An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Medicare. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

1. Raising the retirement ages one year is a no-brainer. From 62 to 63 and 65 to 66. If someone has a strenuous job, find an easier one.
2. Political suicide is NOT fixing SS and Medicare.
3. No one will demand an end to SS & Medicare. They worked well for 80-years, and will work well for another 80.

Not at this rate it won't. The programs are running out of money.

If you were the President or a member of Congress, what do you think your chances would be of winning reelection of you increased SS payroll deductions by 20%? Think people wouldn't be pissed off at you and vote you out next election? This is why politicians don't do it.

What you are suggesting is that nobody take a strenuous job because of their fear of retirement age? Then who is going put a roof on your home? Who is going to rebuild that retaining wall in your backyard that's falling apart? Who is going to build you that garage you wanted if nobody will get into these fields of work any longer because they won't be able to do it at an older age?

And we already did raise the retirement age, and it's still not doing any good. I'm 60, and they have my retirement age set at 67. Now they are talking about raising it even more. It's not a solution to anything.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

Most of the trades that involve hard physical labor are dominated by unions, and the unions handle the pensions. That is why I am a fan of construction unions but not of public sector ones.

 

[22lcidw]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

After we dispatch of the current crop of GOP criminals that currently squat in the chambers of Congress. We will beging undoing 40 years of Reaganism, and those billionaires are going to find themselves with the same tax rates, and regulatory policies that existed before 1980.

You ain't undoing shit. The amount of people collecting is like climbing a mountain. The amount of people paying is like descending a mountain. Figure it out. Poverty will grow with permanent 2% annual gains of the GNP. We must collapse China's eonomy.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the fuck cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

1. No, they won't.
2. It shouldn't be. My point is about government "promises"

1. No USSC justice would vote to harm SS, look at the way they called the Obamacare penalty a "tax" just to save it?! Scalia went berzerk. All of the proposed "fixes" are just minor "tweaks" of existing stipulations/conditions.
Here is the list of "boot hill" lawsuits against SS, all losers.

List of Social Security lawsuits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. I'm not getting your point about government "promises"?!

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the fuck cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

1. No, they won't.
2. It shouldn't be. My point is about government "promises"

1. No USSC justice would vote to harm SS, look at the way they called the Obamacare penalty a "tax" just to save it?! Scalia went berzerk. All of the proposed "fixes" are just minor "tweaks" of existing stipulations/conditions.
Here is the list of "boot hill" lawsuits against SS, all losers.

List of Social Security lawsuits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. I'm not getting your point about government "promises"?!

The 2nd amendment is a government promise to preserve the RKBA.

 

[kyzr]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the fuck cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

1. No, they won't.
2. It shouldn't be. My point is about government "promises"

1. No USSC justice would vote to harm SS, look at the way they called the Obamacare penalty a "tax" just to save it?! Scalia went berzerk. All of the proposed "fixes" are just minor "tweaks" of existing stipulations/conditions.
Here is the list of "boot hill" lawsuits against SS, all losers.

List of Social Security lawsuits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. I'm not getting your point about government "promises"?!

The 2nd amendment is a government promise to preserve the RKBA.

Being from NYC I can see your concern, but up here in God's Country its not an issue, we shoot rifle, pistol, and sporting clay competitions regularly. When you retire from NYC look for a nice quiet area.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

Most of the trades that involve hard physical labor are dominated by unions, and the unions handle the pensions. That is why I am a fan of construction unions but not of public sector ones.

I understand that given my father retired at the age of 62 as a bricklayer. However he would have never been able to do it with his pension alone. He retired early and of course, got the discounted amount from SS for the rest of his life. He has a great pension too. He's 88 today and still collecting it.

 

[Markle]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

How do you separate Social Security/Medicare from the unfunded liability?

That's like trying to separate your house from your coming mortgage payments.

 

[Care4all]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

The government collects trillions in taxes every year, where do you see a "struggle"?

 

[Markle]

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

There is no option but to increase the retirement age by at least five years, incrementally. Folks were roofers and brick laborers in 1950 too. Social Security was never intended as a retirement plan, it was designed to help get you through a year or two until you croaked.

In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. The average life expectancy in the US was 66.

Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.

For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average lie expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.

The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their life span is far shorter.

In 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient.

This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.

Perhaps some increases in the tax but already we pay 15.3% of our pay up to $137,700 this year. That's more than $21,000 a year PLUS your income taxes. For anyone, that's a LOT of money. Imagine if you had even half of that to invest on your own each year?

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

I am looking at it as how the program was sold, and legally framed. By removing caps on investment, and leaving caps on return, you are destroying the original basis of the program, and the reason it probably survived multiple court attempts to shut it down.

I was promised the RKBA by the 2nd amendment, and NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay $500 or more just to keep a revolver in my apartment. Why isn't the government keeping that one?

1. Who the fuck cares how the programs were sold back in 1938? Not me. I just want them fixed now.
2. You have a carry permit in NYC?! You are fortunate. Count your blessings.

1. It matters because people might sue to end any changes that transform it from a pension to a tax distribution.
2. No, that's just to keep a revolver for home use.

1. Let them sue SS, they will lose.
2. Having a legal gun in NYC is still an accomplishment.

1. No, they won't.
2. It shouldn't be. My point is about government "promises"

1. No USSC justice would vote to harm SS, look at the way they called the Obamacare penalty a "tax" just to save it?! Scalia went berzerk. All of the proposed "fixes" are just minor "tweaks" of existing stipulations/conditions.
Here is the list of "boot hill" lawsuits against SS, all losers.

List of Social Security lawsuits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. I'm not getting your point about government "promises"?!

The 2nd amendment is a government promise to preserve the RKBA.

Being from NYC I can see your concern, but up here in God's Country its not an issue, we shoot rifle, pistol, and sporting clay competitions regularly. When you retire from NYC look for a nice quiet area.

Agreed, as long as the family comes along. The point I was trying to make is the government promises a lot of things. Things they don't care about, promises or not, will not be kept.

 

[bripat9643]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

There is no money in the SS trust fund, dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a fuck how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

Most of the trades that involve hard physical labor are dominated by unions, and the unions handle the pensions. That is why I am a fan of construction unions but not of public sector ones.

I understand that given my father retired at the age of 62 as a bricklayer. However he would have never been able to do it with his pension alone. He retired early and of course, got the discounted amount from SS for the rest of his life. He has a great pension too. He's 88 today and still collecting it.

Still the pension model works for certain things. I for one prefer a 401k, but I was putting at least 12% of my income into it (plus 3% match) since I started working full time at 23 years old (grad school).

I'm 45 and have just under 500k in the account, and it's ALL MINE. I'm still in mostly stocks because in engineering you can work until your marbles go.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

How do you separate Social Security/Medicare from the unfunded liability?

That's like trying to separate your house from your coming mortgage payments.

It's the issues I separate, because they are two different laws and two different setups.

 

[Flash]

We need money to give to the Democrat's welfare queens and Illegals so why no raid the Trust Fund?

Us White middle class guys that paid into the fund for all those years that we were working have other income so why not take the money from us?

That is the Socialist way.

Steal money.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes don't last almost a hundred years like our S.S. system has, but trump and the republicans would like to end it. Even the fools that kiss trump's ass even though many of them would be living like paupers were it not for FDR and the democrats.

Sure they do when the government is running them. If SS was run by a private company, it would have declared bankruptcy 50 years ago.

 

[Likkmee]

So you support the new 7 trillion in debt under Trump?

People paid into S.S. and it is owed them. Do we really owe billionaires millions in stimulus?

Support it? NOPE! On the other hand, do you fully accept what would have happened WITHOUT the Rescue?

We would be in better condition as a country.

Wow! Just WOW!

Why wish that on American workers?

Workers are going to suffer if Bezo's doesn't get billions in corporate welfare?

The Social Security should have bought Amazon stock....they'da been good to go.

 

[Markle]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

How do you separate Social Security/Medicare from the unfunded liability?

That's like trying to separate your house from your coming mortgage payments.

It's the issues I separate, because they are two different laws and two different setups.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

How do you separate Social Security/Medicare from the unfunded liability?

That's like trying to separate your house from your coming mortgage payments.

It's the issues I separate, because they are two different laws and two different setups.

I like to deal with one issue at a time, helps when you are an Engineer.