Americans Shocked To Learn There Is No Social Security Crisis

[merrill]

There is at least 20 years before any changes may or may not need to take place. Doing homework makes that quite obvious.

Most people wanted BUSHCO to keep their dirty paws off Social Security Insurance because the name BUSH is a threat
to taxpayers and their tax dollars.

There has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis except in the eyes of make believe who want those trillions of dollars flowing into that high risk casino known as Wall Street which guarantees nothing.

Privatization is money laundering

Privatization funnels YOUR TAX DOLLARS and MINE into the corporate bank accounts. THIS IS A CORPORATE ENTITLEMENT. Billions and trillions of tax dollars caught the eye of corporate America = easy and guaranteed profits guided by fascist politicians.

Now Wall Street becomes evermore dependent on government in addition to skimming tax dollars off the top which get laundered into :

CEO pay packages

Bonus Packages

Golden Parachutes

Shareholders

special interest campaign cookie jars

Yes our tax dollars are now getting spent recklessly instead of efficiently.

If we wait 20 years to change Social Security we will have to change the payouts to people who are actually receiving benefits and raise the retirement age for people that should be retiring then. If, on the other hand, we make changes now we can phase those changes in over a period of time, and avoid disrupting the benefits for current retirees and people over the age of 50.

Your way is the more disruptive than anything proposed by even the most distract reformers.

20 years brings us to 2033 = 9 years before 2042. 9 years is plenty of time to make changes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Americans Shocked To Learn There Is No Social Security Crisis

Americans shocked to learn that there isn?t actually a Social Security crisis - Salon.com

==========================================================

The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security.

The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.” In fact, to make the most of the modifications currently being proposed by Obama's commission would be the height of folly.

More info not rhetoric:
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world.

It's only short about $12 trillion, over a 75 year time frame.

That's not the of fault of Social Security Insurance IF what you claim is true. I've not seen that yet.

The first is to claim the system as it is will fail
It's not failing anyone. It has not failed anyone. Politicians are misinforming USA citizens...imagine that.

It's true, it will not provide promised benefits.
Says who?

It will also provide crappy returns.
This is insurance that pays consistently unlike risky Wall Street.... too bad Wall Street is not allowed stand on its' own without bailouts and congressional intervention. No free market here.

I've put much less into my 401K and it will provide much more in retirement than my Soc Sec contributions. And if I die before retirement, my 401K goes to my heirs, my Soc Sec is lost, unless my kids are still minors.

If you collect at 62 it is unlikely anyone loses. 401k's can hit bottom SSI cannot. Social Security investments are risky.

This is insurance that pays consistently unlike risky Wall Street....

Unless you die before retirement age.
Then it pays zero.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset could be lying.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

If you reinvested your dividends, you broke even much much sooner than 1953.

 

[merrill]

Social Security Insurance has been a blessing to those who lost retirement plans due to congressional screw ups such as two major home loan scams since the 1980's.

ENRON employees are certainly thanking their lucky stars for SSI and Medicare Insurance.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

 

[merrill]

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset could be lying.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

If you reinvested your dividends, you broke even much much sooner than 1953.

You don't know that. You were not there. You are offering speculation. You have government protection and taxpayer bailout options. Congress has insider trading privileges that offer further protection..... maybe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social Security Insurance has been a blessing to those who lost retirement plans due to congressional screw ups such as two major home loan scams since the 1980's.

ENRON employees are certainly thanking their lucky stars for SSI and Medicare Insurance.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans

No it didn't.

the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Not even close.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social Security Insurance has been a blessing to those who lost retirement plans due to congressional screw ups such as two major home loan scams since the 1980's.

ENRON employees are certainly thanking their lucky stars for SSI and Medicare Insurance.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

ENRON employees are certainly thanking their lucky stars for SSI and Medicare Insurance.

I'm sure the ones who put too much money into Enron stock are doing that.
Those with diversified portfolios are still better off than those depending on Soc Sec.

 

[merrill]

Young people say they want more control over their Social Security investments. How do you explain the purpose of Social Security to today’s young workers?

The best way to explain Social Security is to say what it is. It’s an insurance system that protects your income when you retire or face disability, and provides income to your children if you die.

MISINFORMED politicians want you to look at Social Security as an investment, but it is not. It is a form of insurance that guarantees you a constant stream of income in retirement or in case of disability, adjusted to protect against inflation, for as long as you live.

Social Security can be compared to other types of insurance such as home insurance. You insure your home because if it should burn down, you would not be able to afford to rebuild it with your personal income alone. If your house never burns down, you will pay into the insurance fund and never get a penny back. But fire insurance isn’t a “bad investment” because it isn’t an investment at all. You are purchasing security.

Unlike fire insurance, Social Security inevitably gives most of us our money back. But the fact that we get money back does not change the fact that Social Security is a form of insurance, not an investment.

Only the richest of the rich can afford not to have insurance and to rely solely on their own savings and investments to fund their retirement or risk of disability.

Young people must also understand that financial investments are inherently risky.

Many investments fail, and when they do, you lose all of the money you invested.

Today’s 25-year-olds have only seen the stock market go up, except for two (very large) drops. But you don’t have to go back to the 1930s to see a different picture: If you put money into the stock market in 1970 and waited until 1980 to take it out, you would have lost money.

There is absolutely no guarantee that stock speculators will see the high returns those who support private accounts are falsely promising.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset could be lying.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

If you reinvested your dividends, you broke even much much sooner than 1953.

You don't know that. You were not there. You are offering speculation. You have government protection and taxpayer bailout options. Congress has insider trading privileges that offer further protection..... maybe.

You don't know that.

Yes I do.

You were not there.

I didn't need to be there to see the historical returns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Young people say they want more control over their Social Security investments. How do you explain the purpose of Social Security to today’s young workers?

The best way to explain Social Security is to say what it is. It’s an insurance system that protects your income when you retire or face disability, and provides income to your children if you die.

MISINFORMED politicians want you to look at Social Security as an investment, but it is not. It is a form of insurance that guarantees you a constant stream of income in retirement or in case of disability, adjusted to protect against inflation, for as long as you live.

Social Security can be compared to other types of insurance such as home insurance. You insure your home because if it should burn down, you would not be able to afford to rebuild it with your personal income alone. If your house never burns down, you will pay into the insurance fund and never get a penny back. But fire insurance isn’t a “bad investment” because it isn’t an investment at all. You are purchasing security.

Unlike fire insurance, Social Security inevitably gives most of us our money back. But the fact that we get money back does not change the fact that Social Security is a form of insurance, not an investment.

Only the richest of the rich can afford not to have insurance and to rely solely on their own savings and investments to fund their retirement or risk of disability.

Young people must also understand that financial investments are inherently risky.

Many investments fail, and when they do, you lose all of the money you invested.

Today’s 25-year-olds have only seen the stock market go up, except for two (very large) drops. But you don’t have to go back to the 1930s to see a different picture: If you put money into the stock market in 1970 and waited until 1980 to take it out, you would have lost money.

There is absolutely no guarantee that stock speculators will see the high returns those who support private accounts are falsely promising.

MISINFORMED politicians want you to look at Social Security as an investment, but it is not.

I'm forced to contribute 12.4% of my income and I shouldn't consider it an investment?
If I want crappy insurance, I can buy it for much less than 12.4% of my income.

Young people must also understand that financial investments are inherently risky.

Young people must also understand that counting on government promises is a greater risk.

If you put money into the stock market in 1970 and waited until 1980 to take it out, you would have lost money.

You'd be investing this money over a 40 year, or more, time frame.

 

[Underhill]

So let me get this right

When Bush was Pres, liberals said he needed to save SS, and when he didn't do enough, he hated old people.

But now obama is Pres and magically the facts changed.




hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.

I don' t know who you've been talking to, but I've been saying this for over 5 years.

Both sides have, at various politically opportune times, claimed SS was in crisis. And it's always just needed a slight adjustment to deal with the baby boomer numbers.

 

[Underhill]

There is at least 20 years before any changes may or may not need to take place. Doing homework makes that quite obvious.

Most people wanted BUSHCO to keep their dirty paws off Social Security Insurance because the name BUSH is a threat
to taxpayers and their tax dollars.

There has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis except in the eyes of make believe who want those trillions of dollars flowing into that high risk casino known as Wall Street which guarantees nothing.

Privatization is money laundering

Privatization funnels YOUR TAX DOLLARS and MINE into the corporate bank accounts. THIS IS A CORPORATE ENTITLEMENT. Billions and trillions of tax dollars caught the eye of corporate America = easy and guaranteed profits guided by fascist politicians.

Now Wall Street becomes evermore dependent on government in addition to skimming tax dollars off the top which get laundered into :

CEO pay packages

Bonus Packages

Golden Parachutes

Shareholders

special interest campaign cookie jars

Yes our tax dollars are now getting spent recklessly instead of efficiently.

If we wait 20 years to change Social Security we will have to change the payouts to people who are actually receiving benefits and raise the retirement age for people that should be retiring then. If, on the other hand, we make changes now we can phase those changes in over a period of time, and avoid disrupting the benefits for current retirees and people over the age of 50.

Your way is the more disruptive than anything proposed by even the most distract reformers.

We don't even need to make those changes. Raise the SS tax by 1% and the problem is solved.

This is exactly why this false crisis has been made up, primarily by the right. By making this a 'crisis' they can trim the rolls by raising the age. Those on the left want to make changes, but none of them are interested in raising the age.

Which is a silly idea when you think about it. Yes, people are living longer. But that does not mean they are in working condition longer. Only that death can be delayed longer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is at least 20 years before any changes may or may not need to take place. Doing homework makes that quite obvious.

Most people wanted BUSHCO to keep their dirty paws off Social Security Insurance because the name BUSH is a threat
to taxpayers and their tax dollars.

There has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis except in the eyes of make believe who want those trillions of dollars flowing into that high risk casino known as Wall Street which guarantees nothing.

Privatization is money laundering

Privatization funnels YOUR TAX DOLLARS and MINE into the corporate bank accounts. THIS IS A CORPORATE ENTITLEMENT. Billions and trillions of tax dollars caught the eye of corporate America = easy and guaranteed profits guided by fascist politicians.

Now Wall Street becomes evermore dependent on government in addition to skimming tax dollars off the top which get laundered into :

CEO pay packages

Bonus Packages

Golden Parachutes

Shareholders

special interest campaign cookie jars

Yes our tax dollars are now getting spent recklessly instead of efficiently.

If we wait 20 years to change Social Security we will have to change the payouts to people who are actually receiving benefits and raise the retirement age for people that should be retiring then. If, on the other hand, we make changes now we can phase those changes in over a period of time, and avoid disrupting the benefits for current retirees and people over the age of 50.

Your way is the more disruptive than anything proposed by even the most distract reformers.

20 years brings us to 2033 = 9 years before 2042. 9 years is plenty of time to make changes.

Strange, why do the trustees say we will only be able to pay 75% of expected obligations by 2033 if we have until 2042? Are you planning to be dead by then and not having to deal with the mess?

 

[Toro]

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset could be lying.

If you invested in stocks on January 1 1929 and reinvested your dividends, at the end of 2012, you would have returned 186,485%. If you invested in government bonds - which is what is in SS - you would have earned 4,864% during that same time. You can calculate this yourself from the data on Robert Shiller's site.

Your fear of the stock market is only rational if 1.) your time frame is short or 2.) America will collapse. Since SS is supposed to last forever, the first is irrational. I don't believe in the second. Therefore, SS should be run like every other pension plan in America and invest in stocks.

 

[Toro]

The worst of the market collapse happened after 1929. If you bought stocks on January 1 1930 and reinvested dividends, you would have broken even in 1944.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There is at least 20 years before any changes may or may not need to take place. Doing homework makes that quite obvious.

Most people wanted BUSHCO to keep their dirty paws off Social Security Insurance because the name BUSH is a threat
to taxpayers and their tax dollars.

There has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis except in the eyes of make believe who want those trillions of dollars flowing into that high risk casino known as Wall Street which guarantees nothing.

Privatization is money laundering

Privatization funnels YOUR TAX DOLLARS and MINE into the corporate bank accounts. THIS IS A CORPORATE ENTITLEMENT. Billions and trillions of tax dollars caught the eye of corporate America = easy and guaranteed profits guided by fascist politicians.

Now Wall Street becomes evermore dependent on government in addition to skimming tax dollars off the top which get laundered into :

CEO pay packages

Bonus Packages

Golden Parachutes

Shareholders

special interest campaign cookie jars

Yes our tax dollars are now getting spent recklessly instead of efficiently.

hey lemming

DC has been taking money OUT of SS since it's inception.

grow the fuck up and learn something that doesn't come from a liberal blog like msn

 

[alan1]

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953..... 24 years.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset could be lying.

Perfectly bad timing is nothing to base your argument on.
It would be foolish of me to cite perfectly good timing as a reason to invest in the stock market.
Yer building a straw house, merrill.

 

[merrill]

The point is there has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis. It has been nothing but damn lies and more lies. Congressional members lying to the public in order to keep their Wall Street special interests happy.

I'll go with my grandfather who loved messing with Wall Street. He said only those who can afford to lose money should play the stock market. I'll take fixed rate annuities over risky business any day of the week. And I like real estate as well.

I decided losing money would never be as much fun as making money. When brokers say leave it for at least 20 years you'll never lose except it does go up and down. BUT if you lose your dough it's is up in smoke = nothing to show. .... unless you can afford to lose which makes it entertainment.

I also feel Wall Street as a private business should stand on it's own without that gov't intervention which stops the free fall when the stock market decides to take a serious dive. Let it go.

DC screws with the stock market big time at will. Those repub home loan frauds were not friendly to Wall Street. Certainly not to many retirement plans.

In a nutshell Wall Street sucks cuz no one can trust the white collar crooks aka predators. BTW there are plenty of wealthy folks in this land that love their Social Security and that $12,000 a year. Can we say fun money? Yes we can.

If any of you are brokers beware the FBI may be checking you out for implying you cannot lose on Wall Street.

 

[Staidhup]

Projected unfunded liabilities coupled with a decrease in contributing workers, and letter from the SOC SEC administration to the president of the Senate (Vice President) indicates otherwise. This issue has been beaten to death, become so polarized, the facts no longer apply. Grow up, face the fact that Social Security is in a world of hurt and denying their is a problem is ludicrous to say the least.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is there has never been a Social Security Insurance crisis. It has been nothing but damn lies and more lies. Congressional members lying to the public in order to keep their Wall Street special interests happy.

I'll go with my grandfather who loved messing with Wall Street. He said only those who can afford to lose money should play the stock market. I'll take fixed rate annuities over risky business any day of the week. And I like real estate as well.

I decided losing money would never be as much fun as making money. When brokers say leave it for at least 20 years you'll never lose except it does go up and down. BUT if you lose your dough it's is up in smoke = nothing to show. .... unless you can afford to lose which makes it entertainment.

I also feel Wall Street as a private business should stand on it's own without that gov't intervention which stops the free fall when the stock market decides to take a serious dive. Let it go.

DC screws with the stock market big time at will. Those repub home loan frauds were not friendly to Wall Street. Certainly not to many retirement plans.

In a nutshell Wall Street sucks cuz no one can trust the white collar crooks aka predators. BTW there are plenty of wealthy folks in this land that love their Social Security and that $12,000 a year. Can we say fun money? Yes we can.

If any of you are brokers beware the FBI may be checking you out for implying you cannot lose on Wall Street.

Those repub home loan frauds were not friendly to Wall Street.

It's true, Fannie and Freddie cost taxpayers over $100 billion so far.

But those are Dem frauds.

If any of you are brokers beware the FBI may be checking you out for implying you cannot lose on Wall Street.

Beware, doctors may dissect your brain, for counting on government promises.

Of course, they'd have to find your brain first.