Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
The Truth About Entitlements
As Insty might say, read the whole thing.
Upshot: SS and Medicaid are broken in principle. They cannot be "fixed" without fundamentally altering their basic design. It is morally wrong to continue as we are; it is wrong to burden ourselves and our children by outlandish and unsustainable promises made by men long dead. It's like that Sam Cooke song I linked in my Briefing thread this morning: A change is gonna come.Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2010 12:03 PM (/jbAw)
2
Is grandfathered in?
Posted by: eh at November 12, 2010 12:06 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 12:07 PM (4Pleu)
4
from the paper:
Myth 5: The United States will simply grow its way out of its debt
It's well that he tackles this myth. I suspect this is what most people hug as the teddy bear, that we will somehow "just grow into enough prosperity."
Won't matter who says what, how much you tax, how much you promise. The money is not there.
Myth 5: The United States will simply grow its way out of its debt
It's well that he tackles this myth. I suspect this is what most people hug as the teddy bear, that we will somehow "just grow into enough prosperity."
Won't matter who says what, how much you tax, how much you promise. The money is not there.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:08 PM (AZGON)
5
It's like that Sam Cooke song I linked in my Briefing thread this morning: A change is gonna come.
I'm more partial to the soundtrack of our financial system being "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" and, appropriately, brought on by the songwriter and his ilk.
I'm more partial to the soundtrack of our financial system being "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" and, appropriately, brought on by the songwriter and his ilk.
Posted by: Tough Times at November 12, 2010 12:08 PM (n98P0)
6
But Michael Steele can eliminate the entitlement crisis with the wave of his hand, and an new book on Amazon.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:09 PM (AZGON)
7
Yay, more mental masturbation!
Yay, more mental masturbation!
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:12 PM (uFokq)
8
That's not gonna make the "Me, me, me" libtards happy. Quick, find another freebie to keep them in line!
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 12, 2010 12:14 PM (i+9lz)
9
Exhibit A for why Paul Ryan is the only guy in D.C. that I'd spare the gallows. He makes largely the same point in the Roadmap.
Posted by: Andy at November 12, 2010 12:15 PM (5Rurq)
10
Yay, more mental masturbation!
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:12 PM (uFokq)
For shame!
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:12 PM (uFokq)
For shame!
Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 12, 2010 12:15 PM (n98P0)
11
6
But Michael Steele can eliminate the entitlement crisis with the wave of
his hand, and an new book on Amazon.
As they say in da hood: "He gots to go!"
But Michael Steele can eliminate the entitlement crisis with the wave of
his hand, and an new book on Amazon.
As they say in da hood: "He gots to go!"
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 12, 2010 12:15 PM (i+9lz)
12
Monty is right. There's some really good stuff in this paper. Consider:
These studies raise doubts about whether European levels of taxation would serve to increase tax revenue for the U.S. government. Instead, Americans might respond to higher taxes on market activities by spending more time mowing our own lawns, cooking our own meals, fixing our own cars, doing our own household repairs, and so on. Such a shift would lower economic well-being without solving the problem of the budget deficit.
In the word's of Slim Pickens's portrayal of Taggart, "Ditto."
These studies raise doubts about whether European levels of taxation would serve to increase tax revenue for the U.S. government. Instead, Americans might respond to higher taxes on market activities by spending more time mowing our own lawns, cooking our own meals, fixing our own cars, doing our own household repairs, and so on. Such a shift would lower economic well-being without solving the problem of the budget deficit.
In the word's of Slim Pickens's portrayal of Taggart, "Ditto."
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:15 PM (AZGON)
13
George Bush doesn't care about old people.
Posted by: Kanye West at November 12, 2010 12:16 PM (i+9lz)
14
Rove, you magnificent bastard!
Posted by: Chrissy Matthews at November 12, 2010 12:16 PM (i+9lz)
15
>>It's like that Sam Cooke song I linked in my Briefing thread this morning: A change is gonna come.
And when it does I will be listening to The Ramones, I Want To Be Sedated.
And when it does I will be listening to The Ramones, I Want To Be Sedated.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 12, 2010 12:18 PM (TMB3S)
16
This is the thing: SS proponents keep asking for detailed arguments as to how and why SS is doomed. Then something like this paper appears, with detailed explanations as to how and why SS is doomed, and they just ignore the shit out of it.
If you* want to convince me that SS is dandy, then you're going to need to produce very compelling disproofs of the examples in this report. It's not enough to cry "But it's not fair!". I will stipulate that it's not fair. But as I've said many times now: If it's any comfort, you're not the only one who got screwed.
*And by "you" I mean policymakers and SS proponents who will fight serious reform to SS until blood runs red in the streets.
If you* want to convince me that SS is dandy, then you're going to need to produce very compelling disproofs of the examples in this report. It's not enough to cry "But it's not fair!". I will stipulate that it's not fair. But as I've said many times now: If it's any comfort, you're not the only one who got screwed.
*And by "you" I mean policymakers and SS proponents who will fight serious reform to SS until blood runs red in the streets.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 12:19 PM (4Pleu)
17
SS? I knew you wingnuts were Nazis!
Posted by: Queef Olbermann at November 12, 2010 12:20 PM (i+9lz)
18
It's not "flogging the dead horse," it's preaching the Gospel. No matter how many times we've heard it, we need to hear it again and start proselytizing on our own.
Nothing's gonna happen bitching about it in here, but take that energy out and tell a few people, in casual conversation, "Whew, man, I just saw that Social Security is really underwater."
Spread the Good (bad) News, morons.
It's not "flogging the dead horse," it's preaching the Gospel. No matter how many times we've heard it, we need to hear it again and start proselytizing on our own.
Nothing's gonna happen bitching about it in here, but take that energy out and tell a few people, in casual conversation, "Whew, man, I just saw that Social Security is really underwater."
Spread the Good (bad) News, morons.
Posted by: s'moron at November 12, 2010 12:20 PM (UaxA0)
19
As a moral matter, it doesn't even matter if the programs are solvent or potentially solvent. It is a moral obscenity to take one person's wealth by force and give it to another person (outside of collecting an actual debt owed and withheld without cause, arising out of legitimate earning by the person owed).
Posted by: shillelagh at November 12, 2010 12:21 PM (Oz4Bj)
20
A more appropiate song is Mother's Little Helper
And though she's not really illThere's a little yellow pillShe goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helperAnd it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day
A more appropiate song is Mother's Little Helper
And though she's not really illThere's a little yellow pillShe goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helperAnd it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:21 PM (uFokq)
21
There's nothing wrong with SS structurally that can't be fixed woth an adjunct program. I like to call it the "Logan's Run" solution.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 12, 2010 12:24 PM (5pIHA)
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:26 PM (AZGON)
23
The only difference between the Social Security Administration and Bernie Madhoff is that Bernie couldn't levy taxes.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 12, 2010 12:27 PM (02uN6)
24
I think "we're going to have to simply scrap SS," is no more realistic than "we'll grow our way out of it." Neither will happen, and telling a bunch of retired people they have to work at Wal-Mart the rest of their lives is simply unrealistic, if for no other reason than there are no jobs available for them, and what you're really saying is "drop dead, folks, and do it quickly."
Someone is going to have to start the political ball rolling (at the cost of their career) by suggesting things like (1) eliminating the SS tax, and funding the old age pension from the general fund, which is where it comes from anyway.
Why eliminate it? Because you're going to wind up paying an old age pension to everyone 60 and above on the basis of the promises already made. If you don't, you'll never see anyone believe a word government says again. You'll also see massive tax fraud, and more than a few people deciding they won't obey any laws again, unless a cop is watching. Disdain for government is one thing; mass lawlessness is another, and a very, very bad thing, too.
(2) For those in their 50s, pay out at 80% of the current rates, and starting at 70.*
(3) For those in their 40s, pay 50% starting at 72.*
(4) Under 40? no pension for you. Not at any age.
(5) No SSI.
The reason to eliminate the SS tax is simply to ensure that people over 40 can still get (and keep) a job. If we tax only those with a pension coming, we create a class of workers who will cost 12.5% more than others with whom they are competing for jobs. Employers are going to ask themselves if it isn't more cost effective to discriminate based on age and only hire the young. Yes, I know its prohibited, but so what - employers will do it anyway.
Taking SS out of the general fund will eliminate a major disincentive to hire worker aged 40 and over, and you'll want those folks working and paying taxes and saving and buying things in order to get this economy on its feet again.
*these numbers are my wild-ass guesses. Real numbers crunchers can easily arrive at realistic numbers.
Someone is going to have to start the political ball rolling (at the cost of their career) by suggesting things like (1) eliminating the SS tax, and funding the old age pension from the general fund, which is where it comes from anyway.
Why eliminate it? Because you're going to wind up paying an old age pension to everyone 60 and above on the basis of the promises already made. If you don't, you'll never see anyone believe a word government says again. You'll also see massive tax fraud, and more than a few people deciding they won't obey any laws again, unless a cop is watching. Disdain for government is one thing; mass lawlessness is another, and a very, very bad thing, too.
(2) For those in their 50s, pay out at 80% of the current rates, and starting at 70.*
(3) For those in their 40s, pay 50% starting at 72.*
(4) Under 40? no pension for you. Not at any age.
(5) No SSI.
The reason to eliminate the SS tax is simply to ensure that people over 40 can still get (and keep) a job. If we tax only those with a pension coming, we create a class of workers who will cost 12.5% more than others with whom they are competing for jobs. Employers are going to ask themselves if it isn't more cost effective to discriminate based on age and only hire the young. Yes, I know its prohibited, but so what - employers will do it anyway.
Taking SS out of the general fund will eliminate a major disincentive to hire worker aged 40 and over, and you'll want those folks working and paying taxes and saving and buying things in order to get this economy on its feet again.
*these numbers are my wild-ass guesses. Real numbers crunchers can easily arrive at realistic numbers.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 12:28 PM (7+pP9)
25
Actually, they *could* be saved--by jacking up the retirement age to a realistic level. At least 70, probably 75. People are living longer. Simple as that.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 12:31 PM (ujg0T)
26
Haven't they already made the case for Amnesty as a way to save Social Security?
Haven't they already made the case for Amnesty as a way to save Social Security?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)
27
Haven't they already made the case for Amnesty as a way to save Social Security?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)
ISTR that some lefty loon has made that "argument", but all it will do for Social Security is jam a fresh batch of suckers into the Ponzi scheme, which will ultimately only prolong the agony.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)
ISTR that some lefty loon has made that "argument", but all it will do for Social Security is jam a fresh batch of suckers into the Ponzi scheme, which will ultimately only prolong the agony.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 12, 2010 12:35 PM (02uN6)
28
Getting rid of social security has about as much chance of happening as me banging my mistress in the same room as my wife while she gets read her last rights.
Posted by: John Edwards at November 12, 2010 12:36 PM (VoRkG)
29
26
Haven't they already made the case for Amnesty as a way to save Social Security?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)
Yes. It won't work, though, because many foreigners are only interested in living here ling enough to send enough money back home to set themselves up for a comfortable life wherever they came from. Work in the US for 20 years and you'll have enough money to buy a farm where your extended family will live. Those people aren't interested in paying taxes, and they send most of what they make home - out of the US economy - so you can bet they will dodge citizenship and paying for SS.Amnesty is a Hail Mary pass for the Dems, and a scheme to depress wages for unscrupulous employers. It won't help the US in the long run, though.
Haven't they already made the case for Amnesty as a way to save Social Security?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)
Yes. It won't work, though, because many foreigners are only interested in living here ling enough to send enough money back home to set themselves up for a comfortable life wherever they came from. Work in the US for 20 years and you'll have enough money to buy a farm where your extended family will live. Those people aren't interested in paying taxes, and they send most of what they make home - out of the US economy - so you can bet they will dodge citizenship and paying for SS.Amnesty is a Hail Mary pass for the Dems, and a scheme to depress wages for unscrupulous employers. It won't help the US in the long run, though.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 12:38 PM (7+pP9)
30
Isn't it true that one of the more stupid things about Bush's Amnesty was the lowered requirement of 16? quarters of work by former illegals to qualify for Soc Sec?
The rest of us are required to contribute 40 quarters, I believe.
So that's sure to negativelyimpact the system, too.
Isn't it true that one of the more stupid things about Bush's Amnesty was the lowered requirement of 16? quarters of work by former illegals to qualify for Soc Sec?
The rest of us are required to contribute 40 quarters, I believe.
So that's sure to negativelyimpact the system, too.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:38 PM (uFokq)
31
John Edwards - so likely then
Posted by: Jean at November 12, 2010 12:40 PM (HKVGZ)
32
me banging my mistress in the same room as my wife while she gets read her last rights
So, Silky Pony, you're saying that we have a 50-50 chance to save social security?
me banging my mistress in the same room as my wife while she gets read her last rights
So, Silky Pony, you're saying that we have a 50-50 chance to save social security?
Posted by: s'moron at November 12, 2010 12:40 PM (UaxA0)
33
28
Getting rid of social security has about as much chance of happening as
me banging my mistress in the same room as my wife while she gets read
her last rights.
I can help make that happen.
Getting rid of social security has about as much chance of happening as
me banging my mistress in the same room as my wife while she gets read
her last rights.
I can help make that happen.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at November 12, 2010 12:41 PM (i+9lz)
Posted by: beerologist at November 12, 2010 12:42 PM (47crF)
35
JosefK - so you can bet they will dodge citizenship and paying for SS. methknks they will take citizenship, continue to work off the books for cash, sending that money home, and utilizing that shiny new citizenship to collect unemployment, go on medicaid, get student loans, etc.
Posted by: Jean at November 12, 2010 12:43 PM (G5WHn)
36
18
It's not "flogging the dead horse," it's preaching the Gospel.
No matter how many times we've heard it, we need to hear it again and
start proselytizing on our own. Nothing's gonna happen bitching
about it in here, but take that energy out and tell a few people, in
casual conversation, "Whew, man, I just saw that Social Security is
really underwater." Spread the Good (bad) News, morons.
Posted by: s'moron at November 12, 2010 12:20 PM (UaxA0)
Yep, that right there. More of the uninformed, marginally interested masses need to understand the facts. Plenty of succinct nuggets to be found in the referenced paper, to wit:Social Security is a transfer system Ponzi scheme that is used to fund retirement. In that regard, it differs from asaving system used to fund retirement. Saving generates capital assets that can be used to supportfuture consumption. On the other hand, a transfer system creates obligations for one group of citizens(in this case, young workers) to transfer income to another group (seniors).
It's not "flogging the dead horse," it's preaching the Gospel.
No matter how many times we've heard it, we need to hear it again and
start proselytizing on our own. Nothing's gonna happen bitching
about it in here, but take that energy out and tell a few people, in
casual conversation, "Whew, man, I just saw that Social Security is
really underwater." Spread the Good (bad) News, morons.
Posted by: s'moron at November 12, 2010 12:20 PM (UaxA0)
Yep, that right there. More of the uninformed, marginally interested masses need to understand the facts. Plenty of succinct nuggets to be found in the referenced paper, to wit:Social Security is a transfer system Ponzi scheme that is used to fund retirement. In that regard, it differs from asaving system used to fund retirement. Saving generates capital assets that can be used to supportfuture consumption. On the other hand, a transfer system creates obligations for one group of citizens(in this case, young workers) to transfer income to another group (seniors).
Posted by: NM Hick at November 12, 2010 12:45 PM (IzuWw)
Posted by: flashbazzbo, s.e. at November 12, 2010 12:45 PM (i0rVe)
38
Beware the ides of incremental little piss asschanges that even the repubs will try to con us into believing will "fix"SS and MC for decades to come. You know they are gonna try it. Can't let them.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 12, 2010 12:46 PM (r1h5M)
39
38
Yeah kinda how like i promise my wife ill change and this time I really mean it. Cept she can claim the Kemo treatments addle her brain.
Yeah kinda how like i promise my wife ill change and this time I really mean it. Cept she can claim the Kemo treatments addle her brain.
Posted by: John Edwards at November 12, 2010 12:49 PM (VoRkG)
40
Completely, brazenly OT, but...
The chances of making a whole sitcom out of a twitter feed were never good, but "Shit My Dad Says" finally, classically, permanently jumped the shark, jumped it well beyond any Heisenberg uncertainty. The show deteriorated after the first couple of episodes, having no real reason for existing, but the writers displayed the last index of an empty brainpan last night. They proved they have run fresh out of ideas. How? When you have no ideas in Hollywood, you resort to sure-fire clichés... like overtly insulting conservatives. Ramrod straight "Dad" has a gay housekeeper (WTF? That alone was unbelievable as it developed) and an old Navy buddy visits. When stereotyped Navy buddy finds out kooky hilarious housekeeper is gay, Navy buddy clams up, puts on a sour bigot face and refuses to speak to gay housekeeper. "Dad" says to Navy buddy "I've never seen you this speechless since Obama was elected!"
They lost one more viewer. Probably many many more than one.
The chances of making a whole sitcom out of a twitter feed were never good, but "Shit My Dad Says" finally, classically, permanently jumped the shark, jumped it well beyond any Heisenberg uncertainty. The show deteriorated after the first couple of episodes, having no real reason for existing, but the writers displayed the last index of an empty brainpan last night. They proved they have run fresh out of ideas. How? When you have no ideas in Hollywood, you resort to sure-fire clichés... like overtly insulting conservatives. Ramrod straight "Dad" has a gay housekeeper (WTF? That alone was unbelievable as it developed) and an old Navy buddy visits. When stereotyped Navy buddy finds out kooky hilarious housekeeper is gay, Navy buddy clams up, puts on a sour bigot face and refuses to speak to gay housekeeper. "Dad" says to Navy buddy "I've never seen you this speechless since Obama was elected!"
They lost one more viewer. Probably many many more than one.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:49 PM (AZGON)
41
35
JosefK - so you can bet they will dodge citizenship and paying for SS.
methknks they will take citizenship, continue to work off the books
for cash, sending that money home, and utilizing that shiny new
citizenship to collect unemployment, go on medicaid, get student loans,
etc.
Posted by: Jean at November 12, 2010 12:43 PM (G5WHn)
That, too. It is really a matter of what percentage of illegals will follow each path:- Citizenship, but only pro forma, as you suggest.- Staying "in the shadows" while working and sending money home (possibly because of a criminal record that would make getting citizenship problematic, although I am sure there might be other reasons).- Staying "in the shadows" because, instead of working as maids or landscape laborers, they are smuggling, dealing drugs, or engaged in other criminal enterprises.Whatever path they take, it won't involve being a good citizen of los Estados Unidos.
JosefK - so you can bet they will dodge citizenship and paying for SS.
methknks they will take citizenship, continue to work off the books
for cash, sending that money home, and utilizing that shiny new
citizenship to collect unemployment, go on medicaid, get student loans,
etc.
Posted by: Jean at November 12, 2010 12:43 PM (G5WHn)
That, too. It is really a matter of what percentage of illegals will follow each path:- Citizenship, but only pro forma, as you suggest.- Staying "in the shadows" while working and sending money home (possibly because of a criminal record that would make getting citizenship problematic, although I am sure there might be other reasons).- Staying "in the shadows" because, instead of working as maids or landscape laborers, they are smuggling, dealing drugs, or engaged in other criminal enterprises.Whatever path they take, it won't involve being a good citizen of los Estados Unidos.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 12:49 PM (7+pP9)
42
Shit My Dad Says sounds like a poor ripoff of All In The Family.
Shit My Dad Says sounds like a poor ripoff of All In The Family.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 12:52 PM (uFokq)
43
Does anyone know the dollar amount or the percentage of Social Security money that goes to SSI? Does anyone know the number of SSI recipients that qualify for SSI because they are drug or alcohol addicted. Is there any way to determine how many people entered this country illegally and are now on SSI? Should we be paying SS benefits to people who have high incomes andclearly do not need this so called safety net, even if they paid into the system? Is it possible for a teacher who did not pay into the system to collect on her husbands SS?
Posted by: Buffalobob at November 12, 2010 12:54 PM (GwH6h)
44
By the way, isn't it interesting how it is okay in Hollywood to put a gay in a role as housekeeper but Hollywood is nevertheless free of prejudice?
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 12:55 PM (AZGON)
45
Beware the ides of incremental little piss asschanges that even the repubs will try to con us into believing will "fix"SS and MC for decades to come.
You know they are gonna try it. Can't let them.
And you realistically think abolition can happen?
Jacking up the retirement age? Totally a must.
Means testing some benefits? Ditto.
But abolition? Yes, we can dream, but I like goals that can actually happen.
You know they are gonna try it. Can't let them.
And you realistically think abolition can happen?
Jacking up the retirement age? Totally a must.
Means testing some benefits? Ditto.
But abolition? Yes, we can dream, but I like goals that can actually happen.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 12:56 PM (ujg0T)
46
How about this:
1) Put everybody under 45 under notice that they no longer have to pay into social security, but that they'd better start socking the money they would have paid in into their own retirement account because they're never going to get any benefits. The money they've already paid in could be used to shore the program up for people who are already on SS or close to retirement age. Allow workers to put their 7% into their IRA or 401K and give employers the option of using their 7% to match the employees' 7% contribution. Allow the employers to write it off.
2) Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74 by 2030.
1) Put everybody under 45 under notice that they no longer have to pay into social security, but that they'd better start socking the money they would have paid in into their own retirement account because they're never going to get any benefits. The money they've already paid in could be used to shore the program up for people who are already on SS or close to retirement age. Allow workers to put their 7% into their IRA or 401K and give employers the option of using their 7% to match the employees' 7% contribution. Allow the employers to write it off.
2) Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74 by 2030.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 12, 2010 12:56 PM (1Mbxk)
47
One fix for both Medicaid and Social Security is offset entitlements for both with the actual value of retiree pension medical insurance benefits and retiree pension incomes, respectively. AFIK, this does not happen. I do income taxes for retired parents, and neither set of parents would be materially harmed by doing without any Medicaid and Social Security benefits, since the same types of benefits from their pension plans more than make up the projected loss.
Frankly, I am mystified that both sets of retired parents, average age 85, have between $200K and $400K in savings, provided in part by their having both Medicaid and Social Security.
Well... on the upside, I and my wife will garner $100K and $200K in tax-free income when the parents pass on.
Frankly, I am mystified that both sets of retired parents, average age 85, have between $200K and $400K in savings, provided in part by their having both Medicaid and Social Security.
Well... on the upside, I and my wife will garner $100K and $200K in tax-free income when the parents pass on.
Posted by: Quaoar at November 12, 2010 12:56 PM (9Ugjz)
48
43
Does anyone know the dollar amount or the percentage of Social Security
money that goes to SSI? Does anyone know the number of SSI recipients
that qualify for SSI because they are drug or alcohol addicted. Is there
any way to determine how many people entered this country illegally and
are now on SSI? Should we be paying SS benefits to people who have high
incomes andclearly do not need this so called safety net, even if they
paid into the system? Is it possible for a teacher who did not pay into
the system to collect on her husbands SS?
Posted by: Buffalobob at November 12, 2010 12:54 PM (GwH6h)
Every time I see a comment like this, I wish I could have access to a bunch of data including (but not limited to):
total income by countytotal taxes paid by county (with the ability to break out all different types of taxes)
total government expenditures by county (broken out by type)
SS taxes paid by county, by age bandSS paid out by county, by age bandwith totals by state and nationally, too, of course. In other words, the kind of database the government uses to analyze income and expenses, and to forecast future income and expenses. If people had access to that kind of data, we'd be able to really change the political discussion.
Does anyone know the dollar amount or the percentage of Social Security
money that goes to SSI? Does anyone know the number of SSI recipients
that qualify for SSI because they are drug or alcohol addicted. Is there
any way to determine how many people entered this country illegally and
are now on SSI? Should we be paying SS benefits to people who have high
incomes andclearly do not need this so called safety net, even if they
paid into the system? Is it possible for a teacher who did not pay into
the system to collect on her husbands SS?
Posted by: Buffalobob at November 12, 2010 12:54 PM (GwH6h)
Every time I see a comment like this, I wish I could have access to a bunch of data including (but not limited to):
total income by countytotal taxes paid by county (with the ability to break out all different types of taxes)
total government expenditures by county (broken out by type)
SS taxes paid by county, by age bandSS paid out by county, by age bandwith totals by state and nationally, too, of course. In other words, the kind of database the government uses to analyze income and expenses, and to forecast future income and expenses. If people had access to that kind of data, we'd be able to really change the political discussion.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 01:01 PM (7+pP9)
49
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74 by 2030.
I'd make it sooner than that. When SS was set up in 1935 with a retirement age of 62, guess what median life expectancy was?
I'd make it sooner than that. When SS was set up in 1935 with a retirement age of 62, guess what median life expectancy was?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ujg0T)
50
Interesting. I'm one of the "baby boomers" currently collecting SS. A few years back, we (wifeI ) won our personal war on poverty, after a long, arduous struggle. SS doesn't really factor into our retirement, so it could disappear with out much heartbreak. My only personal concern is having the tax money extorted from me refunded. My employer (s) portion is not included here.
Once the amount I contributed has been realized, take the rest and burn it for all I care. We realized early on that retirement was on US, and we acted accordingly. Took a lot of years of frugal living to achieve, but here we are now.
The largest hurdle I see is to get people to understand that SS was intended as a SUPPLEMENT, not an entirety. Do that, and it ceases to be a political third rail, not to mention reducing the problem of who to assist to manageable levels.
Once the amount I contributed has been realized, take the rest and burn it for all I care. We realized early on that retirement was on US, and we acted accordingly. Took a lot of years of frugal living to achieve, but here we are now.
The largest hurdle I see is to get people to understand that SS was intended as a SUPPLEMENT, not an entirety. Do that, and it ceases to be a political third rail, not to mention reducing the problem of who to assist to manageable levels.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
51
Many of the major changes suggested here sound good. Does anyone think they will actually happen? France can't raise their retirement age from 60 to 62 without actual riots. Raising the retirement age could happen, but only with a fully GOP congress and White House. Even if that happened (and that is hardly a complete fix) the wave against the GOP in the following elections will undo that change or add other goodies that make it moot.
This huge entitlement train has to wreck. It is too large to be stopped. It can wreck slowly, but wreck it must. Will it take the form of a de facto devaluation of the dollar through monetization of the debt? Through inflation down the road? Will gubmint just plain print the money?
The principal obstacle seems to be the enormous size of these entitlements. Can enough political will be pointed in the same direction long enough to tackle the size of the problem? That is the sticky part.
This huge entitlement train has to wreck. It is too large to be stopped. It can wreck slowly, but wreck it must. Will it take the form of a de facto devaluation of the dollar through monetization of the debt? Through inflation down the road? Will gubmint just plain print the money?
The principal obstacle seems to be the enormous size of these entitlements. Can enough political will be pointed in the same direction long enough to tackle the size of the problem? That is the sticky part.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 01:03 PM (AZGON)
52
Feeling entitled having learned from his Nazi master/sponsor, Soros said that he doesn't feel guilty for what happened because
"whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator; the property was
being taken away."
"whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator; the property was
being taken away."
Posted by: Glenn Beck at November 12, 2010 01:04 PM (H+LJc)
53
In a "perfect" conservative/Constitution-oriented nation, I don't expect there'd be any such thing as Social Security.
In any real arrangement, however, you're going to have a slice that screams "There outta be a law!" and you just get SS reinstituted down the road.
So the question is: What is the most conservative approach to retirement that will do well enough for the bulk of the populace without (a) generating government bureaucrats, (b) creating a sense of entitlement, or (c) stiffing anyone?
I'm thinking the IRA system is a hefty chunk of this - except for the limits. The money is allowed to in tax free, the government doesn't actually run the program(s), and you have the option of bailing at any point (after taxes) because the money is yours. Your heirs even inherit the remains.
So the goal of any transition is to pump up the IRA plans, make them a little more ubiquitous, while simultaneously deflating SS. The potential endgame would be a government 'strong recommendation/mandate' that one sticks 12% of one's income into one's own IRA. Or opt out via a form "I reject on religious/moral/other grounds, and I understand that coming back to the government for help on this issue is an automatic ruling that I'm non compos mentos. k thx."
So the transition is the tricky part. Charge a fee to allow one to contribute an extra $1000 into one's IRA. And explicitly start ramping down the promised benefits for everyone that does contribute extra. (Arrange it such that it is still a relative bargain. The rate of return anyone 18-50 gets from even CDs is going to crush the ROI of SS.)
I don't think this covers the entire gap, but conservatives need to freaking find an acceptable "endgame" if you want to kill this monstrosity. Being against insanity is fine, but set something up as a credible long-term replacement other than "Nothing."
In any real arrangement, however, you're going to have a slice that screams "There outta be a law!" and you just get SS reinstituted down the road.
So the question is: What is the most conservative approach to retirement that will do well enough for the bulk of the populace without (a) generating government bureaucrats, (b) creating a sense of entitlement, or (c) stiffing anyone?
I'm thinking the IRA system is a hefty chunk of this - except for the limits. The money is allowed to in tax free, the government doesn't actually run the program(s), and you have the option of bailing at any point (after taxes) because the money is yours. Your heirs even inherit the remains.
So the goal of any transition is to pump up the IRA plans, make them a little more ubiquitous, while simultaneously deflating SS. The potential endgame would be a government 'strong recommendation/mandate' that one sticks 12% of one's income into one's own IRA. Or opt out via a form "I reject on religious/moral/other grounds, and I understand that coming back to the government for help on this issue is an automatic ruling that I'm non compos mentos. k thx."
So the transition is the tricky part. Charge a fee to allow one to contribute an extra $1000 into one's IRA. And explicitly start ramping down the promised benefits for everyone that does contribute extra. (Arrange it such that it is still a relative bargain. The rate of return anyone 18-50 gets from even CDs is going to crush the ROI of SS.)
I don't think this covers the entire gap, but conservatives need to freaking find an acceptable "endgame" if you want to kill this monstrosity. Being against insanity is fine, but set something up as a credible long-term replacement other than "Nothing."
Posted by: Al at November 12, 2010 01:06 PM (MzQOZ)
54
49
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74 by 2030.
I'd make it sooner than that. When SS was set up in 1935 with a retirement age of 62, guess what median life expectancy was?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ujg0T)
65?And I think we should raise the retirement age by age band immediately. And lower the payouts, too. I posted this above.(1) No change for those 60 and above.(2) For those in their 50s, pay out at 80% of the current rates, and starting at 70.*
(3) For those in their 40s, pay 50% starting at 72.*
(4) Under 40? no pension for you. Not at any age.
(5) No SSI
* Ages are my wild ass guess, based on insufficient information.
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74 by 2030.
I'd make it sooner than that. When SS was set up in 1935 with a retirement age of 62, guess what median life expectancy was?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ujg0T)
65?And I think we should raise the retirement age by age band immediately. And lower the payouts, too. I posted this above.(1) No change for those 60 and above.(2) For those in their 50s, pay out at 80% of the current rates, and starting at 70.*
(3) For those in their 40s, pay 50% starting at 72.*
(4) Under 40? no pension for you. Not at any age.
(5) No SSI
* Ages are my wild ass guess, based on insufficient information.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 01:06 PM (7+pP9)
55
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74
What would prevent employers from finding means to lay-off their senior workforce aged at 60, even if the retirement age were 100?
What would prevent employers from finding means to lay-off their senior workforce aged at 60, even if the retirement age were 100?
Posted by: Glenn Beck at November 12, 2010 01:08 PM (H+LJc)
56
look, Oprah, John Stewart, Colbert, have to go out there and tell Americans "houston we have a problem". People have to bring the elephant in the room out in the open.
People in government have to realize that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of the country. Maybe BO has to be a one term president and a lot of his buddies in DC in elected office will end up leaving office too....
but what's the alternative....
If you know the car is going off the clif do you take the car out anyway and just drive off the cliff or do you try and fix it before you reach the cliff...
People in government have to realize that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of the country. Maybe BO has to be a one term president and a lot of his buddies in DC in elected office will end up leaving office too....
but what's the alternative....
If you know the car is going off the clif do you take the car out anyway and just drive off the cliff or do you try and fix it before you reach the cliff...
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:08 PM (p302b)
57
Reagan, 1964:
But we're against those entrusted with this program
when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any
criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them
for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of
literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was
a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.
And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and
the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial
head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of
this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry
because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people
whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average
salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance
policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could
live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social
Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a
sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them
when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
But we're against those entrusted with this program
when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any
criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them
for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of
literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was
a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.
And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and
the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial
head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of
this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry
because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people
whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average
salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance
policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could
live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social
Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a
sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them
when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Posted by: Britt at November 12, 2010 01:09 PM (cGAax)
58
The largest hurdle I see is to get people to understand that SS was intended as a SUPPLEMENT, not an entirety. Do that, and it ceases to be a political third rail, not to mention reducing the problem of who to assist to manageable levels.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
You are fortunate that you will at least have a chance to recoup the money that was, as you rightly say, was extorted from you. People who are not yet collecting benefits will no be that lucky.
For these people the challenge is not to get them to understand that SS is a "supplement to retirement", but rather that SS is, and has been LEGALIZED THEFT and that their government has taken them for suckers.
That's a bit more of a challenge, but once people make that realization, that their government has played them for suckers, they will be much more at ease with making the changes that are needed to reform the government.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
You are fortunate that you will at least have a chance to recoup the money that was, as you rightly say, was extorted from you. People who are not yet collecting benefits will no be that lucky.
For these people the challenge is not to get them to understand that SS is a "supplement to retirement", but rather that SS is, and has been LEGALIZED THEFT and that their government has taken them for suckers.
That's a bit more of a challenge, but once people make that realization, that their government has played them for suckers, they will be much more at ease with making the changes that are needed to reform the government.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 12, 2010 01:10 PM (02uN6)
59
Quaoar, I hope you have had a good estate planner put in place the structure for that transfer.
Posted by: Jean at November 12, 2010 01:11 PM (Ja6pC)
60
If it'll make you feel better, I can tell you "you're beautiful."
Posted by: TSA Agent fondling your genitalia at November 12, 2010 01:13 PM (GwPRU)
61
55
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74
What
would prevent employers from finding means to lay-off their senior
workforce aged at 60, even if the retirement age were 100?
Posted by: Glenn Beck at November 12, 2010 01:08 PM (H+LJc)
Nothing. That's why you have such a problem here. There aren't enough fast food and big box store jobs to support all of today's seniors that an immediate cessation of SS would force back into the workplace. And that's not even counting the ones that are too decrepit to work.Immediate cessation is like limiting the vote to veterans; it gives some people a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it would be a disaster if it was ever to be implemented.
Accelerate the raising of the retirement age so that it's 74
What
would prevent employers from finding means to lay-off their senior
workforce aged at 60, even if the retirement age were 100?
Posted by: Glenn Beck at November 12, 2010 01:08 PM (H+LJc)
Nothing. That's why you have such a problem here. There aren't enough fast food and big box store jobs to support all of today's seniors that an immediate cessation of SS would force back into the workplace. And that's not even counting the ones that are too decrepit to work.Immediate cessation is like limiting the vote to veterans; it gives some people a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it would be a disaster if it was ever to be implemented.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 01:13 PM (7+pP9)
62
There aren't enough fast food and big box store jobs to support all of today's seniors that an immediate cessation of SS would force back into the workplace.
!Si', Sen~or!
!Si', Sen~or!
Posted by: Illegal aliens at November 12, 2010 01:14 PM (ujg0T)
63
We interrupt this thread for A Republican Hand-Wringing Pant Wetting update:
Chris Christie is fat and mean. Sarah Palin is an embarrasing hillbilly. And maybe we should consider compromise on the Health Care Reform bill because it will help some Republicans get elected in 2012.
We interrupt this thread for A Republican Hand-Wringing Pant Wetting update:
Chris Christie is fat and mean. Sarah Palin is an embarrasing hillbilly. And maybe we should consider compromise on the Health Care Reform bill because it will help some Republicans get elected in 2012.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 12, 2010 01:15 PM (uFokq)
64
For those in their 50s, pay out at 80% of the current rates, and starting at 70.*
If you have the qualifying age set high enough, you may not even need to cut current payout rates. Seriously. If they pass away soon after and aren't on it long enough.....just saying....
If you have the qualifying age set high enough, you may not even need to cut current payout rates. Seriously. If they pass away soon after and aren't on it long enough.....just saying....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:16 PM (ujg0T)
65
You know who is going to be the next president? The guy/gal in the GOP who steps up and makes it their mission to repeal Obamacare. Plain and simple. Listen to Rush. The AP is already saying the American people voted in the republicans cause they wanted their tax rate to remain as is and not because they wanted Obamacare.
Obamacare is a failure. It still left people uncovered, which was allegedly the point, right?
Obamacare is a failure. It still left people uncovered, which was allegedly the point, right?
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:17 PM (p302b)
66
8 That's not gonna make the "Me, me, me" libtards happy. Quick, find another freebie to keep them in line!
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 12, 2010 12:14 PM (i+9lz)
Hey! Don't forget the "Me, me, me" conservatives. To wit:
50 Interesting. I'm one of the "baby boomers" currently collecting SS. A few years back, we (wife&I ) won our personal war on poverty, after a long, arduous struggle. SS doesn't really factor into our retirement, so it could disappear with out much heartbreak. My only personal concern is having the tax money extorted from me refunded. My employer (s) portion is not included here.
Once the amount I contributed has been realized, take the rest and burn it for all I care. We realized early on that retirement was on US, and we acted accordingly. Took a lot of years of frugal living to achieve, but here we are now.
The largest hurdle I see is to get people to understand that SS was intended as a SUPPLEMENT, not an entirety. Do that, and it ceases to be a political third rail, not to mention reducing the problem of who to assist to manageable levels.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 12, 2010 12:14 PM (i+9lz)
Hey! Don't forget the "Me, me, me" conservatives. To wit:
50 Interesting. I'm one of the "baby boomers" currently collecting SS. A few years back, we (wife&I ) won our personal war on poverty, after a long, arduous struggle. SS doesn't really factor into our retirement, so it could disappear with out much heartbreak. My only personal concern is having the tax money extorted from me refunded. My employer (s) portion is not included here.
Once the amount I contributed has been realized, take the rest and burn it for all I care. We realized early on that retirement was on US, and we acted accordingly. Took a lot of years of frugal living to achieve, but here we are now.
The largest hurdle I see is to get people to understand that SS was intended as a SUPPLEMENT, not an entirety. Do that, and it ceases to be a political third rail, not to mention reducing the problem of who to assist to manageable levels.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 12, 2010 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
Posted by: MMW at November 12, 2010 01:17 PM (4BTKQ)
67
The problem is one of time -- or rather, the lack thereof. This is why I think people are dealing in fantasy when the speak of twenty-year time-horizons to fix the problem. I don't think we have that long. We have ten years, maybe as little as five, to get a handle on the problem.
All you have to do is look at the bulging wave of Boomers who will be retiring in the next few years to see the wave cresting. The system is already in the red; that wave will absolutely crush any hope of solvency. And yes, we can paper over the problem for awhile by pretending that the bonds we put in the "trust fund" are actual money, but everyone knows that for the horse-shit that it is. (Also -- if inflation takes off and foreigners stop buying our shitty debt, guess what's going to happen? The Fed will print a bunch of money to cover the shortfall. They'll have no choice. The result? More inflation.)
The upshot is that when I and my cohort dodder into our declining years, we may indeed get a check from Uncle Sugar -- which pays out a measly fraction of what was promised, in massively inflated and nearly-worthless currency. And even we'll be luckier than our children, because they'll most likely get a heaping helping of nothing at all.
All you have to do is look at the bulging wave of Boomers who will be retiring in the next few years to see the wave cresting. The system is already in the red; that wave will absolutely crush any hope of solvency. And yes, we can paper over the problem for awhile by pretending that the bonds we put in the "trust fund" are actual money, but everyone knows that for the horse-shit that it is. (Also -- if inflation takes off and foreigners stop buying our shitty debt, guess what's going to happen? The Fed will print a bunch of money to cover the shortfall. They'll have no choice. The result? More inflation.)
The upshot is that when I and my cohort dodder into our declining years, we may indeed get a check from Uncle Sugar -- which pays out a measly fraction of what was promised, in massively inflated and nearly-worthless currency. And even we'll be luckier than our children, because they'll most likely get a heaping helping of nothing at all.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 01:20 PM (4Pleu)
68
The republican/conservative who thinks out of the box, who comes up with new and daring ways to deal with this stuff will get the people's respect. But just pretending it will go away or it isn't a huge issue isn't going to work. Plus you have a record deficit and have you noticed, no budget...
Guys someone's got to step up and start the ball rolling...
Guys someone's got to step up and start the ball rolling...
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:22 PM (p302b)
69
Hey, Monty (and the rest of the beloved Moron Nation). This is OT, but I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at this. I'm not sure if you teach college-level lit courses or writing, but I know you appreciate good writing. This is Hillsdale College'sOctoberedition of Imprimus with Mike Pence opining onThe Presidency and the Constitution. I thought it was superb.
Posted by: RushBabe at November 12, 2010 01:22 PM (a3Z62)
70
I propose that Monty(ourmodern day economicRebecca of Sunnybrook Farm) shouldcoordinatehis posts so we can collectively convene at some bar, have a few fairwell drinks, and commitgroup sepukku.
Posted by: fapo at November 12, 2010 01:22 PM (Hq48F)
71
Posted by: fapo at November 12, 2010 01:22 PM (Hq48F)
See this is the problem. no one wants to hear any ad news. No one wants to deal with any bad news.
Look when you are running an F and you have two tests left....you gotta ace the test. You gotta do it, no choice or you will fail. People have to deal with this stuff now, not when the tsunami of crash hits....they have to use good old American ingenuity and fix this stuff....
See this is the problem. no one wants to hear any ad news. No one wants to deal with any bad news.
Look when you are running an F and you have two tests left....you gotta ace the test. You gotta do it, no choice or you will fail. People have to deal with this stuff now, not when the tsunami of crash hits....they have to use good old American ingenuity and fix this stuff....
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:26 PM (p302b)
72
Russ pisses me off and then Monty calms me down...
you go Monty!
none of the Establishment types want to talk about S.S. even now, even after this election proves that people are as ready as they will ever be to hear some hard truths about S.S. and Medicare/Medicaid.
the leadership of the GOP is just as stupid and awful as the Dems leadership.
you go Monty!
none of the Establishment types want to talk about S.S. even now, even after this election proves that people are as ready as they will ever be to hear some hard truths about S.S. and Medicare/Medicaid.
the leadership of the GOP is just as stupid and awful as the Dems leadership.
Posted by: Shoey at November 12, 2010 01:26 PM (ehKDD)
73
Yeah no offense Monty but your econmic posts are about as cheerful as my wife after she spent the day brushing out clumps of her hair and reading the Enquirer.
Posted by: John Edwards at November 12, 2010 01:27 PM (VoRkG)
74
the leadership of the GOP is just as stupid and awful as the Dems leadership.
Posted by: Shoey at November 12, 2010 01:26 PM (ehKDD)
which is why independents are growing exponentially....no one wants to associate with either party...
the leadership of the GOP is just as stupid and awful as the Dems leadership.
Posted by: Shoey at November 12, 2010 01:26 PM (ehKDD)
which is why independents are growing exponentially....no one wants to associate with either party...
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:27 PM (p302b)
75
If you have the qualifying age set high enough,
you may not even need to cut current payout rates. Seriously. If they
pass away soon after and aren't on it long enough.....just saying....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:16 PM (ujg0T)
I once read that the NFL pension was originally set for a player with 5 full seasons under his belt could start to collect a pension at age 55. At that time, the average lifespan for a player with 5 full seasons under his belt was ... 55.I also remember reading that SS was set up to pay out at 62 when the average lifespan was 65. In other words, citizens were only supposed to collect for their last three years on earth.
Both could be anecdotal, but I'd not be surprised to find out both are true.I just checked Wikipedia, which has a table of world life expectancies, and according to it, the average US male lives 75.6 years, females live 80.8 years, for a combined average of 78.2 years. An SS payout age of 72 would mean men collect for 3.6 years, and women for 8.8 years; much more in line with the original plans.Really want to solve this problem long term? Eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes. Eliminate and taxes on IRAs and 401(k)s. Don't count any money paid into these accounts (by you or your employer) towards your salary for that year. People will save enough that we can eliminate SS entirely, or make it an old age pension for the poorest 10%.
you may not even need to cut current payout rates. Seriously. If they
pass away soon after and aren't on it long enough.....just saying....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:16 PM (ujg0T)
I once read that the NFL pension was originally set for a player with 5 full seasons under his belt could start to collect a pension at age 55. At that time, the average lifespan for a player with 5 full seasons under his belt was ... 55.I also remember reading that SS was set up to pay out at 62 when the average lifespan was 65. In other words, citizens were only supposed to collect for their last three years on earth.
Both could be anecdotal, but I'd not be surprised to find out both are true.I just checked Wikipedia, which has a table of world life expectancies, and according to it, the average US male lives 75.6 years, females live 80.8 years, for a combined average of 78.2 years. An SS payout age of 72 would mean men collect for 3.6 years, and women for 8.8 years; much more in line with the original plans.Really want to solve this problem long term? Eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes. Eliminate and taxes on IRAs and 401(k)s. Don't count any money paid into these accounts (by you or your employer) towards your salary for that year. People will save enough that we can eliminate SS entirely, or make it an old age pension for the poorest 10%.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 12, 2010 01:29 PM (7+pP9)
76
And you realistically think abolition can happen? Jacking up the retirement age? Totally a must. Means testing some benefits? Ditto. But abolition? Yes, we can dream, but I like goals that can actually happen.Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 12:56 PM (ujg0T) I didn't say anything about abolition. But small incremental changes won't work any more than a meaningless gesture of raising the retirement age to some absurd level. Who the hell is going to employ those people until they are in their seventies?I'm saying that SS and MC need to be redesigned and notwithstanding the BS arguments against a market based solution, outside the sticky mitts of politicians. I believe that that is where to look for a solution and I also believe that it is totally workable.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 12, 2010 01:29 PM (r1h5M)
77
Btw, last night the press attempted to ask some remotely maybe a little not what was expected questions and got met with an angry fellow....
Maybe it's time for real journalists to emerge....
Maybe it's time for real journalists to emerge....
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:30 PM (p302b)
78
Yeah no offense Monty but your econmic posts are about as cheerful as my wife after she spent the day brushing out clumps of her hair and reading the Enquirer.
That's just how I roll, homie.
Believe it or not, I'm presenting the "middle case" scenario, not the "worst case" scenario. I can't believe how many people (mostly liberals, but a lot of conservatives) take the most-unlikely outcome (the "optimistic case") and take that as an inevitablility. It's suicidal madness, but...well, look at California. People are determined to put off the problem until it becomes a clear and present catastrophe.
That's just how I roll, homie.
Believe it or not, I'm presenting the "middle case" scenario, not the "worst case" scenario. I can't believe how many people (mostly liberals, but a lot of conservatives) take the most-unlikely outcome (the "optimistic case") and take that as an inevitablility. It's suicidal madness, but...well, look at California. People are determined to put off the problem until it becomes a clear and present catastrophe.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 01:30 PM (4Pleu)
79
Flounder Citizens, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes!
You fucked up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can
help.
You fucked up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can
help.
Posted by: Otter (D-Faber) at November 12, 2010 01:30 PM (5Rurq)
80
I am discussing this with friends over the course of a week now. It's too funny cause one of my friends insists there is a private solution and then he finally got slammed by my other friend who said "yeah, there's a private solution, the unions used it beautifully, they had the federal government bail them out"....
thank God this is a computer conversation....i honestly think they'd be punching each other by now in person...
thank God this is a computer conversation....i honestly think they'd be punching each other by now in person...
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:33 PM (p302b)
Posted by: The Narcissus of California at November 12, 2010 01:34 PM (AZGON)
82
If the Social Security program is so damn good, why don't the people who work for the Social Security Administration participate in it? Instead, they have their own taxpayer-funded pension program, and they don't have to pay SSA withholding.
It says something when the chef won't eat in his own restaurant.
If the Social Security program is so damn good, why don't the people who work for the Social Security Administration participate in it? Instead, they have their own taxpayer-funded pension program, and they don't have to pay SSA withholding.
It says something when the chef won't eat in his own restaurant.
Posted by: Brown Line at November 12, 2010 01:40 PM (VrNoa)
83
But small incremental changes won't work any more than a meaningless gesture of raising the retirement age to some absurd level. Who the hell is going to employ those people until they are in their seventies?
Whatever happened to 40 being the new 30 and 60 the new 50? People *are* genuinely living longer and healthier lives than they used to, all the scares about obesity notwithstanding. I compare my parents to my grandparents at like ages.
A realistic move of the retirement age from 65 to 75 is in order.
Whatever happened to 40 being the new 30 and 60 the new 50? People *are* genuinely living longer and healthier lives than they used to, all the scares about obesity notwithstanding. I compare my parents to my grandparents at like ages.
A realistic move of the retirement age from 65 to 75 is in order.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 01:40 PM (ujg0T)
84
Hey Monty, thanks for that sidebar item on Don Otto's Market. That was fucking hilarious.
Perhaps the failed owner can go work for Helicopter Ben and drop wagyu steak along with worthless dollars.
Perhaps the failed owner can go work for Helicopter Ben and drop wagyu steak along with worthless dollars.
Posted by: The Narcissus of California at November 12, 2010 01:44 PM (AZGON)
85
84
My sock drawer is disorganized.
My sock drawer is disorganized.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 01:44 PM (AZGON)
86
i'm seriously beginning to think that if you work (worked) for the rpivate sector that you will be screwed again when there is no SS there. Yet if you worked for the government, you're fine. In fact most are millionaires.
So the middle class that will take the hit are the ones who were gutsy enough to work for the private sector and didn't want to work for the public and be part of the union.
And those are the people who have lost their jobs and their house. And when they lose their SS they will just be totally demoralized. It needs to be fixed now.
So the middle class that will take the hit are the ones who were gutsy enough to work for the private sector and didn't want to work for the public and be part of the union.
And those are the people who have lost their jobs and their house. And when they lose their SS they will just be totally demoralized. It needs to be fixed now.
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 01:45 PM (p302b)
87
people need to be disabused of the notion that anyone except themselves is going to take care of them.
the Government won't take care of you, they don't care about you, they care about controlling you.
thefinancial firm that holds your 401 won't take care of you, they don't care about you, they care about the money in your accountbecause as long as that money stays in that account it's their money.
you, your family and your close friends these are the only people that care enough about you to truly "help" you, everyone else only wants something from you.
it's sad, but it's reality... anything else is a marxist pipe-dream.
the Government won't take care of you, they don't care about you, they care about controlling you.
thefinancial firm that holds your 401 won't take care of you, they don't care about you, they care about the money in your accountbecause as long as that money stays in that account it's their money.
you, your family and your close friends these are the only people that care enough about you to truly "help" you, everyone else only wants something from you.
it's sad, but it's reality... anything else is a marxist pipe-dream.
Posted by: Shoey at November 12, 2010 01:47 PM (ehKDD)
88
The only real future seems to be in employment as a Federal worker. Hell, they get about half again more than private industry workers do in wages and benefits. Plus, you get to micromanage others' lives and be a peripatetic busybody. Hassle your neighbors and get paid for it!
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 01:48 PM (AZGON)
89
Hey Monty, thanks for that sidebar item on Don Otto's Market. That was fucking hilarious.
That story was sweet, baby. I love it when dumbass liberals get hit in the face with their own idiocy, and have no conservative in sight to blame it on. I just wish I could have been there in person so I could have one more cherished memory to take with me to my grave.
That story was sweet, baby. I love it when dumbass liberals get hit in the face with their own idiocy, and have no conservative in sight to blame it on. I just wish I could have been there in person so I could have one more cherished memory to take with me to my grave.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 01:52 PM (4Pleu)
90
The only good that will come out of this disaster is the sweet, sweet tears of liberal idiots who have been screaming about conservatives wanting to risk SS by privatizing the "most successful project ever to come out of DC" when they realize they have been taken by a Ponzi scheme.
Seriously, anybody who didn't know by now that SS was beyond broken, it never worked, is a hopeless idiot.
Seriously, anybody who didn't know by now that SS was beyond broken, it never worked, is a hopeless idiot.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 12, 2010 01:53 PM (TMB3S)
91
Whatever happened to 40 being the new 30 and 60 the new 50? People *are* genuinely living longer and healthier lives than they used to, all the scares aboutobesity notwithstanding. I compare my parents to my grandparents at like ages.A realistic move of the retirement age from 65 to 75 is in order.Posted by: Curmudgeon atNovember 12, 2010 01:40 PM (ujg0T) The data on life expectancy is heavily misinterpreted and is skewed more on infant mortality than on people in adulthood actually living longer.Like your parents, there are outliers in any group. My great grandmother lived into her 90’s. Maybe she should have been made to work to80.Your argument for increasing the retirement age to 75 in unrealistic.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 12, 2010 01:53 PM (r1h5M)
92
from Monty's sidebar item about the invisible hand smacking up a liberal head:
The manager of Don Otto’s – a recently shuttered food market in the South End – is blaming neighborhood patrons for its untimely demise, cooking up an angry message to fair-weather fans of the Tremont Street eatery.
...a message on its Web site reads, later adding: “If you came in only for baguettes, the occasional piece of cheese, the occasional dinner . . . you can not tell yourself you were a supporter of our market.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Selling eggs at $8.50 per dozen. That just screams "Business plan eleventy!"
The manager of Don Otto’s – a recently shuttered food market in the South End – is blaming neighborhood patrons for its untimely demise, cooking up an angry message to fair-weather fans of the Tremont Street eatery.
...a message on its Web site reads, later adding: “If you came in only for baguettes, the occasional piece of cheese, the occasional dinner . . . you can not tell yourself you were a supporter of our market.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Selling eggs at $8.50 per dozen. That just screams "Business plan eleventy!"
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 01:59 PM (AZGON)
93
Hussein the Plumber:
I think the focus on longevity is misplaced: yes, we are living (a bit) longer, but the big news is that we are living more active lives during the years we have. 80 year olds are generally more spry than 70 year olds a generation ago due to better diet, better medical care, and more mental stimulus. Treatments for chronic illnesses like diabetes, MS, and others vastly improve quality of life...but at a vastly increased cost to the society. It's a double-edged sword.
Elderly people accrue very high medical costs. It's an inevitable part of growing old. And as our least years approach, our medical costs skyrocket (you'll spend about 50% of your lifetime healthcare dollars in the last ten yours of your life, on average).
Combine slightly longer lives with a vastly more expensive old-age lifestyles, and you have a recipe for the disaster we face right now.
I've always said that if you are under 50, you have at least a decent chance of living to be 100, giving the advantages in medical and other technology. Our kids may be able to live even longer than that. (You want to hear a cool/scary thought? What would happen to our entitlement programs if everyone had the option of living for 300 or 500 years?)
I think the focus on longevity is misplaced: yes, we are living (a bit) longer, but the big news is that we are living more active lives during the years we have. 80 year olds are generally more spry than 70 year olds a generation ago due to better diet, better medical care, and more mental stimulus. Treatments for chronic illnesses like diabetes, MS, and others vastly improve quality of life...but at a vastly increased cost to the society. It's a double-edged sword.
Elderly people accrue very high medical costs. It's an inevitable part of growing old. And as our least years approach, our medical costs skyrocket (you'll spend about 50% of your lifetime healthcare dollars in the last ten yours of your life, on average).
Combine slightly longer lives with a vastly more expensive old-age lifestyles, and you have a recipe for the disaster we face right now.
I've always said that if you are under 50, you have at least a decent chance of living to be 100, giving the advantages in medical and other technology. Our kids may be able to live even longer than that. (You want to hear a cool/scary thought? What would happen to our entitlement programs if everyone had the option of living for 300 or 500 years?)
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 01:59 PM (4Pleu)
94
Honestly, I can't get over this... the fool of an owner of Don Otto's thought people came in not for food but to be "a supporter of (her) market."
Liberals... Not selling goods but good feelings. Or not, as the case may be.
Liberals... Not selling goods but good feelings. Or not, as the case may be.
Posted by: George Orwell at November 12, 2010 02:01 PM (AZGON)
95
If you came in only for baguettes, the occasional piece of cheese, the occasional dinner
Answer: Wonder Bread and Cheez Wiz. And it won't cost me fifty fucking dollars.
Answer: Wonder Bread and Cheez Wiz. And it won't cost me fifty fucking dollars.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 02:02 PM (4Pleu)
96
"US-Sino Currency Rap Battle"
link
via dealbreaker and FT Alphaville
dealbreaker links to FT Alphaville
link
via dealbreaker and FT Alphaville
dealbreaker links to FT Alphaville
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 02:04 PM (p302b)
97
How is it that the government gets away with a patently illegal Ponzi scheme? How is it that no one has the b*lls to tell all the old people that they're victims and victimizers of a Ponzi scheme?
Until we have a citizen Congress once again this crap will go on and metastasize until it consumes America. I am now a full-on disciple of term limits. Six years, that's it for the House and the Senate. On top of that they only meet three times a year for three weeks unless there's an official attack on the US or some rather nasty act of God - oil well fires do not count as FEMA exists with the Coast Guard (et al) to handle the Fed's part in these things.
IMHO that's a start.
Until we have a citizen Congress once again this crap will go on and metastasize until it consumes America. I am now a full-on disciple of term limits. Six years, that's it for the House and the Senate. On top of that they only meet three times a year for three weeks unless there's an official attack on the US or some rather nasty act of God - oil well fires do not count as FEMA exists with the Coast Guard (et al) to handle the Fed's part in these things.
IMHO that's a start.
Posted by: Hoper for Change at November 12, 2010 02:04 PM (adr25)
98
Hussein the Plumber: I think the focus on longevity is misplaced: yes, we are living (a bit) longer, but the big news is that we are living more active lives during the years we have. 80 year olds are generally more spry than 70 year olds a generation ago due to better diet, better medical care, and more mental stimulus.
Stats about decreased infant mortality aside (which is why I said *median* and not *mean* age), I ask every formerly young adult now turning middle aged Moron and Moronette here to look back (not through child's eye, but through young adult eye) and observe that our now elderly parents are much more active and spry than our now deceased grandparents at like age. Empirically.
Stats about decreased infant mortality aside (which is why I said *median* and not *mean* age), I ask every formerly young adult now turning middle aged Moron and Moronette here to look back (not through child's eye, but through young adult eye) and observe that our now elderly parents are much more active and spry than our now deceased grandparents at like age. Empirically.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 02:09 PM (ujg0T)
99
The data on life expectancy is heavily misinterpreted and is skewed more on infant mortality than on people in adulthood actually living longer.
I said *median*, not *mean average*. I know infant death skews mean average.
Like your parents, there are outliers in any group. My great grandmother lived into her 90’s. Maybe she should have been made to work to 80.
If she hadn't made her own pension and earnings arrangements in advance, yes. Sad but true, it will come to that for all elderly.
I said *median*, not *mean average*. I know infant death skews mean average.
Like your parents, there are outliers in any group. My great grandmother lived into her 90’s. Maybe she should have been made to work to 80.
If she hadn't made her own pension and earnings arrangements in advance, yes. Sad but true, it will come to that for all elderly.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 02:11 PM (ujg0T)
100
Wow, the small individual investor has been "cut out" of the GM IPO according to CNBS who is making a huge deal about this today.
Gee they could have made a huge deal about people losing their jobs and houses. Heck we could have paid off everyone's mortgage and continued their unemployment and still had money left over to help out the old unions and other countries.
Gee they could have made a huge deal about people losing their jobs and houses. Heck we could have paid off everyone's mortgage and continued their unemployment and still had money left over to help out the old unions and other countries.
Posted by: curious at November 12, 2010 02:21 PM (p302b)
101
observe that our now elderly parents are much more active and spry than our now deceased grandparents at like age
And because they are more active, they spend more money. Retirees of today (on average) live far more lavish lives than their parents did at the same age, and even more so than their grandparents did.
A lot of retirees are taking a lot of debt into retirement as well -- credit debt, college-loan debt from the kids, cars, boats, travel, vacation home mortgages, RVs, etc. It used to be expected that elderly people would depend on their children for support in their declining years, but the last generation didn't have enough children (China's even worse). This is called the 4-2-1 problem: 1 kid taking care of 2 parents and 4 grandparents. Or not, as the case may be.
It's mass of numbers (Boomers are a huge demographic, so small increases in lifespan have a big impact), and it's the habits and lifestyles of those retirees in their retirement. Most retirees don't save nearly enough to get them through all their years of retirement without a subsidy of some kind, and they continue bad spending habits into their retirements.
And because they are more active, they spend more money. Retirees of today (on average) live far more lavish lives than their parents did at the same age, and even more so than their grandparents did.
A lot of retirees are taking a lot of debt into retirement as well -- credit debt, college-loan debt from the kids, cars, boats, travel, vacation home mortgages, RVs, etc. It used to be expected that elderly people would depend on their children for support in their declining years, but the last generation didn't have enough children (China's even worse). This is called the 4-2-1 problem: 1 kid taking care of 2 parents and 4 grandparents. Or not, as the case may be.
It's mass of numbers (Boomers are a huge demographic, so small increases in lifespan have a big impact), and it's the habits and lifestyles of those retirees in their retirement. Most retirees don't save nearly enough to get them through all their years of retirement without a subsidy of some kind, and they continue bad spending habits into their retirements.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 02:29 PM (4Pleu)
102
| See this is the problem. No one wants to hear any ad news. No one wants to | deal with any bad news.
That's the problem with communicating by text. One has to pepper a response with lame smiley faces in order to convey sarcasm.
:^}...
Monty's posts are chock full of excellent information. That being said, I generally know what I'm in for before I click on one of his links, and the notion of having a stiff drink with really bad news is not altogether unreasonable.
That's the problem with communicating by text. One has to pepper a response with lame smiley faces in order to convey sarcasm.
:^}...
Monty's posts are chock full of excellent information. That being said, I generally know what I'm in for before I click on one of his links, and the notion of having a stiff drink with really bad news is not altogether unreasonable.
Posted by: fapo at November 12, 2010 02:36 PM (Hq48F)
103
A lot of retirees are taking a lot of debt into retirement as well -- credit debt, college-loan debt from the kids, cars, boats, travel, vacation home mortgages, RVs, etc. It used to be expected that elderly people would depend on their children for support in their declining years, but the last generation didn't have enough children (China's even worse). This is called the 4-2-1 problem: 1 kid taking care of 2 parents and 4 grandparents. Or not, as the case may be.
Not only this, but all too many relatively affluent Silent and Boom Generation parents are helping out their relatively impoverished Generation X and Y children, who have less opportunities and earn less real income than they did at like age.
Disclaimer: I am a generation Xer, born 1967, and mySilent Generation Depression era birth parents are having the time of their lives in retirement. Now they earned every cent of it, having prudently invested all their lives, and Social Security to them is just a fraction of their income. But they argue, hey, they had to pay into it all their young lives, why shouldn't they take it as elders? And I don't have a response other than to point out the lengthened life span.
Not only this, but all too many relatively affluent Silent and Boom Generation parents are helping out their relatively impoverished Generation X and Y children, who have less opportunities and earn less real income than they did at like age.
Disclaimer: I am a generation Xer, born 1967, and mySilent Generation Depression era birth parents are having the time of their lives in retirement. Now they earned every cent of it, having prudently invested all their lives, and Social Security to them is just a fraction of their income. But they argue, hey, they had to pay into it all their young lives, why shouldn't they take it as elders? And I don't have a response other than to point out the lengthened life span.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 02:51 PM (ujg0T)
104
I'm entitled to this bag of dicks!!!
Posted by: Russ' Mom's Poon at November 12, 2010 02:58 PM (G5qLy)
105
I'm all for the creation/revamping of a true 'Safety Net' for when folks get too old or unable to work, just as long as those currently receiving SS are left alone. Those of us who are on SS played by the rules and had certain expectations (especially when younger) about what resources would be available to us when we got old.
To pull the rug out from under seniors NOW would create a real mess, cause unnecessary hardship and would rouse a lot of people (seniors and their kin) into outright rebellion.
Sure you can be snarky and say that it's tough when a Ponzi scheme goes bad and the last ones get the shaft but the thing is, we paid into the system and ONLY NOW are receiving any benefit AND what are you geniuses going to do about millions of grannies tossed into the street? Or grandpa wandering around wondering where he is?
You can't ignore the old and unless you want to create euthanization centers and start the trains rolling, something has to be done for those of us who are unable to find work, to work or are incapacitated in some other manner.
If you shut off the spigot, where do the millions who depend on it go?
To pull the rug out from under seniors NOW would create a real mess, cause unnecessary hardship and would rouse a lot of people (seniors and their kin) into outright rebellion.
Sure you can be snarky and say that it's tough when a Ponzi scheme goes bad and the last ones get the shaft but the thing is, we paid into the system and ONLY NOW are receiving any benefit AND what are you geniuses going to do about millions of grannies tossed into the street? Or grandpa wandering around wondering where he is?
You can't ignore the old and unless you want to create euthanization centers and start the trains rolling, something has to be done for those of us who are unable to find work, to work or are incapacitated in some other manner.
If you shut off the spigot, where do the millions who depend on it go?
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 02:59 PM (fhTf7)
106
P.S. a means test would be also be OK with me and many others.
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 03:01 PM (fhTf7)
107
#105: That was my point all along. Jack up the retirement age for those not on Social Security *yet*, but don't touch it for those on it now. Because you are correct, the latter *will not* politically fly.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2010 03:02 PM (ujg0T)
108
Oh, and we're taking a lot of debt into our retirement because maybe the 'retirement' was kinda forced on some of us.
4 years ago I was making the equivalent of 35,000. I had about 15,000 of debt which since I had NO EXPENSES was not a worry. (I had a special deal going so that I didn't have to pay rent, heat, electric, water, etc.)
NOW having had the company I worked for close, I'm trying to live on 20,000 (part time work and SS) and pay off that debt which has grown to 18,000.
I'M A VICTIM OF COICUMSTANCES, NYUK, NYUK, NYUK.
4 years ago I was making the equivalent of 35,000. I had about 15,000 of debt which since I had NO EXPENSES was not a worry. (I had a special deal going so that I didn't have to pay rent, heat, electric, water, etc.)
NOW having had the company I worked for close, I'm trying to live on 20,000 (part time work and SS) and pay off that debt which has grown to 18,000.
I'M A VICTIM OF COICUMSTANCES, NYUK, NYUK, NYUK.
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 03:06 PM (fhTf7)
109
jakee308:
Let's say it comes down to funding your retirement or my own. Which way should I choose? It's becoming increasingly apparent that I can't do both -- no one can.
I agree that cuts to existing benefits are unlikely in the near term, but elderly folks had better ready themselves for a shock five or ten years down the line, because the cuts are a-comin'. It's a mathematical inevitability at this point.
It's not a question of hating on old folks. I'm pro-old-folks myself. But reality is what it is, not what we wish it to be.
Let's say it comes down to funding your retirement or my own. Which way should I choose? It's becoming increasingly apparent that I can't do both -- no one can.
I agree that cuts to existing benefits are unlikely in the near term, but elderly folks had better ready themselves for a shock five or ten years down the line, because the cuts are a-comin'. It's a mathematical inevitability at this point.
It's not a question of hating on old folks. I'm pro-old-folks myself. But reality is what it is, not what we wish it to be.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 03:07 PM (4Pleu)
110
It doesn't matter if you hate or don't hate old folks. It doesn't matter if you don't think you should have to pay for someone else's retirement.
The FACTS are that a lot of people DEPEND upon the SS payments.
THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PREPARE FOR CUTS!
Many don't even have relatives to help them out. Those that do, wouldn't be able to support them.
If SS dries up FOR WHATEVER REASON there will be big problems that government (I.E. YOU) will have to pay for.
Better to dole it out and at least let folks try to be as independent and frugal as they can. If you close off the spigot, they will then demand to be TAKEN CARE OF because they have limited resources to do so themselves.
Where would the money for that come from? That's right, the guy in the mirror, that's who.
Of course that's given that all you youngsters don't decide to turn us 'Oldsters' out into the streets.
Problem there is that's more dangerous than you might think FOR YOU YOUNGSTERS.
The FACTS are that a lot of people DEPEND upon the SS payments.
THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PREPARE FOR CUTS!
Many don't even have relatives to help them out. Those that do, wouldn't be able to support them.
If SS dries up FOR WHATEVER REASON there will be big problems that government (I.E. YOU) will have to pay for.
Better to dole it out and at least let folks try to be as independent and frugal as they can. If you close off the spigot, they will then demand to be TAKEN CARE OF because they have limited resources to do so themselves.
Where would the money for that come from? That's right, the guy in the mirror, that's who.
Of course that's given that all you youngsters don't decide to turn us 'Oldsters' out into the streets.
Problem there is that's more dangerous than you might think FOR YOU YOUNGSTERS.
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 03:17 PM (fhTf7)
111
Oh, and just as an aside:
A thorough vetting of all SS supplemental claimants and the resulting reduction of the rolls by the removal of those who are able bodies but are claiming incapacitation. (no I don't know the number but SSI was NOT supposed to be as large as it is.)
AND
An immediate means test for CURRENT recipients that would eliminate those who have 6 figure RETIREMENT INCOMES along with large amounts of personal property.
Would probably put SS back into the black till 2040. (Especially if those lying c**ksuckers in congress quit raiding the SS fund.)
A thorough vetting of all SS supplemental claimants and the resulting reduction of the rolls by the removal of those who are able bodies but are claiming incapacitation. (no I don't know the number but SSI was NOT supposed to be as large as it is.)
AND
An immediate means test for CURRENT recipients that would eliminate those who have 6 figure RETIREMENT INCOMES along with large amounts of personal property.
Would probably put SS back into the black till 2040. (Especially if those lying c**ksuckers in congress quit raiding the SS fund.)
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 03:23 PM (fhTf7)
112
Monty - can you explain something?
The author of that article says SS utilizes a "transfer system" as opposed to a "saving system".
To me, that sounds wrong. Aren't we using a transfer system only in practice? Isn't SS set up partly as a savings system? Or, at least a hybrid?
The surpluses that we saved have been pilfered by each Congress over the decades and all that is left is I.O.U.'s.
That seems not to be the fault of the way the system is set up, but the fault of Congress grabbing the cash for spending on crap.
If that's the way it is, seems to me the first thing to do is stop raiding the surplus banked funds and start putting them away.. which means once again we have a spending problem.
The author of that article says SS utilizes a "transfer system" as opposed to a "saving system".
To me, that sounds wrong. Aren't we using a transfer system only in practice? Isn't SS set up partly as a savings system? Or, at least a hybrid?
The surpluses that we saved have been pilfered by each Congress over the decades and all that is left is I.O.U.'s.
That seems not to be the fault of the way the system is set up, but the fault of Congress grabbing the cash for spending on crap.
If that's the way it is, seems to me the first thing to do is stop raiding the surplus banked funds and start putting them away.. which means once again we have a spending problem.
Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at November 12, 2010 03:23 PM (f9c2L)
113
Ya know what jakee308? Screw that attitude. These "oldsters" are the ones who laid this problem down on my kids and me. They voted in the government that pissed away THEIR money and demand that I now pay them for promises they (and their parents) made.
I'm kind of tired of playing that game.
Guess what? Your COLA adjustments? Gone. Too bad. In fact the first step should be lock payments in place until they're on parity (adjusted for inflation) with benefits 1986. Then tie the increases to inflation, not wages.
I'm kind of tired of playing that game.
Guess what? Your COLA adjustments? Gone. Too bad. In fact the first step should be lock payments in place until they're on parity (adjusted for inflation) with benefits 1986. Then tie the increases to inflation, not wages.
Posted by: MMW at November 12, 2010 03:24 PM (4BTKQ)
114
If Social Security and Medicare go away, I'll just shrivel up and die!!
Posted by: Russ' Mom's Poon at November 12, 2010 03:33 PM (G5qLy)
115
MMW - I think you fail to grasp some political realities here.
Making retirees the enemy helps no one. Do you think they don't have the power to vote? I really dare you to piss off 65+ yr old people in this country.. I dare ya.. you will have a shitstorm you cannot even imagine, especially when most 55+ voters and all the lefties would side with them.
It's real easy for you to say "go fuck yourself you old people".. but remember what goes around comes around.. Your personal retirement and current and future wages could be taxed into the fucking ground as payback just as easily.
Think about all that for a bit before you say "screw that".. We're definitely boned in a lot of ways.. but we need to come up with a solution that is fair to all.. make enemies at your own peril.
Making retirees the enemy helps no one. Do you think they don't have the power to vote? I really dare you to piss off 65+ yr old people in this country.. I dare ya.. you will have a shitstorm you cannot even imagine, especially when most 55+ voters and all the lefties would side with them.
It's real easy for you to say "go fuck yourself you old people".. but remember what goes around comes around.. Your personal retirement and current and future wages could be taxed into the fucking ground as payback just as easily.
Think about all that for a bit before you say "screw that".. We're definitely boned in a lot of ways.. but we need to come up with a solution that is fair to all.. make enemies at your own peril.
Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at November 12, 2010 03:34 PM (f9c2L)
116
I'd make it sooner than that. When SS was set up in 1935 with a retirement age of 62, guess what median life expectancy was?
They were both 65. The model, the turn-of-the-century Imperial Germany government pension system, was set at 65 with a median life expectancy of 62 in order to pay for the militarybuild-up that financed WWI.
They were both 65. The model, the turn-of-the-century Imperial Germany government pension system, was set at 65 with a median life expectancy of 62 in order to pay for the militarybuild-up that financed WWI.
Posted by: steveegg at November 12, 2010 03:36 PM (51MkX)
117
hey Barry!
how's that G20 thing going?
how's that G20 thing going?
Posted by: Shoey at November 12, 2010 03:39 PM (ehKDD)
118
The author of that article says SS utilizes a "transfer system" as opposed to a "saving system".
It was never a "saving system", not from the very first. It was a tax-supported, pay-as-you-go system. The "trust fund" was supposed to run at a surplus, and it did for a number of years -- until the inevitable inverted-pyramid problem asserted itself and it overturned into the red.
The problem was exacerbated when the "trust fund" was raided by the politicians several decades back. Prior to that, at least there was actual money in the trust fund; now it's just composed of bits of paper with "IOU" written on them. The money has long since been spent. It's long gone.
And those "special obligation bonds" that sit in the vault? They're going to have to be redeemed at some point, which means that the cash to do that has to come from somewhere -- and since we're currently broke, that means either selling more debt to foreigners, or printing more money.
The FACTS are that a lot of people DEPEND upon the SS payments.
THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PREPARE FOR CUTS!
Well, they'd better get prepared, because cuts are on the way whether they're prepared or not. You seem to think that if we only will it to be so, the money will magically appear. It won't. We are broke, and we're going to be broke for a very long time even if the economy improves. Printing unbacked money will only exacerbate the problem.
Look, I don't expect that the government is going to arbitrarily cut current recipients off. I expect to see some half-assed attempt to paper over the most gaping holes for another ten years or so. But half-measures are almost worse than no measures at all, because it only inflates the debt the further along we go. It's like credit-card debt: if you only pay the minimums each month, you'll never pay off the debt.
It was never a "saving system", not from the very first. It was a tax-supported, pay-as-you-go system. The "trust fund" was supposed to run at a surplus, and it did for a number of years -- until the inevitable inverted-pyramid problem asserted itself and it overturned into the red.
The problem was exacerbated when the "trust fund" was raided by the politicians several decades back. Prior to that, at least there was actual money in the trust fund; now it's just composed of bits of paper with "IOU" written on them. The money has long since been spent. It's long gone.
And those "special obligation bonds" that sit in the vault? They're going to have to be redeemed at some point, which means that the cash to do that has to come from somewhere -- and since we're currently broke, that means either selling more debt to foreigners, or printing more money.
The FACTS are that a lot of people DEPEND upon the SS payments.
THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PREPARE FOR CUTS!
Well, they'd better get prepared, because cuts are on the way whether they're prepared or not. You seem to think that if we only will it to be so, the money will magically appear. It won't. We are broke, and we're going to be broke for a very long time even if the economy improves. Printing unbacked money will only exacerbate the problem.
Look, I don't expect that the government is going to arbitrarily cut current recipients off. I expect to see some half-assed attempt to paper over the most gaping holes for another ten years or so. But half-measures are almost worse than no measures at all, because it only inflates the debt the further along we go. It's like credit-card debt: if you only pay the minimums each month, you'll never pay off the debt.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 03:41 PM (4Pleu)
119
Jerry-I'm well aware of the political realities. I'm just really tired of the "Screw you so long as I get mine" bull shit I'm always hearing.
Every one wants free shit and no one wants to pay for it. I'm not suggesting we cut retirees off completely, rather we just make them share the pain a little. They gotta realize they (and the generations preceding them) are to blame in this mess.
What about the political realities of what happens when foreign governments stop financing our debt?
Every one wants free shit and no one wants to pay for it. I'm not suggesting we cut retirees off completely, rather we just make them share the pain a little. They gotta realize they (and the generations preceding them) are to blame in this mess.
What about the political realities of what happens when foreign governments stop financing our debt?
Posted by: MMW at November 12, 2010 03:52 PM (4BTKQ)
120
In other news: Medicare might be the next domino to fall.
Remember this. If something can't go on forever...it won't.
Remember this. If something can't go on forever...it won't.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 03:56 PM (4Pleu)
121
Monty - can you explain something?The author of that article says SS utilizes a "transfer system" as opposed to a "saving system".To me, that sounds wrong. Aren't we using a transfer system only in practice? Isn't SS set up partly as a savings system? Or, at least a hybrid?The surpluses that we saved have been pilfered by each Congress over the decades and all that is left is I.O.U.'s.That seems not to be the fault of the way the system is set up, but the fault of Congress grabbing the cash for spending on crap.If that's the way it is, seems to me the first thing to do is stop raiding the surplus banked funds and start putting them away.. which means once again we have a spending problem.
I'm not Monty, but I'll help explain:
- There are a few Supreme Court cases, particularlyFlemming v Nestor,that have established that no individual holds anycontractual claim to Social Security benefits. Do note that the link is to the Social Security government website.
- By law, any money that is not needed to pay that day's expenses, excepton the last business day of June,must be given to the U.S. Treasury to be put in the General Fundin exchange for short-term Treasury securities with a maturation date of the following June 30. On the last business day of June, the money left over from both the collection of taxes and the maturation of Treasury securities is given over to the Treasury to be put in the General Fundin exchange for long-term Treasury securities, with maturation dates of between 1 and 15 years from that June 30. Regardless of whether it's a short-term or long-term Treasury security,Congress and thusTreasury treats it as cash to be spent immediately.
- While there is a line in the budget to recordthepaying outof "interest", there is a corresponding and equally-opposite line counting the "interest" as income. Moreover, even for the Disability Insurance "Trust" Fund, which is so rapidly cashing in its Treasury securities, both the taxes taken in and the "interest" paid out on the cashed-in securities cannot cover the costs, there is no line in the budget noting this. In short, there is exactly $0.00 in the budget to monetize the "Trust" Funds.
That said, under the current scheme,by the time SocSecurity's combined"Trust" Fund is fully-exhausted, over half of what is needed to monetize the "Trust" Fund (or about $4.6 trillion of $7.5 trillion from July 2011 on) is "interest" not yet "credited" to the "Trust" Fund. To put it another way, take away the "interest" payments starting in July 2011, somehow find the $2.8 trillion it would take to fully-monetize the "Trust" Fund (remember, there is exactly $0.00 available for that right now), and the combined SocSecurity operation would burn through that $2.8 trillion by 2029.
I'm not Monty, but I'll help explain:
- There are a few Supreme Court cases, particularlyFlemming v Nestor,that have established that no individual holds anycontractual claim to Social Security benefits. Do note that the link is to the Social Security government website.
- By law, any money that is not needed to pay that day's expenses, excepton the last business day of June,must be given to the U.S. Treasury to be put in the General Fundin exchange for short-term Treasury securities with a maturation date of the following June 30. On the last business day of June, the money left over from both the collection of taxes and the maturation of Treasury securities is given over to the Treasury to be put in the General Fundin exchange for long-term Treasury securities, with maturation dates of between 1 and 15 years from that June 30. Regardless of whether it's a short-term or long-term Treasury security,Congress and thusTreasury treats it as cash to be spent immediately.
- While there is a line in the budget to recordthepaying outof "interest", there is a corresponding and equally-opposite line counting the "interest" as income. Moreover, even for the Disability Insurance "Trust" Fund, which is so rapidly cashing in its Treasury securities, both the taxes taken in and the "interest" paid out on the cashed-in securities cannot cover the costs, there is no line in the budget noting this. In short, there is exactly $0.00 in the budget to monetize the "Trust" Funds.
That said, under the current scheme,by the time SocSecurity's combined"Trust" Fund is fully-exhausted, over half of what is needed to monetize the "Trust" Fund (or about $4.6 trillion of $7.5 trillion from July 2011 on) is "interest" not yet "credited" to the "Trust" Fund. To put it another way, take away the "interest" payments starting in July 2011, somehow find the $2.8 trillion it would take to fully-monetize the "Trust" Fund (remember, there is exactly $0.00 available for that right now), and the combined SocSecurity operation would burn through that $2.8 trillion by 2029.
Posted by: steveegg at November 12, 2010 04:20 PM (51MkX)
122
Ti-i-i-ime is on my side.
Yes, it is!
*fat guy doing a Jaggeresque dance move*
I say, ti-i-i-ime is on my side.
Ahyes, it is.
Yes, it is!
*fat guy doing a Jaggeresque dance move*
I say, ti-i-i-ime is on my side.
Ahyes, it is.
Posted by: Horrifying Reality Channeling John Goodman in "Fallen" at November 12, 2010 04:33 PM (xy9wk)
123
The only good that will come out of this disaster is the sweet, sweet tears of liberal idiots who have been screaming about conservatives wanting to risk SS by privatizing the "most successful project ever to come out of DC" when they realize they have been taken by a Ponzi scheme. Seriously, anybody who didn't know by now that SS was beyond broken, it never worked, is a hopeless idiot.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 12, 2010 01:53 PM (TMB3S)
You did see what the Debt Commission wants to do to SocSecurity, right? Since there isn't enough money to capture all seasoned citizens into the Rat column anymore like FDR dreamed of doing, they want to make it an explicit transfer of money from the rich to the poor, and continue to buy the votes of the labor unions in the process by allowing them (and perhaps any non-union type lucky enough to work in the same industry, though they'll try like Hell to limit it to union types) to retire far earlier than the rest of us sops.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 12, 2010 01:53 PM (TMB3S)
You did see what the Debt Commission wants to do to SocSecurity, right? Since there isn't enough money to capture all seasoned citizens into the Rat column anymore like FDR dreamed of doing, they want to make it an explicit transfer of money from the rich to the poor, and continue to buy the votes of the labor unions in the process by allowing them (and perhaps any non-union type lucky enough to work in the same industry, though they'll try like Hell to limit it to union types) to retire far earlier than the rest of us sops.
Posted by: steveegg at November 12, 2010 04:49 PM (51MkX)
124
"The money they've already paid in could be used to shore the program up
for people who are already on SS or close to retirement age."
SSA needs what's coming in now just to fund current obligations. Income = payouts.
Oh, and if more people keep working past 70, that's fewer jobs for younger people. One of the points of SS was to get people out of the workforce so younger people with families could work. Ditto keeping kids in high school, so they wouldn't compete with grownups for full time work.
for people who are already on SS or close to retirement age."
SSA needs what's coming in now just to fund current obligations. Income = payouts.
Oh, and if more people keep working past 70, that's fewer jobs for younger people. One of the points of SS was to get people out of the workforce so younger people with families could work. Ditto keeping kids in high school, so they wouldn't compete with grownups for full time work.
Posted by: jeannie at November 12, 2010 05:19 PM (WJhzW)
125
Although Monty won't say, I suspect he's in the financial services industry. The same group who pushed GWB into pushing for privatization of SS. Which went down to flaming defeat. Those who won't learn from history are destined to annoy the hell out me.
I've got auto and homeowners insurance from one of the major nationwide insurers. The commission 'my agent' receives? 2%. The cost of administering the SS program? 1%. Yeah, I can see how private enterprise is gonna 'save' the system, by lowering costs.
Yeah, let's turn one of the most benign social programs in this nations history over to the same people who think that no-doc, no-down-payment loans justify a AAA credit rating. The worst that happened there is that millions lost their homes and the nations taxpayers picked up/will be picking up the tab. For crying out loud, is letting senior citizens die with some semblance of dignity (while on average receiving a check for less than $1,100 a month ) too much for a self-proclaimed conservative to endure?
I've got auto and homeowners insurance from one of the major nationwide insurers. The commission 'my agent' receives? 2%. The cost of administering the SS program? 1%. Yeah, I can see how private enterprise is gonna 'save' the system, by lowering costs.
Yeah, let's turn one of the most benign social programs in this nations history over to the same people who think that no-doc, no-down-payment loans justify a AAA credit rating. The worst that happened there is that millions lost their homes and the nations taxpayers picked up/will be picking up the tab. For crying out loud, is letting senior citizens die with some semblance of dignity (while on average receiving a check for less than $1,100 a month ) too much for a self-proclaimed conservative to endure?
Posted by: Big Brother at November 12, 2010 05:35 PM (IhHdM)
126
For crying out loud, is letting senior citizens die with some semblance of dignity (while on average receiving a check for less than $1,100 a month ) too much for a self-proclaimed conservative to endure?
Tell me where the money's going to come from. If you can fund it, you can keep it. Just tell me where the money's coming from.
Tell me where the money's going to come from. If you can fund it, you can keep it. Just tell me where the money's coming from.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 06:14 PM (o2hlb)
127
There's another point to be made: for SS to fail, we "self-proclaimed conservatives" don't actually have to do anything. It will fail. If we were really hard-hearted, anti-geezer fatcats, all we'd have to do is sit back and do nothing. SS will most assuredly fail of its own accord, and sooner rather than later.
It shouldn't be considered hard-heartedness merely to point out the obvious, but it just illustrates how divisive and brutal this fight is going to be that many people resist the very idea of reforming Social Security.
It shouldn't be considered hard-heartedness merely to point out the obvious, but it just illustrates how divisive and brutal this fight is going to be that many people resist the very idea of reforming Social Security.
Posted by: Monty at November 12, 2010 06:23 PM (o2hlb)
128
To amplify Monty's last point, the short-term survival of SocSecurity is dependent on the ChiComs monetizing the "Trust" Funds. The moment they, and the other buyers of public Treasury securities, refuse to buy more, it won't matter if there's $2.6trillion(as there is now), $4 trillion (as there theoretically might be at the peak in a few years), orthe last $0.001 trillion (that would be $1 billion for those of you in Rio Linda).Said "Trust" Fundwill be more worthless than the electrons that recorded the amount, and the benefits will automatically be cut accordingly.
Posted by: steveegg at November 12, 2010 06:51 PM (51MkX)
129
I keep repeatedly baiting you in hope that you will reveal that you are involved in the financial services industry and have a vested interest in tearing down SS and then rebuilding it in some Utopian model -- one where Wall Street always has sunny days and planes never fly into the World Trade Center or bankers never make bad loans to South America or Ninja (No Income No Job) homeowners, then sell and insure them ten times over, but you keep ignoring that bait. There must be a reason, hmmm.
The same people who keep screaming the sky is falling, who want to fight the same losing battle, over and over with the Democrats and the American public, are the same people who sold my company on a pension plan. One that lost money the first year. Oops, commissions had to be paid -- and yeah commercial real estate took a dive, plus we have expenses you know. Then lost money the second year -- more commissions and now Wall Street took a dive (don't you read the news?) and we have costs too, you know. Then the third year was no better -- all while I was committing half of our yearly profit to the plan. After three years I had absolutely nothing to show. The salesperson had three years of commissions, though. So I called him into my office and put my foot up his ass -- but he left smiling 'cause he had those three years of commissions to remember.
You call SS a Ponzi scheme, I call financial service people snake oil salesmen. Given SS's long history and gradual (was the last rate increase three decades ago?) recovering of outlays, I would call it one of the few success stories of the federal government -- this coming from from a small government conservative, but a social moderate. When the Feds do something right, when newspaper headlines are devoid of articles about senior citizens freezing to death in winter or dying of heat prostration during the summer, or eating food unfit for human consumption, and the same tax rate has been in effect for nearly thirty years -- yeah, I get pissed at people who yell and scream the sky is falling.
Of course there are issues to be resolved. Ones like giving 99 weeks of unemployment compensation to people who should be paying into the system, but instead are coddled into some false belief that everything is going to return to 4.5% unemployment any day now and they're going to be able to find a job paying just as much money as before they got canned. That's a more fundamental issue about the weakness in SS -- politicians who want to have it all -- without realizing they're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Paul can now find his job somewhere in China, and it ain't coming back.
The same people who keep screaming the sky is falling, who want to fight the same losing battle, over and over with the Democrats and the American public, are the same people who sold my company on a pension plan. One that lost money the first year. Oops, commissions had to be paid -- and yeah commercial real estate took a dive, plus we have expenses you know. Then lost money the second year -- more commissions and now Wall Street took a dive (don't you read the news?) and we have costs too, you know. Then the third year was no better -- all while I was committing half of our yearly profit to the plan. After three years I had absolutely nothing to show. The salesperson had three years of commissions, though. So I called him into my office and put my foot up his ass -- but he left smiling 'cause he had those three years of commissions to remember.
You call SS a Ponzi scheme, I call financial service people snake oil salesmen. Given SS's long history and gradual (was the last rate increase three decades ago?) recovering of outlays, I would call it one of the few success stories of the federal government -- this coming from from a small government conservative, but a social moderate. When the Feds do something right, when newspaper headlines are devoid of articles about senior citizens freezing to death in winter or dying of heat prostration during the summer, or eating food unfit for human consumption, and the same tax rate has been in effect for nearly thirty years -- yeah, I get pissed at people who yell and scream the sky is falling.
Of course there are issues to be resolved. Ones like giving 99 weeks of unemployment compensation to people who should be paying into the system, but instead are coddled into some false belief that everything is going to return to 4.5% unemployment any day now and they're going to be able to find a job paying just as much money as before they got canned. That's a more fundamental issue about the weakness in SS -- politicians who want to have it all -- without realizing they're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Paul can now find his job somewhere in China, and it ain't coming back.
Posted by: Big Brother at November 12, 2010 07:12 PM (IhHdM)
130
Monty Said:
"You seem to think that if we only will it to be so, the money will magically appear."
I NEVER said anything to that effect. I just pointed out that no matter HOW MUCH you want to tear down SS and start over OR tell those enrolled now to PREPARE FOR CUTS, They're NOT ABLE TO PREPARE FOR CUTS. That's all I was saying.
My point is that if you dismantle SS, what will happen to those who depend upon it? Answer: they'll go to their respective State agencies OR private agencies for any assistance. The flood of requests will swamp those agencies and bang, zoom you'll have grandma and grandpa in the street begging for help and dying while doing so. Don't think it wouldn't happen. I HAVE to take 2 drugs that if I stop taking them will likely cause a heart attack. If I have to, I'll do WHATEVER I have to to get the money for those drugs. Let's say, if it's a choice of my living or dying and remaining obedient to the law, which do you think I'll choose?
Like I said riot, rebellion and lots of unlawful behavior.
To MMW: you're assuming that those who can't survive without SS will just roll over and accept being kicked to the curb.
THINK AGAIN!
"You seem to think that if we only will it to be so, the money will magically appear."
I NEVER said anything to that effect. I just pointed out that no matter HOW MUCH you want to tear down SS and start over OR tell those enrolled now to PREPARE FOR CUTS, They're NOT ABLE TO PREPARE FOR CUTS. That's all I was saying.
My point is that if you dismantle SS, what will happen to those who depend upon it? Answer: they'll go to their respective State agencies OR private agencies for any assistance. The flood of requests will swamp those agencies and bang, zoom you'll have grandma and grandpa in the street begging for help and dying while doing so. Don't think it wouldn't happen. I HAVE to take 2 drugs that if I stop taking them will likely cause a heart attack. If I have to, I'll do WHATEVER I have to to get the money for those drugs. Let's say, if it's a choice of my living or dying and remaining obedient to the law, which do you think I'll choose?
Like I said riot, rebellion and lots of unlawful behavior.
To MMW: you're assuming that those who can't survive without SS will just roll over and accept being kicked to the curb.
THINK AGAIN!
Posted by: jakee308 at November 12, 2010 10:17 PM (fhTf7)
131
Seems one path to get generational entitlements reformed would be to be take a case to the Supremes about how generational entitlements violate the rule the our nation is to preserve liberty to our posterity. Generational entitlements enslave our posterity with supporting older voting generations. Kind of judicial activism in support of the Constitution...
Posted by: drfredc at November 13, 2010 12:57 AM (puRnk)
132
SS was enacted in August, 1935---life expectancy for all races and both sexes in America was 61.7 years. Benefits started at 62.
For those born in year1960 and forward SS benefits will start at age 67. Today's average life expectancy in America is 78.
So.....in 1935 benefits were set to kick in after the average ofdeath age.
So..... in 2010 if SS benefits and averagedeath age had remained as in 1935, retirement and SS benefits would begin at age 78. Any other questions concerning why SS is insolvent today???
For those born in year1960 and forward SS benefits will start at age 67. Today's average life expectancy in America is 78.
So.....in 1935 benefits were set to kick in after the average ofdeath age.
So..... in 2010 if SS benefits and averagedeath age had remained as in 1935, retirement and SS benefits would begin at age 78. Any other questions concerning why SS is insolvent today???
Posted by: Inatizzy at November 13, 2010 07:03 PM (+vVib)
133
So..... in 2010 if SS benefits and averagedeath age had remained as in
1935, retirement and SS benefits would begin at age 78. Any other
questions concerning why SS is insolvent today???
Except for the fact that the increase in life expectancy is based largely on the fact that more children survive childbirth and early childhood illness than half a century ago. Hence increase in life expectancy numbers. Statistically, for every child who died at childbirth, another would have to live to the age of 100 to achieve an average life expectancy of 50. See how that works?
Discount that and the average additional life expectancy for an average of men and woman who attained the age of 65 in 1930 was 12.2 more additional years. In the year 2,000 for the average man/woman who attained the age of 65 was 17.7 additional years of life expectancy. In other words, if we've raised the retirement age from 62 to 67, then we are right on target.
1935, retirement and SS benefits would begin at age 78. Any other
questions concerning why SS is insolvent today???
Except for the fact that the increase in life expectancy is based largely on the fact that more children survive childbirth and early childhood illness than half a century ago. Hence increase in life expectancy numbers. Statistically, for every child who died at childbirth, another would have to live to the age of 100 to achieve an average life expectancy of 50. See how that works?
Discount that and the average additional life expectancy for an average of men and woman who attained the age of 65 in 1930 was 12.2 more additional years. In the year 2,000 for the average man/woman who attained the age of 65 was 17.7 additional years of life expectancy. In other words, if we've raised the retirement age from 62 to 67, then we are right on target.
Posted by: Big Brother at November 14, 2010 09:11 AM (IhHdM)
134
hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online
Welcome to our website
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ =======
accept paypal and free shipping
We need your support and trust!!!
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
To our website Walk around A look at
Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth
You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ========
Welcome to our website
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ =======
accept paypal and free shipping
We need your support and trust!!!
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
To our website Walk around A look at
Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth
You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ========
Posted by: fsafs at November 14, 2010 07:43 PM (o5zIg)
135
Company was founded by replica handbags Louis Brandt in 1848 in a gucci handbags small town La Chaux-de-Fonds. From replica gucci political and fake louis vuitton economical points replica omega of view, that was a period of trouble. A replica iwc series of revolutions replica tag heuer broke out in all replica breitling parts of Europe. The replica rolex enterprise gucci handbagsrepresented an 'assembly workshop' where luxury rolex wristwatches replica watches were produced. And hublot replica it took Louis Brandt.
Posted by: jsswg at November 15, 2010 07:55 PM (XDiCn)
136
And Obama wants to change this country? What a fool. It's already the greatest country in the world. It just needs a little fine-tuning, like a balanced budget and a return to the clear meaning of the fake watches cheap fake watches fake BREGUET watches replica wristwatch new wristwatch replica cartier wristwatch replica swiss watches AAA swiss watch replica swiss iwc watch fake watches replica hublotconstitution. But getting rid of Obama will go a long way toward that goal.
Posted by: jsswsg at November 15, 2010 08:02 PM (XDiCn)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0424 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0224 seconds, 145 records returned.
Page size 119 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat