What Will Happen When The Politicians Run Out Of Money

When a political candidate drops out of the race what happens to all of the money they raised from individual donors?

campaigns use it to pay winding down expenses and debts incurred during the campaign.  Even after a candidate drops out (actually the candidate "suspends" their campaign), the campaign will still try to raise money.  Often the candidate has loaned the campaign money and they want to get paid back.

How true is this statement "Socialism works until it eventually runs out of money."?

Not true at all.It operates under the all too common assumption that money spent on public services just goes into the aether never to be seen again. That people just enjoy their free stuff, use and abuse it for as long as it lasts. And the politicians know this, but they don't care, they just make these short term promises to gain short term power.This is not socialism. This is populism. It is a very different thing.Under socialism public spending is not just a wasteful thing to buy votes. It is an investment.It operates under basic assumptions like treat women like equals and you've doubled your potential workforce, give your workers health care and it saves money in the long run, educate based on ability rather than wealth and you get better scientists and leaders.Done properly socialism operates with a balance sheet that shows a virtuous cycle of higher spending leads to higher income and the country becomes better off.

What will happen when Medicare and Social Security run out of money?

The answer is that no one knows. (The answer that they are part of the general fund is incorrect.  Although parts of Medicare and, to a much lesser extent, social security get some funding from the general fund, the existing law requires that payments be made from trust funds)The key phrase in the above paragraph is "existing law". If (when?) the point were reached that either or both of these programs had insufficient trust fund balances to cover immediate payment obligations, there would be great pressure on Congress and the President to come up with an answer. Some people get paid a lot of money to make predictions about what Congress will do next month, and they seem to be wrong about as often as they are right. Predicting what Congress would do years down the road is even less likely to mean much.  One thing they could do is simply start appropriating general funds into the trust funds until they came up with a different answer.  Some people will say that they cannot do that because there is no authority in law to do that.  But, an appropriations act would be a law. There are some procedural hurdles that would have to be surmounted, but the desire to be re-elected is sometimes a strong antidote to procedural hurdles. Sometimes.Although there may be strong reasons for thinking that Congress would not really let these important programs actually run out of money, it is interesting to speculate about what would happen if they did.  In this case, the President would have to deal with the situation.  He would probably get a lot of advice about what the law requires, but the law does not really address this question clearly enough to be sure what the limits of Presidential discretion might be.  This is really pure speculation but payments could be prorated so that the outgo would just match the amount of  money coming in (remember that these programs do have ongoing income from payroll taxes and certain general fund amounts).  Another speculative option, for social security, would be to pay benefits up to some dollar amount.  Thus everyone would continue to get some benefit but those with higher benefit amounts would see them reduced. Or, and this is sometimes believed to be the "official" answer, payments would be made in full as money came in. The real answer is still "no one knows".

If Medicare and Social Security are ended, will we get our money back?

To put it bluntly, nope.Social Security and Medicare were designed as “pay as you go” systems, where the money people pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes goes to pay the current beneficiaries. Although you have to have a certain amount of time (and money) paid in Social Security taxes to qualify for benefits, and the earnings you paid Social Security taxes on help determine how much you’ll receive in benefits, there’s no account with the money you paid in to give back.At the time Social Security was established, there wasn’t the political will to have a system where people would pay into accounts from which they’d be paid benefits when the time came - the system as we have it today was the most politically palatable alternative. The current system does have the advantage that you can continue to receive a benefit even though you’ve received more than you paid in (which a lot of people do).Remember the last time the Republicans tossed around the idea of replacing Social Security with private accounts? Part of the reason the idea died was that not only was everyone going to pay into those private accounts, but someone would also have to pay to keep the system going for current beneficiaries, which was going to be tremendously expensive.I’m assuming that if the Republicans do manage to kill the current system, as they’ve been hoping to do for the last 80-plus years, the folks who are currently receiving benefits and those who are are close to it will expect to receive them, so they’ll have that issue to deal with. So guess what, folks - not only will you not “get your money back” if the programs end, you’re still going to have to pay taxes to fulfill the promises previously made - unless you and your elected representatives want millions of serious ticked off seniors, surviving families, and disabled people to deal with.

What's going to happen when social security runs out of funding?

It’s important to specify exactly what “runs out of funding” means. Funding for Social Security comes from two sources: 1. Trust funds. 2. Current worker earningsAbout 2034, the Social Security trust funds will exhaust. No more funding from them.Is that the end of Social Security? No. Will workers receive checks after 2034? Yes, absolutely. (Twenty-somethings will tell you otherwise. They’re wrong)After 2034, Social Security will become purely Pay-As-You-Go. All funding will come from current worker earnings. A tax on their pay = Social Security benefits.As long as workers are paying the FICA Tax (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) Social Security will exist.(FICA is one of those boxes on your pay check. “Federal Insurance” = Social Security. “Contribution” = the tax which feeds benefits)11 workers are sitting on this girder. After 2034, the income from that number of workers will supply the entire benefit for 5 Social Security retirees.What about benefit amounts? After 2034, they will drop to 75% - 78% of current benefits. So, if a beneficiary is receiving $1,000 / monthly today, a beneficiary in 2034 with the same earnings would receive about $750 - $780 / month.That’s if Social Security isn’t reformed. There are sensible reforms which, if enacted now, would be virtually painless and allow benefit amounts to continue at current levels.Unfortunately, strong political forces are preventing reform:Politicians have no interest in taking blistering heat for something 16 years in the future.That heat would come from current beneficiaries. To them, the word “reform” means one thing: “reduction”—even if it’s not true. And politicians know that the elderly vote consistently and in large numbers!.That’s why Social Security is called the political third rail. This refers to the electrified third rail in subway systems. Touch it and…ZAP! No more pol!It’s beyond the scope of this Answer to detail reforms. If you are interested, Google up “Social Security reforms.” Plenty to read!January 1940. Ida May Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont brandishes the very first Social Security check. A whopping $22.34.

What would need to happen for the world to be run by one central government?

I would think it could only happen once (if) we colonise other worlds. Empires almost always are destroyed from the inside; it is hard to control large areas and populations from afar and people tend to localise themselves and artificially create a them and us ethos. The only way for such a thing to be viable is to change the game and make this world a smaller place in a conglomerate of world's. Humans are designed to see patterns, it's in our makeup and defines us as a species. This means we will always create logical groupings based on differences, whether that be colour,  creed, language or whatever. Always will, however much we try to hide it under sociological rules and morality.

Why is America running out of money?

The United States is not “running out of money,” but the government has to decide how much it will spend every year, and how it will raise it (taxes, fees, or borrowing). The Republicans get themselves elected by swearing that they will never, ever raise taxes (even though they sometimes do), and that they are fiscally prudent. But they continue to fund the military heavily, so that’s a lie. The government borrows the money that it doesn’t raise in taxes.They hold both houses of Congress and the White House, so the current government shut-down is entirely their fault. They can’t agree on how much to spend and on what.