The 'Entitlements' Controversy, Social Security, Medicare...

[amicus]

There is a bit a political chicanery going on in DC, (when is there not?), according to the pundits, both the Obama administration and the Republicans are not committing to cutting the entitlement programs even though they comprise 60 percent of the budget.

In terms of producing a balanced budget, cutting discretionary fundings will not even make a dent and deficit budgets of increasing amounts will continue into the foreseable future.

Contemporary thought is that if either Party recommends cutting Social Security, increasing the age of eligibility or a 'means test' (rich people get nothing), then that Party will lose the 2012 elections.

Medicare is an even larger problem as the annual increase in the shortfall is rising faster than the social security program.

The solution to Social Security seems simple to me; privatize it. Make it a real retirement plan, managed by private insurance/investment companies that have a mandate to make only 'safe' investments so that the principle continues to increase with payments, the interest accumulates, the insurance companies make money and the retirement nest egg remains the property of the payee to do with as he or she chooses. As it currently is, we all pay in and government steals and spend the money and the so called social security trust fund consists only of government IOU's, which are worthless.

Medicare is a more difficult program and complex. Everyone is required to contribute into the program but no one is eligible for benefits until age 65. It seems to me there should be a medical insurance program similar to retirement plans in which the payee has a vested interest and choice concerning the coverage and date of eligibility.

Medicaid is a healthcare giveaway program to the poor and I have no idea how that can be addressed.

The crux of the matter is that these 'entitlement' programs are bankrupting the nation and are reaching a point of no return and something drastic must be done but neither Party will risk the consequences...

another interesting year in politics....

amicus

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The system cannot be reformed until it collapses.

 

[Ishmael]

As a historical note, Social Security was initially written as a partially privatized program. The Republicans in congress at that time insisted that that provision be removed in the belief that the SCOTUS would find the law unconstitutional with the government being the sole administrator of the program. Obviously they were mistaken.

Ishmael

 

[amicus]

As a historical note, Social Security was initially written as a partially privatized program. The Republicans in congress at that time insisted that that provision be removed in the belief that the SCOTUS would find the law unconstitutional with the government being the sole administrator of the program. Obviously they were mistaken.
Ishmael

~~~

It has been a long, long time since I researched the initial legislation in the mid 1930's, but I do remember that the program was challenged and that the actuarial lifespan was lower than the eligibility age...which meant very few people would ever benefit from the program.

I would have to do the research again to recall when the government began raiding the social security trust fund and using it for general fund expenditures, so it never was an interest bearing investment program intended to be self sustaining and yielding an interest income annually...the whole program has often been described as a Ponzi scheme and I think that is accurate. New people keep paying in to support those before them and of course, the costs to administrate the program continually rises....

amicus...

 

[Ishmael]

~~~

It has been a long, long time since I researched the initial legislation in the mid 1930's, but I do remember that the program was challenged and that the actuarial lifespan was lower than the eligibility age...which meant very few people would ever benefit from the program.

I would have to do the research again to recall when the government began raiding the social security trust fund and using it for general fund expenditures, so it never was an interest bearing investment program intended to be self sustaining and yielding an interest income annually...the whole program has often been described as a Ponzi scheme and I think that is accurate. New people keep paying in to support those before them and of course, the costs to administrate the program continually rises....

amicus...

The raiding occurred in the late 70's when the Carter Admin. needed to readily available cash. The SS accounts were rolled into the general fund and the money used to purchase long term T-bills. Which are still sitting in a file cabinet somewhere in W. Virginia to this day.

It is a Ponzi scheme in that the entire structure of all of those programs is based on the premise that there will always be an ever increasing worker base paying into the program. Another case where demographics bit government forecasters in the ass. In that reproductive incentives have failed in every nation and time period that they've been tried, the only way for the government to make up for the 'worker deficit' is wholesale immigration. Without that remedy the ratio of workers to beneficiaries will eventually reach a 1:1 parity. If a nation goes the immigration route what they end up with is a host of unskilled, low payed (low contribution), workers who draw heavily on the existing entitlement programs and who themselves will eventually reach the age of eligibility, which will require even more drastic measures in the future. It is obvious that the democrats favor the wholesale immigration solution.

And you are correct in the statement concerning the 'retirement' age being higher than the mean life expectancy of the time. Until very recently it was still a losing bet if you happened to be black or Hispanic.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

What a collection of ignorance and misinformation.

Ponzi scheme, are you kidding us? Call it a Yahtzee scheme, it makes as much sense.

If you really think Social Security needs more money, ask your pols to raise the wage base cap, which hasn't been increased in two years.

 

[amicus]

What a collection of ignorance and misinformation.

Ponzi scheme, are you kidding us? Call it a Yahtzee scheme, it makes as much sense.

If you really think Social Security needs more money, ask your pols to raise the wage base cap, which hasn't been increased in two years.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Okay...it is clear you are not on the same page.... check this out for starters...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

FDR was a Progressive Socialist. Our form of government does not authorize mandatory taxation for retirement benefits.

If you work, you have money withheld from each paycheck for Social Security. If you work and pay for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and die before age 62-65-67 (it is increasing all the time), then you lose every penny you paid into social security.

Now what kind of rational person would freely agree to such a plan? No one.

They force you to pay, tell you when you can begin to draw benefits, tell you how much you can draw; you have no control over your money. Whatever you may call that, it is not freedom and choice and has no place in a free society.

Our entire form of government is one of laws to limit the power of government which has slowly eroded since the Progressive era began with Theodore Roosevelt. It is time to return to the spirit and the letter of a free republic.

Amicus

 

[phrodeau]

Medical insurance, what a scam. You pay in all your life, and if you stay healthy or die suddenly, you get none of it back.

 

[bronzeage]

Medical insurance, what a scam. You pay in all your life, and if you stay healthy or die suddenly, you get none of it back.

Yeah, those lucky bastards with a disease are just a bunch of free loaders.