Beating Social Security

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS is most easily reformed and will continue without any problems financially for the American people. SS is a program that Jesus Christ would approve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Roosevelt's Social Security plan proved faulty right from the start.


4. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving Social Security benefits, paid in a total of $24.75....
...and during her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.”



Ms. Fuller was not the only one who benefits from the flawed planning by big government (read 'Roosevelt's Folly').
Lack of planning is the reason for the huge liability America faces from Social Security....


a. " According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in.
In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/


Good thinking, Liberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS is easily reformed, and PC offers nothing to counter that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Social Security was one year away from insolvency in 1983 when Ronald Reagan fixed it. That 'fix' will turn out to last about 50 years,

and all the government needs to do now is put in another comparable adjustment that will sustain SS for another 50 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

 

[rightwinger]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

 

[PoliticalChic]

SS is easily reformed, and PC offers nothing to counter that.

View attachment 53545

Clean off your specs, greybeard......

This was the question:

"Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread."


Or.....perhaps you've subscribed to the wrong thread in your haste to attempt to shield Liberals/Progressives/Democrats from well deserved contumely

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

"you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs."

No I didn't.

I indicated that Liberals are not smart enough to take exigencies or worrisome details into their calculations.
Of course, that is one of your many problems, as well: lack of insight.

Totalitarians cannot allow that their may be problems with their mandates.
That's what big government devotees do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can run, PC, but RW and I can always find you, very easily. Can SS be easily reformed?

 

[rightwinger]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

 

[guno]

Roosevelt's Social Security plan proved faulty right from the start.


4. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving Social Security benefits, paid in a total of $24.75....
...and during her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.”



Ms. Fuller was not the only one who benefits from the flawed planning by big government (read 'Roosevelt's Folly').
Lack of planning is the reason for the huge liability America faces from Social Security....


a. " According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in.
In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."
Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


Good thinking, Liberals.

You really have a gooked up view of things

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

"you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs."

No I didn't.

I indicated that Liberals are not smart enough to take exigencies or worrisome details into their calculations.
Of course, that is one of your many problems, as well: lack of insight.

Totalitarians cannot allow that their may be problems with their mandates.
That's what big government devotees do.

Okay, so you asked, as real questions:

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


lolol, didn't you realize you'd answered those questions previously in the same post?

...and the answers were, and are,

YES, YES, and YES.

Happy now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

"you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs."

No I didn't.

I indicated that Liberals are not smart enough to take exigencies or worrisome details into their calculations.
Of course, that is one of your many problems, as well: lack of insight.

Totalitarians cannot allow that their may be problems with their mandates.
That's what big government devotees do.

Okay, so you asked, as real questions:

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


lolol, didn't you realize you'd answered those questions previously in the same post?

...and the answers were, and are,

YES, YES, and YES.

Happy now?

Before any new readers think you've merely made a mistake....let's remind all that you are well known as the NYLiar.


From the OP:

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


So.....you want to pretend that the Liberals/Democrats wanted "75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases"...

...and they REALLY wanted this: "Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion"



Even your lies are stupid!

 

[rightwinger]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see? Are you capable of an opinion of your own?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, and would brook no adjustments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
...


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


.

Now that's funny. Right after you post the CBO's long term cost calculations,

you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs.

Wake up, ditz. Take your blonde wig off.

"you rhetorically claim that no one ever calculated the long term costs."

No I didn't.

I indicated that Liberals are not smart enough to take exigencies or worrisome details into their calculations.
Of course, that is one of your many problems, as well: lack of insight.

Totalitarians cannot allow that their may be problems with their mandates.
That's what big government devotees do.

Okay, so you asked, as real questions:

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


lolol, didn't you realize you'd answered those questions previously in the same post?

...and the answers were, and are,

YES, YES, and YES.

Happy now?

Before any new readers think you've merely made a mistake....let's remind all that you are well known as the NYLiar.


From the OP:

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


So.....you want to pretend that the Liberals/Democrats wanted "75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases"...

...and they REALLY wanted this: "Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion"



Even your lies are stupid!

You're flailing now.

Are you purposely ignoring that SS had worse problems in 1983 when REAGAN and the Democrats fixed it?

Yes or no.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?

Goddam you're stupid.