Isn't it time we stopped counting Social Security and Medicare in the budget?

Question

They are self funding.

They were put in the budget as a trick by LBJ to make the Viet Nam war look less costly.

They were put in the budget as a trick by LBJ to make the Viet Nam war look less costly.

Chainsaw - you apparently don't get a paycheck. If you did you would see that the Feds take 2 deductions. 1 for income taxes, and 1 for Social Security, or FICA.

Social Security is NOT paid from income taxes. It is paid by SS taxes, thus it is self funding.

If this wasn't true, why was there an uproar when LBJ put SS in the budget?

Answer 1

$8,590,000,000

Does it look like not counting those will help the budget and national debt numbers?

Since the Democrats are in power we aren't going to drop Medicare and Social security from the budget report, the Democrats love those problems. They'll probably fund them more to be honest.

Answer 2

Until 1983, Social Security was a pay as you go system - where younger workers paid for the retirement of the previous generation. Very little money was kept in the social security trust fund - what came in immediately went out to pay benefits. - Accordingly, until that time, it wasn't very important whether Social security receipts and payments were combined with other spending in calculating the budget. - But in 1983, under President Reagan, there was a major social security reform, where social security taxes were increased by about 1/3 to build up a real surplus to help pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. Since the Baby Boom generation has not yet started to retire, this year Congress will be able to borrow and spend over 150 billion dollars in surplus money that will be paid into the trust fund by workers.. (All previous surpluses have already been borrowed and spent and congress has no plan in place to pay back the trust fund.) While separate accounts are kept for the social security trust fund and the rest of the government, politicians of both parties have ignored the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the deficit look smaller. Politicians of both parties have talked about reformng the Social Security system again because of the problem the government will have when the Baby Boom generation retires. But every penny that was paid into the trust fund came from social security taxes on the wages of working people. The lowest paid minimum wage worker pays into the system at the same rate as a person making $90,000 per year. - The justification for this is that social security taxes are to be used like retirement savings for workers - not as a tax for other purposes. Congress has failed to confront the moral issue: Is it right to borrow and spend some body's retirement savings with no plan in place to pay it back? - And should we be talking about reforming social security rather than reforming the rest of the government? - When President Bush ignores borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund in calculating his budget deficit, Democrats should call him on it - but they haven't done so, probably because they have had a hand in creating the giant budget deficits since the 1983 Social Security Reforms. - Both parties are guilty of buying our votes with borrowed money, and we will suffer for it.

Answer 3

Social Security has too many programs that are necessary to stablize the community until those programs are independent with their own revenue stream then Social Security and Medicare can be removed from the budget. The National-Union believes in constructing the budget so important social programs will not be cut from the budget to balance federal spending, http://www.voteprimous.com

Answer 4

This is the most uninformed question that I have ever seen. Social Security comes out of the budget every year. There is no trust fund. The government borrows it. It is the biggest pyramid scheme ever perpetuated on man.