[Athos]

“Some” Republicans (not all, as Joe said) see a big pot of money and they want to spend it. It is called Social Security.) They are Russian MAGA politicians (those who defend and praise Putin).

Joe Biden just ran circles around them to protect it using their venal and disgusting behavior against them. He did it, and “some” Republicans didn't notice.

It isn't that the Republicans want to *END* Social Security; they want to keep making everyone pay into the system, then funnel all of that money into private funds and stocks instead of treasury bonds. They want their big donors, such as banks, Wall Street investment firms and hedge funds, to be able to get a slice of that very big pie.

Of course, doing that would eventually result in less money for seniors and the disabled which will inevitably kill off Social Security entirely. But until they kill the Golden Goose, those Republican donors will profit handsomely, and Republicans will be able to shake their heads and say, “See? We told you that government programs never work.” “Some” point out Donald Trump does not collect social security, which is not true - he does.

In the State of the Union the world saw how Russia’s MAGA politicians have come unhinged but it also showed how stupid they are. Biden mentioned their plans to cash out Social Security and they screamed it is a lie, they would never do that.

HOWEVER – – Sen. Ron Johnson is on record as wanting to authorize Social Security on an annual basis. “Some” go for 5 year sunset laws for ALL programs, including Social Security. Rick Scott from Florida whose tenure as CEO of HCA was marked by settlements of nearly $2 billion in Medicare fraud – the largest fraud settlement in US history. He took the Fifth Amendment 75 times during his deposition. Now he wants to “sunset” Social Security. Sen. Mike Lee, “It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it.”

Biden then said the words that proved he has their number. “Good, I am glad to see your minds have changed on that, so you won't try to take it away this congress” or words to that effect.

Biden pulled a fast one that is probably still to be explained to the Republican idiots like Greene and Boebert. to name two of the more notorious.

[jlisenbe]

then funnel all of that money into private funds and stocks instead of treasury bonds. They want their big donors, such as banks, Wall Street investment firms and hedge funds, to be able to get a slice of that very big pie.

That doesn't make sense. Since SS is a pay as you go program, most of SS revenues go out as payments to current recipients. In other words, it's not available to be "funneled" into any type of investment. The relatively small amount of money that does not go to recipients is just mixed in with general revenues and spent on other fed programs. Some, a relatively small portion, does end up in a fund laughably called a "trust fund".

T Bills are currently returning a little over 4%. Inflation is running around 8%. The math does not look encouraging.

Even CNN acknowledges that something has to be done soon with SS.

Medicare hospital insurance is already running out of money

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that we don’t need Scott’s plan to force a debate over Medicare funding, because within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.
That’s right. In their annual report, released last June, Medicare’s trustees reported that the hospital insurance trust fund will bring in $412.6 billion in 2023. It will spend $415.6 billion. That means it will spend $3 billion more than it generates in revenue this year.
The hospital insurance trust fund will be completely gone by 2028, which means the government has five years to change the equation. Read the Medicare trustees report.
An ever-so-slightly more optimistic view from the Congressional Budget Office is that the hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted by 2030.
What happens if the trust fund is depleted?

Here’s what the trustees say: “If assets were depleted, Medicare could pay health plans and providers of Part A services only to the extent allowed by ongoing tax revenues—and these revenues would be inadequate to fully cover costs. Beneficiary access to health care services could rapidly be curtailed.”
That’s short on specifics, but it’s clear Medicare is warning that without the trust fund, some services would be cut quickly.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/polit...ers/index.html

[tomder55]

Yeah I pointed out how he baited the Repubs about SS here

NY Slimes scaremongering again - Page 2 (askmehelpdesk.com)

“Some” Republicans (not all, as Joe said) see a big pot of money and they want to spend it.

no they don't want to spend it. They want to save the plan .

Why don't you say why the program is near insolvent now. Yes demographics and life expectancy play a role . But the biggest reason is the big lie that the Dems use about it ;that it is put away in a secure" lock box "only to be used for the benefit of the recipients and those who pay for the program . In truth the money is fungible in the eyes of the deep state ; and gets lumped in with all the other general revenue collected from the taxpayer .

Demographics

1960 it was 5 to 1 workers to retirees
2005 3.3 to 1
by 2031 1 to 1 . And the life expectancy of retires is longer and that trend will continue . It is unsustainable . You know it ;I know it ;and the designers of the Ponzi Scheme knew it .
Even worse the Dems believe in whacking almost a million future workers before they are born,

As for me ;I trust my money with banks, Wall Street investment firms and hedge funds much more than the government . The government can and has changed the rules many times . The rules for IRAs 401Ks have changed so many times I've lost count. .. And over the course of my saving for retirement ;even accounting for bear markets like we are in now ; the return on my investments far outpace what I will ever get in SS payouts .

For years I have been an advocate of giving NEW SS contributors a choice in opting for government approved funds that have higher risk for higher returns .

The system now is no better than any other entitlement program that as jl said correctly is a paygo with monopoly money .



Now the Dems call it reinvesting in government securities . That is a BS accounting trick . The government five fingers the funds and leaves IOUs in the so called lock box. When the IOUs mature the government cashed them with more IOUs ;the classic trick of a Ponzi Schemer .

[jlisenbe]

1960 it was 5 to 1 workers to retirees
2005 3.3 to 1
by 2031 1 to 1

That's really shocking. If we had honest pols, we would have been talking about this 10 or 20 years ago.

For years I have been an advocate of giving NEW SS contributors a choice in opting for government approved funds that have higher risk for higher returns .

But since we are in a pay as you go system, it's not possible to allow the ones paying in to decide to do something else. I don't see an out for this. I would say we are stuck with it. Now if the feds had truly been putting excess SS revenues into a real "lockbox" for the past fifty years, it would be an option.

I trust my money

That's really a key phrase. In a truly free country, money which belongs to me is subject to decisions made by me. That we now have a system of mandatory payment into a retirement program which very few people would have chosen says a lot about our level of freedom.

[tomder55]

Dems can play political gotcha any way they want to and completely ignore what the Trustees of the program say

Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost is projected to exceed total income in 2022, and the dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2035

_tr.book (ssa.gov)

[Athos]

Yeah I pointed out how he baited the Repubs about SS here

NY Slimes scaremongering again - Page 2 (askmehelpdesk.com)

no they don't want to spend it. They want to save the plan .

Why don't you say why the program is near insolvent now. Yes demographics and life expectancy play a role . But the biggest reason is the big lie that the Dems use about it ;that it is put away in a secure" lock box "only to be used for the benefit of the recipients and those who pay for the program . In truth the money is fungible in the eyes of the deep state ; and gets lumped in with all the other general revenue collected from the taxpayer .

Demographics

1960 it was 5 to 1 workers to retirees
2005 3.3 to 1
by 2031 1 to 1 . And the life expectancy of retires is longer and that trend will continue . It is unsustainable . You know it ;I know it ;and the designers of the Ponzi Scheme knew it .
Even worse the Dems believe in whacking almost a million future workers before they are born,

As for me ;I trust my money with banks, Wall Street investment firms and hedge funds much more than the government . The government can and has changed the rules many times . The rules for IRAs 401Ks have changed so many times I've lost count. .. And over the course of my saving for retirement ;even accounting for bear markets like we are in now ; the return on my investments far outpace what I will ever get in SS payouts .

For years I have been an advocate of giving NEW SS contributors a choice in opting for government approved funds that have higher risk for higher returns .

The system now is no better than any other entitlement program that as jl said correctly is a paygo with monopoly money .



Now the Dems call it reinvesting in government securities . That is a BS accounting trick . The government five fingers the funds and leaves IOUs in the so called lock box. When the IOUs mature the government cashed them with more IOUs ;the classic trick of a Ponzi Schemer .

It's easy to criticize Social Security - everybody does it. What is needed are solutions to go along with the criticisms. Privatization is not one of them. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

One thing cannot be denied that overrides all criticisms:

Social Security is the most effective government program in the history of the world to alleviate poverty.

[tomder55]

Privatization is not one of them. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

How do you know ? Most people have funded the majority of their retirement through self -funding or employer partial funded private retirement plans . They work .

Contrasted with the Ponzi scheme the government concocted that is stuck in 1930s thinking when there were no other options . Sunset it and make changes in the program that are urgently needed .

[Athos]

How do you know ?

I know because far too many people are not savvy enough to manage their old-age funds effectively. These people need others to manage for them. It is naive to think otherwise.

Most people have funded the majority of their retirement through self -funding or employer partial funded private retirement plans . They work .

Good for them. That doesn't change my comment above.

Contrasted with the Ponzi scheme the government concocted that is stuck in 1930s thinking when there were no other options .

A Ponzi scheme requires intention to deceive and steal money. That does not describe Social Security. It is simply a scare tactic to undermine Social Security.

Sunset it and make changes in the program that are urgently needed .

Easy enough to make necessary changes without sunsetting the program. Sunsetting is an obvious scheme to ultimately kill Social Security. It dwarfs the damage a Ponze scheme could ever do.

[tomder55]

I know because far too many people are not savvy enough to manage their old-age funds effectively. These people need others to manage for them. It is naive to think otherwise.

The benevolent nanny state to the rescue because the rubes don't have the sense to manage their money even though they have demonstrated often that they are better at managing a budget than Congress ever has shown.

A Ponzi scheme requires intention to deceive and steal money.

Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to the tragedy of unintended consequences . Either way the people who have paid into the plan since they started working will be the biggest losers. You know and I know that it is going to become another welfare system means tested to death .

[jlisenbe]

This can't go on forever. The borrowing and printing possibilities will play out sooner or later, and then what?

[tomder55]

Short term there will be a hair cut of benefits by 21% to cover the entitlement into 2034 . After that the demographics get even worse .The writing is on the wall . The "changes" that will be made in the near future will be means testing and changing of eligible age past 72 years of age . Congress is already looking at that untapped pocket pick by the government of tax confiscation of IRAs 401Ks and private pensions (public service unions pensions will likely already be in taxpayer bailout. )

The easiest way for them to execute the theft will be to means test SS distributions . The Motley Fool describes one such example ..

As a fictitious example, lawmakers could choose to implement partial reductions at say $80,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) and cut benefits completely at $120,000 in AGI. That would mean anyone currently receiving benefits, who earned less than $80,000 in AGI in the previous year, would receive their full Social Security monthly benefit in the current year. However, if someone earned between $80,000 and $119,999 in AGI, their monthly benefit would be partially reduced. Should they make $120,000 or more in AGI, they'd forfeit their benefit entirely.

What Is Means-Testing, and How Could It Affect Social Security? | The Motley Fool

In other words it will be another government welfare program.

They go on to say
..it doesn't appear that means-testing alone would erase the projected $13.2 trillion cash shortfall the program is facing over the next 75 years.

You can take comfort in the fact that Medicare is in even worse shape. That will be insolvent before the end of the decade The Dems solution ? Put even more people on a Medicare ;dependent on government for your health care ,program .

[Athos]

The benevolent nanny state to the rescue because the rubes don't have the sense to manage their money even though they have demonstrated often that they are better at managing a budget than Congress ever has shown.

These are propaganda words without specifics and therefore with little effective meaning. They do nothing to challenge the meaning of my post about people who will be financially ruined by privatizing Social Security. BTW, financial ruin awaits some of the SAVVY folks also. Need I explain?

Either way the people who have paid into the plan since they started working will be the biggest losers.

Absolutely not true! First, let's examine the remedies - known and, naturally, some unknown that will surely arise in the future. We can examine them when they arrive.

You know and I know that it is going to become another welfare system means tested to death .

I know nothing of the sort. You don't show much optimism in the human species being able to solve what can appear to be intractable problems at the moment.

In other words it will be another government welfare program.

I think this is your real objection to Social Security - it's a government welfare program. May I remind you of these words from the US Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To ....... provide for the ....... general Welfare of the United States.......

[jlisenbe]

hair cut of benefits by 21%

21% or 2.1%? The first option would be quite the haircut.

General welfare means everyone benefits. The idea of individual payments was never considered to be a part of it. But it's a pols dream when they get to appear to be the soul of charity by giving away someone else's money.

[tomder55]

21% or 2.1%? The first option would be quite the haircut.

Who's Ready for a 21% Cut to Their Social Security Benefits? | The Motley Fool

[tomder55]

I think this is your real objection to Social Security - it's a government welfare program. May I remind you of these words from the US Constitution?

The Ponzi Scheme was sold as an insurance. That was the lie/fraud that makes it a Ponzi Scheme .

jl in right in that 'general welfare 'does not mean individual or factional welfare .It means promoting the national welfare. There is no other part of Article 1 section 8 that doesn't deal with national concerns It refers to thinking beyond the personal interests and consider instead the interests of the country at large.
The idea that the framers intended the clause to be a freebee giveaway by a massive leviathan nanny state is a deliberate distortion of intent .

[Athos]

The Ponzi Scheme was sold as an insurance. That was the lie/fraud that makes it a Ponzi Scheme

Social Security is insurance. That does not make it a Ponzi scheme.

The idea that the framers intended the clause to be a freebee giveaway by a massive leviathan nanny state is a deliberate distortion of intent .

The major distortion of anything here is how you have characterized the program as a "massive leviathan nanny state". Hardly objective credible phrasing, is it?

Interesting how you rely on the Framer's intention from 225 years ago, although Framer Hamilton took a modern approach. Also interesting how you deny the Framer's intention from 225 years ago when it comes to the Second Amendment and take the false modern reading.

[tomder55]

The Dems have completely abandoned any pretext of fiscal responsibility and the Repub swamp only pays lip service to it . It was not that long ago when even Bubba said that the era of big government is over .


Plenty of big ideas ;but only a transparently phony mention of how to pay for their plans . (tax the rich.....the added revenue will be a drop in the bucket for what is required )

Since the 1940s, tax collections have never been more than 20% of GDP and much of that goes to redistribution gimmicks . Higher marginal tax rates slow the economy negating the alleged value of jacking up taxes.

The discretionary spending slice of the pie shrinks daily .The fights over the sliver left will be intense .

Mandatory spending on entitlements is going to gobble up any resources they think are available for their wish list of gimmies .

1970 the discretionary part of the budget was 62% Today it is 30% . Everything else is mandated spending (entitlements and debt service )

And don't you dare touch those entitlements !

How bad is it ? Now even if the government seized the entire GDP ($ 23.32 trillion) we would still be in the red by more than $7 trillion .

So yeah the Repubs went immediately into the defensive and swore they will never cut Social Security when everyone from both parties knows that is exactly what is going to happen.

In 5 years the Medicare Trust Fund will run dry . The same will happen to SS in a decade . The irony is that by agreeing to do nothing ;they are effectively announcing a 20% cut in SS benefits . But they can fool the people by not actually saying it .

The Repubs feign fiscal responsibility by proposing cuts in discretionary spending . But that in itself will not get it done because it is such a small part of the budget .

[tomder55]

Yeah Hamilton invented the notion of implied powers that plague us to this day . He was the founder of the Federalist Party that got booted into the dust bin of history in a single generation .

I'm not saying that a national banking system was unnecessary . If so then an amendment would've been the proper way to get it done .

What Hamilton did was ,as Madison argued, “a broad construction of federal powers … [that would deliver] a powerful blow at the barriers against an indefinite expansion of federal authority,” using so called implied powers found in the "commerce clause " and the " necessary and proper clause"

Hamilton’s Treasury Department and a great Constitutional debate (yahoo.com)

The out of control national debt can be directly linked to the out of control expansion of federal powers that started with Hamilton .

[jlisenbe]

Who's Ready for a 21% Cut to Their Social Security Benefits? | The Motley Fool

I have no doubt it's coming. My wife and I will be OK, but there are millions out there who have made that SS check their primary income. It will be a huge problem for them.

[tomder55]

I have no doubt it's coming. My wife and I will be OK, but there are millions out there who have made that SS check their primary income. It will be a huge problem for them.

You mean the common man ;the little people the Dems pretend to protect ? Here is another factoid . Your return on investment for SS is 2% on average . If you invest in annuities you get the same return . If you put your money in safe T bills the return is greater.

As far as the people being too stupid to figure out basic investing ;if the school system spent half the time worrying about teaching students real life skills like principles of saving and investing instead of proper pronouns for addressing transformers ,maybe the people would not be so dependent on the benevolent nanny state .