Impossible to even comprehend these numbers....

[Anonymous]

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

I wish I could find the article, but I read too that SS can NOT last as it stands right now. This is happening throughout the Western world as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries gets smaller. Social programs worked well for about a generation, but they are no longer sustainable. Lower people's taxes and use that money to save for your own retirement. Counting on crumbs from the table of brokeass government is suicide.

That has been suggested several times in the past two decades and every time someone mentions a privatized program to augment S.S.  the leftist dementocrats start foaming at the mouth like a pack of rabid raccoons. They just can't stand the fact that a lefty conceived program might not be totally viable in today's world. Furthermore back when S.S. was running a REAL surplus any changes that would give people a choice of where to put their money was a blow to the government cash cow. No one on the left was ever going to let that happen.

Corrupt Democratic party machine politics wants to do for Social Security what they have done for cities like Detroit that they have controlled for decades.

[Renee]

I wish I could find the article, but I read too that SS can NOT last as it stands right now. This is happening throughout the Western world as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries gets smaller. Social programs worked well for about a generation, but they are no longer sustainable. Lower people's taxes and use that money to save for your own retirement. Counting on crumbs from the table of brokeass government is suicide.

That has been suggested several times in the past two decades and every time someone mentions a privatized program to augment S.S.  the leftist dementocrats start foaming at the mouth like a pack of rabid raccoons. They just can't stand the fact that a lefty conceived program might not be totally viable in today's world. Furthermore back when S.S. was running a REAL surplus any changes that would give people a choice of where to put their money was a blow to the government cash cow. No one on the left was ever going to let that happen.

Corrupt Democratic party machine politics wants to do for Social Security what they have done for cities like Detroit that they have controlled for decades.

Yeah well both sides are corrupt as hell; it's just that the dems tend to put their faith in unsustainable entitlement programs that rake Joe average taxpayer over the coals. It's ironic because traditionally the Dems have always tried to pass themselves off as the party looking out for the average citizen. The reality is they could no more care about the average citizen than the Republicans do. All they care about is buying votes from the lower classes with handouts. Most dems are nothing but kabuki theater performers because while they are blowing smoke up the taxpayers collective asses they are really trying to create a society where the tax users outnumber the taxpayers. Unfortunately under their "dear Leader"  and his huge expansion of the food stamp and welfare rolls they have just about achieved their goal.

[Anonymous]

That has been suggested several times in the past two decades and every time someone mentions a privatized program to augment S.S.  the leftist dementocrats start foaming at the mouth like a pack of rabid raccoons. They just can't stand the fact that a lefty conceived program might not be totally viable in today's world. Furthermore back when S.S. was running a REAL surplus any changes that would give people a choice of where to put their money was a blow to the government cash cow. No one on the left was ever going to let that happen.

Corrupt Democratic party machine politics wants to do for Social Security what they have done for cities like Detroit that they have controlled for decades.

Yeah well both sides are corrupt as hell; it's just that the dems tend to put their faith in unsustainable entitlement programs that rake Joe average taxpayer over the coals. It's ironic because traditionally the Dems have always tried to pass themselves off as the party looking out for the average citizen. The reality is they could no more care about the average citizen than the Republicans do. All they care about is buying votes from the lower classes with handouts. Most dems are nothing but kabuki theater performers because while they are blowing smoke up the taxpayers collective asses they are really trying to create a society where the tax users outnumber the taxpayers. Unfortunately under their "dear Leader"  and his huge expansion of the food stamp and welfare rolls they have just about achieved their goal.

Just so you know Renee, it's not much better here. I voted for our "conservative" PM, but of course he is fiscal conservative in name only. I like his focus on the economy, but the reality is in our current system he cannot make the structural changes we need. The truth of the matter is that the political process in both Canada and the USA is about pandering with other people's money to get elected. Hell, I think even the incorruptible Ron Paul would succumb to the system of vote buying if he had've been elected. This is why I have become so disillusioned with democracy. I think OL has the right idea of limiting voting to people with skin in the game. This would force governments to listen to taxpayers more than tax users. We would have explosive growth if that happened.

[Romero]

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

I'm not allowed to talk about Social Security because I don't pay US payroll taxes? What kind of logic is that?



Uh oh. I'm still concerned about this issue. How can this be? I don't even pay any US payroll taxes!



Well, at least you accept the fact that Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That's something. It is running a surplus every year though. Your own article explains the deficits are based only on dedicated taxes vs. one trust fund, and your own article states there won't be any deficits until after 2033.



I never said Social Security was perfectly okay. I did say it's going to need some changes.



It's silly to assume that as a liberal I'm opening my hand out receiving money that isn't mine. I've worked practically every day of my life since high school.



Have you?



And I bet you've received government assistance, at least in the form of child tax credits. I guarantee you've received more from government than I have.

[Anonymous]

I think I am the only one on here that has NEVER accepted any government entitlement. :D  :D  :D  :D  :D



Anyway, back to US Social Security.



Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.



Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 38 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2012. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

[Renee]

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

I'm not allowed to talk about Social Security because I don't pay US payroll taxes? What kind of logic is that?



Uh oh. I'm still concerned about this issue. How can this be? I don't even pay any US payroll taxes!



Well, at least you accept the fact that Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That's something. It is running a surplus every year though. Your own article explains the deficits are based only on dedicated taxes vs. one trust fund, and your own article states there won't be any deficits until after 2033.



I never said Social Security was perfectly okay. I did say it's going to need some changes.



It's silly to assume that as a liberal I'm opening my hand out receiving money that isn't mine. I've worked practically every day of my life since high school.



Have you?



And I bet you've received government assistance, at least in the form of child tax credits. I guarantee you've received more from government than I have.

Yes I have received child tax credits on my personal income tax but as the owner of a small business who employees between 10 and 15 people; I'll bet I've paid tons more in taxes to date than you ever will in your entire lifetime. So don't even go there.



You said "minor changes" but what YOU think is "minor" God knows. Anyone with a brain or who has been at least alive in the past 40 years knows that there will be nothing "minor" about the required changes we face if S.S. is to be saved.  And the longer we wait, the more severe those "minor changes" will be.



Truthfully I don't really care what concerns you but I do find it weird that you are so interested in the domestic affairs of a country that you aren't even a citizen of. From healthcare to gun control you seem to live for passing your self off as a know-it-all expert in all things American. Frankly I find it very tedious your constant attempts at coming off like an expert in US domestic and foreign policy; especially when all your accumulated knowledge amounts to nothing but cut and paste based garbage pulled directly from leftwing faux news websites.

 

In contrast I too could stick my nose into Canada's domestic and foreign policies ( if you had one) and try to pass my opinion on the subject off as fact. But I would never be so arrogant and presumptuous as to tell you folks how badly I felt you are screwing up or doing something wrong or tell actual Canadian citizens that they are wrong in their political point of view. That's not my place and it's not how any respectful citizen of another country behaves.

 

BTW, your claims that S.S. has a surplus only serves to make you look dumber than you normally look. I'm not going to explain again the difference between operating with a real monetary surplus and operating with a fake paper surplus. Anyone with a brain knows the difference but that obviously leaves you out.

[Obvious Li]

I think I am the only one on here that has NEVER accepted any government entitlement. :D  :D  :D  :D  :D



Anyway, back to US Social Security.



Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.



Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 38 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2012. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

no ....there are at least two of us.....i collect pogey in the winter bit that is a self funding insurance program to which i pay premiums and the govt' pays fuck all and steals the surpluses...... :mrgreen:

[Renee]

I think I am the only one on here that has NEVER accepted any government entitlement. :D  :D  :D  :D  :D



Anyway, back to US Social Security.



Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.



Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 38 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2012. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

So you didn't use any Canadian healthcare services when you had your baby?  :?

[Romero]

Yes I have received child tax credits on my personal income tax but as the owner of a small business who employees between 10 and 15 people; I'll bet I've paid tons more in taxes to date than you ever will in your entire lifetime. So don't even go there.



You said "minor changes" but what YOU think is "minor" God knows. Anyone with a brain or who has been at least alive in the past 40 years knows that there will be nothing "minor" about the required changes we face if S.S. is to be saved.  And the longer we wait, the more severe those "minor changes" will be.



Truthfully I don't really care what concerns you but I do find it weird that you are so interested in the domestic affairs of a country that you aren't even a citizen of. From healthcare to gun control you seem to live for passing your self off as a know-it-all expert in all things American. Frankly I find it very tedious your constant attempts at coming off like an expert in US domestic and foreign policy; especially when all your accumulated knowledge amounts to nothing but cut and paste based garbage pulled directly from leftwing faux news websites.

 

In contrast I too could stick my nose into Canada's domestic and foreign policies ( if you had one) and try to pass my opinion on the subject off as fact. But I would never be so arrogant and presumptuous as to tell you folks how badly I felt you are screwing up or doing something wrong or tell actual Canadian citizens that they are wrong in their political point of view. That's not my place and it's not how any respectful citizen of another country behaves.

 

BTW, your claims that S.S. has a surplus only serves to make you look dumber than you normally look. I'm not going to explain again the difference between operating with a real monetary surplus and operating with a fake paper surplus. Anyone with a brain knows the difference but that obviously leaves you out.

Geez, I can't believe I've upset you so much over a little discussion. Funny how you think I'm sticking my nose into America's business when you're on two Canadian forums.



You can talk about Canada's domestic and foreign policies all you want. It wouldn't bother me at all. You can concern yourself with whatever you wish. We're a couple of free speech countries.



Regarding this matter, we'll just have to agree to disagree!

[Renee]

Yes I have received child tax credits on my personal income tax but as the owner of a small business who employees between 10 and 15 people; I'll bet I've paid tons more in taxes to date than you ever will in your entire lifetime. So don't even go there.



You said "minor changes" but what YOU think is "minor" God knows. Anyone with a brain or who has been at least alive in the past 40 years knows that there will be nothing "minor" about the required changes we face if S.S. is to be saved.  And the longer we wait, the more severe those "minor changes" will be.



Truthfully I don't really care what concerns you but I do find it weird that you are so interested in the domestic affairs of a country that you aren't even a citizen of. From healthcare to gun control you seem to live for passing your self off as a know-it-all expert in all things American. Frankly I find it very tedious your constant attempts at coming off like an expert in US domestic and foreign policy; especially when all your accumulated knowledge amounts to nothing but cut and paste based garbage pulled directly from leftwing faux news websites.

 

In contrast I too could stick my nose into Canada's domestic and foreign policies ( if you had one) and try to pass my opinion on the subject off as fact. But I would never be so arrogant and presumptuous as to tell you folks how badly I felt you are screwing up or doing something wrong or tell actual Canadian citizens that they are wrong in their political point of view. That's not my place and it's not how any respectful citizen of another country behaves.

 

BTW, your claims that S.S. has a surplus only serves to make you look dumber than you normally look. I'm not going to explain again the difference between operating with a real monetary surplus and operating with a fake paper surplus. Anyone with a brain knows the difference but that obviously leaves you out.

Geez, I can't believe I've upset you so much over a little discussion. Funny how you think I'm sticking my nose into America's business when you're on two Canadian forums.



You can talk about Canada's domestic and foreign policies all you want. It wouldn't bother me at all. You can concern yourself with whatever you wish. We're a couple of free speech countries.



Regarding this matter, we'll just have to agree to disagree!

But unlike you I'm not here to push my politics in any way. Most of my posting is social in nature or at least I try to make it so. I would like nothing better than to ignore all the prattling good and bad about the US. Unfortunately I'm stupid and I allow myself to get sucked into political discussions all to often, especially when I see someone running down the US with wrong info.



I guess we will agree to disagree, but don't think I'm really upset. Actually I rather enjoy our interactions. Truthfully Romero you are one of the few posters that I find stimulating enough to put in the effort of countering and rebutting.

[Anonymous]

I think I am the only one on here that has NEVER accepted any government entitlement. :D  :D  :D  :D  :D



Anyway, back to US Social Security.



Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.



Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 38 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2012. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

So you didn't use any Canadian healthcare services when you had your baby?  :?

I guess I don't think of our public health care system as accepting a government handout. Remember, we don't have private competition to our public health care system. If we did, I guarantee we would have private health insurance.



I didn't go on EI like I could have when I had my baby. It is simply not enough money to live on for one thing and I am not interested in collecting anyway.

[Romero]

Contrary to the widely repeated stories of out-of-control deficits and spending, deficits have plunged in the last four years falling from 10.1% of GDP in 2009 to just 4% of GDP in 2013. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit to be just 3.4% of GDP in 2014. The latest projections show the debt-to-GDP ratio falling for the rest of the decade.



During the Reagan presidency spending averaged more than 22% of GDP, peaking at 23.5% in 1985. This year it is projected to be 21.6% of GDP. The latest CBO projections show spending rising back to Reagan era levels towards the end of the 10-year budget window.



Over a longer term, spending is projected to rise further due to projections of rising health care costs and a growing interest burden, which is the result of a growing debt. The deficit fear mongers like to hype these projections of large deficits decades in the future to advance their agenda of cutting Social Security and Medicare.



The real question is why the primary (ie non-interest) deficit rises and this is the story of the broken US healthcare system. We pay twice as much per person for our health care as the average for other rich countries, with nothing to show for this money in terms of outcomes. We pay 2.5 times as much as the UK. If our costs were at all in line with those in other wealthy countries, we would be looking at explosive budget surpluses running into the trillions of dollars annually.



This fact raises the obvious question, why are projections of deficits based on unaffordable healthcare costs always treated in the media as a basis for cutting benefits to seniors rather than a reason for cutting payments to providers like doctors, drug companies, and medical device companies?



There is no explanation except the bias of the media. Obviously they identify much more with rich doctors and the people who profit from the bloated prices charged in the United States by drug companies and medical equipment providers than with the seniors who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare.



Yes, the public has every right to be disgusted.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/shutdown-republicans-government-spending-delusions">//http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/shutdown-republicans-government-spending-delusions

[Anonymous]

^^Obama will run a 700 billion dollar deficit this year despite bringing in record revenues. How fucking irresponsible can a prez possibly get?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_nom.png">

Obama will not have a single year of deficits under $500 billion during his entire presidency.

[Romero]

$7 Billion a Year: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Fast-Food Jobs



Low-wage fast-food jobs cost the American public nearly 7 billion a year, according to a new report by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley.



Workers on the front line of the $200 billion-a-year industry make a median of $8.69 an hour and rarely get health benefits.  And, in contrast to a common misconception, the majority of fast-food workers are not teenagers, and more than one third of those over 20 are raising at least one child.



This economic situation is forcing 52% of the workers, including those who work full-time, to rely on safety net programs including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Children's Health Insurance Program, as well as Earned Income Tax Credit payments to make ends meet, all of which adds up to almost $7 annually.



"The taxpayer costs we discovered were staggering," said Ken Jacobs, report co-author and chair of UC Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education. "People who work in fast-food jobs are paid so little that having to rely on public assistance is the rule, rather than the exception, even for those working 40 hours or more a week."



For many fast-food workers, it's a life of poverty.  The report's executive summary notes that "One in five families with a member holding a fast-food job has an income below the poverty line, and 43 percent have an income two times the federal poverty level or less."



"The cost is public because taxpayers bear it," added UC Berkeley economist Sylvia Allegretto, co-chair of the Center for Wage and Employment Dynamics.  "Yet it remains hidden in national policy debates about poverty, employment and public spending."



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-3">//http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-3

And a single Walmart has been estimated to cost American taxpayers at least a million per year. Paying poverty wages is basically another form of corporate welfare. In 1968, the minimum wage in the US was $1.60/hour which would be $10.74 today. But minimum wage in the US is just $7.25/hour today.



With 40% of American workers making less than what the minimum wage was in 1968, how can we expect there not to be a huge burden on taxpayers? 50 million Americans can't even afford to feed themselves and their families without government assistance.



Since companies like McDonald's and Walmart are making record profits in the billions, shouldn't they be paying a decent, livable wage? Why do Americans, taxpayers and the economy have to suffer when these companies are laughing all the way to the bank?

[Anonymous]

^^Wal-Mart Stores  paid $7.1 billion (at a rate of 32.4%) in income taxes. However, at least your article admits that lower income people use more services and contribute less than the rest of us.