Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Blues Man]

The Social Security Trust Fund is not a government agency.

Of course it is. It is simply an account held the Social Security Administration no different than the accounts held by any other government agency

 

[beagle9]

I'm not lumping in hard working Americans which I once was, but to wean working Americans off of government run programs; not eliminate them. Just a gradual transition to the private market leaving government behind. The sooner we do it the happier off we all will be.

I'm for weaning for sure, and like you say it would definitely be a gradual thing or transformation. In the mean time we should be correcting the wrongs that have gone on by eliminating those wrong's as we wind it down to a more dignified system of doing things.

 

[Flopper]

This isn't a third-world country or one of 1920. What our social programs have done is discourage personal responsibility. I've seen it personally with my side business and first hand in my full time line of work. When you encourage irresponsibility, you simply create more irresponsible people.

It's about time we started to make people more responsible for their actions. It's about time we stop rewarding people for being irresponsible. Government can aid in this if they truly wanted more self-sufficient people, but Democrats want quite the opposite. For starters we need to make restrictions on welfare. If you need public assistance, you have to be fixed first. No more having children and sending the bill to your fellow taxpayers.

The CDC estimates that to raise a middle-class child today, it will cost you 244K from birth to the age of 18. If you want a standard family of four, you better be willing to part with a half-million dollars in the next 20 years. This discourages people from having children. With whites in the US and places in Europe, the populations are actually shrinking. In the meantime, people on the dole are welcome to have as many children as they desire. Taxpayers will feed them, provide them housing even in the suburbs, daycare if the parent is working, and free healthcare which most working families don't have.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, our society is setup in such a way where we create more people in poverty and less self-sufficient people. Then we can't figure out how to solve poverty as it it's some sort of secret. This is just one example of the harm our social programs have on our society.

“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. Today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance will disappear in the face of government assistance.

It has been proven over and over that welfare does not reduce participation in the labor market. In fact programs such as Earned Income Tax Credit, actually increase labor participation. Despite all the anecdotal evidence, the neighbor family who has lived for 50 years on welfare and refuses to work, the pictures of the "Welfare Queen" driving her Cadillac, to cash here a handful of welfare checks the myth still remains a myth.

The facts simply do not support the claims. For example, the average time on welfare varies by state from 1 to 12 months. The average across the country is 5 months. The most typical welfare recipient is single mother who works 1 to 12 months is fired or has to quit work. After 3 to 12 months, they find a job and the cycle repeats. The myth that people on welfare will not work pales when you consider who is on welfare. 25 to 33 percent have a serious mental health problem, nearly 20 percent have physical disabilities and 2 percent to 20 have serious substance abuse problems. 90% of all welfare recipients are single mothers. Another studied show 80% of those on welfare who were forced to work, were not able to hold down a steady job, do to years of drug abuse, mental health issues, and physical disabilities.

Psychologists have provided a good understanding of why people prefer work over government assistance. Work gives a person a feeling of independence and control over their own life. The myths fostered by conservatives of welfare recipients being lazy, shiftless, and basically the scum of earth has no doubt added to the desirability of working over welfare.

I could go on on with evidence but it would be a waste of time and effort. The myth that social welfare destroys the desire to work is so strong that no amount evidence would convince you otherwise.

 

[Flopper]

Of course it is. It is simply an account held the Social Security Administration no different than the accounts held by any other government agency

Actually it is quite different than operating accounts. The Treasury serves as trustee of the fund, whose actions are limited by rules established by the grantor of the trust, congress. The rules allow the treasury to only use use cash assets in the fund to pay beneficiaries, and purchase treasury bills. The treasury is required to redeem treasuries when they are needed or come due with cash credited to the trust.

When the S.S. trust fund was created in 1940, congress considered using the a federal reserve bank or a commerce bank as trustee. However, the public distrust in banks and trust in federal government swayed congress to create a board of trustees with the Secretary of the Treasury the operational arm of the board. This gives you some idea how much things have changed. No congressmen today would suggest having the treasury house the accounts and have the Secretary the Treasury manage them.

Hypothetically if the trust accounts were housed, say in a commercial bank with the bank being the trustee with oversite by the federal reserve on trust operations, would that create more trust in the S.S. system or less trust?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. Today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance will disappear in the face of government assistance.

It has been proven over and over that welfare does not reduce participation in the labor market. In fact programs such as Earned Income Tax Credit, actually increase labor participation. Despite all the anecdotal evidence, the neighbor family who has lived for 50 years on welfare and refuses to work, the pictures of the "Welfare Queen" driving her Cadillac, to cash here a handful of welfare checks the myth still remains a myth.

The facts simply do not support the claims. For example, the average time on welfare varies by state from 1 to 12 months. The average across the country is 5 months. The most typical welfare recipient is single mother who works 1 to 12 months is fired or has to quit work. After 3 to 12 months, they find a job and the cycle repeats. The myth that people on welfare will not work pales when you consider who is on welfare. 25 to 33 percent have a serious mental health problem, nearly 20 percent have physical disabilities and 2 percent to 20 have serious substance abuse problems. 90% of all welfare recipients are single mothers. Another studied show 80% of those on welfare who were forced to work, were not able to hold down a steady job, do to years of drug abuse, mental health issues, and physical disabilities.

Psychologists have provided a good understanding of why people prefer work over government assistance. Work gives a person a feeling of independence and control over their own life. The myths fostered by conservatives of welfare recipients being lazy, shiftless, and basically the scum of earth has no doubt added to the desirability of working over welfare.

I could go on on with evidence but it would be a waste of time and effort. The myth that social welfare destroys the desire to work is so strong that no amount evidence would convince you otherwise.

I don't consider any person with disabilities (physical or mental) to be on welfare. We have programs specifically designed for them. The people on welfare I'm talking about are those physically and mentally capable of working but don't, or work a minimum amount of hours. They keep a minimum amount of hours to stay on the dole. In fact when the states that doubled the national minimum wage started, articles were written how workers on the dole worked less hours to stay on those programs.

If any of your bogus statistics were true, how is it every single person I know or was aware of on welfare defies them? Even the census bureau uses the term "consistent" when discussing use of these programs. Some states have limits on how long you can stay on certain programs only to start anew after X amount of weeks or months. The average is 5 month? I have HUD houses in my area, I don't know of one that didn't have occupants in them for less than several years including the one right next door to me. Section 8 and HUD are welfare programs.

Do you consider Commie Care a welfare program? You should, but wherever you get your statistics from probably doesn't but they are welfare since it's taxpayer supported. According to CMS.gov, over 31 million Americans are now on Commie Care as of June of last year. That's a little less than 10% of our population on that one program alone.

New HHS Data Show More Americans than Ever Have Health Coverage through the Affordable Care Act | CMS

31 Million People Currently Enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid Expansion

www.cms.gov

 

[Flopper]

I'm not lumping in hard working Americans which I once was, but to wean working Americans off of government run programs; not eliminate them. Just a gradual transition to the private market leaving government behind. The sooner we do it the happier off we all will be.

That sounds good Ray but what criteria do use to determine who is transitioned?

 

[beagle9]

“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. Today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance will disappear in the face of government assistance.

It has been proven over and over that welfare does not reduce participation in the labor market. In fact programs such as Earned Income Tax Credit, actually increase labor participation. Despite all the anecdotal evidence, the neighbor family who has lived for 50 years on welfare and refuses to work, the pictures of the "Welfare Queen" driving her Cadillac, to cash here a handful of welfare checks the myth still remains a myth.

The facts simply do not support the claims. For example, the average time on welfare varies by state from 1 to 12 months. The average across the country is 5 months. The most typical welfare recipient is single mother who works 1 to 12 months is fired or has to quit work. After 3 to 12 months, they find a job and the cycle repeats. The myth that people on welfare will not work pales when you consider who is on welfare. 25 to 33 percent have a serious mental health problem, nearly 20 percent have physical disabilities and 2 percent to 20 have serious substance abuse problems. 90% of all welfare recipients are single mothers. Another studied show 80% of those on welfare who were forced to work, were not able to hold down a steady job, do to years of drug abuse, mental health issues, and physical disabilities.

Psychologists have provided a good understanding of why people prefer work over government assistance. Work gives a person a feeling of independence and control over their own life. The myths fostered by conservatives of welfare recipients being lazy, shiftless, and basically the scum of earth has no doubt added to the desirability of working over welfare.

I could go on on with evidence but it would be a waste of time and effort. The myth that social welfare destroys the desire to work is so strong that no amount evidence would convince you otherwise.

Wait a minute now... You are attempting to suggest that there aren't really (calling it a myth), politician's using our very system's to hook people, and to then take advantage of them or to weaponize such things like them becoming the very hand that feeds the individuals, otherwise in a percentage of ?

Yes we have all the various types of individuals who use the program's or system's that you've described, but within the numbers we have group's or individual's that do exactly what the political class expects them to do, and that is to go to that voter box, and pull that lever because of the perceived thought that the politician/political party is there to help regardless of the expected consequential cost of being a government dependent for life is...... And wow what a serious bitter people they are at that. Many times it becomes bad for everyone. Heck whose counting anymore, because it's pretty bad what goes on.

 

[Flopper]

I don't consider any person with disabilities (physical or mental) to be on welfare. We have programs specifically designed for them. The people on welfare I'm talking about are those physically and mentally capable of working but don't, or work a minimum amount of hours. They keep a minimum amount of hours to stay on the dole. In fact when the states that doubled the national minimum wage started, articles were written how workers on the dole worked less hours to stay on those programs.

If any of your bogus statistics were true, how is it every single person I know or was aware of on welfare defies them? Even the census bureau uses the term "consistent" when discussing use of these programs. Some states have limits on how long you can stay on certain programs only to start anew after X amount of weeks or months. The average is 5 month? I have HUD houses in my area, I don't know of one that didn't have occupants in them for less than several years including the one right next door to me. Section 8 and HUD are welfare programs.

Do you consider Commie Care a welfare program? You should, but wherever you get your statistics from probably doesn't but they are welfare since it's taxpayer supported. According to CMS.gov, over 31 million Americans are now on Commie Care as of June of last year. That's a little less than 10% of our population on that one program alone.

New HHS Data Show More Americans than Ever Have Health Coverage through the Affordable Care Act | CMS

31 Million People Currently Enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid Expansion

www.cms.gov

There are seven major welfare programs in America, they include Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Child's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), housing assistance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).​

In the 3 programs that account for 85% of welfare cost, Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP, most of the people are working and most of those that are not working are between jobs or they can not work. The problem is not lack work. It's the amount people earn and time people spend on welfare programs between jobs. I don't think a work transition program would make much difference. The only way to reduce the cost significantly is to cut benefits and that can't happen even republicans control government.

1. Medicaid, the most costly program 70% males work and 60% of females or about 65%. Of the remaining 35%, 15% are 15% can not work do to severe mental or physical disabled.
2. SSI is a program that provides income for disable that do qualify for SS Disability.
3 SNAP - Excluding the disable, over half of the heads of household worked in the month they received SNAP and 74% worked in the preceding 12 months.
4. Child Health Insurance Program. Essential none work as they children under 18.
5.TANF Over 41% of receiptents worked in the month they received benefits.
6. Housing Assistance -39% work and 41% are unable to work due to disabilities
7. Earned Income Credit requires work to receive benefits.

 

[Flopper]

Wait a minute now... You are attempting to suggest that there aren't really (calling it a myth), politician's using our very system's to hook people, and to then take advantage of them or to weaponize such things like them becoming the very hand that feeds the individuals, otherwise in a percentage of ?

Yes we have all the various types of individuals who use the program's or system's that you've described, but within the numbers we have group's or individual's that do exactly what the political class expects them to do, and that is to go to that voter box, and pull that lever because of the perceived thought that the politician/political party is there to help regardless of the expected consequential cost of being a government dependent for life is...... And wow what a serious bitter people they are at that. Many times it becomes bad for everyone. Heck whose counting anymore, because it's pretty bad what goes on.

What I'm saying, getting welfare does not make people lazy. What so many people believe about welfare is completely wrong. It is nothing like it was 30 or 40 years ago. As I explained in another post, the 3 welfare programs that account for 85% of welfare cost, Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP, most of the people receiving benefits work. And most the remainder go from job to job with unemployment periods of 1 to 6 months in between jobs or they are disabled and can not work. Work does not solve the welfare problem. Higher pay checks, coupled enforced means testing does.

And yes, those that receive some type government assistance, 59 million are a huge voting block. And no, they are not all democrats. In fact 8 out of the 10 states that have the highest percent use of welfare programs are red states. I would bet if republicans control government for 12 years, you would not see a significant reduction in welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute now... You are attempting to suggest that there aren't really (calling it a myth), politician's using our very system's to hook people, and to then take advantage of them or to weaponize such things like them becoming the very hand that feeds the individuals, otherwise in a percentage of ?

Yes we have all the various types of individuals who use the program's or system's that you've described, but within the numbers we have group's or individual's that do exactly what the political class expects them to do, and that is to go to that voter box, and pull that lever because of the perceived thought that the politician/political party is there to help regardless of the expected consequential cost of being a government dependent for life is...... And wow what a serious bitter people they are at that. Many times it becomes bad for everyone. Heck whose counting anymore, because it's pretty bad what goes on.

On my last job we had companies that used temp service exclusively. The supervisors told me that when they need people to work late, the temps are the last people they ask. if they go over X amount of income for the month, they lose the exact amount in benefits so for them it's like working for free. Another friend of mine worked at a company that does the same. He told me the welfare boys would get together and combine SNAP's cards. They decided on which cards they were going to use and which ones they were going to sell to family or friends because they all lived together.

A guy I used to work with had a wife that worked at a convenience store. When they had their discussions, she brought up how hard it is to make ends meet at times. Another woman made a suggestion: She said do what I did! I went to welfare and signed up for every program I could. I told them my husband left me and the kids. He never went anywhere, but government never checks those things out. He worked at Ford and made great money and benefits. She worked at the convenience store and made out like a bandit with the food stamps, cash welfare and housing aid. The kids even signed up for free lunches at school.

I'm all for helping people that really need the help, but with Democrats goal of making or allowing as many people as possible to be government dependents, they are ripping off taxpayers left and right. If you need housing, fine, I'll provide you housing over there--not here. There is no reason in the world we should be providing suburban housing to lowlifes who work part-time and come home in the middle of the night waking up people who work full-time and have to be up 5:00 am on a work night so they can get to their full-time jobs.

 

[Flopper]

What I'm saying, getting welfare does not make people lazy. What so many people believe about welfare is completely wrong. It is nothing like it was 30 or 40 years ago. As I explained in another post, the 3 welfare programs that account for 85% of welfare cost, Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP, most of the people receiving benefits work. And most the remainder go from job to job with unemployment periods of 1 to 6 months in between jobs or they are disabled and can not work. Work does not solve the welfare problem. Higher pay checks, coupled enforced means testing does.

And yes, those that receive some type government assistance, 59 million are a huge voting block. And no, they are not all democrats. In fact 8 out of the 10 states that have the highest percent use of welfare programs are red states. I would bet if republicans control government for 12 years, you would not see a significant reduction in welfare.

 

[Flopper]

On my last job we had companies that used temp service exclusively. The supervisors told me that when they need people to work late, the temps are the last people they ask. if they go over X amount of income for the month, they lose the exact amount in benefits so for them it's like working for free. Another friend of mine worked at a company that does the same. He told me the welfare boys would get together and combine SNAP's cards. They decided on which cards they were going to use and which ones they were going to sell to family or friends because they all lived together.

A guy I used to work with had a wife that worked at a convenience store. When they had their discussions, she brought up how hard it is to make ends meet at times. Another woman made a suggestion: She said do what I did! I went to welfare and signed up for every program I could. I told them my husband left me and the kids. He never went anywhere, but government never checks those things out. He worked at Ford and made great money and benefits. She worked at the convenience store and made out like a bandit with the food stamps, cash welfare and housing aid. The kids even signed up for free lunches at school.

I'm all for helping people that really need the help, but with Democrats goal of making or allowing as many people as possible to be government dependents, they are ripping off taxpayers left and right. If you need housing, fine, I'll provide you housing over there--not here. There is no reason in the world we should be providing suburban housing to lowlifes who work part-time and come home in the middle of the night waking up people who work full-time and have to be up 5:00 am on a work night so they can get to their full-time jobs.

Welfare programs are like the weather, we can talk endlessly about them but we can't do anything about them because there are too many voters in both parties that depend on them.

 

[Flopper]

I don't consider any person with disabilities (physical or mental) to be on welfare. We have programs specifically designed for them. The people on welfare I'm talking about are those physically and mentally capable of working but don't, or work a minimum amount of hours. They keep a minimum amount of hours to stay on the dole. In fact when the states that doubled the national minimum wage started, articles were written how workers on the dole worked less hours to stay on those programs.

If any of your bogus statistics were true, how is it every single person I know or was aware of on welfare defies them? Even the census bureau uses the term "consistent" when discussing use of these programs. Some states have limits on how long you can stay on certain programs only to start anew after X amount of weeks or months. The average is 5 month? I have HUD houses in my area, I don't know of one that didn't have occupants in them for less than several years including the one right next door to me. Section 8 and HUD are welfare programs.

Do you consider Commie Care a welfare program? You should, but wherever you get your statistics from probably doesn't but they are welfare since it's taxpayer supported. According to CMS.gov, over 31 million Americans are now on Commie Care as of June of last year. That's a little less than 10% of our population on that one program alone.

New HHS Data Show More Americans than Ever Have Health Coverage through the Affordable Care Act | CMS

31 Million People Currently Enrolled in Marketplace or Medicaid Expansion

www.cms.gov

SSI is welfare

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Welfare programs are like the weather, we can talk endlessly about them but we can't do anything about them because there are too many voters in both parties that depend on them.

Depends on what one considers welfare. Social programs are different than welfare but most of you on the left want to put them all under one category so you can say "see! You use welfare too!" But to me social programs are those one pays into sometimes their entire lives much like insurance while welfare are goodies people get who pay nothing into the system.

Given the fact half the people in this country pay no income tax at all, it's likely people who use general welfare will never repay the system; they'll likely never have a job that will pay enough.

I'm on SSD. I was put there by a government doctor who said I could no longer work. I didn't make that decision. I simply wanted to do my job and had to take a physical by a government doctor to keep working. However since SSD comes out of FICA taxes I feel no guilt about collecting because I paid into the system my entire life. FICA is the second highest payroll tax and given the nature of my problems, I won't make it to retirement anyway to collect SS.

More importantly is how the Democrats allow people to scam the system. When I get that food stamp person in front of me buying food, and then whip out that wad of cash for huge bags of dog food, cat litter, perfume, greeting card, alcohol and cigarettes, there is no reason for us to be feeding them while they feed their 90 lbs dog with their own money. Anytime somebody does that it should be reported to the administrator of the program and they should be stripped of their benefits. If you need help, get rid of your pets, quit smoking and drinking and feed yourself and your kids. If you need help after that, then come to us taxpayers.

The new scam is SNAP's people approaching you in line. They offer to buy some of your food items with their SNAP's card, let's say $25.00 worth. Then at the end of the line you give them $20.00 for your food back. You make out five bucks for participating in the scam and they turned $25.00 of food benefits into cash where they can buy anything they want. Those people too should be reported to the government and lose their benefits.

 

[22lcidw]

I'm for weaning for sure, and like you say it would definitely be a gradual thing or transformation. In the mean time we should be correcting the wrongs that have gone on by eliminating those wrong's as we wind it down to a more dignified system of doing things.

Multiple opportunities have passed us by for change. As more people are on it, the chances for that reduce. The Medicare part is the medical issue that we all face. And it is getting expensive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Multiple opportunities have passed us by for change. As more people are on it, the chances for that reduce. The Medicare part is the medical issue that we all face. And it is getting expensive.

The Medicare issue also needs to be addressed but we can't put the cart before the horse. SS should be the main focus right now because anybody that suggests privatization would meet with tough opposition from the left.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually it is quite different than operating accounts. The Treasury serves as trustee of the fund, whose actions are limited by rules established by the grantor of the trust, congress. The rules allow the treasury to only use use cash assets in the fund to pay beneficiaries, and purchase treasury bills. The treasury is required to redeem treasuries when they are needed or come due with cash credited to the trust.

When the S.S. trust fund was created in 1940, congress considered using the a federal reserve bank or a commerce bank as trustee. However, the public distrust in banks and trust in federal government swayed congress to create a board of trustees with the Secretary of the Treasury the operational arm of the board. This gives you some idea how much things have changed. No congressmen today would suggest having the treasury house the accounts and have the Secretary the Treasury manage them.

Hypothetically if the trust accounts were housed, say in a commercial bank with the bank being the trustee with oversite by the federal reserve on trust operations, would that create more trust in the S.S. system or less trust?

Semantics

The so called "trust fund" is an account owned by the government, run by the government for the benefit of the government

 

[Flopper]

Multiple opportunities have passed us by for change. As more people are on it, the chances for that reduce. The Medicare part is the medical issue that we all face. And it is getting expensive.

The chance of making meaningful reductions in welfare cost is gone. The number of people on some form of welfare is about 59 million people. The number that have been on some form of welfare in their live is over 65 million. The federal goverment spends 85% of welfare dollars on 3 programs, Medicaid, SSI, SNAP. of these the most used is SNAP (food stamps). The rest of programs about a dozen, serve selected groups such as childcare for working mothers, job training, housing, free and reduce school lunches etc. To make meaningful cuts you have to cut programs that benefit large numbers of voters in both parties and that is just about impossible.

 

[Flopper]

Semantics

Yes, semantics, but those semantics have very import meaning.
Cash into fund is limited to payroll taxes, interest on treasury bills, and redemption of T bills.
Cash out of the fund is limited to payment to beneficiary's and purchases of T bills.
The exceptions in the law allow for deduction for operating expenses, currently zero.
30 day cash loans to the other treasury managed funds, primary Medicare. This option has not been used since 1983.

Specials Issue Treasury bills were a hot topic some years ago when the Fund was investing hundreds million of excess funds. Today, essentially all payroll taxes received by the fund and monthly redemptions of treasury bills are used to pay beneficiaries. Those redemptions will continue to increase until the fund is depleted, estimate to be about 12 years. Then 75% of beneficiary checks will be by payroll taxes and most probably the government will pay the 25%. This will be the easiest thing for congress to do which is why I think it will be done in this way. The disability fund should be good till 2057.

 

[Flopper]

The Medicare issue also needs to be addressed but we can't put the cart before the horse. SS should be the main focus right now because anybody that suggests privatization would meet with tough opposition from the left.

Medicare Part B is ok. Medicare Part A (hospitalizations) trust funds will go bust in 2026. This is due to the amount of loans CMS & Medicaid Services gave to providers in advance and accelerated payments last year due to Corvid. Someone had to pay for all those weeks and months spent in the hospital with Corvid. I can't even imagine what 45 days in the hospital, most of it in ICU must cost