Seriously. Everyone has known for 20 years Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are the cash drain on our tax dollars.

One down. Social Security benefits will be their next target.

Seriously. Social Security benefits have been a target previously and have had several bull's eye hits already. Nothing new there.

dl

I've never thought it was a good idea for the government to take on the responsibility for and obligation to take over the basic aspects of our lives that those programs attempt to financially subsidize. They just are not perpetually sustainable. They commit too much to too many at too high a cost. When the economy hits a rough spot and there is no 'lock box', we're caught in a lose-lose situation.

If the GOP can succeed in dismantling Medicare, SS benefits won't be merely hit. It will be the next to go away. Someone had to step up and say it. It has been a game of chicken and I am glad the GOP stepped up. Our nation can't fix itself with simple cuts. They are bickering about 1% of the budget. Fundamental change must occur.

Yeah those sorry lazy seniors that have worked for 40 years need to get out of their nursing home beds and get a damn job...that's what I say! If they cut out SS they better give me my freakin' money that they've been taking out of my pay my entire life!

I have to admit that life has been crazy busy and I have not paid close attention to the specific cuts and changes that are being pushed by either side. I've just seen that a possible shutdown is looming, and don't know if it's an idle threat intended to push things one way or the other or if everybody means business.

I saw just a bit ago (on Fox) a short bulleted list of things on the table right now (I believe from the GOP side), and the first bullet was "Four Dept. of Ed Programs", but it did not specify which programs. That piqued my interest, as I do a fair bit of proposal writing for education grants, and frankly... while the money that has come in as a result of those programs has been very beneficial and helpful, I have not always found things to be managed very well (at all) on the federal level. On paper, there should be a high level of oversight and accountability tied to those dollars. In reality, we can rarely get phone calls returned regarding issues related to multi-million dollar projects, and it is a bit disconcerting.

As someone on the 'recipient' end of the dollars, I've been delighted when federal awards are made to projects I've been involved in, but the taxpayer side of me cringes at the room that exists for mismanagement and waste, and the lack of attention provided from what feels a lot like an old boys network when I attend conferences related to these programs.

From what I am hearing this morning (I have Fox on in the other room and am only marginally listening), whatever it is that is being proposed wouldn't impact benefits going to anyone 55 or older. I am not listening close enough to know which side is making that proposal.

Well I don't know what's going on with this either.....seems a lot of sneaky underhanded things are happening without anyone knowing. Like SB5...suddenly we hear about taking away the Unions rights to collective bargaining...poof...there is it, being passed into law.

All I know is anyone that thinks they need to get rid of Medicaid has never had to try and come up with $6000 a month to pay for their parents nursing home costs. Try taking care of a parent that can't even lift their heads, on your own. Most people like to think "Mom will never go into a nursing as long as I'm living" well that's just simply wishful thinking. Because they can and do get to a point that we as mere individuals cannot do what is necessary to care for them once they cannot even roll over on their own anymore. Sad but it sure does happen!

couponsrock, I don't at all think that it doesn't happen. But nothing happens in a vacuum. In some states, unions had 'negotiated' themselves into unreasonably expensive salaries and benefits packages that were unsustainable by the tax base. Medical costs are sky high due to a number of factors, not the least of which are the fact that we have gone to an insurance-based system (that began when wage controls were implemented back during WWII, if I recall, and the only way companies could entice workers was to offer benefits rather than higher salaries, so they started offering to pay for the medical care of their employees... in other words, it was a result of the government making restrictions on the free market, and the free market trying to find workarounds that started the largely employer-supported insurance racket that has resulted in a level of expectations for 'freebies' from our employers then bleeding into expectations that the government will pick up where employers leave off when a person has no employer..)... I'm getting lost in my own syntax here, so let me start over. lol

The fact that we allowed an insurance-based system to become the standard is partly to blame for the cost of medical care. We let a third party machine that we 'need' but can't 'control' be the payor that determines what care we can have and what we can't have (because without them, we can't afford it), and that middle man has driven up costs. The fact that we are such a technologically advanced nation means that we have high expectations that science can solve whatever malady that exists, and the costs involved with R&D have to be recouped somewhere. Dr.'s offices don't just buy x-ray machines anymore. They have to be ready to provide CT's and MRI's and mammograms and 3D ultrasounds and the list goes on and on... and all of that comes at a price to the consumer.

Assuming that if the government took all of that over we would all live in a freebie wonderland ignores the fact that some of the very same problems will occur that have come to fruition as a by-product of our current system. The government becomes the middle man, and eventually, part of the problem.

I don't have the answer, but I don't deny that sometimes families need help that is very expensive.

I know that it can be difficult to care for a parent who is ill. With that being said, I do believe that in some cases...Medicaid is abused. Just as are many government programs. I don't have the answers, but one problem that I do see is that too many people want something for nothing. They want free housing, free food and free healthcare, and the people willing to work hard, seem to be the ones paying for it all...

But when they want to stop paying medical expenses for illegals and the such, everyone goes into a freakin' tizzy. The welfare system in our country has certainly gotten out of whack! FOR SURE! But let's (government) fix it right instead of taking away from the hard working people that made America what it is today or should I say what it was when it was good.

Let's (government) stop rewarding people for sitting at home and trying to see how many babies they can have and have never worked one hour in their entire lives. Let's stop giving people that are here illegally more benefits than an American citizen gets that's been working since they were 18 years old! Someone please start using their heads...please please please!

I don't mind people sitting at home and having babies and not having jobs... as long as they have a private (non-government) means of support. I certainly think it's the right of any American citizen to choose not to work and to have kids... but they also have the responsibility to know how they are going to personally foot the bill if they exercise those rights.

Anyone who is retiring and spent a lifetime of arranging their earnings around the expectation that they would receive SS should not be left in the lurch. I think we have an obligation to see it through for them. But for those of us young enough to cut back and save, I think we need to be presented with a much different future plan and figure out how we will provide for ourselves into our old age.

Surely you realize those are not the ones I am referring to! I'm talking about the ones that keep having babies and the more babies they have the more money they get from government assistance ie WELFARE! Most of these women are not even married to anyone and each child has a different father than the last one.

Yes - I do, and I agree with you completely.

We have not only removed the social stigma that used to be associated with the consequences of promiscuity, but we are now providing financial support for those who engage in a behavior we used to consider risky and immoral and get caught by the parental trap they walked into.

I think that anyone with a sliver of compassion does not like the idea of the innocent children who are produced from that irresponsible behavior to suffer consequences of actions they themselves did not commit.

I just hate that the way 'we' devised to protect those children makes it easier for the irresponsible behavior to be perpetuated.

By the same token, I also can't imagine not having your heartstrings tugged by the idea of being born in a country that provides little in the way of future opportunities. Those of us who live in the USA drink from wells we ourselves did not dig. We're very fortunate. Very blessed to have the freedoms and the opportunity to go from rags to riches. We don't all figure out how to make that happen, but generally the most pervasive barriers between any of us and financial stability are our own 'vision problems' and not issues related to a system that is simply not constructed to let *anyone* get ahead. This is evidenced by immigrants who come here, bust their butts, and make something for themselves out of an economy based on opportunities that many of us don't 'see', even though it is right in front of us.

For better or worse, the problems in Mexico that send illegals flooding onto our soil are not ours to fix. It's something that will have to occur from within, and it's up to them to make it happen for themselves. Right now, many of them have an 'outlet' if they can sneak in here, and perhaps that is removing from their population the very people who could be change agents for their nation (in addition to many who are simply lawbreakers and drug runners). I think until we remove the economic support incentives (education, health care, etc.) to come here, we really are not going to be able to do much to stop the bleeding at the border.

Social Security isn't "free" we pay into it. If you've paid into it you should be able to take out of it. Believe me I'd much rather invest that money myself but right now that's not an option. SS is not a donation it's automatically taken from wages.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

But the problem is that 'we' let congress decide that they don't actually have to 'save' it for us. They have been taking in more than they've been having to pay out in SS bennies for years, and the excess has been used to fund other things.

Now we're hitting the point where more money is needed to fund SS than is being taken in via our SS-earmarked tax money. And not only do we not have enough to pay for the benefits promised to the retirees, we also have other programs that have become dependent on what used to be excess SS tax money.

It's a big problem.

Not sure if you are really trying to be funny, but it's far more reaching than seniors. For one, many seniors countd on social security to SUPPORT them and didn't plan otherwise. SS was never, ever meant to support people, only as a supplement. Part of the outcry is "it isn't enough". Wrongo, you should have planned better.

For some, they didn't have to work 40 years, only a few and then they committed suicide or did something stupid that lead to their death - their minor children then receive benefits until they are 18. I am not talking about serious, life ending illness or accidental death through no fault of their own. I am talking about people being stupid. Yes I will say it.

For some, they immigrated here and their parents magically were awarded social secuurity even though the parents never worked here. A death occurs and social security is supposed to take care of it, according to them.

These are the types of problems I know of. I'd be willing to bet there are far more and way too many on the SSI side with fraudulent claims as well.

For me, they changed the game and I need to work longer. It's quite possible the game will change again and I will get nothing even though I've worked all of my life with verifiable payroll and paid. I'd like to just get my money back, even 1/2 of it and be able to invest it myself and be done with SS.

dl

Yep.

My dad died in his late 50's and never collected a dime in SS. Since his children were well into adulthood, there were no benefits for us and nothing for us to inherit from that - lol - 'Social Security Trust Fund'.

Too bad the non-existent lockbox wasn't a safety deposit box with his lifetime's worth of contributions in it.... even interest-free, it would've been nice to get that back!

One thing to remember is that many people also had pensions to rely on as part of their retirement and those were taken away.
While it is true SS is running at a deficit right now that is a matter of fiscal irresponsibility at a federal level as well as a consequence of the baby boomer age. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to collect the federal government needs to slash the salaries of congressmen, senators, the VP and The President to help balance things and start using common sense when it comes to spending and taxing. But that's another story.
I see most of us, even those that planned better than I did, having to work longer and not being able to enjoy the things in later years that our parents/grandparents were able to.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

I understand what you're saying, anna... but yet another factor to consider is that it wasn't that long ago that the life expectancy for a US citizen was in the 60's, ya know? Today it's not at all an uncommon thing for people to live well into their 90's. Both of my grandmothers did.

According to the info I just googled up, when SS was established, the retirement age was set at 65, and the average life expectancy was 63! That meant that they had the presumption that less than half of the recipients were even going to be alive to collect any ss payments.

According to that article, 55% of those collecting SS retired prior to age 62. No, they do not get full bennies, but they are eligible to collect at what I would consider a fairly young age.

Social security was never intended to support anyone - either partially or fully - for the 30 - 40 years people utilize it for in today's America. Our expanding life expectancy has thrown all those charts from the days of the New Deal out the window.

Frankly, it does seem crazy to me that we expect that people should begin work at age 22 (out of college) and work until they are 62, and then live to be 92. That means that in their 92 years, they have 40 years as earners and 52 years being supported by other means (parents or savings). It just surprises me to think that for many, the majority of their years will *not* be spent laboring to earn money to pay their way through life.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...security_x.htm