I don't see why they would need to. Social Security was envisioned as being an actual fund, which would be self-sustaining, but that all went awry early on when they started including, as beneficiaries, people who never paid into it. So yes, you might say that the Social Security fund, as well as Medicare, will be insolvent by whatever year you want to put on it, but it's like global warming or the Second Coming of Christ; whenever the predictions fail to materialize, another date is set. That doesn't mean that the earth might never be destroyed by global warming or that Christ is never going to return, but it does mean that the end dates are wholly unpredictable, and stated dates unreliable. Our whole country is insolvent, along with most of the rest of the world, yet we keep handing out money. Social Security and Medicare at least produce an income to help offset the outcome, something that is not the case with Medicaid or foreign aid, yet no one seems concerned about running out of money for these programs.
A while back, I read a column written by the late Charles Krauthammer who was writing about Obama's budget director Jack Lew's assertion that Social Security benefits "are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries…the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years." Dr. Krauthammer wrote, "This claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.” This prompted me to delve into the issue, and I do wish I hadn't, because what I discovered does not make me feel secure at all! I hate that I have to agree with Al Gore, of all people, but it is a "risky scheme" and it does not have a "lock box." The government has repeatedly raided the so-called Social Security trust fund. This is why you will hear -- or read -- that Social Security money will last only until [insert a random number which changes every time such a statement is uttered]. While Social Security has what is called a "trust fund," those funds are "invested" in special government bonds. According to the law, both principal and interest on the bonds must be repaid by generations down the line. These investments are essentially paid out of one government "pocket" and owed by another pocket. Indeed , the bonds in the so-called trust fund are counted by the government as both an asset and a liability. This is because they are part of the federal debt. So, in essence, the "trust fund" exists the same way the piggy bank of a drug addict's children exists. When the addict raids the piggy bank, even though there is the intent of repaying it, there comes a time when the bank is not replenished and the children have no savings. Like any Ponzi scheme, the structure will work only as long as those future generations can continue to pay. After that, the whole thing collapses. It would have been nice if this had been overhauled years ago, but it wasn't. It would be nice if they would fix it now, but they won't. It looks like the system will limp along, robbing Peter to pay Paul, until it can no longer do so. And in the meantime, robbing seniors will suffice.
You ARE lucky. I worked only a little less than half of my working years. That has affected my monthly check to the point that I honestly don't know what I would do if they cut it so that it's any smaller.
Entitlement Programs of the federal government include Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment and Welfare Programs. Entitlement programs are rights granted to citizens and certain non-citizens by federal law. Entitlement programs can be broken into non-contributory and contributory programs. Non-contributory programs are free handouts - they equal "something for nothing". Contributory programs must be earned - they equal "something for something". -- FederalSafetyNet.com
Social Security began as a contributory program but was very quickly raided on behalf of people who were non-contributors. Medicare began as a mandatory insurance policy and continues to be such. The average worker has no choice in whether to participate in either of these programs, so it is a matter of concern when someone like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, both of whom have become wealthier beyond imagination due to their time in office, and who will enjoy taxpayer-funded medical benefits for life, even discuss cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits while throwing money at illegal immigrants, supporting endless wars, and numerous other wasteful spending. No, I don't accept it. If we can't afford Medicare and Social Security for American citizens who have paid into this program throughout their working years, then we damned sure can't afford to take on more illegal immigrants. A government that can't live up to the promises made to seniors cannot afford to throw money at people who hate us overseas. That's like Al Gore asking everyone else to reduce their energy uses while he uses more electricity than a small city and flies around the world in private jets. No, I don't accept that. If the US government is indeed broke, then it damned well better start acting like it before asking us to suck it up.
} No. All of the above are classified as "entitlement programs." In recent times, Social Security and Medicare and other programs into which Americans pay for are have been added and called "contributory entitlement programs" as opposed to welfare, Medicaid and other "gimme" programs which are known as "non-contributary entitlement programs." But you don't ever hear the first part when they are being referred to. All are lumped together as "entitlement programs." Whether by design or not, it gives many people the idea that they are gifts from the government or that it's okay to take all or part of them away.
"House Republicans released a proposal Tuesday that would balance the budget in nine years — but only by making large cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare, that President Trump vowed not to touch." <SNIP> "The House Republican budget, titled “A Brighter American Future,” would remake Medicare by giving seniors the option of enrolling in private plans that compete with traditional Medicare, a system of competition designed to keep costs down but dismissed by critics as an effort to privatize the program. Along with other changes, the budget proposes to squeeze $537 billion out of Medicare over the next decade." <SNIP> "Social Security comes in for more modest cuts of $4 billion over the decade, which the budget projects could be reached by eliminating concurrent receipt of unemployment benefits and Social Security disability insurance." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-medicare-social-security-to-balance-budget/
@Michelle Anderson IOW, the government's one hand knows full-well what the other hand is doing, but doesn't do anything about it when unacceptable activity is being foisted. Frank
Okay, I was wrong. Medicaid is an "entitlement", the republicans have made some mythical proposal that appears unlikely to see the light of day. Mr. Krauthammer was marvelous in his dissertation about social security, without acknowledging it being that way since day one, while slightly acknowledging it was set up just like a savings account at a bank... which is exactly how it operates and always has. Like Melania... I really don't care.
@Harry Havens Everything was OK by me, until you wrote, "I really don't care." Why write, then? Frank
I understood a long time ago that S.S. etc. might not always be around and that we should all be prepared for cutbacks, etc. I prepared myself... apparently some didn't. Besides... stirring the pot is quite fun, imo.
I beg to differ. It does not operate like a savings account at a bank, unless you mean a Wells Fargo Bank, where the employees use bogus reasons to drain the bank accounts of their customers. If you ARE referring to Wells Fargo, I guess you're right. :-/ However, for the government, which is in charge of the "trust fund," to invest in invest the money in another part of the same government smacks of conflicts. I don't believe you any more than I believed Melania's jacket. She went out of her way to get to the southern border and inquire about the kids, so she obviously cares. And you have tried pretty hard to defend the Keepers of the Checks at the SS Trust Fund. Obviously, you care.
Do banks actually keep the money in your account stashed away back the vault? No. They simply make a notation on a ledger and use it for loans, buying securities, etc. while promising you to deliver that money if and when you demand it. A demand deposit. A saving account is a demand deposit that might take a few days or has a penalty for early withdrawal. Which is how the trust fund operates, as it buys special interest paying treasury notes and takes the actual money for other purposes. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/ https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/09/04/the-social-security-trust-fund-everything-you-need.aspx https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds