You know what I mean and it's not drones. Drones did not murder several hundred thousand innocents. Are you the blood thirsty type?
Social Security goes broke and can't be funded 7 years from now.
- Thread starter Peetz Pool Boy
- Start date
There is no solvency problem. We don't need to raise the retirement age. Our economy is capable of producing more than enough for both the workers and retirees.
SS has been a Ponzi scheme from day one. A private company is required to keep their pensions funded.
SS is not a savings plan. It is a method for allocation of economic output from those working to those that are retired. As long as our economy is producing enough stuff for both current workers and retirees there is no problem.
Maybe its me, but I have no issue with the government taking care of someone who is unable to work. I don't consider myself a bleeding heart liberal either, maybe family should be responsible but many times the expenses are just overwhelming for an individual or family of someone who is truely disabled. Now I do have an issue with people who are lazy and claim and get disability. A kid who lives near me, never worked a single day in his life, walked the roads everyday as a teenager to get his pot for the day has managed to get disability because his foot doesn't have full range of motion. When I was still teaching he had no disability, it was just discovered when he quit school and was going to have to find a job. Let those like that live in a box under a bridge, only a few nights it gets too cold in Georgia for that. My daddy spent a winter in the Alps with nothing but a light tent for cover, so surviving a Georgia winter outside should be a piece of cake.
Hardly, but your response was so simplistic I thought I would respond with a simplistic response.
Interestingly enough when SS was changed in the early eighties (oh the horror, Ronnie raised your taxes and we've been paying that increased tax for over 30 years now!!) the fix was obviously supposed to fix SS for good but the number crunchers missed something. In order to fully "fund" SS they based the fix on capturing about 90% of the national income, well over the years that didn't work. SS now captures about 85% of national income, they didn't figure on incomes rising as much as they have over the years, more and more people were making more and more above the income limit and the income cap didn't adjust adequately to keep up, thus the shortfall we're experiencing today.
I don't think that many oppose helping people who are unable to work. The opposition is to ever expanding taxes that cannot possibly keep up with even faster expanding benefits. The law has grown from 29 pages to 2,600 pages.
The SS tax rate was only 2% for the first 13 years. The rate has grown steadily ever since and is now 12.4%. Where does it end?
Absolutely! By all means. Let's have true old fashioned medieval consequences for bad behavior. I want to live in a country where the consequence of poor financial planning is that you live in a workhouse for the destitute -- just like the old days -- and slowly die of starvation and disease.
I especially like this idea because I'm a good financial planner and 75% of my countrymen are not. That would be SO rewarding to be among the 25% percent of people NOT starving in retirement. That would make me SO smug and satisfied.
Along those same lines, bringing back public executions would probably be a good idea because all these starving people are going to be picking pockets and stealing food, and we need to really make an example out of them.
This is great, I'm excited. Time to join the Republican Party.
Hard to argue with that. I saved my whole life for my retirement. I lived in small houses. My family lived on half of what I made and saved the rest. I drove my cars into the ground. I have never been to Vegas, never seen Hawaii.
So instead of rewarding these morons who go on cruises and buy big-screen TVs and waste their money at Vegas, how about rewarding ME for being morally such a superior person!
And maybe that reward should be abolishing Social Security so I can look down at all those people who went to Hawaii and watch them as they live miserable destitute lives in their old age.
Let them live in cots at the Salvation Army, let them be covered with lice. Let them be cold. Let them live in pain when they get sick. Let them be hungry most of the time and eat really terrible food. I could go to the Salvation Army and help dole out the gruel once a week and that would fulfill my Christian duty and also make me REALLY feel good about all my good decisions.
The flip side to your rant is to allow someone else to make all the decisions for you. That way personal responsibility doesn't interfere with your life. We can either do that through having businesses do that, or we can allow the government to do that.
We have examples where governments control daily life, and it hasn't worked out too well. We also have systems where government and businesses have tried to work together. Some work, some don't. There seems to be a lot more corruption when business tries to sway government oversight.
We could let people decide their fate, but that would rely on people taking responsibility for their actions. Somewhere along the line, we've become a nation of victims. A person decides to smoke their entire life, even after the dangers have been exposed. Somehow, that's the manufacturers fault.
So, I'd like to make my own risk/reward decisions. I prefer not to pay for yours.
We have examples where governments control daily life, and it hasn't worked out too well. We also have systems where government and businesses have tried to work together. Some work, some don't. There seems to be a lot more corruption when business tries to sway government oversight.
We could let people decide their fate, but that would rely on people taking responsibility for their actions. Somewhere along the line, we've become a nation of victims. A person decides to smoke their entire life, even after the dangers have been exposed. Somehow, that's the manufacturers fault.
So, I'd like to make my own risk/reward decisions. I prefer not to pay for yours.
Well I get SOME of what you say. But how in the world are we still SELLING cigarettes ??? The Government and it's rules are "supposed" to be an extension of the people FOR the people. We have speed limits, why? Laws limit so many things AND should do so. Are all laws correct? NO, but for the most part they are. Social Security has been a success. OUR government should provide medicare for all (as EVERY other country in the World does - see Canada), Social Security should be expanded to require employers to contribute to employees (pension plan). This is not really complicated, just that propaganda (funded by the rich) will tell you WE can't afford it.
Which is complete and total BS. But remember the average IQ is 98 !!!!!!!
I recall the outrage when Bars in NY city were mandated to be smokeless. The propaganda was "they will all go out of business". Did you believe that? Many did. How did that work out?
I am 100 percent for capitalism. Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world -- except for every other economic system that's ever been invented. Just like Democracy is the worst system of government except for every other system of government that's ever been invented. There is no alternative to free markets and democracy, none.
But nobody but ignorant boobs thinks capitalism means you can't afford a social safety net. In fact the two go hand in hand quite well.
I personally don't know if we can afford a trillion dollars a year to subsidize the defense of Japan, South Korea,Taiwan, the Phillippines, Germany, France and Italy, while being the chief policeman in the Middle East. I think that will bankrupt us. But we can afford Social Security so that old people in our own country (yes, the people who are guilty of POOR FINANCIAL PLANNING!) don't starve to death.
One of the greatest ironies of the 20th century is that Republicans hate Roosevelt, they think he was anti-capitalist.
But go read the history of the Great Depression. Roosevelt SAVED capitalism. And that was his goal from the beginning. He was an American aristocrat and he basically saved the aristocracy by building a social safety net, which bought stability (and was also good for economic growth). The extreme left was getting a lot of traction in the early 30s, communism was getting really popular, and Roosevelt basically cut the whole thing off at the knees by reforming capitalism, by giving capitalism a kinder gentler face. If it hadn't been for the New Deal and the leadership to defend Naziism -- can you imagine where we'd be today?
Read "Citizens" by Simon Schama -- a wonderful history of the French Revolution. Yes there are some quirky things about French culture but don't think that sort of thing can't happen here. If you think the Trump phenomenon is scary -- well that's in a country WITH Social Security and unemployment compensation. Picture a country WITHOUT a social safety net, with 50 million hungry old people stomping around, trust me, it doesn't look like this country at all -- and not in a good way. Old people are grumpy enough as it is - you take away their food they get REALLY grumpy. A true conservative would recognize that to save capitalism you can't have pure capitalism.
But go read the history of the Great Depression. Roosevelt SAVED capitalism. And that was his goal from the beginning. He was an American aristocrat and he basically saved the aristocracy by building a social safety net, which bought stability (and was also good for economic growth). The extreme left was getting a lot of traction in the early 30s, communism was getting really popular, and Roosevelt basically cut the whole thing off at the knees by reforming capitalism, by giving capitalism a kinder gentler face. If it hadn't been for the New Deal and the leadership to defend Naziism -- can you imagine where we'd be today?
Read "Citizens" by Simon Schama -- a wonderful history of the French Revolution. Yes there are some quirky things about French culture but don't think that sort of thing can't happen here. If you think the Trump phenomenon is scary -- well that's in a country WITH Social Security and unemployment compensation. Picture a country WITHOUT a social safety net, with 50 million hungry old people stomping around, trust me, it doesn't look like this country at all -- and not in a good way. Old people are grumpy enough as it is - you take away their food they get REALLY grumpy. A true conservative would recognize that to save capitalism you can't have pure capitalism.
I didn't say that we couldn't afford SS or a myriad of other safety nets. I just don't think we should exclude people from the perks just because they can afford it. We already have a means test on SS. If you make above a certain limit, you no longer pay in. That also means you don't get any extra out. But, what I am hearing is that some want to have those that can afford it pay more in, but have reduced benefits. Where's the fairness in that? Seems like the only good tax is one that we can get someone else to pay.
By design, it provided income to those who were 3 years over life expectancy. That has never been properly adjusted so that today, you should not collect until you are in your upper 70s
Problem is that you punish those who took responsibility for their later years in favor of those who willingly made bad choices.
We need an over and under thread for how many years before the SS goes "broke." Whatever....I will take the over.
Probably some of it. The Feds have been borrowing from the fund for years for everything government spends money. It's just another tax, IIRC.
There is nothing in the Social Security trust fund other than IOUs from the US Treasury. Those IOUs will be redeemed--and when they are "paid off", the US Treasury will have to issue debt securities directly to public investors for the cash needed in excess of the incoming SS tax receipts.
the direct debt of the US government is circa 70% of US GDP--toss in these certificates, and it is approx. 100% GDP (thank goodness for low interest rates; i.e. for every 1.0% increase in interest rate paid, the US government's interest expense would go up USD 180,000,000,000 or approx. USD 550 for every individual in the country.)
the direct debt of the US government is circa 70% of US GDP--toss in these certificates, and it is approx. 100% GDP (thank goodness for low interest rates; i.e. for every 1.0% increase in interest rate paid, the US government's interest expense would go up USD 180,000,000,000 or approx. USD 550 for every individual in the country.)
Well, we can't afford it and Mr. Trump has called for the end of NATO, so I presume you're voting for him.
Well the discussion was on the viability of SS. So
. there is no money to borrow - it is all a paper entry. Do you believe in the lock box?
. to the extent all money is co mingled, SS has funded ALL govt spending. To single out one item of govt spending is both simplistic and off topic. It makes no more sense than saying SS $ was used to fund subsidies for rich Tesla owners or ethanol subsidies for rich farmers OR to buy Obama's drones or his Obamacare.
It is fine to be against the Iraq war or all defense spending for that matter but it seems to be the topic of a separate thread.
The government allows the sale of cigarettes because they make a huge amount of profit on the sale of cigarettes. It's the same reason they allow the sale of lottery tickets.
I agree with your point that we spend a lot to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. but it's not $1 trillion. Not even half that.
But military spending shouldn't be scared. Entitlement spending shouldn't be sacred either. We should look to scale back in lots areas.
The U.S. borrows money for a lot of things (we borrow roughly $500 billion per year) but not directly from the SS trust fund. You could attribute the borrowing to any program you wish. It's not as though all other programs are paid for and that it's defense that is driving the deficit. It's certainly not driving the unfunded liabilities in our entitlement programs.
I asked in my Original Post to not make this thread "political", but apparently there was something very basic in my instructions that you failed to grasp.
I think this has been a fairly good/educational thread despite your need to introduce partisanship.
Why? We can choose the age that we allow people to retire and collect SS. We can lowerthe age right now if we wanted to. We could increase benefits paid of we wanted to.
The federal government doesn't need to make any money at all.
The reason cigarettes are allowed to be sold is that cig companies have bribed Congress to allow it.
Gee whiz Boyer, your comments make you sound like you are still living in the 30's. Please quote me anyone on this board or in public life that is suggesting eliminating the safety nets. Eliminate does not mean try to put it on sound financial footing, eliminate does not mean offering alternatives to young people. Eliminate does not mean try to identify and eliminate abuses. Eliminate means "this program is no good and needs to be stopped with no alternatives in place." I haven't ever heard that anywhere or anytime.
There is nothing in the Social Security trust fund other than IOUs from the US Treasury. Those IOUs will be redeemed--and when they are "paid off", the US Treasury will have to issue debt securities directly to public investors for the cash needed in excess of the incoming SS tax receipts.
The payoff comes first then issuance of new debt follows. That's why treasury auctions never fail.
It doesn't have to be this way, The issuance of the debt is just a rule that Congress could change any time they wanted.
the direct debt of the US government is circa 70% of US GDP--toss in these certificates, and it is approx. 100% GDP (thank goodness for low interest rates; i.e. for every 1.0% increase in interest rate paid, the US government's interest expense would go up USD 180,000,000,000 or approx. USD 550 for every individual in the country.)
Interest payments go to us - the private sector. It's the reverse of a tax. Why does everyone thing tax cuts are good but federal interest expenses are bad? They are essentially the same, they both leave more money in the private sector.
I'm not sure why anyone would think that the federal government paying us more money is a bad thing.....
You know what would be really cool? Being able to step over those homeless starving people as the lay on sidewalk dying! Yeah that will teach them to plan better when they are in their 20's!
And lottery companies have bribed Congress to allow lotteries? Oh wait, the states run the lotteries.
Interest payments go to us - the private sector. It's the reverse of a tax. Why does everyone thing tax cuts are good but federal interest expenses are bad? They are essentially the same, they both leave more money in the private sector.
I'm not sure why anyone would think that the federal government paying us more money is a bad thing.....
Except that the domestic private sector only owns 15% of the debt. Foreign investors own 34% of the debt, China and Japan have a large chunk of it, thanks to imbalanced trade. Federal accounts, like SS, have 28% of it, so that interest just gets reinvested. State & local governments have 13% and the Federal Reserve has 13%. Much of that interest isn't going to the private sector. SS doesn't lower rates because it got an interest payment from the budget. Higher interest does cut into discretionary spending.
I'm not sure why anyone would think that the federal government paying us more money is a bad thing.....
Except that the domestic private sector only owns 15% of the debt. Foreign investors own 34% of the debt, China and Japan have a large chunk of it, thanks to imbalanced trade. Federal accounts, like SS, have 28% of it, so that interest just gets reinvested. State & local governments have 13% and the Federal Reserve has 13%. Much of that interest isn't going to the private sector. SS doesn't lower rates because it got an interest payment from the budget. Higher interest does cut into discretionary spending.
NOW that "we" (well the rich) have a Global Economy (see: slave labor) Maybe we can borrow form these guys ??? Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent.
Except that the domestic private sector only owns 15% of the debt. Foreign investors own 34% of the debt, China and Japan have a large chunk of it, thanks to imbalanced trade.
So what? The Chinese or Japan having more dollars has exactly zero impact on the federal governments ability to pay SS benefits.
Federal accounts, like SS, have 28% of it, so that interest just gets reinvested.
No that is completely meaningless. The federal government creates dollars when it spends. It cannot "save" dollars or earn "dollars" by investing. That makes no sense.
State & local governments have 13% and the Federal Reserve has 13%. Much of that interest isn't going to the private sector.
State and local governments are the private sector as far as federal spending goes.
Debt held by the federal reserve is meaningless. Almost all the interest paid to the fed is returned to treasury at the end of the year. Any money paid to the fed for maturing treasuries is returned to the treasury at the end of the year. Treasuries held by the fed are effectively "cancelled".
SS doesn't lower rates because it got an interest payment from the budget. Higher interest does cut into discretionary spending.
Treasuries held by the federal government agencies, interest payments to those agencies, tax collections, it's all a elaborate accounting charade.
