Social Security: Years of screwing the poor workers

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The sad fact of the matter anyone under 40 right now will probably pay way more into SS than they ever recieve back. Simly because there will have to be across the board tax hikes to cover the social security shortfall since the government wont touch the subject.

I'll repeat: the problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program. Fix the right problem, and don't break the system that can help seniors efficiently.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The sad fact of the matter anyone under 40 right now will probably pay way more into SS than they ever recieve back. Simly because there will have to be across the board tax hikes to cover the social security shortfall since the government wont touch the subject.

I'll repeat: the problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program. Fix the right problem, and don't break the system that can help seniors efficiently.

Technically, SS funds have never been "misused", because the Supreme Court held in Flemming v. Nestor that such funds are, legally, tax revenue. As such, they may be spent as Congress sees fit, just as Congress is actually doing. More importantly, how would you propose to prevent such "misuse"? Giving Congress control and ownership of the money is only allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The sad fact of the matter anyone under 40 right now will probably pay way more into SS than they ever recieve back. Simly because there will have to be across the board tax hikes to cover the social security shortfall since the government wont touch the subject.

I'll repeat: the problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program. Fix the right problem, and don't break the system that can help seniors efficiently.

Technically, SS funds have never been "misused", because the Supreme Court held in Flemming v. Nestor that such funds are, legally, tax revenue. As such, they may be spent as Congress sees fit, just as Congress is actually doing. More importantly, how would you propose to prevent such "misuse"? Giving Congress control and ownership of the money is only allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.

The prase "misused" as I use it does not mean "illegal", it means bad policy.

Reagan bought 'prosperity' by charging it on national credit cards, and this one that he created was one huge line of credit for abuse.

If Congress votes to tax watching television for $100B a year and then spend the money on paving the streets in gold, it's a "misuse" of taxation and spending, even if legal.

My 'solution' is obvious: use the surtax for the intended purposes, saved for baby boomers.

Instead of being saved and available, it's borrowed and spent already - by both parties - and we face a coming crisis for coming up with that money that shouldn't be the case.

But hey, millions of Americans are fooled that Reagan's borrowed prosperity was good policy, and so it did what it was supposed to for the Republicans.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love how the topic immediately devolves into the usual anti-SS raving.

SS isn't the problem. The problem is that increases in SS contributions have been used to offset revenues lost in taxcuts at the very top of the pile, compounded by enormous deficits, courtesy of the party of "small govt and fiscal responsibility"- aka republicans.

As income has shifted to the top, more and more income escapes out the top of the SS contributions limit, compounding the problem, calling for (what else?)- more and bigger deficits, of course...

SS has a cap on benefits as well. Why would you expect people to pay in above the benefit line?

btw you dont explain how more people at the top hurs SS. As more people climb towards the cap the system recieves more money. If everybody made 35K\year the system would take in far less than if 80% made 35K and the rest made 200K.

Also the raping of the SS fund didnt start 8 years ago. How the fuck do you think Clinton magically balanced and ran a small surplus?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The sad fact of the matter anyone under 40 right now will probably pay way more into SS than they ever recieve back. Simly because there will have to be across the board tax hikes to cover the social security shortfall since the government wont touch the subject.

I'll repeat: the problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program. Fix the right problem, and don't break the system that can help seniors efficiently.

Technically, SS funds have never been "misused", because the Supreme Court held in Flemming v. Nestor that such funds are, legally, tax revenue. As such, they may be spent as Congress sees fit, just as Congress is actually doing. More importantly, how would you propose to prevent such "misuse"? Giving Congress control and ownership of the money is only allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.

The prase "misused" as I use it does not mean "illegal", it means bad policy.

Reagan bought 'prosperity' by charging it on national credit cards, and this one that he created was one huge line of credit for abuse.

If Congress votes to tax watching television for $100B a year and then spend the money on paving the streets in gold, it's a "misuse" of taxation and spending, even if legal.

My 'solution' is obvious: use the surtax for the intended purposes, saved for baby boomers.

Instead of being saved and available, it's borrowed and spent already - by both parties - and we face a coming crisis for coming up with that money that shouldn't be the case.

But hey, millions of Americans are fooled that Reagan's borrowed prosperity was good policy, and so it did what it was supposed to for the Republicans.

Always with the partisanship, eh? You're happy to pin the tail on Reagan, but ignore the fact of who controlled the House when the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act were passed. Heck, House Speaker Tip O'Neill even showed up to speak at the White House signing ceremony (read the "Remarks on Signing the Social Security Amendments of 1983 --April 20, 1983")! Fact is, both parties were happy to get thier hands on the money. You can't buy off voters without funds, can you? Which leads us back to the idea I stated above - trusting Congress, the same entity which has "misused" the money in the past, to safeguard SS money in the future, is foolish. It's asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Always with the partisanship, eh?

News for you: not every criticism of a person or party is 'partisan'. You need to learn the difference of when blame is due, and when it's selectively partisan.

Your knee-jerk defensiveness of any criticism of Reagan here is what's actually partisan.

You're happy to pin the tail on Reagan, but ignore the fact of who controlled the House when the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act were passed. Heck, House Speaker Tip O'Neill even showed up to speak at the White House signing ceremony (read the "Remarks on Signing the Social Security Amendments of 1983 --April 20, 1983")! Fact is, both parties were happy to get thier hands on the money. You can't buy off voters without funds, can you? Which leads us back to the idea I stated above - trusting Congress, the same entity which has "misused" the money in the past, to safeguard SS money in the future, is foolish. It's asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Democrats share the blame for misusing SS funds - *as I said*, but you did not note, when I said 'both parties' in my post on that issue.

Reagan is uniquely responsible for this for two reasons: One is that he's the guy - not Tip O'Neill or Carter or any other Democrat - who approached Paul Volcker and solicited the idea for creating the SS surtax, and he allowed it to get misused after creating it, setting the precedent; and secondly, he's the president who pioneered the groundbreaking use of massive deficit spending in peacetime to boost the economy, well beyond any Democrats' Kenesian policies previously. He deserves the blame - your attack is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

This. Its not the program that is bad, its the misuse or implementation of the program. But the idea behind it is a sound one for any country.

no, the idea would have been sound if fully funded and private property. that's a lot different from depending on an increasing stream of payments to fund an increasing number of beneficiaries.

You need to say more than these few words to make a coherent point or argument.

Your post as it is fails to show you understand SS.

There have been people opposed to SS - those who want all the money possible available for their own pockets, and people duped by them - who have said it can't work since 1935.

They've all been wrong, all that time, though when they're in power, they can threaten to cause it not to work, just as Reagan created the terrible borrowing of his surtax.

please point out exactly what i've said is wrong rather than just doing your usual 'you don't know how to argue' act.

You have to make a coherent argument to get a specific response. I told you once, you choose not to listen, that's fine; we can end this discussion now. One can't 'refute' air.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love how the topic immediately devolves into the usual anti-SS raving.

SS isn't the problem. The problem is that increases in SS contributions have been used to offset revenues lost in taxcuts at the very top of the pile, compounded by enormous deficits, courtesy of the party of "small govt and fiscal responsibility"- aka republicans.

As income has shifted to the top, more and more income escapes out the top of the SS contributions limit, compounding the problem, calling for (what else?)- more and bigger deficits, of course...

Social Insurance taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 32.23%
2005 - 36.87%
(That would be an increase of 14.4%.)

Individual income taxes as a percentage of overall receipts:
2000 - 49.59%
2005 - 43.05%
(That would be a decrease of 13.19%.)


I think over the last few years the % of individual tax receipts has risen to around 45% or so which would seem to be a more positive trend but more likely is due to the serious job-loss problems we have seen over the last 18 months.

I doubt the un- (or under) employed are boosting SS receipts a great deal now but the ""trust fund"" is projected to show around a $300 billion surplus this fiscal year ....

Projected $1.7 trillion surplus over the next 5 years (if we are lucky).

That "surplus" is paid back with future general tax reciepts.

No reason it has to be - - - - other than the stoopidity of the American Voter.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

...someone is off his meds again...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Boy it's a good thing that people can invest in 401ks where they are losing just about everything. If they had SS they might have a chance, and we can't have that.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Always with the partisanship, eh?

News for you: not every criticism of a person or party is 'partisan'. You need to learn the difference of when blame is due, and when it's selectively partisan.

Your knee-jerk defensiveness of any criticism of Reagan here is what's actually partisan.

Saying you misdirected the blame is hardly "defending" Reagan. It's only arguing that he's not alone as a guilty party. I thought such subtle differences would not be lost on you, but I was apparently wrong.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Boy it's a good thing that people can invest in 401ks where they are losing just about everything. If they had SS they might have a chance, and we can't have that.

Have a chance at what? Congress pissing away the money? Until Congress is willing to grant me an actual property right in my SS contributions, it's a scam. At least my 401K is actually MINE, and every court in the land will uphold that. If I lost my job and needed that money, I could get it right NOW, TODAY (minus tax penalties). Try that with SS. You can't, because it's not your money now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Boy it's a good thing that people can invest in 401ks where they are losing just about everything. If they had SS they might have a chance, and we can't have that.

Have a chance at what? Congress pissing away the money? Until Congress is willing to grant me an actual property right in my SS contributions, it's a scam. At least my 401K is actually MINE, and every court in the land will uphold that. If I lost my job and needed that money, I could get it right NOW, TODAY (minus tax penalties). Try that with SS. You can't, because it's not your money now.

That's fine. Now if this happens again and you still have SS (which I think has absolutely no chance of going away) you may lose most of the money that's yours. I guarantee you that if they cut off SS then you'll be lamenting for the "good old days".

This ought to be a wake up call that private retirement isn't the bed of roses that it was being sold at. I don't remember ANY republican pointing out the pitfalls. It was how it was going to be a more secure retirement. The facts have proven to be otherwise. I know a couple who reached retirement age and were going to hang it up after working long careers. Not now. They can't afford to. Yeah, it sucks for them I know and I know you couldn't care less, but as some have found you can get screwed no matter how clever you think you may be.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

...someone is off his meds again...

lol "right wing blather" is warning people to not count on SS and tell people that if you are under the age of 30 to save for your own retirement. IE being responsible for yourself. Apparently only right wingers seem to know that, GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

FFS Craig there are 10+ threads talking about record government deficit spending.

Everyone with a brain knows that SS is the world's biggest ponzi scheme and with the baby boomers begining to retire, we will see the ponzi fall apart within the next 10-20 years. The only differences between a typical ponzi scheme and SS is: we know it's a ponzi scheme; however, we are still forced into it. Think of the money Madoff would have lost if he could have put a gun to peoples heads to give him more money.

Government's only solution will be to tax more--which should mean people get more since SS is a forced retirement account, but won't because well that's government--and/or cut benifits. So are we better off saving our money in our name (away from politicians) and face a drop of 30% of the value in one of the worst recessions in America or pay more for SS and get far, far less (if anything)?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I have a glaring example of why we need SS in my family. My dad raised me in an upper middle class family, he was a bank VP in the 60's - 80's, and was a very prudent saver and accumulate significant wealth, two houses, country club membership, etc..., etc.... He was due to retire with $500k in 80's dollars and a pension, but because of the multiple bank take over's that happened in the late 70's early 80's and lack of current 401k protections he got screwed out of most all of it except for about $20k.

But because he was frugal and had accumulated about $250k and several paid off properties he was still able to retire in his late 50's. He has continued to live even more frugally and made some wize investments, but the rapid inflation of the 90's - 00's took a heavy toll on him and the last few years he hasn't been able to earn practially anything from the remaining small invenstments he has. He is in his 80's now and his $1000 a month he gets from SS probably represents 65% of his income.

My father is a WWII vet and a very proud man and never in his wildest imagination would he have ever beleived he would wind up dependent on SS, but he has

The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Boy it's a good thing that people can invest in 401ks where they are losing just about everything. If they had SS they might have a chance, and we can't have that.

Atleast that money is mine and I will see it when I retire. All the SS money I send is just being stolen. The system will collapse or go bankrupt by the time I retire.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I have a glaring example of why we need SS in my family. My dad raised me in an upper middle class family, he was a bank VP in the 60's - 80's, and was a very prudent saver and accumulate significant wealth, two houses, country club membership, etc..., etc.... He was due to retire with $500k in 80's dollars and a pension, but because of the multiple bank take over's that happened in the late 70's early 80's and lack of current 401k protections he got screwed out of most all of it except for about $20k.

But because he was frugal and had accumulated about $250k and several paid off properties he was still able to retire in his late 50's. He has continued to live even more frugally and made some wize investments, but the rapid inflation of the 90's - 00's took a heavy toll on him and the last few years he hasn't been able to earn practially anything from the remaining small invenstments he has. He is in his 80's now and his $1000 a month he gets from SS probably represents 65% of his income.

My father is a WWII vet and a very proud man and never in his wildest imagination would he have ever beleived he would wind up dependent on SS, but he has

The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

And what happens when SS fails because it has no money, owed to them, to pay people like your father?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

You were actually making a decent amount of sense, and then you jumped right back into partisan trolling. I feel sorry for you, Craig.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Boy it's a good thing that people can invest in 401ks where they are losing just about everything. If they had SS they might have a chance, and we can't have that.

Atleast that money is mine and I will see it when I retire. All the SS money I send is just being stolen. The system will collapse or go bankrupt by the time I retire.

At least we'll get front row seats when the SS collapse in our life time

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program.

Fix the right thing. SS has a huge benefit in preventing elder poverty, and it's efficient.

Umm no, first of all the problem is not the misuse of funds. That's like saying the only problem with a dictatorship is when people abuse the power, and otherwise it works great in theory and we should do it. Fact is, you shouldn't be letting the government control your fucking retirement money. You should save and invest it YOURSELF and avoid the entire possibility of being FORCED to participate in a ponzi scheme. At least private scams can be avoided, I won't see a dime from this shit.

And no, it isn't efficient, it's a wasteland, a cascade of more and more undeliverable promises to win votes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-NqdmEDq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

...someone is off his meds again...

lol "right wing blather" is warning people to not count on SS and tell people that if you are under the age of 30 to save for your own retirement. IE being responsible for yourself. Apparently only right wingers seem to know that, GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

FFS Craig there are 10+ threads talking about record government deficit spending.

Everyone with a brain knows that SS is the world's biggest ponzi scheme and with the baby boomers begining to retire, we will see the ponzi fall apart within the next 10-20 years. The only differences between a typical ponzi scheme and SS is: we know it's a ponzi scheme; however, we are still forced into it. Think of the money Madoff would have lost if he could have put a gun to peoples heads to give him more money.

Government's only solution will be to tax more--which should mean people get more since SS is a forced retirement account, but won't because well that's government--and/or cut benifits. So are we better off saving our money in our name (away from politicians) and face a drop of 30% of the value in one of the worst recessions in America or pay more for SS and get far, far less (if anything)?

You're posting lies, that I don't think you know are lies. You are strident about them, which makes any interaction annoying.

You don't know what the hell a Ponzi scheme is, for a start. Why don't you point me to any of the countless people convicect for fraud in Ponzi schemes who paid out over 70 years?

Calling it a Ponzi scheme is dishonest hyperbole that great exaggerates some of the issues that arise from the demographic bubble of the baby boomers.

It's a lot more workable than you say. It's true that the government starting with Reagan has been very irresponsible and made it a lot harded to deal with in coming years.

The 'nugget of truth' in your largely false posting doesn't make you right. And your misrepresentation of the objections to your post, your straw man as if the criticism of your post is objecting to the suggestion that young people save for retirement, is simply dishonest on your part.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: Craig234
The problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program.

Fix the right thing. SS has a huge benefit in preventing elder poverty, and it's efficient.

Umm no, first of all the problem is not the misuse of funds. That's like saying the only problem with a dictatorship is when people abuse the power, and otherwise it works great in theory and we should do it.

You are ignorant of the issue and confused.

In 1983, Ronald Reagan initiated a plan to address the coming peak need for Social Security for baby boomers by adding a 50% surtax to fund the increase.

However, he did nothing to ensure the funds were reserved for that purpose, and instead he 'borrowed' all of them and spent them - 'off the budget' making things look better.

That is a *misuse* of those funds, which were not misused simply by being collected.

You have a grudge against the entire idea of social security - welcome to 1935 Republicans, but you are not proving any point about the misuse of the funds.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

You were actually making a decent amount of sense, and then you jumped right back into partisan trolling. I feel sorry for you, Craig.

I'm glad some of the commentary was of value to you, and sorry for you that the above appears to you, wrongly, as you describe it.

Are you that ignorant of the source of the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" and who it specifically referred to? Apparently, yes, and unable to listen to the missing infomation.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
That's fine. Now if this happens again and you still have SS (which I think has absolutely no chance of going away) you may lose most of the money that's yours.

Your optimism regarding SS is not based in fact. The fact is, the money has already been spent (even Craig234 admits this - he used the word "misused" regarding SS funds, and he's right on that), and since I won't be eligible for it for 20+ years, I'm not holding my breath it's actually going to be there when I need it.

This ought to be a wake up call that private retirement isn't the bed of roses that it was being sold at. I don't remember ANY republican pointing out the pitfalls. It was how it was going to be a more secure retirement. The facts have proven to be otherwise. I know a couple who reached retirement age and were going to hang it up after working long careers. Not now. They can't afford to. Yeah, it sucks for them I know and I know you couldn't care less, but as some have found you can get screwed no matter how clever you think you may be.

Life's rough. No one ever said that a 401K was foolproof, but a 401K holder has both control and ownership over the money. Who owns your SS contributions again? Here's a hint: not you!