Social Security and Medicare funds sinks

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Click me!


Hmmmm...shrinking? With surpluses in SS (not sure of Medicare), it's strange that SS would be estimated to be depleted even earlier than once thought. With a growing economy supposedly growing faster than expected, hence why the general deficit is being cut quicker than expected, one would expect SS and Medicare funds to also expand (or at least contract slower) with the economic growth. However, IMO, the reason that it's not growing is that real wages aren't growing in the economy fast enough to keep up. Corporate profits and other factors are contributing to the general deficit relief, but without wage significant wage growth (not advocating this, just pointing out), there would not be significant SS growth.

Also, IMO, this is why the goverment want illegal's onto the payrolls and legal. They want to cash cow them into funding SS for the baby boomers and possibly on.


WASHINGTON - The trust fund for Social Security will be depleted in 2040, and Medicare will exhaust its trust fund reserves just 12 years from now, trustees for the programs said Monday.


Their annual report showed deterioration in the financial condition of both of the government's two largest benefit programs.

A year ago, the depletion of the Social Security trust fund had been projected to occur in 2041 and the Medicare hospital insurance fund in 2020.

The trustees, who include the head of the Social Security Administration and three members of President Bush's Cabinet, painted a sober assessment of the health of the two programs in advance of the looming retirements of 78 million baby boomers.

"We do not believe the currently projected long-run growth rates of Social Security or Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements," the trustees said in this year's report.

Bush's efforts last year to overhaul Social Security went nowhere in Congress. Even members of his own party refused to support the benefit cuts that would have accompanied the establishment of private accounts for younger workers.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Engineer
Hmmmm...shrinking? With surpluses in SS (not sure of Medicare), it's strange that SS would be estimated to be depleted even earlier than once thought.

With a growing economy supposedly growing faster than expected, hence why the general deficit is being cut quicker than expected, one would expect SS and Medicare funds to also expand (or at least contract slower) with the economic growth.

However, IMO, the reason that it's not growing is that real wages aren't growing in the economy fast enough to keep up.

Corporate profits and other factors are contributing to the general deficit relief, but without wage significant wage growth (not advocating this, just pointing out), there would not be significant SS growth.

Also, IMO, this is why the goverment want illegal's onto the payrolls and legal. They want to cash cow them into funding SS for the baby boomers and possibly on.

Bahahahaha so many lies and deceptions by the Republicans coming back around at once. :laugh:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The amount of people coming into the workforce vs those that will be leaving and the atuary tables of lifespan.

Statistics, not voodoo politics as the above poster would like people to believe.

For you youngsters; get moving on creating additional kids to support you in your golden years.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The amount of people coming into the workforce vs those that will be leaving and the atuary tables of lifespan.

Statistics, not voodoo politics as the above poster would like people to believe.

For you youngsters; get moving on creating additional kids to support you in your golden years.

Or let all of the immigrants in that you can! :)

By the way, if you're young enough to have kids (for the most part), you should be saving enough on your own without relying on SS anyway. It might not be there and I sure the heck don't trust it to be. Personal responsibility babeeeeeeeee! :D
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
The house of cards is crumbling. The economy is growing, but the elderly/culture of entitlement is growing faster.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Gee, if king george had used that surplus Clinton left to pay off the money the federal government OWES the Social Security fund, instead of paying off his already filthy rich contributors, there wouldn't be any shortfall.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Not to mention the $320 BILLION or so that idiot king george has already wasted on his unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Totals of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS for that bungled fiasco are considered reliable. THAT kind of money would have "fixed" Social Security forever. Just another indication of where king george's priorities are. He'd rather be a filthy war profiteer with is filthy war profiteer partner prince of darkness cheney and massacre Iraqi civilians for no reason than be fiscally responsible at home.

 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
You know if Social Security were not a pyramid scheme and the money that was put into it was actually invested rather than just going into the general fund where congress can spend it on whatever it might actually do okay.

Unfortunately that is not the case.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,054
3,408
126
Originally posted by: OFFascist
You know if Social Security were not a pyramid scheme and the money that was put into it was actually invested rather than just going into the general fund where congress can spend it on whatever it might actually do okay.

Unfortunately that is not the case.
I know, but you know what happened to Gore when he proposed something simple like that.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
The only solution that will work HAS to consist of many parts. No one solution can be expected to fix the SS /Medicare problem.

First is admitting a fair number of young immigrants. And making training and education available to them to be productive.

Second is tying the retirement age to the average life expectancy. A certain number of years of retirement, on average, would allow the retirement age to be set actuarilly and not politically.

Third is a an increase in SS tax.

Fourth is the promotion of policies that keep down Medicare costs, like allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

Fifth is an increase in medical colleges to train more doctors, lowering doctor fees.

Sixth is a rollback of the Bush tax cuts and spending mania. The less we borrow now the more we can borrow to get us over the period of the baby boomers.

Seventh is a slight reduction of SS benefits for the wealthy.

Eighth is planning and attraction of industries that will need part time non-manual labor to allow seniors to work for more years while on SS.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: zendari
The house of cards is crumbling. The economy is growing, but the elderly/culture of entitlement is growing faster.

and someday sooner than you think you will be old too.

And? Unless liberals figure our how to grow money on trees I'll be sunk anyway under their pyramid schemes.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: zendari
The house of cards is crumbling. The economy is growing, but the elderly/culture of entitlement is growing faster.

and someday sooner than you think you will be old too.

And? Unless liberals figure our how to grow money on trees I'll be sunk anyway under their pyramid schemes.

You don't need to grow it - just lift the income caps and/or include all forms of income and SS/medicare would explode way even beyond thier current surpluses. Or better yet cut the % rates for everyone and more importantly the vast majority of americans who IMO pay too much already @ 7/14%.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Jeee, maybe giving all these tax breaks to the top 1% is not a very good idea? I mean, that money could go into SS and Medicare new numbers are SS is good till 2040 and Medicare is good for 2018 and they keep rolling the dates back every six months I am sure by the time 10 years rolls around it will be gone with everyone wondering.... I should have just invested in the power ball a more wise investment then SS... At least you might have a chance!!!

 

Amplifier

Banned
Dec 25, 2004
3,143
0
0
I have an idea, how about politicians stop putting our money into feel good schemes that don't work.

Also, IMO, this is why the goverment want illegal's onto the payrolls and legal. They want to cash cow them into funding SS for the baby boomers and possibly on.

You have a warped view of the world. You think some immigrant working for less than $8.00 an hour is going to help balance SS and medicare. That's less that $1,300 per year in contributions.

Factor the 8-10k per year cost of educating the kids of illegal immigrants. Factor in the millions spent on social programs for them, factor in a dozen of the costs they put on our society. Even if their economic output were double their wage the numbers still do not balance.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Amplifier
I have an idea, how about politicians stop putting our money into feel good schemes that don't work.

Also, IMO, this is why the goverment want illegal's onto the payrolls and legal. They want to cash cow them into funding SS for the baby boomers and possibly on.

You have a warped view of the world. You think some immigrant working for less than $8.00 an hour is going to help balance SS and medicare. That's less that $1,300 per year in contributions.

Factor the 8-10k per year cost of educating the kids of illegal immigrants. Factor in the millions spent on social programs for them, factor in a dozen of the costs they put on our society. Even if their economic output were double their wage the numbers still do not balance.

And they have lots of kids so more like $40,000 -$50,000 to educate thier children alone. I don't know many that make that much let alone pay taxes in that range.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: Amplifier
I have an idea, how about politicians stop putting our money into feel good schemes that don't work.

Also, IMO, this is why the goverment want illegal's onto the payrolls and legal. They want to cash cow them into funding SS for the baby boomers and possibly on.

You have a warped view of the world. You think some immigrant working for less than $8.00 an hour is going to help balance SS and medicare. That's less that $1,300 per year in contributions.

Factor the 8-10k per year cost of educating the kids of illegal immigrants. Factor in the millions spent on social programs for them, factor in a dozen of the costs they put on our society. Even if their economic output were double their wage the numbers still do not balance.

Never mentioned medicare as I don't think there is balancing it.

Never mentioned how much it costs to educate their kids or other expenses as since when do politicans think about future expenses like that?

Since SS is often called a Ponzi or Pryamid scheme, how are those so called schemes kept going? Adding more people, regardless of consequences. With a baby boom generation that's huge compared to those behind them going through, it wound't suprise me that the leadership of this country would want to pad as many onto the bottom of SS as possible to pay into it. Who cares if those illegals (even if they are converted to legal) get SS as long as it's shored up long enough to secure the current baby boomers votes throughout the rest of their life?

And since we're paying for all of those things you guys mention anyway (medical care, education, etc) and apparantely, aren't going to change anything anyway on removing or slowing the immigration flow, why not make them "legal" and throw them into the paying SS pool (remember, their employers would also be matching funds). Am I saying that I advocate this? Not necessarily. It's just my opinon that many in DC are looking at ways to expand the base without looking at future consequences. Something politcians are known for.

 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
....."Even after the trust funds are depleted, Social Security taxes will cover 74 percent of benefits in 2040, the trustees estimated."

It looks like it wouldn't be too much of a problem for the political
hacks to make up the difference if they got their asses in gear now.......
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: nergee
....."Even after the trust funds are depleted, Social Security taxes will cover 74 percent of benefits in 2040, the trustees estimated."

It looks like it wouldn't be too much of a problem for the political
hacks to make up the difference if they got their asses in gear now.......

But the real problem is the fact that there is no trust fund. IOU's cant pay a dime. They have to borrow just to cover the trust fund. However, I agree that they need to get their asses in gear anyway just on general budget deficits regardless of SS consequences.

To address my previous post a little further and give my viewpoint on SS. I've been an advocate for private SS accounts since I was 23 (37 now). I was flame roasted by the older generation at work and still do get flamed for even mentioning it. I would sign away every dime I've paid in if they would give me my 6.4% (they can keep the company match to pay for what they owe now) to invest myself. The longer it drags on, however, the more likely my view will change because of 2 things: One: I will have paid too much in. Two: The timeframe for me to benefit from my own private account is shrinking. That will be a decade down the road or more, however.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather have a private account.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: zendari
The house of cards is crumbling. The economy is growing, but the elderly/culture of entitlement is growing faster.

and someday sooner than you think you will be old too.

And? Unless liberals figure our how to grow money on trees I'll be sunk anyway under their pyramid schemes.

Doom and Gloom. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzendari
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BBond
Gee, if king george had used that surplus Clinton left to pay off the money the federal government OWES the Social Security fund, instead of paying off his already filthy rich contributors, there wouldn't be any shortfall.

You still believe there is a magical fund with trillions in it just waiting to be tapped?

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Blame it on the immigrants.

I guess all the old people will have to work or starve.

Gee what a concept, not sure how we survived all these thousands of years without a SS program, do you?

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: piasabird
Blame it on the immigrants.

I guess all the old people will have to work or starve.

Gee what a concept, not sure how we survived all these thousands of years without a SS program, do you?
Wow. That makes absolutely no sense. We survived thousands of years living on farms and in caves as hunter gatherers dying before 40 years old.. Now we live in cities and towns and have life span of 80 years. Are you beginning to see the difference?

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: piasabird
Blame it on the immigrants.

I guess all the old people will have to work or starve.

Gee what a concept, not sure how we survived all these thousands of years without a SS program, do you?
Wow. That makes absolutely no sense. We survived thousands of years living on farms and in caves as hunter gatherers dying before 40 years old.. Now we live in cities and towns and have life span of 80 years. Are you beginning to see the difference?

We have been living in cities since before Jesus, did they have SS programs back then? Or how about when the Greeks ruled the world?

This thought process that if we dont provide money to people after x amount of years they starve to death is another liberal falacy of the 20th century.

A rather pathetic self loathing one at that.