"Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET.
By Fareed Zakaria
In 1900, 1 in 25 Americans was over the age of 65. In 2030, just 18 years from now, 1 in 5 Americans will be over 65. We will be a nation that looks like Florida-I don't mean the strip malls, I mean demographically. Because we have a large array of programs that provide guaranteed benefits to the elderly, this has huge budgetary implications. In 1960 there were about five working Americans for every retiree. By 2025, there will be just over two workers per retiree. In 1975 Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid made up 25 percent of federal spending. Today they add up to a whopping 40 percent. Within a decade, they will be over 50 percent.
Now, we've gotten away with these huge new costs so far by borrowing heavily, for decades. But debt is now 100 percent of GDP and surely that can't keep going up for ever. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation calculates - using Congressional Budget Office numbers - that by 2040 we are likely to spend 10 percent of GDP on interest payments alone (we pay about 1.4 percent today). That is four times what we spend on education, infrastructure and scientific research put together. Now, since entitlements-social security, Medicare and defense spending have powerful interest-group support, what's going to happen is, everything else, all other federal spending will wither. So the left has to ask itself why is it tethered to a philosophy that insists that government's overwhelming responsibility is for pensions and health care even when, as an inevitable consequence, this will starve the other vital functions of the state. Is insurance for the elderly the only important function of government?
Above education? Above scientific innovation? Above investments in infrastructure and energy? Above poverty alleviation? And yet that is the direction we are headed.
Watch the video for the full take.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
This goes to show just how much the military and foreign governments get top priority over the rest of us in Washington D.C., thanks to the M.I.C.(military-industrial-complex). We elders paid into the system and these right-wingers in Washington now want to write us off!
Yes, there is conspiracy.... and you're it.
Has anybody noticed the big mouths that want to destroy S.S., medicare, and medicaid aren't in the game.
Ira, I pay into a system that I won't get ever. I'm 30, and their won't be ss when I need it. So ya the voices of the younger are very important on this. I don't want the system gone, but it needs to be fixed.
I have a hard time buying into the logic that by 2030 20% of the USA will be over the age of 65. The validity of such stories has to be questioned. According to the 2010 Census 13% of the US population is over 65 which is a big increase over 4% but that was in 1900! The 20% number assumes that the percentage of our population over 65 has not hit an all time high and that life expectancy will stay the same up to the year 2030. According to the same census that raised life expectancy from 76.8 in 2000 to 78.5 in 2010 many things need to be looked at. The following are increases for ages 18+ from 2000-2010. Heart disease-1% Cancer-1.4% Hypertension-3% Obese-5.6%. Emergency room visits for everyone Under 65 have increased 2%, while over 65 have stayed steady. If you take all of this into account it would appear the over 65 could be the longest lived generation ever in the USA. Even if address all health issue for the under 65 crowd now it would seem that a gap is coming which will provide time to fix the situation before the supposed 1 in 5 scenario.
What you elders dont understand is yes you paid into the system, but it will get back from the government all that you ever put in a short amount of time then you become a negative burden. If you would have properly prepared for retirement in your glory days then you wouldn't be such a burden on society.
That is just about the dumbest thing ever posted on these boards, how would you know anything about how much has been put into those funds from paychecks? Sounds like you have no clue, it is also based on how much the principle collects in interest over those years and years of growing during the working ages. The chance of dying while you are getting that little back from all that has been paid in usually catches up and you never see the full amount. Troll!
You will get old too. Hopefully Wall Street won't be as corrupt and leave you with a half empty bag
clf. That's quite a generality. I have properly prepared for my retirement and will be adequately taken care of by....myself. I have paid into Social Security for 45 years and, given its meager payout when I will tap into it at 70 years of age, have no expectation of returning the absolute contributions I have made, much less inflation adjust contributions or, God forbid, a return. It is your generation that takes 5 – 7 years to get through college, draining your parents' retirement funds and abusing public funding of higher ed. It is your generation that impulse buys everything with no accountability.
You need to be real careful when you start writing...but then you are part of the "I'm not accountable generation", so maybe you don't.
Organic, you couldn't be more wrong. Literally, you think you understand this, and the exact opposite of what you think is true.
If you were right, there wouldn't be a debt/deficit issue. The only reason Social Security may fail is that the amount of money that has come in not only isn't sufficient to pay all seniors, the amount of money that WILL be coming in from all working adults isn't sufficient to pay the then current seniors.
Once again someone opening their mouth without due diligence. What you say may apply to some but certainly not all. Example: I've paid the maximum amount of SS for the last 25 years of employment. My employer matched that amount. This represents a considerable amount of $$$. I asked my financial advisor to calculate how many years it would take for me to consume what has been paid in based on my current rate of return at age 66. I would need to live into my mid 80's before I would use all I paid in and that's without any consideration for investment. I, and everyone else that has PAID (that is a key word) into the system for 45 years is owed the money. End of story!
You are correct if you are talking about today's young people planning for the future financially without considering social security; however, when seniors were working and were the "young people" you talk about, the loss of social security was not an issue. You cannot point to seniors on SS today and say they didn't plan. They certainly did, and social security was a big part of the plan. It is very easy to be Monday morning quarterback, but all that kind of talk is of no consequence to the seniors of today. We planned our retirements based on social security and medicare. If this is result of working hard and trusting your government/elected officials, then shame on us!
You're forgetting that our elders were -told- that Social Security WAS their preparation for retirement. How else could the government justify mandatory participation by everyone?
You're blaming the wrong people for lack of planning.
wow , let's all prepare, be millionaries, who's gonna service you at MacDonalds, who's goin' be a cop, fireman, police officer, get over it Society needs all jobs, rich or poor, we all are our brothers' keepers. make the rich pay their fair share, i'm sick and tired of corporate welfare. In case you didn't know it Jesus was a socialist.
I don't think that 49 years was a short time as you so put it! But I'm retired so I must be senile. thank you, its nice for you to remind me that all the years of my over payments to these government program's were not wisely invested but wasted. the schools, roads and lets not forget the all the unfunded war's all over that same time, did not helped. I know if we old people would just have keep dyeing off early before age 65 like we were back in the 40's and 50's then there'd be no problem now! sorry Joe six pack but We well still need the working class to still die at 40 or so. So if you want Social securty to still be the Fed's sweet little cash cow? just off Grandpa and Grandma for Christmas, then for being such good boys/girls next year you can get that Ipone 6 your going to be needing!
Not a good post @clf. And not a good response @Kevin. Blanket statements and generalizations – not good.
how stupid can you get....America hasn't had any glory days in decades, that's to say that Americans haven't been able to put away money from their meager earnings for their retirement. Social Security is all they have. If administrations back in the 60s & 70s etc. had correctly handled the monies coming in, we wouldn't be in the bind wer'e in now. After all, it was obvious that we all would grow old.
Here is the said reality. The money you "paid in" has been spent. It was taken from you and given to the elderly citizens of that time. Simply sticking to the argument that promises were made and money was taken does nothing to address the economic reality that there is no money left. The money that the rest of us are now paying into the system is now going to be paid towards the interest costs of borrowing what needs to be paid out to the elderly today.
Many Americans have put into the system for 50 years or more.If they had invested the same money in the stock market and left it they would be ahead probably.Most who bucked the system before are glad they were forced to do it.It is a Ponzi scheme of the first magnitude but now shows signs of giving up the ghost as many chose to work under the table and never paid any in but have managed to cheat the system.It only works if you pay in.If you have a whole crew of illegals working on and repairing your house and never pay into a system they manage to raid it will not work.The system is used also to pay for babies who for some strange reason the fathers leave no DNA that our government can find. It is easier just to keep the little tyke up than to try to find a drive by father.
Despite protestations to the contrary the post by clf is actuarily correct.The original Social Security tables were calculated based on 5 years of payout beyond the retirement age not the 20 to 25 years we are heading for. Take your total SS witholding over the years (you can look it up on-line) then run the numbers based on an investment return of say 6% over the time frame that you have invested. Now calculate how many years of benefits you have saved based on the current average monthly payout. Alternatively figure out what your monthly benefit would be over a 20 year time frame. The difference between that figure and what you currently receive is welfare.
that is just not true. very few draw out what they have paid in not to mention the interest that has been earned on that money over ones lifetime. there are easy ways to fix social security. it's a very simple program. the change in figuring inflation fixes social security for the life span of most people today. but at the cost of lowering benefits. the easiest way to fix social security is lower the rate to 104% and remove the cap. that fixes social security for almost as long. does'nt lower anyones benefits. give a tax cut to 85% of workers and is revenue nuetral to 90% of workers.
To solve this Social security and medicare problem, we have to tax everyone in this country at a fixed % without any cap limit. The % tax rate is the same whether you are a millionaire or a billionaire. This is called Tax and therefore reform the Medicare and Social Security according to the formula I am proposing – NO CAP LIMIT.
thats fine GIVE ME ALL THE MONEY I PAID IN PLUS INTRUST AND YOU"LL NEVER HERE FROM ME AGAIN
Agree! You pay into the system in case you need it. Work hard and prepare for your own retirement. The problem with this country is the Government has become the provider for so many. If you are ill and can not prepare for your own retirement, God Bless the system that can help you out, but if you bank on the Government to take care of you for the rest of your life you are a burdon
True for most, but those of us who paid top tier for years will not. Having said that, I love my children and other's children too much to cripple them with our debt. However, I cannot help but wonder why our military spending is not a key item in this debate realizing that we spend annually more than the next ten nations in the world combined.
You're a fool.
You've bought into the myth that social programs are the cause of all our fiscal ills. Take a look at defense spending....or are you a neocon that thinks that's off limits because we need to always be on alert for nonexistent enemies? The plutocrats, the neocons and the religious elite just LOVE people like you. If they can create enough of you they will truly have the country they have been dreaming about for fifty years.
It's a country that I would quite frankly want no part of. I'll say it again....
You are a fool.
I strongly suspect that you're a paid shill for the tea baggers. Your posting is so ridiculously wrong – and its tone so cryptic – that you're likely their least clever paid poster. I would demand a raise. If you're expected to post ridiculous and scurrilous lies, get paid more for it because it's carrying YOUR name and not that of the shadow puppeteers.
You obviously have no knowledge of the history of our social system and government budgets, things that have been publicly understood and easily tracked for 70 YEARS.
Hey, clf. What is the status of your parents? Are they still living? If so, I assume they are or will refuse thier SS payments based on your comments and pay thier own medical costs on thier own. Please enlighten the rest of us. And while you are at it, I am assuming you will also not count on SS when you are in your sixties. By my calculations, you will need about $5,000,0000 in about 30 years to live totally independent of SS and medicare. Assuming you are in your thirties or so. Are you on target?
CLF, very good points but stated a little harshly. To all those responding that you have overpaid into the system: Do you did not, not if you factor in the cost of the HEALTH CARE that you are also receiving. You are telling me that a person who is not on medicare can be bankrupted by a single hospitalization but someone who is on medicare isn't costing the government the same tens and hundreds of thousands for the same exact treatment. When you factor in medicare on top of your monthly social security payments almost every person who lives beyond 5 years past retirement is taking MORE OUT THAN THEY EVER PAID IN. Yes you were made promises and that's why no one is saying YOUR benefits need to be impacted that would cause a riot. What you do need to do is STOP repeating the AARP'S talking points and think for a minute. If the age of eligibility is not raised for FUTURE retirees this system collapses. IF means testing is not put in place this system collapses. I am 48 years old and have been paying into these programs myself since I was 16 and these changes are going to affect ME not YOU so get on board for the sake of your Grandchildren.
gregingso
Since you are supportive of changing the rules for folks your age and mine (I am a bit older), then lets change other rules also. I assume you have a mortgage. Are you ready to give up the mortgage deduction? Or did you save up and pay cash for your home? If you took a mortgage deduction, then you are getting something from the government that should be on the table to cut. The point is, there are lots of things to cut from government Deductions, Exemptions, Defernse, etc. If SS and medicare are going to be cut, then I also don't want any more tax deductions and exemptions.
BillC – I'm pleased to know you paid so much into the system, but really – it doesn't matter. Because what you are paid out has no affect on what you paid in. I could retire today (I'm 30) and if I could live off savings and cash wages, I'd probably get the same when I retire as you will simply because I've paid in a lot up front. Social Security is simply a horrible annuity program that loans all its money to the general fund. You made the comment that (if it hadn't been raided by other spending) – well that's not true – the SS trust holds all those IOUs – the problem is that its not generating IOUs anymore – its cashing them in and SS is not sustainable, because its not run like a structured financial benefit – congress keeps raising payouts, not based on money available in the system, but rather demands of retirees who want more money.
Maybe if my paycheck had not been BURDENED with taxes that almost equal my take home then we ELDERS could have saved more..when I first started working there was no Medicare Tax...that came later but you sound a little wet behind the ears to know that, I lived it . Wall Street Gang gambling with retirement funds did not help..not at all..but the Government will bail the crooks out and stomp on those the give them the funds to continue to screw over those that cannot seem to get above that magic tax rate...
Austerity is where this has been headed for a while...this crap of robbing funds from a government program that should not EVER be a part of cutting a deal on the budget...is crap and robbery...they are thieves all of them. Over haul SS later when these people do THEIR JOB..SS is not a part of what these grown men are bickering about it a pile of money earning interest and the greedy ones just can't stand that..SS is not a part of the problem that is going on right now . Shame on all of them that would EVER vote to take more of that money away from where it came..SHAME on them.
And you are SHAMEFULLY UNINFORMED. But then, the mass media has done a great job in making sure you can get to such state of ignorance. Retirement systems are intra and inter generational, and are managed by actuarial studies. These studies take into account all the factors that contribute to the health of the fund. Everything. And it determines the contribution rates. At present, Social Security has .2.3 trillion surplus. The problem is, the government dipped into the fund, for all the splendid wars and payouts to various thugs. Now, they are crying poor, and want US TO PAY FOR IT. No, no. Keep your fingers out of our TRUST FUND, that has more then enough money to pay out of the baby boomer generation, and after that, it will actually have a BIGGER SURPLUS. Why do you think they reduced the "payroll tax"? Because they know that we are already OVERCOLLECTING, and it was a cute way to help the economy. They do whatever they please with the TRUST FUND, and then do not wish to return the money, THUS, they need to - reform us!!!! YOU, on the other hand, I am sure supported all the wars, conflicts, interventions, humanitarian busybodies, hundreds of thousands of "non-governmental" organizations, any weapon system or fantasy, any government bureaucracy that has anything to do with the "security", checking out babies and old grannies at the airport - not thinking where the money is coming from. Well, it has come from OUR TRUST FUND, our Social Security, AND now it is coming from OUR SAVINGS, as the morans are keeping interest rates low to help bank speculators, while ROBBING SAVERS. Again, any person who saved for retirement.
You are the burden on the society. Being ignorant is helping politicians take money, and then take advantage of people like you, to defend their thievery.
@Andrew – I was curious so I did some calculating. I have worked without stopping since I was 16. I have 6 yrs to go before I hit 66, my chosen retirement age. Presuming I will make as much the next 6 yrs as I have the last 3 because my employer is not giving out raises, when I figure in what I paid, what my employer paid and figure the interest (let's just presume on faith I do know how to do this), I come to 13.4 yrs of payments. That would make me 79.4 yrs of age when "welfare" hits. Two thoughts. 1. I've never taken a dime of unemployment, food stamps, or welfare of any kind. If indeed it would be welfare then maybe I'm due.....then I have to say I also put in 20 yrs as an unpaid volunteer firefighter and I feel ok taking money the last few years of my life if you want to count in my time for that service. 2. While I may be lucky enough to live as long as my father (86) and take 6 yrs of "welfare", there is just as good a chance with my atrial fib that I will only live to be perhaps 74 and then hey, lucky govt has money left over. What I mean is, some live longer, some live shorter. It's a gamble and it's impossible to really set numbers in stone on all this.
@ORGAINIC...ACTUALLY HE'S RIGHT. TAKE YOUR LAST PAYCHECK MULTIPLY THE AMOUNT TAKEN OUT FOR SS BY 24...MULTIPLY THAT BY SAY 40 AND THAT IS THE AMOUNT YOU APPROX PUT IN. NOW TAKE THE AMOUNT OFF THE SS SHEET THE GOV SENDS YOU EVERY YEAR THAT TELLS YOU HOW MUCH YOU CAN DRAW EACH YEAR AT AGE 65AND MULTIPLY THAT BY ABOUT 20 OR EVEN 15. COMPARE THE 2 FIGURES.........THEN APOLOGIZE TO THIS GUY
gee, i guess you're right...i'm such a burden to society now that i'm 70. guess i'll just be quiet becuz you set me straight on this one, you smart younger person. GFYS
Well, clf, what YOU don't understand is that back in the '80s, SS was projected to have trillions in reserve to pay monthly SS checks. Unfortunately, our elected officials stole every last penny (and continue to steal money as it comes in) to pay for their pork and ill-advised wars and put useless (yes, useless) IOUs in the SS pot.
Now, they're looking at those IOUs and saying, "Horrors! We don't want to pay out all this money to our own citizens. How will we ever fund pork and give billions to Egypt, Pakistan and every other country that hates our guts and keep the military contractors happy? No, No we must announce that these greedy elderly citizens are the fault of all our monetary woes. Somehow, we must convince the taxpayers that SS and Medicare must be cut so our children won't have to bear this burden. That's it!! Save the children!!"
Until all funds are cut off from other countries, no citizen should have to give up anything. Why is it so important that we spend $20 million adapting Sesame Street for Pakastani children? Why did we just give $688 million to Pakistan for their 'help' in combating terrorism? $688 million to people who sheltered bin Laden? Really?
I know that we elders are probably receiving more than we paid in (but I'm not sure about that), but we relied on the government to take into account the population increase. If they failed in that then what are we supposed to do? I think the problem is that they spent the money we paid in and now are taking it from the younger population in the form of taxes. What they should have done is put the money into a separate account that could then draw interest – that's what major labor unions require the employers they have contracts with to do. Even if the company goes out of business our retirement funds are safe. The way it is structured now is little more than a ponzi scheme, with retirees being paid by new people paying into it. Again, that's not our fault and we are not in a position to go start over again and pay into another retirement account for another 40+ years.
It is your part who is most to blame. Yes the Democrats. For many many years the Republicans have stated the money you were putting in the social security was being stolen and not invested as it should have been. So what did Galveston do about it years ago. OPT out of the mess that is social security and those people are all living comfortably down in Texas on their retirements. The liberals screamed when Galveston did that saying that it was a scheme and people would lost their money. Truth was Social Security was and always be the scheme until real intelligent people do something about it like those down in Galveston. Unfortunately the entire democratic party together don't have a combined IQ big enough to figure out a way out of the mess they created!!!!
Sorry for the misspellings.. I typed that in fast.. The Democratic party is good at one thing! Smoke and Mirrors and blaming the right for the mess that the left created. Unfortunately a very big portion of this country don't have the education to figure that out. And many who are educated were indoctrinated and don't know how to use logic.
Rick, Rick Perry is that you?
Oops...
That's OK, Joe; we all understand. You are from the great state of Texass, and we really don't expect anything intelligent or meaningful to come from there...
Investing SS dollars for future retiree's, instead of raiding them for more Federal spending? Crazy Talk!
Of course the program Galveston set up ended up screwing many of the citizens, not the ones at the top of the pay scale who set it up though.
The joke was Al Gore's "social security lockbox". Remember that? The money is gone, and yes, people paid into the system and were misled by politicians who told them all was ok in order ot get their votes. At some point this country needs to come to the conclusion that what is in place is not sustainable, and adjustments need to be made. We simply need to learn to live wiithin our means, and stop running up huge deficits becuase its the politically popular thing to do.
we produces more goods and services with less labor than ever before, so why cant we take care of our elderly????????????
GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a stupid non-sequitar
"We" do not need to pay for the elderly or anyone else. If YOU and your liberal buddies want to, by all means have at it. Leave me out of it. And, yes, you can also refund all the monies I paid for Social Security and Medicare with interest to me and I will take care of and fund my own retirement. You won't have to pay for my medical benefits then.
Go to a store uninformed liberal with head in sand. almost everything is made in China now. You really are drunk on Obama's Kool Aid.
The issue is that there was never was a savings fund into which you paid money. Your social security and medicare payroll deductions were just taxes that were used to pay people currently receiving such benefits, with the excess going into the government's general fund. As the article says, that is now catching up to us. There aren't enough people paying in to take care of the people taking out. You aren't taking out money you put in. You are taking your turn at receiving from people currently working.
That is the result of an irresponsible government. SS was an insurance policy (look up the definition). If they had used it as intended, and not robbed it for every other hand-out or pet project, there would be plenty of money. It's time to make difficult decisions and that shouldn't include cheating the people that worked and paid for the monthly distributions that they have been told they would receive for 45 years of work.
@BillC: You have no clue how SS works. It is not, nor has ever been, an insurance policy. It is a payroll tax and a welfare program - as adjudicated. It has always been a pay-as-you-go program designed to mislead people. Look into the history of how the program was formed, why taxable wages are capped, and why everyone gets it...
Exactly correct. People need to understand this. And understand they have been lied to all these years.
SS is very much like "paying it forward". Todays generation pay the current retirees benefits (or a big chnk) and the hope is when it comes their turn the next generation does the same. Problem is when there are fewer and fewer this generation (compared to the generation they are supporting), and pretty soon the whole conga line ends up rear ending itself.
What you have to include though, are those MILLIONS of illegals who HAVE NOT PAID A DIME in to SS, but are currently reaping the benefits!! That's a fact that seems is being over looked......
What benefits are the illegal aliens receiving from social security? Many illegal workers have paid INTO social security and can't collect a dime in benefits.
Could you please show some data showing that millions of illegal aliens are receiving social security payments?
Are you being ironic, Illegalone? The truth is precisely the opposite of what you have just said.
I get a kick out of those who think illegals are collecting SS benefits. You don't have a valid SS number, so you work under a fake number, a stolen number, or some dead persons number, and you do that to make ends meet now. How are you going to get SS benefits unless you paid into the system and under a SS number that you can actually collect under?
The fact is that illegals are largely doing work others won't, and that illegals are having SS deducted from their meager wages (if they aren't being paid cash – and then there is no chance they'll collect SS either), and those SS contributions don't come back to them, but benefit the rest of us, including those complaining the loudest about illegals supposedly making out like bandits at everyone else's expense.
How about cutting cutting back on the dreadful stupid expense of these senseless wars. Let's skip one nuclear sub. How many nuclear battleships do we need? Aircraft carriers? Fighter jets? Why does everyone simple avoid speaking about these expenses?
I would much prefer spending money on human needs instead of dropping it into the bottomless maws of the killing machine. Peace and Love Bettejo Dux
Beautfully posted, bettejodux. These war loving ignoramuses here who never mention the M.I.C. and the way they're robbing this country blind with this endless military spending make me sick. Such ignorance is truly nauseating!
Yeah, I agree. We should just stick with what we got. So what if those pilots get shot down because their jets are 50+ years old and can't maneuver. Or they just fall out of the sky when their wings snap from cracks and old age. That just means less people to pay SS to. And they were warmongers anyway, right? Amazing how you can accuse others of ignorance in the same breath you display yours.
Tom, you're making stuff up.
The greatest Ponzi scheme cooked up by the "greatest generation"
You didn't read what he wrote did you?
If Social Security was separated from Social Security Disability and then was made into a true retirement supplement would this solve the financial crisis for the fund? Just asking, as the Disability component does not have an age restriction and those that begin receiving it at a young age make it a lifetime financial claim rather than an elderly supplement.
Actually, you didn't pay enough into 'the system'. It was the current 'elderly' and 'baby boomers' (I'm in the latter) that has voted in and kept voting in people who would not manage a budget. The Chinese and others have paid into 'the system' too, and they would like to be paid back. Since the 70s (and maybe before), this country has been living on borrowed money and borrowed time. The country enjoyed the inflated growth on borrowed money. The country can't now act like the money wasn't borrowed. Remember, it's "we the people". Take responsibility. Lifestyles will have to change.... like the good old days when the elderly lived with their kids and where only expected to live 5 years after SS kicked in.
Why the change in position after the election.......
Your generation has spent every penny that my son and I and probably his children will ever pay in taxes. If you didn't plan properly for your own retirement, that's on you, I'm sick of hearing how it's my responsibility to pay for it.
Even if we hadn't paid a cent into it, it is a function of the community (through the organiization of government) to care for those who can no longer care for themselves. When we cease allowing our government to be purchaesd by corporations, including the MIC, then and then only will government be freed to function as it should: in the service of the American people.
nice of the work starve fareed.. as in lets starve the elderly because everybody else has a big lobby.. it's sickening.. vital programs like the farm bill which throws at big ag (keep the part that helps real farmers).. a defense which is insanely over budget and of course the skyrocketing price of health care.. here, but nowhere else in the developed world.. so don't pretend that could be done, so that grandma doesn't freeking starve.. sole survivors, with children poorer than than they are or were.. really
Actually, the elderly have a huge lobby in the form of AARP and their ability to scare the daylights out of our politicians by threatening to mobilize the vote. SS has been pretty much a sacred cow for decades, and now the country is coming to terms with the shifting demographics as a larger and larger percentage of people are retiring (and living longer to boot) and a smaller and smaller percentage of people are working. And, that last point – fewer workers – is itself an onion with many layers. Jobs being created now tend to pay less than the jobs lost in this great recession, newly minted graduates have fewer jobs to move into, and are delaying their "working years" and the whole thing is further contributing to less money entering the system, while at the same time more demands and more money is going out of the system. It cannot continue.
As for so many people not having saved, the sad fact is many never had jobs that paid much more than what it took to survice. Those who did earn more than substinance bought into the "American dream" of having it all now, and on an individual level (and really on a national level too) that dream was financed by borrowed money, easy credit, and the thought that tomorrow would never come.
No, it doesn't trump everything else. It's just this; FIX it FIRST.
Then FIX the rest! Lifetimes have been spent ,and some started, depending on this CONTRACT to be carried out.
Now FIX it.
We have a lot more to do to. Put corporate rights (not persons, by the way) behind people. BEHIND, you know, back a thu bus, that kind.
Put high earners on notice that there are dues due now.
Get busy and quit repubin around and work, like most of us do.
What does it take to get you clowns aware of the human part in this nickle dime money game.
Social security is easily fixable by means testing benefits. It can be self sustaining and currently has never spent one penny of tax dollars on benefits. Medicare should likewise be means tested, those who have good retirement incomes because they were high earners during their working years, should likewise pay proportionaly for Medicare. Medicare is a well administered program; less than 2% of costs are administrative costs. Even if high earners buy into the program it will be a bargain for them. Let us not undo the good that has been done, rather change the charges for the programs as the demographics change.
Actually, it's even more easily fixable by putting into place a high 'max taxed for SS' amount from 125K to 250K. Hell, if they totally got rid of the SS cap on taxed money, they could give us our mean income made through life until 120 years of age, no problems.
Very nice. This is realy planning to steal someone else's money. There is a cap on the SS tax beacuse there is a cap on what you get back too. Are you planning to give back proportionally higher medicare dollars to those people who contributed higher? There should be a fairness to anything, right? Otherwise what is the difference between your suggestion and planning to rob your neighbour beacuse you did not save for your retirement? In fact we are already robbing , but that is OK. I believe that a developed country like USA should be able to help out our elders. But there should be limitations. For xample, if you are making a high amount as a retiree (from pension etc) may be you should not be receiving medicare assistance as much as a poorer person who di dnot have padded pension. TAx the HMOs to fund medicare partially as they owe it to us. None of them are really non for profit!!. Only recently they stopped raising premium 30 % every year.
So many ignorant people.
SS taxes were *doubled* under Reagan in order to account for the coming baby boom. He actually saw this coming and everyone has been paying *twice as much* for 30 years in order to fund the baby boomers. Congress just couldn't keep their hands off of it and "borrowed" all the money to the tune of ~2.7 *Trillion* dollars (if I am not mistaken). That money now only exists as IOUs (Treasury Bonds). Since that money was essentially stolen to fund the military as well as *all tax cuts to date*, then YES, the cap of ~114k should be lifted t so that those who have benefited from the programs that actually took the money pay it back into the fund.
There is no *justifiable* reason to cut back on Social Security benefits to those who need them.
How is means testing of Social Security fair? Unlike a taxpayer funded program, ALL wage earners pay in to the system, with the expectation of a modest income stream after retirement. Why should those who planned for their retirement be penalized, in favor of those who didn't?
As Fareed suggests, it is a simply math problem, with simple solutions – such as increase contributions (raising the cap makes the most sense) or increase the eligibility age.
It's not fair Gene, it is simply the new way of American thinking. There is a near majority of people now who have been taught to believe that forcibly taking something from someone to further their own desires is acceptable, heck it's even portrayed as "open minded" and of course "fair". The Demecrats who once stated, "ask not what your country can do for you..." have now become the party of government hand outs. And in their defense the opposing party that claimed to be of limited government and fiscal responsibility has proven to be false. The Republicans are proven liars who have lost all credibility. They assisted in getting us in this mess.
Mr. Fareed is correct, but the problems we face are uncorrectable. This nation's obvious course is one that slowly takes more and more from as many as possible while offering services that continually decline. Today people making 250k are portrayed as "rich". Imagine what it will be tomorrow.
Nothing in life is 'fair'. Little children cry 'not fair' not grown-ups with a social conscience who are taking benefits that they do not NEED. Means testing is doesn't have to be fair it has to be VIABLE.
The problem with means testing ss and medicare is that you are creating a system that discourages savings. So if someone is responsible and saves for retirement, they should be taxed on benefits. But if you squander your money, you get a free ride? Let's not create a disincentive for good behaviors. Ok to tax high earners during working years, but some moderate earners save religiously and some high earners waste their money. Your program hurst the responsible one and benefits the irresponsible one.
The vast majority of Americans who have low life savings totals didn't "squander [their] money." They just never got paid nearly as much as certain others did in the first place. And they are not looking for a "free ride." They paid into the system for decades, instead of having been free to invest that amount of money that they could have afforded to invest. It's amazing how the class warfare rhetoric (from above) never ceases to keep coming.
Just lower the retirement age to 30.
They don't have heads.
Maybe we should be asking ourselves why it cost 5x as much to treat a person in the US than it does in other parts of the world with the same treatment. Not only are we living longer on average but the costs of ALL healthcare rise each and every year as well. These costs increases are not proportionate to the care we receive. The problem is going to be the health industry has to make a profit. A good profit at that. No I don't believe that profit is evil but yes I do believe that healthcare should be geared to helping people as opposed to making that profit.
If you think the care you receive now is sub par, wait until you see what you get from Obamacare. Any one who wants the government to take care of them should take a long hard look at what they have done for Native Americans!!
Let's start by correcting your assumption. It does not cost 5 Xs as much for health care; there is nothing to suggest that level of funding is required to provide the same level of healthcare elsewhere.
Next, let's look at the goofballs Pelosi, Reid and Obama, who refused to cap liabilities, which added to healthcare costs; independent reviews suggest that 18% of healthcare costs are directly or indirectly related to lawsuits. But Congress is full of ambulance chasing lawyers and that group votes solidly Democrat after contributing 10s of millions of dollars to the Democrats.
Do a little research before you start dribbling from your keyboard.
Well, I am all for "capping" lawsuits as long as that "cap" actually covers the costs of the lifetime of actual damages and/or medical treatments. Case in point, lets say an eye doctor screwed up and the person goes blind. Their direct damages is their entire lifetime of future potential earnings. Lets say that the person was a football player who made 1 million a year (actually pretty low). Well, now his career is over, and all the future money he could have earned in endorsements/advertising as well as his direct income is lost. That direct damage itself would be well over the "caps" that you have wanted to put in place, and we havn't even looked at the future medical treatment costs that he now will incur. Like the fact that in a couple years we may have made the breakthroughs needed to grow a new organ and transplant that which might restore partial eyesight. That surgery and growing of the organ will probably be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the months of recovery and the added trauma of having to undergo a surgery....
So I ask you, how can you simply put an arbitrary "cap" on damage when the actual damage done may be 10's or even 100's of times over the cap?
Or how about a more simple comparison. Someone cuts down a tree which falls on your house, effectively doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. And then he gives you a check for $5,000 because someone put a cap in place on damages... That sounds good to you right, you are left with footing the bill of fixing your house still while the person who did the damage doesn't owe you anything more.
The problem is very simple, there are much less people in the US that pay into the system as there are that take out when they retire. Unsustainable. Fareed makes a good point but the problem is that most brilliant democrats like Fareed only make these public statements AFTER the liberal president is elected. Stop trying to change a donkey into an elephant...just elect an elephant next time.
And the Elephant's solution 8 years ago, was to tell people to invest in the stock market to fund their retirement. That's like telling a retiree . . . . "Here, take your money to Vegas and gamble, and hope you win enough to retire on."
You're part of the working poor that makes less than $300 a week. You barely have enough to pay basic living expenses and pay for food, yet, you're supposed to invest in the stock market?
Both parties need to come up with something that makes sense, and not pander to the extreme fringes of their party.
Most hospitals are barely making it right now. Just wait until the full effect of Obamacare starts causing hositpals to go completely bankrupt.
just take from those that earned and give to those who have not.
We are now reaping the benefits of "modern society". We have been doing all we can to strip the family of any importance in our society while at the same time promoting singleness. The result is families no longer take the responsibility of their older members and instead ship them off to rest homes paid for by the public. Nice work. If we keep it up there's no telling what we may end up with. Soylent Green?
Nice try Fareed, but your words are falling on deaf ears. Don't believe me? Just read thru the many many posts on related articles...daily. A startling number of Americans do indeed have their heads in the sand.
The GOP solution: Turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Female, Unemployed, and Gay people into slaves. Then whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Chirstian, Male, Employed, and Straight. Or until they are dead. Then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military.
Oh, brother! Yes, let's not use any LOGIC at all to try to solve this.
Wow...what a drone. OK, make the hard working educated pay for everybody whether they even try or not, wait for the country to go bankrupt. They everyone is equal and poor and just sit back and wait for the zombie apocalypse.
That's actually not a terrible idea at all...
I know where you have your head up, & it sure isn't in the sand. You have a very funny post.
I've been observing the discussions among Americans about how to cut the budget deficit to more manageable levels. And I've noticed that no one has brought the matter of the justice system to the table. USA has a very elaborate justice system which includes a ntaionwide infrastructure for prison systems manned by full-time employees. We all know that 90% of the inmates incarcerated today will simply go back to their criminal ways once released. In the meantime, US taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year making sure its criminal inmates are looked after realtively well – roof over their heads, 3 square meals, exercise equipment that helps them build all those muscles in order to beat up other inmates, guards watching over them24/7. And the cost for their upkeep is a recurring cost – that is the taxpayers keep paying for it year after year after year etc. Now compare that amount of money with the cost of a .22 calibre bullet. I know we all want to be politically correct and not say in public that the criminals should be eliminated to solve the problem. However we all know that that IS one of the solutions to the financial problems the USA faces today. Imagine the cost savings that could be realized if the state did not have to feed millions of criminal mouths, did not have to employ hundreds of thousand of prison guards to watch the criminals, and not have to maintain elaborate prison buildings which need constant maintenance. But in the end it is all up to the American people – would you rather spend the money to take care of your sick children and elderly OR spend your money apmpering your criminals. The choice is yours to make!
Definitely not politically correct. And definitely true. SHOULD be the case for all murderers, rapists and child molesters. They have the worst recidivism rate.
Well, considering the great, great majority of prisoners are black, I whole-heartedly agree. This would actually solve quite a few of America's largest problems.
Release non-violent offenders to halfway house programs. And don't imprison people for drug possession, for christsakes.
Maybe one day, we can just jack all prisoners into the matrix, that would cost way less...
Why don't you use your elaborate plan on yourself and give the world some peace. You may be able to use a .22 to close your hole. Afer that we can start thinking about how to prevent people from ending up in jail. OK?
Maybe we could take all inmates with prison sentances over 20 + and use them as cheap labor. Inmates work and reap a small amount to pay for cigarettes, laundry items, etc and the rest would go into a fund to pay off goverment debt. Essentially a bunch of fat cats in Congress start a business, export goods produced by cheap labor inmates to other countries for huge profits. Folks running this company do not recieve bonus or large profit but a respectable salary and it is regulated. With the vast workforce of inmates as cheap labor they could turn a huge profit and give back to society with a job and money to pay off their debts.
Careful there qwerty – the prison system has been a fall back plan for some already, and from the looks of it, is going to become one for a whole lot more in the coming years. We've all heard of the old geezer (and sometimes grandma) making a half-assed attempt to rob a bank or commit some other crime to get themselves locked up. After all, while certainly not cushy (except for the federal prisons we send our bumbling politicians and white collar criminals to) prison is three squares a day and some sort of medical attention. At the rate things are going its going to be a viable alternative for more and more retirees, so let's not be so hasty in eliminating "Plan B", especially since we're all seeing how well SS (and medicare) are working out.
"Fareed's Take"! Oh boy! That's a hoot!! I wonder who he "took" this opinion from??
As an advisor to Obama, I'm guessing that he got it from the Chief Rat.
Back off lowlife. Fareed is a good reporter. I read everything he writes and have done so for as long as I can remember. Fareed Zakaria is a genius, with great insights.
Are any of us perfect? Fareed paid the price for his light transgression and he is now square with the house.
Let's get something straight. WE PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY its supposed to be run like an annuity. The gov't TOOK our MONEY. If it were an insurance company that manages annuities they would have been sued for mismanagement. OK GIVE US THE MONEY WE PUT INTO SS and don't pay us the monthly pittances. Don't think so. When Bush floated the idea to privatize it everybody shook with horror. Well shaking at this idea and shaking with this idea is the same to me.
When Social Secuity was first created the average life expecancy was 62 and benefits started at 65. People who worked 45 years and retire today get back all they paid in plus interest in less than 10 years. With life expectancy reaching 80 Social Security is nothing more than the world's largest Ponzi scheme.
Don't ask for this. This is exactly what they will do with the voucher program. Be realitic.
ss is not and never was "like" an anuity. What you pay in imediately goes to the retired people ( with some left over). Then when you retire, the mony others are putting in goes to you. The little bit that was left over goes into the ss trust fund to smooth out the cash flow issues from up's and downs in the economy.
Well Fareed, you spent the last 18 months shilling for the Democrats (Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them) and now that they're in position to pursue every hair brained idea they've ever had you're urging them on to restraint and sensibility? That sounds positively conservative to me! Have the scales fallen from your eyes or are you just now realizing that you've forsaken any shred of journalistic integrity and to many moderates (like me) have no credibility.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Fareed was covering up Obama at every stage. Now he is trying to act as if he is really concerned. I am looking for who elected these m-r-ons.
For once I finally agree with you!
The thing that really infuriates me is that, whether left or right, we all know someone milking the system. A neighbor across the street claims he is disabled and can't work; but he fixes all the lawnmowers in the neighborhood and does auto repair; but he gets "disabled" social security. Someone I knew in North Carolina drove around to flea markets, buying up and loading furniture to sell from his home, and he gets disabled social security. A relative who never worked a day in his life did so many drugs he claimed his health was wrecked and because his dad paid into the system guess what he gets? You got it....disabled social security. SS was designed for the elderly. It's time for the government to crack down on fraud. That would be a tremendous start!!!
If you took off the cap (the amount you make when you will stop paying each year) SS could last indefinitely. Secondly do you really want ss money in the stock market. The amount of money (in the form of treasury bonds) can go to 2033. Sio stop the BS about people miilking the system , The major milker are large businesses ,and indivuals who shelter their money all over the world
Yeah dream about removing the cap, so you can steal someone else's money. Just open the faucet where the water is coming from.
Thanks ralph. The majority of people do not understand that no SS tax is paid into the system by workers making anything over $110,100 each year. For example, if you make $500,000 this year, then you only pay 6.2% SS tax on first $110,100! Nothing on the rest! This is a major problem, and we should remove, or at the very least significantly increase this taxable amount for each person.
Secondly, I think everyone is missing the point: it's called SOCIAL security for a reason. We all help each other. While the government (and each of you, hopefully) keeps track of how much money you pay into the SYSTEM, this money is not YOURS! There is no governmental account that says we owe Bob S. American $1,273,873. For paying into social security, you receive a benefit each month upon retirement age or disability. If you pass away before retirement or during receiving your benefits, you may pass them on to a dependent, usually spouse or disabled dependent. Those persons may only collect one benefit, not two at the same time. Any benefit left over in your "account" after you pass away or you have no eligible dependents to collect the benefit each month, is left to the social security system.
There is an obvious solution. It will take a little getting used to, sure, but I think we should consider cannibalism with an open mind.
Two words – LOGAN's RUN. Google it.
people! It's people!!
Ah, a modern day Modest Proposal. Jonathon Swift would have been proud.
GOP is responsible for 3/4 or 12T of our 16T debt.
Massive Borrowing and Spending under GOP:
30 years of GOP UNFUNDED WARS-FOR-PROFIT (their profit)
Multi-trillion StarWars (SDI)
Multi-trillion Gulf War
Multi-trillion Afghan War
Multi-trillion Iraq War
30 years of GOP UNFUNDED PROGRAM after UNFUNDED PROGRAM
Medicare Part D (senior vote grabber)
Dept. of Homeland Security
The hated TSA
No Child
Bush's Trillion Dollar TARP Bailout
Plus the coup-de-grace; the REPAIR BILL for the massive GOP economic collapse.
Stupid GOP/TEA.
Pay for all of YOUR spending and THEN we'll talk about cuts.
.
Your mother must have been a very dumb broad...
Wow, typical neocon s t u p id comment.
.
Bro, we can sleep peacefully at home... Safety is not cheap.
us_1776:
I'm curious. Do you think Obama should shutdown the Homeland Security Department and TSA?
DEMS are THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE PARTY in the 21st Century
(our programs are actually funded – SS, Medicare – check your paystub, Affordable Healthcare Act – again check your paystub)
All GOP/TEA has done over past 32 years is massive borrowing and spending on wars and unfunded programs while cutting taxes for the wealthy.
GOP/TEA = Completely irresponsible way to run govt.
.
Except for all the massive 'borrowing' of money from SS that was blown on completely unrelated projects and programs. Both parties are guilty of that! And now we are taking out more than is getting put in.
SS is in fact a Ponzi scheme. That was about the only sensible thing that Rick Perry said, and the left and the media gave him hell for it. The whole SS account with government bonds that supposedly 'pays back' this *stealing* of SS funds is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Its like if you start off with 20 dollars, borrow that 20 from yourself, then write yourself and IOU. NOW you claim you have $40 in assets! Nothing but corrupt legal and monetary trickery.
There's a stat that modestly raising Medicare tax by 1% will keep it solvent for 80 years. Seems like a common-sense solution to me; no ideology involved. Morally we all seem to care about Medicare and our seniors. So why don't we just do that?
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Ex.1 Fred: "Hey TJ did you know that the U.S. is now ran by a Ineptocracy?"
TJ: "No I didn't know that because I don't have to work for a living I just get free money to spend from the government. Its not my money so why can't I spend it on anything I want?"
Exactly.
Interesting choice of phrases Fareed because it's been over 2 years now of "Ostridge" style governing by Congress all parties whom have placed their heads in the sands of obstruction, dyfunction and although elected and re-elected (some of them) by US Citizens, in the 'end' with their posterior's showing, have been the ones who have 'kicked' this country down the road to lowered credit rates, class warfare, ballooning debt they have tried to put the fear of god into the American public about when they and they're voting put us into 2 credit card wars and tax cuts without figuring out how to pay for them (thanks GW for nothing!). How dare you talk about the left, or right, and continue the media's focus on splitting America where the good god split us. But it figures that a non-or naturalized American, which ever you are, and a member of the media, would waste time, money and energy in creating this awful article.
Ahhh...another Liberal who did not research at all and just listens to what Liberals say. It was Clinton that helped create the environment that led Bush to have to spend all that money.
Here's the scenario. Imagine stopping payment on everything involving your house. Do not do repairs. Do not pay bills. Use your income to only pay off any public debts you owe like utilities, student loans, etc. but make sure you don't pay any of your private debts like credit cards, personal loans, etc.
Guess what happens? Your roof needs repair. Your a/c needs replacing. Your appliances and everything in your house stops working. Then one day decide to get everything back to how it was. If you are over 30 and ever owned a house, you KNOW that if you do not take care of things as they happen you will end up spending a LOT more than you would have if you had just fixed it when it became a problem.
That is what happened. Clinton stopped spending money on paying our bills. He took us to a skeleton military. He paid off private debt with public debt and he pushed through legislation that allowed for the deregulation of banks...something Bush and other Reps fought for multiple times but got voted down by Dems (for real, research it. It's very easy to Google this and it's all public record). So Bush had to come in and spend WAY more money just to get us back to where we were. He had to spend money on the problems that became bigger due to Clinton ignoring them because they cost money to fix.
No matter who would have become President after Clinton, all research shows that the money would have had to be spent. It's a simple numbers game. Any adult who has had any responsibility such as a house, kids, etc. understands this concept. Clinton was too busy trying to save money to spend it on housekeeping. So then the house fell down.
What was that rant? Public debt and private debt? What is that??? How can the government PAY FOR PRIVATE DEBT...IF THERE IS SUCH A THING????!!!! The only private debt there is is when a business takes a loan to expand or buy another business from a PRIVATE bank...or like a PRIVATE citizen borrows money from a PRIVATE bank to buy a house (since you're so found of using it as an analogy). The government doesn't pay PRIVATE debts, not until it had to for the auto bail out, because of idiots...yes....idiots who put profit above all others whether Democrat or Republican. The bottom line is Clinton had some decisions which people don't like...true...some parts of deregulation? Probably...but isn't that what politicians now-a-days want to do? De-regulate? How'd that help us so far? Stop sticking to one side and blaming one party....as it stands now, the ones who've gotten us into the DEEPER HOLE this time around were republicans...suck it up, admit it, and move on to change the screw-ups.
Wow – amazing you are just now realizing this. Why didn't you post this piece before the election Fareed? Any moron who passed 5th grade can figure out our deficit is the number one issue facing the current generation. And liberals need to remove their heads from a different hole besides the one in the sand.
Fareed is a tool, i'll agree it you...but so are you.
how much more does petie peterson want to steal before he dies ... soon.
line his coffin with the money workers earned.
pete the parasite and his flunkies.
The dumbest thing an administration ever did was to start not one but TWO multi-trillion dollar wars and then cut taxes at the same time.
Perfect formula for a fiscal disaster.
.
This is actually the most sensible post in the entire thread so far.
Social Secuirty is NOT the problem.
Social Security is a fully funded program authorized by Congress. Just check your paystub under FICA.
Social Security is not a CURRENT problem. It is fully funded for the next 21 years. And to fix the shortfall at 21 years we can either have Reagan put back the over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS that he stole out of the fund OR we can simply REMOVE THE CAP and Social Security will be solvent FOREVER.
.
Yeah keep MY MONEY coming. Who care after 25 years. Who cares if those people's caps lifted will not be getting anything equivalent when they retire.
When I read these selfish ranting from the elders I feel like saying – TAKE OUT MEDICARE> Broaden medicaid. Increase general taxation. Take out HMOs and Medicare – create full SINGLE PAYOR system. This is where we are heading to anyway.
This is why I am fully in favor of privatizing SS. You can be in control of your money and know exactly where it goes. You can know whehn the government takes the money, if they do. This way it becomes visible to every working American when the government decides to use your money.
Reps have brought this up several times because they knew by 2035 that our SS system will be broke. What is the Dems response every time? "Oh, you are making up numbers, SS won't be broke until 2045". Really? So because it won't be broke another 10 years after Reps say then you just ignore the whole issue?? Another reason I'm not a Liberal...I have a need to see things logically.
Okay genius...you have the private company sun your money...like a bank right? Oh, and what did the banks do with your money in the last six years? Oh...lost it, and rewarded themselves, then went crawling to the government to give them money...but never gave it back. IRAs, 401's....peoples private investments and retirements have been stolen before...and on a larger scale then you think. The reason Social Security is a government program is because it used to be we trusted the government...now-a-days, hypocrite politicians and special interests WANT that money for themselves...it's the last big chunk of money they can suck from the government...yes BIG BUSINESSES are the biggest takers of PUBLIC money...not people. That's why banks are FEDERALLY SECURED...because when they loose YOUR money on B.S. they need the only stable source to help them...the government. Jerk.
That's just it – if you privatize SS you are basically shifting everything to an investment funded retirement system and the ugly fact is that means Wall Street, the banks, and big finance, and we all know how honestly, transparent, and reliable that has worked out for us don't we? Sure the government has paid fast and loose with SS funds, and when they were plentiful used them to fund other spending, but in the end when we've got nothing left, there is a much better chance of government throwing the people a few scraps to hang on than private finance giving a crap about anything outside of its profits. I don't trust the government all that much, but I trust private enterprise infinitely less.
Right can't stick heads in their a s s e s on tax reform
I think Zakaria really has lost it now. He should stick to plagiarism because he can't think logically.
Social security, with current levels of funding is solvent through 2020 (not sure on exact year but close).
Our main budget issue is miilitary spending. We spend more than the next 10 nations combined.
Also, we have had two trillion dollar+ wars, both started by republican administrations.
Also, the Bush tax cut for the rich added 4 trillion to the debt because it was unfunded.
Wow, all the way through 2020? You do know its nearly 2013, right?
This is what he meant about sticking your head in the sand. Kicking the can down the road. Letting the next generation worry about it....
So if Social Security is a self-sufficient program as it was designed to be...and is as people are putting in money and supposed to get it back at retirement age...where did that money go???? Who's fault was it? I agree there are some moochers on there, i.e. people who've never worked and are drawing from it because of b.s. diagnosis like carpel tunnel and "asthma" ... but what about those who HAVE paid into it? Don't generalize all people as free loaders. It boils down to money being taken OUT of social security, or the government not putting into it as it promised...that's not the fault of the people who have held their end of the bargain. Besides...Fareed's CBO numbers probably don't take into account newer revenues that need to be made...i.e. taxes HAVE to increase. I know we don't like that but they do. Life is more expensive, taxes have to keep up too....
Step #1: stop all welfare, food stamps, ebt cards, section 8 paid government housing, and any other assistance any black is getting in America. They obviously do not deserve it, and it is clearly not doing America any good whatsoever sustaining these criminal parasites. It is time to drop our baggage off, America. It is time to grow up and to just let go.
Racist remark?
It's not really "racist"...blacks would have to be another race of human being for it to be considered as such.
Blacks aren't human beings.
yep – while we're at it. Let's throw all the whites, asians, latinos and other people of this country off it
He just wants to write something to show his ignorance, anger, and hate..probably a low-skill kinda guy...whites take more welfare than any other group, businesses and churches get more tax breaks and subsidies....and if it weren't for people like you (someone who obviously isn't fair)...blacks and minorities would have a fair shot at competing for go jobs, schools, and education in life...what am I saying...you're probably someone who feels inadequate around blacks in the first place. Is it because your education level isn't that high, or feeling a little "short" somewhere else?
It's free! Swipe yo EBT!
For those who keep referring to "interest" generated by the money paid into SS, you didn't read the article. SS has to borrow money every year. It pays interest. It is not a pension.
Social Security is not the problem here. It only recently started running a deficit, and this could be easily fixed by collecting FICA on ALL earnings, not stopping at ~100k as it does now. The big driver of deficit is all the medical benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Prescription Drug Benefit. Both parties have had a hand in give aways for those programs and the meager payroll tax for medical benefits doesn't even begin to fund all that. The solution for these programs is to means test benefits, raise the taxes funding them and for the Gov't to get tough with providers and drug companies. Unfortunately it seems very unlikely that any of that will happen.
Or, congress can stop stealing money from it, and paying it back with IOU's. Just sayin....
Nice that after the rich got all those tax cuts over the last 30 years, that now they want the rest of us to pay for it!
Mr. Zakaria leans left on most issues and while I don't agree with him on many, I respect that his arguments are well thought out and often innovative.
Seeing the comments, I am struck by how ideologically ossified many "progressives" are.
The money SSA needs to balance the books is going to all of the NON-disabled people collecting SSD/SSI. You all see them too and know exactly who I'm refering to. Yes, those folks. The liars, lazy, cheats, bums. The fraudsters. Lets clean up the system by getting these bums off the dole. And don't comeat me with an example of someone who really is disabled, I know they exist too. But the majority are not. They are just lawyered-up liars who are too lazy to work. And I'm a democrat!
Or you could go 2nd amendment yourself
I am struck by how orthodox the response is from the "progressives".
Zakaria is an employee of a corporations. Every word he writes is a reflection of that.
Call Social Security cuts what they are, selective defaults on US Treasury Bonds
Bottom line: don't rely on your government or anyone else to help you retire unless you are truly disabled or mentally ill. Certainly all Americans can agree on this? Well, I'm sure someone out there will object!
Well, what do you know... Fareed understands the problem a full 30 years late.
This fool writes about spending but forgets to mention Military spending?
Ha – we spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combined, so we can go kill dark people in places like Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc...
Why bother reading his story? I would prefer spending money on education, or school security, than to make McDonnald Douglas rich making $5000 toilet seats.
did you read the article – he clearly sites the defense budget – sheesh, no wonder this country is going to fail
I think that a lot of young people, have this idea that if Social Security just go's away that every older person is going to be in really bad shape. truth is some will be, and it well hurt! but most old people well get by just fine. if your a person living just on Social Security and its your only income, your pour as heck. most likely already living on dog food. its the Drug makers and hospitals that are the real money hoers in this mess. we have the planets most pricey yet worst health care system for a modern state there is. If the young want to gut Social Security let them. but I strongly advice them to drop the liberal art's degree for something they can make read money at. because retiring from Mcdonalds is just not going to be a good choice in life!
Taxes collected for Social Security have been stolen and spent on other "investments" by Democrats and Republicans for scores of years. They both have played a shell game with our tax revenues and the game is now over. We are screwed and they retire on double and triple pensions. We have met the enemy and he is us.
You know the stuff is about to hit the fan when Zakaria is speaking as if he is a conservative. Maybe the end is tomorrow?
I've read a lot of stupid comments on here about old people should have set themselves up better for retirement and not rely on the government to take care of them. That's fine, give me back all the money I've paid into Social Security over the last 30 + years and when I'm ready to retire I'll take care of my own retirement. Some people on here honestly have no f****** clue.
Who is Fareed Zakaria? Out of nowhere, he's the voice of reason on everything.
I think the only people enamored with the opinions of Fareed Zakaria at CNN are the people at CNN.
You point out some facts as you see them. One point is that Social Security and Medicare are only supporting people that put into the system and as a supplement at that. Social Security is limited to based on how much you put into the system. The most someone could receive per year is about 20% of the average of their highest 35 years paying into the system. If they only put into the system for ten years it is still based on an average of 35 years where 25 of them would be $0. There are seniors living on $500/month and receiving food stamps and bare minimum to no Healthcare Coverage. But hospitals are forced to care for them in emergency situations. So, in my opinions a lot of democrats and republicans are putting their head in the sand, by feeling they don't owe the people that been paying into social security and medicare since their conception. My mother died at age 62 and my father is alive at 81, they both paid into the system. If I live to 62, I will be happy, and till 66 even happier. I have paid into social security for 42 years and I am 58 years old. I served my country for 28 of those years so far. I am dying from environmental exposures while working for this country, and still doing so. I refused any form of disability until I reach 65 years old if I make it. There are a lot of old folks that have been exposed to more environmental toxins and diseases since the Viet Nam War and paying for it today. So all bets are off on what the life expectancy will really be. So why not just take all us folks out to the pasture, shoot us to death, and that would solve the social security and medicare problem. Some day you will be a senior, so what you cheer for today, will come back and haunt you later. Poor-rich, Upper-Middle-Lower Class, Black-white, Christian-Jew-Arab-Athiest, none of it will matter when you get an incurable disease or cancer.There are right and wrong answers when you consider what is morally right to do.
The government is broke now because the new population has found a way to scam the system and the one's running the system are not as educated as the ones scamming it. Dec 2012 is here. Might not be exactly like the South American Indians predicted but just as fatal.Dope and just plain sorry is doing the job.
let us not forget the several generations of nonworkers who dont contribute to ss, in fact they collect from it as part of the lib-lefts ever generous goodies handouts. WHEN will that stop?
There aren't enough people paying into the system. Of course not, we aborted those people.
Social Security was always meant to be SUPPLEMENTAL income, not a sole source. Yes, what you paid in you should (but won't) get back. However, if you look at the percentage/amounts you were putting in 20, 30, 40 years ago (when salaries were much smaller), even adding those all up don't match what an average household's bills are each year. Let's say 30 years ago you made $25K a year. If you pad 10% for 10 years in SS, you paid in $25K.
Then for the next 10 years, your avg salary was $35K/yr, again paying 10% for 10 years, another $35K paid. Then 10 years at $45K for an avg salary. Same rates mean you pay $45K for that time. That means over 30 years you paid in $105K. An average homeowner's cost these days is about $35K. That means living on SS alone you have about 3 years of money before you run out. It's SUPPLEMENTAL, not sole income!!
Hey Republicans funding social security is easy – just pretend you won the election and started another war. The cost of the ones you need start would have funded SS easy. If there were another one funny how congress would find the funding.
CNN Money a couple of years ago had a graph from the GAO that showed if we keep spending the way were are by the year 2020, 92% of our money will go to 4 things:
$672 Billiion to Medicae
$495 Billion for Medicaid
$901 Billion for Social Security
$901 Billion for INTEREST on the national debt
That would leave $251 Billion for everything else (including defense, agriculture, arts, interior...)
$901 Billion in interest would be 90,100,000 college scholarships at $10,000 each. Or pay for medicare or medicaid or a whole lot of other things.
Social Security and Medicare have not contributed a dime to the deficiet. The most receint annual reports state that Social Securityand Medicare A and D posted a surplus, and Medicare B a deficit but still has money in Trust. This is a seperate issue from the deficit and your attempt to sensationalize it with inaccurate or falsle information is not a help to anyone.
Correct Bob.
Social Security and Medicare are eery cent already bought and paid for. I wonder who is laughing at Al Gore's Social Security lockbox speech from the 2000 Presidential debate now?
There is an easy fix – allow workers under 45 to opt out if they choose, and mandate opting out for workers under 30. The employer match portion for those who opt out goes to pay the benefits for current and future retirees and the employee portion automatically goes into an investment account that is untouchable until the worker hits 65. The government would still get almost 7% of absolutely everybody's salary to fund social security and would get almost 14% of any worker who was going to draw a social security "pension." Because this would now be an individually owned account, they could convert the ministerial "opt out" to the same style opt out and start getting 7% from the employers of "ministerial" personnel (which in some schools, colleges, etc. is just about everybody).
This would ensure a steady revenue stream for all future retirees and ensure a decent amount of retirement savings dependent solely on the amount you put in. You'd also be more likely to convince folks to support eliminating the cap if their portion was theirs and their employer's portion was feeding the system.
If we privatize, we need rules like these:
1. The value of a subscriber's account can never decrease.
2. Present and former officers of the funds, and their heirs, are personally responsible for any shortfalls. Heirs lose or pay back their inheritances.
3. Neither the fund nor any of its responsible parties can seek bankruptcy relief.
4. Payments to subscribers supersede all other financial obligations.
Terrific idea Scott. Allow people to remove their contribution and then once the geniuses get old and sick...PEEKABOO here we are again and we're really sorry we were stupid...
Meanwhile during 2030's FISCAL GRAND CANYON taxes are set to spike on everyone.....
So let me make this helpful, but loess painful. I am 64, planning to work for a few more years (with God's help) , then retire, perhaps at 67. I have paid the maximum for over 40 years. But, I have savings and pension money, so if we used a "means test" and deducted $200/month from my benefit, it would not hurt. And, there are 100's of thousands like me who could "give up a little". Now, that concept would not begin to hurt one of our seniors who depends on his $1200/month SS check, but it sure helps the budget.
I agree – I am 65 and I could take less SS – it is just "fun money" to me. We all have to help out here
fun money to you? that is nice for you. SS is critical to me, without it and my pesnion - which btw, was 1/3rd of my working wage the yr i retired, and after 24 yrs w/same employer– i could not survive. this income is barely keeping up with always rising COL, and i had to move to another, less expensive state in order to make ends met. no wy could i live in the area i worked for 35 yrs.
a riminder: ss was loudly announced as THE way for lower income workers (like me, a HS grad, clerical skills and no chance of college, divorced young mom) to save for their retirement. then Congress changed the rules in the mid-80s, moved SS funds from RESTRICTED to general and stripped the coffers to pay forincessent wasteful spending. I clearly remember the politician rubbing his hands together with a gleeful grin and saying (in paraphrase but close) "ALL that money is just sitting there, let;s use it." I literally screamed NO YOU IDIOT that is my money for my retirement.
It may be fun money for you. For me, the 750 dollars check is vital for survival since I have zero other income and no Medicare!
Why again are we listening to this voice if he implies that Social Security adds to the debt? It does not. By law. And it won't. Ever (admittedly, this is under current law).
If he wants to note that social secuirty contributions currently come from 82% of all salary, while historically it's been closer to 90%, that's fine with me (and if we make it 100%, then social security is solvent for all time).
Different Ed: The problem is that for the last 50 years, the government has borrowed against the Social Security Trust and written IOU's. They are now due and to pay them, the government has to borrow the money.
What would they do if China decided to cash their bonds in. They would have to borrow money too. You can't blame Social Security for the current condition and it is not fair to cut it so they don't have to honor their bonds. That being said corrections do need to be made to address mortality and the cost of healthcare, but, it's not a deficit issue. They're always quick to point out how much is spent on benefits but they also have income in the form of payroll taxes. Speaking of which why is it 90+% of us pay tax on 100% of our earnings and 10% or so don't?
My suggestion is to do whatever it takes to convince the Philippines to join the United States. That may seem crazy and probably very few people in either nation would be interested but they have a growing population and a median age of 22. Maybe when interest rates go back up it well help those who are retired and no longer need to take out a loan for any reason.
I am 65 and I will receive far more back from SS and Medicare than I ever paid in. In the 1970s I paid SS Contributions on only the first $14,100 of my salary. I never paid SS or Medicare contributions on my dividends or capital gains. We semiors need to realize that we got a great deal – maybe too great – and we should be prepared for some sacrifice like everyone else
Of course the Left can put their head in the sand. That's what they are best at doing.
It doesn't matter that SSN was setup as a retirement suppliment and was never meant to be used as someone entire retirement dollars.
The left is always willing to put as many people in the life boat as are in the water, even if everone dies because they exceeded capacity!!
What older people fail to realize or care not to is that they may have paid in all thier lives but if you do the math a large percentage of those retiring, and this will include those my age, will not have paid in anywhere near what they take out. You pay SS taxes up to $110,100 in 2012 and the tax rate is 4.2% so you can pay in a max of $4642.20. The average person isnt making anywhere near that much money and it takes a person years to climb to their max earning rate. So many of us will not have paid in more than we get out. And REGARDLESS if you read what the author posted it used to be 5 workers supporting 1 retiree and now it is almost down to 2 to 1. Its simple math.
And as for the military spending, while it does need to be cut way back it is not the only thing tha has to be cut back. Like it or not social spending does as well. And no amount of whining and crying or AARP commercials can change that fact.
Oh and SS was created because people were in fact not saving for retirement. It wasnt intended to be a persons only source of retirement income.
Encourage work to you can't and then jump into the pit. Those that have a little may want to spend it on a Howard Johnson's suicide parlor like in a Vonnegut short story. Of course something will have to be done about the ramble that just will not step off. I guess the answer is in the fact that we have 300,000,000 million guns and some folks willing to use them. Fareed, maybe you can point them into the right direction. After all what good is life without production that produces profit for the well placed.
BAAHAHAH,
Fareed makes the tough decisions....
Second chart from CNN Money 4-13-11. This one shows where the revenue came from for the first half of 2011:
$386 Billion from Social Security Taxes
$476 Billion from Individual Income Taxes
$54 Billion from Corporate Taxes
$100 Billion from all other Taxes (excise, estate, etc)
This totals to $1.019 Trillion for 6 months ==> $2 Trillion for the whole year.
The Federal Budget for 2011 was #3.5 Trillion.
To close the annual deficit of $1.5 Trillion, the federal government would have to increase all taxes by 75% or some combination of taxes and spending cuts.
Both parties created this mess over the last 50 years and both parties need to get serious about the national debt and finances.
"Above education? Above scientific innovation? Above investments in infrastructure and energy? Above poverty alleviation?"
These are interesting choices you pose, Fareed. There are some glaring omissions from this list, though: corporate welfare, for one; our obscenely bloated military, for another. Put those choices on the table and you've got a much fairer question.
All those guys in the UN are not your friends...If our military is weak, our guys in UN could eat their spit balls and sleep.
eom
Fact: Most (not all) of today's retirees will receive much more than they ever put into ss. When it was set up the life expectancy wasn't anywhere near what it is. When you paid in years ago the amount was relatively small by today's numbers. You had things like my grandparents who never paid in as they were farmers and one day the gov't says if you pay in x amount you are good to go. My grandparents made out like bandits. Remember also it was the Democrats that initially took all the excess money from SS and borrowed it.
Let's try this on.
Union pensions were great as long as there were more people paying in than taking out. Soscial Security and Medicare were fine when there were 5 or 10 people paying in for each one collecting benefits. Now union pensions are in trouble because fewer people are in unions and the ratio is 1 or 2 paying in for every one collecting. Social security is headed that way as more of the baby boomers retire. Follow so far?
Bernie Madoff collects money from a lot of people and shows fantastic returns for a few years as more people are sending him money and few are actually withdrawing. As the ratio reverses, someone finally figures out he's running a Ponzi scheme so he goes to jail for the rest of his life.
What's the difference???
Pensions and Social security are Ponzi schemes as set up currently. Does that mean we can put the people in congress in jail for running the biggest Ponzi scheme ever?
Granted Social Security is a ponzi scheme because the government doesn't invest the money but defined benefit pensions are not. With your logic, any form of insurance is also a ponzi scheme. They work the same way.
Mr. Fareed is mostly correct, but the problems we face are correctable. This nation's obvious course is one that slowly takes more and more from as many as possible while offering services that continually decline. Today people making 250k are portrayed as "rich". Imagine what it will be tomorrow if some people call me the space cowboy. Or if some call me the gangster of love, but some will call me Maurice because I speak of the pompetous of love
These young punks think they have the answers and they are wrong as usual. They have been draining our socity since they were born because they think they DESERVE it as opposed to EARNING it. Add to they're hanging on like leaches, the King, Obama, has taken 750 BILLON from SS to pay for Obama care and that will increase our taxes, make even less people aford insurance all to please the spoiled brats that are living off their parents and the rest of us. Obama is a great campaigner but he is not a good president. He shows that everytime he opens his mouth. The scarey part is these kids and welfare rats are to stupid to know it.
Buying votes with taxpayer money is the only important function of politicians.
Social security and medicare is a tax that all working people pay. If that is the case, everybody who makes the money should pay a fixed % tax without any upper cap on this tax. Another, anybody who has not contributed to the Social security tax has no right to claim when he is old. This will fix the problem for ever.
Chris Matthews bleats every day "We won you lost do what we command" so putting their heads in the sand is a nonsequitor
Mr. Zakaria, you are a remarkably talentless man. I'm sorry to see they've allowed an inordinate hypester like your self to continue publishing after your notorious exposure as a plagiarist, and after reading this pathetic excuse for an article, I'm somewhat more sympathetic to you on that account, because it's obvious why you indulged in plagiarism: you can't write a journalistic article to save your life.
The nonsense that there is some innate shortfall in social security benefits, or the cost of medicaid and medicare is a bald-faced lie, and it continues to propagate, like a computer virus, only because tools of the insurance and financial industry, like yourself, continue to propagate it, in much the same way you spent the last 30 years insisting there was a diversity of opinion in the scientific community concerning climate change: There has never been any dispute about climate change, and there has never been any doubt it was manmade, except in press.
The reality is that the only challenge social security et al faces is the unwillingness of a completely delusional government to raise the exemption for FICA withholding above $150000 a year. When the the exemption was introduced, back in the 1930's, only a tiny fraction of americans made that kind of money. Less than .01 percent. Today, nearly half our country has household incomes in excess of that number. The idea that FICa withholding taxes stop increasing at $150000 today, as they did in the 1930's, is insanity, and a simple issue to resolve, the instant professional liars like yourself stop spreading the lie that there is any other problem with the system, and start acknowledging the truth: People in the upper income brackets should pay the same taxes, proportional to their wealth and income, that everybody else does. Eliminate the exemption, and even in 2060 the system will be entirely solvent, and no doubt running surpluses, as it does at the moment.
You are no journalist Mr Zakaria; you are an unrepentant propagandist. Your article, a bald-faced pack of lies. Mr. Zakaria, give up on journalism; you've no talent for it. Go back to plagiarism. You were good at that.
Sincerely,
Joshua Francis Whalen
http://occupyyourbrain.tumblr.com
Your comment would be much more persuasive it you were not so nasty.
Terrific Article. Bernie Sanders introduced this as a solution but America isn't ready for common sense - just yet.
So give me my money back......that I ....and my employers have paid into these programs over the last 45 years of my working life....with a reasonable amount of yearly interset....say 3%...compounded over time....and we can call it a day.
The Federal Reserve is printing it for you right now.
The great liberal Sally Kohn says there is no debt crises. Debt to GDP is only 60%! See http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/07/there-is-no-debt-crises/ I guess sometimes there is a crises and sometimes there isn't depending on what you are arguing.
to cif: what YOU dont get is, many ,of us senior are infuriated at congress for raiding formerly restricted SS/medicare funds to pay for their pathological spending sprees. what you dont get is many of us were underpaid women who had little extra money to save. I was a young divorced mom (babydad wasnt interested in involvement) who knew I would need the mandatory deductions to SS for my retirement yrs. I had NO extra dollars to put away or invest as i was sole support of my child, the "child support" was pathetically inadequate, and some health issues further complicated the picture. no daddy did not elp there either.
so, you smug little brat.. i hope with all my heart that as you reach the same age i am, that the games rules you based your future on change as radically as happened to me an thousnds of babyboomers.
The Mayans were wrong, 12/21/12 is only the beginning of the end for liberals. The 16 trillion dollar debt clock is the clock they should be watching. The higher it gets the closer liberals get to their impossible dream collapsing.
Maybe they'll "get it", when their kids are starving, and have no school to attend, but Grams & Gramps are still getting their SS Checks on time.
And, I'm one of those on the receiving end.
I guess the young in the country just need to pay more in FICA so that they can support retirees. Yiu can bet that Govt in Washington isn't going to quit spending money on waste like the National Art Endowment, or generals & their families vacationing on the govt dollar, or the politicians retirement & health benefits, of Obama vacationing in Hawaii, or studies to see if squirrels like acorns or walnut beter.....
We have to come up with a balanced budget, balanced approach to raise taxes & reduce spending. Otherwise 1 in 5 Americans will be screwed in 2025
This is the land of opportunity. You can come from nothing and retire comfortably if you work hard through your life. If you go through life banking on "Big Brother" to take care of you then you are dumb and a burdon to the future generations.
Assuming that your employer does not go belly up, that no member of your family has serious health problems, that no misfortune strikes your family (e.g., crime, fire, auto accident), that your spouse and children are also responsible, that you do not go through a nasty divorce, etc., etc.
I have been paying into the ss fund for 30 plus years.I am simply amazed at the corruption by both political party's have brought upon the tax paying public and most should be in jail not making laws.That being said most of the comments on this are moronic at best and ignorant at most.we have a government that gives away in foreign aid over a half trillion a year.We have a half trillion of fraud in the programs that exist already.We barrow a trillion and a half a year to pay for this stuff and the media has brainwashed us into thinking that it is our fault instead of theirs.In 2008 we bailed out the banks and the stock market but will the banks bail us out?are we to big to fail? Obamma is a liar congress is corrupt the senate is a bunch of thieves and yet we think that they are addressing our problems.THe only thing I can say is you or we better get ready to take care of ourselves because this house of cards we have created won't last forever.good luck god bless
Several obvious issues. First, WALTON KIDS. Four of the top ten billionaires in America (one dead now) are kids that never, ever, never worked at a job in their lives. Their entire wealth is taken from destroying tens of thousands of businesses with real jobs and care from one end of this country to the other.
Then, they DESTROYED literally millions of working jobs everywhere shifting these millions of jobs to Asia and then employing on a few thousand as shown on 60-Minutes with little factories that sewed in the "Made in America" labels, legally as it was, on clothes. Millions of manufacturing jobs lost to China.
Then more jobs destroyed in America because too many of the Walmat surviving vendors simply closed down and moved all their manufacturing to China to complete or Walmart threw them out.
These are the "job creators" right? Just checking here.
Then they DESTROYED the working base with nothing wages, no benefits, and drove down the entire of working class from coast-to-coast. And fired anyone, anywhere that opposed them.
Then used the tens of millions in criminal fraud now in over a dozen countries.
Then the sister Walton, her estimated $29 BILLION ++, spends hundreds of millions now in Bentonville with western museum, paid for by the very people they robbed. Taking over $108 MILLION in charity contributions to "her museum" that was written off of others taxes.
And we have not even gotten to the trillions on needless military (I am a 24+ year retired military officers so at a lot at the public trough) for weapons that do not regenerate any wealth, for enemies we do not have and wars that are nothing more than fifty years of looting, by force and killing as needed, the resources and wealth of other nations.
We pay over double the highest for healthcare and leaves 43% of the population with NOTHING. Nothing. Romney said on the interview that all "these people" have health care–and then he goes on and makes one of the most insane, of several statements, that "all they have to do is call 911 and an ambulance comes and takes them to the emergency room." Are these people all f&(#*-g insane? All of them? He pays no taxes and lies about income and hides everything, like so many (Dems and Reps both) in off shore accounts. Bain Capital set up 168 bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.
We can take care of our citizens, we just don't want to so we demonize them.
And by the way, the "illegals" are owed tens and tens of billions of dollars that was withheld from their checks, using someone else's SSNs and thus they paid and paid and paid and paid and get NOTHING. And this goes back to WWII days when we owed "legal" Mexican's that we brought here to work over $30 billion just from that–all collected in payroll and never returned.
The free loaders are so many of the right (and some lefty too) that enjoy the good life, or sorts, with not a clue at all of the sacrifices taken from citizens here and exploited all over the world.
Well said!! And, yes, they are insane.
American capitalism at its finest, baby! Just win, baby! That's what it's about, after all, right?
Wow. DId Zakaria really write this and CNN really post it. I guess an article not related to promoting the far left agenda occasionally sneaks in.
Wow, a great article on this website that breaks it down correctly. Unfortunately it seems to be so well written and factualized (not a real word) that very few libs have taken the time to comment...I just hope they read it and come to understand the truth....taxing the top 2% alone will do nothing to stop the flood. Bushes attempt to fix the problem may have been misguided and not the best way but he at least recognized the problem, unlike the current prez.
Hello, hello, Obama-era-minted conservative deficit hawks? Hello? NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE, among progressives says that additional taxes on the top 2%, 1%, what have you, is going to close the deficit and resolve the problem! Why do all you anti-Obama posters keep saying this? It's an inference being made ONLY BY YOUR SIDE, the ANTI-OBAMA, ANTI-MAJORITY-OPINION side. What's the matter with you? Why do you keep insisting that someone on the progressive side is saying this? One more time: NOBODY on the left thinks that additional taxes on the super-wealthy in America is the complete, one-size-fits-all solution to the deficit problem. Abandon your all-or-nothing thinking, join us, and help solve the problem!
Fareed lost any respect I had for him. And not just because I disagree. What we have is a mish mash of statistics presented as if social relations were simple data, no context, no discussion of the worldwide austerity movement. Fareed used to be better than this. I would really love to know he wrote such a piece of garbage. Deadlines? Feeling pressure to move right? In what form?
Could have been worse, he could have just plagiarized again.
So we need this massive military because other nations want to come & attack & take over our elderly .....?
WE PAID OUT OF EVERY PAYCHECK OUR WHOLE LIVES INTO THIS. IT'S OWED.
It violates every concept of contract law to send someone a statement each year promising them a set amount of payout and then at the last minute change the deal. It would be one thing if it was a freebie, but when workers pay 6.25% of EVERY paycheck into the system, you cannot reduce or eliminate the promise. In law, it's called "Promissory Estoppel" and it means you cant promise something, have people rely on the promise, and then reneg. Any changes must be for people under 18 who have not yet relied on the promise.
If congress hadn't borrowed (stolen) the money that was paid in for that purpose, we wouldn't be worrying so much now would we Zakaria?
Social security is not a problem, it can fund itself easily with modest adjustments to benefits. Medicare and Medicaid have problems, but those problems are all the result of astronomical medical costs. These two are EASILY FIXED. Based on actual experience everywhere else in the world, the US can cut its medical costs in 1/2 to 1/3 of current rates by adopting a single-payer system. Republicans won't allow it. We can cut drug costs by allowing the programs to negotiate prices. Republicans won't allow it. We can cut drug costs by eliminating patents. Republicans won't allow it. Republicans won't ALLOW us to reduce medical costs, because they care more about pharmaceutical company and insurance company profits than they care about the American people.
Too bad Romney lost, seeing as Obama has absolutley no idea how to handle anything remotely related to finances. All he can think of is spending more money that we don't have. Democrats love spending that money they take from people who have earn it
it's a great racket for them.
If Romney just had a plan with specifics, he would have done better.
While the elderly paid in lower dollar amounts, it was the same percentage or worth based on those decades' dollars. Now, if the government pays back all that was "borrowed" we would be ok – but should not pay back 1-1 should be based on what that $$ would have earned through the decades of growth of the market!!
Elderly should never be told to feel guilty or that they are a negative burden...the $$ was taken from the pot and now must be returned BEFORE we take away even more from those who can LEAST afford it.
Just gas the elderly, it will save lots of money.
Those death panels are closer than you think. So is Soylent Green
Any thoughts based on Pete Peterson's research is just bogus. Full stop.
.
As usual, NOTHING is said about the ONLY way out. . All we hear of is one kind of proposed financial manipulation or the other.
.
The way out is to increase WAGE PRODUCTIVITY - Such that the few remaining "workers per retiree" have many, MANY times the economic effect of earlier workers, thus in effect restoring the worker/retiree ratio to a practical, workable level.
.
HOW to do this : INVESTMENT in advanced production technology !, Of course !
.
Conservatives tout investment as one of their more highly redeeming functions - but when the "rubber meets the road", THEY RUN - And whine until they get profit guarantees from the taxpayers ! !
.
They are a pretty much useless bunch, overall ! ! !
.
In 1983 during the celebrated Reagan years, Social Security tax was raised to assure that those paying in would be covered. The age spread was carefully predicted and in hindsight was quite accurate. The longer age span projection was a bit optimistic; that is we aren't living as long as was projected. However our taxes were raised according to those projections.
Here we are years later and all those tax breaks we gave to the wealthy have consumed the Social Security surpluses we've ALREADY PAID FOR!!! Its time we collected from those who've evaded their due share, especially those who "borrowed" from the Social Security bucket funded by the middle class.
Isn't the campaign over? Can we stop vilifying the rich? Do we ever hear the left moan about welfare fraud or people who just plain don't want to carry their financial weight? Solutions are what we need. Okay maybe the Republicans are the party of no, but the Dems are looking like whiners. Give me REAL solutions
Nobody's "vilifying the rich". Abandon that FOX News meme, it's old, worn-out nonsense. No, what needs to change is, Americans already making tens of millions, even hundreds of millions, of dollars per year, and presently paying only 13-14% of that income in fed taxes, while the rest of us pay far more as a percentage of our comparatively tiny annual income, need to step up and contribute taxes at rates comparable to the rest of us. The rest of us, who've buit the American capitalist enterprise that permits the already-wealthiest to gain their embarrassing, relatively tax-free annual income. We're all in this together. The super-wealthy are not excused from paying back into the enterprise just because they're super-wealthy. They're not royalty. They're no more meritorious than the rest of us. They have their share, many times over, and THEN some. That's not vilification.
Fox News meme? Your talking points are straight out of the Dems play book. 13 to 14% on investment income that has already been taxed as earned income. The "rich" will be taxed enough that they will bow out of the investment game and sit on their $ s. So that revenue will dry up along with any hope of job creation? Got a solution? Nothing but whining about the repubs, billionaires and the rich. Solutions where both sides give. Where in the Hell is some leadership? Is is nothing but a blame game. Maybe they were a bunch of old white guys but the Greatest Generation sure knew how to " man up".
Sadly, neither party is calling for significant cuts in Defense, which has more than doubled since 2001. (and it was bloated even then) We spend more on "defense" than most of the rest of the world COMBINED. So statements about how "we have to stay strong" are ridiculous.
And yet the author chooses to champion cuts to the poor and elderly instead of the obvious waste in our persistent investments in killing. The media is complicit in keeping the worst of our waste off the table for real cuts. ....Shame!!!
And the GOPs are still digging in .... to cause more mayhem to America's economy, suffering the poor, and wiping out all international respect for USA.
I guess Republicans are right. We can't afford retirement for people who work their whole lives, never get rich and live too long. They will just have to move in with their grown kids and grandkids and churches and charities can take in those who have no family. After all, what's family for?
This is NOT exactly true. The medicaid Costs are UP for different reasons and not coverage. If you scruitnize Medicaid Expenses you will find 65% waste. Our focus should be on how to eliminate those unnecessary costs in Medicaid.
Please provide citation and proof for your 65% waste contention. Or did you just pull that number out of your butt?
i AM LIKE MANY OTHERS GOT EDUICATED ELSEWHERE. cam to this country at young age and work ever since doing something many americans are not educated enough to do. So, USA did not spent money on my educations.
I started my work in a startup company that is now hugely profitable. Yet it is the owners of the company that gor rich enough to not work and ride on the back of people like me ( high-tech). So, Fareed, should i continue working while boses are counting money they made using me? until i am 70? 80? until i die? should you throw me into the seaa or leave me in the tree to frezze to death? buy if i work intil i die, young people will not be hired to do the work i do...sad for youngsters....sad for m...sad for my grandkids..
Let's treat the problem. We have the least efficient health care delivery system in the developed world. Yes, we have an aging population like most of the rest of these countries but, dealing with uncontrolled costs should be the focus. Medical special interest groups (lobbiests) are eating our lunch. Only when we cleave them from our senaters, congressmen and President, should we look at charging more in taxes co-pays or premiums.
pfft.. the left has stuck their heads so far into the sand.. they are playing patty cakes with the chinese
Universal health care is needed. (It is only a matter of time before we adopt it and so the sooner the better.)
i AM LIKE MANY OTHERS GOT EDUICATED ELSEWHERE. came to this country at young age and work ever since doing something many americans are not educated enough to do. So, USA did not spent money on my education.
I started my work in a startup company that is now hugely profitable. Yet it is the owners of the company that got rich enough to not work and ride on the back of people like me ( high-tech). So, Fareed, should i continue working while boses are counting hundrends of millions they made using me? until i am 70? 80? until i die? should you throw me into the sea or leave me in the tree to freeze to death? but if i work intil i die, young people will not be hired to do the work i do...sad for youngsters....sad for me...sad for my grandkids. Company i work for was bought by a multi-billion corporation and they jst know one thing...profit to their pockets.
Go start your own company
Absolutely right. If the liberals don't get serious about reforming these social programs they will have destroyed our economy and livelihoods. The republicans need to vote for revenue increases too. Reform of the tax code is the best way to do that. They all need to get off their butts and work on this. Obama included. Show some leadership. Get these people in a room close the door and don't come out until you all reach consensus. That would be a great legacy for Obama. But he's not interested apparently.
THERE SHOULD BE A PUSH FOR LEGALIZED EUTHANASIA. OLD AND IN THE WAY!
In a way there already is – it's known as our health care system and the warehousing of the aged in nursing homes.
The republicans would like to make us all work till we're 100 years old if they could. Any senior who votes for republicans deserves to work till they're 100 years old. The midterms come up in 2014. Vote the republicans out of the house in congress and give democrats back control unless you like working till you're 100? What we need to shore up social security and medicare in the future so it doesn't have money problems is for more wage growth in jobs. Wages are way too low for most people working full time to make a living. People making decent wages as opposed to low minimum wages pay a lot more in payroll taxes. It's the payroll taxes that fund social security and medicare. Low wages are this country's number one enemy. Not unemployment. The low wage problem has been going on since the early 1980's and it keeps getting worse. Unless we figure out how to reverse that we're in big trouble.
Bob, the GOP is looking to feather bed the class it represents, and of llate it has meant letting the corporations that make money off of Americans out source overseas for cheaper labor rates. By the time America ceases being a first world country and economy (after all how many hamburger flippers do you need?) and is incapable of continuing to support the "consumer economy" because people aren't earning enough to buy the crap being made overseas and peddled here the corporations will have long packed up, set up overseas and started the process of screwing over the emerging middle class that all those exported jobs are slowly creating.
Confused..."In 1975 Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid made up 25 percent of federal spending. Today they add up to a whopping 40 percent. Within a decade, they will be over 50 percent."
So going from 1975 to 2012, 37 years, the cost of these three programs have increased by 15 percent. Various groups use these programs, so I don't think the true percentage is a 15 percent increase just for retirees. Have the percentages for other groups that use these three programs increased/decreased in the last 37 years? What's the true percentage for retirees?
The current deficit is the direct result of the Bush era tax cuts and two unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan.) Yes, health care costs are a long-term problem and Social Security will become a problem later, but why aren't we addressing the problems that got us into this mess?!
Wrong analysis. Communist China had a one child policy for generations and they have a balanced budget. The welfare for the banks, Wall Street, the complicated tax system that favors the rich and most importantly perpetual WARS that drained our treasury do not seem to be a factor in your analysis. The offshored jobs , Globalist Agenda, endless wars brought us to the FISCAL CLIFF. It is the greed of the rich, not the social safety nets that brought us to bankrupcy.
Tax the rich. The US Government has been borrowing from social security for decades. There's IOU's in there from before I was born. Yes It's a Ponzi Scheme, yes it will go bust if it's not fixed. but should the hard working seniors be holding the empty bag? I don't think so. Tax the rich and tax coporations. If they can spend billions on political ads every election then they can contribute to Social Security as well. Don't break it fix it.
stop welfare to pete peterson, corporations, billionaires, politicians.
You spend money on 2 lenghty wars/occupations . . . but reduce taxes ( especially on a corporate level ) to the point where you have far less money coming in than . . . combined with the 2008-09 bailout to save an economy in panic . . . and that's why we're in the situation we're in now.
So because of that, the solution now is to take from the Seniors and let them starve, get sick, die? Sorry, my grandmother deserves better, especially since she worked as one of the working poor for over 50 years.
economic collapse and civil war will solve all these problems....end of discussion...good luck amerika.
The answer is quite simple: raise the poverty level to where it is meaningful and then raise taxes on all incomes progressively above that level. Income would be any source of money. No exclusions. no exceptions. Oh, and no more of the best government that MONEY CAN BUY (i.e kick the Republicans along with their sugar daddy and corporate owners out of Congress now; followed by the Dems if they don't straighten up and make things happen).
By the time the GOP gets down with it, SS eligibility begins the day after you're dead, provided you've given notice first and you've been means tested and a need for benefits can be demonstrated.
What you say is obviously true?I don't think 2 to 3 trillion dollars in spending cut would make any difference in republican thinking. They view the tax cuts as permanent and majority of them don't want cut in military spending. So politicians and media people are better off taking a break till next year's congress start. W. Bush spend most of his presidency in texas. It's not a bad idea for current president to be more like W. Bush.
The So. Sec. trust fund holds 18% of the Nartonal deb.The money was borrowed to provide corp welfare/warfare.Pay back the money by cutting defense/ofense to the -ucking bone.
cut the post office to 3 days a week, why do they need top pay and top benifits.cut all aid to only those that believe as we do. stop lobbist from having access to politicans.stop politicans from having access to lobbist.
The humane purpose of aid should not be based on beliefs. It should be based on need. Who needs it the most. Who is suffering the most. I'm not naive though and I know that alot of our aid is for political and economic reasons.
For the past 3 decades did the government move social security surplus payments to the current account rather than invest them and allow them to accrue? If so, should today's younger generation–who didn't elect the politicians making those decisions–be forced to pay for the mistake? The people old enough to vote over the past thirty-five years are responsible for the bad decisions made with our "retirement trust fund", and we alone should pay for are own short-sightedness, not our grandchildren. The demise of social security has been extensively written about–this isn't a surprise– and yet we choose to keep electing officials who ignored reality. The problem is in the mirror, but who wants to live in a society that turns its back on the elderly? A combination of benefit cuts, higher withholding, and means testing is necessary.
Fareed has always been the one that made the most sense with no agenda to his opinions. He presents facts and the bigger picture.
Who are you... his mother from Bombay?
Welfare to people who struggle with putting food on the table is bad but welfare to companies and banks is ok? We subsidize different parts of our economy and provide many financial benefits to companies that are making millions and billions a year. Yet we don't want to give a couple thousand dolalrs to people who are struggling?
My parents lived on their Social Security and some money in the bank. That was it. And by the way, I am not going to apologize for being a boomer. Wait until some of you get there, and YOUR CHILDREN are going after you.
We should, within reason, be getting back out what we put in. Some of us have been putting away dollars into the social security system and medicare for most of our lives, and others have put in hardly anything. A distinction needs to be made regarding this. Also . . . if you have been contributing to these programs that are meant to provide for you in your retirement days, then what the demographics say should be meaningless . . . . however . . . . these government programs are nothing more than a huge rip off, because if they still had all the money that was put into the system, there would be no problem, and no reason to fret about the future. . . .
Censorship of non-profane and non-"PC" comments is alive and well on CNN blogs. Nice job 'dominating' the news!
SS will need to lower the benefits paid out so everyone can still get benefits. And doctors will need to be more honest that expensive surgeries are not going to extend life much. Nobody lives forever and a few more months in a hospital are not going to change things for the better. And benefits for rich people need to be taxed. The government was too overly generous, failed to account for longer life expectancies, and ran up too big of debt. Defense spending should be cut first. Not every program should get funded. Most of the contractors and two thirds of the generals should get axed.
Actually there is a young rapidly expanding demographic in the US. However this minority, soon to be a majority, doesn't work. I think they have 50% unemployment. Thus I guess this group isn't even considered in the article as possible contributors in terms of taxes to the system. Everybody knows they just use welfare, even when age 22. Also they don't believe in education.
Raise all taxes to 99% and lower the retirement age to 27.
Social security is paid for by almost all who paid into it. It should in some reasonable way be related to the total steady income of the person retiring and not just calculated on how much he made or how much he paid into the system. The retirement age should be reviewed too. The govt. should be forced to stop dipping into it by the Feds.
Medicare is hightly inefficient and wasteful. But nobody talks about policing it to make it less wasteful. We can't have unlimited access to doctors, medicines, specialists etc. It is said by knowledgeable folks in the medical business that during the last year of the life of most individual, the largest amount of money is spent to keep him alive, when the doctors know that the time for the person to meet his maker has come. Is this right?
Just for the record I am a retiree myseolf.
Why the worry? Obama can just keep money to pay for everything. As Obama said teachers deserve twice what they are being paid. Plus retiring police and firemen after 30 years with full pay is only right. Perhaps Obama should grant some of the money printing rights to local jurisdictions too. After all NYC is now paying more in police and fire pensions than they pay for the police themselves. So a printing press would come in quite handy.
Thank you for some other great article. Where else could anybody get that type of information in such an ideal way of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I'm at the search for such info.