You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"You've Insulted 10's millions workers"
- Thread starter limitdown
- Start date
That would be valid, except that they receive far more in benefits than they ever paid in (or would ever have received if they'd stuck the money in an interest bearing account).Quote from bungrider:
...those seniors have been paying out SS and medicare taxes all their lives and should reap the benefits...
SS and medicare are primarily tax transfer systems - it's not an issue of deserving to reap the benefits from what they paid in, that's long gone. It's about taking the money from you and me and a couple other people and giving it to those receiving social security or paying their medicare costs (which are way out in space because too many recipients overuse the system without concern for the cost, too many hospitals and doctors abuse/defraud the system, and it costs WAY too much for the government bozos to run the whole operation).
The last study pegged administration costs of SS and Medicare programs at around 80% - administrative waste dwarfs even the fraud in the system. Hell, just designate who I need to send the money to and I'll send them 1/5 of the amount I pay in SS/Medicare now by cashier's check - and we can cut out all the dufus government middlemen.
inequality gives life worth
the wise understand
the wise understand
The fact remains however that SS is not currently bankrupt and the current surplus is derived from revenue IN HAND - not simply projected. For example:
According to the 2000 Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security fund spent less than 75 percent of what they collected in 1999, leaving a surplus of nearly $134 billion for the year. They now have more than $896 billion in their surplus account (closer to 1.2 trillion now I think)
You are getting your information from the people who are in charge of this rotten plan of course they are going to say what they need to in order to look good. There is no surplus!!!! The money that is taken out of checks go to the receipents and what is left over goes to the general revenue fund to be spent on any and everything. What is left in Al Gore's "lock box" is a whole bunch of IOU's or government bonds there is no cash at all to represent a surplus. This crappy system needs to be privitized or at least give people a choice of the defined benefit or defined contribution plans. Chile is a country that scrapped their SS type plan long ago and their private plan is hugely popular the US needs to do the same ASSP. Hopefully Bush has the balls to push this if he is re-elected. I thought he was well on the way until 9-11 happened.
According to the 2000 Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security fund spent less than 75 percent of what they collected in 1999, leaving a surplus of nearly $134 billion for the year. They now have more than $896 billion in their surplus account (closer to 1.2 trillion now I think)
You are getting your information from the people who are in charge of this rotten plan of course they are going to say what they need to in order to look good. There is no surplus!!!! The money that is taken out of checks go to the receipents and what is left over goes to the general revenue fund to be spent on any and everything. What is left in Al Gore's "lock box" is a whole bunch of IOU's or government bonds there is no cash at all to represent a surplus. This crappy system needs to be privitized or at least give people a choice of the defined benefit or defined contribution plans. Chile is a country that scrapped their SS type plan long ago and their private plan is hugely popular the US needs to do the same ASSP. Hopefully Bush has the balls to push this if he is re-elected. I thought he was well on the way until 9-11 happened.
Quote from colina:
We are on track, well almost,
- America has lost 3 million private sector jobs in the last two years
-Long term unemployment has more than tripled
-Unemployment is higher than it has been since 1994
-A 4 Trillion dollar National debt
-1.4 million Amercians have lost their health insurance
- Millions of seniors can't afford perscription drugs
- Middle class families can't send their kids to college because they don't have the money to do it
- Bankruptcy cases have increased a record breaking 23 %
- Business investment is at its lowest level in more than 50 years
- CEOs' make more than 500 times what their workers' make
- Middle class is shrinking
- We have the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation
AND THIS IS AN ECONOMY THAT IS IMPROVING
So what is your economic plan, with specifics please? Oh please dont tell us we need to give more money to the poor. Welfare economy does not work.
Quote from AMT4SWA:
As long as my taxes keep going for killing terrorists!!!!
BTW, I don't need any bureaucrat to find, create, or maintain my employment! I am completely self sufficient!
You are completely self-sufficient???? So you could do the same thing to make money in say Afghanistan or Nigeria. I don't think so. You need the government in place to maintain our current societal structure.
Quote from tatertrader:
Budget 101 huh? If only it were that simple.
This is a point of great debate for sure - but it is completely incidental to the original discussion (not irrelevant - just incidental).
The fact remains however that SS is not currently bankrupt and the current surplus is derived from revenue IN HAND - not simply projected. For example:
According to the 2000 Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security fund spent less than 75 percent of what they collected in 1999, leaving a surplus of nearly $134 billion for the year. They now have more than $896 billion in their surplus account (closer to 1.2 trillion now I think)
The problem is that, according to projections made by the Trustees, the fund actually will begin spending more than it takes in around the year 2015, and the surplus will be depleted in about 2037. After that, the amount collected will only pay about two-thirds of the benefits guaranteed to retirees, survivors, and the disabled. In 1983, a similar shortfall (the fund was completely wiped out that year) caused Congress to raise the payroll tax.
Go read the definition of what a "Ponzi Scam" means. Someone finally answered correctly in a posted thread about IOU's for your magical surplus. If you are planning to have Social Security deliver a check to when you retire, then I'm the Pope's Pigeon Trainer.
Here's the thing: Congress unmercifully dumps on Greenspan about unemployment and other factoids to point out just how deplorable the economy is. Yet... these very same congresspeople are the ones in power, have been in power, the ones in charge, and the economy has gone through gyrations while under their watch and control.
Why haven't they pointed any fingers whatsoever at themselves, but collectively point their finger at one person?
Because.
They want to stay in power and stay in control. It would be injurious and tantamount to political suicide to blame themselves or find fault with themselves for their share of responsibility for lack of leadership and smarts and show their constituents just how lousy a job they really do. So the plan is always, always, always find a scapegoat to blame your woes on.
Think about it. If the economy was booming, you think they all would've reversed course and given Greenspan a standing 5 minute ovation when he walked into the hearing? Or do you think it more likely that you'd be hearing sound bites here and there from this and that congressperson on your TV news and other media claiming responsibility for the good economic times with remarks like how 'my legislation has helped fuel the economic recovery by [fill in the blank]' and 'my incentives have worked to bring prosperity', and so on, blah, blah?
Rule#1: They are always looking to stay in power.
They will take credit for the good, place blame and never take responsibility for the bad.
I swear, they treat us like we're idiots.
Why haven't they pointed any fingers whatsoever at themselves, but collectively point their finger at one person?
Because.
They want to stay in power and stay in control. It would be injurious and tantamount to political suicide to blame themselves or find fault with themselves for their share of responsibility for lack of leadership and smarts and show their constituents just how lousy a job they really do. So the plan is always, always, always find a scapegoat to blame your woes on.
Think about it. If the economy was booming, you think they all would've reversed course and given Greenspan a standing 5 minute ovation when he walked into the hearing? Or do you think it more likely that you'd be hearing sound bites here and there from this and that congressperson on your TV news and other media claiming responsibility for the good economic times with remarks like how 'my legislation has helped fuel the economic recovery by [fill in the blank]' and 'my incentives have worked to bring prosperity', and so on, blah, blah?
Rule#1: They are always looking to stay in power.
They will take credit for the good, place blame and never take responsibility for the bad.
I swear, they treat us like we're idiots.