Uncle Sam is Screwing Your Granny

Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.%0D\ %0D\ A little more than 58.7 million people receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. The average Social Security benefit is about $1,072 a month.%0D\ %0D\ There was no increase in monthly benefit payments in 2010. There will be no increase in 2011.%0D\ %0D\ In 2012 monthly deduction for Medicare coveage will be more than $250. %0D\ %0D\ Since charity begins at home consider helping grandparents who may have a tough time after they contributed to Social Security for decades.%0D\ %0D

• Does that mean I can stop?

• it''s been a long time . . .

• the gov''t uses a complicated formula to determine the COLA (cost of living allowance) for SSA beneficiaries. It is weighted in the gov''t''s favor (duh). The gov''t has been pretending that there is no inflation and therefore no COLA for the oldsters. Everytime I go to the store prices have gone up but there is no inflation?????%0D\ %0D\ REALLLLLY?%0D\ %0D\ thanks big O!

• This ''formula'' has been in use since the 70''s...blaming Obama is really way out of line...maybe it needs to be updated.....

• I saw a report on this on the news today. They cited examples of food items and other things which have actually gone down in price. They also looked at home values which have dropped considerably. Though, I don''t see how a plummeting home value saves the owner anything on mortgage costs and maintenance. Moreover, it decreases the amount of money that the owner can get out of in a direct sale or a reverse mortgage. I guess they were saying that if seniors needed to find different housing, it would be cheaper than before.\ \ I can''t believe I''m paying into this system when I''m going to get jack shit from it. Actually, I have no problem paying in to help today''s seniors, but not when I''m going to get fucked on the tail end.

• Some sources please, OP.%0D\ %0D\ [quote]Since 1996 the Medicare Part B premium for most beneficiaries has been set at 25% of the cost of Part B coverage. In 2009 the Part B premium is $96.40 per month... For some Medicare beneficiaries this 2009 value would hold steady through 2012 if, as CBO projects, the CPI-W stays below its peak over that period. This %E2%80%9Chold harmless%E2%80%9D provision applies to 75% of Medicare beneficiaries who have their Part B premium withheld from their Social Security check. The hold harmless rule is that the Social Security check after Medicare withholding cannot decrease. That limits the Medicare withholding increase to be no larger than the Social Security COLA. No COLA, no additional Part B premium.%0D\ %0D

  http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-inflation-means-for-social-security-and-medicare/

• I currently pay $111.00 a month for Medicare. It went up last year from $94.60. There is no fucking way they will raise it to $250.00 or more per month by 2012.

• My mother complained bitterly last year when she didn''t get a COLA. I told her I didn''t either, 10% of the country is out of work, and SS would be bankrupt by the time I get to retirement age even though I''ve been paying into it for 30 years.%0D\ %0D\ She was unfazed. I haven''t talked to her yet about this year. She''s probably apoplectic.

• Wait until they start cutting Social Security, as the country really has to.

• R9, no the country really doesn''t have to. That''s a stupid GOP talking point, and like all their ideas and proposals and talking-points, it has absolutely no real basis in fact.%0D

• Why would it go up? Houses, diamonds, caviar - so many things have come down in price.

  Michelle

• Granny has probably all gotten more money than she paid in.

  Sarah

• No, R10, it''s not. To balance our balances to reduce the debt because this country gets into serious trouble, we have to revisit the entitlement programs. \ \ When the retirement age of 65 was set, it was in a time when that was the average lifespan. We simply can''t afford to carry people for another 20+ years. It''s just reality.

• Silly r13, that''s what the death panels are for!

• R13 I would not consider Social Security an entitlement program. %0D %0D A very fair amount of our nation's seniors only have their Social Security and nothing more asides from their Medicare. %0D %0D You would be astonished as to how some of our nation's seniors oftentimes live, R13. %0D %0D But, they are truly entitled to their Social Security because they earned it. %0D %0D Meanwhile there are multi-generational welfare, section eight, and food stamp recipients (I am making reference to those who obtain all three generation after generation) who are literally enslaved to our government. The only way they could very well no longer be enslaved to our government would be if there were nice welfare to work programs where they could be weened the fuck off their true entitlement programs all across the board. %0D %0D So leave Social Security alone for God's sakes, R13.%0D %0D And yeah, I am also one of those folks who really wish that Obama focused on the economy and jobs prior to the healthcare bill. I hate to say that but there it is. %0D %0D

• R13, it''s clear you''ve drank the koolaid, but SS is not really the same thing as the budget. And all that''s needed to make it solvent is to raise the cap on the amount of income that is taxed. Done.%0D\ %0D\ It''s not a crisis. Not by any stretch of the imagination.%0D\ %0D

• R15, yes, they paid into it, and thought they would be protected.\ \ The reality is that SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, and are not going to last for much longer.\ \ The SSA uses the money collected from SS taxes to buy US Treasury bonds. As of 2010, they are now a net seller of bonds- that means that every dollar in benefits above what is collected by SS taxes raises the national debt, which is already skyrocketing due to illegal wars, government waste, systematic corruption, bank bailouts, useless social programs, lavish government pensions, corporate welfare, prior debt, etc.\ \ Since the USGov is broke, it will cut every expense it can, and that means gramma and papaw are going to have to cut WAY back.\ \ The only way to fix it is to destroy it. Tell everyone under 40 they are on their own, everyone under 50 they get 50%, 55 gets 65%, 60 gets 80%, and those over 60 are only getting minimal increases.

  Realist

• [quote]The reality is that SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, and are not going to last for much longer.%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ No, that''s the fringe right-wing talking point that they''re repeating over and over to get gullible tools like you to believe it... but it''s nothing close to reality.%0D\ %0D\ You should stop while you''re behind. And while you''re at it, turn off Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, all of FOX News, and stop poisoning your brain with this bullshit.%0D\ %0D

• You''re nuts R17. If the govt. ever tries to fuck with SS there will be a mass revolt. Stop with your inane scare tactics.

• [quote]I would not consider Social Security an entitlement program%0D\ %0D\ Social Security is by definition an entitlement program. You pay in and are "entitled" to draw it out when you retire or become disabled according to the Social Security Law. %0D

  http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program

• They will not cut it back to the level that would allow most to get on Medicaid. That''d be a whole new can of worms.

• The payments are indexed for inflation, but there hasn''t been any inflation.

• If you really want to crater the economy, and throw millions of elderly into abject poverty and homelessness ... go ahead and cut Social Security.%0D\ %0D

• It''s not incest as long as you''re talking about my father''s brother and my mom''s mom.

  Fannie Mae

• These retirees haven''t paid in a tenth of what they get back from Social Security and more importantly Medicare

• No inflation, no increase in payments.%0D\ %0D\ Next.

• [quote] The reality is that SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, and are not going to last for much longer.\ \ FReeper alert at R17. That''s their major talking point and the language they use.

• R27, I actually agree with the sentiment that SS is a Ponzi scheme. The money of current workers (investors) is being used to provide payouts to previous workers (investors). I''m 30 years old and I''m 99.9% confident that the money I''m paying into SS won''t be available when it''s my turn to collect. There''s nothing Freeperish about admitting the truth. \ \ All I, or anyone else around my age, can ask for is for a broken system to be fixed in a way that ensures everyone who pays into SS is taken care of. That''s not a Freeper sentiment--it''s just a matter of fairness.

• [quote]R27, I actually agree with the sentiment that SS is a Ponzi scheme.%0D\ %0D\ But it''s not.%0D\ %0D\ And it''s not the truth you''re admitting. It''s just a right-wing fringe talking-point you''re regurgitating.%0D\ %0D\ Fixing the problem is actually easy. The only difficulty is political, and the only reason there''s political difficulty is because of the success the Republicans have been having at selling the big lie that taxes should never ever go up, and that Social Security isnt'' a social safety net, necessary for a robust middle class and to keep senior citizens out of poverty, but a "ponzi scheme".%0D\ %0D\ Congratulations! You''re a gullible tool of the ultra wealthy who have managed to convince you to argue against your own best interests!%0D\ %0D

• The only people screwing the elderly are Republicans and Tea Partiers.%0D\ %0D\ The irony being so many people who vote Republican and claim to be members of the Tea Party are elderly.%0D\ %0D

• R29, you fucking idiot. Even Democrats admit that the Social Security program won''t be solvent in several more years. What the hell are you talking about? Why are you so threatened by acknowledging the truth? \ \ Sheesh, I probably shouldn''t get so worked up about this, but I hate it when feeble-minded people resort to baseless accusations instead of engaging in intelligent discussion.

• [quote] Even Democrats admit that the Social Security program won''t be solvent in several more years.\ \ No. No they don''t. More right-wing propaganda.

• A Ponzi scheme by its very definition is fraud. Social Security is not a fraud; everyone knows how it works as a pay-go system. Ergo, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

• I don''t want to cut social security but it should be made clear you would do a hell of a lot better on your own in a private account. Even a simple savings account.

• "but it should be made clear you would do a hell of a lot better on your own in a private account. "\ \ You are daft

  Market Investors of late

• [quote]Even Democrats admit that the Social Security program won''t be solvent in several more years. %0D\ %0D\ Sure. Blue-Dogs love to parrot the same lie.%0D\ %0D\ And yeah, if NOTHING CHANGES, there will be a solvency issue in dozens of years from now.%0D\ %0D\ So who says nothing has to change?%0D\ %0D\ Raise the cap on the social security tax a bit, and the short-fall is solved.%0D\ %0D\ What part of that (since this is at least the third time it''s been mentioned) aren''t you getting?%0D\ %0D

• Is that true, R34? I''d always heard people get much more out of SS and Medicare than they ever put into it.\ \ And can you imagine private accounts in the last decade? I don''t have to imagine it -- I''ve lived it.

• [quote]Sheesh, I probably shouldn''t get so worked up about this, but I hate it when feeble-minded people resort to baseless accusations instead of engaging in intelligent discussion.%0D\ %0D\ You must [italic]REALLY[/italic] hate yourself.%0D\ %0D\ [quote]you fucking idiot.%0D\ %0D\ Case in point.%0D\ %0D\ Hypocrite much?%0D\ %0D\ You''re ignorant and you''re a tool.%0D\ %0D

• [quote]but it should be made clear you would do a hell of a lot better on your own in a private account. %0D\ %0D\ Maybe for some few individuals. But for the most part, no, this is not true.%0D\ %0D

• R17 here-\ \ I''m shocked-SHOCKED-that anyone actually knows enough about the SS system to actually agree with me.\ \ There were 50 to 1 retirees when SS was founded. It''s down to 3 or 4 to 1. In a few decades it will be 1 to 1.\ \ That cannot last!\ \ Eliminate it, and tell people to save for their own damn retirement! How many failed socialist systems have to destroy entire countries before people realize IT NEVER WORKS???

• R40, you''re a fucking moron.%0D\ %0D\ You would plunge a quarter to a third of the country''s popularity into poverty? So cavalierly?%0D\ %0D\ Why are you so eager to have people [italic]gamble[/italic] on their retirement?%0D\ %0D\ You''re a brainwashed moron. Seriously. May you lose everything you have with one bad investment and have to live you entire twilight years living in a cardboard box eating catfood.%0D\ %0D

• "third of the country''s popularity "%0D\ %0D\ Sorry... third of the country''s population. Stupid auto-correct.%0D

• "Raise the cap on the social security tax a bit, and the short-fall is solved." For a few years. In a decade or so, the same problem will manifest. Simple economics. Reagan did it in the late 80s, and it worked for 2 decades. Now it's broken again. R35, if the government hadn't inflated the hell out of the money supply and caused all the "bubbles" ('net, property, housing, etc.) then the stock market would be stable. As it is, it is only a good source of money for the rich and politically connected. There was a story a few months ago, in the alternative press (naturally, since the NYTimes, CNN, FOX, etc. are bought and paid for by the big guys) comparing the returns for members of congress vs. the average. The normal investor returned 2-4% a year, while members of congress did 10-18%, and their staff benefited almost as handsomely. The catch? Since they get so much "insider information" in the normal course of business, SEC rules state they cannot be prosecuted for insider trading!!! The system is rigged for the benefit of the "elite" members of government and big business. The little guy is ALWAYS screwed.

  R17

• No, R41, you are the moron. If it were up to me, I would cut military spending by 95% and return all that money to SS to keep paying current retirees, and put a lump sum in individual accounts for everyone who ever paid into SS and THEN eliminate it. Then I would tell them to invest or spend it as they wished. If they blow it, fuck 'em- let them live on the streets. I'm nearly 40, and have paid well over 150K into SS since I started working. I could use it as a nest egg, or blow it. If I blow it, and live in poverty in old age, it's my fault. (Remember, you pay 7.5% of SS, and your employer deducts ANOTHER 7.5% from what he would have paid you in wages to pay SS) I would sell off all foreign military bases, and any foreign assets, to make up for any shortfall. I would return defense of the country to each state, period, since our constant bloody meddling and deadly interference in policing the world has done nothing but create resentment, hatred and fear. If Texas wanted to invade Afghanistan, let them do it! Do you understand any aspect of how government works?

  R17/R40

• "your employer deducts ANOTHER 7.5% from what he would have paid you in wages to pay SS"\ \ How naive of you to think that employers would just hand over that 7.5% to employees.\ \ How many bridges do you own, toots?

• [quote]If they blow it, fuck ''em- let them live on the streets%0D\ %0D\ See, that''s the part that makes you the fucking moron. Not just an idiot (since you cannot seem to fathom the consequences of doing that), but a callous unfeeling asshole and a selfish asshat.%0D\ %0D\ It''s fine until it''s someone you know. And they didn''t do anything wrong other than invest their money with a company or organization that invested in the next Bernie Maddoff.%0D\ %0D\ You don''t seem to understand the purpose and need for a social safety net you can DEPEND ON. That you don''t care about anyone else shows you to be a sort of psychopath.%0D\ %0D

• [quote]Do you understand any aspect of how government works?%0D\ %0D\ %0D\ I do. %0D\ %0D\ It''s clear you don''t.%0D\ %0D

• R46, the people who were scammed by Madoff were millionaires- exclusively.\ \ They thought they were getting a big check, but knew something was up. Read more about it- the actual losses were minimal compared to the constant raping our government gives us.\ \ R47, if you had a clue about how government worked, you wouldn''t defend it. It is greed, power, and hubris, all unchecked by morality, humility or conscience. They consider themselves gods- just look at the parades they throw for themselves, and the galas they broadcast for their benefit.\ \ When was the last time you saw a real businessman- not some banker, or other symbio-parasitic government suckup- throw a multimillion dollar celebration of how awesome they are?

  R17/40/44

• [quote]the people who were scammed by Madoff were millionaires- exclusively.%0D\ %0D\ Wrong.%0D\ %0D

• Wrong, R49. All of the victims were worth at least 1M.

• It took a few minutes, but here is the article.\ \ All the people who actually LOST MONEY (aka VICTIMS) were worth at least 1M. There were INVESTORS worth less, but they got back all they put in, and in 99% of cases MORE than they put in, but all of them were worth at least 1M.\ \ Have you ever been to Palm Beach? That was ground zero, and houses START in the 500K range, up to 50M.\ \ The Madoff scandal was big because powerful people got ripped off.\ \ The best part? The government agencies involved were warned FOR 10 YEARS that Madoff was scamming people, but since he was such a well-connected government insider, they squashed any investigation. Several low level staffers at the SEC were intimidated into silence by their bosses, and are now being threatened with lawsuits if they break confidentiality.\ \ That''s how government works, asshole.

  That guy

• link

  http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/02/membership-has-its-penalties.html

  that guy

• R4 is a major liar. Reagan's "social security fix" kept the cap and indexed social security to inflation. The result was such large growth that households over 65 showed 25% growth in real income in the 1980s and households under 25 a drop of 25% in real income. They robbed youth to pay off the old. Bush the elder asked an economist to figure out a way to reduce the reported inflation rate to which social security was indexed. The result was a series of changes implemented under Clinton and Bush II that reduced reported inflation to almost nothing. The result was that in both Clinton and Bush II administrations, growth was overreported (nominal GDP=real GDP + inflation, so reduce inflation and real GDP looks bigger than it is). Thus we were told that the economy grew 19% in Bush's first term, 9% inflation and 10% growth. But food and energy were excluded from inflation, and so was the rise in housing prices (reduced rents and mortgage expenses were included as declines, however), and a number of non-cash adjustments were introduced such as "hedonic pricing" and "imputed prices." In truth, if inflation were reported the same was as it was in 1981, there would have been negative GDP growth reported during Bush's two terms. And if it had been reported that way all along, social security payments would be on the order of 70% higher today than they are. Of course they are relatively generous today even so, so it is not time to wring your hands over the elderly in comparison to everyone else in society. But a gigantic fraud has been perpetrated on EVERYONE by a government trying to evade its financial obligations by accounting fraud.%0D %0D

• R53, have you read any of the other posts? \ \ Who cares what happened 30 years ago- it won''t change what IS happening today!\ \ Or are you just posting useless esoteric shit to distract from the real conversation?\ \ Are you Paul Krugman?\ \ Seriously. The only other "economist" I know that pulls that shit is The Krug!

• I have a neighbor who is in the U.S. illegally. Her husband died last year and she collects SSI for her two pre-teen-age "anchor babies".\ \ An old acquaintance (I went to school with her kid) collects SSI for mental illness (she checked herself into a world class hospital for the required documents), after her child support payments from a rich ex ran out. She has never worked a day in her life.\ Another works as a home chef four days a week (off the books), drives an Audi, feeds her dog lamb roasts and organic chicken and recently went from collecting food stamps and general relief to collecting SSI.\ \ That''s one of the reason''s grannies might have to eat dog food! SSI is sucking money from the SS system. It''s a welfare system that has nothing to do with any money any of these people "payed into" anything. If I know of 3 people who are doing this it must be pretty wide spread.

• R17/40/44 is a Libertarian, which makes him an insane moron. Please feel free to ignore anything else he has to say.

• I am living on $1240 per month from Social Security.%0D\ %0D\ It is my main source of income. Take it away from me and I have nothing to live on.%0D\ %0D\ Which is true of millions of americans.%0D\ %0D\ I do have some 401(k) money, but one has no idea how long one may live (how many years do I have left before I die) so one has to be severly conservative in spending one''s 401(k) money in order to try to make it last until death.

• R55, whenever a system of "social security" is spread broadly and administered from afar, then people will always take advantage and "game the system". I doubt anyone here can honestly say they''ve never met someone who wasn''t "cheating the system" in some way.\ \ "Fixing" SS would require it all to be devolved to the local area, but our masters in DC don''t want that- it takes away their power to get votes!

  r17,etc

• If anyone in Washington actually listened to Paul Krugman, we''d be in a hell of a lot better shape today. The man is smart and the man has been right about so much.%0D\ %0D\ I have to wonder about all the right-wing and libertarian crap being posted in here as if it were true.%0D\ %0D\ So many people just buy the "big lies".%0D\ %0D

• R54=moron who did not read my post and missed how grandma would be getting 70% more every month if the government didn''t lie about inflation. true, i digressed into the fact that the economy is currently reported as growing and was reported as growing throughout the george w. bush years EVEN THOUGH IT IS AND WAS SHRINKING by the standards of 1982, making this a longer depression than the one in the 1930s. And don''t forget in the 1930s most Americans were still in the orbit of agriculture and the government put in huge price supports of agricultural products which helped the majority of the public. Nothing so socialistic is contemplated today, and certainly nothing that would affect the majority of the population.

• R55, who certainly should have reported their two rich fraud friends, isn't making much sense either. %0D %0D If the 'anchor babies' are receiving SS Death Benefits, it's because the deceased father had paid in enough to Social Security to have earned those benefits for his children.%0D %0D I've never met anyone who collected SSI, so apparently the not-rich folks I know are a lot more honest than the rich assholes you know.%0D %0D ............. %0D %0D What is Supplemental Security Income (SSI)?%0D %0D The SSI program provides monthly income to people with limited income and financial resources who are age 65 or older, blind or disabled. %0D %0D In January 2010 the SSI payment is $674 per month and $1,011 per month for an eligible couple.%0D %0D To get SSI, your financial resources (savings and assets you own) cannot exceed $2,000 ($3,000 if married).%0D %0D Generally, to be eligible for SSI, an individual also must be a resident of the United States and must be a citizen or a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence.%0D %0D ............%0D %0D Eligibility of children on a deceased parents record.%0D %0D My spouse recently died. Are our children, ages 11 and 14, eligible for Social Security benefits?%0D %0D Possibly. It depends on whether he or she had enough work credits to be insured. If so, your children may be eligible for benefits.%0D

• "When the retirement age of 65 was set, it was in a time when that was the average lifespan. We simply can't afford to carry people for another 20+ years. It's just reality."%0D %0D You're actually completely wrong. Life expectancies haven't changed all that much in the last 100 years. What has changed is the infant/child mortality rate. Those deaths of the young skewed the numbers before things like vaccines and sterile births were commonplace. Once a person reached adulthood, even 50-80 years ago, they were likely to live well past 65. If you have a family album, take a look at the pictures that date back a few generations. Notice all the really old people in them? Our adult life expectancies have not dramatically changed since the beginning of Social Security.%0D %0D As far as you fuckers who want to raise the retirement age or let grandma live on the street, I suppose you're completely against the removal of the cap on SS contributions, right? Right now, someone who makes $102,000 a year pays the exact same amount into SS as someone making $25 million a year. Fucking ridiculous. Remove that idiocy and, poof, completely solvency and then some. In fact, I think we could probably fund silly things like national health care with the collected money even after completely fulfilling the SS obligations. But, of course, we have to protect those rich people who presently pay about 4% in taxes due to all those convenient loopholes.%0D %0D Rich people make me sick. Greedy bastards, all of them.%0D %0D

• So much psychosis on this thread. Let me address one--the fucked up concept that you'd do "better" with a private account.%0D %0D Morons like to think of SS as a retirement account, which it is not. It is a generational transfer of funds. So, first, before you get to deposit any money into your private account, you get to write a big check to your grandparents. Why? Because they already paid for their parents' retirement in exchange for a contract guaranteeing them a check. Try to break a contract like this in court. So, first off, big check to the grandpeeps.%0D %0D Next, pay the premium on a disability insurance policy. SS pays disability benefits to the sick and injured. That'll set you back another $50 a month, minimum, for a current payout of $1500.%0D %0D Now, if you have kids, throw in a term life insurance policy. Children received benefits to the age of 18 if a wage earner dies. %0D %0D Now, after all of that, take whatever's left, and throw that into something as safe and guaranteed as SS--by definition, government bonds. 30 year bonds are paying a little under 4%. Your money will double in slightly under 18 years. And your employer? Bitch, please. There's no way you get that 7.65.%0D %0D So, if you make $100k a year and are 30 years old, you have $7600 a year to play with. $3k of that goes to the elderly; that leaves you $4600. You buy disability insurance; that's another $600. Now you have $4k. Assuming you're not breeding (because hope springs eternal--you're far too stupid to be in a successful gene pool), we can set aside your term life policy. %0D %0D Now, you have $4k a year to invest for 35 years! That sounds like a lot of money. Except now you need to guarantee that you'll get the same payout for the rest of your life. Assuming your sad little existence continues for 25 years, you'd need to buy an annuity for $900k to guarantee the $6500 monthly payout (current maximum adjusted for inflation) you'd have received under SS. %0D %0D To earn that much, compounded monthly, you'd have to receive roughly 8% interest annually. Over any 35 year period between 1872 and 2000, the stock market averaged an annual return of 6.2%. This assumes, of course, that the market will meet these historical markers during a period when the country's economy is not on the rise, but in decline. And your investment is grossly less safe, as noted, because SS only invests in Treasury bills. You'd have to do way, way better than the market to get even close to a SS payout. You aren't exactly Warren Buffett, either. %0D %0D And I hope, for your sake, that you die at or before 91, because, unlike SS, that annuity is over after 25 years. To guarantee a lifetime payout, you'd have to have a lot more.%0D %0D Not to let math stand in the way of your little fantasies, bagger freak, but you'd have to be a financial genius to beat your SS payout. And anyone as stupid as you is probably buying gold from Glenn Beck (not to mention NOT making $100k a year currently.) %0D

• R34 >>I don't want to cut social security but it should be made clear you would do a hell of a lot better on your own in a private account. Even a simple savings account%0D %0D %0D %0D Bullshit.I think simple savings accounts are paying 2%.The majority of this country are stupid, uneducated, and gullible can not and should not be trusted to make their own decisions on investing their social security. Remember in the 1990's when a lot of people thought they would become millionaires from day trading. You have to know what you are doing when investing money. I'll be the first person to admit that I don't know enough about investing and neither does 95% of the country%0D %0D %0D %0D If 9/11 hadn't happened bu$hCo would have succeeded with their private SS account scheme. Can you imagine how many people would have lost most of their money. guiliani actually bought/formed an investment company to cash in on it. What does he know about investing? All he knew is that he could make a fortune bilking people out of fees%0D %0D %0D %0D Social Security isn't the real problem, Medicare is. You have no idea how much medical care costs. People don't pay a tenth of what they get out of medicare.%0D %0D %0D %0D

• "Morons like to think of SS as a retirement account, which it is not. It is a generational transfer of funds."\ \ R63- \ \ You are completely correct, and the fact that you can''t see that your assessment leads to fiscal disaster is astonishing. Anyone that smart and clueless must be a Yale or Harvard grad.\ \ If the population was continuing to grow, and earn, at the same pace indefinitely, intergenerational transfer payments could continue.\ \ HOWEVER, our population is aging, and transferring more wealth to the elderly at an increasing and UNSUSTAINABLE rate. Actuarial demographic extrapolation is undeniable. We have more and more SS recipients, and fewer workers paying for them.\ \ It must end, because there is no way for the current payers to continue to support it without eventually taking ALL of our earnings in taxes, leaving everyone in poverty.\ \ See how simple it is? WAKE UP!!!

  Ugh, I''m going back to bed- I hate jet lag

• The octomom collects SSI for some of her children because they have mental disabilities (ADD and/or developmental problems). I''ll bet her newest litter of kids will also have developmental issues and mental disabilities

• Re: Octomom, at least one of her children is autistic. It''s not clear that the other one or two (depending upon which article) will be able to keep collecting SSI or are still collecting it now, unless it''s under rules and programs more generous in California than the feds.%0D\ %0D\ Agree, it wouldn''t surprise me if there are additional disabilities. She''s a mess.%0D\ %0D\ It also wouldn''t surprise me if further applications from her are scrutinized much more closely, given her notoriety.

• People who have children in the U.S., but are not here legally can still collect SSI for their kids.\ That is totally fucked.\ Enough that they can get food stamps or whatever, but that they can also drain the SS system is too much.\ Most people who are "plugged into" the system understand that General Relief (for poor adults) \ only pays a couple of hundred a month, but SSI pays over $800-$900 a month per person.

• SSI is paid from the general tax fund not from the Social Security trust fund idiot R68. It is administereed by Social Security but it is NOT paid out of the SS trust fund.

  SSA admin

• Wrong R68. Any in the country who gets SSI gets the same amount ($674.00/mo). \ \ Also all SSI recipients are automatically placed on Medicaid (which is run by their state of residence - not the Federal Govt.). Those on Medicaid also get their Medicare premiums paid by Medicaid so health care for those folks is almost completely free as Medicaid is their "medigap" coverage that takes care of most of the charges that are not covered by Medicare as well as the Medicare co-pay.

• R70, states like CA, NY, MA and others add money to SSI checks. It is called state supplement. So, when residents of those states get their checks, they are in fact larger than $674/ month. The fed amount is the same in all states but the actual check amount varies due to state supp (which states are mostly phasing out due to the economy).

  SSA admin

• As someone up-thread pointed out, R63 gives an excellent, correct description of SS. However, he fails to follow his decription thru to its end: financial disaster. %0D\ %0D\ You just cannot continue paying out money if less and less is coming in.

• r20, Giving TracFones to people on welfare paid for by taxpayer is an "entitlement" program. Social Security was paid into by the people who receive benefits.

• R72, you're an ignorant ranting conspiracy freak, and you really need to get help. Seriously.%0D %0D And to another comment from above: "I think simple savings accounts are paying 2%." ... actually, you're lucky to find a CD that would pay that much. Most simple savings accounts are paying much, MUCH less than that right now. Like a faction of one percent. Some on-line banks and "money markets" will pay somewhere around that, but that's not quite the same, or quite as safe.%0D %0D Anyway, there is no looming crisis. Yes, the population is aging. So lift the cap on the amount you pay SS taxes on, and you are solvent for another couple of generations. After that, the aging of the population as a whole will likely stabilize or reverse. Anyway, it's pretty simple here... if birth rates aren't enough, you bring in more young immigrants. Another key part is to STOP SHIPPING JOBS OVER-SEAS. The more jobs we have in this country, the more people and employers we have paying into the fund.%0D %0D The point is, SS isn't a ponzi scheme, isn't a tower about to collapse, IS workable, and IS necessary for a functioning, sane, modern, civil society.%0D %0D Those that would abandon the elderly to the winds of fate after a lifetime of work and contributing to society are cruel, inhuman psychopaths.%0D %0D

• R73 is clearly lacking basic language skills.

• My granny is dead. Uncle Sam is a necrophiliac!

• WTF is that tinhat freak ranting about @R73???

• R53 and R63, thank you.

• Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their Social Security checks increase.%0D %0D The government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975.%0D %0D "I think it's disgusting," said Paul McNeil, 69, a retired state worker from Warwick, R.I., who said his food and utility costs have gone up, but his income has not. He lamented decisions by lawmakers that he said do not favor seniors.%0D %0D "They've got this idea that they've got to save money and basically they want to take it out of the people that will give them the least resistance," he said.%0D %0D Cost-of-living adjustments are automatically set by a measure adopted by Congress in the 1970s that orders raises based on the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. If inflation is negative, as in 2009 and 2010, payments remain unchanged.%0D %0D Still, seniors like McNeil said they'll be thinking about the issue when they go to vote, and experts said the news comes at a bad time for Democrats already facing potentially big losses in November. Seniors are the most loyal of voters, and their support is especially important during midterm elections, when turnout is generally lower.%0D %0D "If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.%0D %0D

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_no_cola

• Well, these old people need to stop voting republican then. Republicans want to eliminate or drastically cut benefits. %0D\ %0D\ You can''t whine about "no cost of living increase" this year, and still vote Republican.%0D\ %0D\ Yet I''d bet most of these ass-hats whining are Tea Party members.%0D\ %0D

• For what, R72? Giving you false hope that SS will still be around when you retire?\ \ It''s going to fail, sooner rather than later. The sooner it goes, the less the damage.\ \ Re-read the reply at R65 very carefully- unless SS taxes are raised to 30%+ of income (which will drive even more companies and individuals out of the country into lower tax climates, a trend that is increasing quickly) it will bankrupt us. Simple economics.

• [quote]unless SS taxes are raised to 30%+ of income (which will drive even more companies and individuals out of the country into lower tax climates, a trend that is increasing quickly) it will bankrupt us.\ \ Even simpler economics -- raise the cap on SS taxes and the system immediately becomes solvent for generations. As someone who earns more than the capped amount (though not by all that much), I think it''s ridiculous that I don''t have to pay on the extra amount.

• Yes, it''s quite amazing that people like Bill Gates and T. Boone Pickens and, yes, Meryl Streep all will get (or already do) Social Security payments that they don''t even need, when there are millions of other people out there who need these payments desperately.%0D\ %0D\ Since SS taxes are deduced only on the first $106,000 of yearly income, that means that most of us on here are taxed on 100% of our salary, whereas people like the abovementioned individuals are only taxed on a very miniscule $106,000. It''s really outrageous.

• [quote]Yes, it''s quite amazing that people like Bill Gates and T. Boone Pickens and, yes, Meryl Streep all will get (or already do) Social Security payments that they don''t even need, when there are millions of other people out there who need these payments desperately.%0D\ %0D\ You do realize that our country is ruled by multi millionaires, right? Almost everyone in Congress is wealthy. How much do you think the wealthy care about the poor?

• You can''t take social security away from people under 40 and give them nothing. You give them a forced saving plan that earns 5% (not off private investments either) but they can''t touch it for x years to give the government a chance to make that money to give them.

• And then social security becomes a welfare program only for the very poor.%0D

• "Well, these old people need to stop voting republican then. Republicans want to eliminate or drastically cut benefits."%0D\ %0D\ Concerning this, can someone explain to me why the Obama Administration didn''t hold off on this wonderful announcement for, oh, about another three weeks? I mean, lose the paperwork or delay the report, etc. Anything to not have this news come out right before a fucking election. Morons.

• Is she getting it up the ass like me?

• I actually hope the Republicans really go after Social Security, and do it ASAP after this year''s election. That''ll be the end of this little "Tea Party" experiment.

• Holy shit, my Mom''s medicare premiums are going down next year!

• The parents of a co-worker who is a naturalized citizen arrived from Russia.%0D\ Soon after they began collecting monthly benefits from the government. Anyone how they worked the system?

• [quote]Is that true, [R34]? I'd always heard people get much more out of SS and Medicare than they ever put into it. And can you imagine private accounts in the last decade? I don't have to imagine it -- I've lived it. You do get more than you put into it but you would get more at the end if you were allowed to make mandatory contributions to certain types of accounts. The same amounts you would be required if you were putting it into SSI. I have a 401K and it hasn't gone down one bit. I wish I could put more into it. Of course all my funds are allocated to long term investment type accounts. If you were allowed to put it into a simple savings account, bonds, and additional 401K, and IRA, CDs. etc etc you would be much better off. But I would still want an SSI type program for those who would never have a lot to invest or didn't feel they could manage it. SSI is most certainly not the biggest bang for your buck and their are lots of low risk ways to invest that money. Like I say though you contributions would be mandatory and untouchable(except to move around to approved account types) until you retire.

• r92, nobody pays into SSI. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is a welfare program which is administered by the Social Security Admin but it has NOTHING to do with your Social Security contributions. I think you are confusing SSI (title XVI of the Social Security law) with Social Security Retirement (title II of the SS law). They are NOT the same thing at all.

  tired of saying it

• I just meant to type Social Security. Sorry for the error but the fact remains you could do better on your own.

• [quote] the fact remains you could do better on your own.%0D\ %0D\ Yeah. That''s why everyone''s 401Ks are in such GREAT shape right now.

• "But I would still want an SSI type program for those who would never have a lot to invest or didn't feel they could manage it. %0D %0D SSI is most certainly not the biggest bang for your buck and their are lots of low risk ways to invest that money. Like I say though you contributions would be mandatory and untouchable(except to move around to approved account types) until you retire."%0D %0D And, what exactly would happen to those who lost everything after choosing to go it on their own for retirement investing? This country wouldn't let them starve to death or live in the street so they would benefit from everyone else who has contributed. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The only way I'd go for a voluntary opting out of Social Security is if it came with a contract that the person had to sign that bound them to kill themselves if, after age 65, they find themselves without the means to support themselves. %0D %0D Otherwise, people will keep their money for themselves while they are young and still suck off the public teat when they run out of money because their investments went to shit. There may be low risk investments they could make but there are no 'no-risk' investments they can make. Social security is a no-risk investment for everyone. Get rid of the cap on contributions and everyone is paid for forever, no problem.%0D %0D

• Listen to R92. He is very wise.

  Bernie Madoff

• Thanks, OP, for giving me the visual of my Uncle Sammy butt-fucking my Grandma Smitty.\ \ Fuck you asshole.

• Can the privatization asshole please answer R96?

• "I have a 401K and it hasn''t gone down one bit."\ \ You are either lying or you do not understand what you''re looking at. The stock market fell 40%, it is impossible that your 401K was unaffected, no matter how "safe" your funds are. The stock market has to rise 80% from its recent floor just so investors will break even. It is nowhere near that. \ \ You''re also lying when you write, "If you were allowed to put it into a simple savings account, bonds, and additional 401K, and IRA, CDs. etc etc you would be much better off."

• That''s just plain WRONG, R81.\ \ Virtually every 401k plan has money market and bond options. Both would have increased (bonds dramatically) from 2008 levels.

• All Presidents have taken money from SS for projects and left I.O.U.''s. If the government would pay that money back, instead of 50 billion for bank bailouts in Afghanistan SS wouldn''t have a problem. Just how much does the government owe SS?

• [quote]You are either lying or you do not understand what you're looking at. The stock market fell 40%, it is impossible that your 401K was unaffected, no matter how "safe" your funds are. The stock market has to rise 80% from its recent floor just so investors will break even. It is nowhere near that Oh go fuck yourself. I have three degrees in three different languages and one of them is Accounting. My 401K has done nothing but go up in the 8 years I've had it since I graduate college and started working here. Granted it's growth the last nearly two years is hardly substantial, maybe even minuscule, but it hasn't gone down one bit. For you to say that you wouldn't absolutely do better on your own making wise, long-term financial planning decisions is ridiculous. If you want you should be able to opt out. However, like I said before, even though it wasn't SS the contributions would be mandatory until your retirement. Also as I've said before it would be a voluntary opt out and a SS program should still exist as I understand there are people who need a state appointed nanny. Just because these people need a nanny because they can't make informed, proper decisions is no reason why my standard of living should be lowered to theirs instead of theirs raised to mine. I understand your need to defend SS. I don't want people getting old and living on nothing or starving. I still want SS to exist. I also want an opt out option. No matter what you may try to bring up the facts are simple and provable that you would do better on your own. Your political beliefs cannot erase financial realities. A simple savings account, with the same amount you pay to SS over the years, would leave you with more money at your retirement. Maybe slightly more but other investment options would leave you with a significant amount more. Unchain your investment strategies from the stock market. It is not the only place to invest.

• So it takes 3 degrees in order to have a safe 401K, R103? Well how is that going to affect the average American? I''m sure all you wealthy Repugs will come out okay when you do away with Social Security. But most of us will not be so fortunate.

• [quote]So it takes 3 degrees in order to have a safe 401K, [R103]? Well how is that going to affect the average American? I'm sure all you wealthy Repugs will come out okay when you do away with Social Security. But most of us will not be so fortunate. I brought up my degrees to counter your ridiculous insult that I might not be understanding what I'm reading. Wealthy repugs? This goes to my point that your arguments for SS to remain as it is are politically based and not financially based. Well OK. But me a wealthy republican? Please I had four small jobs before I was 14. At age 14 I became old enough to work agricultural jobs and had two paper routes I did in the morning and then picked tobacco. That was in the summer. During the fall I could only work tobacco on the weekends, that included hanging and stripping it. I used to make nearly $200 a week. A lot for a poor kid my age. Yes even in this day and age you can get a job picking tobacco until your hands bleed. So fuck you I'm not a rich anything. I came from a dirt poor family and earned every last thing I have. I can do better on my own and should have the right. Do you have any other defense or argument besides calling my a repuke or something along those lines? If not I'll stop checking in. I should be able to control my own money I earned until the day I die without waiting by the mailbox the first of the month waiting for the government to dole out pittance that I already earned. Or debating, through a COLA, how much of my money I might need this month.

• I didn''t insult you. Learn to use trolldar.

  R104

• "I have three degrees in three different languages and one of them is Accounting. My 401K has done nothing but go up in the 8 years I''ve had it since I graduate college and started working here. Granted it''s growth the last nearly two years is hardly substantial, maybe even minuscule, but it hasn''t gone down one bit."%0D\ %0D\ Are any of those languages English? Good lord. %0D\ %0D\ Anyone want to wager that the dumbass is counting his contributions when he says it has done nothing but go up? He''s not actually earning anything but his continued contributions make it look like it goes up and he just can''t actually read the form. %0D

• R102 = Freeper Troll

• Unfortunately R102 is absolutely correct, freeper or not.

• Are drugs and food not counted in COLA math? How ridiculous to say that the actual prices of things haven''t gone up. Yeah, computers and electronics are cheaper but try to buy some food or drugs on the same money you had two years ago and you''re screwed.

• Austerity US style.

• Drugs and food are counted in CPI calculations, though seniors might spend more of their income on those items than the general population. Housing prices, including rent, have been flat to down over the last few years. Seniors are doing comparatively better than young people in this economy.

• R112, see the link for how drug costs are calculated for the CPI. Not pretty.

  http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifact4.htm/

• No matter how long a person has contributed to SS during their work days, it is usually nothing near the amount they actually receive in benefits in their lifetime. If people would get back to the reason SS was intiated, it was meant to be a SUPPLEMENT to your own pension, it was never meant to be the only source of retirement income. So, before everyone goes bashing the government, lets look at how we and our parents have helped themselves to prepare for retirement. The reason this country is in so much trouble is that we as Americans have not held our part of the bargain and have become too reliant on government to bail us out.

• r114 it is also corporations gradually killing off all pensions that is part of the problem.

• The government changed the way it counts inflation in order to stop giving COLA to old people. This happened under the impetus of George W. Bush, it was decided historically inflation has been overstated in the US, and non-cash adjustments were made, and energy and food eliminated from the relevant index, to make the government not pay. If they hadn't done this, everyone receiving social security, would be making 75% more than they are now. And since they used inflation as a subtraction to growth, we would see more clearly America's declining growth since the 1990s.

• you cannot save for retirement when your wages aren't enough to pay your bills. real wages have been going down since the 80's, so to blame seniors is ridiculous. if there was no income cap on SS contributions, the fund would be solvent and payments could realistically rise to provide enough for a senior to actually live on. but god forbid we make mitt and the waltons and the kochs- who WILL NEVER WANT FOR ANYTHING IN THEIR OLD AGE- pay a teeny tiny percentage of their income in FICA so old people don't starve or end up homeless.

• [quote]The government changed the way it counts inflation in order to stop giving COLA to old people. This happened under the impetus of George W. Bush, it was decided historically inflation has been overstated in the US, and non-cash adjustments were made, and energy and food eliminated from the relevant index, to make the government not pay. If they hadn't done this, everyone receiving social security, would be making 75% more than they are now. And since they used inflation as a subtraction to growth, we would see more clearly America's declining growth since the 1990s. yeah, energy and food costs shouldn't be part aof a COLA index- what elderly person eats or heats their home?

• "if there was no income cap on SS contributions, the fund would be solvent " True.

• R117, the main reason real wages have fallen since the 70s is the constant devaluation of the dollar coupled with the export of jobs to low wage countries that buy US Gov debt. Raising the wage limit wouldn't change anything- people making over 125K a year would just find ways around the higher taxes. You cannot continue to pay more money out than you take in, especially in a Ponzi like Social InSecurity. If I could take the 13.3% I pay for SS and Medicrap and invest it, I could pay for my own goddamn insurance and welfare, and still give enough to charity to make up for idiots too stupid to save for their old age (or who got screwed by the banks and the government because they trusted them not to fuck up the money supply, start wasteful wars, drive business out of the country, etc) then everyone in the whole country would be far better off. Well, except the bankers and their pet politicians, like O'Romney.

• "f I could take the 13.3% I pay for SS and Medicrap and invest it, I could pay for my own goddamn insurance and welfare, and still give enough to charity to make up for idiots too stupid to save for their old age" invest it in something safe like CD's that make 2% interest? or give it to wall street for them to gamble and LOSE with? millions of seniors would be SCREWED with your plan, not to mention the 100 million americans who work for low, part time wages who could no more put away 7.65% of their earnings than open a bank account in the cayman islands. they simply don't earn enough to pay for food, shelter and necessities to put aside *anything*.

• Boohoo. Granny's got more than what they paid into and at least they're getting something. I'd be getting shit when I retire

• "Raising the wage limit wouldn't change anything- people making over 125K a year would just find ways around the higher taxes." - Not really R120

• r117 If someone does not earn enough to pay their bills, chances are they are living above their means. I some cases, for the very low income population, I can see it. Many of that population are receiving some sort of government assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, low income housing. However,for the most part, that "middle class" is still living in a nice house, with two cars, vacations, private colleges for their kids and plenty of credit card debt. I also see some of them borrowing the equity for their home to give their darling children a 70K wedding. That's one of the main reasons people don't have enough to pay bills, they are paying credit card and home equity loans. I live in an average suburban community outside of NYC. I see it all around me, people going to Whole Foods instead of Shop Rite, going to Macy's instead of Target, driving a BMW SUV and using credit cards to buy home theaters and the like. I don't feel sorry for these people. They can easily put some $ away for retirement instead of over spending and then criticizing the government for not helping them. My parents paid their mortgage off in 15 years by not living that way. We would have a modest vacation for 3-4 days at the shore or camping. We had one car and we all rode our bikes to get anywhere. We didn't go to Cold Stone Creamery for ice cream, dropping $25 bucks for 3 cones. We bought ice cream at the supermarket and that's how we lived. My parents retired and with their modest blue collar work pensions and a less modest SS check, they lived comfortable lives. No one today wants to make those sacrifices.

• R121, let me explain this very simply. You, me and everyone else (except the really rich, who pay virtually nothing) pay around 13.3 percent (when you add what employers pay) for SS&Medi. Every check. If that money was given to each of us to save, spend or burn as we see fit, many would use it to buy drugs or bigger cars, many more would use it to fund current expenses, and a large minority would save it for the future. Of course, the majority of the latter are already saving, since they know SS is a joke for anyone under 50. If you or your children are starving at 25 years old, then using it for food is wise. Too bad the government "saves" it for you by giving it away to other people each month, and just prints more IOUs and borrows more dollars to cover it. That might have an impact on CD rates, and inflation, and why big corps have HQs overseas, and the reason wages have fallen in the US since the 70s. You know, right after the gold standard was abolished.

• [quote]I see it all around me, people going to Whole Foods instead of Shop Rite, going to Macy's instead of Target, driving a BMW SUV and using credit cards to buy home theaters and the like. I don't feel sorry for these people. r124- you are incredibly stupid and myopic. 42 million americans live below the poverty line; an additional 50 million live near it, and can't pay their bills. these people have never even been inside a whole foods; can't afford ANY car, much less an SUV and going to target is a rare luxury- again, they've probably never purchased anything at macy's in their lives. unlike your blue-collar parents who had employer pensions to supplement their SS, these people have never had jobs that even offer pensions, much less benefits, and they aren't living above their means, they are not even scraping by. they don't go to the doctor, can't afford to have their teeth cleaned by a dentist, and many have never even purchased a new pair of shoes, having to rely on charity and thrift stores for used. as a vacation? WTF is that? they've never been to the shore or camped- both those activities take MONEY which they need for food, shelter, electricity, etc... you need to get out of your suburban bubble and realize that there is SYSTEMIC, HOPELESS, GRINDING, POVERTY all across this nation, and the people who are trapped in it are NOT responsible for their birth or lot in life, just as the people born into wealth didn't do anything special to win the genetic lottery. it is our responsibility as a society to provide for them, to educate them, and hopefully someday have a system that allows them to move up and out of subsistence level living.

  oh%2C%20and%20FUCK%20YOU%2C%20YOU%20ARROGANT%20ENTITLED%20FUCK.%20you%20are%20as

• You all do realize the Supreme Court has already ruled... Individuals have no legally enforceable right to Social Security benefits. In the case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” Further, “It is apparent that the NON-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.” Supreme Court 1954.

• R125 - The reason that real wages have fallen is not because we are off the gold standard. There are several reasons, including the decline in the strength of unions, the decline in the real min. wage, the govt's emphasis toward business owners and away from labor, etc.

• The gun nuts are shooting all the wrong people.

• [quote] . However,for the most part, that "middle class" is still living in a nice house, with two cars, vacations, private colleges for their kids and plenty of credit card debt. I also see some of them borrowing the equity for their home to give their darling children a 70K wedding. I don't know ANYBODY like this.

• R128, people who can see the real world know your examples are fodder shock compared to massive bank subsidies for a century, growing government debt and worldwide military empire. Economics is not your strong suit, is it?

• R131- Growing govt debt is not the reason why real wages shrunk. You sound like a ranting Ron Paul.

• government debt has NOTHING to do with wages.

• Once Obama legalizes the 800,000 illegal aliens and their parents they will get jobs that pay social security and the fund will be OK.

• [quote]Many of that population are receiving some sort of government assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, low income housing False, even if you make minimum wage you earn too much for food stamps. You have to work part time and have kids to qualify for them and public housing (inc sec 8) is reserved for older people and people with children, as is Medicaid. This is why you have welfare children.

• R133, 47% of your tax money is used to pay for debt, but that has NOTHING to do with wages. Yeah, right.

• Interest on debt is about 6% of the budget, not 47%. Low interest rates lead to lower interest on the debt. Moreover, our debt levels didn't get high until the Bush admin. - first with the tax cut for the wealthy, then the wars, and then the great recession.

  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm%3Ffa%3Dview%26id%3D1258

• I only get $740 a month. Disabled, I have tried suicide before. With any luck, I can get out of your way soon

• [quote]it is our responsibility as a society to provide for them, to educate them, and hopefully someday have a system that allows them to move up and out of subsistence level living. While I agree in theory, my problem -- too many poor folks have no desire to move up and out. They are given everything they could want. From free food, to section 8 housing. Free medication, huge discounts on utilities. Fuck they now have free cell phones available. I grew up in the projects in the late 60's in Cleveland. I know all about food stamps, wearing used clothes from the good will. Never had a new toy and always wondered why we had to drink powdered milk at the end of the month. I don't think I ate in a restaurant until I was 16. My folks struggled to get 5 kids out of the projects and the shame that came along with it. They worked hard and eventually we moved up & out. Problem now days, there is no shame with poverty hence no desire to move up and out as you claim. Watch the movie Precious except substitue a white family in it(lest i be accused of being a racist) and you will see what I mean.

• [quote]too many poor folks have no desire to move up and out. And the data supporting your rant can be found where, exactly?

• [quote]You, me and everyone else (except the really rich, who pay virtually nothing) pay around 13.3 percent (when you add what employers pay) for SS&Medi. Every check. See, when someone lumps Social Security and Medicare, you know they're about to spout bullshit. [quote]If I could take the 13.3% I pay for SS and Medicrap and invest it, I could pay for my own goddamn insurance and welfare No you couldn't. We've been there; done that. Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives and it controls costs better than the private alternatives. Q.E.D.

• [quote]You cannot continue to pay more money out than you take in, especially in a Ponzi like Social InSecurity. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, by the strict definition of that word. And, as repeatedly noted, any one of several minor tweaks fixes Social Security forever. Hell, if nothing at all is done, Social Security continues to pay out at the 75% benefit level, which at the time this would happen, would be at a higher level than is being paid today. In short, you're full of shit.

• [quote]47% of your tax money is used to pay for debt, but that has NOTHING to do with wages. See, this is not only bullshit, it's *stupid* bullshit, as it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

• [quote]My 401K has done nothing but go up in the 8 years I've had it since I graduate college and started working here. See, you're either an idiot or a liar. Which is it?

• [quote]It's going to fail, sooner rather than later. Well, no, actually, it's not. [quote]Re-read the reply at [R65] very carefully- unless SS taxes are raised to 30%+ of income (which will drive even more companies and individuals out of the country into lower tax climates, a trend that is increasing quickly) it will bankrupt us. Simple economics. ROFL.... Moron, you can't even pass simple arithmetic, much less "simple economics," as your statement is not only false, it's *stupidly* false. Can we *please* get some smarter trolls in here?

• [quote]Even Democrats admit that the Social Security program won't be solvent in several more years. No they don't, mostly because it's not true. [quote]What the hell are you talking about? Reality. You should join us here someday. [quote]Why are you so threatened by acknowledging the truth? We're not. We're debunking some rather silly lies. [quote]Sheesh, I probably shouldn't get so worked up about this Yup, you shouldn't, since it's only making you look stupid. [quote]but I hate it when feeble-minded people resort to baseless accusations instead of engaging in intelligent discussion. ROFL... Oh, the irony...

• R140 Poverty is on the increase, see link. My opinion, as I've stated in my "rant" is people no longer want to move up and out. Not when they fall into the entitlement trap that we now see. Go ahead and tell me there are no jobs to be had. Yeah you're right none that pay 30 bucks an hour, but there are plenty in the 12 buck range.

  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/highlights.html

  r139

• [quote]Poverty is on the increase, see link. Uh-huh, which has dick to do with people not wanting to "move up and out." Or has it escaped your notice that we're still in the grip of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression? Or that wages have been stagnant for a couple of decades now? [quote]My opinion, as I've stated in my "rant" is people no longer want to move up and out. Since you have no data to support that opinion, forgive us if we aren't persuaded by it, particularly it when it's so fucking stupid. [quote]Not when they fall into the entitlement trap that we now see. Except that you have no data that there is any "entitlement trap." [quote]Go ahead and tell me there are no jobs to be had. I don't have to; the data do that for me. [quote]Yeah you're right none that pay 30 bucks an hour, but there are plenty in the 12 buck range. You do know you're completely full of shit, right? And that your statement is entirely false? Just checking.

  Paul

• >>>Since charity begins at home consider helping grandparents who may have a tough time after they contributed to Social Security for decades. My grandmother has raked in more in social security than she could have ever paid into the program in 2 lifetimes

• In my area there are not plenty of jobs in the $12 range, R147. In my small city there aren't even many minimum-wage fast food jobs for anyone with an education, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the fast food managers can tell if you're dumbing down the application to pretend you don't have an education and a history of being paid well. If you're not a teenager or an adult with a well-documented work history in low-wage jobs, they won't consider you. In my city anyone who can get a job making $8 an hour is envied, because there just aren't many jobs at all, and those few that do come along pay $7.25. But I don't know what kind of entitlements you're talking about. There is no welfare, except a temporary program for people with kids, and if you don't find a job after a few months, they cut you off. The trouble is, try finding a job that pays well enough to cover the cost of day care or even an elderly woman to babysit. It's practically impossible. Poor people can get food stamps, but they have to pay for them, and there are people so poor they can't afford to pay for them. There's also a church food pantry that gives out bags of food free of charge, but you have to sit and listen to a fundamentalist preacher give a sermon before you get the food, and if you wait until the sermon is over before you get there, you get the end of the line, and they run out of food and you won't get much, if anything.

• >>>Go ahead and tell me there are no jobs to be had. Yeah you're right none that pay 30 bucks an hour, but there are plenty in the 12 buck range You don't know what you are talking about. Maybe in NYC there are plenty of 12 buck an hour jobs. The rest of the country there aren't enough minimum wage jobs. I live in Atlanta and companies advertise for minimum wage jobs and they get over 200 resumes a day. They end up pulling their ad after 2 days because there are so many applicants. We advertised for a 20 hr a week job, with no benefits and it's working outside in 95 degree heat and we got more than 1,000 replies in 4 days. At least 15% of those people applying had college degrees. People are just looking for ANY type of a job You can't just go out and get some lowly job anymore. Everyone wants lots of experience - no matter what the job. The local fast food restaurants ALL want people with a minimum 2 yrs restaurant experience. Even for just a cashier. They do this so they don't have to spend very much or any money training. They also do it because they know that so many people are looking for jobs that they can demand a lot of things and still get tons of applicants. A lot of these minimum wage jobs also do background and credit checks on employees. Do you know how many qualified people lose out on jobs because they might have been arrested years ago or their credit is bad? Lots

• The 30.00 + jobs are gone, gone to China. Corporation CEO's stole the middle class salaries for themselves in bonuses and tax free profits. Thanks USA, that's what makes it great!

  Mittens

• Whose butt do I have to kiss to become a CEO? I'm ready and willing.

• R137- Social Security and Medicare, around 41% of the US budget, are paid using IOUs to the treasury and are therefore effectively funded via debt.

• SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes. The solution to the shortfall is to increase the cap (or get rid of it) on FICA.

• [quote]SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes. The solution to the shortfall is to increase the cap (or get rid of it) on FICA. exactly. god the obsessed libertarian stalking these threads is tiresome. i hope your mom doesn't pay the internet bill this month so you don't get wifi in the basement.

• [quote]Social Security and Medicare, around 41% of the US budget, are paid using IOUs to the treasury and are therefore effectively funded via debt. Wow... you really are ignorant, aren't you? I mean, we're talking monumental stupidity here. You do realize that what you wrote is stupidly false, right?

• It's frustrating how successful Republicans have been in attacking the few programs that really do work. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were designed to provide a safety net, a solid floor on which the poor, elderly, disabled, and the like could count. The programs are not overly generous but they are reliable, effective, and successful. Social Security is fully funded for another twenty years and is funded at 75% of its benefit level after that if nothing changes. Fixing Social Security so that it is funded in perpetuity can easily be done by raising the income cap on the tax, adding an eighth of a percentage point to the tax, raising the retirement age by some small amount, or any combination of the above. It's just not a serious problem. Medicare and Medicaid are harder to fix but in both cases the problems aren't in the programs themselves but in U.S. health care overall. The costs are going up because health care costs are climbing, from 12.5% of U.S. GDP back in the late 70s to 17% today and potentially as high as 22% in the future. The thing is that Medicare and Medicaid are part of the solution, not part of the problem, since both programs do a better job overall at containing costs, both are less expensive than the private alternatives, and both are relatively popular among users (more so Medicare than Medicaid, of course). Every industrialized nation covers more people than we do and does it far cheaper than we do. Why on earth aren't we following their examples? And why are we trying to destroy programs that actually work?! Maddening.

  Paul

• I wonder if the OP feels like a fool now. It's 2012 and not only is the Medicare deduction for SS recipients NOT $250.00, it was reduced from $115.00 down to $99.90 per month.

• Doubtful. Morons like the ones we've had in this thread are so wedded to their ideology that it's highly unlikely that they are even capable of learning. Or seeing anything that contradicts their worldview. Sad.

• Q.E.D. One of the morons in this thread is also displaying his ignorance in the thread linked below. So no, they never learn.

  http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html%23page:showThread%2C11742694%2C1

• And it's the same idiot who insisted at R154 that: [quote]Social Security and Medicare, around 41% of the US budget, are paid using IOUs to the treasury and are therefore effectively funded via debt I mean, what can you do when faced with such astonishing and willful ignorance? All you can do is shake your head and laugh.

• "Social Security is fully funded for another twenty years and is funded at 75% of its benefit level after that if nothing changes" Until recently all excess SS funds were used to buy USTreasuries. Now they are selling USTs in order to find the shortfall in tax collection. When interest rates rise those USTs will drop in value, leading to more selling, leading to insolvency. No tax increase, policy reform or temporary band-aid will fix a broken system. People who parrot what they read in The APNewsTimesReport cannot fully understand the problem because the media always glosses over the inconvenient facts.

• [quote]People who parrot what they read in The APNewsTimesReport cannot fully understand the problem because the media always glosses over the inconvenient facts. as does our tiresome libertarina troll, r163.

• US Budget, 2012- $2.6T Amount USGov borrows- $1.3T So, half of all expenses are paid with debt that will never (and can never, the way the central banking scheme- and it is a scheme that anyone with half a brain can understand ESPECIALLY if they haven't ever been brainwashed by a college economics course) be paid off. That sounds sustainable.

• [quote]Until recently all excess SS funds were used to buy USTreasuries. Now they are selling USTs in order to find the shortfall in tax collection. When interest rates rise those USTs will drop in value, leading to more selling, leading to insolvency. Sigh... Moron, that's a treasury issue that applies to *all* U.S. bonds, not to Social Security. There is no, repeat no, "insolvency" issue, either for Social Security or for the U.S. Government. [quote]No tax increase, policy reform or temporary band-aid will fix a broken system. Then it's a damn good thing that Social Security is not "a broken system," isn't it? As repeatedly noted, in posts you've so far ignored because you have no answer for them, SS issues are minor and can easily be handled by small tweaks to the program. [quote]People who parrot what they read ROFL.... Oh, the irony, coming from this poster. [quote]in The APNewsTimesReport cannot fully understand the problem because the media always glosses over the inconvenient facts. LOL.... Dear heart, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass.

• [quote]So, half of all expenses are paid with debt that will never Dear heart, it's trivially easy to balance the budget, as any of several online calculators would reveal. For that matter, if Congress does exactly nothing, the budget will come back into balance in ten years or so, I believe. [quote](and can never, the way the central banking scheme LOL.... Moron, the "central banking scheme" and the U.S. budget are largely unrelated. [quote]That sounds sustainable. Good thing that the deficit is predicted to fall dramatically as the economy recovers then, isn't it? And considering that the cost of borrowing is negligible right now, it's just not an issue. Hell, adjusting for inflation, the return on some government bonds is *negative*, indicating that people are paying the U.S. government to hold their money! In short, and as usual, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

• Don't you just love how our resident libertarian/Randian/Austrian troll never bothers to respond to the posts pointing out his stupidity, but just trots out new stupidity? It's no wonder I just love this guy. Normally, I'd have to pay for entertainment this good.

• [quote]Until recently all excess SS funds were used to buy USTreasuries. Now they are selling USTs in order to find the shortfall in tax collection. When interest rates rise those USTs will drop in value, leading to more selling, leading to insolvency. Don't you just love how our resident libertarian troll confuses Treasury bonds purchased years ago with Treasury bonds purchased today? And confuses *redeeming* bonds with buying/selling bonds?

• I'm curious- How many people here think they don't pay enough in taxes, or do not have enough regulations at every level of society, or think we do not spend enough on foreign wars and domestic spying, or that inflation is too low, or that the big banks need more support? All of those things are intimately related, and you can't eliminate one without the others.

• [quote]How many people here think they don't pay enough in taxes, or do not have enough regulations at every level of society, or think we do not spend enough on foreign wars and domestic spying, or that inflation is too low, or that the big banks need more support? the top 1% does not pay enough in taxes. the finance, and energy sectors need much more regulation, and frankly, i'd prefer if they were nationalized. yes, we spend way too much money on defense, and spying. and we all know that inflation is a fact of life, is has been low over the last few years only because of the decline of housing prices and the influence of cheap consumer goods from china (imported at artificially low prices). so there, silly libertarian troll.

• [quote]I'm curious No, dear, you're not. You have your mindset and your fantasy world and those are sufficient for you. Sad, really. I must admit to being curious about one thing, myself: why are you not able to address the legitimate refutation and criticism? And even acknowledge, much less correct, your many factual errors? [quote]How many people here think they don't pay enough in taxes Taxes are at historically low levels, dear. And they will have to be raised. If you were really serious about your deficit rants, you'd acknowledge this and support it. You're not, of course, so you won't. [quote]or do not have enough regulations at every level of society The absence of regulation nearly brought down the entire economic system, dear, so no, we don't have enough. Restoring Glass-Steagall would do for a start. It's amazing how well we did when it was in place and how quickly things went to hell when it was removed. [quote]or think we do not spend enough on foreign wars and domestic spying No argument here, dear. [quote]or that inflation is too low It is too low, dear. I want people working again and a little inflation to achieve that goal is not too high a price to pay. [quote]All of those things are intimately related, and you can't eliminate one without the others. You do realize that most of these things are not at all "intimately related," right? And that you're basically making shit up because you can't argue on the basis of facts or reality? Just checking, dear.

• Ewwwww, my nana doesn't have sex!

• From 2002- Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned. I predict U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine, both the West Bank and the Gaza, as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them. Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short-lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons flowing to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the United States. U.S. troops and others will be used to monitor the "peace." In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, with oil prices soaring to historic highs. (Iran?) Current Israeli-United States policies will

• From 2002- Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned. I predict U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine, both the West Bank and the Gaza, as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them. Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short-lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons flowing to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the United States. U.S. troops and others will be used to monitor the "peace." In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, with oil prices soaring to historic highs. (Iran?) Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations in their efforts to avenge the humiliation of the Palestinians. That will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other. (the ongoing EU/USGov supported and funded "Arab Spring") Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. (ditto) The U.N. will continue to condemn, through resolutions, Israeli-U.S. policies in the Middle East, and they will be ignored. Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits. (duh) China, ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly will sell to militant Muslims the weapons they want, and will align herself with the Arab nations. The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years. The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan. An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States. (just wait) Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending. (have you bought bread, milk, eggs, meat, etc.) Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money. (gold 2002- $300, gold 2012- $1600) Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act. (NDAA, drones, random checks) The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment. (just wait, unless liberals wake up and realize the Democrats are just Republicans who pretend to care about the little people) Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict. (how many dead kids now?) The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court. The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas. This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened. During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security. The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East. Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos. I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.

• [quote]Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased. Yes, he was wrong, particularly on his economic forecasts. Ron has been proclaiming doom and gloom since the 1980s. He's been wrong every time. He's been confidently prediction 50+% inflation for over a year now. He's been wrong every time. And no, he's not been pleased. Like our chum here, he keeps trying to double down on his predictions claiming that, any day now, things will happen the way he says.

• Ron Paul's predictions: "An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the US." False. "Price inflation with a major economic downturn will decimate US goverment finances and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending." False. "Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money." False. "Hyperinflation will consume America." False. "We're in the midst of inflation." False. "I think the wave of the future is inflation. It’s just beginning ... to the point that the dollar will be rejected as the reserve currency of the world. If there’s a panic out of the dollar you will see the destruction of the dollar rather quickly. The end stages of a currency comes quickly." False. (in 1981!): "I believe such a standard [i.e., the gold standard] to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse." Obviously and embarrassingly false. (June, 2011): "Inflation will hit 50% "in the next couple of years." False. In short, Ron Paul has been repeatedly and consistently wrong for more than 30 years!

• Gary North writes: The bureaucrats at Social Security will not admit it. Congress will not admit it. Obama and Romney will not admit it. Social Security is broke. How do I define “broke”? When you have no assets to pay your bills and you must borrow money to pay old bills, you;re broke. Bottom line: The Social Security system has gone cash flow negative. The SS trust fund is making more payments to retirees than it has new money coming in. Here's the kicker, the only assets SS has on hand to fund this cash flow deficit is Treasury securities, but the Treasury has no funds on hand to pay off SS liquidations, This means that in addition to raising funds for normal debt funding activities, it will have to raise funds for SS liquidations. At one point in the not to distant past, SS used to buy nearly 25% of all Treasury securities issued, now it is a seller. That's a huge shift. Sometime around the years 2016-17, the amount the SS will have to start redeeming on an annual basis will get massive. Even the Social Security Trust fund admits this is going to happen, though they do expect things to get bad until 2018:  Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011.. and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply... Bottom line: Avoid long-term Treasury securities. The selling pressure on bonds, from a combination of SS liquidations and new Treasury issues to cover deficits, is going to create major down side pressure on these bonds---if price inflation kicks up because of Fed printing to attempt to bailout the Treasury, upside interest rate pressure will be all the greater because of accelerating price inflation.

  http://goo.gl/zN9Bj

• From the HuffPo- Public pension funds face real funding challenges in a majority of states. In fiscal year 2010, public pension funds as a whole were only 75 percent funded and had a shortfall of $757 billion between what they should have set aside to pay for the benefits promised to workers and retirees and what they had on hand. While some states, like New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, have well-funded and well-managed plans, the majority of states face significant challenges. Thirty-four states were less than 80 percent funded -- a threshold many experts recommend for health pension systems. This problem is the result of a decade of states taking pension holidays and raising benefits without paying for them, not the Great Recession. Investment gains of 20 and 13 percent in 2009 and 2010, respectively, were not nearly enough to overcome losses from the financial crisis, and pension funding levels continued to drop. The weak returns of less than 1 percent at the end of 2011 also show how hard it will be for states to invest their way out of this crisis. Initial projections suggest that funding levels will be stagnant in fiscal year 2011, and in some states will continue to drop...

• Does anyone under 50 still think they will get anything close to the amount they paid in SS taxes? The SS system is broke.

• [quote]Gary North writes: The bureaucrats at Social Security will not admit it. Congress will not admit it. Obama and Romney will not admit it. Social Security is broke. There's a reason nobody will "admit it;" it's not true. The blog post you cited is complete bullshit, which is why the moron who wrote that post carefully didn't cite any actual data or bother to support his drivel with anything resembling logic or reason. It's pure fantasy, like pretty much all of the bullshit you post here. [quote]Does anyone under 50 still think they will get anything close to the amount they paid in SS taxes? Yes, we will. In the worst-case scenario, with no changes to the system, Social Security will still be able to pay 75% of the projected benefits, a sum greater than it is currently paying today. And to get to 100% of the projected benefits, all it takes is small tweaks to the system, e.g., removing the cap, increasing the tax by a quarter point, adjusting the retirement age by a year, or some combination of all of the above. It's just not a problem or a "crisis," no matter how hard you pretend it is. [quote]The SS system is broke. Out here in the real world, it's not. You should join us someday. You might even like it here. And you will get your Social Security benefits.

• Once we get the Chinese to start paying Social Security taxes, the problem will go away.

• Paying retirees who have paid into Social Security all their lives is NOT the problem. The real problem is the SSA disability program which you can go on after paying into it for as few as 10 years if you are young and become disabled. And then your minor children go on it and your spouse and they all get paid for many many years even though you paid in only a small fraction of what you are all collecting. THAT is the real problem with the trust fund. And their are hundreds of thousands of people on SSA disability now. And I'm not talking about SSI which does not come out of the trust fund.

• R183, all government programs are abused. Do you really think they can ever pay the $222 TRILLION in liabilities they owe without bankruptcy?

• [quote]Do you really think they can ever pay the $222 TRILLION in liabilities they owe without bankruptcy? Yup, because your number is total bullshit. The system doesn't have "$222 TRILLION" in liabilities, not by any reasonable accounting standard. I could just as easily say that Ford has "$222 TRILLION" in liabilities over the next thousand years. It would be just as accurate and just as stupid. To get to your scary number, you have to play a few games: the first is that you have to lump together all government "liabilities," not just Social Security, the second is that you have to use an infinite horizon, which is just dumb for serious economic policy analysis, the third is that you have to ignore the growth in the overall economy over the same time period, and the fourth is that you have to ignore other factors, like immigration, policy changes, and the like. That is why nobody takes you or the economist you're citing, Laurence Kotlikoff, seriously. Kotlikoff's number for just Social Security, which is the topic of this thread, is $20 trillion, not "$222 TRILLION." The actual number for Social Security, using standard accounting techniques and projecting 75 years into the future, is $8.6 trillion, a fraction of the overall economy. As I already noted above, in the worst-case scenario, with no changes to the system, Social Security will still be able to pay 75% of the projected benefits, a sum greater than it is currently paying today. And to get to 100% of the projected benefits, all it takes is small tweaks to the system, e.g., removing the cap, increasing the tax by a quarter point, adjusting the retirement age by a year, or some combination of all of the above. You really just need to stop posting. Better to be thought a fool than to continue to post here and prove it.

• Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous. "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy. But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them. It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

• N

• We've got to pay for wars, and all it entails. We have to pay for 12 million illegal aliens and their kids, and anchor babies. We have to pay for the upkeep of the incarcerated. We have to pay for the medical care of those who choose to be homeless. We are now giving free monies to illegals for their education. And the list grows longer and longer. Taxpayers pay for frivolous lawsuits, as well as large federal grants for the most inane studies. I read that Social Security is going to go broke in our lifetime. I wonder why!

  friend of seniors