John, you have a very good point here and I thank you for sharing this thought. Also debunked by the president's 2012 campaign is that the road to the White House must go through Florida and Ohio. If you subtract both of these states electoral votes from the president's total he still won the presidency. Good points to ponder going forward.

Both details that remind us we are ALL in this together

Also , iowa ( along with the states mentioned I'msure ) took a good ribbing when we had the gop primary here in 2012 , and about how lily white the state is , I had to remind people we lily white iowans catapulted the 1st black president to the top of the dem primary ticket in 2008 , and into our winning of the presidency

Loved it! But I'm not certain I would want to see him try to dance to it.

Seriously. At what point in history did America begin to reward incompetence with multi-million dollar bonuses? Something is so completely wrong here.

At what point in history did America begin to reward incompetence with multi-million dollar bonuses?

It ceased being about reward. It's all about looting assets while they are vulnerable.

Since when ?

I would say about the time Harvard Business School started teaching it and producing dooch bags like romney for wall st

Jose, The three safety nets should not even be a part of these fiscal cliff discussions. They are not the cause of the deficit being so high. Medicare and Medicaid are actually highly efficient programs and social security is called an entitlement because you pay into it and are therefore entitled to have it!

It really does need to be "means tested", though. For example, billionaires gets a social security check that is very large, while some get only $900.00 a month. This money could be distributed more fairly somehow, I think. It was created by FDR to help impoverished seniors live their last years in comfort and dignity. It has been very successful, but needs means testing to make it more so. IMO!

I just can't see the logic of Warren Buffet receiving a social security check. (For example). He does not need it, whereas so many other, less fortunate people, do.

I tend to be a bit of a socialist.

India,

As long as everyone pays in and everyone gets retirement checks the program is untouchable. That is why Warren Buffet gets a check.

If Social Security becomes a program for the poor, it will be constantly under attack and prone to budget cuts. Just look at Head Start -- a program to provide preschool and other services to poor families with young children. Head Start yields $7 in cost savings for every dollar spent (largely through lower crime rates -- socialize kids at a young age and they are less prone to anti-social behavior, go figure), yet Head Start has to turn way one third of the kids qualifying for service due to lack of funds. This happens year after year because only a fraction of the population gets services from Head Start.

As long as everyone can plan on receiving Social Security and Medicare these programs will survive. Since these programs keep my parents and my in-laws living in their own homes and not mine, this works for me.

Hi India:

Social Security benefits are bases on your lifetime earnings. If you receive it, you worked for it regardless of how much wealth you achieved over your working career. I do not favor means testing. I feel it will be set so low as to make Social Security more austere.

Put a lower cap on what a person can make and still recieve SS. At this point, a person can make more than they recieve in SS benefits and still recieve SS. Even above that amount, SS is only cut $.50 for every $1. earned. If a person is retired, the should be retired. SS was meant to be a "safety net" for people with no other income, ie, pension, stocks bond, etc.

Larry, Great minds think alike .....That's what I mean by "means testing". Perhaps that's not the proper definition of it. I thought it was.

People now outlive the amount they paid into it. It was always intended to be a safety net, but what millionaire needs a safety net? There should be a way to address this without harming the program, as some suggested. I would never want to harm such a good program, but, I mean, I know people who make $900.00 a month on SS while I cannot imagine what Buffet gets that he clearly does not need.

John seeking enlightenment, I certainly see your point and it is a valid one. I don't think it should be a program for the poor at all, I am just not convinced it should be paid to those who so clearly do not need it.

I read an artice a few months back about a secratary that was have a difficult time "making ends meat" with her SS. She only got $5000.00/Mo SS. I don't know any secrataries that make enough to reciece $5000/Mo SS benefits.

I agree that there is a conundrum with why do millionaires get the program, but at the same time remember that the average American's income has dropped to the point that the majority cannot retire without the benefit of supplemental income. Whatever means you would be using to try to reduce the likelihood of people like Warren Buffet being able to receive social security would have to simultaneously be implemented in a way that you don't hurt someone even if they otherwise have money to retire on.

This was the discussion I had the other day with that sixpack person or whatever his/her name was. He/she was attempting to make the argument that people are just lazy and did something wrong if, by the time they reach retirement, they do not have enough put away in savings to retire on. I explained that the average life expectancy right now is about 83 for men and 85 for women and is expected to rise up to 90 in the future. Using the figures he/she gave of retiring at the age of 65 on 185,000$ on a 25k/yr income that would mean- with that person's spending making no change- that, that person would only have enough to cover from ages 65-72 1/2. Without the supplement of income from social security that person would be screwed. How much would it take on 185k in total savings to retire with zero assistance to live to age 83? 10,225$/year. So roughly 10k/year is all that person could spend in order to make that money last the entire rest of their life. And that's assuming they die at 83. What if they live to 85? Well then they could spend at maximum 9,250$/year. Poverty in America is 14k/year. In fact you'd have to be able to put away about 300,000$ in retirement in order to be able to just pass the poverty line. How many Americans are able to spare that much from each paycheck to make it to their retirement age?

I should probably clarify: I'm not disagreeing with india and larry. I'm stating that one of the problems inherent with passing public policy is that you have to make the policy broad enough to effect as many people as possible. In the case of federal policy you're trying to make it broad enough to effect the entire nation. So however you were going to write such changes in the law would have to be done very carefully because I know people who had a million dollars at the time that they retired and only spent about 20k/year and they are still barely making it because they had the audacity to live longer than 80 years old. Seems to me that we want to make sure whatever policy we're implementing we're not making the end goal "suicide is the only option" if you get my meaning.

When the democrats started confiscating money from my pay they told me my SS would be tax free. Of course they lied.

...you do know that was Ronald Reagan and not Democrats, right?

One reason I decided to cash in on SS at 62 was to help deplete the SS pool of money in my own little way to prove it doesn't work.

I caused the system to break, therefore it's the SYSTEM that's the problem!

Yeah...in the normal world the person who breaks the thing is the crook...not the thing itself. You're an awesome satirist I've got to admit Jerold.

The jeroldtol gop voters are always 100% fiction , and worthless to their own nation

CBS news blew the doors off exactly what the jeroldtol nevadas are always lying about on in their interent fictional melt downs

A man and his wife from new jersey , an accountant and teacher , 5 kids worked 40 years , saved , house , kids , both of them ended up in nursing homes on medicaid and medicare , had to cash in all their retirement , savings etc by the time they ended up there , they were not complaining in the news segment , they were thankful to not be a burden on their kids and had a great roof over their heads

Now contrast this with what the jeroldtols present on the internet , they are pathological liars for the gop ayn rand cause , they have no other purpose in their worthless lives

And going by the definition of TAKERS , that the gop always CRYING about , jerry would "be one" for going on welfare at age 62 , congratulations loser

Jerold, Hate to disappoint you, but our retirement will be amazing.