If you went to withdraw your money from a CD and the bank told you that they were only paying 75% of the interest it earned you would have grounds for a lawsuit. The pols created this problem by allowing the surplus to be used for other government programs.

Social Security not reducing benefits till 2037 might sound good to you but that's when I turn 67. I've been paying into social security since I was 13 working at my grandfathers business. The longest period of time I've been out of work since I was 16 was the three months prior to joining the service and the three months after I graduated college. So there is no way I am accepting reduced benefits. I'm sorry but something more than just waiting it out needs to be done. Your argument was the same as what Democrats stated back in 94 prior to the Internet boom.

As for medicare like any government program it is subject to misuse, abuse, and fraud. Thankfully the FBI has been cracking down on the crime rings running medicare scams.

Thanks, KLCarten, for saving me from typing that .

Here's a tangential point: In the last 20 years 100% of the gains from increased worker productivity have gone to corporate profits and zero to wage increases. This had never happened before in the history of our country. If even a modest fraction of the advances went to salaries Social Security would be running a huge current account surplus as well as an accumulated trust fund surplus, because there would have been more payroll taxes collected. So, basically, multinational executives and Wall St. bankers have been spending Social Security on yachts.

As for Medicare, that problem is directly related to accelerating healthcare costs in the U.S. If we continue to pay twice as much as the rest of the developed world for less healthcare, then Medicare will go bankrupt. But the issue isn't "fixing Medicare" its getting American medical costs under control -- from $1.2 Million-a-year bariatric surgeons, to $100-millon-a-year insurance executives, given raises for denying coverage.

Back to Social Security, if someone wants to argue the accounting, take Paul Krugman on for size:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/social-security-finances/

jim, your comments are valid and correct. yet, the heath care reform bill does nothing, as warren buffet points out perfectly, to fix the cost issue of health care. that said, paul krugman, king of doubling our deficit spending, might not be the best place to reference responsible economics. he has decided to let his political vision interfere with his economic vision and we all know what happens when ideology rears its ugly head into mathematics. if he had his way we'd walk the same road that put france, greece, spain, portugal and italy in the financial situation they are in today.

Do you really believe Social Security will be solvent until 2037? If you do then please search for "social security money running out". If you take your life savings of e.g. $1M and lend it to yourself and then spend the money on a new boat, cars, etc do you still have $1M for your retirement? If you say yes, then it's hopeless to explain. If you say no, then your one step closer to understanding why your SS statement isn't correct because the US Gov lent the money to itself and then spent it.

But its worse then that. With the example above at least you have cars to drive and a boat to live on. The US Gov spent all the money it borrowed on things like health care, pensions, stimulus, unemployment, wars, etc. These aren't assets that they can sell (try selling a war...). So the money is GONE. And even with all this extra money to spend our Gov has been running deficits for years. Imagine what will happen when they start having to pay out more then they take in for SS! That's suppose to happen this year btw...and just look where this years deficit is.

SS will be solvent as long as we can continue to borrow $1T+ a year. Once our credit runs out then SS is in big trouble.

Insurance companies make a great bad guy, but the truth is we could reduce their profit margin to zero and it would roll back less than a few months of recent premium increases:

http://www.hcsc.com/newsroom/questions_answers.html

But your mentioning of bariatric surgeons gets to the essence of our problem.

One, the population vehemently does not want to take better care of itself.

Two, we have many expensive procedures such as replacement hip joints, a lifetime of insulin, bypass surgery, bariatric surgery etc which people seem to prefer to eating and drinking less, getting more exercise, etc.

Not only are we not doing anything about this, in fact we've made it worse recently. Obamacare does not allow a lower premium to someone who keeps their weight/cholesterol/blood pressure down, because that would be discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, even if those conditions are self-inflicted.

Why should we even have bariatric surgeons?

I don't see any way out of where we are heading, even if we abolished private insurance and had a single payer...

Regards.

Taking on Krugman really isnt much of a challenge, he's rarely right about ANYTHING!

The development of productive forces has been the real unconscious history which built and modified the conditions of existence of human groups as conditions of survival, and extended those conditions: the economic basis of all their undertakings. In a primitive economy, the commodity sector represented a surplus of survival. The production of commodities, which implies the exchange of varied products among independent producers, could for a long time remain craft production, contained within a marginal economic function where its quantitative truth was still masked. However, where commodity production met the social conditions of large scale commerce and of the accumulation of capitals, it seized total domination over the economy. The entire economy then became what the commodity had shown itself to be in the course of this conquest: a process of quantitative development brindes sp personalizados. This incessant expansion of economic power in the form of the commodity, which transformed human labor into commodity-labor, into wage-labor, cumulatively led to an abundance in which the primary question of survival is undoubtedly resolved, but in such a way that it is constantly rediscovered; it is continually posed again each time at a higher level. Economic growth frees societies from the natural pressure which required their direct struggle for survival, but at that point it is from their liberator that they are not liberated. The independence of the commodity is extended to the entire economy over which it rules acompanhantes curitiba luxo. The economy transforms the world, but transforms it only into a world of economy. The pseudo-nature within which human labor is alienated demands that it be served ad infinitum, and this service, being judged and absolved only by itself, in fact acquires the totality of socially permissible efforts and projects as its servants. The abundance of commodities, namely, of commodity relations, can be nothing more than increased survival.

I'm sorry but your comment that the US military is somehow bankrupting the US is nonsense. Even if one accepts the premise that the US is on its way to serfdom (a reasonable argument, but as I've pointed out, a lot of other countries are heading there first) military spending is a relatively small part of government spending.

You obviously don't like the military but don't want to acknowledge the fact that entitlements are what threatens the US with bankruptcy, not military commitments.

the obama administration has extended unemployment for up to two years. so we are doing something for the unemployed (for now). as for handouts to the rich, going back to clinton tax rates would be healthy, but the "rich" pay the overwhelming majority of income tax. perhaps if companies like google and BP weren't funneling money through places like ireland to avoid income tax, the budget may find itself balancing a bit better. google paid 2.4 percent on there income to the IRS. so long as they keep supporting the politicians it will remain that way. google is one example of many. blaming the rich is an incomplete and simplistic approach to problem solving. so is incessant finger pointing.

perhaps stick to the merits of the debate and don't paint all of america by the 3 percent that watches fox. that's rights, its highest rated show averages 8 to 10 million viewers, of the 300 million or so who live here. so your argument is silly. folks on the left and right protest in this country, we just don't burn things and stop transportation and energy infrastructure from working to do so. the organized labor movement in this country and western europe transformed global labor standards. was it difficult? certainly. did it happen here? yes. as for working three jobs, if only the 17 percent actual unemployed could find one job, much less three, your point may be valid. but all three points are not.

California's problems are indeed because they are "penalizing success" with their crushing income tax rate of 10.3% on incomes of over $1 million dollars. The entertainment industry and Silicon Valley have been made into barren wastelands by the state government's relentless stomping of our noble, illustrious rich. It isn't at all because Proposition 13 and countless other tax referendums have squeezed the state treasury for decades, because people think it's their right to not pay taxes but still demand government services.

Yes, I too want to revisit those halcyon days of the last 19th century where workers had no rights, senate appointments were regularly bought, and children as young as 9 slaved in coal mines until they developed black lung and died. Anything at all to spare our captains of the industry, who single-handedly lead our country into a tailspin, from having to pay a reasonable marginal tax rate.