US Comptroller on 60 Minutes: America is facing total collapse

If the Govt leased out all the highways, Airports and national Parks...We could eliminate payrolls taxes for years.
 
Quote from Mercor:

Why is there a surplus? Because.....the Boomers huge populations has funded the system for 30 years and the payout population is much smaller. Now it is going to reverse, more recipients then payers.

SS monies now return 2-3% in govt. money market funds....A private citizen can double that with a guaranteed bond.

It is a system the exploits minorities and the poor.
The life expectancy for blacks and poorer people is 67. They pay SS all their life and only receive 2 or 3 years of checks. Then when they die the Govt. keeps all their money..In a private system at least the retirement fund could go to support the grieving family...(of course after the Democrats take their estate taxes first.
More...

Mercor, we are going to disagree re social security. At least your post evidences a much better than average understanding of social security. You are correct re the present surplus. However i am correct about only minor tweaking needed, if done now, to make the system sound far into the future.

You are correct re the low interest paid to the trust fund, but this is misleading because deficits paid back through monetizing (printing money) reduce the real rate of return from government bonds. Thus increasing the interest paid to the SS trust , if not made up from increased revenues, would reduce the inflation adjusted yield from bonds.
Instead, slightly increased contributions into the trust are needed, or alternatively, increased yield from fund assets, but only if there is an accompanying reduction in spending or an increase in revenue elsewhere.

You are incorrect to say that SS exploits the poor. Although it is true that the poor have a slightly lower life expectancy than the wealthy, many poor live to an advanced age just as many wealthy do. On balance the SS system has been a godsend to the poor, because the system is slightly subsidized at the low end by those contributing at the high end. Frankly, with a private plan, the poor would be incapable of contributing enough monthly to come any where close to their present SS benefit.

You are correct that SS does not provide an estate for heirs upon death of the beneficiary in the way that privately funded retirement can (but often doesn't). But therein lies the genius of the SS system, i.e., a very small estate is traded for one's security in old age. One typically begins contributions to SS at a young age, to capture the time value of money, and strings out contributions over most of a lifetime. Those who live long are subsidized in retirement by those who die early. These are the features of our SS system that result in both monthly and gross contributions being very significantly reduced compared to what is required from a private pension plan to guarantee the same monthly benefit for life. And don't forget, we all have the option of supplementing our SS plan with private investment. Thus we have the best of both worlds. A private plan and an efficient social benefit plan to save us from destitution in our old age.

Any assertion that people in general, and especially the poor, would be better off financially in their old age if social security was eliminated and replaced by some government mandated private plan sold by Wall Street and Insurance-Banking Industry Hucksters is pure fantasy. There was, to my surprise, widespread recognition of this, both among the populace and in Congress. That's why the ridiculous proposals coming from the Bush administration were quickly dispatched to the trash pile of bad ideas..
 
Quote from piezoe:

More...

Yes, the SS system is so amazing that that almost everyone is FORCED to oblige to it, rather than given as an option.

You can embellish as much as you want, the results speak for themselves. The SS payouts are at poverty level and the amount paid into by an individual has no chance of seeing any reasonable inflation adjusted return.

Meanwhile, the government did not even wait a few years before breaking their own promise and dipping into the SS funds.
 
It's called "Starving the Beast".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast

Quote from Consul:

"The government's top accountant, says the US is risking total bankruptcy if trends continue on 60 minutes segment. The nation incurring a massive debt on the next generation with its present policies. In 30 years time, the US will only have enough money to pay the interest on its debt, with no money for the military."
More...
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

Yes, the SS system is so amazing that that almost everyone is FORCED to oblige to it, rather than given as an option.

You can embellish as much as you want, the results speak for themselves. The SS payouts are at poverty level and the amount paid into by an individual has no chance of seeing any reasonable inflation adjusted return.

Meanwhile, the government did not even wait a few years before breaking their own promise and dipping into the SS funds.
More...

I agree completely with your post. The results do speak for themselves. And, as we can see, the social security program has been a tremendous success. Its very nature requires wide spread participation. It would not work if we were allowed to opt out of it, and who would want to. It assures a minimal income for life at very low cost compared to what would be required to achieve the same through private investment. That the payments alone are not going to get you far from the poverty line is absolutely true, but something is at least way better than nothing. I have no objection to having my contributions upped to provide a highly benefit, but unfortunately those at the low end of the wage scale really do not have enough take-home as it is. They would have a tough time with a significant contribution increase. The answer of course is to get government spending under control so that we can rein in inflation. Then make sure that everyone that works can be rewarded with, at minimum, enough pay to lift them above the poverty level. At that point we could think about increased contributions from low wage workers.

It's great that the more affluent have available an efficient two pronged approach -- Social security plus voluntary additional contributions into a wide range of investments. It would create a disaster, however, if the poor were allowed to opt out of social security in favor of a private investment plan. At the level of contributions they could afford most of them would run out of money very soon after retirement, and most would be pray to all sorts of questionable investment schemes.
 
We were warned. It is a pity Washington didn't listen to him in 2006 when he resigned in disgust.

This was posted in August 2007. One year ago.


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


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OS2fI2p9iVs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OS2fI2p9iVs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from Don Bright:

I would go for that (actually are traders are exempt from FICA/Self employment taxes, saves them that 15.3%), the problem might be that, overall, the average American doesn't have a nickel in the bank, much less enough to retire and pay for medical needs...quite a quandry.


Don
More...
:D that's OK - we may get a VP who belongs to the church that practices religious healing. Now, who would even need a healthcare after all that - just go to Palin's church - they'll heal you.:D
 
Honest people do not belong to the elitist top in the managerial state or cognitive elite of the Neocon priesthood.

"Hecklers" like they are called become marginalized, ridiculed, censored and silenced by those chanting in unison "USA! USA! USA!".

Sustainable systems is all what it is about...
The Neocon aggression - and in fact the whole alignment into the hierarchical pyramid scheme in the US...
it is all unsustainable for a society.

The Europeans have evolved into the next stage, where larger scale systems take into considerations the sustainability of everything - not just social and economic Darwinism any longer...

IF we are going to the moon and making permanent structures there by 2025, we actually need to work together... we need integrity and trust. We need for the US population to get their Redpill wakeup and start acting in a democratic fashion instead of going to work like drooling zombies and chanting to their priesthood whenever they see their nationalist symbols...

From a philosophical viewpoint, it is easy to see what is wrong with ALL of the US on a larger scale.
 
Point taken. But message is the Government (read Taxpayer) obligations exceed the future ability to pay for them. More so if growth becomes negative and tax receipts decline. Let alone the interest payments on a zillion dollars for the bailouts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top