Social Security Lockbox

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

its a shame that they didnt make it a rule from the get go that money in could only go to ss and medicare. live and learn i guess. that money should never have been part of the general fund.

it's a shame we had slaves but we righted that wrong.

Never too late.

And SSI and Medicaid have no business being included in SS and Medicare!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

it's a shame we had slaves but we righted that wrong.

Never too late.

And SSI and Medicaid have no business being included in SS and Medicare!

medicaid is only partially funded by the feds, it's more a state run program...it's for the indigent, and can't be confused with medicare, which is medical care for the elderly...

dell, on monday, buy a long term care policy. trust me on that one. it beats suicide when you have to go into a raisin ranch after the state takes all your assets...that way you can stay at home when you're old and decrepit, with a young nurse coming to take care of you and the old lady!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

medicaid is only partially funded by the feds, it's more a state run program...it's for the indigent, and can't be confused with medicare, which is medical care for the elderly...!

Medicaid should not be funded with Medicare money just as SSI should not be funded with SS .

This is my point. Seniors should only fear not receiving a check when the SS trust fund balance is approaching zero. It's supposedly at $3 trillion now so where's the money? How people can't see the Ponzi in what has occurred is befuddling?

Then I read a Riot post and realize how gullible some people actually are.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Medicaid should not be funded with Medicare money just as SSI should not be funded with SS .

This is my point. Seniors should only fear not receiving a check when the SS trust fund balance is approaching zero. It's supposedly at $3 trillion now so where's the money? How people can't see the Ponzi in what has occurred is befuddling?

Then I read a Riot post and realize how gullible some people actually are.

i don't know if medicaid comes out of medicare/ss funds...it doesn't really matter, since it's all lumped in one place in d.c. anyway.
and it's medicaid that is about to go thru the roof to pay for obamacare-states portions will rise dramatically over the next 9 years. so, altho the feds might make it look as tho it will save us in fed dollars, it's not going to save us in dollars, as states will have to 'enhance their revenue' to pay their part.


like i said in the other thread, there needs to be serious changes to ss. look at your pay stub, look at how much you pay into ss..do the math, take that sum and multiply for ten years. would that money pay your retirement supplement that they promise you in your ss papers they send to you if you live to 74, (that's the life expectancy of a male in the u.s.) and retired at 65. because ten years is all that's required of you to be 'fully invested' in ss and medicare.
the amount of time required to be fully funded should be tripled or even quadrupled, with appropriate premiums if you're not.

[joeydb]

Look, somebody has just got to get the key for that lockbox from Al Gore. Problem solved.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Look, somebody has just got to get the key for that lockbox from Al Gore. Problem solved.

The Supreme Court has it.

They say they gave it to W.

[Riot]

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay.

I''d guess that most of the people on this list, less than 30 years of age, have very minimal to no self-funded retirement accounts. Social security is a fallback insurance - not intended to be a primary retirement. It's meant only to keep the elderly from starving and being on the street poor, as used to happen.

Medicare needs help, yes. And state Medicaid contributions are terrible (they talked about that when they passed the ACA, what stress the requirements would put on the states, which is why the feds will step in and help alot) But not SS, that is most certainly not in any panic state.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay. .

The Treasury held $70 billion in its account prior to borrowing $2 trillion so it could in part make this month's SS payments. The fact the SS fund holds nothing but IOU's from the Treasury should be a huge wake up call and seniors should never be concerned about receiving a check while SS is funded, especially when its balance is supposedly $3 trillion. The Fed government is sadly incapable of surviving all its giveaways w/o diverting 40% of tax money but it should certainly make an effort to start trying.

I think it prudent in the future to start funding SS with cash. The government should not be allowed to touch SS taxes for anything (including Cash for Clunkers) but for making SS payments period! Shame on Washington for 'borrowing' the seniors' retirement accounts on a promise. And this is as much the fault of republicans as it is the dems.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The Treasury held $70 billion in its account prior to borrowing $2 trillion so it could in part make this month's SS payments. The fact the SS fund holds nothing but IOU's from the Treasury should be a huge wake up call and seniors should never be concerned about receiving a check while SS is funded, especially when its balance is supposedly $3 trillion.

Nonsense. No Senior has to worry about receiving anything less than full payment through 2037. And 78% after that. But we'll fix it. We've made multiple adjustments over the years, just need another.

And it's been that way for some time. Strange the sudden fixation on Social Security when none is needed.

The only reason to worry about making tomorrows payment was the ridiculous kabuki of "oh noes, don't borrow for the cash flow!"

Fortunately for this country, Joey's "ostriches" had alot more than a pea-brain, and prevailed.

When we need money, we sell some of those Treasuries off. You realize that's how Social Security earns additional interest money while sitting there, right? We will not put that money into a dangerous, volitile stock market market. It's against the law to risk it that way (good thing, as it would have lost 1/3 of it's value in the past decade!) It's safe in the safest bonds in the world.

And you do realize, that if Social Security were indeed "cash" in a lockbox, it would be immediately loaned to us in bonds to earn that interest, right? It really wouldn't - could not - remain "cash" sitting in a safe somewheres? Social Security monies by law have to earn interest?

I'm not saying it's right Congress raided it in the past, it was not. But it's certainly not a disaster or non-payment threat as you falsely imply.

The Fed government is sadly incapable of surviving all its giveaways w/o diverting 40% of tax money but it should certainly make an effort to start trying.

I agree. And getting our income back up to full-time is the first thing we should do. Trying to hang back and work at 70%, while spending at greater than 100% these past 10 years, obviously doesn't work.

We've been worse off before, and been able to financially do just fine. We'll do it again - if adults who can do math prevail. It's easy: 14% GDP income, 25% GDP spending: raise the first, lower the second, make them both about 20%

I think it's prudent in the future to start funding SS with cash, yes. But remember that we do not have any trouble cashing in our bonds and paying ourselves back at all, and don't anticipate a problem for over 25 years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay.

I''d guess that most of the people on this list, less than 30 years of age, have very minimal to no self-funded retirement accounts. Social security is a fallback insurance - not intended to be a primary retirement. It's meant only to keep the elderly from starving and being on the street poor, as used to happen.

Medicare needs help, yes. And state Medicaid contributions are terrible (they talked about that when they passed the ACA, what stress the requirements would put on the states, which is why the feds will step in and help alot) But not SS, that is most certainly not in any panic state.

medicare is ss. it's all funded by your social security payments. payments to ss need to increase, the number of credits required to be 'fully vested' need to increase. the program needs an overhaul. amounts sent in, age to collect, etc. and the money needs to remain in ss from now on, for only the programs it's intended to pay for. iou's don't mean squat, and pay for nothing. of course, when the govt borrows from itself, it doesn't have to pay interest, include it in the debt, etc
medicaid is fed and state funded. and it's about to break the states. those requirements from the ACA grow dramatically over the next few years. the states are filing suits because it's a tax passed on to them by the fed, who is trying to trumpet medicare savings as a great thing...it's just passing the buck. well, the bill in this case.
as for ss and the 'little tweak', that hot potato keeps getting passed along, no one wants to touch it. but you cling to that fiction that it's nothing to worry about- it's a huge worry. defense is over 20% of the federal budget, it's a huge expense. but entitlements are higher than that budget, and growing by the day. by waiting to do what's needed, the problem only grows.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

medicare is ss. it's all funded by your social security payments. payments to ss need to increase, the number of credits required to be 'fully vested' need to increase. the program needs an overhaul.

Social security monies and Medicare monies are kept separately, though, each is an independent percentage of FICA.

Again, the only change I would make is raising the cap to $250,000. No need to raise the age if that is done. No "overhaul" needed, just a tweak. People in America work longer than other countries to get to retirement already.

It's really physically hard for alot of 67 year old people to work, even if they do have an office job. If they are laid off after 55, good luck ever finding a job again. Why make elder poverty worse? Let's make it better, let's make less of it.

Again, I see no need to change the qualification credits. Although everyone is "fully vested" after 10 years of nonstop work, they are not all paid the same at retirement, because that depends upon your individual income.