An Ungrateful Rant

[JadeRaven]

I tend to agree, everybody working a salaried position has a fixed income. If your "fixed income" is not enough to cover your expenses, why should that be our problem?

IRAs and 401ks didn't exist before the '80s but savings accounts sure did. So did financial responsibility.

Regardless of your definition of what an "entitlement" is, many, many elderly people feel very much entitled to everything, and are sure to let everyone know about it. "Somebody needs to give me..." "Somebody needs to pay for..." "I need my..." "You need to listen to me."

 

[tim9lives]

Make ya a deal:

No new taxes collected to fund social security and "they" can collect "every cent that's there that they contributed"

Deal?


What's that you say? There IS NO MONEY!!!!?!?!

Yes, that's kinda my point.


Oh, and dont pull that "they fought, I haven't, you selfish young one" with all the guys who've spent time in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.... Doesn't work so well!

Your being selfish/self centered and trying to prolong the system, so you can "get yours"
(don't worry, you are probably old enough you will)

Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries. The American people will insist that Congress do what is needed for the program to pay full benefits and protect these benefits they were promised and have earned.

Another argument made by Social Security opponents to raise fear about the national debt is how much our government has borrowed from China. They never mention how much our government has borrowed from Social Security. In fact, the government has borrowed more from the Social Security surplus than it has from any other source in the world, including China. As a result, Social Security now "owns" nearly 18 percent of the federal debt, making it the largest single holder of US debt. The government owes almost twice as much to Social Security as it does to China and Hong Kong.
The above is an excerpt from the below linked article. It's a 2 year old article...but my point is that SS is not broke right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

 

[Jack]

(don't worry, you are probably old enough you will)

I genuinely hope not. Not to be spiteful, but the faster it crumbles, the faster we can stop paying into it.

 

[davidd]

The above is an excerpt from the below linked article. It's a 2 year old article...but my point is that SS is not broke right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

Sure, it's not "broke" right now, but it's like you borrowed from your child's college savings fund to pay your house note, and left an IOU for your child's college education. That works great until the child is ready to go to college. And guess what? You suddenly don't have the cash flow to pay for your child's college AND your house note, which you still have, because you refinanced the loan every couple of years over and over...

And I do agree with you about stealth inflation. It is the only way the government can have any chance of covering up the mess they have made.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries. The American people will insist that Congress do what is needed for the program to pay full benefits and protect these benefits they were promised and have earned.

Another argument made by Social Security opponents to raise fear about the national debt is how much our government has borrowed from China. They never mention how much our government has borrowed from Social Security. In fact, the government has borrowed more from the Social Security surplus than it has from any other source in the world, including China. As a result, Social Security now "owns" nearly 18 percent of the federal debt, making it the largest single holder of US debt. The government owes almost twice as much to Social Security as it does to China and Hong Kong.
The above is an excerpt from the below linked article. It's a 2 year old article...but my point is that SS is not broke right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

....like I said....

 

[jcbvh]

With 17 trillion in interest debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liability and rising.... Social Security should be the last thing anyone on this board should be worrying about.

 

[davidd]

With 17 trillion in interest debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liability and rising.... Social Security should be the last thing anyone on this board should be worrying about.

That is exactly my point. In the grand scheme, there are no trust funds. There are no dedicated funding sources. When it gets to nut cutting time, it's going to be one small pool of income against an ocean of expenses. Everything else in the meantime is just an accounting maneuver.

 

[Jack]

With 17 trillion in interest debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liability and rising.... Social Security should be the last thing anyone on this board should be worrying about.

Isn't a huge chunk of that unfounded liability social security?

 

[jcbvh]

Isn't a huge chunk of that unfounded liability social security?

along with Medicare and Federal Pensions.

The Federal Pensions are almost criminal.

You want to see how the other side lives? Move to the DC/NVA/MD areas.

Dual 200k+ household incomes funded by we the taxpayer is common place.

 

[Leonidas]

The number is 127 trillion. 85 of that is SS.

I am surprised that anyone here would quote Huff & Puff as a credible source for reassurance that things aren't tooooo bad, as of now.

So, let's look at the authors........Senator Don Reigle and his wife, Lori Hanson Reigle.

He was a 5 term Minnesota senator with a quite liberal record. He was one of 2 of the Keating Five who was censured by the Ethics Committee for improper behavior regarding the Savings and Loan debacle of the 80's. As chairman of the Banking Committee, his cause celebre was "discrimination" in mortgage lending practices. So we can thank him for his part in forcing the industry to knowingly make millions of BAD loans to folks who didn't have a prayer of actually paying. This was the proximate cause of the sub-prime loan fiasco, hence the market collapse. Any of you under water on your mortgage, or just now getting your portfolio back in shape? Thank him. Finally, he endorsed BHO for President. The other guy who's telling us that everything is peachy, in spite of facts and logic.

His wife's professional past is as checkered as his.

Both are liars and manipulators of the highest order.

 

[corey d]

Ok Hot Shot. I am going to be one of those old guys in 5 years (I'll be 65). First Social Security is not an entitlement. It is money that I paid & my Employers also paid into the system. Liberals are trying to make it an entitlement (otherwise known as vote buying). The Social Security Monies were used as a slush fund thru the years by Politicians, they borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from the fund and never paid any back. Also most of us had retirement accounts (401's, IRA's, etc.) that went down the tubes with the Enron Scandal & the last time the market went to hell. Again most of this was allowed by our wonderful Politicians in D.C. I was fortunate in that I did not loose anything but many Old Folks lost everything. They will probably work until they die.

So Hot Shot think about what you are whining about before you put your foot in your mouth.

Im with you on this. I hate when people call Social Security and entitlement. When i used to try to argue with liberals, it was often about entitlements. I would argue that it sucks that we give away free money, welfare and food stamps to freeloaders, and they would come back with, "So you're calling people on social security freeloaders?" At that point, i knew that it was like trying to explain to an insane person how 2+2 doesn't equal a banana. And for the record, I'm not saying that everyone who goes on welfare or food stamps is freeloader, just a large percentage of them.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Im with you on this. I hate when people call Social Security and entitlement. When i used to try to argue with liberals, it was often about entitlements. I would argue that it sucks that we give away free money, welfare and food stamps to freeloaders, and they would come back with, "So you're calling people on social security freeloaders?" At that point, i knew that it was like trying to explain to an insane person how 2+2 doesn't equal a banana. And for the record, I'm not saying that everyone who goes on welfare or food stamps is freeloader, just a large percentage of them.

SS is an entitlement just like my VA disability check.

We can no longer afford either. (along with many other things)
And need to cut (not eliminate, Atleast not yet) it all.

 

[corey d]

SS is an entitlement just like my VA disability check.

We can no longer afford either. (along with many other things)
And need to cut (not eliminate, Atleast not yet) it all.

I agree that it is viewed as such, but to the people who have been paying into it their whole lives, its not. Sure, the money they are receiving is money that we are putting into it, but they paid for it. They are just lucky that they can get something out of it. I won't be able to get any of what I've been paying into my whole working life. If i were allowed to stop paying into it now, id let them keep what they already got from me. That would be better than what the reality will be.

 

[jcbvh]

SS is an entitlement just like my VA disability check.

We can no longer afford either. (along with many other things)
And need to cut (not eliminate, Atleast not yet) it all.

So why shouldn't the people who say have earned 106k yr. (thats a lot in LA considering the plant jobs with OT), and pay up to $16,000 a year into something; not expect something in return? ( I realize not every dollar of the 16k goes to SS, but you get the point)

A lot of us would say, I don't want SS just let me keep my 16k a yr so I can invest or spend as I wish.

And what about the 47% mooch class who don't pay anything yet get everything.

Your rant should be directed at them, not people who work and pay into something that they have no choice over.

The first step is term limits, and if your on the federal tit…YOU DONT GET TO VOTE!

 

[tom_h]

Wow!! I look to nobody for anything!! I have paid my dues and continue to pay even after my retirement account went belly up!! I am getting close to retirement and believe me, My social security is a lot less than I paid into it!!! I just pray it is there when I need it and also when all of you need it! Not every "old person" depends on others...

 

[tim9lives]

The number is 127 trillion. 85 of that is SS.

I am surprised that anyone here would quote Huff & Puff as a credible source for reassurance that things aren't tooooo bad, as of now.

So, let's look at the authors........Senator Don Reigle and his wife, Lori Hanson Reigle.

He was a 5 term Minnesota senator with a quite liberal record. He was one of 2 of the Keating Five who was censured by the Ethics Committee for improper behavior regarding the Savings and Loan debacle of the 80's. As chairman of the Banking Committee, his cause celebre was "discrimination" in mortgage lending practices. So we can thank him for his part in forcing the industry to knowingly make millions of BAD loans to folks who didn't have a prayer of actually paying. This was the proximate cause of the sub-prime loan fiasco, hence the market collapse. Any of you under water on your mortgage, or just now getting your portfolio back in shape? Thank him. Finally, he endorsed BHO for President. The other guy who's telling us that everything is peachy, in spite of facts and logic.

His wife's professional past is as checkered as his.

Both are liars and manipulators of the highest order.

You know...I kind of get a little amazed when I hear people say...Blame this guy for the collapse and credit crisis....or blame that program for the Wall Street mess.

Its way more complicated than just one person or one program. Bottom line is that at the time the US was closing manufacturing and offshoring tens of thousands of jobs. Globalization began and the world banking sector was awash in cash....cash being saved mainly by wealthy Asian nations.

Interest rates were low and investors all over the world were looking for higher returns. Big finance ruled. And some wall street wiz kids came up with the idea of that securitized mortgage debt paper in which they were able to package shitty credit mortgages with A+ paper.

The thought process was that by packaging it together...it would then be an A+ bond since it was also insured. Well....it of course was all crap.

And...to make it worse....ALL America had left was the housing sector. We no longer have a huge manufacturing base...but a new home building industry puts tons of people to work. Its just a huge home grown industry which really can't be off-shored.

So yes...there were Democrats who wanted to open the doors of home ownership to the poor. At the same time...so did the Republicans. No body wanted the home building boom to end. That was our economies crack. Its the big industry left in America.
And we were all addicted to it.....Everyone from the house contractors to the house flippers... to the realtors.. to the lumber yards... to the appliance manufactures.... to the mortgage bankers and Wall Street.

For what its worth...George Bush also wanted it to continue on....and in two of his last State of The Union Addresses....He specifically said he wanted to increase the rate of home ownership for the poor....since buying a home is the path out of poverty.

On October, 15, 2002, Bush announced a new national goal: "We have a problem here in America because fewer than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own their own home. That's a home ownership gap we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a home ownership gap. I set an ambitious goal: that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. And it's going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry."
Guess what guys....We are guilty of wanting the party to continue. And we all also benefit from the dollar being the worlds reserve currency. It supports this country's standard of living.

 

[tim9lives]

By the way...if both sides of the isle worked together...they could fix SS so that it will be there. That 87 trillion dollar number is a little misleading. I'll add...when it gets to entitlements...The place to start is welfare and unwed mothers having 5 and 6 babies with 5 or 6 different baby daddies.

It just BS. Most people I know....don't have a lot of children....BECAUSE THEY CAN"T AFFORD IT. I think the simple answer is this. After a person who needs state assistance has one baby and applies for assistance....They are sat down and explained. The State will help you with this child. BUT...since you can't afford to raise this child...AND you want help from the state....You MUST accept the fact that after the 1rst child on assistance....YOU GET NOTHING ELSE. And then Social services can educate them on birth control...maybe even offer a Norplant implant.
=========

Is Our Debt Burden Really $100 Trillion?

"Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs?" Chris Box and Bill Archer ask in the Wall Street Journal. The authors blame the U.S. government for using shoddy accounting and for misleading the American public on their finances. In fact, the most misleading thing about that $87 trillion is the way the figure is often used in the media.

(1) That's not our debt. Our $16 trillion in debt and our $87 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" represent two very different ideas: real past promises and projected future promises. Real past promises are, well, very real. We have to pay back our debt. Failing to do it would be an illegal and disastrous default. Unfunded liabilities are future promises, and, since they're not as real, we can change them whenever we want without destroying ourselves. For example, raising the taxable income ceiling and slowing the growth of benefits could reduce the Social Security gap to zero tomorrow.

And that's if there is a Social Security "gap" to begin with. Technically, it's not legal for Social Security to have "unfunded liabilities" since it can only pay as many benefits as it receives in earmarked taxes. Both it and Medicare hospital insurance are prohibited from spending money they haven't collected from specific revenue dedicated to their programs (i.e.: payroll taxes). It is impossible for either to technically be "unfunded", since they cannot legally outspend their funding.

(2) 75-year projections are scarier than they are informative. Seventy-five-year projections always sound gargantuan because, well, they're calculated over three-quarters of a century, which is an awfully long time to count anything. But here's the flip side: In 75 years, our economy will be massive. Growing slowly at a 2% annual average, our GDP would be $66 trillion in today's dollars in 2087. That's an incomprehensibly big number, too. Once you run out any number over 75 years, the mind starts to boggle. That's good for scaring people with mind-boggling numbers, but it's not so good for informing. When Republicans say unfunded liabilities come out to $520,000 per U.S. household, they're taking a figure from 2087 and dividing it over a 2012 population to exaggerate. Scary, to be sure, but not very informative.

(3) Projections can change fast. An unfunded liability is a projection, and projections shift all the time for two big reasons: (1) Circumstances change and (2) laws change. Let's take circumstances first: The shortfall in Medicare and Social Security is exquisitely sensitive to just about every demographic trend you can imagine, including longevity, immigration, income growth, and birth rates. Furthermore, it assumes that seven decades of innovation will do nothing to change the rate of health care inflation, which is a brave assumption. We know next to nothing about how medical inflation will change after this decade. The fact that actuaries pretend to know the future doesn't make them oracles. It just makes them dutiful actuaries.

Now, about our laws. Strictly speaking, the U.S. doesn't have an entitlement problem, or even a Medicare problem. Rather, we have a health care cost problem -- medical insurance and hospital costs and so on are getting expensive faster than our ability to pay for them. Medicare and Medicaid are part of this big expensive system. If we cut these programs without changing the system, we won't be "saving" money, so much as shifting costs to old folks, who will be forced to pay much more for their health care, or else see much worse coverage.

What can we do? We can get quantitative, and we can get creative. Getting quantitative means finding the fairest ways to raise revenue and cut benefits to close the foreseeable Medicare gap. Getting creative means firing a quiver of ideas at the health care inflation monster, like exchanges and advisory boards and innovation centers and laws nudging insurers to pay for health outcomes rather than gratuitous services.

Closing this liability gap -- whether it's $87 trillion or $8 trillion -- will require patience. The bad news is that none of these measures to fix our real problem (health care costs) will be easy, few of them will be initially popular, and most of them might not work. The good news is we have 75 years.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...es-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

 

[Nomad.2nd]

I agree that it is viewed as such, but to the people who have been paying into it their whole lives, its not. Sure, the money they are receiving is money that we are putting into it, but they paid for it. They are just lucky that they can get something out of it. I won't be able to get any of what I've been paying into my whole working life. If i were allowed to stop paying into it now, id let them keep what they already got from me. That would be better than what the reality will be.

No, NO ONE is "paying for" what is currently being STOLEN!
I don't care WHAT people view something as.... I'm concerned with reality.:


Now, lets say you get taken in by a "Nigerian type scam" to get a new car.


You wire your money to africa, and never see it, or your car again.


YOU are saying its perfectly fine to walk into the local dealership, take the keys from the hand of the owner, get into a car, and drive off.


You say "they paid for it"
I say they didn't, their money was stolen, and now they want to/are committing theft as well.




You want something (money) from me, but no one has paid me for it (despite your false claim.)




And you know it (see underlined)

So why shouldn't the people who say have earned 106k yr. (thats a lot in LA considering the plant jobs with OT), and pay up to $16,000 a year into something; not expect something in return? ( I realize not every dollar of the 16k goes to SS, but you get the point)

A lot of us would say, I don't want SS just let me keep my 16k a yr so I can invest or spend as I wish.

And what about the 47% mooch class who don't pay anything yet get everything.

Your rant should be directed at them, not people who work and pay into something that they have no choice over.

The first step is term limits, and if your on the federal tit…YOU DONT GET TO VOTE!

BECAUSE:
As I have said again, and again,and again!


THERE IS NO RETURN.


if there WAS.... I'd say "take it, and welcome"


But it DOESN'T EXIST! It was stolen before the people being stolen from now were even alive.


WHY do seniors want to steal from their grandchildren!?

(it is telling that each of you, admit you "want out"... You know the system is broken...)

 

[jcbvh]

No, NO ONE is "paying for" what is currently being STOLEN!
I don't care WHAT people view something as.... I'm concerned with reality.:


Now, lets say you get taken in by a "Nigerian type scam" to get a new car.


You wire your money to africa, and never see it, or your car again.


YOU are saying its perfectly fine to walk into the local dealership, take the keys from the hand of the owner, get into a car, and drive off.


You say "they paid for it"
I say they didn't, their money was stolen, and now they want to/are committing theft as well.




You want something (money) from me, but no one has paid me for it (despite your false claim.)




And you know it (see underlined)






BECAUSE:
As I have said again, and again,and again!


THERE IS NO RETURN.


if there WAS.... I'd say "take it, and welcome"


But it DOESN'T EXIST! It was stolen before the people being stolen from now were even alive.


WHY do seniors want to steal from their grandchildren!?

(it is telling that each of you, admit you "want out"... You know the system is broken...)

Of course it broken. What do you want to do? Revolt?

Besides ever since we went off the gold standard its all basically monopoly money.

Until we have term limits, and people who dont contribute anything stop voting for power drunk politicians who promise them everything for nothing. We are all doomed.

Invest in redneck metals,

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Of course it broken. What do you want to do? Revolt?

Besides ever since we went off the gold standard its all basically monopoly money.

Until we have term limits, and people who dont contribute anything stop voting for power drunk politicians who promise them everything for nothing. We are all doomed.

Invest in redneck metals,

nope.

War sucks.


However, as I said several pages back:

We need to revamp it, or it will be much worse for all of us.


Well, except for those who bleed the rest dry, and manage to die off first.
(yes, I know the politicians are primarily to blame, but they couldn't do it alone.)