1 We are still fucked FIRST then? 

2 My prescription to save California?  More of the same.

You see, my ultimate dream is to rule the Wasteland.

3 Person of stupid I like.

4 This reminds me of the story of the millionaire who went to a strangers house, knocked on the door and gave the man who answered a brand new $100 bill. The man was shocked and overjoyed. The next day the millionaire came back and gave him another $100 bill. By the 4th day, the man was waiting by his door for the millionaire to show up with his money. This went on for 7 days. On the 8th day, the man was waiting in his porch as he saw the millionaire approach. To his shock, the millionaire walked past his house to the neighbors house and gave them $100 instead. Furious, the man ran up to the millionaire. In the street, grabbed him by the collar and said, "where the hell is my $100?!" And there you have it.

5 On the SS/Medicare mess I will agree that it is a mess, but there is a reason that a lot of people are unwilling to part with these so-called "benefits".

Most are like me, they have paid into these program their entire working a life. Even worse,most have paid in at the maximum rate in the last decade or so of their working life. Their employers have also contributed huge sums that were really part of their salary but never actually shown in their pay stubs. And now they are recieveing those "benefits" after having paid into the system, and most importantly, have structured their retirement around those payments.

I would say that people like me would be more willing to accept some benefit decreases if they had not been lied to so many times. Most especially the THREE huge tax increases that were passed with the increase in retirement age that was done to "get by the baby boomer" bulge.

There is NOTHING that assures the system will get by even if they do all these things the assholes in the tax panel want. WHY IS THAT? Because every time the government gets a tax increase to "save SS" they just spend the money on other shit and then come back again. It is worse than the BS "do it for the children" slogan.

So yeah I'm all for reform, but like "closing the border", let's do the real reform first and then look at the other side. We just don't believe them anymore.

Here is real reform:

1. Cut out everyone who is on disability or medical that is caused by drug addiction or alcoholism. Let them die, fk'em.

2. Since LBJ has added SS revenue to the general funds then they will have to pay from the general funds until all those IOUs are redeemed. First they will have to cut every other GD socialist program in the budget period.

3. And third, eliminator all fraud and abuse which is rampant. Put GD people in jail!

To quote Mel's response to Longshanks, "Do all of that and we will agree to a "compromise".

Until then I would just as soon see SS and medicare collapse. It appears that that is the only real way it will ever get reformed.

6 On the "austerity" front, saw a headline at Fox News this morning. "Republicans looking at a 100B budget cut".

This combined with the so-called "working with Obama" is not heartening. That is if it is true (please Republican leadership, if this is not true lets hear some response.

Obama and his commies in the congress increased the budget and spending by over a trillion dollars a year. Cutting that by less than 10% is not even a start.

A start is re-zeroing everything to where it was the last year of the Republican congress in 2006.

7 Where exactly did we get the notion of sitting out your Golden Years as a devil-may-care playboy anyway?

Isn't the proper expectation having a nest egg that can feed you while you let your clock wind down in the house you paid off twenty years ago, or, alternately, in your kid's house while they support you like you supported them?  Maybe a bit of money set aside for enough medical to get your barnacles scraped when they need it?

If you can put together enough scratch yourself during your working years to blow before you croak, more power to you, but we've descended into an entitlement mentality, particularly among the public teat-suckers, that the Prelude To Dirt should be full pay/fat benefits/no work and Casinos, Winnebagos, and Denny's paid for by all you suckers still working.

How can a society pay retired employees at the same level as working ones to provide nothing back for 20-30 years?  That's NUTS.

8 5
On the SS/Medicare mess I will agree that it is a mess...

Participation in a ponzi scheme does not guarantee you a return.  _{^{(I expect all monies extracted from me to be long gone)}}

9 On the cotton issue, I note that no mention is made of what I think is one of the major drivers for the price increase (besides pure inflation), ethanol.

As much as the government liars like to deny it, the ethanol boondoggle is responsible for huge price increases in ALL crops.

Cotton, and others, are indirect effects caused by reduced acreage for cotton while they increase acreage for corn.

10 Participation in a ponzi scheme does not guarantee you a return.  _{^{(I expect all monies extracted from me to be long gone)}}

Posted by: s☺mej☼e at October 28, 2010 07:43 AM (f0UXf)

It does when participation was forced by the government. At least until that government collapses.

11 Vic: Most people on SS will draw out far more than they ever put in -- mostly because everyone is living longer now. When SS was first instituted, the lifespan of the average male was about 68. That meant, at most, three or four years on SS. For females, it was still only seven or eight. But now people are routinely living into their 80's and 90's, and living to 100 is getting to be no big deal as medical technology improves. So that means, conceivably, that if someone retires at 62, they'll be retired (and drawing benefits) for more years than they were working! Add that to the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme with no current-account balance (there is no money in the vault, only IOU's), and you have a monster that will eat us all if it is not reformed soon. Medicare is an even worse money-sink than SS is, and like SS, will only get worse with time as people live longer and longer. I tend to agree with Paul Ryan that if you're over 55, you can keep the benefit package you have, but if you're under? Changes are a-comin'. (They're already here, in fact; some people just don't realize it yet.)

12 Most people on SS will draw out far more than they ever put in -- mostly because everyone is living longer now.

We've had that conversation before, I disagree, leave it at that. In addition, everyone is living longer now is a myth. People are not really living that much longer, other than a few who are getting "heroic medical treatment" that otherwise would have died. The longevity statistics are skewed because they look at lifetime averages that include early death from ALL causes. If someone dies from accident/violence at an early age w/o receiving SS they also didn't pay into it.

The facts are if you live past the violent/accident prone youth period you will most likely live a long time and it has always been that way.

Add that to the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme with no current-account balance (there is no money in the vault, only IOU's), and you have a monster that will eat us all if it is not reformed soon.

I repeat my response from above. It was a government forced ponsi scheme and they will collapse first before I will agree to it.

13 Love this from the Rass poll linked:

Unmarried adults and adults without children are much more likely to receive government benefits than married adults and adults with children at home.

Contribute to the population and live as a nuclear family=royal fucking.

Most are like me, they have paid into these program their entire working a life.

Rewind to your younger self 20 years ago.  You've also paid into SS your entire life, the whole time knowing that you were merely being held up at the side of the road by masked thugs.  You never were going to see a fucking dime, because you have the minimal smarts necessary to apply pencil to the back of an envelope.

Unadulterated theft.  Liquor breathed politicians smiling in your face as they lie to you.  Retirement?  What the fuck is that?  We're a single income family, because my wife stays home to educate the kids so as to avoid the banana/condom lesson in second grade.  Want a cigarette?  Roll your own, because the government gets a smaller cut of bagged tobacco.  (I call them "Victory Smokes").  Food?  Through the roof so as to save a fish no one has heard of buy off the enviro constituency, which consists of people slightly dumber than our average troll.

There is no retirement in my future.  There is little hope, at this juncture, that my children will have liberty.  A bunch of fucking Republicans intent on "working with" the Comintern Kenyan will only exacerbate and accelerate the destruction of that scintilla of a future that may still be possible.

Of such stuff is the "R" word made.

14 As much as the government liars like to deny it, the ethanol boondoggle is responsible for huge price increases in ALL crops.

45% of corn is going into ethanol.  Enjoy your $12.00 Kroger's sirloin.

15 Rewind to your younger self 20 years ago.  You've also paid into SS your entire life, the whole time knowing that you were merely being held up at the side of the road by masked thugs.

20 years ago I knew that I wouldn't get back all of what I paid in, but I figured I would get back what the "retirement" estimates were showing at the time.

And 20 years ago they had already enacted the major tax hikes and the increase in retirement age to "fix" it. And 20 years ago I was paying the maximum amount.

16 A bunch of fucking Republicans intent on "working with" the Comintern Kenyan will only exacerbate and accelerate the destruction of that scintilla of a future that may still be possible.

How can they not? We have a bunch of us here that also spout that fucking nonsense.

17 I never understood why the concept of "retirement" became so universal, anyway. It's a pretty modern invention. There's no natural rule that says you can just lay down your burdens and take it easy once you reach a certain age. I think it's a civilized notion, but it's also predicated on a degree of wealth and puplation-growth that is probably unsustainable in any modern country no matter how big or rich. (In fact, there's a lot of evidence to support the idea that wealth actually contributes to population decline, which is a death-knell for welfare programs like SS and Medicare.) You cannot invest in the old at the expense of the young. It's a recipe for stagnation and collapse. The problem is, we're already more than 60 years into an experiment where huge amounts of wealth will have to be transferred from the young to the old (and generations not even born) to fund these insane entitlement programs made decades ago. And at some point, young people are simply going to say: "No more. Not one more dime." If we act before collapse, there is the chance we can help everyone -- especially those vulnerable elderly who will have no other means of support than welfare. If we wait for collapse, there may be no opportunity to support them; they'll simply be thrown on their own resources (such as they are) at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I consider that a much more cruel outcome than simply telling them that they have been lied to, and working with them to come to a more lasting and just solution.

18 20 years ago I knew that I wouldn't get back all of what I paid in, but I figured I would get back what the "retirement" estimates were showing at the time.

20 years ago I knew I wouldn't see any of it.  It hasn't changed.

At what point am I "allowed" to say that people are no longer obliged to my money?  Living standards are collapsing, but our "collective duty" continues.  Social Security and Medicare will either be taken behind the barn and shot or they will collapse this society.  That's not hyperbole, it's math. 

19

Where exactly did we get the notion of sitting out your Golden Years as a devil-may-care playboy anyway?

Posted by: nickless at October 28, 2010 07:39 AM Posted by: nickless at October 28, 2010 07:39 AM

If that were true of most SSA recipients that would be okay.  But it's not.  Don't forget SSA is based  on previous income.  Many of these people were working for $2000 a year back in the 60s or even early 70s.  Many receive only $600-$700 a month.  Even if they had saved during those years they still could not be living the high life today.  I see this especially with women who may have worked only part-time or were paid much less than the man.  I know of several who are over 65 who get less than $800 a month and have to work part-time to pay bills.  And then they have to pay the $100 Medicare payment and their supplemental hospitalization payment as well as utilities,etc.  As another poster said, they paid into it, so there is no reason not to recive the benefits.  But they do need to do something about future benfits. 

 My own experience working with people in these programs is that SSI and the TANF and Family Work programs are much worse. I think they need to weed out the fraud and make people more accountable.  If I had a dollar for every SSI recipient with back or emotional problems I'd be rich.  And I have seen plenty of single mothers who do expect all kinds of assistance, from free schooling to even a car just because they happened to have a child.  The so-called welfare to work program is a joke.  People "work" for a charity/non-profit and get paid in order to keep their welfare benefits.  You should hear the compaints about that.  The food stamp program needs revising too, eliminate candy, soda, etc.  And new immigrants are given everything, I mean everything...housing, food, a car, clothing, etc. 

20 How can they not? We have a bunch of us here that also spout that fucking nonsense.

Vic: 1
RINOs: 0

21 I never understood why the concept of "retirement" became so universal, anyway.

It became "universal" when life left the farms and moved into the industrial age. The idea of working in a "factory" environment after you were over 65 was just not possible for most people.

And even in the "good old days" in the "farm environment" it seemed to me that once the elderly got up into the upper 60s their actual "farming" work decreased a lot and become more "feed the chickens and sit in a high back chair at the local store and spit on the wood burning stove" (while sonny did the farming).

They may not have been getting paid, but they were more or less retired.

22 I never understood why the concept of "retirement" became so universal, anyway.

Well, God willing, at minimum most of us will spend the last couple years on the couch because we frankly can't do anything else.  That reality was slowly walked back when people realized it sucks. 

23 "feed the chickens and sit in a high back chair at the local store and spit on the wood burning stove" (while sonny did the farming).

Beats the shit out of my retirement plan of a stolen grocery cart and the Salvation Army shelter.

24 No, I added a new Bill of Rights in my 1944 SOU!
It's got the weight of stare decrappis behind it.
Don't let the asymmetry fool you: since you play by the rules, you need an Article V Amendment to remove the tumors caused by me snorting Drano those decades back.
------
Monty, these financial briefing posts are some of the best stuff going on the tubey-nets.
U R teh r0x0rz.

25 On the "Chuck wants to start a business" thing:

This video should be required watching for every government official who is getting ready to pass more regulations.  ESPECIALLY those who are getting ready to pass more regulations and say that they also want to “create jobs.”

This is the same shit as the feds and GE wind turbines, just on a smaller scale. The merchants in Miami don't want street vendors with low overhead for them to compete against. So they push for, and get, laws that make it impossible for the street vendors to compete.

And no, it is not "crony capitalism". This kind of shit has NOTHING to do with capitalism and it is not mercantilism either.

The closest thing it represents is Fascism with a healthy dose of good old fashion corruption. We OK corruption in our government when we give them the power to regulate.

26 Beats the shit out of my retirement plan of a stolen grocery cart and the Salvation Army shelter.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 28, 2010 08:18 AM (lN56Y)

LOL, that "old plan" depended on having at least one son willing to take over the family farm and allow you to sit in that chair telling lies and spittin chaw on the stove.

27 bleak

28 LOL, that "old plan" depended on having at least one son willing to take over the family farm and allow you to sit in that chair telling lies and spittin chaw on the stove.

Why should he?  The old man has SS.  Family?  We don't need no stinkin' family in this country, except for Uncle Sugar.

29 The problem is that the federal government has indicated that it will give something closer to $1.3 billion.”

Gee I missed that in the news. If we get "real" Republicans in office they get NOTHING. If the Republicans agree to send them a GD nickle they will last one cycle and be primaried out.

The non-union city workers of SC do not owe the SEIU thugs a damn thing for their golden parachute retirements.

This is just the kind of thing that renders the argument about SS retirements being "too good" such a BS argument.

30 10 & 12 

Nothing against you, life is what it is and we do as we must.  The topic reminds me of WWII veterans I have known and their feelings.  They knew that they had
not truly defeated the enemy.  They had won a great battle, but the enemy yet lived.  It lived in a form they could not readily come to grips with without destroying what they had fought for.  That was why they would not claim the title of hero.  They knew their merit and their failure.

^{(your impressions may vary, Ace and Co. ™ denounce all opinions expressed or implied on this blog , any other blog, any where on teh internet, spoken about in hobo camps, or just fucken dreamed up in your pathetic withdrawl hallucinations.  _{(and what's with teh pants all of the sudden?)} )}

31 I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my entitlement mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

32 This is just the kind of thing that renders the argument about SS retirements being "too good" such a BS argument.

I don't think anyone believes they are "too good".  They are at best minimal, and a fucking all around.  All that money you "paid in", Vic?  You know as well as I do that it was spent years ago studying the auto-genital-manipulation habits of the Australo-Asian marsupial sea turtle.  That's the point.  It has to stop.  Completely.  From my perspective, if SS were shut down today, I'd be immensely better off, now and in the future.  You?  Not so much.  What would we have in common?  We both got fucked.

33 If that were true of most SSA recipients that would be okay.  But it's not.  Don't forget SSA is based  on previous income.

Deanna, I realize I wasn't being clear that I was talking primarily about pensions (particularly public sector/union pensions), not SS.  Vic mentioned SS while I was posting mine, and I could see that there would likely be some crossing of the subjects because I wasn't particularly clear.

34 rom my perspective, if SS were shut down today, I'd be immensely better off, now and in the future.  You?  Not so much.  What would we have in common?  We both got fucked.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 28, 2010 08:33 AM (lN56Y)

As I said, I would be willing to see some real reform. But the real and needed reform must come first this time. You can no longer trust the government.

They have lied in every administration since FDR about SS, that includes Republican and Dem alike. So as far as I am concerned, the Government IS the problem. They can either do real reform or collapse under their own weight.

35 You know as well as I do that it was spent years ago studying the auto-genital-manipulation habits of the Australo-Asian marsupial sea turtle.

Ah....good times.

36 They can either do real reform or collapse under their own weight.

I think we have not just a different perspective because of our respective age and subsequent life situation differences, but also a difference in what the condition of this country is. 

Collapses come either as avalanches or erosion.  Either way, the mountain is gone.  I think the erosion has by now done its job.  I really don't expect any big dramatic boom in the future.  We have collapsed.  It's all over but the crying as people realize the mountain is gone.

37 If we act before collapse, there is the chance we can help everyone -- especially those vulnerable elderly who will have no other means of support than welfare. If we wait for collapse, there may be no opportunity to support them; they'll simply be thrown on their own resources (such as they are) at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I consider that a much more cruel outcome than simply telling them that they have been lied to, and working with them to come to a more lasting and just solution. Posted by: Monty at October 28, 2010 08:08 AM (o2hlb)

This is what Republicans need to be shouting constantly.  The "race" card and accusations of not caring about all the protected groups could be at least blunted if the argument were framed in this way. 

38

There are 17 Rep Congressmen, and a smaller number of Senators, that I have any use for at all. The rest...I'd like to see them tried for treason, convicted, and shot. Same for the Indo Imbecile, his assassination insurance, and four of the nine SCOTUS, including the "wise latina." Devil's Island would be too good for them.

What we need to save this country is to declare a bounty on these Dem thieves. Make them fair game at $5k per head. You could sort the country's problems out in a hurry, and for a Hell of a lot cheaper price than TARP.  

39 I consider that a much more cruel outcome than simply telling them that they have been lied to, and working with them to come to a more lasting and just solution. Posted by: Monty at October 28, 2010 08:08 AM (o2hlb)

My old man used to say "If you're afraid of the truth, then you did something wrong".  It's the pack of fucking lies that's put us in this position.  It's come to the point that "Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act".

40 When I put my father in a care facility they said he needed a new wheelchair.  "No problem" they said: "Medicare will pay for it, we'll take care of everything, just sign this form."

He got his new wheelchair and it was three years later, after dad died, that the wheelchair company came looking for it: "It's on lease" they said: "and now it must be returned."

Turns out Medicare paid $ 400 per month for three years for an $ 800 wheelchair and I had no idea.  Quite a good legal scam for the care facility and the wheelchair provider, all enabled by nonexistent controls at Medicare.

I can give more examples of waste in Medicare all day - your government at work.

Don't tell me these programs can't be reformed.

41 One thing about the "I paid in, so I'm only getting my own money back out" argument: it's not true. First: can you declare your SS "savings" as an asset? Can you use it as collateral for a loan? No. Why? Because it's not really your money. (In fact there is no money.) Second: SS runs on a "pay as you go" basis (just like any other Ponzi scheme). The money extracted from your paycheck is a tax to pay current beneficiaries; the government is relying on the goodwill and forbearance of future workers to fund your retirement. Third: The big problem with SS is not the amonts that each person gets; it is the number of people drawing benefits. We're already in the red -- as the Boomers start to retire in greater numbers, the tsunami of red ink is only going to get bigger and bigger. Fourth: SS was never meant to be a primary source of income. It was meant as a supplement to individual savings and investments. I can feel bad for elderly folks who are hard-up, but at the same time be irritated that they didn't put more money away for their own retirements. (Many people, like Vic, were smart and careful about how they planned for their retirements; a far greater number were not, and rely on social welfare to get by.) Fifth: None of the above matters. Seriously. Whatever fingers we point at each other, at politicians, or at the sky, the truth remains: the system is going to fail. We can control the failure and implement something better and more sustainable; or we can just let the whole rickety structure collapse and tell the victims that they're on their own. I prefer the former to the latter, myself -- out of self-preservation more than anything. I don't relish having to fight off mutant bikers and zombie hordes when I'm 70.

42 Don't tell me these programs can't be reformed.

They can't.  The underlying socialist premise is unredeemable.

43 It was meant as a supplement to individual savings and investments.

What savings and investments?  15% of my income is stolen from me before I see it.  What praytell am I to save or invest? 

"Put aside just $50.00 a month when you're 16 and you'll be a millionaire when you're 50".  That would be great, but I have to pay that money in gasoline taxes just to get to work. 

I'm the new middle class.  Income cut by a third, living standard falling, prices on essentials skyrocketing, all so the Politburo can buy more votes from people who don't work.

44 1. Cut out everyone who is on disability or medical that is caused by drug addiction or alcoholism. Let them die, fk'em.

Posted by: Vic at October 28, 2010 07:34 AM (/jbAw)

You are a cold-hearted bastard!

I LIKE it!

45 Well, off to get the boy's arm X-Rayed again, so the bill can be applied to my $10,000 family deductible, for the privilege of which I pay a grand a month.  But at least I'm paying Medicare taxes.

46 Posted by: Vic at October 28, 2010 07:46 AM (/jbAw)

The Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch, isn't it!

Of course, anyone with half a brain could have predicted this, but apparently they don't teach thinking at Harvard.

47 Fifth: None of the above matters. Seriously. Whatever fingers we point at each other, at politicians, or at the sky, the truth remains: the system is going to fail.

And that Monty is why I say that this "tax panel" is full of shit and I don't agree with it. They have already lied to us over and over again:

First the program was sold as a "retirement" program by FDR and the government has touted that over and over for decades since then.

Second the government has passed THREE huge tax increases, each time to "fix" the problem.

Third the government has reduced benefits twice to "fix the problem".

Each and every time they have done something to fix the problem they spent the money on other socialist welfare programs.

So I ask, what in God's earth has changed now? Suppose all of us said, yes this program is failing. Let's take Vic's money that was put in the program by him nd his empoyer and give it to Peggy Joseph who has lived off of government dole her entire life and who's only contribution to society has been 6 more little Peggy Joseph's living off of government dole.

The after agreeing to do that, they spend the money on even more government dole programs and now both Vic and Peggy Joseph are hungry and the system is STILL failing!

We simply can not trust the current government to fix the program. So why should I go hungry knowing that the bastards will just waste the money anyway and the system will still fail.

I say let it fail, like GM, it is the only way there is to fix it. 

48 Politically, I don't see a way to fix SS without sunsetting it. Draw some lines - anyone age X as of this date gets to draw at 70, age Y 72, age Z never. Medicare/Medicaid - I don't know how to fix those; other then having directly subsidized facilities, ala the VA with salaried doctors and nurses working under some sort of malpractice umbrella, with specialist doing pro-bono work for a tax credit.

49 They can't.  The underlying socialist premise is unredeemable.

Maybe, but the point is that there is plenty of money available to support care for the elderly.  Reform includes privatization, like should be done with the Post Office.

You can't just eliminate Medicare, you have to replace it with something.  You have offered no solution.

WallMart sells walkers for $ 40, but the seniors go to a medical supply store and Medicare buys them one (free to them) for $ 150.  Whole industries have developed providing electric wheelchairs and diabetic supplies - "at no cost to me" but at inflated cost to the taxpayer.

After every hospitalization Medicare allows aftercare therapy at a facility or in home for so many weeks.  Almost always the provider prescribes just that many weeks of therapy. scam.

I could go on, but you get the point: There is so much waste and fraud involved there should be plenty of money available for care for the elderly under a reformed system.

50 So why should I go hungry knowing that the bastards will just waste the money anyway and the system will still fail.

Why should I descend into serfdom and feed my kids pottage knowing that the bastards will just waste the money anyway and the system will still fail?

51 Should we attack the waste and fraud, yes, but that isn't going to solve the huge demographic inequity.

52 You can't just eliminate Medicare, you have to replace it with something.  You have offered no solution.

The elimination of socialized medicine IS the solution. 

Maybe, but the point is that there is plenty of money available to support care for the elderly.

No there isn't.  That's the fallacy.  We have run out of other people's money.  The society and the economy has already collapsed..  It's every man for himself right now.  Not in some dystopian fantasy of 2012.  Now.

53 And that Monty is why I say that this "tax panel" is full of shit and I don't agree with it. You and I are in complete agreement on that score. But I will also say that the problem will not go away -- and if seniors don't get on board the SS reformation issue, it will simply happen without them. (Like I said: generational warfare.) Younger people simply will not tolerate this situation much longer; it's a ruinous system for most people under 50 right now. It's morally wrong to ask young people to keep funding such a fundamentally broken and unjust system without implementing fundamental changes. It is morally wrong to burden younger generations with this boatload of failure and debt. I hate to see it come down to this, because seniors aren't necessarily to blame for their predicament (other than not saving enough of their own money during their working years). But as I keep saying: you cannot invest in the old at the expense of the young and still keep a civilization on a paying basis. There are ways to ameliorate the situation, but only if the beneficiaries are willing to compromise.

54 Herr, I think we agree, let the system fail, sooner that later.

55 It's morally wrong to ask young people to keep funding such a fundamentally broken and unjust system without implementing fundamental changes. It is morally wrong to burden younger generations with this boatload of failure and debt.

We are in agreement on that. It was morally wrong when that big commie FDR saddled us with it.

The problem is why should we believe them once again when they say they are going to "fix" it this time?

Are we to be the perpetual Charlie Brown with the Lucy football?

The only way it will get fixed for good is to allow it to collapse.

56

savings? what is that? you mean what we had before the collapse, when everyone was tossed out of jobs and savings was spent moving to a better work environment that is no longer a work environment? where the only reason your children ate is that  you Had had a good credit and you had a hidden pickle jar?    when savings ran out? where you have to pay 400 a month to rent out your home (hey better than paying 1200 right?) so that your credit isn't demolished?

where is up? we had the gvt barnie frank fannie may / banks get involved in a scheme that killed everyone. now i might have a better attitude if i believed our purported leaders have woken up. we had no choice , we just paid and paid they played and played and many of us are destroyed. my rant.

 

57 I will add that public-sector pension debts and medical benefits at the state and municipal level are another largely-hidden catastrophe right on the verge of exploding. That's why I keep picking on poor California -- they are only the vanguard of a burgeoning group of states who cannot fund the entitlements they have promised to their employees. It's pretty much the same damned problem as SS and Medicare, only at the state level. And the public-sector beneficiaries are not going to give up their fat benefits packages without a lot of kicking and screaming. (To repeat: it's not wages that are killing them. It's the overgenerous benefits packages.) I think that holders of a lot of Muni bonds are in for a rude awakening in a few years....

58 heh, nevermind .

59 So we eliminate Social Security and Medicare, fine, many here would agree as would I.

But I do not agree that this is in any way politically possible (yet) given that we have failed multiple times to privatize even 2 % of Social Security.

How many votes are there in the Senate to eliminate Medicare?  Not one, I would guess.

So for the present we will have to come up with some better ideas that have some chance to pass.  If not, it is just wind whistling past our gums.

60 But I do not agree that this is in any way politically possible (yet) given that we have failed multiple times to privatize even 2 % of Social Security.

It never really existed.  Privatize what?  The inflated contents of a file cabinet in West Virginia? 

Politically possible?  It's not politically possible to make the sun rise in the West, either.  It just is.  This is reality.  "Politics" is the art of denying reality while getting your cock sucked by the proles. 

Some may think I sound bitter.  I'm so far past bitter that I've hit the wall of being merely resigned.  But I'm not going to deny reality and think there is any solution other than keeping my family fed and warm and together.

61 But I do not agree that this is in any way politically possible (yet) given that we have failed multiple times to privatize even 2 % of Social Security. It doesn't matter what's politically-possible or not. It will happen, like it or not; want it or not; happy about it or not. The question before us is whether we want to manage the collapse in a reasonable way, or just let the whole thing fall down ten or twenty years down the road and let the beneficiaries twist in the wind. That's why I linked that Veronique de Rugy piece above: reality is not negotiable.

62 The question before us is whether we want to manage the collapse in a reasonable way, or just let the whole thing fall down ten or twenty years down the road and let the beneficiaries twist in the wind.

But we have known this forever.  This is not our first warning.

What I hope you are saying is that we have to persist in reform efforts and hope that someday it will sink in.

What I hope you are not saying is that it is all futile no matter what we do and the apocalypse is upon us.

63
 Really interesting. We (wife and I) finally, a few years ago, won our personal war on poverty. We aren't rich, just nice and comfortable. We did it through a long time of frugality, smart investments and hella lot of hard work.

 Right now, SS does not factor in a major way for our living standards. Will it in the future? No idea .

 We always believed that WE were responsible for retirement, something way too many have never had driven into their skulls, it's an INDIVIDUAL responsibility. I'd be happy if just my contribution could be factored out of the total, and would accept that in a lump sum. The remaining amount my employers gave? Make a pile and burn it for all I care. Only that which was extorted from me is of concern.

 But don't, 'cause I'm a baby-boomer, lay a bunch of bullshit on me--WE did for ourselves, thanks so much.

64 What I hope you are not saying is that it is all futile no matter what we do and the apocalypse is upon us. I'll say it this way: SS is doomed. It is broken beyond repair and cannot be saved. It is broken in principle; you cannot fix it by twiddling with certain knobs or buttons. Medicare ditto. Defined-benefit pensions ditto (particularly public-sector pensions). These programs are the fiscal equivalents of the perpetual-motion machine, or the magical cornucopia that spills out wealth magically. It's a lie. So the question is not: "Can we save it if we act now?" The question is: "Can we kill it and replace it with something better before it falls down and kills us all?" And based on the links in my post, you will understand why I am not hopeful. The beneficiaries of those programs will not go gentle into that good night.

65 Finally, someone who is brave enough to discuss this issue.  I live in Michigan, raised my son BY MYSELF without financial assistance from his father or the state, worked two jobs most of my kid's life to make it.  Let me tell you, that first daycare payment was the best birth control I've ever been on. 

And yet my neighbors keep dropping babies they can't afford and collecting welfare, free housing and food.  And two of her kids have been taken away from her by the State and then given back!  And yet she just had another one.  Give me a break. 

Every politician that stopped by my house in the last three months was attacked by me on this issue.  I'm all about a couple of years of assistance, but you can't have any more babies you can't afford and you have to go to school and get certified in something that you can support yourself and your kids on. 

Okay, thanks for letting me vent.  Whew, I feel a rebirth (of my soul, not another kid) coming on. 

66

Bobbe, welcome to emotions anonymous (heh). and job well done! I mean that sincerely.

raising a child alone is tough. 

67 What I hope you are not saying is that it is all futile no matter what we do and the apocalypse is upon us.

It is futile and the apocalypse is upon us.  Monty is a damned pollyanna.

68 Okay, thanks for letting me vent. Whew, I feel a rebirth (of my soul, not another kid) coming on. The Financial Briefing is a place where friends gather to vent, drink our morning coffee, and watch DOOM approach. Sometimes we watch cartoons. Welcome!

69 Wow, did the market take a dive yesterday? I checked my account and it was doing well and today, bam! All gone. s

70 OK.  Off to the orthopaedist to watch government sponsored market distortions eat away at my egg money.

71
Some may think I sound bitter.  I'm so far past bitter that I've hit the wall of being merely resigned.  But I'm not going to deny reality and think there is any solution other than keeping my family fed and warm and together.

Ooh - rah...

72 Thanks, Willow.  Raising a great kid is the hardest job I ever loved.  He is now serving proudly in the US Coast Guard and out getting the bad guys along the Pacific Coast line. 

And all is not lost even though I have a family member that drank herself out of a liver, and just rec'd the great news she can collect thousands a month in disability.  And get this; she's still drinking!  God help us all until after November 2nd.  I wave all day long, folks. 

73 But don't, 'cause I'm a baby-boomer, lay a bunch of bullshit on me--WE did for ourselves, thanks so much. I wanted to say a word about this as well. It does seem a lot of times like I'm picking on Boomers as a particularly spendthrift or financially incontinent generation. This isn't the case (necessarily). The problem, at base, is that this demographic is so large -- and the following generation so small in comparison -- that it is proving to be the catalyst for the collapse of the entitlement state. Not their fault, really, but that's how it worked out. Boomers (*as a demographic*, I hasten to add) did consume much more and save much less proportionally than their parents did, and did not breed enough children to maintain them in their old age; but they share these characteristics with most of the people of the same age in the western world. Boomers were lucky to have been born in the most wealthy and powerful epoch in America's history. That's the good part. The bad part is that they will also precipitate a huge crisis through sheer weight of numbers as they retire.

74 And all is not lost even though I have a family member that drank herself out of a liver, and just rec'd the great news she can collect thousands a month in disability.  And get this; she's still drinking!

And that is why I say see my post #5 for real reform.

75 I guess I'm not going to argue the semantics of "reform" over "kill it and replace it with something better."

Let's call it a "makeover" and let it go at that.

For now, I'll have to be content that the prospect of some action - no matter how extreme it might be - is a better thought than opening windows for people to jump out of.

76 Bobbe, a child to be proud of . You've done something truly awesome., as for the family member , whew, amazing isn't it.

77 Boomers (*as a demographic*, I hasten to add) did consume much more and save much less proportionally than their parents did, and did not breed enough children to maintain them in their old age; but they share these characteristics with most of the people of the same age in the western world.

Boomers have also paid in those 3 huge SS tax increases to fund their bulge.

78
 Monty--just an aside concerning our situation--in the runup to our retirement--we got so used to frugal living that it's not possible NOW to break that habit. Sort of an unintended consequence, as it were.  Kinda makes me smile.

79 78 Boomers (*as a demographic*, I hasten to add) did consume much more and save much less proportionally than their parents did, and did not breed enough children to maintain them in their old age; but they share these characteristics with most of the people of the same age in the western world.

Boomers have also paid in those 3 huge SS tax increases to fund their bulge.

The results of a ponzi scheme are never pretty. _{^{(unless the perpetrator gets away with it...)}}

80 Yeah, Willow, it is really hard to be a fiscally responsible Republican in a family of left winged progressives, but if I can do it anyone can, including the rest of this country if I have to drag them kicking and screaming with me.  

I love this place.  I feel all warm and fuzzy when I log in.  My coffee and electric cig taste so much better while I'm here. Although I do wish everyone would get that your punctuation goes within the stinkin' quotation marks!!@  Hello, "wave."  Not "wave".  If we can get this down, we can concur the world!

81 Boomers have also paid in those 3 huge SS tax increases to fund their bulge. No, they didn't. Every dime that went into SS is gone. Every dime. Every red cent. Now, you can claim that the politicians pissed away your money and you'd be right, but that doesn't solve the problem. You have a right to be pissed off that the government wasted your money, but that is an ongoing refrain. Also, note my post above somewhere: you are not paying for your own retirement when you pay into SS. You're paying for current beneficiaries. The government is relying on the goodwill and forbearance of younger taxpayers to fund future benefits. SS is a tax, not a savings plan. It frustrates me no end when I hear people talk about it like it's a passbook savings account or something. It's not, and it never was.

82 Who cares what the people say they are willing or unwilling to give up. People are by and large sheeple who almost never really engage their heads if knee-jerk 'I'm All Right Jackism' will suffice. Of course they want what they have or think they will get. They all think 'someone else' should not get something. To steal and then paraphrase a famous quote --- 'You might not be interested in reality, but reality IS interested in YOU." The structural imperative will do what it will do sooner or later. 'Feelings' on the subject won't really matter all that much.

83

I agree 100% with Vic. I've been maxing out on SS payments matched by my employer for the last 2 decades and I'll likely do so until I retire. Like Vic, I don't expect to receive all that money paid in with reasonable interest (4% or so interest rate compounded over the years), but I DO expect to receive the retirement estimates. Far from welfare, I and my employers will almost certainly pay far more into SS than I'll take out from a statistical standpoint. The older generation in their 70's paid into SS only 3% of their check, maybe less. Workers today pay double that percentage, plus our eligible income for SS has skyrocketed. Too many people paid in at the lower rates yrs ago.

Another huge problem is that contributers to SS are fully vested after 7 or 9 years (can't remember which), so many move to govt jobs after vesting in SS where they double or triple dip between govt. pensions and SS. That time period for SS vesting needs to jump to 20 years minimum.  So we have state, local and federal workers retiring at age 50 and receiving 90% of their highest yr earnings the day they retire + SS on top of that when they turn 65. Unlike SS recipients, govt. retirees don't have to wait until age 65 to feed at the trough. Now THOSE are ones we should be targetting, because they are, on average, taking out FAR, FAR more than they put into their pensions, all on the backs of taxpayers. On present course, we're heading toward a system where private sector workers will be toiling until age 68 in order to pay for the Caribbean vacations of 51 year old govt retirees. THAT is the outrage where we should be focused first. Until that sht is fixed with govt pensions and SS vesting after only 7 yrds, don't even think about fcking with the SS for those like me who have paid MORE than our fair share.

 

 

84 don't even think about fcking with the SS for those like me who have paid MORE than our fair share. And that in a nutshell, folks, is why we are all boned. No one is going to give up anything willingly.

85 Monty, you (willfully?) miss the point. We should be going after those who are taking out more than they ever put in. The real problems are the entitlements which EXCEED the contributions of the recipients. Last 2 years me and my employer paid out $12,800 to the SS "trust fund". I've been similarly maxed out for the past 20 years and will like be so for the next twenty.  I will OVERPAY what I take out from SS, statistically speaking. Vic and I are not the type of "examples" you should be targetting to fix the problem. And I agree that we have a problem

86 Monty, you (willfully?) miss the point. Mook, with all due respect, I see the problem more clearly than you do. Perhaps inevitably. If you read my previous posts, you'll see the problem: there is no money in SS. It's busted. Moreover, it's not your money which was paid into SS; it was a tax levied to pay out to current beneficiaries. You aren't necessarily "owed" anything because you weren't paying into a savings account. You paid taxes which were then paid back out. There's nothing left in the cookie jar. (And I can post any number of studies about how people who think they have overpaid into the system are wrong; most will draw far more, statistically speaking, than they ever put in. But Vic and I go around about this interminably as well; I doubt you'll be any more swayed by actual evidence than he is.) So now what you're essentially saying is that younger taxpyers owe you part of their wages, because you in turn funded your own retirees when you were working. But these are the wages of depending on a Ponzi scheme: the guys at the end of the line are the ones who get the shaft. I'm sorry, but that's the inevitable result of SS -- it's broke, and is about to go collossally into the red. It's a question of morality and generational fairness. Do you really think it's fair to lay this enormous burden of taxation and crippling on a younger generation to make good on the lies previous generations of politicians told you? Or are you willing to accept that the system is untenable, and work with everyone else to institute reforms?

87 crippling = crippling debt

88 don't even think about fcking with the SS for those like me who have paid MORE than our fair share.

Or what?  You'll nibble my bum?

How about paying SS taxes for the last 25 years knowing you were never going to see a dime?  How's that for "more than my fair share"?

89 Social Security is not broken, you & I will receive our payments.  The difference between Greece, California and Illinois and the US federal government is that Greece owes entitlement payments in Euros, but has no authority to print them.  States owe entitlement payments in dollars but have no authority to print them.  The federal government cannot go broke because dollars are simply entries in a spreadsheet.  If more dollars are needed to cover interest payments to China and subsidies to corn farmers and social security benefits, then more dollars are created.  It's pretty easy really. 

Social Security has never had a lock box or a trust fund.  The dollars in and out are simply digits on a spreadsheet.  Social Security isn't going away, but absent some miraculous discovery of political backbone, the dollar is boned.

90

So now what you're essentially saying is that younger taxpyers owe you part of their wages, because you in turn funded your own retirees when you were working.

The older employees a) paid a much lower percentage of their check than current payers like me and b) the amount earnings eligible for SS taxes are far higher for current workers than for older workers. ie. current workers under 55 yrs old or so will overpay what they will take out statistically EXCEPT for those who left the SS system after 9 years or disability recipients, loopholes which can be and should be slammed shut. Current workers are pulling their own weight, including shouldering the load for others.

You are correct that there is no trust fund, which is why I put it in quotes. Nonetheless, SS has been sold to me and every other American as a MANDATORY retirement program. If I had an option to opt out, I would have done so long ago. But since I had no choice I will not accept without a bloody fight loss of all $$$$ that I paid into the system, which brings me to the next point:

Why aren't you prioritizing those who TAKE OUT FAR MORE THAN THEY PUT IN, which is almost 100% of govt. pension programs at all levels - local, state and feds, why aren't you prioritizing on them, instead of focusing your cost-cutting priorities on those like me who OVERPAID what I will take out in benefits. I paid my way, they didn't, so they need to suffer first and most.  Seems that the most reasonable priority would be to go after them, don't you think? Christi in NJ brought up the example of how average state worker there contributes $150k over their state career, then takes out $3,000,000 in benefits.

So again, why not prioritize the net takers from the system, the leaches, instead of those who have been shouldering the load?

 

 

 

 

91 Social Security is not broken, you & I will receive our payments. Well, maybe, but you make the basic point yourself -- if the dollar is worthless, what's the point? You might as well collect in bottle-caps or aluminum cans -- at least you can get recycling value for them. And America's bondholders will surely riot and force a modicum of probity on us before the dollar sinks too far.

92 So again, why not prioritize the net takers from the system, the leaches, instead of those who have been shouldering the load? Because you will never find someone who admits to being a leech. Everyone will be able to produce reasons and excuses why they are not to blame for the mess and why they deserve every nickel of the aid they receive. Public sector workers will defend their benefits just as vociferously as you do. So will every other beneficiary of Uncle Sugar's largesse. Can't you see the problem? No one is going to give up their benefits, so everyone is going to get screwed. Meanwhile the ever-shrinking pool of wage-earners sees their entire futures being gobbled up by the debt-monster. Is it fair? No. You were lied to, and that sucks. The only reasonable thing -- the only fair thing, if you want to use that word -- is to stop throwing good money after bad, tear down the whole rotten structure, and build something better in its place. If we don't, then a lot of people are going to get hurt when the old rotten structure comes tumbling down on its own.

93 My point is that Social Security is highly unlikely to be singled out and allowed to fail, there is no political will to allow that.  Something will have to give and that will most likely be the value of the dollar.

If we were gauging the effectiveness of bondholder riots vs. SS riots, I'm pretty sure that SS riots present the more likely and fearsome spectacle.  You don't really think that bond buyers are unaware of this likelihood do you?  And if they were going to riot, what are they waiting for?  Not only are they not rioting, they're not even showing concern - the yield of the 10-yr has fallen 160 bps from the date Obama was elected. 

The conspiracy minded among you might almost think that we were being encouraged to pile on more debt.  Is a weak dollar a feature or a bug?  I guess it depends on your perspective.

94 You don't really think that bond buyers are unaware of this likelihood do you? And if they were going to riot, what are they waiting for? We're the best of a bad lot right now. Who else's bonds are you going to buy? (Well, Germany, maybe, but they've got even worse problems than we do down the road a ways.) But there's going to be a point when holders of US Treasuries (China, for example) aren't going to tamely accept a 100% devaluation in their holdings. They'll dump the bonds for what they can get -- or they'll just stop buying them. (Just try to roll that huge debt every six weeks or so and find out what happens who no one shows up at the auction, or when the buyers are demanding a higher interest rate than we're willing to pay.) Bondholders don't actually have to do anything. That's the beauty of it. They can just...stop buying. The US has gotten into the bad habit of thinking of bondholders (especially foreign bondholders) as a captive market. They're not.

95 The concept of Retirement is out dated, but I think the real reason is because a younger, and hungrier generation always comes around and shoves the older ones to the edge of the herd where natural predation can occur. Let's face it, most of us are not going to enjoy expensive nursing homes. No, we will be a liability. They will put us in a wheelchair facing a blank wall until one day they will get tired of changing our nappies. Then we will get the dry cleaning bag over the head.

96 Why is the US the best of a bad lot?  Mainly because there is no chance of default.  We can always print the money.  Sophisticated buyers don't generally wait for bad things to occur before acting.  If you were a Chinese buyer of bonds, what evidence would you provide to demonstrate that the US was turning a prudent corner?  If failing to show up at auction would be seen as a shot across the bow, what is the message sent by showing up and bidding aggressively?

This idea of bondholders forcing the US to get its fiscal house in order is naive.  Bondholders can tamely accept devaluation or they can throw a tantrum, but the idea that your elected representatives will throw SS recipients overboard in order to appease (foreign) lenders is at odds with reality.

97

Because you will never find someone who admits to being a leech. Everyone will be able to produce reasons and excuses why they are not to blame for the mess and why they deserve every nickel of the aid they receive.

That's your big mistake, lumping all together the mess of SS with other govt programs, and lumping SS recipients all together (9 yr only, disability lumped are very different than those like me and others who are overpaying), as if we all share "equal" responsibility to sacrifice and then dismissing legit objections with a sweeping hand wave "See! everybody wants to keep their own goodies", as if that explains anything..

Fact is, some are MORE entitled than others based on their contributions vs benefits.  There's a helluva lot of difference between a guy like me who has paid SS out the wazoo, far more than I will statistically collect if you apply a modest compounded interest rate (equal to 3 yr CD rates over those yrs) Vs. NJ state employees who only contributed $150k over the years, but who are in line to collect $3,000,000 in benefits. There's no honest comparison, yet you lump us all together as if it's all equal. You have no sense of proportion or priority in your prescriptions

If there was some way to add up all contributions to SS and pensions, the only fair way to make the cuts necessary to save our country is to START with those who take, or who will take, far more than they contributed into the system. Then, if that's not enough money, then we can talk about cutting SS benefits for those like me who have paid in so much.

 

98 You have no sense of proportion or priority in your prescriptions.

You do know that Monty isn't in charge of Social Security don't you?

99

You do know that Monty isn't in charge of Social Security don't you?

You have a point to make, or are you just being a dick?

100 I would like to point out that, since its very inception, Social Security has not kept ONE promise that it has ever made, EXCEPT to prosecute your ass if you fail to participate in it.

101 You have a point to make, or are you just being a dick?

Mostly being a dick.  But you do seem awfully exercised at Monty for not agreeing to immediately adopt your very important solution for the Social Security issue.  I'm just pointing out that since he's not in charge, you are flecking your screen with spittle for naught.  It's wasted spittle dude.

102 It is not just progressives or Democrats who do not want to give anything up. I know plenty of conservatives who are not willing to give up anything too. I have a friend, life long conservative, can not stand Obama or Pelosi or Reid...when word came down that there would not be a cost of living increase for social security this year, he called both of our Senators and his Congressman to complain about his mother not getting her $24 a month.

I do think reality will be hard for some people to take. Sooner or later things will have to change. We will either have to have a lot more money coming in or a lot less money going out. simple as that.

103 But you do seem awfully exercised at Monty for not agreeing to immediately adopt your very important solution for the Social Security issue.

Which seems to consist mostly of self-aggrandizing pronouncements of how much you've "paid in" and how "I'm going to get mine".  It's not yours.  Yours was spent years ago.  It's mine.  You can't have it.

104 I know plenty of conservatives who are not willing to give up anything too.

Like me.  I'm no longer willing to give up the money I need to buy food.  Oh, and I need it to save for retirement, too.

105

Mostly being a dick.  But you do seem awfully exercised at Monty for not agreeing to immediately adopt your very important solution for the Social Security issue.

Since I didn't make a suggested "solution" until my 3rd post, even then a theoretical one, your characterization of me spitting on the screen with rage because I'm supposedly upset because he didn't "immediately" adopt my suggestion is misplaced at best, jackass-ish at worst.

I agree there's a huge problem, but it's absurd to put all programs in the same boat. Some govt benefits are far more lavish than others with less contributions made by the beneficiaries who reap benefits far beyond anything they've contributed. Seems those programs should be targetted first. How controversial!

106

It's mine.  You can't have it.

Then will you sneak me a can of dogfood when I'm in the nursing home?

107 And it appears that almost all except Herr are missing the real point I tried to make. This so-called panel is calling for more tax increases and more "fixes" that involve stuff like raising retirement age, means justifying etc.

Every fix that has implemented since the scheme was invented has been a massive failure because the politicians spent the money generated by the fix. What is different now???? Answer NOTHING

My solution??? Do nothing, let the system collapse and then it will get fixed. It will not be there anymore which is the real fix that is needed.

108 Then will you sneak me a can of dogfood when I'm in the nursing home? Well, dogfood will be kind of upscale for me. I'll probably be dining on Friskies (or the nasty-tasting store-brand HI-VAL-U FELINE TREETS), but I'll be happy to share them with you while we remember a time when America wasn't destitute. And if I can clobber a hobo or two on the way, I may even bring a bottle of Night Train along to wash our repast down. We Morons look after our own, mook. Never fear.

109 your characterization of me spitting on the screen with rage because I'm supposedly upset because he didn't "immediately" adopt my suggestion is misplaced at best, jackass-ish at worst.

Jackass-ish at worst?  I already confessed to being a dick, surely you can do better than that.

110 It will not be there anymore which is the real fix that is needed.

This.

111 And if I can clobber a hobo or two on the way, I may even bring a bottle of Night Train along to wash our repast down.

On the menu this evening:

Chicken and Beef flavored Milk-Bone in a hobo blood and Wild Irish Rose reduction with Park Mushrooms.

Spring dandelion salad with a "vinegar" dressing.

And for desert, one and a half bear claws.

Bon appetit!

112 oh, could we start to say that under Obama, the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer?