Get rid of Social Security now?

[Erand7899]

the right signs the pledge of a man who said right out loud he wants our government dead.

They dont care about the American people

You mean they don't care about giving you more of someone else's money.

 

[Erand7899]

The "stealing" began with the change of law in the sixties, and both parties have done it ever since. Legally.

Progressive taxation is "welfare" transfer? Really?

See, you give opinions and pretend they are facts. They are not.

The stealing began when the social security law was first implemented. All of the excess funds were automatically transferred to the general fund, and spent by congress.

Prior to the sixties, the social security account was separate from the general fund account. In order to hide the ever increasing costs of LBJ's great society programs, the Democrats in congress combined the two budgets. The huge surplusses in the social security account made the overall budget deficit look smaller. Just more smoke and mirrors from your pals in the Democrat party.

Now, since there is no longer a surplus in the social security account, Democrats want to separate the two budgets again. More smoke and mirrors.

 

[Erand7899]

BTW, those Democrats who enacted social security were so concerned about the elderly, that they set the retirement age at the same age as the existing life expectancy. They didn't plan on paying out much of that money in old age benefits. It was enacted as a taxing scheme disguised as a retirement program.

However, over the next couple of decades, life expectancy rose dramatically, and the taxing scheme turned into a ponsi scheme.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the consanguinity had their way, ss would have been gone when the Econ dropped. Then what.

consanguinity? showing off your word-a-day toilet paper, are you?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Thanks for punctuating the real problem. Not only is there nothing of value in the Trust Fund[...]

[...]

Nothing of value in the Trust Fund? -- except almost $2.5 trillion in treasury notes (government IOUs), which is without question the most secure guarantee of solvency available anywhere. The solvency and uninterrupted performance of the Social Security program is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. So when Government is bankrupt both you and I will have a lot more to be concerned with than Social Security. (Try to imagine the feasibility of a bankrupt government with a solvent Social Security program.)

My parents survived the Great Depression. Their persistent advice to us was to get an education, get a good civil service job, buy nothing on credit, avoid debt like the plague and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds. I followed their advice to the letter and have absolutely no regrets.

I live in large retirement community where I know quite a few individuals who have good cause to regret following a different path. They were doing fine until Bush collapsed the Economy and the banks and finance industry went on a looting spree.

Were it not for Social Security some of them would be in serious trouble.

 

[flacaltenn]

[...]

Thanks for punctuating the real problem. Not only is there nothing of value in the Trust Fund[...]

[...]

Nothing of value in the Trust Fund? -- except almost $2.5 trillion in treasury notes (government IOUs), which is without question the most secure guarantee of solvency available anywhere. The solvency and uninterrupted performance of the Social Security program is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. So when Government is bankrupt both you and I will have a lot more to be concerned with than Social Security. (Try to imagine the feasibility of a bankrupt government with a solvent Social Security program.)

My parents survived the Great Depression. Their persistent advice to us was to get an education, get a good civil service job, buy nothing on credit, avoid debt like the plague and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds. I followed their advice to the letter and have absolutely no regrets.

I live in large retirement community where I know quite a few individuals who have good cause to regret following a different path. They were doing fine until Bush collapsed the Economy and the banks and finance industry went on a looting spree.

Were it not for Social Security some of them would be in serious trouble.

THese are NOT treasury notes. They are accounting entries. IOUs from the same politicians who stole $TRILLs in surplus SS from the working poor. These accounting entries have NO INTRINSIC value and changes to the program will take precedent over HONORING that "debt".. You're a fool if you believe elsewise...

If those "notes" were worth anything -- we wouldn't be discussing raising caps, extending elibility ages and potentially means testing the program. It's a $45Bill deficit THIS YEAR that must be borrowed from China to pay this years bills...

Those seniors are suffering MORE from keeping interest rates depressed, holding tthe economic growth down, and phoney stats for COLA increases -- than ANYTHING that Bush did to them....

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'll make the government a deal: replace the "assets" in my Social security account with stock in Berkshire Hathaway and I will forego any additional payments after I retire, just give me ownership of those assets and that concludes our financial arrangement.

Deal?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

I wouldn't even trust the average person to have the sense to stop at a stop sign if there wasn't a government there to enforce it,

let alone trust them to live their lives in a safe sensible decent harmless manner with no government around at all.

Then just take warning labels off of everything...and just let Darwin thin the herd.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will support any attempt to separate the funds in a lock box distinct from the general surplus.

The "stealing" began with the change of law in the sixties, and both parties have done it ever since. Legally.

Progressive taxation is "welfare" transfer? Really?

See, you give opinions and pretend they are facts. They are not.

The stealing began when the social security law was first implemented. All of the excess funds were automatically transferred to the general fund, and spent by congress.

Prior to the sixties, the social security account was separate from the general fund account. In order to hide the ever increasing costs of LBJ's great society programs, the Democrats in congress combined the two budgets. The huge surplusses in the social security account made the overall budget deficit look smaller. Just more smoke and mirrors from your pals in the Democrat party.

Now, since there is no longer a surplus in the social security account, Democrats want to separate the two budgets again. More smoke and mirrors.

 

[Erand7899]

[...]

Thanks for punctuating the real problem. Not only is there nothing of value in the Trust Fund[...]

[...]

Nothing of value in the Trust Fund? -- except almost $2.5 trillion in treasury notes (government IOUs), which is without question the most secure guarantee of solvency available anywhere. The solvency and uninterrupted performance of the Social Security program is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. So when Government is bankrupt both you and I will have a lot more to be concerned with than Social Security. (Try to imagine the feasibility of a bankrupt government with a solvent Social Security program.)

My parents survived the Great Depression. Their persistent advice to us was to get an education, get a good civil service job, buy nothing on credit, avoid debt like the plague and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds. I followed their advice to the letter and have absolutely no regrets.

I live in large retirement community where I know quite a few individuals who have good cause to regret following a different path. They were doing fine until Bush collapsed the Economy and the banks and finance industry went on a looting spree.

Were it not for Social Security some of them would be in serious trouble.

Apparently, you blew the get an education part of the advice. Otherwise, you would know that Bush did not collapse the economy, or that the banks and financial industry did not go on a looting spree. Many of them had been on a looting spree for years before the economy crashed. Afterward, they were busy trying to pick up the pieces.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong. Move along. I despise far righties who know no history whatsover. Your type of thinking is a ponzi scheme: pie in the sky extremist promises paid down by bringing in new sheeple. Fools, all of you.

BTW, those Democrats who enacted social security were so concerned about the elderly, that they set the retirement age at the same age as the existing life expectancy. They didn't plan on paying out much of that money in old age benefits. It was enacted as a taxing scheme disguised as a retirement program.

However, over the next couple of decades, life expectancy rose dramatically, and the taxing scheme turned into a ponsi scheme.

 

[Navy1960]

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Trustees Report Summary

Frankly, when our Govt. uses Social Security for what it was not intended , and that is a "General Fund" to borrow from for everything from F-35's, to golf course upkeep, it's not surprising that some would think Social Security is the problem rather than both parties who have used the program for other than what it was intended for. One other thing that comes to mind here, Social Security is one of the largest debt holders if US debt , and at the moment to make the case that Social Security is the problem when at the same time your the one who is making it the problem is nonsense.

Some other issues come to mind here as well, Social Security was set up as a program to provide a "stable" benefit, not subject to the whims of the market, or state run pensions, a person can count on when they retire. Frankly I find it amusing that some would advocate getting rid of Social Security when all it takes is a little time and research to understand , that without it to sheer cost and economic impact without it would offset any gains made. Without Social Security this nation more than half the Seniors in this nation lived in poverty and more than 75% of them lived without any form of health insurance, you think your health insurance is high now? Get rid of Social Security and Medicare and watch what happens. It makes a lot more sense to actually fix these programs so that they are there for the generations that follow, and properly fund them and stop using them as credit cards.

Thanks for punctuating the real problem. Not only is there nothing of value in the Trust Fund, but the lies about the "health" of the program are still rampant promulgated by the usual suspects....

But be careful about comparing the accounting IOUs in Soc Sec to REAL US DEBT holders. Real Treasury Bonds have to be honored or the consequences are dire.. Soc Sec has no bar for what you deftly called STABLE benefits. And as the crisis unfolds, the politicians are gonna go FIRST to altering the program -- rather than honor those IOUs as true debt instruments.

Tell ya what.. I'd be for a Universal Retirement Insurance plan with DEFINED benefits and flexible retirement rules.. But that's not what we had and it's not where the Dems are gonna try to take it. The working poor are the ones that have back breaking jobs. Asking THEM to work another couple years is JUST AS cynical as asking a large percentage to go without ANY benefit from the program.. Bipartisian compromise like solutions will be the WORSE solution possible....

I don't think I made made any suggestion that the Retirement age could not be raised to reflect current norms. In fact from what I understand doing just this one thing, would go a long way in making the program even more stable for many years to come. The issue I have is the suggestion that Social Security cannot be fixed, when simple solutions to Social Security is all it reqires and less scare tactics on both sides would go a long way. As for "bonds" the bonds that Social Security hold are non-negotiable bonds and represent intra-govenrmental" debt, that debt at the end of 2011 Social Security was owed 2.7 Trillion, and at the end of April 2012 it was owed 4.8 Trillion, which is a large part of that 16 Trillion people keep hearing about. The 1. holder of US debt is this so called "intra-govenmental" debt at around 6.8 Trillion followed by China at 1.32. While it makes sense to call attention to unfair trade issues with any nation, one would think if we spent a little time actually fixing these programs so they are there for young men and women in the future it would go a long way towards this debt issue as well. The last thing I would mention is this, subjecting Social Security to the Market is a "terrible idea" if the goal is to have a stable suppliment income for those in their reirement years ( one only need to ask all those who lost their 401K's to the whims of a the market to know that). It makes sense from an economic standpoint that Seniors have this because if they do not, then the economic impact of that would be a heck of a lot worse than just trying to fix what we have now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

When do democrats like you plan to put the money back into SS.

Democrats placed this money in the general fund to spend...

Pu it back asshole........

Al Gore advocated a lock box preventing the Congress and the President from using social security money for any purpose other than that intended. Bush advocated privatization. Had Bush prevailed those Americans who put their money in Wall Street savings/pension accounts would have lost everthing in Oct. 2008.

Democrats and Republicans - both in the Congress and in the White House - used SS money for other purposes. Don't be a partisan hack and suggest otherwise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

When do democrats like you plan to put the money back into SS.

Democrats placed this money in the general fund to spend...

Pu it back asshole........

Al Gore advocated a lock box preventing the Congress and the President from using social security money for any purpose other than that intended. Bush advocated privatization. Had Bush prevailed those Americans who put their money in Wall Street savings/pension accounts would have lost everthing in Oct. 2008.

They would not have lost "everything" and tell me aren't you sheep the ones telling us all that there is this awesome recovery happening because the DOW is around 13000??

Did you know that there are many many more places for one to keep money than the stock market?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties are responsible for the need for SS reform and restoration of monies.

Privatization of SS accounts is a corporatist attempt to raid the working classes' for corporatist enrichment. Don't do it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Both parties are responsible for the need for SS reform and restoration of monies.

Privatization of SS accounts is a corporatist attempt to raid the working classes' for corporatist enrichment. Don't do it.

Letting people keep and control 15% of their lifetime earnings so that they can retire financially independent is the right thing to do.

Confiscating that money and then making people live on a pittance is the government's way of ensuring the dependence of the people not their independence.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When do democrats like you plan to put the money back into SS.

Democrats placed this money in the general fund to spend...

Pu it back asshole........

Al Gore advocated a lock box preventing the Congress and the President from using social security money for any purpose other than that intended. Bush advocated privatization. Had Bush prevailed those Americans who put their money in Wall Street savings/pension accounts would have lost everthing in Oct. 2008.

They would not have lost "everything" and tell me aren't you sheep the ones telling us all that there is this awesome recovery happening because the DOW is around 13000??

Did you know that there are many many more places for one to keep money than the stock market?

Lost everything was a bit hyperbolic, but many of those who had planned to retire on their 401k's are still working; while real estate is coming back slowly billions in equity disappeared overnight and will take years to recover; maybe you would explain which other investments escaped the crash of '08 and how millions of working Americans could have escaped financial ruin?

Your straw dog won't hunt. Never did I say we were in an "awesome recovery" but a recovery is going on in my region. Real estate sales and values are up, construction is on going and the private sector is hiring. The trend, notwithstanding the noise from the right, is positive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Al Gore advocated a lock box preventing the Congress and the President from using social security money for any purpose other than that intended. Bush advocated privatization. Had Bush prevailed those Americans who put their money in Wall Street savings/pension accounts would have lost everthing in Oct. 2008.

They would not have lost "everything" and tell me aren't you sheep the ones telling us all that there is this awesome recovery happening because the DOW is around 13000??

Did you know that there are many many more places for one to keep money than the stock market?

Lost everything was a bit hyperbolic, but many of those who had planned to retire on their 401k's are still working; while real estate is coming back slowly billions in equity disappeared overnight and will take years to recover; maybe you would explain which other investments escaped the crash of '08 and how millions of working Americans could have escaped financial ruin?

Your straw dog won't hunt. Never did I say we were in an "awesome recovery" but a recovery is going on in my region. Real estate sales and values are up, construction is on going and the private sector is hiring. The trend, notwithstanding the noise from the right, is positive.

For one anyone with less than 5 years to retirement should know that the bulk of their investments should not be in equities but rather in more secure areas.

Two: anyone with more than 5 years to retirement would have seen a recovery of any equity devaluation.

Banking on the equity in one's home to retire is not a good plan and no financial planner worth their salt would ever tell you it was.

 

[peach174]

Do you know that there are companies that have locked in gains so that if the market goes down, you don't lose any of your profits.
Here is one Company that does this.
Stock Market Growth With No Market Risk
If Americans had their Social Security put into something like this, they would be much better off.
Congress could not get their hands on it.
You would be in control of it, not the government.

 

[regent]

This was sort of the arrangement before Social Security, people invest, and save their money for their old age. Such an easy plan and so capitalistic, what happened to that plan, why did we change all that?