re: Social Security and Medicare will be Insolvent in the 2030s

quote:

---

That along with Medicare are far and away our biggest expenses as a nation.

---

Not true. Both Medicare and defense spending comprise 13% of federal spending. If you don't think that defense is ripe for cuts, then you're probably a neo-con.

quote:

---

My healthcare plan completely fixes Medicare. Gives us a lot of breathing room on SS as a result.

---

Bold. Post it and I got permission to put a yard side up.

Doesn't matter. They will crash the banking system in the next year and then issue digital Currency, and a new era of slavery will begin.

quote:

---

both would be fully funded for the next 50 years if they just shift that ukraine money to the SS account to pay for it

---

You're being sarcastic, right?

quote:

---

all the old people will go J6, scary

---

Look what happened in France when they raised it 2 years. Any changes would have to be phased in so it wouldn’t have an extreme impact on someone near retirement.

PS: If SS could be insolvent then why can’t the military or any other branch of the government go insolvent? It’s just a scare tactic.

quote:

---

both would be fully funded for the next 50 years if they just shift that ukraine money to the SS account to pay for it

---

i'm with you. we should removed that allocation from the military and pump it back into these programs. not entirely sure about that math though.

quote:

---

Medicare represents 13% of spending, same as defense.

---

quote:

---

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

---

Yet, appropriations are being made for far longer terms, even for something explicitly authorized by the US Constitution. I do not see any explicit permission for the dental work or medical care of old folk mentioned in the document. You will raise the general welfare statements as justification, of course. General welfare didn't mean back then what it does today. There are many, many letters between politicians of that time that made it clear it wasn't supposed to be for whatever the current initiative or bleeding heart cause was, including widows and orphans.

quote:

---

We are barreling headfirst over a cliff and it seems like no one cares about advocating for solutions like gradually raising the retirement age, etc

---

Lou, I agree with the sentiment. However, in a situation where our total budget shortfalls now run ~20% - 40% with Social Security still in the black, it's odd your focus would be on SS. I get it, SS is on a 10-yr path to deficits approaching the rest of our budget. But if that is "insolvent," the rest of our budget has been "insolvent" for years.

I guess my gripe is that SS is not a benefit. It is a forced loan.

The Government is forcing employed American workers to lend it money at very low rates. When the government pays that money back (if it does), it labels it a "benefit". The government badly wants SS to run in the black, because it uses the SSTF to help finance and offset its other deficits and debt.

In the end, SS in its current design will run at ~20% shortfall (revenue-to-benefits) for the next 75 years. So there are three ways to fix that. (1) Reduce benefits, or (2) Increase revenue, or (3) Some combination of revenue increase and benefit reduction.

Because of the program design, and the government addiction to SSTF money, you can bet your arse there will be a revenue increase and a design to keep SS in the black.

So when you hear folks like Cassidy harping on the need to fix SS as they vote for budgets in continual deficit, BOHICA buddy.

quote:

---

So again, if your focus is on SS going red 10yrs from now, instead of EVERYTHING in the budget at present, ask yourself why that is.

---

Addressing spending broadly is necessary, as is addressing social security. The reason you address social security ten years before it becomes insolvent is so it doesn’t become insolvent.

quote:

---

Let's be clear. If there was ANY legitimate government interest in "fixing" SS, do you think we'd have increased SS COLA by 12% in two years? Does that register?

---

What’s your point? I don’t recall posting that I thought government wanted to fix social security.

quote:

---

The fact is, DC doesn't really care about SS per se. It wants the "trustfund" to be expanded.

---

Of course it does. The more people it can get dependent/resisting change, the more power accrues to DC.

But none of the above means we shouldn’t be fixing social security (and other entitlements).