Why Social Security is Masked Welfare

Hopefully you have already read my previous pieces on the problems with the ponzy schemes we know as Social Security and Medicare. Here are some hard numbers that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these sacred fat cows that are responsible for 37% of our government's spending are the largest welfare programs in our nation and need to be changed and cut DRASTICALY and called what they really are ... WELFARE!

Let's say that you were 65 in 2010 and signed up for welfare ... I mean Social Security and medicare ... because you paid into it and you want what you paid for.  You were born in 1945 and started working full-time at age 18 in the year 1963. You paid FICA and Medicare tax
for 47 years.  Let do some simple math with the National Average Wage Index.  I added up the average wages for all 47 years.  This took some time as I checked my numbers three times, but the truth is well worth it.  In those 47 years you would have earned $942,356.62. 

On your earnings, 12.4% would have been paid into FICA and 2.9% would have paid into Medicare.  You would have paid half of this making your personal contribution 6.2% and 1.45% respectively for a total of 7.65% of your pay (What is FICA?). In total, you would have paid $72,090.28.  Your employer would also have paid $72,090.28.  That would leave you with $144,180.56 in your "account". 

Now, the average cost per person on Social Security is $1,177 per month for a total of $14,124 per year.  The average cost per person on Medicare is $11,000 per year of which the recipient pays about 10% for a total of $9,900 per year (WOW!  Wish *I* could get that kind of coverage ... and *I'M* healthy!!!).  In total we are looking at $24,024 per year for those on SS and Medicare. 

Now we take what was "paid in" for them and divide it by what they are paid out each year.
$144,180.56 / $24,024 =  6.001 years 

The avergage life expectancy in the United States is 78.3.  That means that the average senior will be on Social Security and Medicare for 13 years, of which only 6 they've earned.  Each person on the dole costs us $168,168 over their lifetime and that is only if the costs don't go up (which they will).  Now I'm not saying that seniors are not important.  What I AM saying is that they only EARNED 46% of what they receive.  That makes the other 54% of it
 ~W~E~L~F~A~R~E~
and I'd appreciate it if they showed the smallest amount of gratitude for what they get FOR NOTHING!

They personally only paid 23%, their employers paid another 23%, and the rest of us get stuck with the balance of 54% while still having to provide for our children and our own futures.  If we divide that 54% out to the 3.79 workers for each person on SS and Medicare it comes out to 14.25% per worker per recipient.   Today's seniors did NOT have to carry that burden!  Those of us picking up the UNEARNED benefits they are receiving do so at our own demise as we try to feed and clothe and house our children, not to mention cover our own medical costs (it's been so long ... I wonder what it's like to have health insurance ...). 

Adding insult to injury, the seniors on the dole refuse to take any kind of cut in their benefits of any kind.  They are so brainwash, selfish and self-centered that they could care less about what they are doing to their own children, grandchildren and this country. 

This is precisely why the original intent of SS made a person outlive the average life expectancy by 3 1/2 years before collecting anything.  But sssshhhhhhhhhh, don't tell any seniors on the dole the truth.  They don't like it.  I expect that type of attitude from liberals.  But it pisses me off when it comes from "conservatives".



Peace Out,
~*~*~Krystal~*~*~

No Cost of Living Increase for SS Recipients ... Cry Me a River ...

As those of you know, I am in an ongoing battle against Social Security. It's a social program handout that should be either (a) adjusted with the actuary rates or (b) abolished altogether. (Feel free to read Speedy Gonzales, Social Security, Medicare and Welfare

With the part B medicare cost being equal to the marginal increase in benefits, there will be no cost of living adjustment (COLA) increase for those on the dole ... I mean on Social Security. However, I am here to arm you with facts to counteract the impending onslaught of whining from those with their hands out.

It's a simple math equation. Present it to the whiners and let them find the answer.

About 45 million people -- one in seven in the country -- receive both Medicare and Social Security. (Medicare Rise Could Mean No Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment)

For every ONE person on Medicare and SS there are only SIX people to pay for it.  In January 2011, the average Social Security payout for a retiree was $1,177/month (Average Monthly Social Security Benefit for a Retired Worker).  That would work out to a cost of $196.17 per month for each person NOT on Social Security.

Unfortunately not all six of those people work.  Some of them are children (27.3% of the U.S. population is under 20 Wikipedia).  Some of them will have jobs, so we'll say that 20% of the six not on the Medicare/SS dole are children.  That leaves us with just 4.8 people to pay for each person on the dole.  But wait!  There's more.

The BLS says unemployment is 8.9%.  However, that number does not include the U6 unemployed (those working a p/t job when they really need f/t or those who have stopped looking because there simply is no work).  The U6 unemployment is 16.7%.   When these numbers are adjusted, the TRUE unemployment rate is 21.1%.  (The Real Unemployment Rate)  Adjusting that 4.8 with the REAL unemployment rate brings it down to 3.79 people persons to pay for each person on Social Security.  That's without considering families like mine where the mother stays home.

Now, the average SS payout of $1,177 per month divided by 3.79 people who pay for it equals a monthly cost of $310.55 per working person.  Now we are a one income family with six children.  We could really use that $310 each month for things like FOOD and CLOTHING for our children.  My weekly food budget varies between $150-$200 a week.  The hand out it literally taking food out my children's mouths.

But it gets better.  That is just Social Security.  What is our family paying for Medicare (while my husband and I go uninsured because we can't afford it and my eldest will become uninsured on his 19th birthday)?  The cost each year for each Medicare recipient is about $11,000 per year.  Of that, the recipient pays about 10% in premiums.  Using the total cost of Medicare in 2009 divided the number of workers in 2009, the cost came to $3,690 per working person (What is the Cost per Citizen for Medicare?).

Of course now there are fewer working persons to spread that cost to, but we'll use the optimistic 2009 figures anyway.  The cost of Medicare for each working person comes to $307.29 a month.

So, how much does ONE person on the Medicare/SS dole cost each of 3.79 working people in this country each month? 

$617.84

And that, folks, is why I, and many others like me, have no health coverage and little compassion for the whiners on the dole who do.  We have to pay for those on the dole AT OUR OWN DETRIMENT so they can have what we can no longer afford.  I'm sure my children are happy to know that if I get bad sick they will finish growing up with no mother so someone who's 83 can get a check every month their medical needs taken care of ... and then complain that it isn't enough and what it costs THEM!

Peace Out,
~*~*~Krystal~*~*~

Speedy Gonzales, Social Security, Medicare and Welfare

Remember the Speedy Gonzales cartoons?  We all laughed because the stupid humans kept baiting the mouse traps, but Speedy ALWAYS grabbed the bait and escaped unharmed.  Apparently, *I'M* the stupid human because the mouse in my kitchen can lick clean peanut butter or remove a piece of lunch meat from any trap without setting it off.  But if I barely touch the trap, it triggers.  All hail Speedy of my Kitchen.  He's a better mouse than I am.

That being said ...

I'd really like to smack a few senior citizens who claim to be conservatives.  Let me tell you why.  They all think that government health care is wrong and socialistic.  They all think that people who LIVE ON government handouts via welfare and medicaid are irresponsible.  But they have no problem collecting social security ("Oh! I didn't get a cost of living increase for two years!") or using medicare ("Oh! I have to drive 45 minutes to find a doctor!") You know, cry me a freaking river!

Social security IS welfare that THEY live on.  When it was set up in 1935, in order to collect you had to be 65. Here's the rub, the average life expectancy was 61 years and 7 months (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html).  In other words, you had to outlive the average life expectancy by 3 years and 5 months in order to collect.  Let's be blunt about it, the government expected AT LEAST HALF of the people who paid into it to die before collecting a single dime.  That was the intention of social security when it was put into play. 

The problem is that the government has failed to keep up with the actuary table for social security.  If they had, we wouldn't be having a problem with it right now.  Why? because people would have to work longer, pay in more, and still at least 50% of the people would die before collecting.  The money would be there. 

The problem with social security is that the average life expectancy in 2005 was 77 years and 8 months.  This means that in order to keep up with how it was set up to begin with NO ONE SHOULD COLLECT UNTIL THE AGE OF 81 years and 1 month.  Why?  Because THAT was the TRUE intent of the program to begin, everyone pays in, but less than 50% collect.  And guess what, those who did live long enough to collect didn't live to collect it very long.  It simply was not intended to pay people for 2 decades.  Currently, starting social security at 65 has a person collecting a full 16 years before they should truly be eligible.  And to prove further the idiocy of this program, people can now start collecting early at 62, 19 years before they're suppose to.

They decry big government and big government spending, but have no problem with being a part of the largest government program in the country.  From Wikipedia, the facts are:

By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid.  Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product and is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.

They scream to cut government spending, but THE LARGEST single spending in this country is social security ... 37%!!! ... and merely mentioning the need to fix it sets them off in a defensive tirade telling us we have to keep the promise made.  Okay, let's keep that promise, but I expect them to go by the rules as they were set up.  When they outlive the average life expectancy by nearly 3 1/2 years, I'll happily pay their social security.  Truth is that they did not earn what they are getting.  For the 16 years they collect before outliving the average life expectancy, they are on a government dole plain and simple.  They are receiving way more than they ever put into it.  

So now that we have ascertained that seniors are collecting for 16 years longer than they are suppose to, what right do they have to complain about the lack of cost of living increase?  How many families WITH CHILDREN not only didn't get an increase, but worse, are making LESS than they did two years ago?!

I have an idea, how about cutting expenses?  That's what everyone else is doing.  And no, I won't see it differently when it's my turn to collect ... because it won't be there.  Ca piece?

One last thing regarding "conservative" seniors and their sacred cow, who ever said there was a RIGHT to retire and have the government pay their expenses?  Especially those who espouse the Bible all the time?

Even while we were with you, we gave you this rule: "Whoever does not work should not eat."  -- 2 Thes 3:10

As for Medicare?  If you're 82 and get cancer, you'll get chemo and radiation courtesy of the government (that would be me).  But if a 26-year-old mother of three gets the same thing, they'll make her loose everything she's worked for, beg money, and eventually, let her drop dead.  Again, cry me a damn river about the troubles with medicare!  They whine and whine and go on forever about the medical care they get for next to nothing, but what about their own children and grandchildren who can't get medical care at all for varying reasons? 

I hate to sound heartless, please remember my Daddy died of cancer, but the truth of it is if one life should be chosen to save, whose should it really be?  I'm not saying that the life of a senior is less valuable than the life of those younger.  I'm simply saying that children needs their parents and a person in their 20's, 30's or 40's are much more likely to recover than a person in their 80's.  Consider this, a few months ago a 93 year old woman who was in a coma and received a pacemaker (friend works at a hospital).  Seriously!  Wasn't that a waste of money?  According to the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee website, a pacemaker surgery costs between $35,000 and $45,000.  The woman was 93 years old and in a coma for heaven's sake!

On to welfare.  Look, some people work very hard and still can't make it.  I have no problem helping them.  Unless of course ... they continue to spit out baby after baby just to collect more.  OH!  And continue to purchase alcohol and cigarettes.  And we shouldn't forget the pet food and vet bills so many welfare recipients find money for.  No new tattoos.  They aren't free.  I know welfare people who think nothing of dropping $75+ for a new tattoo and then using food stamps to purchase food on their way home from the tattoo parlor.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have to show ID for at least alcohol and tobacco.  When a family receives food stamps, their license should have a sticker on it that restricts them from purchasing such items.  One family, personally known to me, goes through 2 cartons a week.  That's over $40/week and $2,000/yr.  If they have it to smoke, they have it for food. 

I'm not cruel.  I like to help people.  However, there does come a point to which a person is being enabled instead of helped, and to tell the truth, I'm tired of it.




~*~*~Krystal~*~*~