5 myths about SS

[Annie]

5 myths about Social Security - 1 - retirement savings - MSN Money

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

I've said many times that I think people that have paid into SS should get all of their contributions returned over time beginning at retirement. Once they've received those, with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested. This would make it possible for those without to have enough to sustain them; while the rest make do with their other retirement funds and investments.

Once the dust settles, find a way to end the program, shifting those in need to something that is funded by all. Leave the young a chance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2012: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

 

[The T]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2012: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

 

[Defiant1]

.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

So your solution to fix this entitlement is to make rich people pay more per month than they will be able to collect in a year?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

So your solution to fix this entitlement is to make rich people pay more per month than they will be able to collect in a year?

Ugh. Straw man arguments give me gas. Can we stick to things the other person actually said?

.

 

[Full-Auto]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

There is no money in the trust fund. We are already pay as you go. Now democrats dont want to fund SS at all. IOUs is not something that can be counted upon. You low life already threatened checks going out if the debt ceiling wasnt raised.

You lying POS.

 

[CausingPAIN]

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

I've said many times that I think people that have paid into SS should get all of their contributions returned over time beginning at retirement. Once they've received those, with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested. This would make it possible for those without to have enough to sustain them; while the rest make do with their other retirement funds and investments.

Once the dust settles, find a way to end the program, shifting those in need to something that is funded by all. Leave the young a chance.

So that’s like saying after 30 years paying auto insurance I should get it back,
with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested based on my driving records. And I can put this repayment in my will for my kids to enjoy? Oop’s kid crashed car, oop’s kid gets sued and one more oop’s no more money? Hmm.. Yep! I like that idea.

 

[Sunshine]

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

I've said many times that I think people that have paid into SS should get all of their contributions returned over time beginning at retirement. Once they've received those, with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested. This would make it possible for those without to have enough to sustain them; while the rest make do with their other retirement funds and investments.

Once the dust settles, find a way to end the program, shifting those in need to something that is funded by all. Leave the young a chance.

And what about all those who pay in for a lifetime, then die and never draw a dime? Who gets their money?

 

[The T]

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

I've said many times that I think people that have paid into SS should get all of their contributions returned over time beginning at retirement. Once they've received those, with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested. This would make it possible for those without to have enough to sustain them; while the rest make do with their other retirement funds and investments.

Once the dust settles, find a way to end the program, shifting those in need to something that is funded by all. Leave the young a chance.

And what about all those who pay in for a lifetime, then die and never draw a dime? Who gets their money?

Someone else. The funds are not transferrable to thier families. It is and always be a ponzi scheme.

 

[DaGoose]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2012: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

 

[Sunshine]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

The only value this ephemeral 'trust fund' has is the governments ability to pay back what they have borrowed from it. And it's pretty clear, it has little to no value at this time.

 

[Full-Auto]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2012: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

Nothing, it is just you being an ass.

 

[The T]

Dems 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2012: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

You may continue to be an idiot. I won't stand in your way.

 

[DaGoose]

.

Again, Social Security is a relatively easy fix if both cartoonish parties will pull their heads out and work together, just a teeny, tiny, little bit. Other than that, the whole issue is not much more than the standard partisan hot air.

Medicare can be largely fixed too, but that would require a comprehensive and intelligent package crafted by reasonable, civil, mature, intellectually honest professional politicians who patriotically choose to put country before party by utilizing the best ideas from each "side" and including them in the package (and there are plenty of good ideas). It would also probably require mature, civil, intellectually honest public discourse from both "sides" to promote this critical cooperation.

In other words, I don't expect Medicare to be fixed. Bone-headed crisis management on the way, gang, bank on it. It's the way we do things now.

.

Don't expect these neo-cons to consider your post. They don't want rational discussion. They just want to throw sound bites and barbs. Kinda like their POTUS candidates.

 

[DaGoose]

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

You may continue to be an idiot. I won't stand in your way.

You started your bullshit when we were having a discussion.

I just ended it.

 

[DaGoose]

Frank? They don't care...thier guy, thier party must win. Fuck the country.

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

Nothing, it is just you being an ass.

Better than being two asses making asses of themselves when we were having a reasonable discussion.

 

[DaGoose]

And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.

If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.

The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.

Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.

What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.

I've said many times that I think people that have paid into SS should get all of their contributions returned over time beginning at retirement. Once they've received those, with nominal interest, further payments should be means tested. This would make it possible for those without to have enough to sustain them; while the rest make do with their other retirement funds and investments.

Once the dust settles, find a way to end the program, shifting those in need to something that is funded by all. Leave the young a chance.

You idea would have some merit if people were disciplined enough to save for retirement in the first place.

If the government forced everyone into a 401k program the right would be bellyaching about that as well.

 

[The T]

What's Frank got to do with George W Bush?

You may continue to be an idiot. I won't stand in your way.

You started your bullshit when we were having a discussion.

I just ended it.

You ended nothing. YOU don't rate.

For the intellectually impaired (that would be you)? *Fuck Off*

 

[DaGoose]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

The only value this ephemeral 'trust fund' has is the governments ability to pay back what they have borrowed from it. And it's pretty clear, it has little to no value at this time.

And for all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth going on SS is simply not that badly off. It just needs to be tweaked a bit to help keep millions of Americans from going into poverty.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense