5 myths about SS

[DaGoose]

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)? ***** Off*

Yes, I did. You're done.

 

[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

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

Not bad off? Are you even breathing? There isnt one thin dime in the fund and seniors had to be threatened by the President that if we could not borrow more, no check could be issued.

TWEAKED MY ASS.

 

[DaGoose]

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

Not bad off? Are you even breathing? There isnt one thin dime in the fund and seniors had to be threatened by the President that if we could not borrow more, no check could be issued.

TWEAKED MY ASS.

Maybe "tweaked" wasn't the right word but it certainly isn't anywhere close to its demise that the wingers try to put forth. But as has been pointed out several times in this thread there are solutions that are not particularly painful.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If it's so great then why can't we cash out our own money at retirement? Hint: legal ponzi scheme. Another falsehood in the article. Yes, someone can make exponentially more if they were given the choice of investing themselves versus a government that confiscates your monies and doesn't allow you access. Thirdly, if it were so great we would have been given an option to opt in or out.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

Not bad off? Are you even breathing? There isnt one thin dime in the fund and seniors had to be threatened by the President that if we could not borrow more, no check could be issued.

TWEAKED MY ASS.

Maybe "tweaked" wasn't the right word but it certainly isn't anywhere close to its demise that the wingers try to put forth. But as has been pointed out several times in this thread there are solutions that are not particularly painful.

There isnt one dime in the fund. How close to stupid are you trying to reach?

 

[DaGoose]

If it's so great then why can't we cash out our own money at retirement? Hint: legal ponzi scheme. Another falsehood in the article. Yes, someone can make exponentially more if they were given the choice of investing themselves versus a government that confiscates your monies and doesn't allow you access. Thirdly, if it were so great we would have been given an option to opt in or out.

The only problem? They wouldn't be saving on their own and if forced into it by the Fed the right would still be screaming.

 

[DaGoose]

Not bad off? Are you even breathing? There isnt one thin dime in the fund and seniors had to be threatened by the President that if we could not borrow more, no check could be issued.

TWEAKED MY ASS.

Maybe "tweaked" wasn't the right word but it certainly isn't anywhere close to its demise that the wingers try to put forth. But as has been pointed out several times in this thread there are solutions that are not particularly painful.

There isnt one dime in the fund. How close to stupid are you trying to reach?

Who said there was?

From the link....

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds. When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If it's so great then why can't we cash out our own money at retirement? Hint: legal ponzi scheme. Another falsehood in the article. Yes, someone can make exponentially more if they were given the choice of investing themselves versus a government that confiscates your monies and doesn't allow you access. Thirdly, if it were so great we would have been given an option to opt in or out.

The only problem? They wouldn't be saving on their own and if forced into it by the Fed the right would still be screaming.

Then there should be no problem about offering everyone an opt in or out deal. SS works for some people. Others could do better. We should all have that choice.

 

[The T]

If it's so great then why can't we cash out our own money at retirement? Hint: legal ponzi scheme. Another falsehood in the article. Yes, someone can make exponentially more if they were given the choice of investing themselves versus a government that confiscates your monies and doesn't allow you access. Thirdly, if it were so great we would have been given an option to opt in or out.

The only problem? They wouldn't be saving on their own and if forced into it by the Fed the right would still be screaming.

Then there should be no problem about offering everyone an opt in or out deal. SS works for some people. Others could do better. We should all have that choice.

Right. But can't have that. It would deny congresscritters the oppritunity to rob it and place in an I.O.U. instead.

 

[DaGoose]

The only problem? They wouldn't be saving on their own and if forced into it by the Fed the right would still be screaming.

Then there should be no problem about offering everyone an opt in or out deal. SS works for some people. Others could do better. We should all have that choice.

Right. But can't have that. It would deny congresscritters the oppritunity to rob it and place in an I.O.U. instead.

Sure, why not? Then you can support them via welfare.

Without Social Security, according to the latest available Census data (for 2008), 19.8 million more Americans would be poor. Although most of those kept out of poverty by Social Security are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children

Social Security Keeps 20 Million Americans Out of Poverty: — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[DontBeStupid]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.

 

[DontBeStupid]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.

And one more thing about raising the retirement age.

When you do that, you force workers to stay working longer, which means not as many job openings for new, younger workers. In our current economic climate, LOWERING the age would be ideal, as it would lead millions to retire and would free up jobs for people looking. Win/Win.

 

[Annie]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.

Got some links on that? In 1960 is asked to identify known people over 80, you'd be hard pressed to. Today? Easy. We see it in personal ways. By the time I was born, all 4 of my grandparents were dead, as were 3 of my uncles and 1 aunt.

My kids, born in the 80's had all 4 of their grandparents, one great grandparent died just before the birth of the first. All of their aunts and uncles were alive.

Now that's just anecdotal, but it's repeated throughout the country.

 

[Full-Auto]

Maybe "tweaked" wasn't the right word but it certainly isn't anywhere close to its demise that the wingers try to put forth. But as has been pointed out several times in this thread there are solutions that are not particularly painful.

There isnt one dime in the fund. How close to stupid are you trying to reach?

Who said there was?

From the link....

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds. When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

 

[DontBeStupid]

.

I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...

... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.

... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself

... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science

Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.

.

If I may.

Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?

Life Expectancy

As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.

Got some links on that? In 1960 is asked to identify known people over 80, you'd be hard pressed to. Today? Easy. We see it in personal ways. By the time I was born, all 4 of my grandparents were dead, as were 3 of my uncles and 1 aunt.

My kids, born in the 80's had all 4 of their grandparents, one great grandparent died just before the birth of the first. All of their aunts and uncles were alive.

Now that's just anecdotal, but it's repeated throughout the country.

You mean other than the link I provided in my post?

Life Expectancy

 

[DontBeStupid]

There isnt one dime in the fund. How close to stupid are you trying to reach?

Who said there was?

From the link....

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds. When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

 

[DaGoose]

There isnt one dime in the fund. How close to stupid are you trying to reach?

Who said there was?

From the link....

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds. When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

You're right. I do. And raising it along with doubling the cap would probably solve 80%-90% of the problem. But even if we do NOTHING......

Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Facts About Social Security Myths, Benefits, Future - AARP Bulletin

 

[Full-Auto]

Who said there was?

From the link....

Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

 

[The T]

Lets try some simple math, even a union head should be able to grasp this.

They are worthless. You have to borrow money to make the payments. Its that simple. I would rag on your side about the SS tax cut, but I know you oppose.

Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

Because a knee jerk response is easier to offer than sitting back and making an informed descision as he feels threatened his gravy train can't be derailed?

 

[Full-Auto]

Actually, that's not true. We don't have to borrow the money if we don't want to. We could pay for them with taxes.

Good point raise taxes.

I agree

Right after we make an honest effort at eliminating waste. estimated by the GAO as 300 to 400 billion a year. They recently refused to comment on the last audit as the figures provided by government were of such lousy accounting standards the data could not be trusted.

Why is it your first response in light of this information is to screw the AVG American with higher taxes.

Because a knee jerk response is easier to offer than sitting back and making an informed descision as he feels threatened his gravy train can't be derailed?

Ironic, F'in repubs holding up the tax cut, when we need to raise them.