Couple of good articles....

Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
ssd said:
MUST READ
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly11/promises-not-kept6-11.html
Click to expand...

Okay, I read that collection of dire predictions and false statements. I'm not going to go through it line-by-line to do the authors work for him, but here's one example.

He says: Social Security is already deeply in the red,

No, SS is not in the red. It is currently very much in the green with $2 trillion in hand, and it will remain in the green through 2036 if no changes are made.

After that it will still be able to pay 75% of current benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

If action is taken now, only small changes are necessary for SS to remain solvent and pay full benefits as far into the future as can be predicted. A 1% increase in employer/employee payments will do the job, as will a tax on income above the present maximum of $106K. The problem cam also be solved with a small decrease in benefits such as using a different inflation index, or raising the retirement age one year. A small combination of those three things will make SS solvent forever, with little pain to anyone.

I know you like to get your information from obscure media, but you'd be better advised to go to basic source material (by that I mean www.ssa.gov, not MSNBC or Faux Nuze, and especially not internet bloggers with an agenda).
 
Last edited:
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Duff Miver said:
Okay, I read that collection of dire predictions and false statements. I'm not going to go through it line-by-line to do the authors work for him, but here's one example.

He says: Social Security is already deeply in the red,

No, SS is not in the red. It is currently very much in the green with $2 trillion in hand, and it will remain in the green through 2036 if no changes are made.

After that it will still be able to pay 75% of current benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

If action is taken now, only small changes are necessary for SS to remain solvent and pay full benefits as far into the future as can be predicted. A 1% increase in employer/employee payments will do the job, as will a tax on income above the present maximum of $106K. The problem cam also be solved with a small decrease in benefits such as using a different inflation index, or raising the retirement age one year. A small combination of those three things will make SS solvent forever, with little pain to anyone.

I know you like to get your information from obscure media, but you'd be better advised to go to basic source material (by that I mean www.ssa.gov, not MSNBC or Faux Nuze, and especially not internet bloggers with an agenda).
Click to expand...

Funny Duff that was the first thing i notice(SS in the red) but i tried to keep plugging. The one thing they kept pointing to that was right was about the high health insurance prices but didn't seem to want to say that if u take the profit away from these greedy insurance companies it would fix that in ten minutes. Just like it does in all the other industrialize country's. This article would rather blame the people.
 
Lumi

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
I can have an opinion about anything without knowing the facts Duff.

The way SS is going now, why can't I believe that I will not exist?

It's another attempt by you to paint me as somene who is ill informed.

Nice try though...

I don't know all the facts about you,

but I certainly have an opinion.....:0008
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,834
48
48
Ohio
Duff:
Feel free to believe what the SSA puts out as well as the BLS and any other government agency.

I highly doubt that SS will continue to exist in 2036. I am taking care of my own retirement and am considering the $ that I have paid in, to have been pissed in the ocean. Dire prophecies? Sure. But read through them and try to take off the liberal glasses for a few minutes. Read some of his other blogs and he is not a right-wing neo-con.

Do you really think that SS is solvent? The mere fact that the money collected for SS is put into the general fund to be spent on anything and an IOU is dropped in the lockbox doesn't concern you?

$14 Trillion and climbing - with no plan to reduce it or even run a balanced budget in the coming years?

It's over.


And before I forget - you posted a chart about the 10 year bond and unemployment. The 10 year bond price is artificailly low because of the FED. The chart is useless because the data set is spolied by $600B in bond purchases the FED has made since august 2010. THey are rolling over the maturing debt - to the tune of another $300B thru the rest of this year. It is a fixed game and they are the only buyer of note - the rest of the foreign parties who used to be interested have dropped off. Once the FED is truly done buying - if they can ever which at this point is doubtful, you will see rates rise based on market conditions.
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
ssd said:
Duff:
Feel free to believe what the SSA puts out as well as the BLS and any other government agency.

I highly doubt that SS will continue to exist in 2036. I am taking care of my own retirement and am considering the $ that I have paid in, to have been pissed in the ocean. Dire prophecies? Sure. But read through them and try to take off the liberal glasses for a few minutes. Read some of his other blogs and he is not a right-wing neo-con.

Do you really think that SS is solvent? The mere fact that the money collected for SS is put into the general fund to be spent on anything and an IOU is dropped in the lockbox doesn't concern you?

$14 Trillion and climbing - with no plan to reduce it or even run a balanced budget in the coming years?

It's over.


And before I forget - you posted a chart about the 10 year bond and unemployment. The 10 year bond price is artificailly low because of the FED. The chart is useless because the data set is spolied by $600B in bond purchases the FED has made since august 2010. THey are rolling over the maturing debt - to the tune of another $300B thru the rest of this year. It is a fixed game and they are the only buyer of note - the rest of the foreign parties who used to be interested have dropped off. Once the FED is truly done buying - if they can ever which at this point is doubtful, you will see rates rise based on market conditions.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Of course I believe the financial facts as stated by the SSA. To believe otherwise requires that you believe there is a conspiracy so vast and inclusive that every elected and appointed official is in on it.

The SSA has $2 trillion in hand. Sure, it's invested in Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the USA. What do you think is a safer place for that money? Tons of hundred dollar bills under a mattress? Guess what, those dollar bills have the same backing - full faith and credit of the USA. Maybe you'd rather the money was invested in Greek Bonds, or with Bernie Madoff?

Here's a test for you, if you believe that treasury bonds and dollar bills are worthless. Send me all you have, and I'll give you a shiny solid copper penny for each one. Or a Drachma, or a Yen, or a Ruble, or an ear of corn.

No point in further discussion. Conspiracy theory is nuts. Maybe Faux will rerun some old Glenn Beck for you.
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,834
48
48
Ohio
I own zero treasuries. I have PM's as well as holding several different currencies in addition to USD.

Believe what you want. You are a smart guy and entitled to your opinion, just as much as I am.

SS is a ponzi scheme. People paying in now are paying for the people who got in first. There are not enough people paying in now to cover the benefits of the people collecting, let alone the new benefit recipients that will be coming into the system soon. They can try and prop it up for as long as possible but it is a losing proposition. I do not expect to see one red cent of what I put in.
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,834
48
48
Ohio
and, no I do not believe the reports that government agencies put out.


Here's one from yesterday from Spain:
Spain's Castilla La Mancha region, best known for being the stomping ground for one Don Quixote, where the cities of Toledo and Albacete are located, has just announced that it has "a budget deficit more than twice as large as previously thought, raising new concerns over the true state of regional finances and helping to send Spain's risk premium to new historic highs.


Hmmmm. I don't know why but for some reason, I expect that the most recent audit is probably not accurate as well and the problem is probably much bigger than being reported.
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
ssd said:
I own zero treasuries. I have PM's as well as holding several different currencies in addition to USD.

Believe what you want. You are a smart guy and entitled to your opinion, just as much as I am.

SS is a ponzi scheme. People paying in now are paying for the people who got in first. There are not enough people paying in now to cover the benefits of the people collecting, let alone the new benefit recipients that will be coming into the system soon. They can try and prop it up for as long as possible but it is a losing proposition. I do not expect to see one red cent of what I put in.
Click to expand...

Diversity is a good thing, but be alert and nimble.

SS is a Ponzi scheme because current payments are disbursed to previous payers?

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security is correctly called "Old Age and Survivor's Insurance", because that is what it is. You pay premiums (aka FICA) while you work, and you may collect benefits as defined by the policy (old age/disability/orphanage).

Like any insurance, there are actuarial calculations to know that enough money is being collected up front. Current calculations show there will not be enough money in 2036, so, just as an Insurance company must do, either premiums have to be raised, or payouts cut. Fortunately, if those changes are made now, they are small enough that they will have little effect on anyone.

You think the $2 trillion doesn't exist? Then explain how SSA is able to pay all current benefits, since current collections are a bit less that current receipts.

By the way, Neil Armstrong did walk on the Moon (it wasn't shot at a Hollywood studio), Oswald did shoot Kennedy (not an FBI sniper sent by LBJ), and Saudi-financed AQ were responsible for 9-11 (not Army rangers sent by GWB).

But I don't know what happened to Hoffa.
 
M

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Duff Miver said:
Social Security is correctly called "Old Age and Survivor's Insurance", because that is what it is. You pay premiums (aka FICA) while you work, and you may collect benefits as defined by the policy (old age/disability/orphanage).
Click to expand...

Reponding to your posts is always a risk, but I'll take it here....

You are right on - SS was set up as an insurance plan for folks that were set to live past what life expectancies were back then. Average age at death were in the mid 50's to low 60's (don't have exact number, but I'm sure you can find it) back in 1935 when it originated. It was designed NOT to be an entitlement program to transfer income, as people were expected to save and provide for their own "normal" retirement. It's original intent was good - it was meant to help people that lived well past what a person could reasonably expect and plan for at the time, and help them with living expenses if they lived past the average.

The problem is, the program never had its eligibility age raised in concert with decreases in mortality that occured in the 50's and 60's due to better medicine and nutrition. The purpose of the whole program changed due to not making the proper adjustments. Realistically, the eligibility age should be around 82 right now, to be on par with the legislation's initial intent.

However, now it has become a sacred cow of the Democratic party, and has become a government redistributive pension program for the vast number of beneficiaries. It was never meant to replace retirement planning and saving for people. It was just meant to help people if they lived longer than could have been reasonably expected.

If they would just adjust the eligibility age to be on par with the initial program's intent back in 1935, then there would be no funding issues - and certainly a decrease in taxes for both employers and employees.

But obviously, there may be some pushback on this. Which is why adding/expanding entitlements are never a good thing - it just boxes you as a country in a corner, as once you give a way a free-bie, you can never take it away.
 
M

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Another issue with SS - it was poorly implemented when it was initially developed.

There certainly should have been a grading schedule of benefits for folks that did not pay into the system - not just a giveaway of money.


The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.

That was just plain stupid policy.
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Mags said:
Another issue with SS - it was poorly implemented when it was initially developed.

There certainly should have been a grading schedule of benefits for folks that did not pay into the system - not just a giveaway of money.


The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.

That was just plain stupid policy.
Click to expand...

It's Old Age and Survivor's Insurance, Maggot.

And like all insurance, some pay in more than they take out, and some take out more than they pay in.

You can insure your car for $10,000 today, pay one premium, wreck it tomorrow, and collect the full benefit. Or you can pay premiums for many years and never collect a penny.

If you never pay in, you never collect. There are no free rides.

Sheesh. Stupidity runs rampant.
 
Last edited:
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
He wants to raise the age to 83 lol. Ya got to love the guy. He also seems to shy away from the fact that for the first time in our lifetime people are gonna start dying earlier then we are used to. Kids today be lucky if they get to 55 let alone 65. Could you imagine if people started dying as soon as they hit 50? Mags would set the age requirement at 52. Nice of him. The bottom line is this was a great system until thieves started touching the money and still is a great system. The same dirt bags who want to destroy the system will never turn down the extra cash when it comes to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top