Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 131

Thread: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a future Am

  1. #51
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by ggh View Post
    While many people have let SS become their "Retirement Plan", that is not what is was intended to be, it was only supposed to be supplemental income. The vast majority of people who received SS benefits prior to the beginning of the baby boomer retirement did not pay even a small fraction of what they got, even if you were to use a heavy interest component to the money that was "contributed". Prior to 1986 SS was pretty much a pay as you go plan where current employees paid for the benefits of current retirees, however, it became obvious to even the densest politician that this could not continue so they upped the rates and the amount on which you paid taxes so that a so-called "savings fund" which was supposed to be used to pay for the boomers retirement. As usual, they underestimated the amount that SS would pay out before the boomers began to retire as well as how much it would have to pay out to the boomers. To make matters worse, congress and the executive branch embezzled the funds from the SS fund to pay for other goodies to help them get re-elected.

    The SS money has already been stolen, both to pay for enhanced benefits for previous workers and to pay for other government giveaways. Unless you were complaining about them doing this previously and unless you voted against the various representatives and presidents that were doing this, you are as guilty of creating the current problem as they are.
    it doesn't matter what it was intended to be.........many people rely on it. we need to raise the contribution cap.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  2. #52
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by ggh View Post
    While many people have let SS become their "Retirement Plan", that is not what is was intended to be, it was only supposed to be supplemental income. The vast majority of people who received SS benefits prior to the beginning of the baby boomer retirement did not pay even a small fraction of what they got, even if you were to use a heavy interest component to the money that was "contributed". Prior to 1986 SS was pretty much a pay as you go plan where current employees paid for the benefits of current retirees, however, it became obvious to even the densest politician that this could not continue so they upped the rates and the amount on which you paid taxes so that a so-called "savings fund" which was supposed to be used to pay for the boomers retirement. As usual, they underestimated the amount that SS would pay out before the boomers began to retire as well as how much it would have to pay out to the boomers. To make matters worse, congress and the executive branch embezzled the funds from the SS fund to pay for other goodies to help them get re-elected.

    The SS money has already been stolen, both to pay for enhanced benefits for previous workers and to pay for other government giveaways. Unless you were complaining about them doing this previously and unless you voted against the various representatives and presidents that were doing this, you are as guilty of creating the current problem as they are.
    Whether the SS funds were used to offset other programs or not has nothing to do with what I expect to receive, the money I paid in for 45 years is mine, it was not a voluntary investment it was automatically deducted from my wages and the wages that every American worker earned, AGAIN SS is not a voluntary investment, if you want to invest in Wall Street remember that your investment does not have a guaranteed return, don't expect that my taxes including the money that I paid into SS will be used to bail out Wall Street, in short keep your hands out of my pockets

  3. #53
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    12-14-11 @ 12:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    69

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    it doesn't matter what it was intended to be.........many people rely on it. we need to raise the contribution cap.
    Because people have made bad decisions in the past is not a reason to continue to make bad decisions. SS is a ponzi scheme, raising the cap will simply allow the congress & president to embezzle more money and do nothing to help the system.

  4. #54
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    it doesn't matter what it was intended to be.........many people rely on it. we need to raise the contribution cap.
    which unfortunately doesn't change the math. the numbers here make just popping the cap about as effective as fighting the deficit by instituting a 2-cent-a-carton ciggarette tax.

  5. #55
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    First I think every one is confused by the term entitlement, SS is not an entitlement SS is a retirement plan that people pay into all of their working lives
    no, it's not. it's a tax. the Supreme Court was quite clear on this; as a retiree, Social Security "owes" you absolutely zilch.

    Unlike Wall Street where private investors are gambling with their retirement money SS is a safe investment.
    if by "safe" you mean "unlikely to exist in the future and generates a return that insures poverty in the present"

    there isn't a single 40 year period of the stock market that wouldn't outperform the return we are seeing right now on social security; i posted the numbers. even in a worst case scenario the average working poor get's more than twice the return on a partially privatized account than he does on Social (in)Security. Just-So arguments don't change the math.

    If SS is ended we will end up with a bunch of the working poor hitting their late years with no money and unable to find enough work to provide for housing and food.
    which is why you would think that democrats would be open to plans to save social security. but apparently they want it run into the dirt.

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    that is ludicrous. If you popped the cap and everyone paid the same percentage of FICA from every dollar they earned, there would be enough SS money for another seven decades without any problems.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #57
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Whether the SS funds were used to offset other programs or not has nothing to do with what I expect to receive
    dude. look at what you just said. you just admitted that your demands in this were unrelated to reality.

    , the money I paid in for 45 years is mine
    actually not it's not. it has already been spent on others. it's not like you had a private account accumulating wealth over time. that's my plan.

    , it was not a voluntary investment it was automatically deducted from my wages and the wages that every American worker earned, AGAIN SS is not a voluntary investment
    that's because it's not an investment at all. it's a tax.

    if you want to invest in Wall Street remember that your investment does not have a guaranteed return
    and neither does social security.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-08-11 at 04:43 PM.

  8. #58
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    that is ludicrous. If you popped the cap and everyone paid the same percentage of FICA from every dollar they earned, there would be enough SS money for another seven decades without any problems.
    no, because people are rational actors. but I would like to see the static math if you have any. how does popping the cap get us an extra $17.5 Trillion


    This week, the federal government published two important reports on long-term budgetary trends. They both show that we are on an unsustainable path that will almost certainly result in massively higher taxes.

    The first report is from the trustees of the Social Security system. News reports emphasized that the date when its trust fund will be exhausted is now four years earlier than estimated last year. But in truth, this is an utterly meaningless fact because the trust fund itself is economically meaningless...

    Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled "Social Security trust fund."

    The problem is that by law 100% of these "assets" are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It's as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn't increase your net worth. This fact is documented in the budget, which says on page 345: "The existence of large trust fund balances … does not, by itself, increase the government's ability to pay benefits...

    The trust fund is better thought of as budget authority giving the federal government legal permission to use general revenues to pay Social Security benefits when current Social Security taxes are insufficient to pay current benefits--something that will happen in 2016. Effectively, general revenues will finance Social Security when the trust fund redeems its Treasury bonds for cash to pay benefits.

    Social Security's actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security's unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now...

    To put it another way, Social Security's unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid...

    Social Security's problems are trivial compared to Medicare's. Its trustees also issued a report this week. On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity. The payroll tax rate would have to rise by 6.5% immediately to cover that shortfall or 2.8% of GDP forever. Thus every taxpayer would face a 28% increase in their income taxes if general revenues were used to pay future Medicare part A benefits that have been promised over and above revenues from the Medicare tax...

    To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax...

    To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation's capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation's total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. In effect, we have promised the elderly benefits equal to more than twice the nation's total wealth on top of the payroll tax.

  9. #59
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no, because people are rational actors. but I would like to see the static math if you have any. how does popping the cap get us an extra $17.5 Trillion
    You may think that every one is blind to your agenda and maybe some will buy into your plan to continue to steal money. You can toot your horn about wall street all you want to but the facts are undisputable, tax dollars were just spent to bail out wall street, tell me if you can were did all that wall street money go, did it just turn to dust? Wall street and the bankers got rich by stealing from the investor and now you say what invest in wall street? How stupid do you think people are? Wall Street is and has been the largest manipulated ponzi scheme ever known and should be shut down and burned to the ground.

  10. #60
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    You may think that every one is blind to your agenda and maybe some will buy into your plan to continue to steal money.
    dude, the theft comes from the people running an annual deficit. you see the guys calling for a balanced budget amendment? they're the ones trying to stop the stealing.

    You can toot your horn about wall street all you want to but the facts are undisputable
    that they are. Social (in)Security is broke, but can (with my plan) be modified to become an incredible wealth building tool for our poor, eventually making our low-income working families into millionaires.

    , tax dollars were just spent to bail out wall street, tell me if you can were did all that wall street money go, did it just turn to dust
    nope. much of it went to the unions, and much of the TARP money seems to have gone to foriegn banks (probably German ones). In general it was a giant waste.

    Wall street and the bankers got rich by stealing from the investor and now you say what invest in wall street?
    no, government stole from the taxpayers and then gave it to unions and banks.

    How stupid do you think people are?
    well i used to have hopes, but the general reaction of the "i gotta get mine!" types on this forum are depressing me in this regards.

    Wall Street is and has been the largest manipulated ponzi scheme ever known
    i would like to see any evidence you have that all of wall street is, in fact, a giant ponzi scheme?

    i mean, Social Security and Medicare are ponzi schemes, and together they add up to a (current) loss of $106.5 Trillion. Wall Street would have to be pretty hefty to match that.


    I find it extremely telling, btw, that your side is unable to discuss the numbers; and is left with hyperbole.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •