Looking at newspaper articles, statements by national politicians, an Idiotorial in the Star Ledger, pontification by prominent brilliant thinkers,etc. it is clear that the budget deficit is primarily due to "Greedy Senior Citizens Getting Too Much Benefit From Social Security and Medicare."
Wow, how is it we all missed that fact all these years? It must be true because politicians, newspaper Idiotors, and other deep thinkers say it is true! But wait a second, let's look at some things that don't match up. Social Security Cost of Living increase for 2013 is 1.7%. I could have sworn my food, medical insurance, medical co-pays, heating and auto fuel, utilities, auto insurance, etc. went up more than 1.7% in the past year.
Health care costs for seniors is costing too much money. This from national politicians who get free medical care in office and in many cases in retirement.
Contributions To Social Security By Senior Citizens Does Not Cover The Benefits Being Paid. I started paying Social Security taxes in 1958, and in later years hit the maximum mandated contribution. (Paying with real dollars as opposed to the "inflation dollars" being printed daily by the U.S. Treasury.) Then I started paying Medicare taxes as well. I also paid Income Taxes on those deductions from my take home pay, and pay Income Tax on my Social Security benefits.
Senior Citizens are taking advantage of Medicare instead of planning ahead and saving money to pay for private medical insurance after they retire. Congress and the Federal Government enabled legislation that allowed corporations to discontinue pensions and medical insurance for retirees, even though those benefits were in place when they retired.
Social Security and Medicare deficits cannot be funded from the Federal Budget when we are running a deficit at the national level. This from National Politicians who get an annual salary increase unless they vote to skip it each year, take "Fact Finding Junkets" with their entourage and family, continue to mandate funding for Pork Barrel projects in their constituancies, and continue Weapons Programs that the military does not want. Uncle Sap reaches into the taxpayers pockets to fund programs in countries that despise us and every disaster that occurs around the globe.
Let's tell the truth! We don't have an unsustainable budget because of Senior Citizens or Low Income Citizens. The National Budget and the Economy is in trouble because we have an unsustainable Federal Government that inflates the cost of everything we use and need, while devaluing our national currency. If Social Security and Medicare were eliminated or reduced by 50%, the government would still find a way to run a deficit.
National Governments have always tried to find scapegoats to blame for their failures. This decade it will be Senior Citizens. Who will it be in ten years? Maybe it will be you!
Tracy Tobin
5:55 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Article from the Associated Press in today's newspaper. Study Reveals Medicare Overpaying for Back Braces! Medicare Pays $919 for Standard Back Braces that Retail for $100 on the INTERNET and $191 at Retail Stores! Medicare Admistrator says they will consider adding back braces in an EXPERIMENTAL Competitive Bidding program for medical equipment! WOW, the government is preparing to plunge into a process that was first introduced in the 1900's. How radical! This only 50 years after the military was purchasing $10k toilet seats and nuts & bolts for $20 that retailed for .25c. Budget talks between Obama & John Boehner may lead to more competitive bidding! Same article "It's Estimated That Medicare Squanders $750 Billion per year through uneeded care, wasteful spending and fraud." Maybe we can convince Congress and the Federal Civil Service to emulate lemmings and run off the fiscal cliff.
PatienceWorth
9:12 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
""Health care costs for seniors is costing too much money. This from national politicians who get free medical care in office.......""
? Name a national politician who gets free medical care. And since that comment was your only point made in rebuttal, it should be pointed out that whatever you were paying into in 1958 was a pittance compared to the wonderful, miraculous and terribly expensive pharmaceutical, surgical, diagnostic and preventative healthcare juggernaut that is the American system today.
And the pleasant but terribly expensive result of that system is that life expectancy has gone through the eaves. An American male born in 1900 had a life expectancy of 49 years. Your average man didn't LIVE to collect medicare or social security. Those programs weren't created or funded for today's America.
"Blame" is an emotive word. But reality is that entitlements of all flavors are what have gotten us to where we are.
Tracy Tobin
4:25 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Patience
Try Corporate Farming subsidies, Ethanol subsidies, Bridges to No Where in Alaska, Incompetent FEMA disaster recovery programs, production of army transport vehicles that were under armored for Middle East combat leading to military deaths & injuries but are still in production, Obama gets free health care (and I will provide additional names in another post). If you would read my second post you might see that the system set up by bureaucrats is a large part of the Medicare cost debacle (with No Competive Bid for Purchases). How about the ridiculous price of prescriptions when compared to the same products purchased in other countries. Prescriptions that miraculously drop from $435 for a 30 day supply to $38 for the same drug the month after the patent expires?) Life expectancy has increased dramatically, unfortunately job opportunities for anyone over 55 have gone in the opposite direction, with a lot of jobs going overseas resulting in fewer people paying taxes and more collecting unemployment.
By the way, I paid Social Security taxes starting in 1958 and continued for the next 45 years, and still pay taxes on my monthly benefits today. How long have you contributed to Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, School, etc. taxes.
It is b---s--- "that entitlements have gotten us where we are". It is budgets bloated with patronage programs/susidies/wasteful spending devoted to getting career politicians re-elected that have gotten where we are.
DXJ
5:30 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
Assuming all of this waste and congressional "free" benefits were rectified, it's still a drop in the bucket when you consider that "mandatory" spending (entitlements) are 62% of the entire federal budge. Compare this to 31% in 1958 when you started paying into the system. In other words, the entitlements have doubled in real terms over the last 50 years but contributions certainly have not doubled in real terms. Further, contributions were made in deflated dollars (as you noted) while outlays certainly are not.
SS and Medicare are defined benefit programs rather than defined contribution programs ... and it is the former that has bankrupted many a state and corporation alike, especially as there will soon be far too many tax eaters than tax payers to sustain these Ponzi schemes.
Yes, I wrote Ponzi scheme. The so-called SS trust fund is nothing more than a multi-trillion dollar pile of IOUs. So stop already with all the crying that you're entitled because you contributed all these years. It's all spent! In other words, the boomer generation (myself being counted among them) has spent the entire "trust fund" on wars, social programs, bridges to nowhere etc. How are you entitled to something you already spent?
Give me a freak'n break already. We will keep our seniors and poor out of the gutters, but stop with your incessant whining that you're entitled to something you already used up.
PatienceWorth
11:31 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
-- prescription drugs in America are expensive because our private sector has produced the vast majority of new drug breakthroughs.
-- The POTUS receives healthcare as Commander-in-chief through the military network, just as a veteran would. And I sort of doubt he was the one you were talking about saying seniors cost too much.
Congressman pay premiums, as does the president once he isn't CIC anymore.
Whatever taxes any american has paid since 1958 has obviously been returned to them forefold since we have spent WAY more than we have taxed. And that debt isn't being paid off by your generation.
http://www.lowcosthealthinsurance.com/how-much-health-insurance-does-the-president-of-the-united-states-have/
DXJ
6:33 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
The irony in all of this is that in an effort to hold onto their entitlements, seniors voted to kill themselves. They were terrified of Romney and Ryan who tried to address the unsustainable growth of entitlements by - among other things - shifting more of the burden onto the consumer of these services. Seniors voted to kill themselves by demanding to pay the same or less for what costs more, because the inescapable consequence of that demand is rationing. In deed, rather than in words, seniors are saying that their own grand-kids and great-grand-kids should pay for them long after they turn to dust. The "me generation" is living up to their reputation by running out on the bill for hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities. A fine legacy indeed.
Kevin Nedd
7:28 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
Another ignorable DXJ conclusion based on faulty analysis. Romney won the senior vote (65+) by 15 points. 57% to 42%.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/4966431/2012-election-exit-poll-shows.html
DXJ
11:19 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
My incomplete chain of thought opened me up to that criticism. While you're at it, I also neglected to mention the Republican medi-scare ads telling seniors that they would incur more costs and or less benefits under Obamacare.
I'm well aware of the voting trends, but my point is how seniors - or any other special interest group, for that matter - vote themselves largess from the treasury. Whether it's the unfunded drug benefit plan in the Bush years or voting against the Ryan plan or against the Obamacare plan, the conclusion is the same: it's about avoiding a reduction in benefits and or not incurring higher out of pocket costs despite the unfunded liabilities. Largess means the entitlement system goes underfunded and ultimately beyond broke if the can is kicked long enough. If it's a vital service, voting for largess is voting for death.
Kevin Nedd
10:38 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Everything you said above can be applied to those who insisted on and benefitted from the unfunded Bush tax cuts, which significantly expanded our national debt.
DXJ
9:22 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
If by unfunded, we're talking about entitlements and wars that weren't paid for, then we agree. Although total revenues returned to Clinton levels after the tax cuts, the budget was never balanced in the first place and the spending continued to grow faster than revenues. This trend/policy continued under Obama (or were the last 4 years all Bush's fault)?
A contributing factor is the unfunded drug benefit (Part D) that was a giveaway to seniors (who never paid for that program during their working careers) and a giveaway to the drug companies (who found a way to keep people paying inflated prices by blocking the identical drug from Canadian manufacturers at a fraction of the cost).
We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Whatever the marginal tax rate on the highest tax bracket, the government has historically not been able to extract more than about 18-19% of GDP. Attempting to extract more for an extended period results in a shrinking economy (although Obama kept revenues at 15-16% of GDP for the last 4 years, presumably so not to tank the economy). Indeed, Clinton himself admitted (in hind sight) that taxes were too high during his administration, but blamed Republicans for that too. I detect a pattern.
http://tinyurl.com/23m2qjy
http://tinyurl.com/axfats7
http://tinyurl.com/4rf6b3u
Tracy Tobin
11:25 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
DXJ
You are leaving a few things out of the equation. Fewer people paying into Social Security as our workforce population shrinks, especially jobs that pay well, as we export jobs to other countries. Remember the statement by "deep thinkers" in the 90's that the USA was going to be a "service economy" instead of wasting it's time on manufacturing? I guess they thought other nations were not going to develop and pass us in science and technology. How many decades have the politicians diverted Social Security taxes into their pet projects and given the U.S. Treasury IOUs? Remember the joke by a Senator that "You take a $100,000 here and $100,000 there and pretty soon you are talking big money"? Well that easily became $100 million dollars here and $100 million dollars there. What is your solution? Reduce medical funding without reducing the cost of of the medicine and services? Have an age cut off line for various types of medical procedures? Reduce funding for some categories of illness? A simplistic "just raise Social Security and Medicare taxes" doesn't address the problem unless you significantly reduce medical costs at the same time.
DXJ
9:48 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Tracy, you and I can't divorce ourselves from "the government" or "they" (the politicians we elected). We *are* the government. The fact is that "we" paid 2.6T into a trust fund that should have carried us through the demographic hump of the boomer generation, except that the people we elected spent that money (as you noted) and now we intend to spend the next generation's retirement money too.
Did you pay for Medicare Part D since 1958? Well, you're still not paying for it now. Somebody else is. That's the problem. Why do anything about it so long as you can get someone else (or the next generation) to pay for it?
My rant was to say "join reality please and stop blaming everyone else". Those retiring today stand to get back far more than they put in and they already spent the trust fund they accumulated prior to retirement, so we can't even draw down the fund to pay for the increased entitlements.
Your whole premise was that entitlements weren't wrecking the budget, but bridges to nowhere and foreign aid to countries that hate us were. Now you're blaming the decline in manufacturing or globalization. In truth, we could kill all discretionary spending (including the entire defense budget) and still be in a budget hole. Unfunded entitlements and a non-existent trust fund are most definitely major drags on the budget and the deficit.
That didn't come about because of the younger generation, now did it? Why make them pay for it?
Tracy Tobin
11:42 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012
Patience
Who is the "we" in "we have spent WAY more than we have taxed". Is it you and your generation (whatever generation that may be) who have increased the national debt by ridiculous amounts? It is much larger than it was while I was working full time . You also seem to assume that no senior citizens are in the work force, even though they are well past the retirement age. Open your eyes and look around and see the number of "grey and white" haired employees in the stores. For the most part they are not the ones driving BMWs & JAGUARs. Drug companies recoup their costs many times over for the research they put into developing new drugs. How can U.S. manufactured drugs cost so much less in Canada? If it wasn't profitable would the drug companies bother selling into that market? The latest ploy is to try and "tweak" a drug that has been on the market for years and apply for a patent extension on the grounds it is a "new drug"?
DXJ
10:22 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Tracy, drug costs are higher because the Parasitical industry - er, I mean Pharmaceutical industry - has capture the Congress. The same could be said for so many other big <fill in the blank> industries - big-energy, big-agriculture, big-defense etc. It's crony-capitalism at work to suppress competition and to suck off the government tit.
Case in point is the supression of Canadian drug imports after Part D was passed. http://tinyurl.com/amvwdbc