Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[bendog]

Care to explain that?

You just did when you said there were zero GOP votes available to deal with this

Bullshit. Sinema has ZERO power if just ONE Republican votes with the Dems on any of these issues

Complete horse shit. You don't know what you are talking about.

Those T Bills are cashed in (like all government securities) all the time and ALL are paid out of the General fund.

In fact those T Bills will be used up (completely redeemed) in a little over 15 years and that's the POINT.

Seriously ... think for one moment. The money that will be paid out after the social security taxes are no longer sufficient to pay benefits for a current month ..... where do you think that money will come from? A TBill (and soc sec bonds are NOT tbill btw). There's no money locked up in some bank vault? There's just general revenues that are CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED OR NEW ISSUED DEBT. That's what will pay the soc sec benefits.

And even then, congress could pass a law simply cutting benefits instead of incurring new debt.

 

[Lesh]

Seriously ... think for one moment. The money that will be paid out after the social security taxes are no longer sufficient to pay benefits for a current month ..... where do you think that money will come from? A TBill (and soc sec bonds are NOT tbill btw). There's no money locked up in some bank vault? There's just general revenues that are CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED OR NEW ISSUED DEBT. That's what will pay the soc sec benefits.

And even then, congress could pass a law simply cutting benefits instead of incurring new debt.

ALL government securities (including the T Bills that make up the Trust Fund) are paid for out of the General Fund.

What part of that do you not get?

Congress COULD cut benefits....but that would be hugely unpopular (even though that IS what the GOP wants) but raising the cap would make that unnecessary

 

[dblack]

ALL government securities (including the T Bills that make up the Trust Fund) are paid for out of the General Fund.

What part of that do you not get?

Congress COULD cut benefits....but that would be hugely unpopular (even though that IS what the GOP wants) but raising the cap would make that unnecessary

Not a GOPer, but my interest isn't so much in minimizing benefits (people who have paid in should get their due), but to minimize or eliminate the amount of money getting funnelled through Congress in the first place.

 

[Lesh]

Not a GOPer, but my interest isn't so much in minimizing benefits (people who have paid in should get their due), but to minimize or eliminate the amount of money getting funnelled through Congress in the first place.

All Social Security does that .

Minimizing that minimizes Social Security

 

[dblack]

All Social Security does that .

Minimizing that minimizes Social Security

Yep. What's your point?

 

[Lesh]

Yep. What's your point?

You want to cut benefits...even while saying you don't

 

[dblack]

You want to cut benefits...even while saying you don't

No. I'm just rejecting your usual demagoguery. You're trying to "scare the seniors" by claiming conservatives want to reduce their benefits. Which isn't what is being proposed. The goal of conservatives, and other fans of limited government, is to phase the program out. Pay out to the people who were forced to pay in and shut the damned thing down going forward.

 

[bendog]

ALL government securities (including the T Bills that make up the Trust Fund) are paid for out of the General Fund.

What part of that do you not get?

Congress COULD cut benefits....but that would be hugely unpopular (even though that IS what the GOP wants) but raising the cap would make that unnecessary

I think we could agree that the best avenue was to find a way to pay soc sec benefits without using general revenue, but that would mean your "Tbills" ... were simply absorbed into the natl debt years ago, which is what occurred and what people have been noting since 1983 or whenever Reagan raised taxes. LOL

But it would take a coalition of moderates on both sides to find a combination of raising the cap on families making over 250K and some employer tax. And AOC her squad and Red Bernie aren't having that. They still want to pay people more to stay home. We're fucked until after the elections next Nov.

 

[bendog]

No. I'm just rejecting your usual demagoguery. You're trying to "scare the seniors" by claiming conservatives want to reduce their benefits. Which isn't what is being proposed. The goal of conservatives, and other fans of limited government, is to phase the program out. Pay out to the people who were forced to pay in and shut the damned thing down going forward.

You can't do that. Soc Sec is just one, and the biggest, means for govt to fight any recession by supporting consumer demand, and even then, business certainly doesn't want to raise wages enough so people can actually save money. And the reality is you'll never get people 50 years and over to vote to end soc security. W tried that in his second term, and Pelosi became speaker the first time.

 

[dblack]

You can't do that.

Of course we can.

Soc Sec is just one, and the biggest, means for govt to fight any recession by supporting consumer demand, and even then, business certainly doesn't want to raise wages enough so people can actually save money. And the reality is you'll never get people 50 years and over to vote to end soc security. W tried that in his second term, and Pelosi became speaker the first time.

Reality is what we make it. The current reality is that government gleans tremendous power from controlling everyone's retirement - too much power. And too much power in the hands of the government is destroying democracy in the US.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think we could agree that the best avenue was to find a way to pay soc sec benefits without using general revenue, but that would mean your "Tbills" ... were simply absorbed into the natl debt years ago, which is what occurred and what people have been noting since 1983 or whenever Reagan raised taxes. LOL

But it would take a coalition of moderates on both sides to find a combination of raising the cap on families making over 250K and some employer tax. And AOC her squad and Red Bernie aren't having that. They still want to pay people more to stay home. We're fucked until after the elections next Nov.

I don't see where the argument is between you guys after I posted a FactCheck link on what happens with SS. All the money borrowed was paid back and it's against the law not to. Reagan had nothing to do with it. The borrowing has been going on since the program started. Need the link again, just ask.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You want to cut benefits...even while saying you don't

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All Social Security does that .

Minimizing that minimizes Social Security

Privatizing SS and getting it out of the hands of government would allow people to retire with more money at an earlier age. Plus if they didn't make it to the age they wish to retire, that money becomes an inheritance for the family or whoever.

 

[bendog]

Of course we can.

Reality is what we make it. The current reality is that government gleans tremendous power from controlling everyone's retirement - too much power. And too much power in the hands of the government is destroying democracy.

Well, people like not having to directly depend on their own kids for retirement. So regardless of what would be better, the reality is people don't want to return to pre-soc sec. So I don't see how the govt controls something when in acts in accordance with what most voters want.

My only real complaint is the same as G5000's ... the dedicated revenue stream needs to be sufficient. Once we boomers die off, the system will again be in surplus until the millennials begin retiring. I only hope they will be wiser than we were. We could have simply let those of us earning more than the minimum to put money in index funds that the fed and other govt entities designed to spread out the increase in demand for investment and not cause any extra demand spikes. IN short, Gore was right about that one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet their taxes keep going DOWN

Funny how that happens...

It doesn't happen except on rare occasions and usually after the commies increased their taxes in the first place.

 

[bendog]

Privatizing SS and getting it out of the hands of government would allow people to retire with more money at an earlier age. Plus if they didn't make it to the age they wish to retire, that money becomes an inheritance for the family or whoever.

But soc sec taxes also provide disability benefits for disabled workers, disability benefits for disabled children, widows and orphans benefits. It's not simply a retirement program.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I do

And yet you just said you don't. You said a Ponzi scheme where new beneficiaries can only be funded with new players because there is no money and everyone is paid equally is "insurance."

That makes no sense. I skipped the rest since your initial statement left me as WTF? That makes no sense.

So if you do understand insurance, you need to say that you get that Social Security isn't insurance, you just want it even though your generation didn't bother to save a dime to fund your own retirement.

The purpose of insurance is risk pooling, yes. That does not mean you cannot apply an insurance model to something else. And it is worth noting that day one of SS it WAS risk pooling.

The original retirement age was set to an age you were likely not to meet. IOW, most people were DEAD by the time they could draw benefits. It was true insurance.

That concept ended very quickly though because government cannot run an insurance product. The old saying goes, "[Democracy] can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." SS exemplifies this concept.

 

[dblack]

Well, people like not having to directly depend on their own kids for retirement.

People like free shit. It's not a new concept. But sometimes immediate gratification is the wrong move.

So I don't see how the govt controls something when in acts in accordance with what most voters want.

You don't?

This a weird conviction of liberals, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. You seem to think government is absolved of all limitations and grievances as long as whatever it's up to is supported by the majority. Why? Don't you have any interest in preserving the rights of the minority?

 

[kaz]

That was the deal (as explained at length above) Reagan made. Excess payroll taxes went into the General Fund and were "accounted for" by "purchasing" Treasury Bills which of course are very real things

Treasury Bills that when redeemed are paid out as benefits. THAT was the deal.

That's how Social Security as always worked. From it's inception

Calling it welfare is dishonest. I paid for my parents retirement and my kids are in turn paying for mine. Their kids will pay for theirs...unless Republicans screw the pooch and shoot the whole thing down

LOL, so Reagan created Social Security, did he? History says he didn't, LOL ...

 

[kaz]

People like free shit. It's not a new concept. But sometimes immediate gratification is the wrong move.

You don't?

This a weird conviction of liberals, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. You seem to think government is absolved of all limitations and grievances as long as whatever it's up to is supported by the majority. Why? Don't you have any interest in preserving the rights of the minority?

Nicely put, but if you were talking to a Republican you wouldn't explain your position, you'd just start railing on Trumps supporters. For those of us who voted for Trump for sucking less than Biden, you give us the same anti-Trump supporter meltdown