• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SS: Republicans Continue Robbing From the Poor

JoeTheEconomist said:
The life expectancy of a retiree in 1940 was 13 years or so. When we reach NRA 67, the life expectancy will be up about 50% to 19 years or so. In the meantime, payroll taxes have increased 500%. So the blah-blah-blah about life expectancy is non-sense. The problem is that a higher percentage of people are reaching retirement. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. Very different problems.
Click to expand...
Nice attempt to rewrite history but you can't change it. Retirement age was 65. If life expectancy as you said was 13 years that would be 78 and that's wrong!

Point being Social Security was created as a supplement not sole retirement and with life expectancy of 65 it was only to be paid out for 2 years and not for everybody. Anybody that relies solely on social security for retirement income is foolish and delegating personal responsibility to somebody else

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The life expectancy of a retiree in 1940 was 13 years or so. When we reach NRA 67, the life expectancy will be up about 50% to 19 years or so. In the meantime, payroll taxes have increased 500%. So the blah-blah-blah about life expectancy is non-sense. The problem is that a higher percentage of people are reaching retirement. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. Very different problems.
Click to expand...
Life expectancy when social Security was created was 62 and retirement was 65 thus never expected to pay out but rather to be a supplement to those reaching 65. Politicians borrowed from the fund starting in the 60's replacing it with non negotiable bonds. It has become a Ponzi scheme


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
Nice attempt to rewrite history but you can't change it. Retirement age was 65. If life expectancy as you said was 13 years that would be 78 and that's wrong!

Point being Social Security was created as a supplement not sole retirement and with life expectancy of 65 it was only to be paid out for 2 years and not for everybody. Anybody that relies solely on social security for retirement income is foolish and delegating personal responsibility to somebody else

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at retirement?

The reason that life expectancy at birth is rising is because infant mortality is falling. Falling infant mortality has made the program more solvent not less. The reason that politicians do nothing about the program is because the public rather willingly chooses to be uninformed. It is not possible to mistake the impact of declining infant mortality and the increasing problems of Social Security.

You really need to invest a lot more time with what these terms mean before you tell someone that they are wrong (! or not).
 
Conservative said:
Life expectancy when social Security was created was 62 and retirement was 65 thus never expected to pay out but rather to be a supplement to those reaching 65. Politicians borrowed from the fund starting in the 60's replacing it with non negotiable bonds. It has become a Ponzi scheme


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Seriously you need to spend more time understanding the issue.

Social Security History

See Myth 4. This comes is the SSA, not a blogging site.
 
Napoleon said:
The average lifespan at the time Social Security was implemented was 61 and you had be to 65 to collect. Social Security wasn’t meant for people to live on indefinitely. It wasn’t even designed for the average person to live long enough to collect. So what I expect is for Americans to start saving for their retirement.
Click to expand...

Life expectancy at retirement in 1940 was about 13 years. The problem is that more of us are reaching retirement. We aren't living longer, more of us are living average. These are very different problems.

Social Security History
 
Conservative said:
It was also created as a supplement not sole retirement income when life expectancy was 65
Click to expand...

Life expectancy has nothing to do with it. Two factors matter for SS to work as a "pay as you go" system: 1) the number of current workers supporting each current retiree and 2) the rate of retiree benefit increases (based on CPI inflation) compared to the rate of worker's wage increases by those making the "contributions".

Changes in both of those factors have had a huge impact on the balance between SS revenue vs. SS spending.
 
Conservative said:
Dysfunctional healthcare system? 330 million Americans, 50 states with different costs of living, people fighting to get into this country and yet people like you still whining and complaining about having to pay for your own personal responsibility issues? ACA has taken the uninsured down to 10%, wow, on 330 million Americans that is 33 million people. How do you pay for Medicare for all and why would you support any program that would make private insurance obsolete? Why would any company keep their private insurance with a Medicare for all program? Are you on Medicare? Cannot wait until that happens, I am and it isn't that great at all
Click to expand...

The better question is - How are you going to continue to fund "Subsidized Emergency Room Care"? The better second question is "How can the US not afford to go to a Single-Payer system, which functions so much more effectively around the world?"...
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Do you understand the difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at retirement?

The reason that life expectancy at birth is rising is because infant mortality is falling. Falling infant mortality has made the program more solvent not less. The reason that politicians do nothing about the program is because the public rather willingly chooses to be uninformed. It is not possible to mistake the impact of declining infant mortality and the increasing problems of Social Security.

You really need to invest a lot more time with what these terms mean before you tell someone that they are wrong (! or not).
Click to expand...
That isn't the point and you know it Social Security was created in 1935 and was intended to be a retirement supplement it was to be issued at age 65 when the life expectancy was actually 61. Life expectancy of a retiree was not 13 years in 1945 that would make it 78 years old. Try to stick with reality and realize as stated Social Security was to be a supplement not so retirement and the federal government borrowing from the fund has left an unfunded liability because those t-bills aren't negotiable they have to be funded and the fun them it has to come from tax dollars, borrowing, or printing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Media_Truth said:
The better question is - How are you going to continue to fund "Subsidized Emergency Room Care"? The better second question is "How can the US not afford to go to a Single-Payer system, which functions so much more effectively around the world?"...
Click to expand...
Ask your state and local government what they are going to do about the problem? How about cutting federal income taxes so the state can actually raise taxes to create those type of programs? Your dependence on the federal government providing your personal responsibility issues shows total ignorance as to the true role of the Federal Government

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Media_Truth said:
The better question is - How are you going to continue to fund "Subsidized Emergency Room Care"? The better second question is "How can the US not afford to go to a Single-Payer system, which functions so much more effectively around the world?"...
Click to expand...
This is a pipe dream how does the US fund single-payer healthcare for 330 million Americans? Do you understand what's going to happen do private healthcare when the government initiates a single-payer plan? Of course not because in your world there are never any negative consequences from Liberal social programs

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
Ask your state and local government what they are going to do about the problem? How about cutting federal income taxes so the state can actually raise taxes to create those type of programs? Your dependence on the federal government providing your personal responsibility issues shows total ignorance as to the true role of the Federal Government

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Dodging the current problems is pretty typical of Republican policy for the last 30 years. You like "Subsidized Emergency Room Care"?
 
Conservative said:
So are those bonds issued to countries and individuals funding our SS and Medicare Trust fund deficits negotiable? Where does the interest and cash come from to pay off those obligations?
Click to expand...
When SSA needs to cash in the bonds, the federal government can decide to either increase taxes to pay for its obligation or issue new general debt. Our federal government, because it has a fiat currency, can sell vast amounts of debt instruments at little cost.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Life expectancy has nothing to do with it. Two factors matter for SS to work as a "pay as you go" system: 1) the number of current workers supporting each current retiree and 2) the rate of retiree benefit increases (based on CPI inflation) compared to the rate of worker's wage increases by those making the "contributions".

Changes in both of those factors have had a huge impact on the balance between SS revenue vs. SS spending.
Click to expand...

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with it, you develop a program designed to give someone a fixed benefit that they contributed to for 35 years and die before receiving any benefits, that never was the intent of the problem. How much money do you believe has been "borrowed" from SS over the lifetime of the program? The misunderstanding is what funds those IOU's that were left for the borrowed funds. They are non NEGOTIABLE and worthless unless funded by the federal gov't and how does a federal gov't do that when running deficits?? TAXES, BORROWING, PRINTING!! Isn't there better use for tax dollars than funding those IOU's?
 
Media_Truth said:
Dodging the current problems is pretty typical of Republican policy for the last 30 years. You like "Subsidized Emergency Room Care"?
Click to expand...

No it is you dodging the issue and problem totally ignoring that that money was "borrowed" from SS and Medicare and used for other expenses and the bill is coming due. You haven't addressed that issue so now you want to pile on more debt, more taxes, more printing and more borrowing into a system that is trillions in unfunded liabilities. That i the liberal way, tax the rich and continue to take money out of the states to solve their own social problems
 
MTAtech said:
When SSA needs to cash in the bonds, the federal government can decide to either increase taxes to pay for its obligation or issue new general debt. Our federal government, because it has a fiat currency, can sell vast amounts of debt instruments at little cost.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the solution, raise taxes on a program that already has been funded by tax dollars ignoring what caused the problems in the first place! Liberal logic.

Little cost of debt??OMG, you really have no clue, do you?
 
Conservative said:
Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with it, you develop a program designed to give someone a fixed benefit that they contributed to for 35 years and die before receiving any benefits, that never was the intent of the problem. How much money do you believe has been "borrowed" from SS over the lifetime of the program? The misunderstanding is what funds those IOU's that were left for the borrowed funds. They are non NEGOTIABLE and worthless unless funded by the federal gov't and how does a federal gov't do that when running deficits?? TAXES, BORROWING, PRINTING!! Isn't there better use for tax dollars than funding those IOU's?
Click to expand...

Your fantasy that SS was designed to not any pay benefits is ridiculous.
 
Conservative said:
No it is you dodging the issue and problem totally ignoring that that money was "borrowed" from SS and Medicare and used for other expenses and the bill is coming due. You haven't addressed that issue so now you want to pile on more debt, more taxes, more printing and more borrowing into a system that is trillions in unfunded liabilities. That i the liberal way, tax the rich and continue to take money out of the states to solve their own social problems
Click to expand...

"Subsidized Emergency Room Care" - the Republican way. Continue to hide your head in the sand.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Your fantasy that SS was designed to not any pay benefits is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not designed has a different definition to you than me. It was designed perfectly to be a retirement supplement but that designation has changed over the years. it was created when life expectancy was 61 years old with retirement at 65 years old. Contributions for 35 years to the gov't created dollars to borrow to fund the federal bureaucracy.

What do you call it when a program is designed to be a supplement at retirement age 65 when people weren't expected to live past 61 yet contributed their entire working career?
 
Media_Truth said:
"Subsidized Emergency Room Care" - the Republican way. Continue to hide your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Keep dodging the issue of personal responsibility and the true role of the FEDERAL GOV'T. I was sure raised differently than you, I understand personal responsibility, you don't
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The reason? The bonds are of higher value than the ones sold to the public. The bonds held by the SS Trust Fund have a put on demand option, and generally pay a higher rate of interest than the system would get otherwise.
Click to expand...
Right, and they are always redeemable at par so vagaries in the bond market don't affect their values.
 
Conservative said:
Keep dodging the issue of personal responsibility and the true role of the FEDERAL GOV'T. I was sure raised differently than you, I understand personal responsibility, you don't
Click to expand...

The role of the Federal Government is to support the citizens of the US. Making all citizens continue to pay astronomically rising premiums for Subsidized Emergency Room Care is a DEAD END. I think the Republican Party can now be referred to as the DEAD-END Party, as they continue to skyrocket deficits, providing bonuses for billionaires, without a clue to Federal Fiscal responsibility.
 
Conservative said:
Not designed has a different definition to you than me. It was designed perfectly to be a retirement supplement but that designation has changed over the years. it was created when life expectancy was 61 years old with retirement at 65 years old. Contributions for 35 years to the gov't created dollars to borrow to fund the federal bureaucracy.

What do you call it when a program is designed to be a supplement at retirement age 65 when people weren't expected to live past 61 yet contributed their entire working career?
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you that more folks are living to collect SS than when the system was started but that increased life expectancy is not the major change that is causing the SS system to have financial problems.

Most of the major shifts in worker-to-beneficiary ratios before the 1960s are attributable to the dynamics of the program's maturity. In the early stages of the program, many paid in and few received benefits, and the revenue collected greatly exceeded the benefits being paid out. What appeared to be the program's advantage, however, turned out to be misleading. Between 1945 and 1965, the decline in worker-to-beneficiary ratios went from 41 to 4 workers per beneficiary.

The Social Security program matured in the 1960s, when Americans were consistently having fewer children, living longer, and earning wages at a slower rate than the rate of growth in the number of retirees. As these trends have continued, today there are just 2.9 workers per retiree—and this amount is expected to drop to two workers per retiree by 2030.
Click to expand...

How Many Workers Support One Social Security Retiree? | Mercatus Center

The problem is not primarily that folks are now living 10X longer it is that there are 10X fewer workers per retiree collecting those SS benefits.
 
Media_Truth said:
The role of the Federal Government is to support the citizens of the US. Making all citizens continue to pay astronomically rising premiums for Subsidized Emergency Room Care is a DEAD END. I think the Republican Party can now be referred to as the DEAD-END Party, as they continue to skyrocket deficits, providing bonuses for billionaires, without a clue to Federal Fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

oh, my, show me that in the Constitution?? No, sorry the Democratic Party today is the party of gloom, doom, massive gov't dependence, and always spreading misery and pain to others. You lack basic understanding of what the role of the federal, state and local governments are buying the leftwing spin and supporting it
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not disagreeing with you that more folks are living to collect SS than when the system was started but that increased life expectancy is not the major change that is causing the SS system to have financial problems.



How Many Workers Support One Social Security Retiree? | Mercatus Center

The problem is not primarily that folks are now living 10X longer it is that there are 10X fewer workers per retiree collecting those SS benefits.
Click to expand...

This 2012 article ignores the creation of SS in the 30's, any idea what the SS fund would look like today with actual dollars in it NOT IOU's? Why would anyone support higher taxes to fund a program that the gov't borrowed from for years and was created initially by FICA taxes to fund it?
 
Conservative said:
This 2012 article ignores the creation of SS in the 30's, any idea what the SS fund would look like today with actual dollars in it NOT IOU's? Why would anyone support higher taxes to fund a program that the gov't borrowed from for years and was created initially by FICA taxes to fund it?
Click to expand...

The existence of the SS "trust me" fund (past surpluses) is the only thing keeping SS afloat now. As the article noted, SS cannot be sustained (in its present form) once the current worker to current retiree ratio drops below 3. Again, that has little (if anything) to do with increased life expectancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom