posted May 14, 2011 08:22 AM            

SS and Medicare are insurance programs run by the government. Each and every paycheck we contribute to these programs as partners with a provider.

Why do Conservative Republicans re-brand these programs as welfare giveaways?

posted May 14, 2011 09:53 AM            

There is no return on invested capital which could reasonably be expected to produce a return from the payments of citizens into those programs which would even begin to pay for the benefits. Any insurance company collecting the premiums from those programs and distributing the proceeds as "benefits" would go bankrupt in short order.

But, that wasn't the intent of the Socialist Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 when Social Security was implemented.

In 1935, the life expectancy of men was 61 years and women, 63. People were supposed to DIE before collecting one red dime from Social Security.

The Socialist, Franklin Roosevelt set up a taxing scheme which was supposed to inure to the benefit of the federal government, not to the benefit of citizens...because they were supposed to DIE.

Because of the advances in medical science, people started living longer, foiled the Socialist Roosevelt's scheme and turned Social Security and Medicare into a giant Ponzi scheme.

Of course, none of that Social Security and Medicare money was saved or invested to pay future benefits. The government spent every penny for everything under the sun...and a hell of lot more too.

That's the reason entitlements like Social Security and Medicare must be reformed. They will bankrupt the United States.

posted May 14, 2011 12:43 PM            

Social Security is currently keeping roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.

posted May 14, 2011 01:35 PM            

What Social Security recipients ARE getting is a return on their invested premiums beyond what any invested capital by any insurance company on earth could be reasonably expected to deliver under an "Annuity".

But, the US isn't investing or even saving those premiums to pay future benefits. They've been spending it as fast as it comes into the General Revenue Fund. Which is why Social Security and Medicare have turned into a gigantic Ponzi scheme.

Which is the exact reason Social Security and MediCare are going bankrupt and threatening to bankrupt the United States.

Which is the entire reason for reforming Social Security and Medicare into self sustaining systems.

posted November 09, 2011 09:07 AM            

Subsidies are entitlements.

Medicare and Social Security are a public trust.

quote:

---

Opponents have used the negative impact of the economy on Social Security to make it seem as if Social Security was failing, as if it had fallen into a deficit of its own. These claims are false. The interest the government owes to the Social Security Trust Fund for the funds it has borrowed from Social Security represents a legal obligation of the government. Interest earned on Social Security investments has always been used to pay Social Security benefits.

But opponents pretend the interest should not be counted as savings that add to Social Security's annual balance. This makes no sense. When Social Security claims the interest it has earned to pay benefits, the government is required to pay back the interest it owes to Social Security. This is what the opponents don't like. Social Security did not create the economic problem or the budget deficit. Wall Street and other government spending did. But the opponents of Social Security don't want to pay back all the money that was borrowed from Social Security, including the interest earned. Instead, they want to cut Social Security benefits.

The taxpayers of America bailed out the banks -- wouldn't it be fair now to ask the banks to pay back what they have cost Social Security? A tax on financial transactions and a tax on Wall Street bonuses, with revenues dedicated to Social Security, would pay back to Social Security and its contributors what has been taken from them.

Pay Back Social Security -- The Government Has Borrowed More from Social Security than any Other Entity or Foreign Government

Another argument made by Social Security opponents to raise fear about the national debt is how much our government has borrowed from China. They never mention how much our government has borrowed from Social Security. In fact, the government has borrowed more from the Social Security surplus than it has from any other source in the world, including China. As a result, Social Security now "owns" nearly 18 percent of the federal debt, making it the largest single holder of US debt. The government owes almost twice as much to Social Security as it does to China and Hong Kong.

Why aren't the opponents worried about paying back Social Security -- why aren't they talking about repaying this debt to the American people?

According to the U.S. Treasury Department's "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" (9.30.10), the total debt was $13.562 trillion and was held as follows:

US Holders of Debt
42.1 % -- US Individuals and Institutions
17.9 % -- Social Security Trust Fund
6.0 % -- US Civil Service Retirement Fund
2.1 % -- US Military Retirement Fund

Foreign Holders of Debt
11.7 % -- Oil Exporting Countries
9.5 % -- China and Hong Kong
6.3 % -- Japan
1.4 % -- United Kingdom
1.3 % -- Brazil
1.6 % -- All other foreign countries

House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) provided some insight to their Social Security views in a recent NPR interview when he was talking about Social Security and said, "We are going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want it to be."

If the American public were asked about what priority should be placed on the debt owed to Social Security, we have no doubt that they would resoundingly say: "Pay Us Back -- pay back the money borrowed from Social Security!"

The Costs Imposed on Social Security by Wall Street's Failures
-----------------------------------

In a recent paper on deficit reduction for the Roosevelt Institute, Nobel prize-winner and Columbia University Professor, Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted about the Wall Street banks: "Even if the banks were to pay back every dime that they received, they would not have come close to compensating the country for the full costs (now in the trillions of dollars) that they have imposed on others. "

---

link