Social Security Discussion

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want to eliminate the SS tax. SS payments would come out of the the general revenue. There's no need to increase taxes.

Put the tax in a private account. No need to use general revenues.
The government will save trillions. Benefits will rise.
Win-win.

Privatizing SS would be another subsidy for Wall Street, which is why they would love to get their hands on it. It would a generate a about an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions for these guys. No thanks...

Also, even if some of these reactionary douche bags phased in privatization it wouldn't protect people from market downturns. The crash of 2008 would have robbed around 60% of retirement investors portfolios whether privatization was phased in switched over all at once.

SS is a great program and has kept many Americans out of abject poverty. We should increase benefit payments for retirees, not strip them of their economic rights through a disastrous privatization scheme.

Privatizing SS would be another subsidy for Wall Street

Better than a subsidy for government. And the retirement accounts would provide a much larger benefit at retirement than the current poor returns.

It would a generate a about an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions for these guys.

And how many trillions in extra benefits for recipients?

Also, even if some of these reactionary douche bags phased in privatization it wouldn't protect people from market downturns.

It would protect them from the government spending their contributions though.

The crash of 2008 would have robbed around 60% of retirement investors portfolios whether privatization was phased in switched over all at once.

Held over a long enough period, portfolios recover.

SS is a great program and has kept many Americans out of abject poverty.

Sure, at the cost of poor returns and ever higher taxes.
Privatizing it would also keep many out of poverty.

We should increase benefit payments for retirees,

Privatization would do that, so why are ignorant liberals against it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I lost a chunk of my retirement investment with the Bush crash. If SS were invested on Wall St, I would have lost all or part of that as well.

Thanks to Obama, I've regained what I lost but even so, I'll never get back what was lost.

SS is untouchable and it should stay that way. Think about it. If Rs get the power to do so, we will lost every penny that is rightfully ours.

 

[RKMBrown]

I want to eliminate the SS tax. SS payments would come out of the the general revenue. There's no need to increase taxes.

Put the tax in a private account. No need to use general revenues.
The government will save trillions. Benefits will rise.
Win-win.

Privatizing SS would be another subsidy for Wall Street, which is why they would love to get their hands on it. It would a generate a about an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions for these guys. No thanks...

Also, even if some of these reactionary douche bags phased in privatization it wouldn't protect people from market downturns. The crash of 2008 would have robbed around 60% of retirement investors portfolios whether privatization was phased in switched over all at once.

SS is a great program and has kept many Americans out of abject poverty. We should increase benefit payments for retirees, not strip them of their economic rights through a disastrous privatization scheme.

Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.

Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.

SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.

SS is a gross theft of our money.

 

[Kimura]

Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.

Enlighten me...

Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.

So says the guy who doesn't even understand where money comes from.

SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.

SS is a gross theft of our money.

It's one of the most successful anti-poverty programs out there. Before SS was enacted, around half of the nation's elderly lived in poverty. Today less than ten percent live in poverty.

 

[Kimura]

Better than a subsidy for government. And the retirement accounts would provide a much larger benefit at retirement than the current poor returns.

It's not a subsidy for the government, that doesn't make any sense. The government creates net financial assets.

Again, if people would had their SS in the market in 2008, they would have lost 60% of their money. These are the very people that caused the crash and you want to hand them more money?

There's no reason to privatize it when all that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

And how many trillions in extra benefits for recipients?

It would protect them from the government spending their contributions though.

The SS Trust Fund is basically just bookkeeping entries over at the FED.

Held over a long enough period, portfolios recover.

Translation: who cares if retirees lose their money to some unscrupulous brokers.

Sure, at the cost of poor returns and ever higher taxes.
Privatizing it would also keep many out of poverty.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance. Government programs exist to serve public policy. SS is already one of the most successful anti-poverty programs out there. Privatization would be a subsidy for Wall Street.

Secondly, there's no reason to raise taxes to increase payments. All you need is a funding guarantee from Congress the same we have one for Medicare Part B and D.

Privatization would do that, so why are ignorant liberals against it?

I'm not a liberal, nor am I ignorant, but let's run with it. Privatizing SS would be a moral hazard and it's not needed.

The current SS debate is one based on ignorance. Right wing nuts and neoliberals don't seem to understand how this federal liability is an asset to the public. These geniuses don't acknowledge any of the corresponding assets. The SS wealth of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it.

The asset of the payroll tax revenue to Uncle Same is a liability for us, the same way that any future liabilities are assets to the non-government which is us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Better than a subsidy for government. And the retirement accounts would provide a much larger benefit at retirement than the current poor returns.

It's not a subsidy for the government, that doesn't make any sense. The government creates net financial assets.

Again, if people would had their SS in the market in 2008, they would have lost 60% of their money. These are the very people that caused the crash and you want to hand them more money?

There's no reason to privatize it when all that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

And how many trillions in extra benefits for recipients?

The SS Trust Fund is basically just bookkeeping entries over at the FED.



Translation: who cares if retirees lose their money to some unscrupulous brokers.

Sure, at the cost of poor returns and ever higher taxes.
Privatizing it would also keep many out of poverty.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance. Government programs exist to serve public policy. SS is already one of the most successful anti-poverty programs out there. Privatization would be a subsidy for Wall Street.

Secondly, there's no reason to raise taxes to increase payments. All you need is a funding guarantee from Congress the same we have one for Medicare Part B and D.

Privatization would do that, so why are ignorant liberals against it?

I'm not a liberal, nor am I ignorant, but let's run with it. Privatizing SS would be a moral hazard and it's not needed.

The current SS debate is one based on ignorance. Right wing nuts and neoliberals don't seem to understand how this federal liability is an asset to the public. These geniuses don't acknowledge any of the corresponding assets. The SS wealth of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it.

The asset of the payroll tax revenue to Uncle Same is a liability for us, the same way that any future liabilities are assets to the non-government which is us.

It's not a subsidy for the government, that doesn't make any sense.

Sure it is. The government had $2.6 trillion to spend that it didn't have to borrow in the open market.

Again, if people would had their SS in the market in 2008, they would have lost 60% of their money.

Only that portion allocated to stocks. The percentage allocated to government bonds would have increased in value. For current workers, market declines are opportunities to buy stocks cheaper.

These are the very people that caused the crash and you want to hand them more money?

The crash was caused by bad mortgages. I don't want to hand money to mortgage writers.

There's no reason to privatize it when all that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

You may wish to depend on the promises of politicians who are really bad at math, I prefer stock ownership in my own name.

Translation: who cares if retirees lose their money to some unscrupulous brokers.

Translation: who cares if retirees lose their money to some unscrupulous politicians.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance.

I can buy much better insurance for much less than 12.4% of my lifetime earnings.

Government programs exist to serve public policy.

Government programs exist to mostly serve politicians.

The SS wealth of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it.

It's true, my eventual Social Security payments will be dependent on taxing my children and grandchildren, at ever higher rates.

 

[Kimura]

Sure it is. The government had $2.6 trillion to spend that it didn't have to borrow in the open market.

The federal government doesn't borrow its own fiat.

Only that portion allocated to stocks. The percentage allocated to government bonds would have increased in value. For current workers, market declines are opportunities to buy stocks cheaper.

The crash was caused by bad mortgages. I don't want to hand money to mortgage writers.

That's a fictional narrative with no basis in reality. The sub-prime crisis was caused by fraud within private markets not GSEs.

Here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09782.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf

You may wish to depend on the promises of politicians who are really bad at math, I prefer stock ownership in my own name.

I own stocks as well, but that doesn't mean the federal government should be privatizing SS and giving Wall Street more subsidies.

Translation: who cares if retirees lose their money to some unscrupulous politicians.

Right....because there's a solvency issue.

I can buy much better insurance for much less than 12.4% of my lifetime earnings.

Government programs exist to mostly serve politicians.

Politicians are opportunists, I still don't see how this is related to SS - a very effective program which has tremendously reduced poverty among the elderly.

The SS wealth of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it.[/B]

It's true, my eventual Social Security payments will be dependent on taxing my children and grandchildren, at ever higher rates.

Um...no, sorry, SS isn't dependent on taxing your children or grandchildren at higher rates. All that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure it is. The government had $2.6 trillion to spend that it didn't have to borrow in the open market.

The federal government doesn't borrow its own fiat.

Only that portion allocated to stocks. The percentage allocated to government bonds would have increased in value. For current workers, market declines are opportunities to buy stocks cheaper.

That's a fictional narrative with no basis in reality. The sub-prime crisis was caused by fraud within private markets not GSEs.

Here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09782.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf






I own stocks as well, but that doesn't mean the federal government should be privatizing SS and giving Wall Street more subsidies.



Right....because there's a solvency issue.

Government programs exist to mostly serve politicians.

Politicians are opportunists, I still don't see how this is related to SS - a very effective program which has tremendously reduced poverty among the elderly.

The SS wealth of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it.[/B]

It's true, my eventual Social Security payments will be dependent on taxing my children and grandchildren, at ever higher rates.

Um...no, sorry, SS isn't dependent on taxing your children or grandchildren at higher rates. All that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

The federal government doesn't borrow its own fiat.

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

The sub-prime crisis was caused by fraud within private markets not GSEs.

Yes, mortgages written by private lenders.

I own stocks as well, but that doesn't mean the federal government should be privatizing SS and giving Wall Street more subsidies.

Yes, it would be awful if I could invest that 12.4% of my lifetime earnings. Awful!

a very effective program which has tremendously reduced poverty among the elderly.

And now, we can do better.

Um...no, sorry, SS isn't dependent on taxing your children or grandchildren at higher rates.

Only if we want to pay the promised, unsustainable, benefits. Which are much lower than I can provide for myself, with my own 12.4%.

All that's needed is a funding guarantee from Congress.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

 

[Kimura]

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Yes, mortgages written by private lenders.

Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.

Yes, it would be awful if I could invest that 12.4% of my lifetime earnings. Awful!

For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.

And now, we can do better.

I agree, we should increase SS payments.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

 

[Rshermr]

Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.

Enlighten me...

Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.

So says the guy who doesn't even understand where money comes from.

SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.

SS is a gross theft of our money.

It's one of the most successful anti-poverty programs out there. Before SS was enacted, around half of the nation's elderly lived in poverty. Today less than ten percent live in poverty.

Yes, but he loves poverty.

 

[Rshermr]

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Yes, mortgages written by private lenders.

Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.



For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.

And now, we can do better.

I agree, we should increase SS payments.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Problem with con tools is that they simply regurgitate the line that they are supposed to. It is irrational, of course. But that is all they are capable of.
They want the private investment firms to get richer. Just the way they are. Nothing that they can do about it.

But most importantly, they think that the voting public should not have what they want. And there is no question to a rational person that the vast majority of the voting public does not want ss privatized. And there are few candidates in safe enough districts to try to push or vote for privatization. So they will not. And for that reason, the public will get what they want. And the con tools may as well bey at the moon. Because they and any politician who would try to privatize ss will be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Ask W.

 

[RKMBrown]

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.



Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.



For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.


I agree, we should increase SS payments.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Problem with con tools is that they simply regurgitate the line that they are supposed to. It is irrational, of course. But that is all they are capable of.
They want the private investment firms to get richer. Just the way they are. Nothing that they can do about it.

But most importantly, they think that the voting public should not have what they want. And there is no question to a rational person that the vast majority of the voting public does not want ss privatized. And there are few candidates in safe enough districts to try to push or vote for privatization. So they will not. And for that reason, the public will get what they want. And the con tools may as well bey at the moon. Because they and any politician who would try to privatize ss will be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Ask W.

You are grossly confused ass hole. ITS MY GD MONEY AND I'LL SPEND IT HOW I WANT TO YOU CAN JUMP OFF A CLIFF YOU PARASITE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.

Yes, mortgages written by private lenders.

Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.



For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.

And now, we can do better.

I agree, we should increase SS payments.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Not really...

You're funny.

Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.

Yes, fraud on the part of borrowers, fraud on the part of lenders.
Problems worsened by government policy.

For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

I don't need the government to babysit me or my 12.4% of income.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.

Awesome, take a bad idea and make it worse!

I agree, we should increase SS payments.

Privatizing it would accomplish that.
Increasing payments as the system is today, only digs a bigger hole.

The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Yup, just steal more from the kids and grandkids.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the Treasury sells a T-Bill, that isn't borrowing its own fiat?

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.



Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.



For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.


I agree, we should increase SS payments.

More unaffordable political promises. Great.

It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Problem with con tools is that they simply regurgitate the line that they are supposed to. It is irrational, of course. But that is all they are capable of.
They want the private investment firms to get richer. Just the way they are. Nothing that they can do about it.

But most importantly, they think that the voting public should not have what they want. And there is no question to a rational person that the vast majority of the voting public does not want ss privatized. And there are few candidates in safe enough districts to try to push or vote for privatization. So they will not. And for that reason, the public will get what they want. And the con tools may as well bey at the moon. Because they and any politician who would try to privatize ss will be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Ask W.

They want the private investment firms to get richer.

Screw the private investment firms, I want to get richer.
Investing my own 12.4% of income would do that.

 

[goong]

... The mechanics of the trusts work exactly the same, with one difference - they don't go into the bond market and actually buy the bonds. They record credits and debits as if they were buying the bonds, then debiting to the Treasury the liabilities the US government owes to the trusts. ...

Are you saying no special issue security exists, that no physical evidence of indebtedness of any kind exists in any form?

I believe that's the case, yes. The assets and liabilities are digital ones and zeros on a computer somewhere. There is no physical evidence they exist.

[MENTION]But that's also the case for many other securities. Many stocks and bonds no longer exist in tangible form. Many only exist in digital form. For example, when a company issues new stock, it is recorded as a CUSIP at a custodial bank. When the stock is traded, the CUSIPs are credited and debited to the account numbers of the those trading the stock. Physical paper rarely changes hands today.[/MENTION]

It has been for at leat 12 years now. It is how we cn settle in two days now. It is also how we can do the rapid trades now as well. for better or a great deal worse sometimes

 

[jasonnfree]

Picture needing your SS....

SS Sucks...

Both Obamacare and SS are alike in that nobody wants it except for those few that benefit from making sure others have no say in what happens to their money. If they were really great then they'd be voluntary. They're not so they aren't.

How are you so sure social security is so unpopular? People have been told for years that social security won't be there for them which raises resentment, other than that, there would be close to a rebellion if politicians tried to phase out social security, even in red states. IMO anyway. Some of you posters claim to be savvy investors who can outperform social security. You may be telling the truth, who knows, but the average person doesn't have this savvy or the time to deal with figuring out how to invest anyway.

 

[RKMBrown]

SS Sucks...

Both Obamacare and SS are alike in that nobody wants it except for those few that benefit from making sure others have no say in what happens to their money. If they were really great then they'd be voluntary. They're not so they aren't.

How are you so sure social security is so unpopular? People have been told for years that social security won't be there for them which raises resentment, other than that, there would be close to a rebellion if politicians tried to phase out social security, even in red states. IMO anyway. Some of you posters claim to be savvy investors who can outperform social security. You may be telling the truth, who knows, but the average person doesn't have this savvy or the time to deal with figuring out how to invest anyway.

You don't get it. For most people, SS LOOSES 90% OF THE MONEY THEY PUT IN. Better investment? WTF? negative 90% return on investment over a LIFETIME? You'd be better off burying it and digging it up in retirement than letting government get it's grubby hands on it.

 

[expat_panama]

How are you so sure social security is so unpopular?

OK, you're absolutely right, SS is very popular. In fact, let's make it purely volutary and that way we won't have any more complaining from those one or two people that don't want it.

Seriously, even though the bonkers left always spits out their empty talk about this America-loves-SS nonsense, we all know that nobody but nobody would ever voluntarily sign up for it if they had a choice. That's why since day one any talk about a voluntary SS has always been considered an option that would end SS.

 

[Kimura]

You're funny.

Treasuries are nothing more than dollar deposits at the FED.

Yes, fraud on the part of borrowers, fraud on the part of lenders.
Problems worsened by government policy.

Did you even bother reading the reports I posted by the FED and others? The facts say otherwise, amigo.

The majority of lenders peddled the most expensive loans to first-time home buyers. These loans were referred to as 'affordability products' which generated massive commissions and were purposely designed for financing down the road. This also entailed more fees for douche bag lenders. These loans were designed to fail from the very beginning.

I don't need the government to babysit me or my 12.4% of income.

Nobody wants the government to babysit you. We're talking about a highly successful program which has reduced poverty rates among the elderly. SS was part of FDR's economic bill of rights. I don't understand this pathological hatred for successful programs like Medicare and SS. Every other OECD country has similar programs.

Awesome, take a bad idea and make it worse!

How does it make it worse?

Privatizing it would accomplish that.

No, it wouldn't, all it would do is create a moral hazard, which Wall Street excels at.

Increasing payments as the system is today, only digs a bigger hole.

No, it doesn't create a hole. Again, the only problem would be a real crisis where we couldn't produce the real goods and services that are required by retirees, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical technology, etc.

The government can always cut SS checks. The only problem would be that of inflation, but it's almost impossible to generate a sufficient inflation, so long as there's an increase in real goods and services.

Yup, just steal more from the kids and grandkids.

Another conservative/libertarian/Peter Schiff/Kyle Bass/crazy internet meme. I love logical fallacies.

In economics, no such concept exists, where we have to sacrifice our output for some date in the past. Our children and grandchildren can't and won't pay us back a dime even if they desired to do so.

There isn't a burden for our children and grandchildren since they'll be able to work and consume the real goods and services they produce. Government spending from years past cannot prevent them from producing real goods and services.

 

[Kimura]

Not really...

The purchasers of the T-Bills use US dollars. Those dollars were spent into existence at some point by the federal government.



Yeah, there was also fraud up and down the line.



For the second time, SS isn't an investment vehicle, it's social insurance.

By the way, I think we should eliminate the SS tax due to its regressive nature, which why we should fund it out of the general revenue.


I agree, we should increase SS payments.



It's completely affordable. There isn't a nominal SS crisis. The only crisis would be if we couldn't produce the real goods and services needed by the elderly during their retirement.

Problem with con tools is that they simply regurgitate the line that they are supposed to. It is irrational, of course. But that is all they are capable of.
They want the private investment firms to get richer. Just the way they are. Nothing that they can do about it.

But most importantly, they think that the voting public should not have what they want. And there is no question to a rational person that the vast majority of the voting public does not want ss privatized. And there are few candidates in safe enough districts to try to push or vote for privatization. So they will not. And for that reason, the public will get what they want. And the con tools may as well bey at the moon. Because they and any politician who would try to privatize ss will be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Ask W.

You are grossly confused ass hole. ITS MY GD MONEY AND I'LL SPEND IT HOW I WANT TO YOU CAN JUMP OFF A CLIFF YOU PARASITE.

Again, for the second time, SS is HIGHLY successful. Before its enactment, around half our nation's elderly lived in poverty. As of today, less than ten percent live in poverty due to SS.

Do you plan on using Medicare? Or is that another program designed by parasites? What your plan? Roll the disabled or elderly into a corner and let them expire?

Our social safety net is anemic and yet reactionaries want to totally gut them due to some ideological fantasy. Historically, your version of the Unites States never existed.

Thank God in heaven.