Retiree Ponzi Scheme $16 Trillion Short: Laurence Kotlikoff

[rock34748]

Quote from Mr Pain:

Just see www.usdebtclock.org

Regan Bush were the beginning of the end

see http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

also read David Stockman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

Don't forget however... data published by the Office of Management and Budget (in Obama White House), no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since 1969.

Also, during balanced budget years of Clinton era, Republicans controlled congress.

One could argue Reagan said, OK Congress, we'll keep your social welfare crap, but I'm building our defense too because we are looking and acting weak on the global scene and are ripe for attack on various fronts from terror, communism, etc... Anyway, we all have our opinions. Spending needs to be reduced across the board.

 

[Mr Pain]

Quote from rock34748:

Don't forget however... data published by the Office of Management and Budget (in Obama White House), no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since 1969.

Also, during balanced budget years of Clinton era, Republicans controlled congress.

One could argue Reagan said, OK Congress, we'll keep your social welfare crap, but I'm building our defense too because we are looking and acting weak on the global scene and are ripe for attack on various fronts from terror, communism, etc... Anyway, we all have our opinions. Spending needs to be reduced across the board.

Who was the last Republican to balance the budget?

the highest tax rate under Nixon was 70%, under Ike it was 90%. Once upon a time Republicans were fiscally conservative folks who knew you could only spend what you took in after you payed down debt. Then the worst president in US history, Reagan came in. We have gone down since with the new Republican concept of reducing taxes and running deficits. I love hearing the bozos running now saying they want to balance the budget, reduce debt and cut taxes. It’s like telling someone with huge credit card bills to pay less than the minimum each month and the extra they have will someday be worth enough to make up for the fact they have bad credit and a ton of interest penalties.

What would have Ike or Goldwater done? Give me a candidate who says they will raise taxes, cut spending and pay down the debt. That will be a honest man who I will support.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Scataphagos:

Leftists support and emote for what they want and what they like... unfortunately, their brains are on greedy lockdown.

Leftists, Progressives, Democrats...should all (1) take responsibility for their own lives, (b) leave the country.. maybe Venezuela would be to their liking... you know, have Hugo Chavez run their lives, or (c) do REAL AND HONEST Americans a favor... and commit suicide. American doesn't want them. America doesn't need them. They are government tit-sucking parasites of no redeeming social nor economic value.

Somewhere in here someone said to Free Thinker that he was being too hostile.
Hmm.
This is a republic. This shit eater spreads this crap every place he posts. But he's not called on essentially wishing death on the left half of the population?
I'd like an explanation, from whoever that person was.
In the meantime, someone needs to give a civics lesson to this useless POS.

 

[EMRGLOBAL]

Give me a candidate who says they will raise taxes, cut spending and pay down the debt. That will be a honest man who I will support.
________________________________________________________

LMAO...yea, and that candidate would be lying through his TEETH.

Wake up. Politicans are all scumbags after a few years in office.

The idea of the SS going into a Personal 401 or IRA is a nobel idea.

However, after my 14 years in the Financial World...From being a trader to being an Investment Banker in the Private Equity World...80% of WALLSTREET are idiots, and the rest are leaving the industry fast...as I did. Not because there was no money to be made...there was and still is. It's the ugly truth about the industry, the Risk that is not told and the backroom bullshit that violates "Clients" trust.

I wouldn't trust a fund manager with my money. But the rest of Hard Working America has no choice...they can't handle their own money..for a variety of reasons.

So, Social Security will never go into a "FUND" spread across global risk instruments. SS will go away before that happens.

You'r on your own is the TRUTH about it.

Welcome to Socialism where they pretend to have the "COLLECTIVES" best wishes at heart, but in reality the could give a rats ass as long as every one is poor and controlled.

 

[Mr Pain]

Quote from EMRGLOBAL:

[LMAO...yea, and that candidate would be lying through his TEETH.

I wouldn't trust a fund manager with my money. But the rest of Hard Working America has no choice...they can't handle their own money..for a variety of reasons.

So, Social Security will never go into a "FUND" spread across global risk instruments. SS will go away before that happens.

You'r on your own is the TRUTH about it.

Welcome to Socialism where they pretend to have the "COLLECTIVES" best wishes at heart, but in reality the could give a rats ass as long as every one is poor and controlled. [/B]

I know. It is truly a matter of preparing for what comes next and moving neither too early nor too late. I don’t think the end will come as soon as many think but it will come. There will be a reset button being hit but my guess is it starts in 10 years not 2.

 

[apama1]

I say, retire Social Security and replace it with a version that works. Do
this by freezing the current system, paying today's retirees their benefits,
while paying workers only what they have accrued so far once they retire.

Next, have all workers contribute 8 percent of their pay to the new system,
with half going to a personal account and half to an account of a spouse or
legal partner. The federal government would make matching contributions for
the poor, the disabled and the unemployed, permitting the system to be as
progressive as desired.

 

[ptrjon]

Quote from apama1:

I say, retire Social Security and replace it with a version that works. Do
this by freezing the current system, paying today's retirees their benefits,
while paying workers only what they have accrued so far once they retire.

Next, have all workers contribute 8 percent of their pay to the new system,
with half going to a personal account and half to an account of a spouse or
legal partner. The federal government would make matching contributions for
the poor, the disabled and the unemployed, permitting the system to be as
progressive as desired.

I'm pretty sure most americans wouldn't agree to a mandatory 8% retirement savings- especially hourly workers, and those with lots of debt. I'm not talkinga bout the validity of your idea, but this simply would never get the popular vote.

 

[hoodooman]

Then the worst president in US history, Reagan came in. We have gone down since with the new Republican concept of reducing taxes and running deficits
---------------------------

It wasn't his fault. His astrologer told him to do it.

 

[jem]

odd that when he reduced taxes revenues went up isn't it?

Perhaps we should reduce taxes and try to cap spending at pre stimulus and tarp levels.

That alone would work wonders.

Then set an 11% flat tax.

Create tariffs to reduce the flat tax even further and protect or rebuild important industries...

and finally eliminate lobbying or set up a national pool of money and free t.v. time for candidate who do not take money from others.

Then publicize the websites which show lobbying money and voting records.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from ptrjon:

I'm pretty sure most americans wouldn't agree to a mandatory 8% retirement savings- especially hourly workers, and those with lots of debt. I'm not talkinga bout the validity of your idea, but this simply would never get the popular vote.

SS contributions as of today are at 15.3% of a person's salary, so this would right away start with a huge disadvantage to the present system.
Secondly, SS is insurance: look at the name, Social Security. It pays also for disability as well as retirement. The mistake that is always made here is in looking at it strictly as a retirement scheme, which it was not designed for. It was designed as and works as an insurance scheme with a very large pool of contributors, said pool being, by the way, the envy of other countries. As usual, we have no idea what we have, and how well-designed for its purpose it is, because we let the crap-for-brains screamers and whiners dictate the terms of the debate.