Welfare vs Social Security

[o'dubhlaoich]

This picture says what I would like everyone's thoughts on.

 

[Falsedawn]

The irony in this is that Social Security is running out of money because people who are drawing it now didn't pay into it.

More ideological right wing nonsense. Is normal.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

This picture says what I would like everyone's thoughts on.

A chunk of the "welfare" budget goes to workers comp and unemployment benefits, which people do work for. So, which part of the welfare budget are you going to compare to the massive millstone around the neck of the budget that is SS/Medicare?

 

[Stoic1]

My thoughts are the comparison is not an accurate portrayal of a double standard. And since I am not an expert in public administration, economics, sociology, or anything relevant enough to make an accurate analysis or worthy contribution I will simply say this....

...my generation saw America peak. We are now living in the twilight of our greatness. I am witnessing Rome fall.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Social Security has a dedicated fund. Other items on the budget don't. That explains why people talk about SS's fund running out of money and they don't talk about other programs running out of money. Derp.

Further, "welfare" isn't even defined officially so it's hard to say what the idiot creator of that graphic even means. If you're talking just about money, housing and nutrition assistance to the poor, it's a pretty insignificant portion of the overall budget.

 

[panamaican]

The picture doesn't really make sense. Welfare is not funded the same way that Social Security is funded so it can't run out of money the way SS theoretically can.

NVM, basically what JVS says.

 

[jmk1502]

The real issues are Social Security and Medicare, which are caused almost exclusively by the aging population. SS accounts for about 22% of the national budget, and Medicare (along with Medicaid and CHIP) is another 21%. Then, you have the "defense" budget (which is really the "offense" budget, since every US foreign action since WWII has been aggression) accounting for another 19%, and that's 2/3's of the budget right there. Safety net programs (which is what the term "welfare" in your scenario is referring to) are 12% of the US budget. "Welfare" is nowhere near the issue SS and Medicare are.

 

[Uchi Mata]

SS is not in such bad shape, Medicare is what's bankrupting the country. Which I'm pretty sure you don't 'pay into' in the same way you do SS (I use quotes because SS is just as much of a transfer scheme as any other welfare program, we just throw a little veneer of investment vehicle on it to make people feel better).

 

[SammyPops]

The irony in this is that Social Security is running out of money because people who are drawing it now didn't pay into it.

More ideological right wing nonsense. Is normal.

This to a drgree, in Canada at least.

The people collecting it now paid no where near as much into it as they are collecting.

 

[oldshadow]

SS is not in such bad shape, Medicare is what's bankrupting the country. Which I'm pretty sure you don't 'pay into' in the same way you do SS (I use quotes because SS is just as much of a transfer scheme as any other welfare program, we just throw a little veneer of investment vehicle on it to make people feel better).

Yes you pay into Medicare the same as SS out of your paycheck until your 65 at 65

part A is

 

[oldshadow]

This to a drgree, in Canada at least.

The people collecting it now paid no where near as much into it as they are collecting.

It

 

[panamaican]

It

 

[oldshadow]

Right, the problem is the lifespan of the population, and the number of people who qualify have increased significantly but the funding calculations and contributions haven't matched this change.

Correct the baby boom is coming into effect and these people should be able to collect on what they paid into. However in all honesty we should look at rising the age slowly to account for this effect.

To those that are young, some day (if you make it) you will need Medicare and you will have no other choice but to have it. Even if the company you work for lest you take your health insurance out on retirement the insurance company will punish you if you don

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

How are we going to have enough money for SS/Welfare when the young people can barely get entry level jobs? Are we going to sustain all the old people while the young people pay into overpriced healthcare and increased taxes just so the older generations (which sold this country out for temporary boosts in climbing the social ladder ladder) can keep their overpriced healthcare plans, pensions, and property? It's not about the 99% against the 1%, it's about the opportunity between generations and right now there's a HUGE generational opportunity gap which NO POLITICIANS are mentioning.

 

[clmetal]

Social Security has a dedicated fund. Other items on the budget don't. That explains why people talk about SS's fund running out of money and they don't talk about other programs running out of money. Derp.

Further, "welfare" isn't even defined officially so it's hard to say what the idiot creator of that graphic even means. If you're talking just about money, housing and nutrition assistance to the poor, it's a pretty insignificant portion of the overall budget.

Incredibly tiny; hundreds of billions a year (a trillion if u include state expenditures as well. I notice you are questioning it's definition (ready for a semantical debate?)

Social Security's fund is iou's from the federal government, it doesn't have real assets. That fund eliminates in the asset section of the US governments financial statements. People point to it to act like its solvent and has assets for future benefit payments. Money goes from contributors to beneficiaries, just the way ponzi schemes operate

 

[Jack V Savage]

Incredibly tiny; hundreds of billions a year (a trillion if u include state expenditures as well. I notice you are questioning it's definition (ready for a semantical debate?)

What's to question? I noted that there is no official definition. So that leaves the opening for unscrupulous propagandists to greatly stretch the meaning and add to the amount spent. Before anyone talks about the cost of it, if they care about truth, as opposed to hackery, they need to mention specifically what programs they are including. For example, the figures you threw out, in addition to being vague ($200 billion, $900 billion--they're both "hundreds of billions") is meaningless.

Social Security's fund is iou's from the federal government, it doesn't have real assets.

*Facepalm* SS's fund is gov't bonds, which are the safest investment in the world. Those are very real assets. Realer than cash or stocks.

That fund eliminates in the asset section of the US governments financial statements. People point to it to act like its solvent and has assets for future benefit payments. Money goes from contributors to beneficiaries, just the way ponzi schemes operate

That's the way *insurance* operates. And of course SS is solvent. There is the projection that by 2033, the accumulated surplus will be drawn down completely. Current tax collections would still pay for 3/4ths of benefits, and then more than that as Baby Boomers start dying out in large numbers (the youngest Baby Boomer will be 69 that year, while the oldest will be 87). So some minor adjustment might need to be made (might just be that the treasury pays for the remainder), but it's not in any kind of dire position. SS has been about 5% of GDP; it's expected to rise to almost 6%, and then drop back down to about 5.5%. So if nothing is done, the Treasury might need to kick in a peak of 1.5% of GDP for a little while. The slowdown in Medicare cost growth caused by the ACA alone is more than enough to pay for that.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Correct the baby boom is coming into effect and these people should be able to collect on what they paid into. However in all honesty we should look at rising the age slowly to account for this effect.

To those that are young, some day (if you make it) you will need Medicare and you will have no other choice but to have it. Even if the company you work for lest you take your health insurance out on retirement the insurance company will punish you if you don

 

[speakhandsforme]

The fact that the image juxtaposes an official government-issued card against a generic internet image pretty much sums up why this really isn't a valid comparison.

 

[panamaican]

Hell no. Economic growth has disproportionately benefited the wealthy the last 40 years. Why should the non-wealthy's lives now be made less comfortable, when it's perfectly feasible to make their lives more comfortable? We should be eliminating the cap on income subject to SS tax and lowering the retirement age. It's time the middle class reaps some benefits from the nation's economic growth.

It's not about making the non-wealthy's lives less comfortable. SS was enacted with intent that most people would die before drawing too much from it. That was instrumental to it's solvency.

The Social Security website lays out the problem decently.

In 1940, only 54% of men reached 65 and then they lived another 13 years. Now 72% of men reach 65 and they live another 15 years. Women have gone from 60% to 83% reaching 65 and life spans have gone from 15 to 20 years post-65.

So a program that relied on roughly 55-60% of the population reaching the draw down age now has ~77% of the population reaching that age and are living on average 3 years longer.

To bring the age groups back in line, we'd have to raise the age to a point that ~60% of people reach. You can bump up the taxes if you want but it doesn't change that you have 33% more of your population reaching the draw down age.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Yes you pay into Medicare the same as SS out of your paycheck until your 65 at 65

part A is