Pulling the plug on medicare and social security

A thought occurred to me recently, and I was wondering what everyone's take on it was.

If we remove social security and medicare, does that not count as defaulting on a loan made to the US public?

Would this have repercussions in the economic sector, where even the threat of defaulting now on debt is causing trepidation on Wall Street? Even assuming there would be no actual shifts in certain sectors anyway? (Done for simplification purposes only, not suggesting there wouldn't be any)

Would this have repercussions on the US's standing in the international markets?

Come on!

Nothing?

People wanted interesting discussion, myself included, and nothing after 15 hours?!

Yes,it would be defaulting.but just as importantly,it would be a moral default.It's not very ethical to promise one thing and do another.

There are plenty of statistics and charts out there that show social security to be the number one red flag in terms of the future of our debt. Several long term projections has such entitlement spending exceeding the entire US tax revenue amount alone, and this doesn't even include other forms of mandatory spending, namely such as interest on the debt.

So I don't think there is anybody out there that disagrees that the system either needs to be reformed or eliminated entirely.

However, simply immediately eliminating social security would mean that those who had been paying into it all their lives would need a refund of that money, which the US could not afford. And even if the US decides to criminally excuse itself from paying that back, millions of Americans would suddenly be without income they were dependent upon. So, eliminating social security would either worsen the debt or worsen the economy, probably causing both.

Instead, its elimination, if that were the option, would need to be brought on very gradually. One example would be to end all payments into it for those 21 and younger, but continue to pay social security checks to those who have paid into it once they retire or have retired, each according to how much they have already paid into it. People young enough could then use money they are no longer paying into the system out of their work checks to make their own retirement investments. This might even stimulate the economy a bit.

Even that, though, still poses debt problems in the nearer future, so reform is needed either way, whether or not social security is done away with entirely. One good reform solution would be to raise the retirement age to be closer to life expectancy, as it was when social security first started.

I disagree with nothing here.

What I don't understand is how people can think that turning it into a voucher system to offset debt NOW would actually help in any way, shape, or form.

What happens later can be discussed when we have a little more leeway with money, but to suggest getting rid of medicare and social security at this point in time seems both politically and economically suicidal.

Sorry. I missed this. I've actually had people suggest this very idea when I have asked similar questions about this subject and the debt in general.

It is, which is why it will never be done away with entirely. Americans are too dependent on it.

Sorry, typo. DISagrees. I fixed it too.

And yet people got elected on this platform...

Of course. But try passing that in our congress. Not going to happen.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Weird things have passed before.

I just hope that this debate never actually comes up in the leadership of the Republicans or Democrats. (At this point in time)

If it does... *shudder*

You need to look no further than our current debt ceiling debate to see how dysfunctional our government is. We certianly cannot get anything comprehensive or radical passed. And this WOULD BE radical. Why? Democrats hold on to social security like it is their lifeline. Why? Because millions actually ARE dependent on it.

And any bill that gets passes in the House must also pass the Senate by a 3 to 2 majority to avoid a filibuster. And that is even if they are lucky enough to have a guy in the oval office who is sympathetic with their plans.

A party to have majority in the House, a 3 to 2 majority in the Senate, and a President, rarely ever happens, especially for one with a radical platform. And this doesn't even touch upon the status-quo loving corporate lobbyist machine that feeds all of them.

Hell, we are having a hard enough time just compromising on anything, let alone something of that magnitude.

One of the reasons why America is now on the slow decline.

Yes, I used to think that, but the last election cycle made me do a double take. I was kind of surprised that Bachmann and others actually managed to get MORE support for their ideas as time went on.

The corporate money gets your foot in the door, but get enough public support, and it may be possible to run without them.

Theoretically, yes, but I just don't see it happening. Not until after catastrophes do occur anyhow.

I would be willing to listen, if people actually said things that made sense.

Not the feel-good 'I think this is right so I'll support it' sense but actual logical, economic, and sociopolitical sense.