PDA

View Full Version : Social Security is melting down faster than thought



Peter1469
12-22-2014, 07:18 AM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.


Social Security is fast running out of money, weighing down on the economy, and may have to start cutting benefits to some Americans as early as 2016.


That’s the determination of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees in their annual report.


“Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers,” the introduction to the report states.

Ransom
12-22-2014, 07:20 AM
I believe age eligible is going up...

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 07:21 AM
I don't even factor SS into my retirement plans.

ace's n 8's
12-22-2014, 07:23 AM
I don't even factor SS into my retirement plans.
You are the few and the fortunate, as most should be.

We have a society that loves and cherishes 'credit', CREDIT. . . CREDIT. . . CREDIT.

This should be of no surprise to anyone, except for the uninformed, Unemployment is very high yet, the jobs are outsourced due to a high tax bracket, and some are taking from SS that have not paid into it, love me some ''entitlements''.

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:25 AM
Remember the Evil Conservatives that want to reform the system.

Collapse is the preferred method of the progressives, much more human to tell people. Sorry we are broke

Matty
12-22-2014, 07:27 AM
Remember the Evil Conservatives that want to reform the system.

Collapse is the preferred method of the progressives, much more human to tell people. Sorry we are broke


You got That Right!

midcan5
12-22-2014, 08:20 AM
More negativity from the cry babies of the right, the sky is always falling, one has to wonder how they get through a single day. The tears must lead to horrible dehydration. Please drink up for how else could fools get elected to congress and state houses. The cry baby vote is powerful. lol

Social Security is one of the best things Americans have done for each other, in the last market crash it alone helped many survive and live a normal life. Nothing conservatives have ever done can match that feat. Sorry crybabies, but life is a social work, some do it well, you guys do nothing but whine.

http://icps.gwu.edu/files/2011/08/social-safety-nets.pdf

"Exposing the Social Security solvency hype'

"Can we have confidence in Social Security? The author is confident that Congress will strengthen Social Security, for two reasons. One, it's extremely popular politically, possibly the most popular government program of all. Two, it's the least expensive way to provide financial security to a large population, which is why there are over 100 Social Security systems around the world."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12?link=mw_home_kiosk

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 08:23 AM
It is a Ponzi scheme. The only way to strengthen it is to bail it out.


More negativity from the cry babies of the right, the sky is always falling, one has to wonder how they get through a single day. The tears must lead to horrible dehydration. Please drink up for how else could fools get elected to congress and state houses. The cry baby vote is powerful. lol

Social Security is one of the best things Americans have done for each other, in the last market crash it alone helped many survive and live a normal life. Nothing conservatives have ever done can match that feat. Sorry crybabies, but life is a social work, some do it well, you guys do nothing but whine.

http://icps.gwu.edu/files/2011/08/social-safety-nets.pdf

"Exposing the Social Security solvency hype'

"Can we have confidence in Social Security? The author is confident that Congress will strengthen Social Security, for two reasons. One, it's extremely popular politically, possibly the most popular government program of all. Two, it's the least expensive way to provide financial security to a large population, which is why there are over 100 Social Security systems around the world."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12?link=mw_home_kiosk

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 08:46 AM
More negativity from the cry babies of the right, the sky is always falling, one has to wonder how they get through a single day. The tears must lead to horrible dehydration. Please drink up for how else could fools get elected to congress and state houses. The cry baby vote is powerful. lol

Social Security is one of the best things Americans have done for each other, in the last market crash it alone helped many survive and live a normal life. Nothing conservatives have ever done can match that feat. Sorry crybabies, but life is a social work, some do it well, you guys do nothing but whine.

http://icps.gwu.edu/files/2011/08/social-safety-nets.pdf

"Exposing the Social Security solvency hype'

"Can we have confidence in Social Security? The author is confident that Congress will strengthen Social Security, for two reasons. One, it's extremely popular politically, possibly the most popular government program of all. Two, it's the least expensive way to provide financial security to a large population, which is why there are over 100 Social Security systems around the world."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12?link=mw_home_kiosk

You can live a normal life on SS? Where?

The program is a horrible and cruel program! it steals wealth from people

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 08:47 AM
It is a Ponzi scheme. The only way to strengthen it is to bail it out.

And then you are still left with a terrible program that steals wealth from families

del
12-22-2014, 08:57 AM
:rolleyes:

Howey
12-22-2014, 09:44 AM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.

C'mon Peter1469!

You're too smart to fall for a fake news site whose main intention is trolling.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wolff_(journalist)

SS is far from a Ponzi scheme, regardless of how many times Rand Paul says so.

Howey
12-22-2014, 09:45 AM
Or Rick Perry!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

Howey
12-22-2014, 09:48 AM
OMFG! The idiot that wrote that fiction is a conspiracy theorist!

http://www.offthegridnews.com/author/danieljennings/

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 10:01 AM
C'mon @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)!

You're too smart to fall for a fake news site whose main intention is trolling.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wolff_(journalist)

SS is far from a Ponzi scheme, regardless of how many times Rand Paul says so.

How! it takes money from current investors to pay past investors, with no way of turning a profit?

that is a Ponzi scheme

gamewell45
12-22-2014, 10:13 AM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.

It was supposed to run out of money over 70 years ago.

nic34
12-22-2014, 10:24 AM
OMFG! The idiot that wrote that fiction is a conspiracy theorist!

http://www.offthegridnews.com/author/danieljennings/


Did you see the money generator scam they try to sell you on that site? Total giveaway.... some folks need to look up what a ponzi scheme really is. Last I heard this "nonexistent" SS has worked for 70 years keeping seniors out of poverty:


Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm/
noun


a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

Ransom
12-22-2014, 10:33 AM
Look to the number retiring everyday. Look to the unfunded mandates like social security due while our workforce shrinks.

A Ponzi scheme the wrong analogy.....but if you think the SS funds you send to Washington are being banked for your retirement. You're wrong.

The debt now at 18+ trillion...and rising. And the queens of denial continue unabated.

nic34
12-22-2014, 11:15 AM
Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt


It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it “ran out of money.” This belief is the result of a common error: conceptualizing Social Security from the micro (individual) rather than the macro (economy-wide) perspective. It’s not a pension fund into which you put your money when you are young and from which you draw when you are old. It’s an immediate transfer from workers today to retirees today. That’s what it has always been and that’s what it has to be–there is no other possible way for it to work.

----- snip

To give it a more realistic feel, change the numbers from 7 workers and 3 retirees to 70 million and 30 million. Now what to do? Even if we have unanimous agreement on our plan, how can we make sure that retirees get their cut if it is no longer as easy as picking three fish from a basket full of ten? The most obvious and straightforward means is this: set a tax of 30% on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retirees–right now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmother’s bank account. This accomplishes the goal neatly and directly–and it’s exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. As you can see, this needs no prior financing or savings, nor would that appear to be particularly helpful. At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress. Although you can run out of money for retirement, we, as a nation, cannot.

What, then, you may ask, is the Social Security Trust Fund, the pool of money that people say will dry up and make it impossible for anyone to receive their Social Security payments? It is the surplus that resulted from having collected more in taxes than was necessary to pay out to retirees. Let me say that again: it is how much existing workers were overtaxed relative to the need to pay retirees in the past. It was never the source of the money we’ve been paying to Social Security recipients all these years. Strictly speaking, it’s completely unnecessary if we are able to precisely and continuously match tax revenues and pay outs.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 11:20 AM
Or Rick Perry!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

Hey Howey, these guys figure that if the SAY it's a Ponzi scheme enough times, that will make it one! ;-)

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:23 AM
Come on Howey, ah homs are beneath you. It is too easy to argue the man and ignore the argument.

The SEC on Ponzi Schemes: (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm)


A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.

That is the entire intent behind social security. The numbers of workers to recipients has been been dropping. The system is unsustainable.



C'mon @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)!

You're too smart to fall for a fake news site whose main intention is trolling.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wolff_(journalist)

SS is far from a Ponzi scheme, regardless of how many times Rand Paul says so.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:24 AM
Hey Howey, these guys figure that if the SAY it's a Ponzi scheme enough times, that will make it one! ;-)

See post 21. The Securities Exchange Commission defines a Ponzi Scheme.

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 11:24 AM
OMFG! The idiot that wrote that fiction is a conspiracy theorist!

http://www.offthegridnews.com/author/danieljennings/

Lol, most of his stories came straight from the bowels of Oathkeepers, PrisonPlanet and AmRen! :D

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:25 AM
The nation is insolvent. We are in ~$18T of debt.

You argument is to print money. That is default.


Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt


It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it “ran out of money.” This belief is the result of a common error: conceptualizing Social Security from the micro (individual) rather than the macro (economy-wide) perspective. It’s not a pension fund into which you put your money when you are young and from which you draw when you are old. It’s an immediate transfer from workers today to retirees today. That’s what it has always been and that’s what it has to be–there is no other possible way for it to work.

----- snip

To give it a more realistic feel, change the numbers from 7 workers and 3 retirees to 70 million and 30 million. Now what to do? Even if we have unanimous agreement on our plan, how can we make sure that retirees get their cut if it is no longer as easy as picking three fish from a basket full of ten? The most obvious and straightforward means is this: set a tax of 30% on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retirees–right now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmother’s bank account. This accomplishes the goal neatly and directly–and it’s exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. As you can see, this needs no prior financing or savings, nor would that appear to be particularly helpful. At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress. Although you can run out of money for retirement, we, as a nation, cannot.

What, then, you may ask, is the Social Security Trust Fund, the pool of money that people say will dry up and make it impossible for anyone to receive their Social Security payments? It is the surplus that resulted from having collected more in taxes than was necessary to pay out to retirees. Let me say that again: it is how much existing workers were overtaxed relative to the need to pay retirees in the past. It was never the source of the money we’ve been paying to Social Security recipients all these years. Strictly speaking, it’s completely unnecessary if we are able to precisely and continuously match tax revenues and pay outs.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:27 AM
Lol, most of his stories came straight from the bowels of Oathkeepers, PrisonPlanet and AmRen! :D

I don't believe anything Bo-4 says because he is untrustworthy.

ad hominem attack (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem)

See how that works?

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:28 AM
It was supposed to run out of money over 70 years ago.

Says who? Other than you?

Matty
12-22-2014, 11:29 AM
:smiley_bar:

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:29 AM
Ponzi scheme is the precise word to use.
Look to the number retiring everyday. Look to the unfunded mandates like social security due while our workforce shrinks.

A Ponzi scheme the wrong analogy.....but if you think the SS funds you send to Washington are being banked for your retirement. You're wrong.

The debt now at 18+ trillion...and rising. And the queens of denial continue unabated.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:30 AM
Strawman. But original.


Did you see the money generator scam they try to sell you on that site? Total giveaway.... some folks need to look up what a ponzi scheme really is. Last I heard this "nonexistent" SS has worked for 70 years keeping seniors out of poverty:


Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm/
noun


a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 11:31 AM
I don't believe anything @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) says because he is untrustworthy.

ad hominem attack (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem)

See how that works?
Peter1469 - Google the first sentence of a few this guy's stories. Check where these kooky ideas are coming from and then get back to me.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 11:34 AM
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) - Google the first sentence of a few this guy's stories. Check where these kooky ideas are coming from and then get back to me.

Red herring. It doesn't matter. The core proposition that Social Security, in its present form, is an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme is a fact. If you want to discuss the author start a thread about him. Enjoy, I suspect there will only be two people posting in that thread. :smiley:

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 11:43 AM
Red herring. It doesn't matter. The core proposition that Social Security, in its present form, is an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme is a fact. If you want to discuss the author start a thread about him. Enjoy, I suspect there will only be two people posting in that thread. :smiley:

The writer fails to source this supposed report so we can read it for ourselves. He read it for us and is telling us what HE thinks it says. I call that shoddy journalism.

nic34
12-22-2014, 12:03 PM
The nation is insolvent. We are in ~$18T of debt.

You argument is to print money. That is default.

The money for SS and Medicare is collected separately and is not part of the US budget. Come on, you know that.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:06 PM
The money for SS and Medicare is collected separately and is not part of the US budget. Come on, you know that.
Two issues:

1. The fund is unsustainable as a stand alone program - a Ponzi scheme.

2. Congress raids the fund and gives it worthless IOUs.

Next up is private pension funds.

Howey
12-22-2014, 12:08 PM
Come on @Howey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=387), ah homs are beneath you. It is too easy to argue the man and ignore the argument.

The SEC on Ponzi Schemes: (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm)



That is the entire intent behind social security. The numbers of workers to recipients has been been dropping. The system is unsustainable.

The intent of social security was and is a means to provide citizens with the opportunity to save for their future with employer contributions. Although intended to be self-sufficient, it evolved to the point where small changes were made to assist those affected by the plan as it was.

A good history:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html


See post 21. The Securities Exchange Commission defines a Ponzi Scheme.

You bolded the wrong sentence. This is what you should have bolded:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html

FDR's speech to Congress:


In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
I am gratified with the work of this Committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board on Economic Security drawn from various departments of the Government, the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public - spirited private citizens and a number of other advisory groups, including a committee on actuarial consultants, a medical advisory board, a dental advisory committee, a hospital advisory committee, a public - health advisory committee, a child - welfare committee and an advisory committee on employment relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major legislative proposal are ready and willing, at any time, to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate Congressional committees and members, with respect to detailed aspects.
It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary to, and conditioned upon, the action of States. Forty - four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary State action may be taken promptly it is important that the Federal Government proceed speedily.
The detailed report of the Committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American people. It has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of States, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.
It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea - a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project.
Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:
1. Unemployment compensation.
2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.
4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called "health insurance," although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform Federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory State unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all States cooperating with the Federal Government and to promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the States. The 10 percent not thus offset should be used to cover the costs of Federal and State administration of this broad system. Thus, States will largely administer unemployment compensation, assisted and guided by the Federal Government. An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the stabilization of private employment, Federal legislation should not foreclose the States from establishing means for inducing industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future depressions but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions, and we can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and a method of alleviation.
We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity - and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action to attain the objectives sought in this report.


As you can see, the intent of the program has changed little. Does it need reworking? Yes. Does it need privatization, putting our money in the hands of unscrupulous financial investors (you know...real Ponzi Schemes!)? No.

The solution to every social program facing difficulties, according to Libertarians and far-right republicans, is to gut it. Considering the financial collapse of 2008, do you really think that's a great idea?

Howey
12-22-2014, 12:09 PM
2. Congress raids the fund and gives it worthless IOUs.



THAT is the problem! Thank Bush.

Howey
12-22-2014, 12:10 PM
Red herring. It doesn't matter. The core proposition that Social Security, in its present form, is an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme is a fact. If you want to discuss the author start a thread about him. Enjoy, I suspect there will only be two people posting in that thread. :smiley:

Bitch about ad homs all you want. In order to discuss an issue, particularly one where a blog written by a nutcase is cited, it is only proper to vet the author.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:15 PM
If you want to focus on the word unscrupulous you can put Social Security outside of the Ponzi box. However, in every other way it is a Ponzi scheme. Current investors pay out current retirees.

It is a bad investment. The market has done better over time - by far and the US could insure a private system for the few years the market fails to perform.

Liberals should not be allowed to manage money.


The intent of social security was and is a means to provide citizens with the opportunity to save for their future with employer contributions. Although intended to be self-sufficient, it evolved to the point where small changes were made to assist those affected by the plan as it was.

A good history:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html



You bolded the wrong sentence. This is what you should have bolded:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html

FDR's speech to Congress:



As you can see, the intent of the program has changed little. Does it need reworking? Yes. Does it need privatization, putting our money in the hands of unscrupulous financial investors (you know...real Ponzi Schemes!)? No.

The solution to every social program facing difficulties, according to Libertarians and far-right republicans, is to gut it. Considering the financial collapse of 2008, do you really think that's a great idea?

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:16 PM
Bitch about ad homs all you want. In order to discuss an issue, particularly one where a blog written by a nutcase is cited, it is only proper to vet the author.

I would accept that if you also discussed the argument. It seems like that was too hard, so you focused on the man. Understood. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, and you have nothing to counter that.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:16 PM
THAT is the problem! Thank Bush.


Clinton too. That is how he didn't have a deficit. :smiley:

del
12-22-2014, 12:22 PM
If you want to focus on the word unscrupulous you can put Social Security outside of the Ponzi box. However, in every other way it is a Ponzi scheme. Current investors pay out current retirees.

It is a bad investment. The market has done better over time - by far and the US could insure a private system for the few years the market fails to perform.

Liberals should not be allowed to manage money.

yeah, there's no rich liberals and no cons living in trailer parks

:rolleyes:

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 12:25 PM
I would accept that if you also discussed the argument. It seems like that was too hard, so you focused on the man. Understood. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, and you have nothing to counter that.

It is impossible to "discuss" silly made up unsourced "news". But the Ponzi scheme meme has been fact checked and shot down by about a hundred different credible people and organizations.

lynn
12-22-2014, 12:28 PM
It was supposed to run out of money over 70 years ago.


How can it run out of money when it is a pay as you go system?

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:29 PM
It is impossible to "discuss" silly made up unsourced "news". But the Ponzi scheme meme has been fact checked and shot down by about a hundred different credible people and organizations.

Propaganda. Money into the social security system versus money out. If you want to put your head in the sand I am OK with that.

Point of fact- without assistance, the Social Security system is unsustainable.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:31 PM
How can it run out of money when it is a pay as you go system?

Less workers? Retirees living longer than ever?

It is not pay as you go. It is pay for the current retired and pray to god that some worker will pay for you when you retire.

Ponzi Scheme.

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 12:37 PM
Propaganda. Money into the social security system versus money out. If you want to put your head in the sand I am OK with that.

Point of fact- without assistance, the Social Security system is unsustainable.

Raise retirement age a few years (for those currently 55 and under) and increase withholdings to a reasonable degree. That solves the problem.

nic34
12-22-2014, 12:40 PM
Raise retirement age a few years (for those currently 55 and under) and increase withholdings to a reasonable degree. That solves the problem.

Just raise the cap.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate of the wealthiest Americans -- those who make more than $250,000 per year -- closer to the rate already paid by middle and working class American workers.
Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:42 PM
Raise retirement age a few years (for those currently 55 and under) and increase withholdings to a reasonable degree. That solves the problem.

Or the system crashes. Which is my point.

I wish I could opt out and put my share into an index fund.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 12:43 PM
I think by July I stop contributing to SS. It is nice.
Just raise the cap.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate of the wealthiest Americans -- those who make more than $250,000 per year -- closer to the rate already paid by middle and working class American workers.
Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap

Bo-4
12-22-2014, 12:51 PM
Or the system crashes. Which is my point.

I wish I could opt out and put my share into an index fund.

In addition to raising retirement age & increasing contributions, there's no reason that anyone with say 5 million in total net worth outside of their primary residence should collect.

The Xl
12-22-2014, 12:54 PM
It's a ponzi scheme to a large extent, but people who were forced into the system should be pretty rustled that this is melting while the government stays pumping a ton of money into the banking industry, the military industrial complex, and the never-ending subsidization of corporate America.

nic34
12-22-2014, 12:55 PM
I think by July I stop contributing to SS. It is nice.

Contribute 50% of the year, yet collect 100% at retirement. Yes nice.

There's nothing stopping you from investing now, you know....

Ransom
12-22-2014, 01:22 PM
Contribute 50% of the year, yet collect 100% at retirement. Yes nice.

There's nothing stopping you from investing now, you know....

Really. Gonna let me privitize....if I want to....some of my social security contributions? Allow "me" to invest "my" own money, be concerned for "my own" retirement and well being? Why Nic.....you and I might have something in common as far as entitlement issues are concerned here. I too favor privatization, when did you come on board?

Ransom
12-22-2014, 01:33 PM
It's a ponzi scheme to a large extent, but people who were forced into the system should be pretty rustled that this is melting while the government stays pumping a ton of money into the banking industry, the military industrial complex, and the never-ending subsidization of corporate America.

Why not see where the money is being pumped, Medicare/Medicaid and SS both have some 850 billion and climbing being pumped in annually, what in God's name are you talking about? What in the holy name of everything we pray for on Sunday....what?? Federal Pensions and the interest on the skyrocketing f'n debt alone are the equal to defense spending. For your information.......Xl.......I know fact and what not don't mean shat to ewe.......prescription drugs.....medicare....and social security.....right this f'n second.....face an untenable 100+ trillion dollars in unfunded mandates. 147 million are working....Xl......158 million are receiving government benefits. Now....I don't think I need to dig Copernicus up to do the f'n math here....do I?

Where in Fred f'n Flintstone's name do you get the ideas you then regurgitate on these boards? For the love of God and.....wow.

www.usdebtclock.org

Homework first Forum.....comment....second. Please and thank you.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 02:00 PM
Contribute 50% of the year, yet collect 100% at retirement. Yes nice.

There's nothing stopping you from investing now, you know....

I do invest- a lot. I also have a basic understanding of math and see that social security is a bad investment.

texan
12-22-2014, 02:10 PM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.

Nope to big to fail. They will start printing whatever they need to keep paying.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 02:12 PM
Nope to big to fail. They will start printing whatever they need to keep paying.

That is a default.

texan
12-22-2014, 02:17 PM
Not as long as one gets paid.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 02:24 PM
Not as long as one gets paid.

Paid in devalued dollars.

donttread
12-22-2014, 03:29 PM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.

Send us back our money with interest right now

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:04 PM
Did you see the money generator scam they try to sell you on that site? Total giveaway.... some folks need to look up what a ponzi scheme really is. Last I heard this "nonexistent" SS has worked for 70 years keeping seniors out of poverty:


Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm/
noun


a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.






The SS programs are no where near enough to get you over the poverty level.

people that must rely on them and have no disposable income to save, are doom to dire poverty in their golden years.

After investing 6.5% of their life's wages, they are left with just enough to get by, many qualifying for the good stamp programs.

This is why Democrats like the program and refuse to look at reforms. It keeps the people right where they want them.

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 07:11 PM
yeah, there's no rich liberals and no cons living in trailer parks

:rolleyes:No they just come up with stupid investments like Social Security. It is a scam.

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:14 PM
How can it run out of money when it is a pay as you go system?

It is really simple it is designed to have 7 people paying in to 3 people receiving benefits.

We are looking at 6 and 4 right now and 5 to 5 in the next 10 year. so there is not enough coming in!

This is why they have been reducing the raises that seniors receive and they have been raising the premiums for their Medicare

Peter1469
12-22-2014, 07:16 PM
Ponzi

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:17 PM
Raise retirement age a few years (for those currently 55 and under) and increase withholdings to a reasonable degree. That solves the problem.

And you have saved a system that promises you a life or poverty!

Why are we hell bent on saving a terrible system?

Have people become so stupid when it comes to investing that they are willing to have 6.5% of their income stolen from them?

I just don't get it!

del
12-22-2014, 07:19 PM
No they just come up with stupid investments like Social Security. It is a scam.

otay, panky

Redrose
12-22-2014, 07:21 PM
Remember the Evil Conservatives that want to reform the system.

Collapse is the preferred method of the progressives, much more human to tell people. Sorry we are broke


and they keep allowing illegals to qualify for SSI and other benefits. When they let illegals to obtain a leagl DL, that can enable them to receive other benefits....and vote.

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:23 PM
Just raise the cap.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate of the wealthiest Americans -- those who make more than $250,000 per year -- closer to the rate already paid by middle and working class American workers.
Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap

It doesn't work, because if you put in more you take out more, so you have to keep raising it to cover you losses.

Means testing would help but then you are taking money and not providing benefits.

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:24 PM
Or the system crashes. Which is my point.

I wish I could opt out and put my share into an index fund.

Here is the thing, you could not need all of your money. I think that you are around 40. It they just let you invest half you would come out way ahead!

Bob
12-22-2014, 07:25 PM
Social Security is melting down faster than thought (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/10/18/why-social-security-is-bankrupting-the-us-economy/)

We know it is a Ponzi scheme. And now we know it is failing faster than anticipated.

It is NOW easy for me to explain what happens. Prior to collecting, I knew and told forums the same thing. It is a Ponzi scheme. I collect a huge sum of money when you compare it to what I paid in. Sure, some of you now paying will pay a lot more. I was lucky to spend many years paying the premiums but they were then super low. I collect on today's dollars. It can't be possible this can last. The math does not work out.

zelmo1234
12-22-2014, 07:28 PM
Contribute 50% of the year, yet collect 100% at retirement. Yes nice.

There's nothing stopping you from investing now, you know....

It is not people like Peter that are doomed.

I am done contributing in Jan. And I will draw the maximum.

The problem is, as you well know wages are falling and a large portion of the population needs every cent to live on!

They pay all year long and at 67 after their Medicare premiums are taken out, will only have about 1700 to live on!

This is the system that you are saving and pretending it is a great thing for them. it is a terrible program

Bob
12-22-2014, 07:31 PM
and they keep allowing illegals to qualify for SSI and other benefits. When they let illegals to obtain a leagl DL, that can enable them to receive other benefits....and vote.

Here is the thing about benefits, they can get away with voting because they don't need an ID, but to get benefits they will take with them a US Birth Certificate. It is that way in CA and hopefully in all the states.

Fake Birth certificates of course can't be made. Just as they don't counterfeit money. :rollseyes:

Bob
12-22-2014, 07:38 PM
It is not people like Peter that are doomed.

I am done contributing in Jan. And I will draw the maximum.

The problem is, as you well know wages are falling and a large portion of the population needs every cent to live on!

They pay all year long and at 67 after their Medicare premiums are taken out, will only have about 1700 to live on!

This is the system that you are saving and pretending it is a great thing for them. it is a terrible program

The Democrats love to state that the rich get richer while the poor get poor. They love to say jobs are in China.

How can they sustain this failed system?

CaveDog
12-24-2014, 12:55 PM
From an article on social security by Thomas R. Saving from the Library of economics and liberty web site...
-----
"To put the Social Security problem in perspective, the trustees calculated that the debt the system owed its current participants (those fifteen years old and older) at the close of 2003 was thirteen trillion dollars. If the government continued paying scheduled benefits and collecting only scheduled taxes from current participants, all new entrants to the workforce would have to pay off this thirteen-trillion-dollar debt in their lifetime. This is the equivalent of saddling each newborn with a substantial mortgage for which he will receive nothing in return.
With the Medicare debt added to the Social Security debt, new entrants to the workforce owe current participants almost forty-two trillion dollars. Because these debts are so enormous, they cannot and will not be honored. If the government solves the problem well and soon, the solution will be less painful. The required changes will cost something, but doing nothing will cost even more and will pass that cost on to future generations."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SocialSecurity.html
-----

According to Mr. Saving, in 2018 it's expected that the social security fund's costs will begin to exceed it's revenue and it will begin having to cash in treasury bonds issued for it's previous excess revenues. Once those are exhausted the treasury is not legally bound to further fund the program. By 2030 there will only be two workers available to support each retiree. Anyone thinking this is sustainable doesn't grasp basic economics. Even if the program survives it will need to be drastically revamped and even so the numbers are so daunting that the economic pressure on the younger generation will be crushing.
For those who seek comfort in discrediting other authors as "conspiracy theorists" I submit Mr. Saving's credentials...
"Thomas R. Saving is the director of the Private Enterprise Research Center at Texas A&M University and University Distinguished Professor of Economics at Texas A&M. In 2000, President Bill Clinton appointed Dr. Saving a public trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. In May 2001, President George W. Bush named Dr. Saving to the bipartisan President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security."

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:00 PM
It is a Ponzi Scheme.


From an article on social security by Thomas R. Saving from the Library of economics and liberty web site...
-----
"To put the Social Security problem in perspective, the trustees calculated that the debt the system owed its current participants (those fifteen years old and older) at the close of 2003 was thirteen trillion dollars. If the government continued paying scheduled benefits and collecting only scheduled taxes from current participants, all new entrants to the workforce would have to pay off this thirteen-trillion-dollar debt in their lifetime. This is the equivalent of saddling each newborn with a substantial mortgage for which he will receive nothing in return.
With the Medicare debt added to the Social Security debt, new entrants to the workforce owe current participants almost forty-two trillion dollars. Because these debts are so enormous, they cannot and will not be honored. If the government solves the problem well and soon, the solution will be less painful. The required changes will cost something, but doing nothing will cost even more and will pass that cost on to future generations."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SocialSecurity.html
-----

According to Mr. Saving, in 2018 it's expected that the social security fund's costs will begin to exceed it's revenue and it will begin having to cash in treasury bonds issued for it's previous excess revenues. Once those are exhausted the treasury is not legally bound to further fund the program. By 2030 there will only be two workers available to support each retiree. Anyone thinking this is sustainable doesn't grasp basic economics. Even if the program survives it will need to be drastically revamped and even so the numbers are so daunting that the economic pressure on the younger generation will be crushing.
For those who seek comfort in discrediting other authors as "conspiracy theorists" I submit Mr. Saving's credentials...
"Thomas R. Saving is the director of the Private Enterprise Research Center at Texas A&M University and University Distinguished Professor of Economics at Texas A&M. In 2000, President Bill Clinton appointed Dr. Saving a public trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. In May 2001, President George W. Bush named Dr. Saving to the bipartisan President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security."

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 01:26 PM
Guys. My parents rely on SS. My father is in his 60s and he works at Walmart. Without SS my family would be in poverty.

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:29 PM
Guys. My parents rely on SS. My father is in his 60s and he works at Walmart. Without SS my family would be in poverty.

Had they invested that money wisely they would have a lot more than what SS is paying them.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 01:37 PM
Had they invested that money wisely they would have a lot more than what SS is paying them.

So a better plan is not to spend all the money on useless junk and save a large amount of the money earned? A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. What should they do? Get better jobs? We have a tax code that kills jobs.

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:43 PM
So a better plan is not to spend all the money on useless junk and save a large amount of the money earned? A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. What should they do? Get better jobs? We have a tax code that kills jobs.


It is not difficult. The money that comes out of a paycheck for SS could be put in an index fund. You are not making much sense here.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 01:52 PM
It is not difficult. The money that comes out of a paycheck for SS could be put in an index fund. You are not making much sense here.

And who works at Walmart in their 60s? Poor life planning? Also many college graduates can not find jobs. Is it because they got a degree in low demand? Why are people so stupid?

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:54 PM
And who works at Walmart in their 60s? Poor life planning? Also many college graduates can not find jobs. Is it because they got a degree in low demand? Why are people so stupid?

What does any of that have to do with social security.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 01:56 PM
And many elderly people are living in poverty. Getting rid of SS would not help them. Seriously why live out your last years on Earth in misery?

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 01:58 PM
And many elderly people are living in poverty. Getting rid of SS would not help them. Seriously why live out your last years on Earth in misery?

There are exactly zero people advocating for eliminating SS for current or near retirees.

So you can put that straw man to bed.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 02:01 PM
There are exactly zero people advocating for eliminating SS for current or near retirees.

So you can put that straw man to bed.

Sorry. So you mean for people who take advantage of SS? Aren't there able bodied people who take advantage of this program like Welfare? Don't really wealthy people get SS? Shouldn't SS be reserved for people who are really in need?

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Sorry. So you mean for people who take advantage of SS? Aren't there able bodied people who take advantage of this program like Welfare? Don't really wealthy people get SS? Shouldn't SS be reserved for people who are really in need?

No person advocates changing the current SS system for those who are retired or close to retirement.

CAPUSAFcadet23
12-24-2014, 02:18 PM
No person advocates changing the current SS system for those who are retired or close to retirement.

Will having no more social security for my generation and the next force those generations to be more smarter with their money? Never ever get a credit card and always keep money in a emergency fund. I like the idea of people being more responsible.

zelmo1234
12-24-2014, 02:43 PM
And many elderly people are living in poverty. Getting rid of SS would not help them. Seriously why live out your last years on Earth in misery?

You can't change the system for those that have no time. So they have to have the crappy system.

In the future automation and outsourcing there will be less and less good jobs. So we have to reform the system, along with the tax code so that people retire in security

Redrose
12-24-2014, 03:01 PM
The SS system was originated because FDR, a Democrat, was of the thinking people needed some support in their retirement years and they were too stupid to manage their own rertirement fund. So the system was developed to take money from our paychecks and the government, big government, would invest it, manage it in a private fund, and pay out benefits at a certain age, guaranteed. FDR wanted to give a miniscule return on the SS investment. His Republian Congress managed to get the return increased to a more favorable rate. They overrode FDR. People forget that fact.

We all know how LBJ screwed that system up by taking the SS fund and merging it with the general fund to be the piggy bank for the new welfare system of the sixties. Money was "borrowed" from the solvent SS system to fund welfare. Never paid back. Just like Obama has done with Medicare, raping it to fund, "partially" fund Obamacare.

Now, critics of that system say privatizing the system with 401k's for employees would be a better system. Let people manage their own money.

That takes us back to FDR's mindset...not everyone is capable of managing their own retirement fund.

We all saw how the housing market collapsed. Irresponsible people purchased homes way above their financial capability, with dangerous variable rates, no money down, and interest only mortgages. No financial geniuses there.

I hate big government, but there will always be a section of society that is incapable of managing their financial future. If they fail, we will be supporting them on the welfare rolls.

PolWatch
12-24-2014, 04:42 PM
Rose has nailed it! People don't have enough knowledge and sometimes, sense, to provide for their own retirement. My husband was a member of a union. When they would get a raise there was a meeting to decide how much of the raise went to paychecks and how much was put into the pension. I was amazed at the number of people who had no idea that they had to put something into a pension fund to get anything out of it. The younger people were terrible about arguing against any portion going to a pension (by younger, I'm talking 50 and under). I don't know how they would behave if they had complete control of their own retirement funds. I suspect we would end up paying them welfare or watch them starve.

Peter1469
12-24-2014, 04:44 PM
Rose has nailed it! People don't have enough knowledge and sometimes, sense, to provide for their own retirement. My husband was a member of a union. When they would get a raise there was a meeting to decide how much of the raise went to paychecks and how much was put into the pension. I was amazed at the number of people who had no idea that they had to put something into a pension fund to get anything out of it. The younger people were terrible about arguing against any portion going to a pension (by younger, I'm talking 50 and under). I don't know how they would behave if they had complete control of their own retirement funds. I suspect we would end up paying them welfare or watch them starve.

That is pretty sad.

But we could scrap SS and put the money into a private account for people without them being able to touch it. If that is what it takes.

But it is telling- professional money managers don't consider SS in their clients (younger) retirement. They realize the system is broke.

Bob
12-24-2014, 04:58 PM
Rose has nailed it! People don't have enough knowledge and sometimes, sense, to provide for their own retirement. My husband was a member of a union. When they would get a raise there was a meeting to decide how much of the raise went to paychecks and how much was put into the pension. I was amazed at the number of people who had no idea that they had to put something into a pension fund to get anything out of it. The younger people were terrible about arguing against any portion going to a pension (by younger, I'm talking 50 and under). I don't know how they would behave if they had complete control of their own retirement funds. I suspect we would end up paying them welfare or watch them starve.

You can get sex education in school. But they won't educate you on finances and retirement is part of that.

Redrose
12-24-2014, 05:17 PM
You can get sex education in school. But they won't educate you on finances and retirement is part of that.


When I was at the IRS, we had a program where a rep. would go to local high schools to let the graduating class understand the difference between a 1099 and a W-2 before entering the business world. I spoke a couple of times. Most couldn't care less and were totally uninterested. That was over 20 years ago. I often wonder if any of them at tax time today wished they'd paid better attention.

If they made a video game about financial strategies, maybe then they'd learn.