SS funds were (again) replaced from the general revenue. SS took in exactly the same amount of money, once the general revenue was transferred, as it would have at 6.2%.
Considering SS has been over 6% of American's check since 1988 and the SS fund has been in negative receipts since 1986, the only problem I'm seeing is the dumb asses that thought it would be a good idea to cut 2% for the last 2 years.
Cali is getting the ass pounding because of the people they elect and the way their government works. No sympathy here. And they're running what deficits?
Might I suggest we consider both your points in a context as I suggested in my last post.
The truth is that at some point there isn't enough money to keep someone alive. What we need to do is arrive as a consensus of what we can afford and how and who makes those decisions. People who are older will consume more resources since that's the nature of life. Beyond what point do we say it's a lost cause? What can we do to responsibly care for those who are at the point of death?
Perhaps that's a more profitable line of inquiry.
SS funds were (again) replaced from the general revenue. SS took in exactly the same amount of money, once the general revenue was transferred, as it would have at 6.2%.
right at the same time the government is/was taking money out of SS to pay for other goodies, it was putting it back.
LOL.
probably put back with all the IOU's in the dumb and dumber suitcase
I don't think our friendly liberals here on P&N had any idea that a $25,000 wage earner was going to pay more taxes.
They rarely think about wage earners, except on how to tax them more.
-John
The cap should be completely removed. Solves 95% of the problems with social security.
And making the temporary payroll tax reduction permanent would have only made the problems with SS and Medicare many many times worse that they already are.
Investing the funds in something better than low-interest T Notes would also help. When your investment returns don't outpace the CPI adjustment, then you are eventually going to go broke.
Oh, and DCal, it was 2%, not 3.
ThatSS funds were (again) replaced from the general revenue. SS took in exactly the same amount of money, once the general revenue was transferred, as it would have at 6.2%.
right at the same time the government is/was taking money out of SS to pay for other goodies, it was putting it back.
LOL.
probably put back with all the IOU's in the dumb and dumber suitcase
This is actually a very good point. At what point should ones life be a lost cause? The moment the family can no longer support them. Everyone in my family that has died did so without relatives taking insane loans or adding costs that were too much to bare. Who should be the one to decide if someone lives or dies? The family or a panel of people who are paid for by taxpayers with healthcare provided by taxpayer dollars.
When my parents die they have already stated quite literally to burn and urn them, no insane bills, or prolonged suffering. When my grandpa died with cancer he only took the pain medication before he died. Why? Because he didn't want to burden anyone in his family.
You best believe if people are going to die they are going to fight tooth and nail to live as long as possible on other peoples dime.
Maybe I'm from an old fashioned family from the Mountains I dunno but to me it just makes sense.
Per boldprogressives.org, 98 percent of Americans will actually see a larger tax increase than some of the richest Americans.
I'll never understand the attitude that because ONE thing in an incredibly complex federal budget equation won't solve the problem all by itself, we should just throw up our hands and give up. There is no single perfect answer, a balanced budget should be reached with a combination of things.
Exactly. The debate has been broken by the use of terminology: "Death Panels" and "rationing" are hard realities but realities nonetheless. People die in the end but the living refuse to sanction that death or even accept its inevitability. Until that happens, the debate is a waste of oxygen.There is a limit to what can be afforded, but that's part of an analysis of healthcare in the context of having a functional system and that is the very last thing being asked for. How much? Who gets it? Who decides? Hard questions that are to be avoided at all political costs.
Tell it to the Senate.
What about the 2% SS Temporary Tax cut expiring?
What about the penalty if you are layed off and have no insurance? Not to mention all those people that took a job somewhere for min wage and have no medical insurance like at wal-mart or wherever? Cant wait to pay that penalty.
Perhaps if you would actually quote what I said rather than stopping the quote after the first bit, you would have understood the point a long time ago. Using your methods, I can contort your post above to say that you said, "The current American system is clearly broken. I think Obamacare... certainly doesn't fix it." See how fun that is? My original statement was as follows:Absolutely, I agree. That was the point I was driving to. Saying it's "impossible to pay for" elderly health care is a pointless and frankly dumb assertion. As you say, the fruitful discussion is what are our constraints and how can we most effectively provide services? Further, as Acanthus touched on, should we shift our priorities to support better health care for more people?
I think the question of how we can provide health care more effectively is especially important, an issue I know you've raised many times before. The current American system is clearly broken. I think Obamacare was a necessary icebreaker, but it certainly doesn't fix it. So, how do we fix it? The rest of industrialized world does so much better overall than we do. How do we get better?
The problem is that healthcare for seniors is not affordable no matter how you approach it. They are getting older, developing chronic diseases, and dying. You can't insure a group of people with those characteristics in an affordable way.
I really don't like the idea of Social Security retirement benefits. I just don't think it's a role the government needs to or should handle - taking money from workers, "investing it" for them, and repaying them in old age. People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. Stick money into a 401k or IRA. The government benefits are basically a forced 401k (with only 85% of withdrawals being taxable vs. 100%) with a guaranteed low returns that step down as your contribution amount goes up. You could probably beat the return with bonds and then you keep all of the overhead of the government out of it. Obviously, the issue with this is that a lot of people will just spend the extra money they see in their paycheck. Is it the government's job to save people from their own poor decisions?
Tell it to the Senate.
What about the 2% SS Temporary Tax cut expiring?
What about the penalty if you are layed off and have no insurance? Not to mention all those people that took a job somewhere for min wage and have no medical insurance like at wal-mart or wherever? Cant wait to pay that penalty.
I agree - to a point. Unfortunately most Americans are completely oblivious to their financial realities. 50% are not saving anything for retirement, 75% have not saved enough, 33% will end up entirely dependent on SS (75% among low wage earners).
It shouldn't be the job of the government but you aren't going to be able to change it until you get less people dependent on it to live
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2012/10/15/17-frightening-facts-about-retirement-savings-in-.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/half-of-americans-are-not-saving-for-retirement_n_1507015.html
I did quote what you said. I quoted the sentence verbatim, and in its entirety. Your real issue is that you said something stupid and you lack the integrity to either stand by it, or better yet, acknowledge it was an absurd, over-the-top assertion so you could move on to something productive.Perhaps if you would actually quote what I said rather than stopping the quote after the first bit,
There is absolutely nothing in the rest of your comment that in any way negates the part I quoted. Instead, the rest is just your moronic straw man, conflating health care with immortality. Nobody (but you) said a single damned word about being able to afford immortality, but that's what you kept attacking rather than support your own words.CycloWizard said:"It's impossible to pay for. Period. Until the zombies among us realize that everyone dies regardless of how much money you throw at their medical care, we can never have a remotely sane discussion about how to fix the current mess. "Death panels" and "rationing" are essential parts of any healthcare system. The only things that will change is what they are called, who is on the panel, and on what basis healthcare is rationed. These are facts. I'm sorry if they do not comport with your opinion but that's your problem not mine."
I understood what you said perfectly well. If what you said is not what you meant, don't blame me for your inability to communicate clearly. Repeating the same sorry straw man over and over certainly did nothing to change what you said.you would have understood the point a long time ago.
Yes, I see how that is, and it's still accurate. Oddly enough, that's because it is what I said. (See how nicely that works, when you use -- or even somewhat misuse -- someone's actual words instead of flopping out some brain-damaged caricature of what you wished others say?) In any case, even though you cut out a section of my remark, the rest still stands nicely on its own. That's the different between us: I say what I mean and I stand by it. You, not so much.Using your methods, I can contort your post above to say that you said, "The current American system is clearly broken. I think Obamacare... certainly doesn't fix it." See how fun that is? My original statement was as follows:
This is such baloney.The problem is that healthcare for seniors is not affordable no matter how you approach it. They are getting older, developing chronic diseases, and dying. You can't insure a group of people with those characteristics in an affordable way.