PDA

View Full Version : The 5 biggest lies about "Entitlement" programs.



Cigar
03-25-2013, 09:31 AM
The five biggest lies you're being told about entitlement programs.

Deficit hawks' 'generational theft' argument is a complete sham.

Never mind that the very word "entitlement" is a lie. Social Security and Medicare got that name because workers became "entitled" to those benefits by paying into the system. In recent years, however, the term has become distorted to signify benefits people are entitled to without earning them.

Leaving that whopper aside, here are the top five.

Lie No. 1: The payroll tax hike is killing the retail economy.
As with all great lies, there's a nugget of truth buried inside this one. Evidence exists that the lower paychecks most American consumers started seeing at the beginning of the year took a bite out of consumer spending. A slew of low-end retailers and merchants, including Wal-Mart (http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/walmart-ORSTB000070.topic), contend that the Jan. 1 change in the Social Security payroll tax, which lowered the average household income by about $80 a month, came out of their hides.


***


Lie No. 2: "Entitlement" benefits for millionaires and billionaires are a costly problem.
This is a favorite of people like hedge fund billionaire Peter G. Peterson, a sworn enemy of Social Security and Medicare. The theme is: Look how wasteful Social Security is — why it even goes to people like me! (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_peterson.html) The goal is to "means test" these benefits so they go only to people who "need them," as Peterson says.


***


Lie No. 3: Social Security and Medicare are $60 trillion in the hole.
As efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare gather steam in the budget wrangling in Washington, you'll hear these mega-trillions being thrown around more and more. Beware. They're numbers designed to terrify, not edify.


***


Lie No. 4: You're paying too much (or too little) for your benefits.
This is a double-barreled lie, based on the misconception that Social Security and Medicare are retirement funds. They're not; they're insurance programs. What you recover depends on your personal circumstances, but the point is they're there when you need them.


***

Lie No. 5: Medicare, Social Security — it's all the same.
Not at all. Medicare is in big trouble, almost exclusively because of rising healthcare costs. Social Security can be financially tweaked by changing its tax or benefit structure, or both. That won't work with Medicare, which is the prisoner of this big external factor. Steuerle's and Rennane's calculations show how these costs outstrip individual contributions — our high-income couple retiring in 2010 will have paid $149,000 in taxes, yet receive $351,000 in lifetime benefits. The imbalance increases for future retirees.




http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130310,4726586,7604352.column?page=2


Now sit back and observe the deniers go absolutely bat-shit :grin:

Edited by Peter1469. Go to the link and read the entire story.

nic34
03-25-2013, 10:08 AM
Social Security isn't a savings plan or an investment scheme; it's an Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program intended to ensure that Americans are guaranteed a minimum monthly payment in their non-working years. As with all insurance programs, some people will eventually receive less than they paid in, and others will receive more.

Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html

Peter1469
03-25-2013, 04:56 PM
1. The end of the payroll tax holiday hurt people living pay check to paycheck.

2. The wealthy pay into the programs..., they should benefit from them.

3. These programs, over the long term, are in the hole- even their trustees admit as much. Social Security has a demographics problem. As the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire en masse (during a period of high unemployment), there are less workers to pay for retiree benefits. Medicare has a health care cost issue and a reimbursement problem. Docs are starting to refuse Medicare patients. I am not sure about Medicaid.

4. Social Security is not your private property. I can work for 30 years and retire- the money I put into the system cannot be transferred to my heirs when I die. That is an argument for keeping the payments under the program small. Let me more of my own money to plan for my future.

5. I haven't heard people lumping the programs together, except in a general way in that they all need to be fixed. Of course they don't think the same answers will apply to each program.

Social Security is basically a Ponzi Scheme. Try it as a business model and you will go to jail.

Medicare / Medicaid are health access programs- by their nature they are not efficient and don't encourage quality health care.

nic34
03-25-2013, 05:24 PM
A Ponzi scheme is generally a system in which investors think they’re investing in something real but are instead being used to pay one another back. Eventually, the scheme runs out of new investors and collapses.

There's a whole web page (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm) explaining why its not a Ponzi scheme: “It would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments.”

Try again.

nic34
03-25-2013, 05:27 PM
Social Security doesn’t look like a pyramid. Quite the opposite, actually. Its current funding shortfall is a product of the baby boomers retiring and birth rates declining. That means more beneficiaries and fewer workers than there were when, say, the boomers were working and their parents were retiring. So Social Security has a funding gap equal to 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

We could wipe that gap out by lifting the payroll tax cap (right now, payroll taxes only apply to the first $107,000 of income) or by adjusting benefits downwards. Once it’s done, however, it’s done. Stable. Again, quite unlike a Ponzi scheme.

Peter1469
03-25-2013, 06:16 PM
Social Security doesn’t look like a pyramid. Quite the opposite, actually. Its current funding shortfall is a product of the baby boomers retiring and birth rates declining. That means more beneficiaries and fewer workers than there were when, say, the boomers were working and their parents were retiring. So Social Security has a funding gap equal to 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

We could wipe that gap out by lifting the payroll tax cap (right now, payroll taxes only apply to the first $107,000 of income) or by adjusting benefits downwards. Once it’s done, however, it’s done. Stable. Again, quite unlike a Ponzi scheme.


Demographics suggest that you are wrong. Social Security is at its essence a Ponzi Scheme. The only reason it persists is because the government backs it. Full faith and credit. And all that.

Bernie Madoff at least made a decent profit for his investors until the bottom dropped out.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2013, 06:29 PM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) - read this. Or don't, but don't expect any sympathy about being in the dark.


The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Mainecoons
03-25-2013, 08:01 PM
A Ponzi scheme is generally a system in which investors think they’re investing in something real but are instead being used to pay one another back. Eventually, the scheme runs out of new investors and collapses.

There's a whole web page (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm) explaining why its not a Ponzi scheme: “It would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments.”

Try again.

You need to try again, starting with describing a Ponzi scheme correctly. The new payors do NOT pay "one another back" they pay the old payors who are now the payees. Exactly how SS works. The current workers (the new payors) pay the past workers (previous payors/investors now payees or receivers of payments) back. Both collapse for the same reason: There aren't enough new payors to keep paying the old payors/new payees as the latter accumulate. Just as with Social Security. There are more and more payees and fewer and fewer payors. It has a demographic time bomb at its heart.

Not to mention that disability abuse has reached the point where disability payments are now 8 times higher than welfare payments. That fact, plus the loss of full time employment and good paying jobs that has exploded under Obama, hence cutting SS "new payors" and their payments even more, is the reason that the estimates for this program running out of money keep being moved up.

I don't know how old you are but if you are under 40 you are going to be a guaranteed bag holder for this program.

Try again. :rofl:

Captain Obvious
03-25-2013, 08:07 PM
What I don't think nic understands is the concept of unfunded liability which basically is - if we throw the Republic keys on the table today, benefits that are earned now (even though they haven't been distributed yet) would not be paid.

Better example - you are promised a paid Christmas Club bonus from your employer. You get $600 in December, your employer pays $50 each month into the account but stops paying in March. Come December when you're supposed to have $600, you only have $100.

That is what's meant by Ponzi scheme. Until that unfunded liability is funded - with cash, it can't be paid out.

Common
03-26-2013, 01:30 AM
What I don't think nic understands is the concept of unfunded liability which basically is - if we throw the Republic keys on the table today, benefits that are earned now (even though they haven't been distributed yet) would not be paid.

Better example - you are promised a paid Christmas Club bonus from your employer. You get $600 in December, your employer pays $50 each month into the account but stops paying in March. Come December when you're supposed to have $600, you only have $100.

That is what's meant by Ponzi scheme. Until that unfunded liability is funded - with cash, it can't be paid out.

I dont disagree with your post Capt, I dont know how old you are I am retired and Im going to offer another perspective If I may.
Lets go back to 1960s when I was a young man entering the workforce. I worked and paid into social security and later medicare from the first day on the first job I ever had and never complained about the generation before me that I was supporting. Heres where the differences lie.
Since the 60s when I started paying into SS the gop and dems alike in congress raided and robbed the fund and put it in the general treasury THey stole my money. They included long term disability into Social Security and Medicare and thats what broke the camels back. You have 20-30-40-50 yr olds many who havent paid very much or anything into SS collecting benefits at the age 65 maximum rate. Do you grasp that? if you worked all your life and decided to take SS at 62 a 20 yr old drug addict deemed unable to work collects SS at a higher rate than you do and collects it their entire life. Thats whats wrong with social security and medicare the people that worked all their lives and paid into it arent the problem.
Does SS and Medicare need to be tweaked and fixed, yes yes and yes. What makes retirees bristle is when you get a punk like Paul Ryan that thinks they are stupid and lies to them repeatedly. Paul Ryan is single handedly responsible for the staunch opposition to any SS changes and heres why. Hes put forth 4 budget proposals all of which rape retirees and future retirees and eventually guts the program and in the same budget he calls for huge tax breaks for the rich and somehow he thinks hes going to sell that to a braindead older population huh ?
The conservatives had a golden oportunity to fix social security and medicare properly, they BLEW it because they had to give candy to their rich benefactors at the same time. Im not going through the whole thing again but the rich got richer everyone else is struggling or broke or on assistance and they want to take more from them and give more to the rich. lol yeah ok.

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 08:55 AM
If you are that old, than you are old enough to understand that these programs are demographically unsound at the core. All the left proposes as solutions is simply to raise taxes higher, inpoverishing working people at the expense of the retired, who as a group, have far more wealth than the rest of the country.

First off, you need to learn enough to understand that your simplistic class hatred solution is nonsense at the core. The rich you hate so much are already paying most of the taxes. The problem is that half the country aren't now after tax cut after tax cut that directed the bulk of the cuts to the middle class. But even a bigger problem is the basic one of simply too much spending. This has happened over a long time as this illustrates, and it is a bi-partisan screw job on the country.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t9EWVgVQRQI/UVCmZfmRoxI/AAAAAAAAVf4/mRFWQTia6i0/s320/Spending+per+non-government+worker+Original.png

Ryan is trying to fix the SS/Medicare problem without adding to the runaway spending problem. I don't think his proposals are sound from a fiscal point of view, all of these politicians think there is some painless solution here when there is not. And it sure isn't your class hatred solution. You could confiscate every dime of wealth in America over a million dollars and it wouldn't pay even one year's worth of the current deficit.

Please get yourself better informed before you continue to post these tiresome, erroneous rants about how the rich have screwed everyone. The government has screwed everyone and we screwed ourselves because we kept piling on bad program after bad program and ignoring the demographic time bombs in entitlements until we are nearly out of time.

nic34
03-26-2013, 09:01 AM
You need to try again, starting with describing a Ponzi scheme correctly. The new payors do NOT pay "one another back" they pay the old payors who are now the payees. Exactly how SS works. The current workers (the new payors) pay the past workers (previous payors/investors now payees or receivers of payments) back. Both collapse for the same reason: There aren't enough new payors to keep paying the old payors/new payees as the latter accumulate. Just as with Social Security. There are more and more payees and fewer and fewer payors. It has a demographic time bomb at its heart.

Not to mention that disability abuse has reached the point where disability payments are now 8 times higher than welfare payments. That fact, plus the loss of full time employment and good paying jobs that has exploded under Obama, hence cutting SS "new payors" and their payments even more, is the reason that the estimates for this program running out of money keep being moved up.

I don't know how old you are but if you are under 40 you are going to be a guaranteed bag holder for this program.

Try again. :rofl:


Of course in all your haste you ignore the solution I showed that would fully fund SS for the future, but I guess that's what's to be expected by those more interested in scoring points than solving a problem.

If you all have no faith in your country then just quit taking your benefits and move on out.

nic34
03-26-2013, 09:11 AM
Let’s just go to the numbers.
Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf) (pdf). If we increase its revenues by that amount -- which could be accomplished by lifting the cap on payroll taxes -- or reduce its benefits by that amount or do some combination of the two, Social Security is back in the black. Here are 30 policy tweaks (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/30_options_for_reforming_socia.html) that could get us there.

Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future.

And that’s...it. That’s what’s needed to fix Social Security. All this talk about it being a “monstrous lie” or “a Ponzi scheme” or “broken” is meant to create a crisis to clear the way for radical changes in Social Security. But if folks want to make radical changes to Social Security, they should just make the argument for their proposed fixes. And good luck to them. But in reality, what’s going to happen is that sometime in the next decade or so, Republicans and Democrats are going to compromise on a package that adjusts Social Security by about 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

No class hatred intended.....

nic34
03-26-2013, 10:00 AM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) - read this. Or don't, but don't expect any sympathy about being in the dark.
Seven Things You Should Know About the National Debt

The national debt is not literally a generational transfer

The high dollar, not the budget deficit is what causes the trade deficit and foreign borrowing

A large trade deficit requires that we have a very large budget deficit, extremely low private savings, or some combination thereof

The stock and housing bubbles led to an enormous reduction in private savings through the wealth effect

In times of economic weakness like the nation is experiencing now, deficit spending actually helps the economy to grow

High and rising private sector health care costs in the United States are responsible for the bulk of the federal budget deficit

Social Security has a dedicated stream of financing and does not directly contribute to the federal debt

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/debt-2011-06.pdf

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 10:05 AM
The high dollar, not the budget deficit is what causes the trade deficit and foreign borrowing

This is simplistic nonsense and why you don't get much respect around here. As soon as you saw this, you should have realized you needed to look at this citation critically.

The trade deficit is rooted in the fact that the U.S. has been importing much of its petroleum energy and most of its manufactured goods because the supply of the former has been stunted by government and the provision of the latter from overseas has been encouraged by "free trade" and the cost of government in the form of taxation, raising the cost of employing people, and regulation, all of which are uncompetitive on the world stage.

Sheesh!

lynn
03-26-2013, 11:44 AM
Social Security was enacted for the purpose for retired workers to have a guaranteed income if they survived long enough to receive it. Society could not handle watching old people dying in the streets from starvation and poverty, it would cripple us. The current problem of not having enough funds to cover these programs is not because of the baby boomers, it is because so many people lost their jobs and no longer can or temporarily cannot contribute into these funds.

They should be cashing in those IOU's US Treasury Bonds but according to the Treasury dept said, "Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds and transfer from the general funds provides NO new net INCOME to the treasury." What this means the accounting transfer means nothing when you don't have the actual cash to pay out. The only way to redeem those bonds in cash is to raise taxes, reduce government spending, or borrow cash from the public.

How is that going to work in a recession and slow growth in our economy?

Long term disability should not be lumped into social security and people that never contributed to this fund should also be handled separately. Hell, when you buy a life insurance policy, you certainly are not including or paying for the rest of society. Social security should be for those that invest in it, period.

Long term disability needs a major overhaul to it since it is almost bankrupt right now. Medicare would be sustainable if we were all under one health payer system where everyone is paying into one big pool for healthcare.

nic34
03-26-2013, 11:55 AM
[/I]
This is simplistic nonsense and why you don't get much respect around here. As soon as you saw this, you should have realized you needed to look at this citation critically.

The trade deficit is rooted in the fact that the U.S. has been importing much of its petroleum energy and most of its manufactured goods because the supply of the former has been stunted by government and the provision of the latter from overseas has been encouraged by "free trade" and the cost of government in the form of taxation, raising the cost of employing people, and regulation, all of which are uncompetitive on the world stage.

Sheesh!

That source is from yourself and out of your ass no doubt. My posts cite experts educated in the subject I am addressing as in:

The US will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/report-sees-us-as-top-oil-producer-in-5-years.html?_r=0
....so I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

If you want to dispute the sources I provide, fine do that, but keep your inane insults to yourself, it's DOESN'T gain YOU more RESPECT by doing so.

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 01:09 PM
Your solution to SS is raising taxes and denying benefits to those who would pay those taxes, nothing more. It is turning the program into a welfare and another income theft, nothing more.

You don't know for a fact if any of what you cited above and neither does the source, it is based on future speculation. I cited actuality. $313 billion of the trade deficit is imported oil. Had you bothered to exercise a little thoroughness instead of just posting easily debunked nonsense that agrees with your far leftist views, you would have found this:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22204.pdf

Note Figure 2. Oil imports have dropped because there has been some increase in production but more importantly, a big drop in consumption thanks to the fact that the average Joe is being squeezed badly by the declining value of work since Obama got in office (lower pay, loss of full time work for part time, millions giving up and leaving the work force) but the dollar cost, which is what the trade deficit measures, keeps the total cost in the hundreds of billions.

And where does the oil come from? If you had bothered to check that, you wouldn't have relied on an irrelevant reference, since only ELEVEN PERCENT comes from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/research/crude-oil/where-the-us-gets-its-oil-from/

I noticed you ignored the reality that most manufactured stuff, particularly consumer goods is imported.


The United States continues to be the world’s great consumer. Imports to the United States of manufactured goods were nearly $1.72 trillion in 2011, and since 2001 have increased by 79%. China is by far the leading exporter of manufactured goods to the United States ($390.6 billion in 2011), nearly double that of second-place Canada ($207.3 billion).[1] (http://mpi-group.com/john-brandt/redirection-worlds-manufactured-goods/#_ftn1)

http://mpi-group.com/john-brandt/redirection-worlds-manufactured-goods/

You'll get my respect when you earn it. You can earn it by being a lot more thorough and a lot more critical of the biased sources that you seem to limit yourself to. Until then, KMA.

:grin:

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 01:28 PM
Here's more BS from your citation:


The national debt is not literally a generational transfer. This is easy to see because everyone who holds the debt (government bonds) today will eventually be dead, leaving the possession of the
bonds to their children and grandchildren. In other words, the interest on the debt will be paid from
some members of future generations to other members of future generations. (We will deal with issues
created by foreign ownership below.) The debt can involve a generational transfer only insofar as it
slows the economy’s growth, so that it produces less in the future.

BS. The debt goes to the future, the money is spent on the present people in the form of direct entitlements and direct wages and benefits paid to either government workers directly or indirectly through grants to state governments, to businesses and their employees the government buys from, to military people and defense contractors. These clowns even contradict themselves, first writing this:


The debt can involve a generational transfer only insofar as it slows the economy’s growth, so that it produces less in the future.

And then a few lines down, writing this:


In such times deficit spending is also likely to increase investment. In this case,
deficit spending makes our children and grandchildren richer than if we did not have deficit spending.

I have news for you, genius, most of government "investment" is wasted and unproductive and simply serves to crowd out private investment and spending that would actually create new wealth. I can't think of a better example than this fraud and failure ridden government investment, to the tune of billions, in "alternative" energy. Bad investment doesn't increase anyone's wealth except the few insiders benefiting from it and it sure as hell doesn't make future generations richer.

BTW, I saw in several references that this CEPR is described as having "an avowedly progressive point of view." So once again, because you are a slave to your ideology, you cite a highly slanted and not terribly credible leftist source and end up looking silly for it.

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 01:30 PM
Here's some great examples of your government "investment" genius:



Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012):
A reality TV show in India. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.
Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
Amtrak snacks. Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services.
Using military exercises to boost biofuels. The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
Conferences for government employees. In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
Waste Book 2012 (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e):
“RoboSquirrel.” $325,000 was spent on a robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel.” This National Science Foundation grant was used to create a realistic-looking robotic squirrel for the purpose of studying how a rattlesnake would react to it.
Cupcakes. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere across the country, cupcake shops are trending (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-psychology-of-cupcakes/2012/01/27/gIQA7H2mwQ_story.html). The 10 cupcake shop owners who received $2 million in Small Business Administration loan guarantees, however, can only boast so much of their entrepreneurial ingenuity, since taxpayers are backing them up.
Food stamps for alcohol and junk food. Though they were intended to ensure hungry children received healthy meals, taxpayer-funded food stamps were instead spent on fast food at Taco Bell and Burger King; on non-nutritious foods such as candy, ice cream, and soft drinks; and on some 2,000 deceased persons in New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent $2 billion on sugary drinks alone. Improper SNAP payments accounted for $2.5 billion in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
Beer brewing in New Hampshire. Despite Smuttynose brewery’s financial success and popularity, it is still getting a $750,970 Community Development Block Grant to build a new brewery and restaurant facilities.
A covered bridge to nowhere. What list of government waste would be complete without a notorious “bridge to nowhere”? In this case, it’s $520,000 to fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-wasteful-federal-spending-in-2012/

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2012/February/Ridiculous-Govt-Spending-List-Grows-Longer-/

You just keep pretending all that government job is helping anyone other than a bunch of parasites, genius.

nic34
03-26-2013, 02:15 PM
You are the clever one 'coons. No really, with the crowd you run in, you are definitely one of the sharper TOOLS. And I am deeply touched by your sincere concern for the future of SS, and will admit I know it's a well known fact that facts DO have a liberal bias......... with rightwing TOOLS.

As for:


Your solution to SS is raising taxes and denying benefits to those who would pay those taxes, nothing more. It is turning the program into a welfare and another income theft, nothing more.

You don't read. MY solution would be lifting the cap on payroll taxes -- reducing benefits is an option I don't agree with it. If you want to generalize that as "raising taxes" go for it. You like to distort everything anyway. But if you don't want SS turned into a "welfare program" then having those making over $107,000 pay into the system is only fair.

Again, throwing your seniority around here does little to impress me, same with your rightwing superiority complex. But if you still think I'm confused, don't bother yourself, I'm sure Rush or Heritage or Newsmax will set me straight this afternoon...

zelmo1234
03-26-2013, 02:54 PM
Here is the problem as I see it, the current SS system was no designed to be a retirement program, however for the poor and lower middle class it is ex actly that. It dooms those that need it most to poverty.

So we have to ask the question Is the current system worth saving. I say NO!

WE do however need to honor our comitments. and start the process of ending it which will take 50 years.

The good news is at the endo f 50 years, it ibecomes a prosperity program and a program that can be used to pay off the massive debt of the USA

nic34
03-26-2013, 03:13 PM
Zel, you're loony.

Do you even know what the "poverty" level is?

Do you know the average yearly SS payout is?

Do you know what to do with the millions of retired workers that paid into SS all their lives, not to mention the millions more that will retire in the furure?

Later dood...

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 03:25 PM
You are the clever one 'coons. No really, with the crowd you run in, you are definitely one of the sharper TOOLS. And I am deeply touched by your sincere concern for the future of SS, and will admit I know it's a well known fact that facts DO have a liberal bias......... with rightwing TOOLS.

As for:



You don't read. MY solution would be lifting the cap on payroll taxes -- reducing benefits is an option I don't agree with it. If you want to generalize that as "raising taxes" go for it. You like to distort everything anyway. But if you don't want SS turned into a "welfare program" then having those making over $107,000 pay into the system is only fair.

Again, throwing your seniority around here does little to impress me, same with your rightwing superiority complex. But if you still think I'm confused, don't bother yourself, I'm sure Rush or Heritage or Newsmax will set me straight this afternoon...

Lifting the cap, genius, is raising taxes. If you don't cap the payouts, you end up owing the big payors very large pensions which puts you right back in the insufficient funds trap. Dooh.

We don't have to worry about you looking at a variety of sources. You are quite predictable, you look only at what the left feeds you and then you post it here like it is gospel without ever really taking the time to scrutinize it and see if it passes the smell test. This would be like me or the other Libertarians posting stuff from Limbaugh or Fox News without really examining it first. Which is why I rarely do.

If you did, you wouldn't be constantly getting caught here looking silly as I just did once again. I don't post stuff from those sources because they flunk the rigor test. Heritage and Cato stuff rarely does and they source their data impeccably. Their interpretation is conservative/libertarian but their work is rigorous. You'll notice I also cite Pew, a liberal think tank, for the same reason. Their interpretation is liberal but their work is rigorous and honest.

I don't waste my time trying to teach Cigar how to critically analyze, use multiple and varied sources and think, that is a total exercise in futility. There is hope for you yet, though it is looking more and more distant. We sure can't say your "work" here is in any way rigorous.

zelmo1234
03-26-2013, 03:38 PM
Zel, you're loony.

Do you even know what the "poverty" level is?

Do you know the average yearly SS payout is?

Do you know what to do with the millions of retired workers that paid into SS all their lives, not to mention the millions more that will retire in the furure?

Later dood...

YeS I do, I happen to pay in the maximum each and every year, and thus will drow the maximum, and even I would not want to live on that amount of money.

So I can only imagine how little it would be if you made minimum wage. So you are forced to live in poverty. That is a shame, when you could in 50 years have a program that would be a weatlh building program, a program where the employer percentage would cover the cost of really goo insurance for seniors. where those that actually qualify for disability could ahve a wage that would allow them a life instead of and existance.

I think this would be better than here you go have fun in poverty for the rest of your life. And that is exactly what you espire for the elderly and those that are truely disabled.

nic34
03-26-2013, 04:44 PM
'coons, just looking at the sources you cite give you so little credibility. You think because they launder their interpretations with conservative/libertarian BS, that the FOX, newsbusters, Rush, malkin... etc. stink doesn't still reek thru?

The Cato Institute is one of the leading manufacturers of toxic corporate propaganda, cynically undermining science and scholarship to serve the interests of tobacco companies, oil and gas, chemicals, health insurance, financial industry and other Cato donors. (Are the Kochs still in good favor?)

Real impeccable.

Paul Weyrich, co-founder and 1st president of Heritage Foundation, tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome":

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Impeccable.

And startling.

simpsonofpg
03-26-2013, 07:00 PM
I think that the problem is that congress does not participate in these programs, they have exempted themselves and basicall don't care. If congress got the same pay and benefit that our militay gets you would see big changes and quick Congress stole the SS trust fund years ago so they could spend more. Most of the guys who did this are dead but they did a real good job of training their replacement.

Peter1469
03-26-2013, 07:24 PM
Worse, they will sucker the states into a new program by offering to pay for it for a year or two. After that, what are the states to do?

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 07:29 PM
'coons, just looking at the sources you cite give you so little credibility. You think because they launder their interpretations with conservative/libertarian BS, that the FOX, newsbusters, Rush, malkin... etc. stink doesn't still reek thru?

The Cato Institute is one of the leading manufacturers of toxic corporate propaganda, cynically undermining science and scholarship to serve the interests of tobacco companies, oil and gas, chemicals, health insurance, financial industry and other Cato donors. (Are the Kochs still in good favor?)

Real impeccable.

Paul Weyrich, co-founder and 1st president of Heritage Foundation, tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome":

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Impeccable.

And startling.

And I still notice that I blew up your BS citation and you haven't been able to defend it. Guess what, genius, running away and changing the topic isn't going to work any better for you than it does for Cigar.

The fact remains that you constantly make a fool of yourself here because you are apparently afraid to look at anything but leftist sources. Unlike most of the rest of us here.

:rofl:

Mainecoons
03-26-2013, 07:59 PM
Here's a good example of what your runaway entitlements are doing to the U.S.:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-26/santelli-stunned-its-better-be-disability-work-minimum-wage


The sad truth in the USA, as we explained in great detail here (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state), incentives to 'work' are increasingly non-existent. Thanks to a never-ending stream of benefits from the great and powerful Oz, as CNBC's Rick Santelli notes, Disability payments (of which there are 14 million people covered in the US - none of which count towards the unemployment rate) pay around $13,000 per year (versus $15,000 for minimum wage work). However, Santelli exclaims, the people on disability get healthcare; and this program costs the US $300 billion per year. Is it any wonder that only 1% of those who were on disability in Q1 2011 have left?

While you allow yourself to be suckered by your exclusively leftist reading material, here's the reality of life in America under that corporate tool, Barack Obama:


Here are a few facts about what has really happened in the last six months since I wrote my article:

The working age population has grown by 1.1 million, the number of employed Americans is up 500k, while the number of people who have left the labor force has gone up by 600k. The BLS reports the unemployment rate has fallen without blinking an eye or turning red with embarrassment.
The number of Americans entering the Food Stamp Program in the last six months totaled 1 million, bringing the total to 47.8 million, or 20% of all households (up 15 million since the Obama economic recovery began in December 2009).
Existing home sales have increased by a scintillating 2.9% on a seasonally adjusted annual basis and average prices have fallen by 6% in the last six months. It is surely a great sign that 32% of all home sales are to Wall Street investors and 25% are either foreclosure sales or short sales. A large percentage of the remaining sales are funded by 3% down FHA government backed loans.
There were 31,000 new homes sales in January versus 34,000 new home sales six months prior. Through the magic of seasonal adjustment, this translates into a 15% increase.
Single family housing starts were 41,600 in February versus 51,400 six months prior. Even using seasonal adjustments, the government drones can only report a pathetic 4.7% annualized increase and flat starts over the last three months, with mortgage rates at all-time lows.
The National Debt has gone up by $750 billion in the last six months, while Real GDP has gone up by less than $150 billion.
Real hourly earnings have not increased in the last six months.
Consumer debt has risen by $65 billion as the Federal Government has doled out student loans like candy and auto loans (through the 80% government owned Ally Financial – aka GMAC, aka Ditech, aka ResCap) like crack dealer in West Philly.
The Federal Reserve has increased their balance sheet by $385 billion in the last six months by buying toxic mortgages from Wall Street banks and the majority of Treasuries issued by the government to fund the $1 trillion annual deficits being produced by the Obama administration. It now totals $3.2 trillion, up from $900 billion in September 2008, and headed to $4 trillion before this year is out.
Retail sales have increased by less than 2% over the last six months and are barely 1% above last February. On an inflation adjusted basis, retail sales are falling. Other than internet sales and government financed auto sales, every other retail category is negative year over year. This is reflected in the poor sales and earnings reports from JC Penney, Sears, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, Lowes, Kohl’s, Darden, McDonalds, and Yum Brands. I’m sure next quarter will be gangbusters, with the Obama payroll tax increase, Obamacare premium increases, 15% surge in gasoline prices, and continued inflation in food and energy.
Considering that 71% of GDP is dependent upon consumer spending (versus 62% in 1979 before the financialization of America), the dreadful results of retailers and restaurants even before the Obama tax increases confirms the country has been in recession since the second half of 2012. In 1979 the economy was still driven by domestic investment that accounted for 19% of GDP. Today, it wallows at all-time lows of 13%. In addition, our trade deficits, driven by debt fueled consumption, subtract 3.5% from GDP. These facts are reflected in the depressed outlook of small business owners who are the backbone of growth, hiring and entrepreneurship in this country. Small businesses of 500 employees or less employ half of all the private industry workers in the country and account for 65% of all new jobs created. There are approximately 27 million small businesses versus 18,000 large businesses. The chart below does not paint an improving picture. The small business optimism has dropped from an already low 92.8 in September 2012 to 90.8 in March 2013.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-26/guest-post-available

Wise up, genius.

lynn
03-27-2013, 08:59 AM
Let’s just go to the numbers.
Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf) (pdf). If we increase its revenues by that amount -- which could be accomplished by lifting the cap on payroll taxes -- or reduce its benefits by that amount or do some combination of the two, Social Security is back in the black. Here are 30 policy tweaks (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/30_options_for_reforming_socia.html) that could get us there.

Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future.

And that’s...it. That’s what’s needed to fix Social Security. All this talk about it being a “monstrous lie” or “a Ponzi scheme” or “broken” is meant to create a crisis to clear the way for radical changes in Social Security. But if folks want to make radical changes to Social Security, they should just make the argument for their proposed fixes. And good luck to them. But in reality, what’s going to happen is that sometime in the next decade or so, Republicans and Democrats are going to compromise on a package that adjusts Social Security by about 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

No class hatred intended.....


138 million tax payers paid FICA taxes in 2011, there were 41.2 million seniors. Shouldn't that be enough people paying for social security?

nic34
03-27-2013, 09:30 AM
Of course you're fan of Zero Hedge. Another wild blog with zero credibility.
In my opinion it tends to sensationalize based on meager and sometimes flat out wrong data. In short, I find it adds little to reasoned discourse about events and issues. And as usual it pounds on things like disability payments to real people while trivializing huge government waste at the corporate level.

It's as if you think if you drown the forum with your r/w/lib ideologue web sites it gains you credibility, while obscuring any other point of view. Maybe with your clan but not anyone else.

On the other hand, I have never presented my sources as anything other than leaning left. Of course they are, that's my side and view of the issue. But you are so entrenched in ideology that you cannot see that with yourself, but instead you need to talk down to those that don't share your views. You're hilarious.

And to call your sources "impeccable" is even more frosting on the cake.

nic34
03-27-2013, 09:53 AM
138 million tax payers paid FICA taxes in 2011, there were 41.2 million seniors. Shouldn't that be enough people paying for social security?
One would think.

From Wikipedia:

At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund was valued at $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010. The Trust Fund consists of the accumulated surplus of program revenues less expenditures. In other words, $2.7 trillion more Social Security payroll taxes have been collected than have been used to pay Social Security beneficiaries; the program has more than fully funded itself. The fund contains non-marketable Treasury securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government." The funds borrowed from the program are part of the total national debt of $16.4 trillion as of November 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States

Be sure to note the sources wikipedia provides as well....

Mainecoons
03-27-2013, 10:34 AM
Let us know where we can find that trust fund, genius.

BTW, your selective quoting of the Wikipedia entry, inferring that it says unequivocally that there is a Trust Fund, is DISHONEST. Actually, when one reads the entire entry, what they do is present both arguments and leave it to the reader to decide.

And it is easy to decide if you combine that presentation with a look at Federal spending.

The so called trust fund is a pile of government IOUs because, thanks to Lyndon and your fellow Democrats, Social Security was merged with the general budget and all the government thieves, Republicrat or Demican, from that time forward started spending the money and replacing it with IOUs.

Now, because of demographics and because SS has allowed disability to become a new welfare program with the usual massive fraud, the IOUs are being called in. So what does our brilliant government do to fund them? BORROW MONEY. And PRINT MONEY.

Now I realize you slept through every math and econ class from 3rd grade on, but see if you can anticipate where this will end up. Start by reading your own citation:


The following two scenarios help illustrate the concept. Depending on which scenario is right, Social Security is either an accounting fiction or represents real economic savings.Scenario 1 (Trust Fund is an accounting fiction):

1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1
2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.
Scenario 2 (Trust Fund represents real economic savings):

1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
1984: Federal government borrows $1 less from other sources and increases spending on government programs by $0
2020: Federal government raises taxes by $0, but may borrow from other sources, to repay the loan to Social Security. Any tax increases that occur in 2020 would have happened anyway without Social Security.
2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.
It is instructive to note that the $2.5 trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

Now let's put this together with that graph in the growth of Federal spending:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSY_imK_zGoc5JzVX3uB0Yp2nmzllQeb 1Cv9kNGWT2PqzLDfRmdnw

Now, looking at this, would you conclude that


1984: Federal government borrows $1 less from other sources and increases spending on government programs by $0 From Scenario Two, or


1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1 From Scenario One, there is no trust fund, it is just a wad of paper from an insolvent government.

THEY SPENT THE MONEY, DUMMY
Sheesh!

:rofl:

Common
03-27-2013, 11:18 AM
The average monthly social security check is 1200 in 2013 for ALL recpients. Heres where it gets ugly.
35% or more are underaged collecting disability SS. THAT is whats killing social security and medicare. Not the older americans that worked all their lives and paid into the program till they were 65 66 or 67. The age for full SS is 67 not 65.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

The assault on SS and Medicare is by the very rich and corporations who either dont want their taxs raised or want to reduce the cost of business.
Personally Im sick and tired of the lies myself spewed by far right wingers that dont have a real clue about the numbers, they listen to Rand Paul Speechs and Rush limbaugh and suddenly they have epiphanys and know all about everything.
Medicare is more of a problem than SS and it became that huge problem when GW Bush created a prescription drug plan only to SAVE the big pharmaceuticals who were under assault for the utter rape of americans and the misuse of the capitiolist power. How can those scum justify charging elderly americans 2-3-4-5 times the price for the same drug they pack and ship and sell wholesale elsewhere. Bush needed to save them, there was a big bush to legalize selling prescriptions meds over the net and mailorder from other countries like canada, the pharmaceuticals had to change their shorts they were so scared. Not to worry the GOP saved their rich buddies again.

TO ADD: and this is important in the prescription medicare bill signed and pushed through by bush there was a clause put it in it. NO Govt negotiations over prescription drug prices would be allowed. The drug companies set the prices is there anything more blatantly disgusting or criminal than that.

Mainecoons
03-27-2013, 01:39 PM
The assault on SS and Medicare is by the very rich and corporations who either dont want their taxs raised or want to reduce the cost of business.

Gosh, did those evil rich folks all go and file for disability? Did they cause the population to age such that there are far fewer payees and more recipients now?

Did they let disability turn into a form of welfare? Did they lump SS into the general budget so they could steal it?

What a stupid post.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 06:35 AM
The average monthly social security check is 1200 in 2013 for ALL recpients. Heres where it gets ugly.
35% or more are underaged collecting disability SS. THAT is whats killing social security and medicare. Not the older americans that worked all their lives and paid into the program till they were 65 66 or 67. The age for full SS is 67 not 65.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

The assault on SS and Medicare is by the very rich and corporations who either dont want their taxs raised or want to reduce the cost of business.
Personally Im sick and tired of the lies myself spewed by far right wingers that dont have a real clue about the numbers, they listen to Rand Paul Speechs and Rush limbaugh and suddenly they have epiphanys and know all about everything.
Medicare is more of a problem than SS and it became that huge problem when GW Bush created a prescription drug plan only to SAVE the big pharmaceuticals who were under assault for the utter rape of americans and the misuse of the capitiolist power. How can those scum justify charging elderly americans 2-3-4-5 times the price for the same drug they pack and ship and sell wholesale elsewhere. Bush needed to save them, there was a big bush to legalize selling prescriptions meds over the net and mailorder from other countries like canada, the pharmaceuticals had to change their shorts they were so scared. Not to worry the GOP saved their rich buddies again.

TO ADD: and this is important in the prescription medicare bill signed and pushed through by bush there was a clause put it in it. NO Govt negotiations over prescription drug prices would be allowed. The drug companies set the prices is there anything more blatantly disgusting or criminal than that.

1200 dollars a month? That is the average pay out! and this is more than the average poor or lower middle class person would get, because it figures people like me into the ratio, and I will draw the maximum.

Now people have to pay for their Medicare Insurnace out of this apyment so about 25% of this is gone. You are at 900 a month!

Now if the person owns a home you woudl ahve about 300 dollars a month is the cost of utlilties, taxes, 600 a month. left

Car insurance and gas for travel, assuming they do not have a car payment. 100 a month. 500 left.

nedical co pays and prescription co pays for a retired person eyecare and dental. is going to average about100 a month. 400 left.

food and clothing 200 a month now you have 200 a month left over.

So you can make it you can't do much but you can make it. If you never have to repair a car of buy and new one, you have an energy efficiant home paid for, and you are fortunate enough to make about 50K per year for your last 10 years, so you can actually get the 1200 dollars.

but is you are poor or lower middle class, then you are looking at about 800 a month, and you do not even have enough to pay your bills.

Like I said at the very best is is a promise of poverty.

Of course when you die, or your spouse dies, then the payouts stop and you get nothing more, your family gets nothing for the 6.5% of the income that you invested.

IF YOU ARE ON THE LEFT THIS IS THE PROGRAM THAT YOU LOVE AND WANT FOR EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 07:08 AM
A new way to look at SS and medicare.

for this example we will use the person making 30,000 per year, well below the average wage in the USA

50 and older you are screwed, you get the same program. 1000 a month and if you did not plan for retirement you get to live out your life in poverty. actually the pay out would be a little less than a 1000 but it makes the math easy.

40 to 50 years of age. a reduction in SS payouts of 25% and you get to invest half of your 6.5% deductions. or about 1000 per year

using the average rate of return, which would be low because all of the new investing would drive the market up just look at what the 85 billion is doing to todays market. you would have a small nest egg of 75000. or a anual pay out of about 25 dollars a month.

so your reduce rate of 750.00 per month and now add the 625 you get to 1375 a month an additional 175 dollars a month over todays average pay out.

Age 30 to 40 you get a 50% reduction in SS payouts. and get to invest half of your 6.5% as we still need some of your funds to pay people on the program.

you have a nest egg of about 220000 of an average mothly income of 1835. 00 and you still receive 500 a month for your traditional SS you are at 2235.00 an additional 1035 over todays national average.

workers 20 to 30 you receive NO traditional SS but you receive your medicare coverage at no charge .

you get to invest 4% of your 6.5% as we will need less of your money to pay for future benifits.

your nest egg would be a little over 650,000 or an anual mothly payment of? $5400 mor than they ever made while working.

and 4200 more than todays average.

for those less than 20 they would receive NO MEDICARE INSURANCE AND NO SS but they would get to invest the full 6.5% of their income as there half will not be needed.

you have a nest egg of 1.9 million dollars. and an average mothly income of 15833.00 but you are going to need to pay for a fantastic insurance program at about 30K per year. leaving you with only about 150k to live on per year. or 5 times what you made while you were working.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 07:18 AM
The great part is for those that are under the age of 40, this really starts to grow. And it is yours. however I would leave benifits in this way. The monthly pay out would be devide up among your survivors. So lets say you had 3 children. And you were in your 20s when you started. each of your children would get a pay out of about 1775 per month taxable income. And then lets say that each of your children has 3 children. they would get the full investment and you money would stay with them so your grand kids upon their parents death would recieve 2350.00 each and every month. and it would keep building.

As we continue to automate, and have higher tech jobs, the price of collage goes up ect. you end up with less and less need for the employer 6.5% which would start to run huge surpluses in about 35 years. and those surpluses could be used to pay off the national debt.

The problem with this program is that it ends the dependence on government and thus the power base of the democratic party, so they will fight it to the end of the earth.

Common
03-28-2013, 07:21 AM
Gosh, did those evil rich folks all go and file for disability? Did they cause the population to age such that there are far fewer payees and more recipients now?

Did they let disability turn into a form of welfare? Did they lump SS into the general budget so they could steal it?

What a stupid post.




No theyve just milked the country dry at the expense of everyone else

nic34
03-28-2013, 09:34 AM
I'm convinced zelmo lives in never-never land.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 09:40 AM
I'm convinced zelmo lives in never-never land.

I see that you are still defencing an unfunded proverty based entitlement program.

The figure taht I used were for mid cap mutual funds and were based on market averages, and moving larger percentage to safe holdings as the employee aged. these statistics included all market crashes including the great depression!

you can only come up with a one line attack because the program that you defend would not build wealth. by not allowing the money to be taken from the market, you would not only see a dramatic rise in the value of the market but would actually defend against large drops in the value of the market and give american corporations about a trillion dollars to invest every year, not costing the tax payer on cent.

So now that you wanted to go to name calling. 10 liberal browny points by the way. maybe you can show me how private investing will not work! Now this will kill the democratic party so if that is the reason that you want people to be doomed to poverty, then please say so, otherwise please show me why SS is a better program.

nic34
03-28-2013, 09:55 AM
SS is insurance against being completely impoverished in the event that you can't work anymore, either voluntarily through retirement, or involuntarily through disability.

And, like any insurance plan, it works by spreading the risk around a very big pool of insureds. Otherwise, folks at greater risk (like those approaching retirement age, or employed in dangerous settings) would be priced out.

We've had private retirement accounts for years. They're called IRA's, 401(k)'s, 403(b)'s, etc. I think that it would be advantageous to develop policies which further encouraged this kind of savings and investment. You can do this too zel, please do, but leave the insurance part alone.

Nobody ever claimed that SS was a way to retire in luxury. It's a floor, not a ceiling, QUIT trying to reframe SS as an investment plan, it is insurance, nothing more.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 10:10 AM
SS is insurance against being completely impoverished in the event that you can't work anymore, either voluntarily through retirement, or involuntarily through disability.

And, like any insurance plan, it works by spreading the risk around a very big pool of insureds. Otherwise, folks at greater risk (like those approaching retirement age, or employed in dangerous settings) would be priced out.

We've had private retirement accounts for years. They're called IRA's, 401(k)'s, 403(b)'s, etc. I think that it would be advantageous to develop policies which further encouraged this kind of savings and investment. You can do this too zel, please do, but leave the insurance part alone.

Nobody ever claimed that SS was a way to retire in luxury. It's a floor, not a ceiling, QUIT trying to reframe SS as an investment plan, it is insurance, nothing more.

I understand the insurance part! when it was invented we did not have the oppertunities like we do today.

The insurance program was raded by republicans and democrats alike and now the insurance premium is eating up a large part of what is left.

You will notice that I leave the 6.5% employer part in tact, and I leave at least 3.25% of the employee's part in tact for 3 decades. The insurance for the disabled and physacally and mentally unable to work is in place and funded. Nothing has happened with the insurance.

Now for 401K programs you are a working poor family you don't pay any federal income tax and you live paycheck to paycheck. I can give you all of the deductions in the world for establishing a retirement account but you are not going to get any more money back because you already pay nothing. And you can't take 5% more of your income because you need the money to pay your bills.

YOU HAVE DOOMED THIS PERSON TO POVERTY IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION! I have taken this same family and gave them an oppertunity to have a better life in retirement than they ever had while slaving away! And I did it without hurting the insurance program and without taking food off their table.

So now that you see I have not destroyed the insurance program well I guess that is not true becasue eventually you would be getting enough from what you parents and grand parents put in to provide for your livelyhood so at that point yes you would not have an entitlement program, but that is 50 to 70 years down the road, until then it is fully funded.

Now is their any reason that we need to keep these people dependent on the government, other than the power and voting base of the democratic party?

nic34
03-28-2013, 12:28 PM
A new way to look at SS and medicare.

for this example we will use the person making 30,000 per year, well below the average wage in the USA

50 and older you are screwed, you get the same program. 1000 a month and if you did not plan for retirement you get to live out your life in poverty. actually the pay out would be a little less than a 1000 but it makes the math easy.

40 to 50 years of age. a reduction in SS payouts of 25% and you get to invest half of your 6.5% deductions. or about 1000 per year

using the average rate of return, which would be low because all of the new investing would drive the market up just look at what the 85 billion is doing to todays market. you would have a small nest egg of 75000. or a anual pay out of about 25 dollars a month.

so your reduce rate of 750.00 per month and now add the 625 you get to 1375 a month an additional 175 dollars a month over todays average pay out.

Age 30 to 40 you get a 50% reduction in SS payouts. and get to invest half of your 6.5% as we still need some of your funds to pay people on the program.

you have a nest egg of about 220000 of an average mothly income of 1835. 00 and you still receive 500 a month for your traditional SS you are at 2235.00 an additional 1035 over todays national average.

workers 20 to 30 you receive NO traditional SS but you receive your medicare coverage at no charge .

you get to invest 4% of your 6.5% as we will need less of your money to pay for future benifits.

your nest egg would be a little over 650,000 or an anual mothly payment of? $5400 mor than they ever made while working.

and 4200 more than todays average.

for those less than 20 they would receive NO MEDICARE INSURANCE AND NO SS but they would get to invest the full 6.5% of their income as there half will not be needed.

you have a nest egg of 1.9 million dollars. and an average mothly income of 15833.00 but you are going to need to pay for a fantastic insurance program at about 30K per year. leaving you with only about 150k to live on per year. or 5 times what you made while you were working.

Talk about ponzi schemes!

First off, 30k is not poor people. It's about $14/hr. What does your plan do for those under that? Not only that but your plan continues to use SS? Really?

Second, you are assuming this person will work for 30 years straight with the same employer? The same kind of job? Where've you been, the job market and technology changes much faster than in the good ol' 50's. Not to mention this worker better not get sick or injured.

Third, you think 6.5% is easy for low income folks to put away for 30 years? That feat is tough for anyone. You're are in neverland.

Fourth and most important, what if Wall St takes a dump as it is want to do every 10 or so years? Too bad, your 6.5% is bye-bye, sorry charlie?

The rest of your math is gobbledgook that has too many ifs in it. Like I said, SS is a floor not an investment. I am all for folks doing more on their own, but at least they won't be left in a dust bowl with nothing like the crap-shoot you propose.

Another thing, I don't know what planet you live on today but retirees 65yrs+ get Medicare Part A paid, and Part B is just $105/mo. and deductable is only $147/yr.

Like I said your math has no credibility.

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html#1368

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 12:57 PM
Talk about ponzi schemes!

First off, 30k is not poor people. It's about $14/hr. What does your plan do for those under that? Not only that but your plan continues to use SS? Really?

Second, you are assuming this person will work for 30 years straight with the same employer? The same kind of job? Where've you been, the job market and technology changes much faster than in the good ol' 50's. Not to mention this worker better not get sick or injured.

Third, you think 6.5% is easy for low income folks to put away for 30 years? That feat is tough for anyone. You're are in neverland.

Fourth and most important, what if Wall St takes a dump as it is want to do every 10 or so years? Too bad, your 6.5% is bye-bye, sorry charlie?

The rest of your math is gobbledgook that has too many ifs in it. Like I said, SS is a floor not an investment. I am all for folks doing more on their own, but at least they won't be left in a dust bowl with nothing like the crap-shoot you propose.

Another thing, I don't know what planet you live on today but retirees 65yrs+ get Medicare Part A paid, and Part B is just $105/mo. and deductable is only $147/yr.

Like I said your math has no credibility.

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html#1368

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

Wall street is now an investment plan.

FOLKS HERE IS THE LEVEL THAT LIBERALS WILL GO TO TO CONTROL YOUR LIVES.

First the 6.5% already comes out of everyones check it is the FICA deductions. So they already have it taken out, no matter what job they are at! SO THEIR IS ZERO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Now I understand that you might have a problem with the 30K so lets look at 8.00 an hour and assume that the person never gets more thatn that, this would in fact cover the lapses in employment , which by the way also effect your SS and you do not pay in as much!


The amounts that I posted you would have about 2/3's of the income. still much better than the current system.

Now as far as medicare being free???? AARP liberal organization average out of pocket cost $4600 per year. So you just lied about the coverage. I am sure some of the seniors on here could back that up!

http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-02-2012/medicare-get-the-facts.html

Now what if you become disabled or can't work. Great, you would have a choice to have traditional disability or start to draw your retirement early, whichever is larger, Remember I am leaving 3/4's of the money in the current system for 3 decades.

And half of the money stays in the system forever!

The Math is average rates of return with mid cap mutual funds over long term through managed retirement plans. It is not gobledy gook!

And yes that is why you use managed funds so if the market tanks you are protected as you age.

Now you appear to be a liberal idiaot when it comes to money so lets talk about the stock market.

back in 2008/2009 the market went to the mid 6000 range and people lost a lot of money! but how much did you loose if you did not seel your stock????? NOTHING! as a matter of fact in a managed fund you had more shares that you had when the market started to drop. So when it was back to 12000 you had all of you money back plus. And the rates of return was much smaller for the older people because much of there investment was in bond markets.

So there is Zero chance of loosing everything. However as with any investment there is risk but consider that if everyone was on this program the market would see an investment of .25% of all of the FICA deductions which is going to make the market much more stable. as there is always a vast pool of buyers, and the money never leaves the system.

Now you have the same Medicare for anyone that is 20 or over! even with an average of minimum wage, if you are not 20 you wold see a retirement income of about 8500 dollars a month, because you are investing your full 6.5% So with fantastic insurance at 30K per year. you would still have an income of 70K plus.

So why is it that you want to doom the poor and lower middle class to the curent SS system? Is it anything more than securing your voter base?

Because your objections are strawmen!

Mainecoons
03-28-2013, 01:18 PM
You're missing the other 6.5 percent your employer "pays" on your behalf, instead of giving it to you.

nic34
03-28-2013, 01:31 PM
Where is it that I lied? I gave you links to the gov Medicare site. Part A is free. Part B is $105/mo.
AARP is trying to sell GAP insurance and using them as a source is a distortion.

zel, you are using the 6.5% twice. Do you account for it as a private investment AND as a government SS benefit? You can't do both.


back in 2008/2009 the market went to the mid 6000 range and people lost a lot of money! but how much did you loose if you did not seel your stock????? NOTHING! as a matter of fact in a managed fund you had more shares that you had when the market started to drop. So when it was back to 12000 you had all of you money back plus.


That is idiotic.

People lost many thousands in "managed funds". And if you are stupid enough to rely on the market for retirement in the future you deserve to lose it.

You are still in a dream world.

Mainecoons
03-28-2013, 01:33 PM
Yes, Zack, you are a dream world fool. Smart people rely on Ponzi schemes that are proven unsound on an actuarial basis. But, hey, we can fix it by (roll the drums for this oh so novel leftist solution) RAISING TAXES and curtailing benefits to those who we deem "rich."

Liberals, you can't fix stupid.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 01:48 PM
Folks I would love to get some more opnions on this because this is in fact the way to not only win the war on poverty, but also is the way that the national debt could be paid off, YES it would take 100 years, but it would end deficite spending and over that sime time literally end poverty. plus think of the money that corporations would have for investment.

This is the way to impower people, which is why the left will fight this tooth and nail. They have the system set to produce there own power base!

So I am sure that there are lost of pitfalls but

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 01:51 PM
Where is it that I lied? I gave you links to the gov Medicare site. Part A is free. Part B is $105/mo.
AARP is trying to sell GAP insurance and using them as a source is a distortion.

zel, you are using the 6.5% twice. Do you account for it as a private investment AND as a government SS benefit? You can't do both.



That is idiotic.

People lost many thousands in "managed funds". And if you are stupid enough to rely on the market for retirement in the future you deserve to lose it.

You are still in a dream world.

you are forgetting that your employer also pays 6.5% so there is 13% to deal with!

The stock market has out preformed all other investments. period and as you age it move into bonds. but even if you had no stomach for risk and put it all into bonds, you would still ahve more than SS!

So why are we dooming people to poverty, if it is ot to portect the power base of government dependent people for the DNC

Peter1469
03-28-2013, 01:53 PM
I wouldn't pay off all of the debt. I would cancel out all US debt held by the federal reserve. I would also fire the federal reserve and order the Treasury to print money interest free. I would use trade policies to ease debt held by foriegn nations.

I would balance the budget. And reform entitlement programs so they won't go broke. These reforms would be phased in over time so the current old people who paid into the system wouldn't be screwed.

I would also push for the US to become an alcohol based transportation fuel economy. That would return the US to a premier manufacturing status, and pump the costs of transportation fuel back into US pockets rather than offshore.

zelmo1234
03-28-2013, 01:59 PM
I wouldn't pay off all of the debt. I would cancel out all US debt held by the federal reserve. I would also fire the federal reserve and order the Treasury to print money interest free. I would use trade policies to ease debt held by foriegn nations.

I would balance the budget. And reform entitlement programs so they won't go broke. These reforms would be phased in over time so the current old people who paid into the system wouldn't be screwed.

I would also push for the US to become an alcohol based transportation fuel economy. That would return the US to a premier manufacturing status, and pump the costs of transportation fuel back into US pockets rather than offshore.

Like I said the 6.5% would offer a lot of insentaves and possibilities. but there woudl be no need to have a debt any longer, and that of course would cause the value of the dollar to skyrocket!