Quizzal Loc: TN

Why must the government always put the topic of "Social Security" as one of their main topics about cutting finances? They should not have anything at all to do with what belongs to any senior person at all. We need a separate business (or wh**ever) to handle everything for social security and the federal government needs "HANDS OFF" completely. Their finances should be handled by the income tax received only and nothing more. The government has no right to continually throw social security in our face all of the time. Social security belongs to all of the seniors who have paid in it for years and years - not the federal government.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

RWhiteRN

In reply to Quizzal on the subject of federal pirating of the Social Security Trust. The unfortunate t***h is that the masters of smoke and mirrors, without regard to purported political affiliation, cannot stand to see resources sit idle. The intent of the Social Security system was to afford survival funds for those Americans who are unable, resulting from advanced age or disability, to have the meager existence that such resources can supply. As America is a Republic loosely based upon democratic principles, the effect of the e******n process weighs heavily upon the distribution of resources. If one researches the structure of the national debt one will find the bulk of the publicly held portion of that debt is held by various retirement fund trusts, such as the Social Security Trust. This nation's "esteemed" leaders would have the public believe that Social Security is an entitlement or welfare program rather than a subsistence which is levied as a payroll deduction or forced retirement program throughout ones working lifetime. The thought train offered by the government leadership is that the multitudes who have paid into the trust for decades should not receive any return on funds taken on the pretense of return when one can no longer pay in.

Confused

Every once in a while I run across a comment so outrageous I have to comment . Yours is such a comment . S.S. is continual funded with the payroll tax deduction THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE PARTICIPANTS . It is NOT now or ever has been a government entitlement . Stop payments ? WHY , it is OUR money jackass .

jasfourth401

If, as you say, "finances should be handled by the income tax received only and nothing more", that means your benefits would be substantially reduced. Today's trust fund operates at a big deficit. Social security does not belong just to seniors. It belongs to everyone who pays into it - not just those who pull benefits out now.

edwardian

O did threaten that the SS checks will not go out. Just playing?

pixie

you are exactly right!... :thumbup:

Confused

So the 60 years of running a surplus don't count ? A simple fix is to raise the income caps .

jasfourth401

They counted for the sixty years it ran a surplus. Now, however, it runs a 170 billion deficit every year. It runs out of money in 2033. Then benefits will be cut roughly 25% unless contributions are increased. Lifting the cap on earnings is one approach as you note. Means testing benefits is another. Reining in the COLA is another. But social security is peanuts. The big one is medicare. That one has projected liabilities of 73 trillion. That one single program is going to bankrupt us unless we deal with it head on.

Confused

Part of the deficit is because of fraud . A certain lawyer gets a certain judge and presto you are eligible . Depression over the loss of your girlfriend is not a permanent disability . Second the outsourcing of 7 million jobs . Take away the funding and any program has trouble . The COLA you mention is a joke . Inflation takes away any current raises . The price of rent and health care alone is well above the current 2 % COLA . Agreed , Medicare is a whole different story . Perhaps we should limit it to actual US citizens . Just a thought . Another might be to end the revolving door policy from government to lobbyists .

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

In my opinion the answer is simple: it consumes (including medicaid and medicare) 67% of the budget. Since it is a pay-as-you go system, that is, present tax dollars fund it, cutting 10% would save enormously. The rub for most SSA beneficiaries is this contagion that somehow you have earned your benefit amount, albeit is a fact, however as a tax payer, I should have the right to decide how much you get. I believe that most beneficiaries receive far too much as compared to the amount paid into the system. I invite you to look at your contribution to S.S. and assess yourself. I think you will find that you are way over paid and those monthly checks are nothing more than car payments, Xmas present money, etcetera.

AnnMarie Loc: Madison, Wi

Well, you better start v****g democratic-the Koch brothers and the tea baggers they get elected are going to cut social security to cut taxes for the rich. That will be the "grand bargain" the republicans will make Obama agree to-cutting SS

AnnMarie Loc: Madison, Wi

YES! That would be the best solution. But the rich Koch brothers do not want to pay SS on all their income, so republicans will never allow that solution.

Confused

I looked and at 4 % interest I will have to live till I am 97 to break even . Not gonna happen . No problem , I would rather help a family that has lost their income earner rather than another banker bonus . You have to take into account there are many who pay into the system and die before getting anything . I part company with you on the tax payer deciding how much I get . That is the duty of the S.S. administration and not elected politicians many of whom have never paid into the system . Perhaps I look at it differently . S.S. is an employer matched savings account with a 4 % overhead . Would you stand for it if you went to the bank and they said a politician decided you only get part of your money ? No matter what the recipients spend the money on ( car payments ) the bottom line is it is their money and sure beats the heck out of a bunch of homeless old people who never saved for future years . It was meant to supplement a retirement .
On another note Rick Scott paid the largest medicare fraud fine in the history of Florida . What did he do then ? Put the company in his wife's name and got elected Governor of the state he defrauded . Figure that one ... He and his cronies then enacted a law that all welfare recipients be drug tested . Guess whose company sold the state the drug test kits ? Right , Rick's wife's company .

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Please read this and stop quoting interest rates and bankers incomes-here are just some of the facts. Retirees need to get their finances in order. Our government doesn't demonstrate any constraint or accountability but as a tax payer we can. See attached article.