US - Do you think social security should be cut?

1. 69

   alexandriaruthkposted 11 years ago

   US - Do you think social security should be cut?
   
   This is needed for the budget to be done. Agree or disagree that they should even touch the social security benefits?

   replyreport
2. 79

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   Cutting Social Security benefits will do nothing to improve the financial health of this nation as the politicians sitting in Washington will only continue to wastefully spend whatever margin is gained.  Generations of working people have paid into this system with expectations.  Many of them have no other alternative in terms of providing their income in later years.  To take that money as they have for decades now and squander on other things and then turn around and point a finger at those entitled to receive a benefit from it is outright theft and the people of this country should not stand for it.  ~WB

   replyreport
3. 0

   RTalloniposted 11 years ago

   Disagree--however, welfare programs (medicaid/food stamps/etc.) should definitely be revamped. Defining “taking advantage of the system” is imperative.
   
   Medicaid facilities (nursing homes/assisted living--names which qualify for misnomers of the year awards) need rigorous reexamination and head start education programs are a grief. Such programs need to be removed from federal supervision/administration, then reworked by communities who are aware of their locality's needs and can provide real accountability.     
   
   On the other hand, social security is what workers and their employers are required to pay to the government, supposedly in good faith, that they will be provided for (monthly check/medicare health insurance/disability) if/when they are no longer able to work.  The way the monies are now used should be addressed.  The following is an interesting excerpt from: http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.basics.asp
   
   -------
   
   Government Promise
   
   * At the outset of the program, the federal government published an informational pamphlet that stated the following about Social Security taxes:
   
   And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.[16]
        
   * Accounting for inflation, this promise equates to a maximum tax collection of $1,741 per person.[17]
   
   * For 2013, the maximum payroll tax collection per person is $14,099 or eight times the promised maximum.[18]
   
   NOTE: The following projections are based upon what the current law specifies. This does not imply that the Social Security program will have enough money to pay for these benefits. Information concerning the financial stability of the Social Security program is contained in the next section.
   
   -------
   
   Imagine people on the local level who give to others "in need" able to say to their recipients, "As long as you get these benefits, you have to be accountable to those supporting you. You must follow a program of (fill in the blank with ideas like living a healthy life/working in your community/clean up your own yard and house…) and you cannot (fill in the blank with ideas like spend what money you have eating out/have expensive entertainments/nor can you continue to smoke, drink, do drugs, eat junk food and expect others to provide you with free health care…). 
   
   It is possible to cut the budget so actual help is offered/provided to everyone if that's really the goal.

   replyreport
4. 61

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   No they should not be cut.  Older folks count on this income and have contributed to it all of their lives.  I see the White House spending money on concerts, vacations etc when we are all supposed to be tightening our belts and it just makes no sense.

   replyreport
5. 72

   pagesvoiceposted 11 years ago

   It is such a shame that every single benefit that goes to seniors, the middle class, the poor and the disabled has to be politicized.
   
   As others have mentioned, People spend their working years paying into Social Security in an effort to insure some level of financial stability in their senior years. I've never heard of anyone becoming rich off of their Social Security payments...have you? Investing in the stock market has proven to be the riskiest way to plan for retirement, as many watched their portfolios plummet. So, "no" I do not think Social Security benefits should be cut.
   
   Many love to attack Medicaid, but do they consider those with severe physical and mental disabilities and the costly care involved in managing these people? What should people do, start locking these individuals up in their attics?
   
   We talk about entitlements as if they are the evils of a modern society. However, the most entitled people are those in the House in Washington. For 2013 the members of the house have scheduled 239 days off. They have the Mercedes Benz of medical care, Their pensions are something most of us can only dream about. These same House members have 2 gyms at their disposal with zero oversight and accountability to the taxpayers. No one knows how much these cost to operate nor do we even have an inkling what the gyms even look like. Then these same "entitled" politicians have the unmitigated gall to tell the rest of us they need to cut our "entitlements?" Wow, talk about double standards.

   replyreport
6. 69

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   The entitlement programs dominate the totality of Federal spending by a wide margin over all other expenditures.  So yes it needs to be altered.  But not necessarily cut.  SS is a smaller problem then Medicare.  There are easier solutions for SS if politicians were willing to tell the truth.   As it is currently run, there is no fundamental difference between what Bernie Madoff did and the way SS is currently run.  We collect from one group and distribute to the other while living off of the float.  Yet nowhere in between is there any capital created.  None of the money ever gets invested into anything other US treasuries through IOU's which have to be paid for by the very people who are owed the SS benefits. 
   
   The correct way to address this is to reconstruct the entire benefit plan the same way a proper pension fund is run.  This requires actuaries to make adjustments to contributions both positive and negative each year based on the changes in the demographic as well as investment returns and numerous other factors.  That means no more IOU's.  First SS has to be pulled from the general tax fund with no ability to leverage it for any other gov't operations.   The investment components have to be broadened to encompass all asset classes, no different than any other pension fund or university endowment.   
   
   The problem we currently face is that to many political figures want to demonize real solutions to protect their ability to control the masses.  The obstacle to allowing SS funds to be invested is nothing more than uninformed people being manipulated by the masses.  They scream about things like stock market volatility.  The fail to mention that after this relatively flat decade with a great degree of heightened volatility across two major market crashes, the average balanced portfolio is still up more than THREE times the rate of return of the SS trust fund.  And SS has a major advantage over the operational functionality of a classic pension funds actuarial projections.  We can see the demographic shifts coming from a far, versus a company that may for example be going out of business due to an improved competitor product and has fewer employees paying into the fund rather abruptly.
   
   The reality is that if we ran SS like a properly funded pension plan, not only would  we not be cutting benefits.  But we'd probably be increasing them.

   replyreport