Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made literacy tests illegal and the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional to ban them and any other tests for voting.

For one, this isn't a literacy test. Two, many blacks back then were denied an education along with kids that had to quit school to work and support the family. My father was one of those kids.

A very simple political test is apples and oranges. Yes, it would be discriminatory, it would discriminate against people who didn't know WTF they are even voting on. Nor would the test cost you a dime like a poll tax. Such a system would insure us of better representation unlike today where people like this ultimately decide our representation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it would.

Like I said, do you think it is constitutional for the government to require you to take a 'simple' test to exercise your free speech?

Why not?

And you are being incredibly naïve if you think that the parties would not try and take over that test to skew to their own voters. If you think gerrymandering happens now, wait until they can place a few 'simple' economic questions in that 'test.'

Soon enough, you will see a question like: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to state militias.

And we all know what the left's answer to that will be.

Which is why I said the tests should be non-partisan and not aimed at any current political issue like should the government be allowed to have mask mandates? It would be created by a bipartisan commission of equal Republican and Democrats and all have to agree on the questions. It would not be questions about who thinks of what on particular issues. But asking who the VP is or what party leads the Senate is in no way partisan at all. No ambiguous questions at all.

 

[Flopper]

I would disagree because politicians (no matter how slick) are easily spotted by those of us who are political junkies like we are in USMB. The real problem is no matter how they reveal themselves, Democrats vote for them anyway because half don't even know what they are voting on.

Joe Biden ran against one of the greatest Presidents we've had in our lifetime. The man was a renown liar, plagiarist, stories out there of how he used his VP position to make his family rich, spent a lifetime in politics and accomplished virtually nothing, and who's drug addict son was under investigation by the FBI for matters Joe too was involved in. And he got the record amount of votes?

Even today with inflation the highest it's ever been in over 40 years, supply chain shortages, labor shortages, record amount of covid deaths, the border the worst it's been in 20 years according to the Border Patrol, he still has a 40% approval rating. How does that happen unless you have a lot of stupid people? Even his drug addict son is selling his paint-by-numbers artwork to anonymous buyers for 75K to 500K. I would bet that many of that 40% don't even know anything about it.

So I'll hold my stance that our problem is less crooked politicians than it is the stupid voting.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I don't consider many politicians, republicans or democrats to be corrupt.

There are several reasons politicians are considered corrupt, the most compelling is that, in order to gain the backing of a party to pass legislation important to his constituents, a politician has to take positions he does not want to take. In other words to accomplish the greater good, he takes on positions contrary to his campaign promises or positions he has committed himself to oppose in order to accomplish something really important. However, the public does not often see this. In fact most of time they don't.

Then there is political ideology, the great divider between all things good and all things bad. Today a true conservative or liberal must attempt to destroy the opposition by any means possible, lies, misinformation, and personal attacks. There true character is totally irrelevant.

 

[Flopper]

Which is why I said the tests should be non-partisan and not aimed at any current political issue like should the government be allowed to have mask mandates? It would be created by a bipartisan commission of equal Republican and Democrats and all have to agree on the questions. It would not be questions about who thinks of what on particular issues. But asking who the VP is or what party leads the Senate is in no way partisan at all. No ambiguous questions at all.

I think you are completely wrong. This an issue that separates American from non-democratic republics where only those judged to have the right education or intelligence are given a voice. It is not a matter of fairness of a test or impartiality but a matter of personal freedom that is enshrined in our constitution. In fact, it is basic tenet of democratic government that those that are governed have the right to be heard regardless of beliefs, intelligence, religion, race, etc.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

For one, this isn't a literacy test. Two, many blacks back then were denied an education along with kids that had to quit school to work and support the family. My father was one of those kids.

A very simple political test is apples and oranges. Yes, it would be discriminatory, it would discriminate against people who didn't know WTF they are even voting on. Nor would the test cost you a dime like a poll tax. Such a system would insure us of better representation unlike today where people like this ultimately decide our representation.

I guess you stopped reading. My post clearly states the Supreme Court ruled the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act were perfectly legal and NO test of ANY kind was allowed.

There are far too many people in the world who would grade such a test and deny the right to vote to people who actually passed the test because of their skin color. Is that what you support?

It's like allowing all of those mail-in ballots that did not have matching signatures, repeated machine counts of the same ballots, etc. Do you support those who suppress voting simply because the voter chose the wrong candidate?

 

[Flopper]

Neither do I, but of they don't, then irresponsible people will drain their funds not expecting to get very old and we'd have to bail them out. We are not going to allow old people to starve even if what they did was stupid.

You are exactly right. We are a society like it not. What happens to one person effect others. Irresponsible adults who squander their retirement savings or those who have other problems and become destitute when older, end up homeless to become a blight on the city, forced to live with their grown children which creates problems in the family and thus problem for kids, or lack of any funds which means a drag on the welfare system.

And it's not just retirement, social security includes survivor benefits which provides funds for the spouses and kids often keeping them out of poverty and off welfare. And there is disability which is also part the social security system. And also, there is Supplement Security Income, SSI, which is part of social security by not funded by payroll deductions. It provides disability payments for people who are severely disable and can not work like my granddaughter who is schizophrenic. With SSI monthly checks and some help form the family she has been able to live in a group home. She takes care of herself, does some housework, and volunteers at the church.

 

[Flopper]

We do not have to bail them out.

Sooner or later the little birds have to learn to fly and I think 50 or more years is plenty of time for them to learn

I don't think most of the people who failed to put away retirement funds squandered the money. I know a number of people who are just barely getting by on S.S. The problems were the lack of education, bad marriages, too many kids, health problems, drug problems, spending every cent they have on kids, and in some cases just not being very smart. By the time, they were able to save for retirement, it was too late to accumulate any significant amount. If these people had the 6.2% S.S. tax, it is very unlikely it would have gone to a retirement plan and they would completely destitute and a burden for society.

 

[Flopper]

If you have a serious health condition, that makes total sense. However, if you are still reasonably healthy, the numbers don't really pencil out. Also, be aware, some supplements have "donut holes" in their coverage--be sure not to overlook those.

Practically all Medicare drug insurance has donut holes with except a few with very high premium plans which are kind of a rip off. Medicare supplements pay deductibles, the 20% Part B coinsurance, Part A deductabe, and extend the 190 days in hospital to unlimited. However, they cost abut $150 to $200 a month. They offer great coverage if you need it but they only pay what Medicare approves. MedAdvantage plans cover stuff Medicare does not cover like eye exams, glasses, hearing aids, etc. The problem with them is they are based on a network that often is restrictive and specialist usually require referrals. Many of them do not have any coverage out of state, and they often make yearly changes in the network. I had one that dropped all my providers.

 

[Flopper]

There is NO TRUST FUND by definition as I have proven earlier.

Let me guess, you claim it's not a trust because the special treasury bills are worthless and thus not an asset. That's been shot down about thousand times and no I'm going waste time going through it again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Practically all Medicare drug insurance has donut holes with except a few with very high premium plans which are kind of a rip off. Medicare supplements pay deductibles, the 20% Part B coinsurance, Part A deductabe, and extend the 190 days in hospital to unlimited. However, they cost abut $150 to $200 a month. They offer great coverage if you need it but they only pay what Medicare approves. MedAdvantage plans cover stuff Medicare does not cover like eye exams, glasses, hearing aids, etc. The problem with them is they are based on a network that often is restrictive and specialist usually require referrals. Many of them do not have any coverage out of state, and they often make yearly changes in the network. I had one that dropped all my providers.

From what I've read is that you choose your provider since it's not actually government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are exactly right. We are a society like it not. What happens to one person effect others. Irresponsible adults who squander their retirement savings or those who have other problems and become destitute when older, end up homeless to become a blight on the city, forced to live with their grown children which creates problems in the family and thus problem for kids, or lack of any funds which means a drag on the welfare system.

And it's not just retirement, social security includes survivor benefits which provides funds for the spouses and kids often keeping them out of poverty and off welfare. And there is disability which is also part the social security system. And also, there is Supplement Security Income, SSI, which is part of social security by not funded by payroll deductions. It provides disability payments for people who are severely disable and can not work like my granddaughter who is schizophrenic. With SSI monthly checks and some help form the family she has been able to live in a group home. She takes care of herself, does some housework, and volunteers at the church.

That's what they put me on, SSI. It has something to do with what your assets are which makes no sense to me. SSI pays more than twice of SSD, and they give you SSI when you have more to lose like a house or business. SSD doesn't pay very much, maybe enough to make most of your rent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess you stopped reading. My post clearly states the Supreme Court ruled the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act were perfectly legal and NO test of ANY kind was allowed.

There are far too many people in the world who would grade such a test and deny the right to vote to people who actually passed the test because of their skin color. Is that what you support?

It's like allowing all of those mail-in ballots that did not have matching signatures, repeated machine counts of the same ballots, etc. Do you support those who suppress voting simply because the voter chose the wrong candidate?

Then why don't they do that with the actual ballots? Because you personally feed that ballot into the machine. Let the machine grade the test and keep it for records. The machine will tell you if you're allowed to vote or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you are completely wrong. This an issue that separates American from non-democratic republics where only those judged to have the right education or intelligence are given a voice. It is not a matter of fairness of a test or impartiality but a matter of personal freedom that is enshrined in our constitution. In fact, it is basic tenet of democratic government that those that are governed have the right to be heard regardless of beliefs, intelligence, religion, race, etc.

A lot of people disagree with me. That's why we will always have the stupid and politically ignorant decide our representatives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I don't consider many politicians, republicans or democrats to be corrupt.

There are several reasons politicians are considered corrupt, the most compelling is that, in order to gain the backing of a party to pass legislation important to his constituents, a politician has to take positions he does not want to take. In other words to accomplish the greater good, he takes on positions contrary to his campaign promises or positions he has committed himself to oppose in order to accomplish something really important. However, the public does not often see this. In fact most of time they don't.

Then there is political ideology, the great divider between all things good and all things bad. Today a true conservative or liberal must attempt to destroy the opposition by any means possible, lies, misinformation, and personal attacks. There true character is totally irrelevant.

That's our politics and it's protected by their constitutional right to free speech. However when they lie to their constituents, that's another thing. It's less about how many times they lie than it is what they lie about.

Donald Trump saying he had the best economy in our history is different than telling people if you support his healthcare plan you're going to save $2,500 a year, able to keep your doctor and hospital and totally destroying our healthcare system. Donald Trump hurt nobody with such comments. DumBama left me without insurance for the first time in my adult life, and no, Commie Care didn't have any plans for my doctor or hospital, the world famous Cleveland Clinic. There are millions of us small business employees who lost their employer plans.

 

[Blues Man]

Retirement systems that generate wealth also generate risk. Social Security is a risk free investment thus returns will be less than systems that build wealth. It is also more than just a retirement system. It provides important life insurance and disability benefits. Comparing it to private retirement systems that builds wealth is not a fair comparison. A better comparison is with annuities. However, unlike most annuities that are considered riskless, it provides an increasing payout due to inflation adjustments, and the dollar for dollar S.S payout is higher.

Unlike other retirement savings systems that are voluntary, you can not lose your security benefits due to divorces, lawsuits, bankruptcies, fraudulent investment schemes, pressure from relatives to cash in, addition to drugs and alcohol, lack of investment expertise, and dozens of unbelievable stupid acts that you would swear you will never commit.

Social Security is a safety net you can count on when all other retirements fail to delivery. This what it is considered the basis on which all retirements system build.

​

It isn;t risk free.

There is the risk that the government will delay or lower benefits.

A guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

One can mitigate risk in a portfolio with some proven strategies.

Social security promises safety but all it does is keep people poor

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think most of the people who failed to put away retirement funds squandered the money. I know a number of people who are just barely getting by on S.S. The problems were the lack of education, bad marriages, too many kids, health problems, drug problems, spending every cent they have on kids, and in some cases just not being very smart. By the time, they were able to save for retirement, it was too late to accumulate any significant amount. If these people had the 6.2% S.S. tax, it is very unlikely it would have gone to a retirement plan and they would completely destitute and a burden for society.

It's not 6.2 it's 12.4 %

And you need to get up to speed on the thread.

No one ever said that the 12.4% of income would be available to anyone.

The mandatory contributions would stand the only difference is that instead of going into the general fund the money would be put into a numbered account that is solely owned by the individual which the government cannot touch. That money can then be allocated into a portfolio.

 

[Blues Man]

Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental...

www.heritage.org

Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]

In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted.


Conclusion. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid.


Furthermore, huge impending deficits are only one of the problems facing Social Security. The sad reality is that millions of workers receive a dismal rate of return on their Social Security retirement taxes. Making matters worse, the current program does not enable workers to build up investments and cash savings to supplement their monthly Social Security checks.


The debate about Social Security's future should be about how to improve each American's personal retirement security and how to enable each American to build a nest egg for the future. Otherwise, Americans will lose a real opportunity to improve the lives of future retirees. The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

 

[Lesh]

Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental...

www.heritage.org

Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:




According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:




In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted.


Conclusion. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid.


Furthermore, huge impending deficits are only one of the problems facing Social Security. The sad reality is that millions of workers receive a dismal rate of return on their Social Security retirement taxes. Making matters worse, the current program does not enable workers to build up investments and cash savings to supplement their monthly Social Security checks.


The debate about Social Security's future should be about how to improve each American's personal retirement security and how to enable each American to build a nest egg for the future. Otherwise, Americans will lose a real opportunity to improve the lives of future retirees. The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

Every bit of what you have said here has been dealt with previously in this thread

You're beating a dead horse.

 

[Blues Man]

Every bit of what you have said here has been dealt with previously in this thread

You're beating a dead horse.

Says the guy who thinks the fucking government is actually acting in his best interests

 

[Flopper]

That's what they put me on, SSI. It has something to do with what your assets are which makes no sense to me. SSI pays more than twice of SSD, and they give you SSI when you have more to lose like a house or business. SSD doesn't pay very much, maybe enough to make most of your rent.

SSI comes comes out operating funds. There is no trust fund to belly up. With SSI, You can't own more than $2,000 in what the SSA considers “countable resources” as an individual... You usually countable assets are checking and savings account.

You can't own more than $2,000 in what the SSA considers “countable resources” as an individual... Usually this is money in a checking or savings account.

What is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)?

The Social Security Administration manages the SSI program, which pays monthly benefits to older, disabled and blind people with very low incomes.


www.aarp.org