Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[Gunny]

Are you moving into fixing Medicare too? That's its own nightmare.

Since you're switching gears and asked

Here's something I don't get. I've been paying for Tricare Prime (or it's predecessor) since I joined the Marines. When I turn 65, I suddenly am required by law to enroll in Medicare and Tricare becomes my supplemental.

Only reason I can see for that is so the government can claim it's pulling from one federal pot instead of the other. There's a LOT of that happening at every level.

Weigh this thread against the other thread I posted about the government not even being able to account for what its paying for and/or to who. There's a LOT of room to fix these programs and a lot of slush to fix them with. The real question to me becomes: How to motivate a fat, dumb and happy government that's "getting theirs" to actually work for a living, do their jobs responsibly and account for itself?

[fj1200]

Since you're switching gears and asked

Here's something I don't get. I've been paying for Tricare Prime (or it's predecessor) since I joined the Marines. When I turn 65, I suddenly am required by law to enroll in Medicare and Tricare becomes my supplemental.

Only reason I can see for that is so the government can claim it's pulling from one federal pot instead of the other. There's a LOT of that happening at every level.

Weigh this thread against the other thread I posted about the government not even being able to account for what its paying for and/or to who. There's a LOT of room to fix these programs and a lot of slush to fix them with. The real question to me becomes: How to motivate a fat, dumb and happy government that's "getting theirs" to actually work for a living, do their jobs responsibly and account for itself?

My guess? Government efficiency. It makes sense on the surface, and it's not just the military from what I've seen, but I know little about tricare.

The fix to Medicare is not automatically throw every possible dollar at old people in their last 3 months of life. But try getting that past "Gammie's" kids and grandkids. That being said there's a ton of fraud in Medicare.

[Kathianne]

Are you moving into fixing Medicare too? That's its own nightmare.

I have no idea how that can work out, BUT it can't exist without the unsustainable monies of SSI-fact. All of it is a Ponzi scheme and the sooner it's pulled, with as much safety nets as possible, the sooner the pain will end.

[Kathianne]

Reminder:

[Kathianne]

[Kathianne]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ut-by-2033-cbo

POLITICS Published January 22, 2023 5:52pm ESTMajor Social Security trust funds could be tapped out by 2033: CBO
Social Security's major trust funds could be exhausted by 2033, resulting in reduced benefit payments


By Eric Revell FOXBusiness

The CBO's analysis found that if the projected gap between the outlays from the trust funds and the revenue they receive happens as forecast, the balance of the trust funds would hit zero in 2033 and the Social Security Administration wouldn't be able to pay out full retirement benefits as they come due.


Specifically, the CBO found that Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2033 and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2048. If the two trust funds were combined, the exhaustion date would come in 2033.

...

It found that if Social Security benefits were limited to what's payable from annual tax revenues, benefit payments would be about 23% smaller than scheduled benefits in 2034. The gap would rise as time goes on with payable benefits being 35% smaller by 2096.


Under current law, there is no formula for reducing Social Security benefits to what is payable based on payroll tax revenue, so there is some uncertainty over what the SSA would do and whether lawmakers would respond with reforms before the trust funds become exhausted.


GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE


In the CBO's analysis of the scenario in which Social Security benefits were limited to what's payable based on incoming revenue, it found that younger age cohorts would see the biggest change to their initial benefits and lifetime benefits because they generally won't begin receiving payments until after the exhaustion of the trust funds:


Cohorts of beneficiaries born in the 1950s and 1960s would see little to no change to their initial benefits while their lifetime benefits would be reduced by 9% and 19%, respectively.
Cohorts of beneficiaries born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s would see initial benefits cut by 24%, 27% and 28%; while lifetime benefits would be reduced by 26%, 27% and 27%, respectively.

[SassyLady]

Just an off the wall thought.

Part of the shortfall is due to cash under the table work force not paying into the fund. Also, more robotics replacing labor is less being paid into the fund.

[Kathianne]

Just an off the wall thought.

Part of the shortfall is due to cash under the table work force not paying into the fund. Also, more robotics replacing labor is less being paid into the fund.

Decent concerns, but simple math and socioeconomic factors. Baby boom are nearly all retired, following cohorts can't match numbers, not even taking into account increased lifespans since program inception,

[fj1200]

Just an off the wall thought.

Part of the shortfall is due to cash under the table work force not paying into the fund. Also, more robotics replacing labor is less being paid into the fund.

It's because there aren't enough workers to support retirees. In 1940 it was 42 to 1, 3 to 1 today, 2 to 1 in 2050. Unsustainable.

[SassyLady]

It's because there aren't enough workers to support retirees. In 1940 it was 42 to 1, 3 to 1 today, 2 to 1 in 2050. Unsustainable.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Not enough wages to tax. Illegals, robotics, population decline, etc.

[icansayit]

REMEMBER THIS: Democrats ALWAYS accuse R's of CUTS...when they actually know...it is not CUTS but...NO MORE INCREASED SPENDING.

EVERY YEAR I HAVE BEEN ALIVE AND LEARNED DEMOCRAT TRICKS (and Republican as well). They have used CUTS instead of NO INCREASE IN SPENDING.

But...knowing how uninformed most Seniors like myself are. They Instantly FEAR LOSING MONEY...because the DEMS always say so.

If anyone disagree's. I DON'T CARE. Stay uninformed, and easily led.

[Gunny]

REMEMBER THIS: Democrats ALWAYS accuse R's of CUTS...when they actually know...it is not CUTS but...NO MORE INCREASED SPENDING.

EVERY YEAR I HAVE BEEN ALIVE AND LEARNED DEMOCRAT TRICKS (and Republican as well). They have used CUTS instead of NO INCREASE IN SPENDING.

But...knowing how uninformed most Seniors like myself are. They Instantly FEAR LOSING MONEY...because the DEMS always say so.

If anyone disagree's. I DON'T CARE. Stay uninformed, and easily led.

I would think anyone that doesn't default to "losing money" if the Federal government is "looking for money" isn't paying attention to the economy vs the paycheck.

Taking from someone what someone has earned is called theft. Unless the government does it. Then it's legal theft. Who do they usually target? Anyone that can't say no/doesn't have a voice. Seniors, military/government employees.

I'm all about calling it not spending while inflation continues vs "cuts". Same thing. We should start the aforementioned with government, not the People that are already funding the do-nothings.