Social Security Cuts

[Legacy Fan]

"Arbitrarily robbing from Medicaid"

 

That belongs in a frame.

[calfoxwc]

How can the gov borrow from SS, and pay it back with interest...when we have the national debt we have?

 

How can we pay for all those who don't want to work at all, intentionallly, and some politicians are now saying

 

they have a "right" to good housing, good food, and free everything else?

 

Now, it's "well, ss was never intended to be the only source of income to retirees, so..."

 

Well, welfare sure as heyl is supposed to be the "only source of income" to all those getting it...

 

including millions who get it because they DON'T want to work for a living.

 

Cut welfare. That isn't even earned. Take some of those savings, and put them in SS.

 

Now how you can do that with our nat debt, I have no idea....GGG

************************************************

Oct 18 2012

 

CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget

Ranking Member Sessions and the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011). The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).

 

CRS estimates that exclusively federal spending on these federal programs equaled approximately $746 billion, and further emphasizes that there is a substantial amount of state spending—mostly required as a condition of states' participation—on these same federal programs (primarily Medicaid and CHIP). Based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance, Budget Committee staff calculated at least an additional $283 billion in state contributions to those same federal programs,^[1] for a total annual expenditure of $1.03 trillion. By comparison, in 2011, the annual budget expenditure for Social Security was $725 billion, Medicare was $480 billion, and non-war defense was $540 billion.

 

The exclusively federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32 percent since 2008, and now comprises 21 percent of federal outlays (this share too is more than Social Security, Medicare, or defense).

 

As a historical comparison, spending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs (which account for the bulk of federal welfare spending) has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by 378 percent over that time.

 

Many factors have contributed to the growth in federal welfare spending, causing it to rise during times of both high and low unemployment. Persistently weak GDP growth over the last several years is unquestionably a factor in the record amount of money now being spent. But understanding the growth in federal welfare expenditures must also be understood in the context of a federal policy that has explicitly encouraged growth in welfare enrollment—combined with a weakening of welfare standards and rules. For instance, spending on food stamps—the second-largest federal welfare program—has quadrupled since 2001, yet the USDA has a variety of programs and advertisements whose explicit and unmistakable goal is to expand enrollment to new record highs. This even includes an official partnership with the Mexican government to expand food stamp enrollment among foreign nationals. (USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, in a letter to Ranking Member Sessions, acknowledged and defended this partnership. Sessions' response may be read here.) But the agency has also produced materialsto train recruitment workers on how to "overcome the word 'No,'" and in one representative caseawarded a local office for "counteracting" a community's "mountain pride." As Ranking Member Sessions has stated, "The sound policy, and the compassionate course, is not a drive to place the largest possible number of people on welfare support; instead, we should seek, whenever possible, to help our fellow Americans realize personal and financial independence."

 

Meanwhile, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security have effectively waived the legal requirement that those seeking admittance into the U.S. not be welfare reliant. More information on this controversial policy may be found here.

 

[1]In FY 2008, the only year for which complete data is available, state Medicaid and CHIP spending in was $154.1 billion, which accounted for 65 percent of total state spending in that year. By FY 2011 such spending had grown to $160.3 billion. However, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill, also known as ARRA) included a provision to boost the federal government's share of Medicaid spending. Specifically, the federal government paid for about 63 percent of the total Medicaid bill in FY11, whereas in FY08 it paid for only 57 percent. Assuming Medicaid and CHIP made up the same portion of states' total low-income assistance in FY11 that it did in FY08—and knowing the change in state Medicaid spending due to the stimulus—total FY11 state spending on federal welfare can be estimated at $282.7 billion.

 

NOTE: To view this document as a PDF, please click here.

 

[Legacy Fan]

"As a historical comparison, spending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs (which account for the bulk of federal welfare spending) has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by "378 percent over that time."*

 

*http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=3c687e99-a5c5-46f2-9f9d-0ea5a62c3183

 

 

You're aware of how percentages work, correct?

 

So after cost of living increases + devaluation of the dollar, we see an almost 400 percent increase over 30 years in this realm of spending. And you're going to try and lecture me about that well running dry? "That well" has runneth over for 30 years. Why would it change now? Keep in mind that 30 years includes Clinton Almighty's ballin-ass presidency where the unemployment rates were at unprecedented lows.

 

Wha happened?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

"John McCain's campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either," Obama said in a rarely viewed video that was posted online.

 

I'm really glad that McCain chose Palin as his VP running mate. This guy has made some really wacky decisions that is surprising to me and a lot of people.

[Westside Steve]

So at the end of your b******* no heck it's not really about the poor. It's about the middle class.

( Well it includes the poor but...)

There's the idea that we pay into Social Security and should get a return.

I realize that's not reality. But we can pretend for the time being that it is, okay?

 

So despite your tap dance of course we know its not a legitimate plan by the president, it's a political strategy, that's all.

 

But, and pardon me I have not heard you do this, the bulk of the left is bellyaching about the elimination of the payroll tax deduction.

 

So before I make a comment are you good with that or not?

 

Because DNC strategy isn't all that interesting.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Arbitrarily robbing from Medicaid"

 

That belongs in a frame.

 

It is completely arbitrary. Because Medicaid pays for people's health care. If you had 100 people on Medicaid in 2008, and there are 137 people on it now, and you suddenly decide that you're only going to pay for 92 of them because you made up a plan to save SS on the back of a napkin that doesn't fund Medicaid by paying for the health care of people who are eligible for Medicaid, but instead pays them according to a number you saw and liked in a Daily Caller column ...yes, this is a perfect example of a completely arbitrary proposal that wouldn't work and would be robbing from Medicaid to pay for SS for a single year in the most clumsy way one could imagine.

 

Or think of it this way: we have more people on Medicaid in 2013 than in 2008 because there are more old people who qualify for it, and more poor people who qualify for it, including poor children. What you're saying is "Let's pretend we don't have that number of people, and that we have the same number of Medicaid eligible people that we did in 2008." Then you subtract the difference, and give the lump sum to SS. Medicaid no longer covers people who are eligible for Medicaid. It covers the number we had a few years ago and pretends population growth doesn't exist, demographic changes don't exist, the economy never changes, and that health care costs stay the same every year.

 

This is your plan.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"As a historical comparison, spending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs (which account for the bulk of federal welfare spending) has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by "378 percent over that time."*

 

*http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=3c687e99-a5c5-46f2-9f9d-0ea5a62c3183

 

 

You're aware of how percentages work, correct?

 

So after cost of living increases + devaluation of the dollar, we see an almost 400 percent increase over 30 years in this realm of spending. And you're going to try and lecture me about that well running dry? "That well" has runneth over for 30 years. Why would it change now? Keep in mind that 30 years includes Clinton Almighty's ballin-ass presidency where the unemployment rates were at unprecedented lows.

 

Wha happened?

 

I understand that you feel that the growth of the welfare state over the last 30 years has been too large. What I still don't understand is how you think pointing this out is an answer to how you fix Social Security. So come up with a real way to fund the benefits you want to keep, or just admit you have a vague notion that welfare spending is out of control and that ....I don't know. Something.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So at the end of your b******* no heck it's not really about the poor. It's about the middle class.

( Well it includes the poor but...)

There's the idea that we pay into Social Security and should get a return.

I realize that's not reality. But we can pretend for the time being that it is, okay?

 

So despite your tap dance of course we know its not a legitimate plan by the president, it's a political strategy, that's all.

 

But, and pardon me I have not heard you do this, the bulk of the left is bellyaching about the elimination of the payroll tax deduction.

 

So before I make a comment are you good with that or not?

 

Because DNC strategy isn't all that interesting.

 

WSS

 

I don't get this at all. And you still haven't answered the question.

 

There is the idea that we pay into SS and get a return. I don't know why that's not a reality. That is a reality.

 

And the plan is not pure political strategy. It's a mix of a policy goal (addressing the long term SS imbalance) and political strategy, just like everything else.

 

Yes, there is some feeling that with the economy still struggling that the payroll tax deduction might have been a good thing to keep. That's something I read more on the right than the left.

 

And I find political strategy very interesting.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So I'll just assume you have no answer.

[Westside Steve]

So I'll just assume you have no answer.

Sure.

No real idea what you want and who cares?

You want some sort of a dollar by Dollar breakdown of the entire system? Sorry can't help you.

Oh I could go to some website maybe Glenn Beck or something and cut and paste something for you.

Then you could paste some left wing blog and I could replaced at cetera et cetera.

 

But the idea that you put money in and you get money out is something of a joke if you look at it as if it were a real investment.

Especially if your plan is to means test the rich.

Then its just a welfare program but I understand you are close to call it that.

 

But it's okay, heck.

We understand your aim isn't really to fix anything just to campaign.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And sure it's interesting up to a point but not when you're actually trying to figure out a problem.

 

I'd imagine if your son were ill then you probably wouldn't want the pediatrician looking at it from a standpoint of how he can make the other doctor look like an idiot.

 

Or I would hope not.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

We understand your aim isn't really to fix anything just to campaign.

 

Another classic!

 

I love living in your up-is-down world. Here we are discussing SS, a thread I started. I've tried to lay out the problem. I've posted various policy solutions. I've posted charts. I've continually tried to get you to stay on topic and talk about what you think the policy solution should be. And here are some of the things you've posted:

 

At the very least it's a wee little bargaining chip to try and get even more taxes.

 

And: Let me guess... So he can tie it to yet another round of tax hikes?

 

And: The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes. That's the strategy.

 

And: Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.

But that doesn't sell votes....

 

And: Oh cripe we just heard Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders spout the same thing. We don't care if it would help or not we don't care whether or not it's the right thing to do. We must stand firm as Democrats!"

 

And: Plus you really have noticed the president's campaign for the last five years, haven't you? Please don't tell me you haven't understood that it's almost 75 percent tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich.

And: So why not just be honest and call it welfare and be done with it? Seriously rich guys you still have to pay but you aren't getting a return. Poor guys you don't have to pay but you are getting a return.

Sort of takes the "well its my money" response out of the game doesn't it?

 

And: But now your balk because Kevin Ed and Bernie don't like it.

 

And: you are correct, nobody wants their benefits cut. Unfortunately nobody wants to pay taxes either. Unless of course the idea is to only tax those other guys. Plenty of people like that idea.

 

 

Yes, when will I stop reciting tired talking points and campaigning and start discussing real solutions like you're doing!!

 

Mamma mia.

 

Comical. You can't help but scurry back to giving the same old speech you want to give. Them poors sure don't want to pay taxes! It got even more interesting the 1736th time you posted it.

 

Plus, I just told you I don't expect any sort of real dollar by dollar breakdown from you, and instead of an answer you just repeat your claim that I do want that. Let's try something new.

 

Just give me the broad outlines. What would shared sacrifice mean? You sound like you don't want to mean test. Fine. We'll take means test off your board. How else do you want to get to those tolerable tax increases and benefit cuts you say you're willing to be for?

 

Stay on target.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And sure it's interesting up to a point but not when you're actually trying to figure out a problem.

 

I'd imagine if your son were ill then you probably wouldn't want the pediatrician looking at it from a standpoint of how he can make the other doctor look like an idiot.

 

Or I would hope not.

 

WSS

 

So let me get this straight: you don't want to discuss Social Security in terms of policy, or can't. That's obvious. You continually refuse to say anything about it other than generalities like "I'd be for this if there were shared sacrifice." That's as far as you've gone. And then accused me of not wanting to discuss policy.

 

Also, any discussion of political strategy, even though it was one post, is too much for you. Yes, how you might politically maneuver to get something like solutions passed and made into law is not relevant. On a political forum.

 

What is interesting is saying "poor people are lazy and the Democrats give them cheese" over and over and over and over and over. That's fucking interesting!

 

...Why don't you just go back and look at your posts that I reprinted and apologize for being completely full of shit?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Or, since you're 0-for-12 or so, why don't you try discussing the policy beyond meaningless generalities? You don't like Democrats and poor people. You think they want shit for free. Trust me: we get it.

 

Move. On.

 

Fuck, I keep putting it on a tee for you: if what's so important to you is shared sacrifice, then tell me what that is. Can you do that?

[heckofajobbrownie]

In my mind, the only policy that would be closest to "shared sacrifice" is raising the payroll tax. And not raising the cap or anything like that. It'd be raising the rate. Then it would be spread to all workers.

 

If you look at the chart, raising the payroll tax rate by two percentage points over 20 years basically fills the hole. So, now the SS portion of the payroll tax is 12.4%, split between you and your employer. This would mean that by 2033 it'd be 14.4%.

 

Is that what you think?

[calfoxwc]

Obamao only paid 18 percent tax.

 

We are all taxed too much already.

 

Cut welfare back. Trim the rolls of people who refuse to work ANYTHING while getting welfare.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Make that three for three.

[Westside Steve]

First of all its 12 and 0.

Your MO it's always the same.

Make the same statement 12 times and I give you accurate response 12 times.

Then you whine because I said it 12 times.

First you deny refute and complain and then...

Then usually by number 13 you grumble that I'm stating the obvious.

 

Second never miss an opportunity to cry about poor people.

You may go back and see I said middle class.

 

3rd you are a knee jerk contrarian.

If I attacked Obama for the latest Cola plan you'd have thrown a fit.

Since I agreed with it you had to throw a fit about that.

 

And not to mention you need to attack Matt Drudge or John McCain or Sarah Palin or somebody just for good measure...

Yes, sir , we do get it.

 

Next post I'll address your question.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

In my mind, the only policy that would be closest to "shared sacrifice" is raising the payroll tax. And not raising the cap or anything like that. It'd be raising the rate. Then it would be spread to all workers.

 

If you look at the chart, raising the payroll tax rate by two percentage points over 20 years basically fills the hole. So, now the SS portion of the payroll tax is 12.4%, split between you and your employer. This would mean that by 2033 it'd be 14.4%.

 

Is that what you think?

That's why I asked you your opinion of that first.

Yes I do think the payroll tax should be increased if we are going to pretend is an investment.

I thought the reduction in payroll tax was a stupid idea.

With the entire country up in arms that social security may be insolvent in a few years?

Add the solution was to cut contributions to it?

Brilliant.

 

I'm also for privatization but there's probably a good and bad about that until every detail is work out

And I understand why Americans are upset that the money they do put into Social Security is spent on other things

And that the return on that particular investment, if that's what you call it, is pretty weak.

And I think the shrinking ratio of workers to retirees is a concern, thank you very much Mr Ponzi.

 

And I'd raise retirement age on a system that was only supposed to help you in your last four or five years of life.

Not completely support you for the last 20.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

However, there are plenty of folks who retire...and don't even make it to five years after. Not everybody CAN work until they are 66, or 70.

 

So raising the retirement age is more of a double edged sword....

 

But all those special ed kids who get SS in hs, forever? (mostly referring to those that aren't really sed), and adding illegals to it (if

the dems can make it happen)

 

Hey, just stop giving billions to so many other undeserving countries and put it in SS, we'll be good. Let it work the other way for a while...

[Westside Steve]

However, there are plenty of folks who retire...and don't even make it to five years after. Not everybody CAN work until they are 66, or 70.

 

So raising the retirement age is more of a double edged sword....

 

But all those special ed kids who get SS in hs, forever? (mostly referring to those that aren't really sed), and adding illegals to it (if

the dems can make it happen)

 

Hey, just stop giving billions to so many other undeserving countries and put it in SS, we'll be good. Let it work the other way for a while...

 

That's true cal but I'm talking about the age differences between today and depression.

On average, and that includes people that die before they collect Social Security, I think life expectancy is around 10 years different today.

It's also true that lots of people cant work after their 60.

But we have SSI disability in those cases.

Add thanks to factors including huge law firms with big big advertising budgets the number of people on disability has skyrocketed over the last few years.

If I recall correctly that's almost 30 percent of the Social Security budget.

 

WSS