Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform...?

[SnoopDog]

So Obama wants to ‘bargain’ on Social Security and Medicare ‘entitlements’?

Bargain? Let’s all be very clear here… Americans PAY for Social Security and Medicare thru direct payroll deductions. (And, thanks employers for the mandated matching portion).

This is OUR money and we do not need to ‘bargain’.

Social Security is the most successful, longest running program ever in our history. Social Security is funded thru 2020 (at least).

We need to fix Social Security? – Sure, just remove the Social Security Wages cap.

But, no, they need to ‘address’ Social Security because our Government has been raiding OUR funds for decades. They just don’t want to pay US back.

And I am tired and INSULTED by their use of the word “entitlements’. Americans PAY for this program directly, with our own money (and thanks employers for their matching funds). They have bastardized the word ‘entitlements’ to be a pejorative. We bought and paid for our socialized retirement plan.

We need to INFORM President Obama that the only bargaining on Social Security is to make more money available per month to our Seniors and Disabled and to lower the date that SS is available to retirees. We need to INFORM President Obama that the ‘fix’ for Social Security is to remove the caps on wages. We need to INFORM President Obama to start paying back the money the government ‘borrowed’ from US.

Folks, don’t think for one second that a President, a Democratic President, our President Obama, along with our wimpy Democrats in Congress, won’t try to destroy Social Security just because our country’s economy is in the tank.

Let us all remember that it was FDR during the Great Republican Depression of the 1930’s that brought is Social Security. The second Great Republican Depression of 2008 is no reason to destroy Social Security.

……………………..

Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform
President-Elect Says He'll Reshape Social Security, Medicare Programs

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009; Page A01


President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

That discussion will begin next month, Obama said, when he convenes a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.

<more>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html?hpid=topnews

[ellacott]

1. Why do you just assume that this means cuts to the program

I don't understand why folks are getting so upset.

[SnoopDog]

3. Not upset there ellacott...

Might I remind everyone here that we, as Americans, always need to voice our opinions.

Obama brought the topic of Social Security up, and we need to REMIND Obama of our opinions on Social Security.

If nobody says anything, well, they will think they can do anything they want including wrecking SS.

[ellacott]

9. But why are you assuming that he's going to wreck SS?

That's my question. I've heard him talk about reforms he would like to see with SS and Medicare and it doesn't involve cutting benefits or taking money from the recipients.

It's so puzzling that you all would automatically assume he plans to wreck the system.

[Fire1]

58. It might be the term, 'bargain.' That usually means some form

of 'negotiation.' The speculation that he wants to negotiate with 'our' money sounds almost fraudulent.

[avaistheone1]

48. I hope Obama starts at the top w the entitlements to Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sachs

et al.

I am furious of the banksters robbing us blind.

[bertman]

70. Standing ovation for avaistheone1!!! Thank you so much for that.

[truedelphi]

75. Nah at least one or several of the entities that you named are paying for the

Inaugural Festivities. With our BailOut monies, no doubt.

Sad but true.

[MaraJade]

98. It does mean cuts to the program. . .

If the rate of Medicare copayments increases, people like my mom could see dramatic
drops in their income. It is not a simple matter when nearly a third of your income
disappears.

Most people under age 50 don't understand, but if you had to depend on a slender pension
and Social Security to live and your monthly income was only about $1400, being asked to pay
$300 per month for Medicare as opposed to paying $150 per month is going to hurt badly.

[shraby]

2. He definitely needs to inform us exactly what

is meant by "entitlement reform". He promised transparency and this needs to be "transparented".

[polmaven]

26. Yes, he does...

but we should at least wait until we hear exactly what his proposals are before we start assuming the worst.

[EndElectoral]

4. Excellent post...with all the crap going on, why is Obama focusing on this right off the bat!

[Aloha Spirit]

11. He will have to deal with the budget as soon as he gets into office.

Medicare expenditures were 16% of the federal budget in 2007, and it most likely was in the red for 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Costs_and_funding_challenges

[slinkerwink]

91. it's been because it's what the Republicans are telling him he needs to focus on

It's in a Politico article about his outreach to the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats.

[olkaz]

5. Say what you will, Americans are living longer, time to raise the age of elgibility.

People are using the benefits for muuuuuuch longer than was originally intended.

Raise the age.

[MoonRiver]

49. Americans may be living longer, but what is their quality of life?

Not many past age 70 are capable of full time work. Many past 65 can't work full time. Working to survive as in the Middle Ages will send them to an early grave. But of course that would reduce their life span and solve your problem.

[Fire1]

60. I think you mean LOWER the age of eligibility!!!!

[WinkyDink]

84. Spoken like a young person!

[WinkyDink]

85. (Duplicate!)

[grantcart]

6. because Americans pay for the program they are 'entitled' to it

I don't see your linguistic problem.


While it is true we all pay into Social Security, it is also true that those payments were enough to fund current retirees and that our retirement will be paid by the next generation, creating a cross generation committment.

When initiated the average age of death for a factory worker was in his 60s, so the fund would only pay those that beat the system and their beneficiaries.

As the number of years in retirement and the number of people receiving the benefit increase the math changes.

Up until now ever single politician has bull shitted us about the math.

The benefits that you (or more specifically the seniors) 'bought and paid' for would last only a few years in retirement, hence the need for every generation to fund the benefits of the one before it.

Obama's statement of raising the ceiling of contributions is the boldest of any national politician and will make a substantial impact on the plan.


I am interested in hearing his complete statement and reviewing the numbers carefully.

INFORMING Obama about what he should be doing about this before he has layed out exactly what he intends is well . . .

[TTUBatfan2008]

7. I think SS is unfair...

My generation is getting screwed on this (I'm 23 in case you're wondering). Our grandparents had a ton of kids but our parents didn't. There's 5 times as many Baby Boomers as there are Gen. X and Yers. And yet they want us to pay for them because they paid for their parents. The problem with this is that there were more of them than there were of their parents, whereas now there's less children to pay for the parents. It's not right that we're having such a huge burden shifted onto us.

[SnoopDog]

10. No, your generation is NOT getting screwed because...

when you retire, you will receive Social Security as well.

This program has been working quite well for 70 years.

[TTUBatfan2008]

13. Yes, we are getting screwed...

We're going to pay more into the system than any other generation and something tells me we'll get less in return for it than the previous generations. For all I know, it'll be done away with entirely by the time I'm of retirement age. And that, to me, is what I call getting screwed big time.

[SnoopDog]

15. But you, personally, are paying the same amount as I am...

Unless they raise the payroll tax percentage like President Reagun did.

Why do you feel the need to use the collective "we're going to pay'?

And as a baby boomer myself, with Reagan's SS increase, I paid for the previous generation's SS and I am paying for my own SS.

With no complaints by the way...

[TTUBatfan2008]

19. It's going to have to be raised...

when you have such a population gap between the two generations.

[avaistheone1]

53. UNTRUE. You are NOT going to pay more than any generation into the system.

The boomer generation has paid more into the Social Security system than any generation so far.
The boomer generation has paid for most of their parents generation's retirement, as well as paying for approximately 70 to 75% of their own retirement. The boomers have been the only generation to pay for 2 generations retirement - that is completely unparalleled in history.

You will never pay that much. You will pay tops 25% to 30% for the boomer generation which is pretty cheap compared to the boomers. Remember, social security is a system where you pay for the generation ahead of you. So despite all the republican fear mongering you are getting off cheap.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Thoughts of the zero-experience crowd noted.

[cottonseed]

34. Comments like this is why boomers will be given little sympathy in the coming decades.

With an average savings of maybe 30k to get you through another 20/30+ years of retirement, this most expectant of generations sure does have some attitude. Later generations will take care of you, don't worry about that, but at least have the good sense to say thank you and then shut up.

[BlooInBloo]

37. (facepalm)

I'm in my 30s, fool.

:rofl:

[cottonseed]

52. So am I.

You slammed the commenter as if you were a pissed off boomer.

[avaistheone1]

57. Sssh. Don't be so green behind the ears. The boomers have contributed the MOST to Social Security.

The boomer generation has paid more into the Social Security system than any generation so far.
The boomer generation has paid for most of their parents generation's retirement, as well as paying for approximately 70 to 75% of their own retirement. The boomers have been the only generation to pay for 2 generations retirement - that is completely unparalleled in history.

You will never pay that much. You will pay tops 25% to 30% for the boomer generation which is pretty cheap compared to the boomers. Remember, social security is an insurance system where you pay for the generation ahead of you. So despite all the republican fear mongering you are getting off cheap.

And while you diss the boomer generation. Remember this is the generation who ushered in the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the environmental movement. The boomers are the ones who fought a thankless war in Vietnam. The boomers were also escorted out the doors of good paying jobs in our corporations and in our factories while their jobs were offshored starting some 20 years ago. There was no vetting of their pensions then. Bye, bye retirement dollars. So pardon them as they paid to take care of your generation's college education and nursed their elderly parents. Many of the boomers let their children stay under their roofs, housed and clothed your generation into your thirties. It is amazing to me that they have even $30k left for retirement after an ungrateful generation like yours who have assumed and taken so much from them.

[cottonseed]

65. Please.

The first paragraph is fun with numbers. We know that you don't "pay in" to social security. You actually pointed that out yourself, "an insurance system where you pay for the generation ahead of you". The shear size of the boomer generation is the reason they've paid the most -- not from any sense of goodwill or obligation.

Now, as far as ushering in the civil rights movement, women's movement, and environmental movement -- I'm not so sure about that. Unless government was held by 20 year olds in the 50s and 60s I'd give that one to the generation before you. Unless of course by "usher in" you mean co-opting.

What they did manage to "usher in" is the destruction of the manufacturing base in this country, the rise to power of global corporate interests and a race to the bottom for middle class living standards. I can't think of a bridge, damn, highway system, or any other type of hard infrastructure project they were able to manage.

I'm sorry that you think this post-boomer generation is ungrateful. I think the best reason for that is that after surveying what's left, there's not much to be grateful for.

[bertman]

71. Thank you for grossly oversimplifying, cottonseed.

Those of us born between 1945 and 1964 were and still are big players in the women's movement and the environmental movement. We were not the leaders of the civil rights movement but many of us marched as individuals and with our parents to protest the racial inequality in the U.S.

The destruction of the manufacturing base began in the immediate aftermath of WWII when the U.S. helped to rebuild Europe and Japan. The revitalized nations were rebuilt with state-of-the-art industrial technology that immediately began to compete with the older technology we employed in the U.S. And as the U.S. was spending trillions on its nuclear arsenal and military standoff with the Soviet Union these other economies were building up their domestic industries under our protection. You may be surprised to learn that the hegemony of American and international corporations began even before WWII and was being spread across the planet before most boomers reached puberty. None other than President Eisenhower recognized the looming specter of the military-industrial complex and tried to warn us of the consequences during the later years of his administration, which ended in 1961.

The "race to the bottom for middle class living standards" began during the Reagan years as union-busting became epidemic. And while we boomers do certainly bear some share of the blame for the Republican resurgence since Reagan took office, let's also mention that the generations before us and those after us also participated equally in enabling the corporatists in their raid on the U.S. Treasury that continued unabated even until today.

I couldn't disagree with you more about the infrastructure of the country being poorly managed by boomers. Had we not done our work those bridges, dams, highways, airports, seaports, etc. would have self-destructed well before now. As it is, they have withstood a booming onslaught of population growth, sprawling metropolises, and ever-increasing usage, and until just recently had not shown the effects of the "smaller government--don't tax me" policies of the post-Reagan voting patterns.

Perhaps what the post-boomer generation should be pissed about is how a majority of voting age Americans of ALL generations since 1945 has allowed the "smaller government--don't tax me" crowd to bamboozle us into giving them increasingly more control of our government. You cannot legitimately blame only us boomers for that epic failure of participatory government.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Well as a 21 year old I think he's dead wrong

I just think we should make the payroll tax progressive because I'd rather pay more in payroll taxes when I'm making more money later in life rather than paying more when I'm just starting out. But either way it's a vital social safety net and I am more than happy to contribute to it so that it will be there for me in my old age.

[MaraJade]

99. The answer is. . .

take in your elderly parents. House them and feed them and take care of them they way
they took care of you, and we won't need Social Security anymore.

[Aloha Spirit]

8. To clarify for others: as far as I can tell, Obama does not refer to SS as an entitlement.

I read the article and and am listening to the WaPo meeting. In the article, he says SS will be easy to fix, that Medicare is where the sacrifice and tough decisions will occur.
This is predictable, particularly considering the statements and research of his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, from his time at the Congressional Budget Office.

[SnoopDog]

14. As I said, the word 'entitlement' has been demonized by...

...republicans and the press. I hope Obama does not refer to SS as an entitlement... I wish we could think of a better word. Or not ever lump
Social Security into the category of 'entitlement'.

[Occam Bandage]

24. No, it hasn't. "Entitlement" is the appropriate word.

It's the word for citizen-directed spending the government must provide, because citizens are entitled to it. You're tilting at windmills.

[Thrill]

12. It does need to be reformed. Why is this a surprise?

[suston96]

31. Why does it need to be reformed? What's broken or deformed about it? nt

[Thrill]

32. It pays out more than it takes in and people are living longer

[suston96]

35. There is a 2 trillion dollar surplus in the Trust Accounts. It will take a while for a deficit ....

The "reform" that is needed is to fix the economy and replace the jobs lost just last year - 2.5 million jobs......

....and create the new jobs needed for the new workers who are entering the work force at 140,000 per month.

It isn't the entitlement recipients causing problems. It is the crapped out economy and lost jobs that people want to avoid looking at and addressing.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

[Aloha Spirit]

38. SS is forecast to go "bankrupt" in 30 years. Obama and economists agree (with you) that SS is not

much of an issue, in the sense that it will be easy to get SS back on the right track to avoid problems down the road.
So, I guess I would say that Obama and his team are on the same page as you that job creation is more critical and requires more attention than SS reform, from what I've read recently.

[suston96]

40. Thanks. I would like to hear or see President Obama continue to emphasize job growth.....

...add health care to the mix and we have a great start to his administration.

[bottomtheweaver]

73. No, the SSA trust funds are growing, not shrinking.

They're also collecting interest, and there are many millions of undocumented workers who pay into the system and won't be able to collect benifits -- 3.6 million in 1990, 7 million in 1998, who knows how many more now:

UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS PAY MILLIONS IN FEDERAL TAXES
http://www.visalaw.com/01apr3/15apr301.html

And while it's hard to find exact figures on the trust funds since the SSA decided to stop being honest in 2004 (that's another story), but the figure they provided for the 2007 surplus was $2,238,500 million, or $2.3 trillion, and growing:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

Most estimates put the current figure around $2.4 trillion. And a table on the SSA web site shows that while they were still making projections, the surplus was projected to PEAK -- not become exhausted -- around 2017:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/ssa2000chapter3.html

[BlooInBloo]

16. Clearly Obama has betrayed us.

[Zynx]

55. I pray you are being sarcastic.

[Occam Bandage]

18. He's given no indication whatsoever that he's planning benefit cuts. Stop the wolf-crying. nt

[SnoopDog]

20. So we are all just to keep quiet?

Voicing our opinions and concerns NOW will, hopefully, direct his policy.

Get it? Democracy in action? The will of the People n'stuff?

[Aloha Spirit]

22. I think what people find presumptuous is the part where you say you need to inform (in capitals)

Obama of several principles related to these programs.
As the interview demonstrates very well--and thank you very much for posting it--Obama is very well-aware of the need to protect these programs, in the sense that protecting these programs means making sure they don't become insolvent.

[Occam Bandage]

23. You don't need to mislead in order to speak.

If the only voice you have is a deceptive one, try finding another voice.

[SnoopDog]

25. I always find it fascinating when..

one DU Poster dictates how another DU Poster is supposed to write their post...

Ever think that 'you' don't 'get it".

But, seriously, thanks for your input...

[Occam Bandage]

27. You're right. I "don't get" why you believe that "Democracy in action" requires you to mislead.

[stillcool]

97. According to the article..

I don't understand where the 'cut benefits' comes from. Is there something I'm missing?

Five days before taking office, Obama was careful not to outline specific fixes for Social Security and Medicare, refusing to endorse either a new blue-ribbon commission or the concept of submitting an overhaul plan to Congress that would be subject only to an up-or-down vote, similar to the one used to reach agreement on the closure of military bases.

But the president-elect exuded confidence that his economic team will succeed where others have not.

"Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

[avaistheone1]

56. Obama has a very good and fair plan to take care of Social Security

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

"That is the option that I will be pushing forward."

Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from paying more in taxes, he said.


{i} I think Obama's idea is good and very fair, and really isn't going to hurt anyone in that income bracket.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-11-obama-social-security_N.htm

[wyldwolf]

21. pg. 157 of "The Audacity of Hope" where he says...

not every government program worked the way it was advertised. Some functions could be better carried out by the private sector.

also...page 183:

"Former Clinton economic advisor Gene Sperling has suggested the creation of a Universal 401(K), in which the government would match contributions made into a new retirement account by low and moderate-low income famlies. Other experts have suggested the simple (and cost free) step of having employees automatically enroll their employees in their 401(k) plans at the maximum allowable level; people could still choose to contribute less than the maximum or not participate at all, but evidece shows that by changing the default rule, employee participation rates go up dramatically. As a complement to Social Security, we should take the best and most affordable of these ideas and begin moving toward a beefed-up, universally available pension system that not only promotes savings but gives all Americans a bigger stake in the fruits of globalization."

That's a DLC plan, and some believe (I don't) it's a step towards towards privatizing SS.

[MessiahRp]

33. Yes because after seeing how 401Ks went for many people this year,

We should be investing Social Security money into these as well. And when everyone loses their ass there will be a lot of brokerages whose top execs made their money and ran... glad to see we're helping those who really need it.

Rp

[flpoljunkie]

28. Getting a handle on Medicare is a must for universal health care that works

Evidently Obama linked Medicare reform to universal health care in his just finished speech at a plant in Ohio, according to MSNBC's pundits on Andrea Mitchell's show.

I read the transcript and I don't see this reference, but I think it is widely understood that the problem is not Social Security, it is Medicare, and the need for universal health coverage that is affordable. The price for health care coverage has almost doubled since Bush took office. This ought not be acceptable in our country--the richest in the world.

[Radical Activist]

29. zOMG a buzzword!

Extrapolate and overreact!!!

Since when did everyone at DU love Bush's changes to Medicare?

[EraOfResponsibility]

30. Just don't mess with my disability, man. That's all I'm saying.

I don't care what else Obama does, just do not fuck with my disability.

[AllentownJake]

36. Start with PART D...that is a disaster.

[BzaDem]

39. Sorry to INFORM you, but your denial doesn't change the fact that SS needs to be reformed.

It's just a simple matter of mathematics. When a program is putting out more money than it takes in, at an increasing rate, the program is unsustainable in the long term. You could talk about surplusses and this and that till the cows come home, but if it keeps putting out more money than it takes in, it will eventually run out.

Now, I think Obama is much more inclined to fix this problem through proposals like raising the wage cap (or other methods of taking more money in instead of cutting the money it pays out). But while I certainly hope Obama proposes SS reform that raises inputs instead of lowering outputs, a "Grand Bargain" would mean that "everyone" would sacrifice some, not "everyone but SnoopDog."

[suston96]

41. You are wrong. Inputs outnumber outputs....look at the facts....

There is a 2.366 trillion dollar surplus in the Trust Accounts. It will take a while for a deficit to occur ....

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html

Where is your proof that the program is putting out more than it takes in?

[suston96]

42. You are wrong - the program has recorded surpluses as indicated.......

Social Security Online Trust Fund Data

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, Fiscal Years 1977-2008

Fiscalyear Totalreceipts Total expenditures AssetsNet increase during year 1 Amount at end of year
1977 $81,170 $85,068 -$3,898 $39,615
1978 89,595 93,861 -4,265 35,350
1979 102,090 104,073 -1,983 33,367
1980 117,428 118,548 -1,121 32,246
1981 134,565 139,585 -5,019 27,226
1982 148,028 155,964 -7,936 19,290
1983 170,280 170,058 12,660 31,950
1984 178,461 178,199 262 32,212
1985 197,865 188,504 7,538 39,750
1986 215,461 198,730 6,117 45,867
1987 226,893 207,323 19,570 65,437
1988 258,090 219,290 38,800 104,237
1989 284,936 232,491 52,445 156,682
1990 306,822 248,605 58,217 214,900
1991 322,611 269,096 53,515 268,415
1992 338,270 287,524 50,746 319,161
1993 351,354 304,566 46,788 365,949
1994 376,307 319,551 56,757 422,706
1995 396,276 335,830 60,446 483,152
1996 416,064 349,654 66,410 549,562
1997 446,553 365,238 81,316 630,878
1998 478,608 379,291 99,318 730,195
1999 514,731 390,019 124,712 854,908
2000 561,251 409,404 151,847 1,006,754
2001 595,913 432,926 162,987 1,169,741
2002 614,977 455,910 159,067 1,328,808
2003 630,253 474,721 155,532 1,484,340
2004 646,628 495,525 151,103 1,635,443
2005 696,757 523,279 173,478 1,808,922
2006 733,728 548,492 185,237 1,994,158
2007 771,772 585,311 186,461 2,180,619
2008 802,689 617,017 185,672 2,366,291

If you are really interested go to the link I provided and see a clearer graph.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html

[BzaDem]

43. I never said it was out of money right now.

I said IF a program puts out more money than it takes in, it will eventually be unsustainable. And I don't think many dispute that when the baby boomer generation retires, it will start putting out more money than it takes in.

The fact that the trust fund currently has a surplus just reflects that this problem was not a problem in the past, not that it won't be a problem in the future.

[Samantha]

44. It won't be a problem until 2042

according to Al Gore. He made this statement a couple of years ago. Since he is a babyboomer, I am sure he is aware of the approaching wave of retirements.

Sam

[Zynx]

47. It starts running a deficit in 2018. At that point the General Fund has to start paying back

the money it has borrowed from Social Security. I doubt the General Fund will be in the shape it needs to be to do that.

[bottomtheweaver]

59. Even if that were so, which I doubt, that's what the trust fund is FOR.

That's not a "problem" requiring fixing, but as I say, I doubt if the trust fund will do anything but balloon until some lucky puke finally figures out a way to wreck SSI.

[Zynx]

78. That 2018-2020 window is a number even liberal economists who love Social Security

agree on. We can predict a decade's worth of payroll tax fairly accurately. I assure you that this recession will make that inflection point even more likely.

I have to clarify what the trust fund is. The trust fund is money owed to Social Security by the General Fund. That's all it is. It's not a cash account we can draw from. It is a series of obligations built up over many years. The net effect will be to balloon the General Fund deficit in all of those years out there.

Even if you deny the problem with Social Security, which isn't really a big one, Medicare is undeniably poorly funded and on a track to ruin the budget. There is no doubt there.

[bottomtheweaver]

82. No, that's not what "trust fund" is. That's what Bushler says it is.

There are two trust funds, OASI and DI, which have both been growing steadily since Reagan "fixed" SSA in the 80s by increasing the payroll tax. The funds are held in US Treasury bills and are redeemable just as all bonds are. The fact that the US has been running up debt like a clueless freshman is another matter entirely. Yes, the US will have to honor its debts, but that isn't SSA's problem. The SSA has already paid for itself and more. You want to steal the surplus to avoid raising your taxes? Fine, so does Bush. Now try to run that by Congress and see how it flies.

[suston96]

46. What the surplus reflects very clearly is that jobs and jobs growth will sustain any further....

...demands placed on the system as the boomers and the rest retire.

This nation needs a growing economy reflected in job growth for a number of reasons with Social Security and Medicare being some of the least of those reasons.

How many non-working adults can the nation financially or sociologically sustain - in other words, what will these people do? How will they feed, clothe, and house themselves?

Grow the economy and the jobs and quit the finger pointing to the Social Security and Medicare entitlements as the cause of all the economic problems in this country.

What incredible bullshit!

[BzaDem]

51. You pretending I said Social Security is the cause of all problems = incredible bullshit

When people start making things up like this, you know they don't have an argument.

Right now, unemployment is about 7.2%. You are saying that when we return to full employment (5% unemployment or less), all of the major problems facing Social Security will be solved?

I hate it when debates about the future of Social Security turn into a debate about whether to face reality or use false rhetoric to ignore it.

[suston96]

61. There are no major problems facing Social Security......

....only for those who do not want to face the major problems of the economy and loss of jobs.

And yes, when jobs revert to under 4% and when the 140,000 new workers each month have jobs, Social Security and Medicare will have even greater surpluses than the 2.66 trillion they have now.

Barack Obama had better get away from this "reshaping Social Security and Medicare" bullshit and he had better concentrate on the economy and job creation or he will have huge problems with his, uh - emerging legacy.

[BzaDem]

62. Luckily, Obama is ignoring the reality-deniers

who claim that a surplus based upon past performance indicates there are no problems with future sustainability.

Have fun whining about it. I'm sure he is very afraid about the problems with his legacy that you will cause him.

[suston96]

64. Future sustainability will depend on a growing economy and ,,,,,

......jobs at that 4% or even 5% unemployment level.

That means that all new workers at the 140,000 per month level will have jobs.

Looks good for surpluses well into when most of the boomers will be gone and their one and a half children per family will be collecting for themselves.

[Zynx]

81. I trust CBO's projections on this more than you.

That's simply not true. Also, 4% unemployment probably can't be reached until, maybe, 2015. It will take a long time to bring unemployment all of the way down from where it will top out, likely in the beginning of 2010. Even with normal growth rates until the 2040s and around 5.4% average unemployment, which is pretty likely, the system runs out of money. That unemployment average is historically readily observed. 4% on average has never and will never happen.

[bottomtheweaver]

83. The outfit that still hasn't decided if the US is in a recession?

Good luck with that.

[Zynx]

87. If you read the most recent CBO report they forecast a 2.2% GDP contraction next year.

They also described the current environment as a recession. Their reports only come out at set intervals so if you are blaming them for not being more proactive it has to do with the administrative rules of the agency. Nothing else.

[suston96]

89. The trustees of the funds also predict problems. In fact, I do also......

The sources of funds for both programs - Social Security and Medicare are wage deductions matched by employer's contributions.

That means that as long as there is full or near full employment there will always be more, much more coming in than there is going out.

Social Security and Medicare payments stop when a recipient dies. They are not like life insurance where there is a lump sum payment.

I repeat what I have been saying all along: As long as the economy and jobs grow with the population increases there will be surpluses indefinitely.

The proponents of "fixing Social Security and Medicare" are those who want to appease people by pointing to entitlements as a huge drain on the economy. This is bullshit.

The solution is about fixing whatever ails that economy - canceling those tax cuts, ending those bloodsucking wars and restoring lost jobs and creating new ones.

Unless these things are done, Social Security and Medicare and all entitlements - paid for and earned by workers all of their lives - will not be the only things in trouble. The national currency and anything else connected to economic collapse will certainly follow.

Pointing to nebulous problems with entitlements that will cause the sky to fall somewhere in the future continues to be the bullshit that it was during the campaign and that it is now.

Sing a different dirge. The words to this one are bullshit!

[MoonRiver]

50. I have NO idea what he's planning to do.

But * with a Repuke Congress couldn't touch SS, so I doubt Obama can, even if he wants to, which I doubt.

[Zynx]

54. All he's probably going to do is raise the cap a little, dick around with the benefit formula a bit

and beyond that probably nothing. It's what his new head of OMB proposed. I suspect that's what it is.

[MoonRiver]

68. He needs to tip toe around this issue.

Baby boomers, like me, who have paid into SS for decades will not tolerate reducing our benefits OR increasing the age at which we can collect benefits. We may live longer, but that doesn't mean we are physically able to work our fingers to the bone to barely survive because SS has been raided by war mongers. :mad:

[bottomtheweaver]

63. SS is massively overfunded AND self-funded and is in no need of any "fix."

Puke lies to the contrary, SSI is successful and healthy, and has been racking up a huge surplus (2.4 trillion and growing) since the last time it was "fixed" in the 80s.

Of all the problems on Obama's plate, SSI is not one of them and I don't understand why he's pretending it is.

From a February 28, 2005 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Minority Office report:

The documents reveal that the Social Security Administration has markedly changed its communications to the public over the last four years.

Taken together, these changes — some subtle and others obvious — call into question the agency’s independence.

While estimates of Social Security’s long-term solvency have improved over the last four years, the Social Security Administration’s rhetoric has moved in the opposite direction.

Public assurances that the Social Security system faces “no immediate crisis” have been eliminated from agency presentations, and descriptions of the role Social Security plays in keeping seniors “out of poverty” have been dropped.

In their place, the agency now repeatedly warns that Social Security is “unsustainable” and “underfinanced” and “must change.”

more: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=802

[JeanGrey]

66. Please explain to us why, then, Obama has to

"dick" with it?

[bottomtheweaver]

67. He doesn't, and I don't know why he's saying he does.

It's truly mystifying. :shrug:

[JeanGrey]

93. Apparently he knows something we don't know.

Otherwise have we elected someone who is daft?

[stillcool]

95. Perhaps this might help..from th article..

"Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

[Zynx]

77. There is a difference between the situation now and 30 years from now.

Hell, in just ten years, it will be cash-flow negative. Then we start drawing down the money the rest of the budget has borrowed from it. That will have to be paid by current tax dollars at the time. That's an unappetizing proposition. It's not fair, but it's a reality.

[bottomtheweaver]

80. Look, the trust funds are enormous and GROWING.

Social Security is as healthy as a prize pig and no fixes are needed. The SSA has apparently stopped publishing future projections but the 2007 surplus was $2.3 trillion and growing:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

On top of that, tens of millions of workers pay into the system who won't get benefits because they use false numbers:

http://www.visalaw.com/01apr3/15apr301.html

As to the alleged "crisis," Congress concluded in 2005 that "estimates of Social Security’s long-term solvency have improved over the last four years" and that the Bush-era SSA is basically lying:

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=802

As to the money "borrowed" by the the general fund, THAT is the problem for Obama needs to fix. The money was paid by workers into the SSA trust funds and the T-bills belong to SSA. The US deficit is another problem entirely, unrelated to SSA, but I would suggest starting with the trillions of dollars squandered annually in military spending, which, unlilke SSA, is an unfunded and unsustainable liability.

[Zynx]

86. The basic issue is this: Social Security's share of GDP it takes in is fairly constant.

It's right around 6.4% of GDP. The projected payments, we can quibble about the exact dates, will eventually reach around the mid 7% range. That is a gap that will exist unless some tweaks are made. It isn't a big deal at the moment because of the changes we made back in the 1980s that were designed to keep Social Security in good shape well through the 21st century. They have. None of the estimates of Social Security revenue I saw ten years ago are all that different than what we are seeing now. These surpluses we enjoy today we predicted a while ago. The deficits in the future were similarly predicted and will occur.

Look, the long term economic picture is difficult to predict. We could continue growing at a 3-4% rate as we have post-WWII in most circumstances. We could shift lower to a 2-2.5% growth rate. If it is the latter, Social Security will certainly deplete the trust fund. If it is the former, it might not quite get there. It's a significant chance to run compared to how insignificantly we have to tweak the system. It does not require any drastic reforms, just minor budget closing tweaks.

Medicare, on the other hand, is completely insolvent in the long run and there is no question about that.

[bottomtheweaver]

88. The last projections were that the SSA surplus would PEAK in 2024.

That was in 2000, and after that the SSA stopped making projections:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/ssa2000chapter3.html

That's "peak," not disappear of become depleted. PEAK. And that was a projection eight years ago. If the projections had deteriorated since then you better believe SSA would be trumpeting the figures.

To conclude, SSA is fit as a fiddle and any claims to the contrary are false and misleading. If you want to talk about Medicare, fine, talk about Medicare, but pretending SSA needs "hard decisions" made about it is a big fat RW lie.

[SnoopDog]

69. I reread my post tonight…

And I stand by my words, as I believe they are spot on…

I really was focusing on Social Security. With Medicare, all we need to do is to implement Single Payer Healthcare and Medicare, VA healthcare, and our healthcare would all fall underneath what our Founders would have wanted – Single Payer Universal Healthcare.

Social Security IS the most successful social and needed American program ever. It was implemented by FDR to provide dignity and honor and support to our retirees and the disabled to be able to provide some funds for their continuing survival in their later years.

From the article, President Elect Obama used the word ‘bargain with Americans' – well I strongly and adamantly think and mandate that Social Security is not to be Bargained with. It is my money, your money, and thanks employers for the matching funds. It is NOT government spending except for the 3 percent needed for the administration to which I say thank you. Why is it not government spending? – because IT IS OUR MONEY.

I am not ‘wolf crying’ what ever that means. I am doing one of the most patriotic duties of the American citizen – I am voicing my opinion, my single instance of my right to ‘petition’.

It was and is my intention of my post to, yes INFORM, President Elect Obama and my friends here at DU what I think about Social Security. I offered the good and what was wrong with SS and what to do about it. And I neglected to offer one more solution to the ‘problem’ of SS and that is to PUT AMERICANS BACK TO WORK so more funding occurs. And I offered the solution of removing the Cap.

And our Government needs to repay the money they borrowed from us.

Have you noticed that any funding that helps the RICH is implemented without any problem – but heaven forbid the Citizens of America are given the socialize retirement plan that the citizens pay for…

Please…don’t bitch at my post for wanting and demanding that Social Security remains inplace and fully funded and operational.

[ecstatic]

72. Maybe rich people like McCain should be removed from the Medicare/SS rolls?

:shrug:

[boppers]

76. That was going to be my point, as well.

McCain's freaking rich, but "entitled" to, what, $16,000 dollars a year in benefits?

I think we need reform, to remove *everybody* from the rolls who is already making more than, say, the median American wage, minus their Medicaid/Medicare medical costs. (Sorry, no designer medicine, you get what we get).

Perhaps we could label them "entitlement queens", since "<stupid word here> queens" seems to sell well.

Who knows, it might inspire people who currently living quite extravagantly to vote for things that increase the median wage, to raise all boats in the tide.

Oh, and for those of you who don't know, the median wage in the US? $32K a year, as of the last census.

If you're making more than that, consider yourself blessed.

[eridani]

74. Great. Make sure the old and disabled have a lot less money to spend

Some fucking "stimulus" that will be.

[Zynx]

79. You are just making a lot of conjecture.

That's not what he is going to propose. I am willing to bet you $50,000 on that.

[eridani]

94. It pays to be paranoid on this subject

Just letting it be known that I plan to raise holy hell should serious benefit cuts be proposed. Raising the contribution cap would be fine.

[debbierlus]

90. If he goes after benefits, he will reveal himself as a trojan horse

You can't in debt our children to the tune of trillions of dollars in bank heist...oh, I mean, bailout money and then, go after people's paltry ss benefits that they PAID for...

[stillcool]

96. From the article..

"Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

[wishlist]

92. We need full accountability for trillion dollars of bailout/Pentagon spending first

Before messing with SS, the most successful, financially accountable and reliable govt program in history, let's clean up the unregulated, unaccounted for trillion plus dollar govt spending for contractors and the bailout program. SS program is run for just pennies on the dollar, rest goes directly to the wage earners (and their dependents) who paid into the insurance program. Medicare is similarly well run although the regulators have to constantly monitor for fraudulent claims from the medical industry.

I do not like the idea of SS and Medicare programs (that have been quite efficient, responsible and well run) becoming scapegoats for the truly out of control government expenditures that do not benefit majority of Americans.