security is quite sustainable, as Stephanie showed in her response. Medicare, on the other hand, is losing quite a bit of money, but many blame rising health care costs as the primary driver. Hence, Obama's health care reform put the money in place to sustain the program for another 10 years or so. After that, there needs to be some serious bending of the cost curves. Maybe learning the practices from successful health centers like the one your wife works for is part of that.

But all that aside, I think you're being overly careless of the consequences of removing the fundamental safety net holding the senior citizen population in good health and welness. Don't forget that these people have been paying into the system their entire lives. The payroll tax deductions were their money, so it is quite careless indeed to think that they should now go without the benefits.

On the other hand, I agree that there's a deficit problem that needs to be addressed - but I believe it needs to be done through a combination of cuts as well as increases in revenues. I believe in cutting things like the Afghanistan war, and I believe in growing revenues, such as letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I believe in closing the corporate tax loopholes and unfair subsidies that aren't benefitting the country. I believe in making sure that the wealthiest class of individuals pay their fair share of taxes, since they are the ones receiving the greatest benefit of this country's governance.

Taxes are part of the Constitution. The only part of taxes I think everyone agrees on is that middle class individuals are already paying too much, and it's not fair to give the tax breaks to those making big investments, so that they can end up with lower marginal tax rates than the people barely getting by with 80 hour work weeks. That is unfair, and we've had an unfair tax code since Reagan changed the entire tax system to benefit the wealthy.

If you really want to benefit this country, you can't take away the benefits from those who need it the most. You just need to get the richest individuals to pay their fair share.

[sortagreen]

"My wife works for a new healthcare program (private business) that works with the elderly who are on SS and Medicare. This program has delivered 15-20% savings back to the Feds for these participants. And the elderly get better all-around healthcare and provisions than ever before, so I know it can be done. "

So you're doing this in Bridgeport or South Chicago? Bowling Green? Where? What's the median income there?

Since your folks moved in to your place, do they get golf course priviledges too? Or is that just for the owners?

I guess what I'm saying is you say your privatization scheme works on a micro level, but you say it in a vacuum. You don't share your circumstances... How are we to judge the efficacy of your "program"?

Before SS the primary causes of death among the elderly were starvation and exposure, depending on the time of year. Sorry, no "leader" is going to take us back to that.

[SoxFan]

It seems your not very well read on SS as it was in the black this year and it will be for awhile. SS has over 2 Trillion in US treasuries and gets interest on those bonds. Therefore it's in the black and won't go bankrupt EVER. If nothing changes it will still pay our full benefits until around 2045 or so and then start to pay at 78% of benefits. There is no problem with SS unless one can't understand 7th grade math.

There is a problem with healthcare but I doubt you'd be interested in a solution as that's far more serious an issue.