I like Bernie, but...

[CaptainObvious]

Lets get some facts straight about Social Security. First off had congress not embezzled all the money the fund would be fine, people would be retiring earlier, not later, and benefits would be increasing. None of that is possible because of our criminally corrupt congress, so we're left with the fucked up system we have which is nothing more than a slush fund for congress.
Any reform, and I mean ANY reform will fail unless it is clearly stated that congress can't touch the money. Raise the age to 100, increase the cap to a 100 million dollars annual income, cut the benefits in half, none of it matters so long as congress can touch the money. They'll just steal more, and Bernie along with every other swinging dick in D.C. knows that. It's just another bullshit issue for them to talk about on the camping trail, like creating jobs. Really, what jobs, in what sector? 100 jobs get eliminated through technological improvements and efficiency, one job gets created that none of the 100 displaced workers are qualified for. I guess we're all going to be Uber drivers or maybe we call all sell life insurance to each other.

 

[der_kommissar]

That's a fair question and deserves a fair answer. Without growth of the contributions via interest earned, the answer is "no." Without growth in the number of people of working age relative to the number of retired, the answer is "yes." Actually the answer is "yes. of course!" (If Social Security really were a Ponzi scheme, the answer would be "no".) But the system will require higher and higher levels of contribution as the number of participants shrinks causing the actuarial risk to be spread over fewer participants. In the limit, as the population shrinks, the contribution rate required approaches that required by a private, individual retirement plan. Can the pay out continue without inflation? Again the answer is "yes".

I can't blame you for not understanding the trade-offs associated with public and private retirement plans. After all, you're fed a steady stream of bullshit by the media and Wall Street. I think I did a fair job of explaining these trade-offs in my post. It might be worth your time to read again, carefully, what I wrote.

Here we go again with the smug, self-entitled boomer claptrap...The "system" will need you, future generations, to sell your kidney's to fund Social Security...btw, did we mention this wonderful health plan we have for you? It's only $864.93 per month with a $10,000 deductible...but remember, you are doing your part to subsidize a-hole's like Piezoe in his final years...

 

[Arnie]

A very interesting read....

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

 

[jem]

not even that optimistic unless Piezoe was one of 250,000 uninsured who got insured that were not going in for medicare.

It was a scam... to raise our rates significantly and get us used to having to pay things to the cronies... directly. Get ready for this to happen in other industries
Justice Roberts sacrificed our liberty to the cronies who control the big Corps.


The cronies... will now collapse a few health care companies... taking the assets from their shareholders and delivering the assets and the higher premiums to crony controlled companies. If they can decreased competition extract a few billion from govt and buy a few more establishment dems and Rs in the process... good that is part of the plan. Its the same plan different industry with every boom bust cycle. The last one was middle tier regional banks and walls street firms. Now just about every bank is crony owned BofA, Chase or Wells Fargo in California.

It boggles my mind that no one in the media nor any politician seem to be bringing this pattern up when they complain about income inequality. Can you say monopoly in industry after industry.

Here we go again with the smug, self-entitled boomer claptrap...The "system" will need you, future generations, to sell your kidney's to fund Social Security...btw, did we mention this wonderful health plan we have for you? It's only $864.93 per month with a $10,000 deductible...but remember, you are doing your part to subsidize a-hole's like Piezoe in his final years...

 

[piezoe]

Medicare and SS are not self funding. Saying that they are is categorically untrue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

And the money that borrowed from the funds is not any more paying for wars than it is paying for section 8 housing and food stamps and every other redistribution program.

Seeing as how a hundred years has turned the job of the gov't upside down, from protecting its citizens to plundering its citizens, it would be really interesting to see what this country will look like in another hundred years. If there still is one.

You know just enough to be dangerous. That nice article is mostly correct for the assumptions made. However SS. and Medicare were lumped together which is not something to do if you hope to understand S.S. Even if Medicare, a losing proposition for the government, but a winning one for you, were to be removed from the results, you would discover that most S.S. beneficiaries receive a positive ROI. That's good.

The article is based on studies and quotes from other groups and individuals.
The quote from the Urban Institute [see the article linked to in fhl's post] is incorrect or misleading on several levels. The government has been paying beneficiaries out of current revenues because these dollars are fungible, and revenues have exceeded obligations. The difference goes into the Trust not in the form of IOU's but in the form of special Treasury Bonds. The holdings in the Trust are "modest" only if you consider 2.6 Trillion modest.

What the Cato institute, a Libertarian think tank generally opposed to Social Security, and also quoted, failed to mention was how it is possible for S.S. to pay a positive ROI. It is because dollars invested in the Trust do earn interest, and those who leave the system without drawing their full actuarial benefit subsidize beneficiaries with their sacrificed contributions.

Finally every one needs to know that since the Reagan Era there has been no general tax subsidy of Social Security. The Reagan S.S. bailout was made necessary both because Congress ignored the Trustees recommended changes in contribution rate based on Actuarial Science, and because Congress spent Social Security revenues elsewhere in the budget. This mismanagement of Social Security by Congress occasioned a Statute passed in Nov of 1990, placing Social Security firmly off budget and making it illegal to use S.S. revenue for other purposes.

When Congress follows the Trustees recommendations in a timely manner, and does not spend Social Security Revenue for other purposes, Social Security is self-funding!!!

One of the best places to go for correct information on Social Security is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

 

[piezoe]

Lets get some facts straight about Social Security. First off had congress not embezzled all the money the fund would be fine, people would be retiring earlier, not later, and benefits would be increasing. None of that is possible because of our criminally corrupt congress, so we're left with the fucked up system we have which is nothing more than a slush fund for congress.
Any reform, and I mean ANY reform will fail unless it is clearly stated that congress can't touch the money. Raise the age to 100, increase the cap to a 100 million dollars annual income, cut the benefits in half, none of it matters so long as congress can touch the money. They'll just steal more, and Bernie along with every other swinging dick in D.C. knows that. It's just another bullshit issue for them to talk about on the camping trail, like creating jobs. Really, what jobs, in what sector? 100 jobs get eliminated through technological improvements and efficiency, one job gets created that none of the 100 displaced workers are qualified for. I guess we're all going to be Uber drivers or maybe we call all sell life insurance to each other.

"Any reform, and I mean ANY reform will fail unless it is clearly stated that congress can't touch the money."

Thankfully that was done by passing a Statute in 1990 placing S.S. off budget.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

 

[futurecurrents]

I like Bernie but, Hillary is the most deeply qualified candidate in modern history.

The heart goes for Bernie but the head goes for Hill. As an INTP the head always wins.

 

[gwb-trading]

I like Bernie but, Hillary is the most deeply qualified candidate in modern history.

The heart goes for Bernie but the head goes for Hill. As an INTP the head always wins.

Now you're going back to Hot for Hillary from Burning for Bernie. Which is it?

 

[fhl]

You know just enough to be dangerous. That nice article is mostly correct for the assumptions made. However SS. and Medicare were lumped together which is not something to do if you hope to understand S.S. Even if Medicare, a losing proposition for the government, but a winning one for you, were to be removed from the results, you would discover that most S.S. beneficiaries receive a positive ROI. That's good. The article is based on studies and quotes from other groups and individuals.

The quote from the Urban Institute [see the article linked to in fhl's post] is incorrect or misleading on several levels. The government has been paying beneficiaries out of current revenues because these dollars are fungible, and revenues have exceeded obligations. The difference goes into the Trust not in the form of IOU's but in the form of special Treasury Bonds. The holdings in the Trust are "modest" only if you consider 2.6 Trillion modest.

What the Cato institute, a Libertarian think tank generally opposed to Social Security, and also quoted, failed to mention was how it is possible for S.S. to pay a positive ROI. It is because dollars invested in the Trust do earn interest, and those who leave the system without drawing their full actuarial benefit subsidize beneficiaries with their sacrificed contributions.

Finally every one needs to know that since the Reagan Era there has been no general tax subsidy of Social Security. The Reagan S.S. bailout was made necessary both because because Congress ignored the Trustees recommended changes in contribution rate based on the Actuarial Science, and because Congress spent Social Security revenues elsewhere in the budget. This mismanagement of Social Security by Congress occasioned a Statute passed in Nov of 1990, placing Social Security firmly off budget and making it illegal to use S.S. revenue for other purposes.

When Congress follows the Trustees recommendations in a timely manner, and does not spend Social Security Revenue for other purposes, Social Security is self-funding!!!

One of the best places to go for correct information on Social Security is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

I see a trend in this chart that doesn't look good for current workers. Yeah, i know, if only congress would take ss recommendations, right? Like hiking the tax on what the current saps, I mean workers, put in, everything will be alright. sheesh

=============


Is Time magazine a bunch of right wing whackos, too?

Social Security Now Takes More Than it Gives
Social Security has reached another critical threshold: For the first time, a typical husband and wife retiring today can expect to collect less in benefits than it paid in payroll tax over the course of their life.

By Dan Kadlec @dankadlecAug. 07, 2012
http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/
--------------------------




One last point on gov't using the money from social security contributions.
They placed the excess money received from ss contributions into gov't bonds. Once the money has been placed in gov't bonds, the gov't then has the money. What are they supposed to do with it? How do they keep it separate?
If you don't like them placing the money in gov't bonds, then what is the alternative? Would you prefer that the excess contributions were placed with hedge fund managers like soros? Do you want the excess contributions invested in aapl, junk bonds, cdo's, triple inverse etf's or what? Gov't bonds are theoretically the safest place to park the excess contributions ( it is considered the risk free rate) and once the gov't has issued the bonds for those contributions, there is not any sane, coherent way to keep that money separate from the rest of the budget.
The whole argument against gov't spending the excess ss contributions is not very well thought through.

 

[piezoe]

Yes, all the information demonstrates that Social Security will be broke by 2032, and that SS Disability will be broke in two years.

If I ran a retirement program for my employees in the manner that Social Security is run, I Feds would immediately bring me up on charges for running a Ponzi scheme.

You just have to understand one basic bit of information here. The system won't be able to pay full benefits after approximately 2032 [see the Trustee Report for detail] if Congress continues to ignore the Trustees recommendations. It was never intended, despite all the ridiculous assertions made on YouTube and ET, that the contribution rate would not have to be adjusted from time to time to take into account changing demographics. Currently a 2.36 (If i recall correctly) cent increase per earned dollar is needed. (1.18 cent each for employer and employee.) Why doesn't congress act! This has gone on for some while (It was 2 cents) . The only explanation I can think of is fiscal malpractice, with the intent of intentionally weakening Social Security. VOTE BERNIE and help end this nonsense.