1 Where does that leave us?

cue Kratos....

2 Boned?

3

So where does that leave us?

I'll go with "boned"...

4 If we were Dems, we'd all be rioting in the street and people would die.  The libs have the distinct advantage of picking on the part of the population that is independent and stoic i.e. will take it and make do. 

5 "...but only if the future unfolds exactly as we expect it to."

Monty,
This is exactly the problem with our current overlords in DC. They believe, really believe, that they, and only they have the intellectual capacity to predict the future. That is where their sense of entitlement comes from.

6 I'm still on a boat in de Nile. ... great shawarma.

7 Cmon Monty, do you have shit on our parade so early...I mean we just got rosy unemployment numbers and all that..8.9% baby!

8 Just move the retirement age to 100 and then it can be solvent.

9 People are going to have to work their whole lives. Isn't that generally known? Thats how I was raised

10 Red Shirt: I'm actually pretty glad that unemployment is trending back down -- unemployment is always a trailing indicator, and it reinforces the consensus that we're finally pulling out of the recession. But growth is likely to be very slow for at least the next five to ten years, and I'd be very surprised to see unemployment dip much below 7% in the near future. But let's say that the unemployment rate goes all the way below 5% (which is pretty much "full employment" for all practical purposes). That doesn't really improve our national situation all that much due to the snowballing effect of debt and entitlement spending. We can't grow our way out of the problem (especially at the state and local levels): our debt is going to crush us. If my monthly bills are $2500 and my monthly income is $1000, I am boned; getting a raise to $1500 a month is good news, but I'm still boned.

11 I'm taking a 400-level policy formation course.  The entire thing thus far has been focused on how great social security and medicare are.

12 The pensioners are a potent political force not to be trifled with. 

Eliminate all the bs the Feds spend money on, grow the economy, add the private accounts part for younger workers, and then ask the old folks to take a haircut.  At that point it may only be 5 or 10%.

There's a difference between trimmed and shaved.

13 This is not a "fix", but simply pushing the failure further on into the future. Wait.. what? There's a difference?

14 Try to imagine a congress and president with the temerity to enact deep entitlement cuts.  No senator or rep opponents run out of the capital to protest and prevent it, it just steamrollers in like ObamaCare did.

Would a bloodbath ensue at the very next election cycle?

Would there be tent cities of protestors filling every available inch of the mall, and overflowing up to the capital steps?  Would the building be filled with sleep-in stinkies?

Would we riot in the streets, setting up barricades, burning cars, and more?

It is interesting how union organization can bring about these levels of protest, but somehow I think that entitlement slashes would not bring out the unions, and that means that we would have to trust the sheeple to get itchy and loud.  It won't happen.  It just won't.

We're not Greece.

15 The unemployment rate dropped below 9% so all is well, don't worry about your future.

16 There's a difference between trimmed and shaved. You've seen the same charts I have: Medicare, SS, and Defense spending are about 65-70% of our budget right now. Non-discretionary. You could cut the entirety of the federal budget outside those three programs and you'd still be screwed. People who insist on "cut other stuff first" are living in fantasy-land. IT. WILL. NOT. WORK. The only way -- the only effing way -- we can get on the solvency track again is to abolish SS and Medicare and replace them with more sustainable programs (or just get rid of them and allow people to save their own damned money).

17 Liberals in particular have this odd sort of wistful attachment to SS, as if it were some kind of handsome heirloom that their daddy promised to pass down to them. They can't accept that the heirloom is falling apart and becoming worthless; in their mind, it's as new and shiny as the first time they saw it.

18 Soc Sec was passed by Congress on the promise that it would transition to a privately-manged funds sometime in the future. It was sold to the American public as a pension fund for those people who didn't have one through their employers (one of the reasons there are a lot of people who work with a qualified pension do not pay into Soc Sec)

To this day, Soc Sec sends yearly "statements" to reinforce the perception that one actually owns their own contributions for retirement.

And every time someone points out that Soc Sec is pay-as-you-go, Government spokesholes shout 'em down. Look at the vitriol spewed at GW Bush when he tried to push for even modest reforms.

But for God's sake, stop dumping on people who have seen 15% of their salary go into Soc Sec/Medicare for 40+ years of their working lives and feel they shouldn't be told to forget seeing one cent of it. When one's money is stolen, stop blaming the victim when they want restitution.

19 I also have a problem with having a government whose sole purpose seems to be taking money from one segment of the population and giving it to another. Wealth-redistribution is not what the United States of America is about, regardless of what your friendly neighborhood leftist may tell you. When we've gotten to the point that three out of every five federal dollars are being spent on entitlement programs and benefits, we have gone badly off the rails as a nation.

20 There's a difference between trimmed and shaved. Which would be obvious to anyone who has picked up an issue of Playboy lately.. Just saying.

21 People who insist on "cut other stuff first" are living in fantasy-land. IT. WILL. NOT. WORK. The only way -- the only effing way -- we can get on the solvency track again is to abolish SS and Medicare and replace them with more sustainable programs (or just get rid of them and allow people to save their own damned money).

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 10:04 AM (4Pleu)

I think the idea is to say we cut everything else, but its not enough so we need to address ss and medicare.  If you go after ss first, nobody will buy it.  Plus the messaging on the debt is horrible, nobody knows wtf is going on and too busy with American Idol and Facebook at this point.

22 11 I'm taking a 400-level policy formation course.  The entire thing thus far has been focused on how great social security and medicare are.

Posted by: Truman North at March 04, 2011 09:59 AM (8ay4x)

Amazing liars aren't they...

23 Thanks for that, Dave.  I love you man

24 To this day, Soc Sec sends yearly "statements" to reinforce the perception that one actually owns their own contributions for retirement. This always cracks me up. Can you use your SS "benefit" as collateral for a loan? No. Can you trade your future benefit for a house or car? No. Can you re-invest it in some better-performing alternative investment? No. If you can't buy it, sell it or change it, you don't really own it.

25 I'll go with "boned"...

Seconded. All in favor ...

26 at this point, I don't care if SS or medicare fails. I won't be getting anything out of it anyways...so it may as well tank for all I care.

27 I do disagree with Denninger's statement that "[w]e can fix Social Security in part by indexing the retirement age upward." This is not a "fix", but simply pushing the failure further on into the future.

History has shown that "fixes" never fix the problem. As I have said over and over again it has already been fixed three times and the bastards in DC simply jacked up the spending. In fact, yet another "fix" would be worse because they will simply spend more, thus accelerating the failure.

There are only two real fixes:

Fire everyone in Washington and elect only hard core fiscal cons or;

Make SS totally private and reform the fraudulent SS disability program to allow only people who can not work at all due to health issues excluding drugs, alcohol, and dubious mental issues. And particularly excluding children who would not be working anyway.

Neither one of those things is ever going to happen so the best "solution" is to allow the system to totally collapse and fix itself.

BTW, simply raising the retirement age will not "fix" anything as it will not really save that much money, as Monty says only a short term extension.

And as I have said multiple times, longer lifetime is not a real problem. I provided a link to a site that shows the real numbers on longevity.  Overall longevity is severely effected by childhood and violent youth deaths which have no impact on SS benefits. Expected life "left" at age 65 is the one that has an impact. That has only increased by 5 years since 1930.

28 But for God's sake, stop dumping on people who have seen 15% of their salary go into Soc Sec/Medicare for 40+ years of their working lives and feel they shouldn't be told to forget seeing one cent of it. When one's money is stolen, stop blaming the victim when they want restitution. It's the hazards of being forced into a ponzi scheme at the point of a gun. I'm not blaming them but I would hope they would realize they might not be getting anything back.

29

I hope the end of SS comes sooner than later. I don't want to have paid in a ton on money. Each passing year costs me money that I know i am never going to get back. And its not like income tax where I know at least some of it will be spent on things i use like roads, police, legal system, etc.

The SS withholding that I pay, and my company pay, is going directly down the shitter.

30 Just an idea. Means testing to qualify in return for the preservation (or lowering) and permanency of the current tax rates. Those in the upper income brackets would still pay in but would not qualify for SS benefits. Qualifying age be raised. This would make it more of a self funded welfare program but it would create a solvency to the system. The system is broken, no doubt, and it will never be politically possible to fix it unless it is broken down a bit. I realize this is terribly "progressive" fix, but that is the nature of the whole program and we will never be able to get rid of it unfortunately. We are dealt the hand we have.

31 Denninger says "We must stop the lying"...  Hell, the lying is just getting STARTED!

Repeat after me: KOCH!  RAAAAACIST!  NAAAAAZI!   FAAAAACIST!

Any lefty arguments I've left out?

32

In 2010, the United States Census included a classification category that people may chose to check off indicating if they have a unibrow, or as it is referred to in politically correct circles a monobrow. This will be the first count of the eyebrow challenged in the world.

33

"that this crisis took root many years ago when current beneficiaries had a chance to change it, but chose not to"

Thank YOU for publicizing a universally-ignored reality.  Part of the reason for the last century's outlandish rise in the standard of living was the (new) belief of younger generations that they didn't need to bother saving for their old age.  I think I was the only person in my class who went without the latest gadgets because my parents worried about their retirement.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the same babyboomers who saddled us with the sexual liberation disaster and insipid legacy of postmodernism couldn't be bothered to notice that D.C. was quietly robbing America blind. Spoiled narcissists rarely do.  Sorry, but if any generation deserves to "do with less" in their old age, this one does. It's called reaping what one sows.

34 When one's money is stolen, stop blaming the victim when they want restitution. "Restitution" from whom? The thief is long gone; so is your money. How is it fair or just to ask for "restitution" from complete strangers who had no hand in the theft?

35 What's never made sense to me is why if the libs really want to keep SS and all other 'entitlements' going into the future, they don't emulate the Saudi's scheme of being the world's energy producer and subsidizing all their BS out of the proceeds.  We're sitting on a ton of resources that are not being used only because of political grandstanding.  Open the taps! 

36 Posted by: Truman North at March 04, 2011 10:10 AM (8ay4x) I love you too.. In a Hetrosexual life partner sort of way.

37 I'm one of the 'old folks' and would be willing to give up 10%  of my SS IF,
the system is changed for the future.

38

A merkin is a pubic wig. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is an authority concerning such matters, prostitutes once wore merkins to disguise the fact that they had syphilis. Etymologically, the word is believed to be derived from malkin, meaning "mop." Not only did this hairpiece do duty as a pubic wig, but the merkin, apparently, was used to mop floors (or, possibly, just to "mop up" after sex). Not to be outdone by the fair sex, men also occasionally wear merkins, and some even enjoy flashing their faux minges at unsuspecting passersby.

39 Wealth-redistribution is not what the United States of America is SUPPOSED TO BE about, regardless of what your friendly neighborhood leftist may tell you.

FTFY - we started going socialist in the 1930s. It was completed in 1965. We are now going full commie with the conversion of private property.

40 @41 I really don't want to pay to subsidize your life...at all.

41

Presidential Mullet Day is a worldwide holiday held on June 19th where people from around the world celebrate Presidents with mullets; however celebrating this holiday is illegal in most countries. Observers of this sacred day generally celebrate in the privacy of their own Trans Ams.

42
Old people vote, young people don't.

Congress knows this. So young people will increasingly pay more. Too bad, suckers.

43 That has only increased by 5 years since 1930. Yes, but it varies a lot by cohort, Vic. Boomers will (on average) live to 70 if they make it to 65; male X'ers (my generation) will probably make it to 75 if we live to 65; Y'ers and Millennials will probably get to 80. And again, this is the time-horizon thing: I think medical tech in the next 20 years is going to *dramatically* increase lifespan...if you can afford it.

44

Ron Jeremy is a religious scholar widely known for his leading research on the Talmud as interpreted in 12th Century Spain, and the contributions of Spanish Jews to European philosophy and jurisprudence. He is also a leading actor and the inspiration for Super Mario Brothers.

45 So where does that leave us?

I'll take Mad Max Scenarios for $400, Alex.

46 @47 so whats the solution...that old fogies should die earlier?!

47 Anybody see this?  John Mayer's new album

48 so whats the solution...that old fogies should die earlier?!

Posted by: Cain's Pizzeria at March 04, 2011 10:18 AM (MUMm3)

Let me show you this new dietary supplement, we call it SG for short

49 I have said for years that the Proponents of Social Security were WRONG back in the 1030s, and the OPPONENTS were RIGHT.

The system was untenable when it was first proposed, and it hasn't improved since.

50

The more I think about it the more I think we should just leave social security alone, get rid of medicaid and turn medicare into a voucher system. Take the $2.4 Trillion surplus and write it off, yeah we paid a surplus but we also let politicians borrow like crazy people on the other side of the ledger. So pay down the debt we let happen with the $2.4 Trillion.

Retirees benefits then would match whatever is being collected. If that ends up with people dying in the street then so be it. If Americans don't like tripping over the bodies they can vote to pay more SS and medicare taxes.

We need a hard lesson on what we let happen, might as well start now.

51 Time to just go cold turkey.

No more "benefits" and no more collecting the tax.

Tough love.  Start saving folks.  Hope & Change, you know.

52 “Dinner is to London what Tea is to up-north, and Tea in London is a hot leaf based beverage whereas Dinner up-north is what they call Coffee” ~ Steven Hawking on Dinner

Dinner is by far the most unfunny meal, and the most important. Not only the time you have dinner is the best, but you can also watch the good stuff on TV at this time. Thus it is has also been referred to as Prime Time. Sometimes hardworking people who doo not have enough time will combine their lunch with dinner with there prime time snack to call it "slack". If this sounds strange then you should also check out Brunkfinner and St. Matthews Meal.

53 50. They have ya covered on that one. Oblabla death panels. Oye.

54 It is pretty sad what the American people have become.
Our ancestors would not be be amused at our decline.
From a people who once cherished their freedom to a people dependent and constrained in every aspect of their life by government.
Freedom taken away on a daily basis, yet we are to busy to pay attention to the loss of our freedom.
More interested in the next trinket we can buy that we think will make us happier, when in fact the thing would make us the most happy would be to actually be free.
Social Security will be fixed, but as there never will be the political will or courage to fix it, it will of course fix itself when it collapses under its own weight.
 

55 Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 10:10 AM (4Pleu)

You are more sanguine about it. Those yearly statements just piss me off. The message is blunt: Fuck you, we can do what we want, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

56

The Origins of Sumo are much disputed. Some argue that it started out as a way of helping obese people to burn off their blubber, and that the diapers originated from the fact that matches used to go on for much longer than they do now. Others say that the origins are much more sinister, and that it was originally a way for the Japanese to indulge their underlying fat/diaper fetishes. There are many theories, but none have proved satisfactory. The name "sumo", however, comes from the two days of the week, Sunday and Monday, because they only ever wrestle on Sundays and Mondays. In no way is the sumo a form of Samurai (or their infants, the Sumorai), despite the common myth that the word comes from Samurai or Sumorai. Sumo therefore is not a Sumorai on a diet (hence the name having no "rai" - japanese for Rye).

57 You know what ANOTHER bad Democrat idea was? Getting us off the Gold Standard. The only thing which was accomplished by this was the ability to manipulate our currency, which was used solely for the purpose of playing crony games with the money.


I have never comprehended why people thought it was a good idea.

58 in the 1030s, and the OPPONENTS were RIGHT.

The system was untenable when it was first proposed, and it hasn't improved since.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 04, 2011 10:20 AM (/G5LI)

hey if it took just under a 1000 years for it to go bankrupt...thats a pretty good run if you ask me.

59 <i>"Restitution" from whom? The thief is long gone; so is your money. How is it fair or just to ask for "restitution" from complete strangers who had no hand in the theft?</i>

Why yes, let's just fuck over grandma and grandpa. They're old and useless anyway.

Jaysus on a Pony, I'm sick of the whining. You wonder why people who played by the rules are ready to say "fuck you" back? You want to see an intergenerational fist fight? Just keep on saying to people getting Soc Sec/Medicare right now, after 50 years of paying into it, that they are nothing but welfare queens.

60

"so whats the solution...that old fogies should die earlier?!"

The practical but politically-impossible solution would be to give retirees a capped allowance, or stipend for medical treatment -- that they and their loved ones could supplement as much as they wish -- and stop requiring doctors to charge them 60 cents on the dollar for that treatment. 

61 so whats the solution...that old fogies should die earlier?! 1. Save your own money. 2. "Retirement" is not a right, it's a privilege, and a fairly recent one. Working longer in your life is not a burden; it's the normal status of humanity. 3. Vote for candidates and policies that drive economic growth and personal wealth rather than "social justice" issues that turn into fiscal sink-holes. Look, however much I wish it were otherwise, it's obvious that SS simply cannot continue as currently constituted. Either we take a proactive stance and implement a managed change now, or just let everything go to chaotic shit ten or twenty years down the road. SS will fail, barring major changes; that's a mathematical certainty at this point. (In fact, it was a mathematical certainty all along -- it's a Ponzi scheme.)

62 FTFY - we started going socialist in the 1930s. It was completed in 1965. We are now going full commie with the conversion of private property. Oh, it started earlier than that,.. at least parts of i: http://mises.org/daily/4276

63 People who insist on "cut other stuff first" are living in fantasy-land. IT. WILL. NOT. WORK.

Yeah, you and I are at loggerheads on this.  It's not just cutting though.  We need a lot of growth, domestic energy production to keep our wealth in the country, some inflation without colas, a slow upward movement in retirement age and a haircut.  These things are doable.  If you propose a wholesale revamp of entitlements, all the Socialists have to do is stall until the next election where we are thrown out on our asses.

Because if it be as you say, go long beans, bullets and barbecue sauce 'cause we're boned, and there's no further need to put up these morbid treatises.

64 Excellent points. You may find this story interesting of how Social Security came to be structured the way it is. That is as a welfare benefit and (this is the important point) an unconnected tax. Unconnected legally, if not in the public mind.
http:// www.ssa.gov /history/tea.htm

I first ran across a very brief version of this in Amity Schlaes excellent book "The Forgotten Man". Curious, I went looking for more and found the above.

I have always thought that this concept, that the govt has no authority to require participation in an insurance scam scheme relevant in the current health care debate. I've not seen it brought up.

John Henry

65
People who insist on "cut other stuff first" are living in fantasy-land. IT. WILL. NOT. WORK. The only way -- the only effing way -- we can get on the solvency track again is to abolish SS and Medicare and replace them with more sustainable programs (or just get rid of them and allow people to save their own damned money).

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 10:04 AM (4Pleu)

Lyndon Baines Johnson people! Another Democrat idiot that seriously F*cked up the country. 

We should have Nationally televised PSAs that show how the Democrat Presidents have all been serious f*ckups starting with Andrew Jackson, and ending with Obama.

66 Methinks we should ensure the boning gets done while this clown is President. After all, he has destroyed everything else. And Social Security was the Democrats squeakhole job, err, promise.

Where the heck is that picture of Hillary, Reid, et al standing with the bust of FDR at Hyde Park when Bush proposed to reform Social Security?

We can sit back and be comfortable in our schaden-immolation.

67 Sorry for the funky link above. For some reason I could not get it to post a regular link.

John Henry

68 How long will it take to get enough people voted in that will be willing and wanting to do something about it?

69 I have been hearing this argument about every ten years since 1972.
Everyone who ever tried to fix this was destroyed or shouted down by the liberals/socialists. They will never let SS die no matter who they have to screw or how hard they have to screw them because it is the centerpiece f their ideological grip on America. Also, getting on the wrong side of seniors is the kiss of death for any elected politician. They vote--hard and vengefully--because when they are afraid it is the only power they have.

So, it will be a long, ugly ride to age indexing and means testing but it will never go away.

BTW, when it gets really ugly, the illegals will go under the bus way before seniors, which will solve more than a few problems.

70 You want to see an intergenerational fist fight? Just keep on saying to people getting Soc Sec/Medicare right now, after 50 years of paying into it, that they are nothing but welfare queens. Well...like I said. The situation is what it is. SS is solvent purely on the forbearance of current taxpayers. If they decide to quit paying into the scheme, the SS checks stop. If the tax burden becomes too onerous, if a person finds his own family being taxed into the poorhouse to fund this calamitous program -- he may just decide to say, "No more." Something that can't go on forever, won't. So it's very much in the interest of current beneficiaries to keep the young 'uns happy, know what I mean?

71 62 "in the 1030s, and the OPPONENTS were RIGHT. "

hey if it took just under a 1000 years for it to go bankrupt...thats a pretty good run if you ask me.

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 04, 2011 10:23 AM (FIDMq)

Ooopppss! Did I do that?

1930s.

72

Dear "young folks,"

I've been forced to give away large chuncks of my salary for many years, and now that I'm nearing retirement age, I'm supposed to just kiss those thousands of dollars goodbye?

How about kicking all the illegals out of this country and off of our government coffers for a start. Then maybe the people who kept this country going over the past decades and had their wages garnered for FORTY YEARS against their wills can see some of it.

Besides, you going to watch old people out in the streets and starving and homeless?

Oh, that's right! Dr. Obama will turn the old people into something nourishing..like Soylent Green.

You know, you'll be old some day..maybe.

 

73 "SS will fail, barring major changes..."

No, it won't. The government will continue to pay benefits in excess of SS revenue until the entire federal government fails. At that point the existence of SS will be one of many problems we will be facing.

And who among the many pretenders to the Obama throne will have the strength to revamp this Ponzi scheme?

74

C'mon wingers...there is plenty of money to go around. Simply open up your wallets and do the RIGHT thing!!

 

75 I know that my constant harping on Social Security and Medicare seems like beating up on the old folks for something that isn't even their fault

But it IS their fault.  Everyone has known there were going to be problems with Social Security since they 80's, but everybody pretended that magically the problems were going to fix themselves.  GOP pundits recommended staying away from Social Security, because the issue would anger old people.

People back then should have taken the steps to fix the program.  It would have been less painful than doing it now.  But voters didn't care, and so politicians - fearful of that generation's old people - kicked the can down the road.

76

--Social Security is not an asset, but a tax;

 

That's true ... except for the fact that it's an illegal tax (not being uniform and having future federal benefits depending on how much of this "tax" people paid, which goes against all concepts of income taxes) that most everyone refuses to acknowledge is nothing but an illegal tax-like charge.

Social Security is just another un-Constitutional illegal piece of shit at the federal level that people have been forced to create all sorts of different names for in order to skip over the whole un-Constitutional part.

77 3. Vote for candidates and policies that drive economic growth and personal wealth rather than "social justice" issues that turn into fiscal sink-holes.
Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 10:25 AM (4Pleu)


I have long asked the question: How much money can you put into a furnace?

Answer: As much as you want to.

Paying poor people to sit and do nothing is a furnace that you can put as much money into as you want.

78 This morning the 'Deciders' on the news told me that "experts say the economy will not be seriously hurt by the increase in fuel prices." Bull. Shit. When fuel prices skyrocket 20% over a few days it substantially impacts every single economic sector.

79 One other question about SS:

With all the blather about it going bankrupt, all the talk about lowering payments, all the talk about means testing and so forth

Why is nobody talking about raising the SS tax rate?

Right now I think it is about 15% (Employer + Employee portions)

What would happen if it were raised to 16 or 17%?

I don't know what the math is on this but it seems like it would go a long way towards solvency.

I know that "bankruptcy" and "solvency" are not the right words here. See my note above. I use them only because they seem to be the commonly used terms and I can't think of better ones at the moment.

I am NOT advocating a tax increase necessarily. I am mainly curious why nobody else is.

John Henry

80 "Retirement" is not a right, it's a privilege,

Who has asserted that? What I've seen asserted is a property right. The right to one's earnings. Just because the Fed government has acted like Madoff doesn't negate that fact that the SS contributions still morally are the property of the contributors.

Working longer in your life is not a burden; it's the normal status of humanity.

Obviously you haven't been looking at the stats on how employers view hiring people over 50 -- so what do you think someone over 70 is going to fare in the job market when you tell 'em "Sorry Pops, no more checks for you. Go out and get a job, and stop being a lazy ass bum."

While I have educated my kids to save/save/save, there's no guarantee the Government won't cast their eyes on those 401k's and IRAs and demand to "manage" them for "safety" reasons just like Soc Sec. At what point to you stop making the victim of the government responsible?

WakeUP. You will not get anywhere in reforming SS without the cooperation of the people you are attempting to throw under the bus.

81 Okay, you won't be able to house and feed yourself, but you will have free health care. So we got that going for us. Lucky aren't we?

82

How the entitlement picture will ultimately unfold is pretty murkey.  For one thing, SS alone isn't enough to live on with any decent level of comfort.  The baby boom generation is going to be working well past the usual retirement age, because so few of them have saved.  The will blunt some of the cost.  If we can fix the economy, and if productivity gains continue on a course similar to what we've seen in recent years, that will ease the pain as well.  Means testing would also be good - there are plenty of people who see SS as nothing more than some nice additional pin money to go blow on whatever it is old folks blow cash on. 

In any case, even if we eliminated SS, the fact remains that some form of old-people-welfare would have to take its place.  Americans are not willing to see millions of old grannies eating cat food, or starving under bridges, regardless of whether they were prudent savers or profligate spenders.  Americans will choose to do something to take care of them, so the best thing we can do is offer the most effective plan.

83 You know you will always come back to me in the end. Remember, you can't quit me.

84 They won't fix anything, I used to have some hope with the rise of the T-party, but they are arguing over $100 B, when they need to cut $1.5 T.  Thats just for this year.

Knowing that we are truly boned can be liberating though.  It allows one to ignore any news out of DC on the budget.  The collapse will come sooner or later and entitlements will be gone, along with a lot of other stuff.  The downside is what we will have on the other side of that, freedom or tyranny.

85 The problem is that congress just passed another of their "legacy" bills that in 30 years or earlier will prove just as bad as SS. Obamacare. They just don't care. They pass their signature legislation without a care for the future. It's a "see what I did" that looks good for today, but a "name a ship after me" when it is no longer blamed on them and they are long gone. Who can name any of the ass-hats who passed SS? Has any of their legacy been blamed? How many ships are named after them? This shit sucks.

86 Legalize the Mexicans, they'll support us.

87 btw, don't even *think* of changing your name to 'Charlie Brown's Fucksaw.'

88 or sexsaw, or whatever it's called

89 People who insist on "cut other stuff first" are living in fantasy-land. IT. WILL. NOT. WORK. The only way -- the only effing way -- we can get on the solvency track again is to abolish SS and Medicare and replace them with more sustainable programs (or just get rid of them and allow people to save their own damned money).

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 10:04 AM (4Pleu)

I must part with you on this, Monty.  SS and Medicare need to be severely cut, but there is something else that needs to be cut even deeper and first.  That is MediCAID.  It is less defensible than SS/Medicare and a worse drain (as no one who benefits from it pays much of any taxes, at all) and it is intimately connected to ObamaCare.

The first and deepest cuts that need to be made must be to MediCAID and they must involve the repeal of ObamaCare, since that un-Constitutional, un-American illegal legislation guarantees future expansion of MediCAID (which will grow to envelope any cuts that might be made to SS/Medicare) and will cost far more.

The first program that MUST be cut to the bone is MediCAID and that cut must include the repeal of ObamaCare. This is the most important "entitlement" to take care first - and ObamaCare must go into the trash with it.  Otherwisee, any other cuts are for nothing but show.

90

Dear "young folks,"

I've been forced to give away large chuncks of my salary for many years, and now that I'm nearing retirement age, I'm supposed to just kiss those thousands of dollars goodbye?

Posted by: Hard Truth at March 04, 2011 10:30 AM (1kwr2)

In a word, "Yes."

I have long believed that I would never collect a penny of Social Security, and i've been paying for it for 30+ years.

The Motto of Social Security ought to be "Give up hope all ye who enter here."

It was the product of Lying and Ignorant Democrats. How could you have thought it would turn out differently?

91
Look, however much I wish it were otherwise, it's obvious that SS simply cannot continue as currently constituted.

You're right, Monty. Young people will have to pay much more.

92 No Darleen I would not let my Grandparents suffer. Would you? Or do you want me to take care of them for you?

93 @76 old ppl should've saved money on their own. I will be old one day...and if I can't support myself, then I will die. I won't subsidize off future generations.

94 I live ten miles from The Villages in Florida. I see almost nothing but retired people every single day of m life. This whole area is reliably Republican and will continue to be UNTIL they start pushing SS reform. Know why? Because if it changes, their little lives of golfing and fucking will no longer be viable. That's really what it's about. If we stop subsidizing their retirement, they can't spend the next 20 years relaxing in their $300k condos, tooling around the outdoor malls in their little golf carts, playing a rondo of golf each day, popping Viagra like there's no tomorrow, and spreading STDs like they've never once heard of a condom in their whole lives. Most of the people who live here had enough money that they could have lived very comfortably without any state assistance and have paid for their own medical care had they not sunk it all in The Villages Lifestyle. But since they did, they all depend on that extra cheese from the Feds so that they can continue to live extravagantly. And they absolutely do not give a shit that me, my children, and my grandchildren will have to work until the day we die to pay for them. They think we owe them. And I know this because I've asked. I know that doesn't reflect the life of every retiree out there. But at the very least,we should be cutting benefits to the likes of The Villages residents and those retorted who are living similarly. They did not need our money and should not continue to receive it.

95 But it IS their fault.  Everyone has known there were going to be problems with Social Security since they 80's, but everybody pretended that magically the problems were going to fix themselves.  GOP pundits recommended staying away from Social Security, because the issue would anger old people.

People back then should have taken the steps to fix the program.  It would have been less painful than doing it now.  But voters didn't care, and so politicians - fearful of that generation's old people - kicked the can down the road.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2011 10:32 AM (TpXEI)

Oh bullshit, we did do something about it. We doubled SS tax and medicare tax in 1986. That is why there is a surplus of $2.4 Trillion today.

What we ignored was borrowing for the general fund, some people even applauded it. A bunch of people on this very blog probably went to school or recieved paychecks from the money we borrowed or both.

It's time to pay it back.

96 Also -- the $106,000 FICA cap will be removed.

97 I am NOT advocating a tax increase necessarily. I am mainly curious why nobody else is.

John Henry

Posted by: john henry at March 04, 2011 10:34 AM (1kfe2)

Most people on this website have heard of the Laffer curve and believe we are on the down hill portion of it.

What that means is that a Tax increase will bring in less money. It's that simple.

98 I've been forced to give away large chuncks of my salary for many years, and now that I'm nearing retirement age, I'm supposed to just kiss those thousands of dollars goodbye?

You kissed those dollars goodbye decades ago.

They're not "your dollars."  They never were.  It was a tax, collected from you, and given to other people.

Stealing my money is just as wrong as having your money stolen was. I'm sorry you were lied to, but don't take your frustration out on me.

99

"Americans are not willing to see millions of old grannies eating cat food, or starving under bridges, regardless of whether they were prudent savers or profligate spenders. "

 

Cat food is more expensive than canned tuna, pork and beans, and Dinty Moore stew, lb for lb. Why do old ladies living under bridges choose to dine on expensive cat food? I think we need another Govt program to teach these folks to shop on another aisle. Maybe Moochelle and Okra can get to work on this problem?

100 I know that my constant harping on Social Security and Medicare seems like beating up on the old folks for something that isn't even their fault.

Au contraire, you are telling younger people who have had their wages taken away and given to old people their whole life that they're going to have to just take it up the squeakhole "because the money's not there." Funny, it was there in my paycheck. It's there for Joe Biden's choo choos. It's there for countries that hate our guts but take our foreign aid. So look harder, cause I'm sure it's there somewhere, and I don't care if old people have to eat out of dumpsters. They live almost twice as long as the old people when SS was executed. You will see some real beatings if people don't get back at least what they put in.

101 My parents raised us and they counted on their house for their retirement money.  That's gone now.  They have two meager IRA's since at some point there just wasn't the money to put into the IRA.  We're either going to have to help them out by paying into SS or we're going to have to help them out outright.  The best secenario would be that we can fund out retirements, privately, without the government involved in any way and that we could deduct that money as a tax credit to our taxes.  If we had to pay a minimal amount into SS in order to fund the retirement of our parents, I'm almost certain most of my friends would do this.   My parents have always said they knew the SS system was not a good one and in trouble, they wrote letters to their representatives urging them to address the issue, it fell on deaf ears.  My mom always says "the hippie dippie kids who were in the lounge smoking pot, the ones I thought were benign and would do no harm to me, have been the ones who seized power and have ruined the system for all of us.  Wish we would have addressed them when we were younger and paid more attention to them."

102 This is exactly the problem with our current overlords in DC. They believe, really believe, that they, and only they have the intellectual capacity to predict the future.

Still reading through the comments, but I think this is off the mark. Our overlords don't even try to accurately predict the future - they simply assume that whatever is going on now, plus the changes they intend to make, will last forever. "Unforeseen consequences" are not part of their vocabulary.

103 I can see the coming Dark Times from my house! We can rail, rant, piss and moan all we want. SS and Medicare will not be wound down, which is the only thing that will avert the coming collapse. There are three types of politicians: The Cassandras, who see what's coming, but nobody's listening, bitch. Go make me a sammich. They are a tiny minority. The Gladhanders, who kiss your baby and shake your hand to distract you from what their other hand is doing: cupping your wife's ass. They also know EXACTLY what's coming, but they don't care because they figure they can defer the day of reckoning and it'll be someone else's problem... because they always have. Their finely honed survival instincts have aalways protected their prestige, wealth and influence in the past, and they're confident that they can summon some of that magic one more time, baby. This is the vast majority of politicians. The True Believers, identifiable by the wide-eyed look of sheer fucking industrial-grade insanity on their faces (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Anthony Weiner). They have no problem spending money we don't have because they actually believe that printing more money MAGICALLY CREATES more money. These are also a minority, albeit a larger one than the Cassandras. This is why the Dark Times are unavoidable. Those charged with its prevention are either powerless to prevent it, confident that they won't HAVE TO prevent it, or they're actually riding that Pale Horse, spurring its flanks bloody. Gather your arms, ammunition, water purification supplies, spare blondes, farming implements and await further instructions. Jeff offers you his protection.

104

"popping Viagra like there's no tomorrow, and spreading STDs like they've never once heard of a condom in their whole lives."

 

Damn Mandy, who knew old people were such a promiscuious lot? Are these gay retirees? Just askin.

105

But for God's sake, stop dumping on people who have seen 15% of their salary go into Soc Sec/Medicare for 40+ years of their working lives and feel they shouldn't be told to forget seeing one cent of it. When one's money is stolen, stop blaming the victim when they want restitution.

While I have some sympathy for this point of view, there is one glaring problem: No one is telling them that they should forget seeing one cent of it. No one. What is being said by the most responsible people is that the promises that have been made need to be scaled back. Ideas like vouchers to purchase medical insurance instead of the open ended commitment of Medicare, scaling back and means-testing SS retirement benefits and pushing the retirement age out to be more realistic about contemporary life spans. These are intended to buy us time to 1) give the retired and near-retired much of what they were promised (but not everything), and 2) transition early middle-age workers to some kind of mixed system and young workers to a private system.

But the attitude of "I paid for it, it's mine" immediately closes down any rational discussion of what needs to be done. Guess what? They didn't pay for it. They paid for something much less generous but thought they could get away with it even though the looming crisis has been known about for decades. The people who are now retired had their time at the helm of the government and the private sector and they did nothing but temporarily postpone the day of reckoning. I have some sympathy, but will not concede the moral high ground. 

106 Because if it changes, their little lives of golfing and fucking will no longer be viable. That's really what it's about. If we stop subsidizing their retirement, they can't spend the next 20 years relaxing in their $300k condos, tooling around the outdoor malls in their little golf carts, playing a rondo of golf each day, popping Viagra like there's no tomorrow, and spreading STDs like they've never once heard of a condom in their whole lives.

At least the teachers and city workers will still have their pensions.

107 polynikes

We finally got my dad to "retire" at age 76. He's 82. Him and mom (will be married 60 years this April) are healthy and planned well. Ditto my inlaws. I definitely will take care of them when they aren't so healthy.

I've also help my own kids. And my grandchildren. I'm in a "sandwich" position.

I don't expect YOU to take care of any of them. I do expect YOU to respect property rights and act morally when it comes to them.

108 "Who has asserted that? What I've seen asserted is a property right." While I can sympathize in theory, your ass is mine. Be thankful I don't take everything.

109

In any case, even if we eliminated SS, the fact remains that some form of old-people-welfare would have to take its place.  Americans are not willing to see millions of old grannies eating cat food, or starving under bridges, regardless of whether they were prudent savers or profligate spenders.  Americans will choose to do something to take care of them, so the best thing we can do is offer the most effective plan.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 04, 2011 10:35 AM (xUM1Q)

I have a philosophy about the poor. The DUMBEST thing you can do is give them money to manage. (and that includes food stamp credit cards.)

I have personally witnessed people on section 8 living in houses that *I* couldn't afford to live in at the time, and eating better than *I* could afford to eat at the time, AND trading their food stamps for drugs.

Don't give the poor money. Give them commodities (Staple foods) from a warehouse. People shouldn't enjoy being poor because of their own irresponsibility. They should be more unhappy than someone who works for a living.

110 Cat food is more expensive than canned tuna, pork and beans, and Dinty Moore stew, lb for lb.

The Trader Joe tuna flavor cat food is 50 cents a can, and it sells out quickly because poor people eat it.

111 @105 the thing is your parents should've saved more and retired later and worked more overtime instead of wasting time writing to representatives. now, its your responsibility to take care of them...no one elses. just like its my responsibility to take care of my folks.

112 Everyone has known there were going to be problems with Social Security since they 80's, but everybody pretended that magically the problems were going to fix themselves. 

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2011 10:32 AM (TpXEI)

While I agree with much of what you posted, it should be noted that many, many people were decieved.  Few regular people have an interest in fact-checking every bit of data the government puts out, or that their political leaders spew.  While it will not save them from suffering, to assign moral guilt to all parties is by saying "everybody knew" discounts the effectiveness of the pro-SS propaganda that has been put out for so long.  It's the snake oil salesmen who are morally to blame.

Even to this day, people are taught that when we pay taxes the "revenue" from those taxes funds government expenditure, and that we "borrow" all other money spent.  This is not true, yet how many of us are taught that?  Nearly all of us are given that impression, even though the monetary system does not work that way. 

113

I know that my constant harping on Social Security and Medicare seems like beating up on the old folks for something that isn't even their fault.

Oh yeah...well bite me Monty!!

114

Americans are not willing to see millions of old grannies eating cat food, or starving under bridges, regardless of whether they were prudent savers or profligate spenders.  Americans will choose to do something to take care of them, so the best thing we can do is offer the most effective plan.

I read this a lot but never see anyone address the kids' responsibilities. Am I to believe that Americans are going to watch their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles starve and throw up their hands and demand the government do something? Or will they instead take care of them? I know what I would do and I have a hard time believing that most other people wouldn't step up as well.

115 Gather your arms, ammunition, water purification supplies, spare blondes, farming implements and await further instructions.

Nobody told me there were spare blondes! Where does one go to find such things?

116 I retired 5 months ago.
My official gummint statement indicates I put money into the "system" so that my "break even" point is roughly 13 years from now. That's "non inflation adjusted" dollars, BTW.

Actuarial tables (for my genetics and medical situations) predict I'll make it another 8-10 years before I suddenly keel over and die.

If somebody would write me a check for what I've already put in and stop doling out crumbs every month, I'd be happy as a clam.
... AND, I would vote for somebody that suggested it.

117 I know I'm not retiring.  I have no pension or anything.  Planned on living off a reverse mortgage best I can and a job as a Walmart greeter.

118 Monty, is there some reason why the italicization always seems to screw up when I try to quote someone?

119 "It's time to pay it back."

You see, this is where people always go wrong. That works for people like you and me, that when we run up debt we feel an obligation to pay it back. To normal people bringing oneself out of debt is an enormous relief and comes with that wonderful feeling of freedom, not owing anything to anyone.

You're expecting a bunch of distant politicians, who have almost unlimited access to the printing press and your wallet, who took Social Security surpluses and spent it, leaving a smoking hole of IOUs in its place, to "do the right thing" and replace it. Bullshit. Government is inherently incapable of saving money. The idea of  having the feds "pay it back" is like giving the guy that just mugged you more money so he can pay off your credit card.

120 OK, fine. Fairness, I getcha. I recently retired, but I'll give up my social security if you youngsters will refund me the over a quarter of a million I was forced to contribute over 50 years to pay for your parents' and  grandparents' retirements.  Plus,of course,  the opportunity cost of  that money (i.e. the interest I could have realized had I been able to invest it in CD's from the time I got my first job.)  O yes, and the additional amount that was taken out of my paycheck from 1969 onwards to pay for your grandparents' and parents hip replacements and triple bypass surgeries and carotid artery roto-rooterning. (Medicare).  I mean, it's all about fairness, right?  I mean, it's unfair that the younger generation should have to support a bunch of old coots, right? 

121 Posted by: Cain's Pizzeria at March 04, 2011 10:45 AM (MUMm3)

well so far, thank God, I don't have to.  In fact they are helping some out of work sibs.  They are still working.

122 No one is telling them that they should forget seeing one cent of it. No one. What is being said by the most responsible people is that the promises that have been made need to be scaled back.

Oh, really? I hear a lot of railing against the "as long as I get mine" crowd. I want mine. Either you give me back my money or you're a dirty lying thief.

123 108 "popping Viagra like there's no tomorrow, and spreading STDs like they've never once heard of a condom in their whole lives."   Damn Mandy, who knew old people were such a promiscuious lot? Are these gay retirees? Just askin. Posted by: Trumka and Sparky at March 04, 2011 10:45 AM (Q5+Og) Hell no. Straight as a frigging board. They just don't think it could happen to them. STDs are a plague of the young to them. So they don't bother with protection at all. STDs are rampant in The Villages.

124 Gather your arms, ammunition, water purification supplies, spare blondes, farming implements and await further instructions. Say Jeff, you got a couple blondes you can spare for a fellow moron? I'll pay you back after the apocalypse. Scout's honor.

125

What we ignored was borrowing for the general fund, some people even applauded it. A bunch of people on this very blog probably went to school or recieved paychecks from the money we borrowed or both.

It's time to pay it back.

Posted by: robtr at March 04, 2011 10:40 AM (MtwBb)

It's time for the Democrats who stole it to pay it back. We conservatives at the time were yelling at them about their raids on the "Social Security Lockbox."

We thought they were full of shit then, and it turned out we were absolutely right. I say confiscate all the money from all the Liberal Democrats since Tip O'Neal and make THEM pay for their own stupidity. 

(yeah, i'm not serious, but that's what OUGHT to happen.)

126

"Am I to believe that Americans are going to watch their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles starve and throw up their hands and demand the government do something? Or will they instead take care of them? I know what I would do and I have a hard time believing that most other people wouldn't step up as well."

 

Well it really depends on which America you are talking about. The ones pulling the wagon, no; the ones riding in the wagon, hell yes. I doubt this crowd has any deep familial feelings given they don't really know who daddy is to begin with.

127 I know what I would do and I have a hard time believing that most other people wouldn't step up as well.

Have you been watching Wisconsin at all? Pretty sure those scuzzballs standing around screaming hate at taxpayers aren't going to suddenly give up the pot and get a job and take care of anyone.

I expect most of them would let Gramma starve so she could be used as a prop against reform.

128 The idea of  having the feds "pay it back" is like giving the guy that just mugged you more money so he can pay off your credit card.

The guy who mugs you belongs in jail, and it's worse when it's politicians. Ask Nicolae Ceaușescu.

129

Dear "young folks,"

I've been forced to give away large chuncks of my salary for many years, and now that I'm nearing retirement age, I'm supposed to just kiss those thousands of dollars goodbye?

How about kicking all the illegals out of this country and off of our government coffers for a start. Then maybe the people who kept this country going over the past decades and had their wages garnered for FORTY YEARS against their wills can see some of it.

Besides, you going to watch old people out in the streets and starving and homeless?

Oh, that's right! Dr. Obama will turn the old people into something nourishing..like Soylent Green.

You know, you'll be old some day..maybe.

 

 

Yo Old Folks,

I'm sorry you were forced to participate in a ponzi scheme, but I will now knowling subject myself to that ponzi scheme for the rest of my life just because you did.

All ponzi schemes come to an end. The only question is how much is lost before their demise.

You got screwed, please don't try to drag all of us down with you.

PS you can live in my shed if you'd like.

 

130 Just because the Fed government has acted like Madoff doesn't negate that fact that the SS contributions still morally are the property of the contributors.

NO! IT'S A TAX!

The fact that people bought into the lie that they were funding some sort of retirement program with their "SS contributions" is not my problem.

And I have no moral obligation whatsoever to let them tax the hell out of my kids to keep up the illusion.

131 Posted by: soothsayer says cluck cluck cluck at March 04, 2011 10:36 AM (uFokq)

Great idea!

132 Monty;

1. In the interest of disclosure, please give your age and origin of birth. (so that all can see how far you are from benefiting/and or requiring benefits from Social Security if it continues in it's current form.)

2. Please indicate whether a) any of your parents/siblings are still living and b) whether they are i) currently on Social Security or SSI ii) or whether they have sufficient income or investments to negate their need of Social Security/SSI. (So we can determine if any of your family is or will be in need of Social Security benefits now or in the near future.)

3. Indicate whether you yourself have sufficient investments/retirement accounts/employer or employee paid retirement funds. (This will help us see whether or not you personally are insulated from any cuts/changes in the SS program.)

4. Indicate your membership in and/or actions YOU have taken to change and/or eliminate how Social Security is financed. Please detail all actions/contributions since achieving voting age.

I ask those questions because I'd like to know whether the current problems with financing Social Security are affecting your current income OR how soon(or whether they will) any cuts will affect your benefits or the benefits of your family. (this of course presumes that you have some emotional attachment to your parents and/or siblings regarding their financial condition when or if they retire and whether they will be required to rely solely or partially on Social Security.)

Also your implication that current beneficiaries at some point in the past had an opportunity to change the Ponzi scheme currently known as Social Security is patently false. (unless you want to take on the burden of being responsible for Obamacare being enacted or are taking the stance that if we EXISTED in the U.S.A. and didn't rally, protest or otherwise organize resistance to the way the program was being financed somehow indicated our voluntary agreement with it.)

At no point during the last 45 years do I recall any serious discussion/bill/panel/commission/public comment/political action committee being formed and/or promoted by either party for the purpose of eliminating the Ponzi scheme formerly known as Social Security. (various individuals brought up the fact that Social Security as administered COULD become insolvent in the future and made vague murmurs about how it should be changed OR bills were introduced in Congress to privatize and/or modify the program to allow younger taxpayers the opportunity to opt out of the program (which might have led to insolvency sooner than projected) OR would be used as an investment in the stock market (recent events have shown how that option would have had tragic consequences) OR the Chilean and Argentinian models of reform could be tried. (of course THEY are/were dictatorships AND they changed more than just the current retirement program for the reforms to work.)

Since my finances (and my electability) were such that I was unable to even consider formation of any of the above groups, to imply that somehow I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY STILL BEING A FINANCIAL BOONDOGGLE is blatant and intentionally a misleading lie.

I presume that you do so so that your apparent disregard for current recipients, who would be starving and living on the street (not including those who do have sufficient retirement income), can be assuaged by blaming THEM for the current fiscal threat posed by the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. (P.S. Folks: Think, who would be paying to feed and house current recipients if Social Security payments were to be stopped?)

The taxation of the present for the future benefit of others has happened before, Governments do this all the time with many other programs (that doesn't excuse them mismanaging the programs finances).

 OVER THE LAST 70 YEARS the program has functioned well, though not perfectly, and would have continued so if not for MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND OUTRIGHT STUPIDITY BY PROGRESSIVES AND ANTI-CAPITALIST SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS  (elected by a majority of voters in their respective constituency) and the resulting economic free fall we're currently experiencing. Many changes that would have been relatively painless have been ignored and/or rejected (mostly by said anti-capitalist socialists and never were under serious consideration sufficiently to offer any of the voting public the opportunity to express their desire for those changes.)

Please stick to the facts and not allow your frustration at the situation to falsely accuse others of responsibility and therefore blame for the current situation.

Thank you. 

133 Fix Social Security:

1. Cull all the deadbeats who get SSI for "disabilities" like their kid's learning disorders.

134

Also,

As I am sure Monty could tell you, this is happening whether you like it or not. Either we eliminate( or at the very least temporarily fix SS and Medicare) or the markets will naturally do it for us.

135 Obamacare is the solution to the Social Security problem.

136 Darleen, I'm having trouble following what you're arguing for here. You know the system is flat out broken, and it whether its fair or not that people will not get the money the politicians lied and swindled from them back is unfortunately not going to matter much when the SHTF. Something has to give.

You say we need to get those that will be effected by austerity changes on board first - so what do you propose we do then to accomplish this? What changes do you want to see made?

137 I expect most of them would let Gramma starve so she could be used as a prop against reform.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 04, 2011 10:52 AM (nAOMZ)

and when she dies, another voter to the rolls

138

Don't give the poor money. Give them commodities (Staple foods) from a warehouse. People shouldn't enjoy being poor because of their own irresponsibility. They should be more unhappy than someone who works for a living.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 04, 2011 10:45 AM (/G5LI)

I agree with you 100% - but who in the entire political class has the brains to fix it?  None of them.  And the Dems know this best - but also know full well that it's what keeps their little serfs pulling the lever for the guy with a D by his name.

139 The idea of  having the feds "pay it back" is like giving the guy that just mugged you more money so he can pay off your credit card.

Posted by: TheMightyMonarch at March 04, 2011 10:49 AM (oKpUD)

I'm not saying the politicians are going to pay it back. We hired the fucking politicians, we let them run up the debt or at least didn't try to stop them. Most of us here voted for Bush twice, cheered the tax cut, cheered the two wars and didn't protest in front of the capital when he came up with the medicare drug bill. The majority of young people voted for Obama. We govern ourselves here. I meant it's time for us to pay it back.

BTW, I am not picking on Bush per say, all the other presidents let the same thing happen.

140 if you youngsters will refund me the over a quarter of a million I was forced to contribute over 50 years to pay for your parents' and  grandparents' retirements.

Now that's just stupid.  Only the people who took your money can refund it.

141

If the Communist/Democrats have their way - they will turn the entire nation into California.

CA - Unions hold all the balls

 

142
Still reading through the comments, but I think this is off the mark. Our overlords don't even try to accurately predict the future - they simply assume that whatever is going on now, plus the changes they intend to make, will last forever. "Unforeseen consequences" are not part of their vocabulary.

Posted by: sock puppeh at March 04, 2011 10:43 AM (VcPAo)

I disagree. I believe they are exactly like the Auto Company executives who made ruinous deals with the unions in the belief that when the shit hit the fan, they would be long gone.

143 the thing about conservatives is that they're not consistent in their beliefs they were all up in arms over the supposed 'death panels' because they wanted sick old people to live as long as medically possible despite the inordinate amount of costs that were needed to subsidize such care

144 I just wish someone would step up and say "look, in order to fix this, everyone is going to have to suffer to some extent, it's not going to be pretty".  GWB sort of said that at times but stopped short cause of politics.

Everyone is going to protect their own little corner of happiness.  So then all the corners of happiness will be destroyed.  Everyone has to give in a little.  Everyone has to compromise.  And it's going to be tough and hard and it's going to make you more angry than you ever thought you could become but we're all going to have to do it sooner or later. 

But I do agree with tattoo...if we stop being America the generous busy body and reel in all the money we send all over the world and use it here then maybe things won't be as bad as I envision.

145 Yes, but it varies a lot by cohort

Not sure what you meant by that but it varies by sex and race, largely due to lifestyle choices.

Here are the tables again

146

Oh, really? I hear a lot of railing against the "as long as I get mine" crowd. I want mine. Either you give me back my money or you're a dirty lying thief.

If you are retired or near retired, you belong to age cohorts that will receive much more than they ever put into the system - adjusting for inflation etc. Young people will actually have a negative return if nothing changes. That makes you the thief.

147

Just because the Fed government has acted like Madoff doesn't negate that fact that the SS contributions still morally are the property of the contributors.

NO! IT'S A TAX!

The fact that people bought into the lie that they were funding some sort of retirement program with their "SS contributions" is not my problem.

And I have no moral obligation whatsoever to let them tax the hell out of my kids to keep up the illusion.

 

Believing SS contributions are in a Trust Fund is like believing Obamacare will reduce costs of healthcare.

It's a lie. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true.

148

The Cassandras,...
The Gladhanders,...
The True believers....


This is why the Dark Times are unavoidable. Those charged with its prevention are either powerless to prevent it, confident that they won't HAVE TO prevent it, or they're actually riding that Pale Horse, spurring its flanks bloody.
Gather your arms, ammunition, water purification supplies, spare blondes, farming implements and await further instructions.

Jeff offers you his protection.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 04, 2011 10:43 AM (1zgwP)

I think you have more or less summed it up accurately.

149

I am NOT advocating a tax increase necessarily. I am mainly curious why nobody else is.

Largely because the track record is horrible.  Standard Washington practice has always been that new revenue creates new spending; you're no better off than you started, and likely far worse.  So most folks have finally decided it's time to give the Feds a remedial course in Bloody Obvious Economics 101:  Don't Spend What You Ain't Got (And Ain't Likely To Get).

If, after massive cuts have been levied, there is still a revenue issue, we can talk taxes then.  The real problem has gone unaddressed too long.

150 What will the retired do to provide for their spare blonde needs in old age? Clearly we need a Spare Blonde Security program, funded by taking 15% of spare blondes out of younger citizens' blonde supplies. Americans will not sit by idly while the elderly go without spare blondes.

151 Everytime we have a SS thread, we get the people who say don't take my SS and the rest who say, we don't want to and couldn't if we wanted to because it was already taken.  Never the twain ideas seem to meet.

Then there is EoJ with an epic poetry post of the boning to come.

152

OK, fine. Fairness, I getcha. I recently retired, but I'll give up my social security if you youngsters will refund me the over a quarter of a million I was forced to contribute over 50 years to pay for your parents' and  grandparents' retirements.

Actually, you owe us.  You need to be going after your money from people older than you.  Better hurry.

153 The fact that people bought into the lie that they were funding some sort of retirement program with their "SS contributions" is not my problem.

Bravo, with an attitude like that, see how far you go in getting ANY SocSec reform. What you are going to get is the middle finger of every one that has paid 15% of their salaries taken while paying high taxes so you can get subsidized student loans, foodstamps, etc for 8 years of college.

154

Believing SS contributions are in a Trust Fund is like believing Obamacare will reduce costs of healthcare.

It's a lie. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 10:57 AM (wuv1c)

Yep, MI does the same shit, our lottery money goes toward education, is it in a seperate fund? hell no, dumped into the general fund like everything else.

155 Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 10:57 AM (wuv1c)

And I won't cum in you mouth.

156

To the several older people here.

Answer this question: After Bernie Maddoff was found to be running a Ponzi scheme, should the government had let him continue to run it and dupe another group of people just to payoff the original dupes(investors)?

I understand you're pissed. I would be too. Hell I am. That's why I don't want to continue to pay into SS only to be where you are now, on the cusp of retirement and learning that a retirement system you've been paying into has been a lie.

157

I wonder what the economy will look like when the remainder of the baby boomer generation (me, born 1962) don't get shit and are collecting welfare instead of SS.

It's such a shame that the loser generation of boomers were in charge when this shit went off the rails, and yet will still get to collect while the rest of us who have been paying in 30 plus years will get shit.

They should do something for the under 35 crowd like letting them put that money into a personal account before it's too late.  Unfortunately that will take money away from the crybaby generation and will just make it insolvent quicker.

Even if I started an alternative now, I only have 20 years to go and with my financial situation, there ain't much saving going on right now.  I'll still be screwed. 

158 Actually, you owe us.  You need to be going after your money from people older than you.  Better hurry.

Oh, goody. Another genius who thinks fucking over old people will create the political will to reform SocSec.

159 I have a conservative friend who said that even he would turn against the republicans if they went after grandma.

The only entitlements that we can go after are direct welfare payments.  Nobody but committed democrats like those anyway.

SS and Medicrap will kill us in 2012 if we try anything other than modest cost saving measures.  Sad but true.

160 Well it really depends on which America you are talking about.

A friend of mine is suing her brother who stole a bunch of money she had been sending to care for their elderly parents. They are black from Detroit, and the parents have been married 70 years. The son split the parents up and put them in separate nursing homes. It was particularly hard on the mother, who has Alzheimer's. But the son and his wife were pocketing that money, and they built an addition on their house and were trying to adopt children from the Third World. Our culture has gone completely insane.

161

My mom always says "the hippie dippie kids who were in the lounge smoking pot, the ones I thought were benign and would do no harm to me, have been the ones who seized power and have ruined the system for all of us.  Wish we would have addressed them when we were younger and paid more attention to them."

My old man said something very similar recently. He figured that the radical types back in the 60s and 70s were just spoiled college kids who would eventually grow up and he never thought that they actually meant what they were saying and that blowing these people off was one of his big regrets.

162

I realized in my 40's that I would never see Social Security.  Unfortunately, it took most of my extra money to get rid of an abusive husband 16 years ago. 

They won't fix it, because people like my ex, who thought that the word "work" was a dirty word when we were married and "retired" from "unemployment" at 62 4 years ago won't let it. 

I've got a small 401K and I just pray that they don't get their hands on it and give it to this wretch. 

163

 

Well it really depends on which America you are talking about. The ones pulling the wagon, no; the ones riding in the wagon, hell yes. I doubt this crowd has any deep familial feelings given they don't really know who daddy is to begin with.

Posted by: Trumka and Sparky at March 04, 2011 10:52 AM (Q5+Og)

It's the "Grasshopper and the Ant" all over again on a scale of millions.

164 I don't think there should be a limit on wages paying into Social Security.  Why should there be a max?  All wages should be considered.

165

Oh bullshit, we did do something about it. We doubled SS tax and medicare tax in 1986. That is why there is a surplus of $2.4 Trillion today.

What we ignored was borrowing for the general fund,

Yeah, exactly.  You ignored it.  You made that choice.  The time to raise hell about it was about thirty years ago.  The money's gone, and evidently it wasn't a big deal, because you guys didn't raise hell about it back then. 

The current generation will hopefully do what you guys didn't - fight like hell to keep THEIR money from being confiscated to pay for a stupid program.  Because your money is gone.

166 End social security, medicare and all the rest of it. If people are that desperate for medical care and sustenance, they need to apply for welfare and medicaid. Hell, medicaid pays better in most cases.

I am forced to go on medicare because I've suffered kidney failure for 30 months now and private insurance gets to dump my case onto the government (I can't get a transplant, either because I still have cancer cells). So this is welcome news. Bleh.

I guess I have to quit working and beg for help from the state. But Arizona doesn't have any money either.

167 38% of SSI payments goes to the disabled.

No, I am not calling for it be zero'd out or anything like that.  I just note that getting one's kid an SSI payment seems pretty doable for just about anyone willing to, shall we say, stretch the truth a bit, or whose child is enrolled in a school that over diagnoses in order to troll for dollars :

A. Introduction: The structure of the mental disorders listings for children under age 18 parallels the structure for the mental disorders listings for adults but is modified to reflect the presentation of mental disorders in children. The listings for mental disorders in children are arranged in 11 diagnostic categories: Organic mental disorders (112.02); schizophrenic, delusional (paranoid), schizoaffective, and other psychotic disorders (112.03); mood disorders (112.04); mental retardation (112.05); anxiety disorders (112.06); somatoform, eating, and tic disorders (112.07); personality disorders (112.0 ; psychoactive substance dependence disorders (112.09); autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders (112.10); attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (112.11); and developmental and emotional disorders of newborn and younger infants (112.12).

168 Old Fart is kind of demanding isn't he. Only tell him your rank and serial number.

169 What you are going to get is the middle finger of every one that has paid 15% of their salaries taken while paying high taxes so you can get subsidized student loans, foodstamps, etc for 8 years of college.

You seem to have mistaken us for Daily Kos. I'm paying my fucking 15% SS tax, and my fucking high taxes, and I won't get shit. Throwing a tantrum about how you deserve more of my money--because you DESERVE IT! for being born and not dying yet--is the exact same fucking mindset as those "waaah! deserve free tuition" parasites.

170

 I just wish someone would step up and say "look, in order to fix this, everyone is going to have to suffer to some extent, it's not going to be pretty".  GWB sort of said that at times but stopped short cause of politics.

I didn't even like GWB's ideas.

Why does my money have to be laundered through the government. Let me keep the 7.65% Medicare and Social Security tax. I don't need a "government savings account" when I can get a "Ben savings account" without their help.

And if people don't save for retirement, then that is their families problem. What do you think humans did for all our existance. Parents would often die living with their children. I think we're going to be reverting to pre 1930s life and norms fairly soon.

Days of Retirement Being You're Golden Years (1933-2011) :We hardly knew yee.

 

I want to live in an America with consequences.

171 Darleen, seriously - what would you want to see done to try to either postpone the entitlement systems outright failure, or wind it down, or if neither of the above squares with your position, then what?

I would love to see a post on PW addressing this if you have the time.

172 and developmental and emotional disorders of newborn and younger infants

Younger than newborn?

Can fetuses collect SSDI, to help them over the pain of knowing they might not be aborted?

173 They should do something for the under 35 crowd like letting them put that money into a personal account before it's too late.  Unfortunately that will take money away from the crybaby generation and will just make it insolvent quicker.

I would LMAO watching these boomers march in their Medicare scooters for my SS contributions. Bring it on. Burn your bras now with your tits swinging somewhere around your knees.

174

Yep, MI does the same shit, our lottery money goes toward education, is it in a seperate fund? hell no, dumped into the general fund like everything else.

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 04, 2011 10:59 AM (FIDMq)

One of my friends went to get a couple of lottery tickets to put in the card for her mom's birthday.   She was shocked at the hundreds of types of lottery tickets in the little candy store and by the amount of people on the line buying them, the continuous never ending line.  She's a true lib but a registered dem.  The other night, at happy hour, she brought this up.  She said "I thought the lottery money was going to fund education, yet we are paying enormous amounts for education and the results are horrendous (she's been interviewing for her company for a position in the mail room and finding out that people don't even know the alphabet, she's found herself singing the alphabet song to the promising candidates).  Anyway, one of the guys was an accountant and he said he's been wondering about that too, where is all that money going?  See we all thought, if it's going into education then wouldn't it be logical that your tax money doesn't have to pay for education, yet, it is paying for education so, where is that money going.  We had quite a lively discussion.

175 Unemployment - add 36,000 jobs - goes from 9.6 to 9.0
Unemployment - add 100,000 jobs - goes from 9.0 to 8.9

Yep, that math works.

176 134 The idea of  having the feds "pay it back" is like giving the guy that just mugged you more money so he can pay off your credit card.

The guy who mugs you belongs in jail, and it's worse when it's politicians. Ask Nicolae Ceaușescu.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 04, 2011 10:53 AM (mHQ7T)

Does it not occur to anyone else that much of our stupidity is the consequence of passing the 24th amendment? (And possibly the 26th as well?) 

If voting were restricted to taxpayers (and people 21 or older) do you think the same group of turds would have been elected?

177 113 - "...People shouldn't enjoy being poor because of their own irresponsibility. They should be more unhappy than someone who works for a living." Posted by: DiogenesLamp That sentiment might have washed in the sixties, when there were jobs to be had, but now? Whose irresponsibility is it that there are Zero jobs to be had (see what I did there?)? And, kids, plenty of good, pre-inflation money was skimmed from my damn pockets previously, so if you don't think there's gonna damn well be age warfare if you pups try to screw us twice on this issue, well, duck.

178 "Am I to believe that Americans are going to watch their parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles starve and throw up their hands and demand the government do something?" That hinges on what your definition of "Americans" is. The sad fact is that there is a sizable chunk of people living in this country and holding citizenship who do not provide for themselves. Some portion of these people legitimately cannot provide for themselves. The remainder simply will not provide for themselves. The heart of the matter is how militantly obstinate the people who will not provide for themselves will be when the bottom falls out. The Wisconsin demonstrators and their filthy brethren who showed support across the country tell me all I need to know. The one silver lining is that the parasites are so comfortable in their bloodsucking existences that they haven't the first clue how to conceal their nature.

179 Those Social Security statements serve a valuable purpose.

They allow everyone to calculate the total amount of SS taxes they've paid into the system over their working lives.

And the estimate of benefits allows us to calculate the return on that "investment" (provided the gov't isn't bankrupt before YOU die).

The statements should begin including these calcs for us, to show how piss-poor those returns are.  And how unrealistically old you'd have to live to to get a return is more than 2 or 3 percent.
And how badly you've been ripped off if you die young, unable to will your earned benefits to your kids.

I say mandate such new info disclosure on those SS statements.  Might as well start spreadin' the news, try to build more support for reform, no matter how unlikely it is to succeed.

180

The current generation will hopefully do what you guys didn't - fight like hell to keep THEIR money from being confiscated to pay for a stupid program.  Because your money is gone.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2011 11:03 AM (TpXEI)

I don't know how old you are but unless you just turned 18 recently you can change you to we ignored it. 64% of the debt we have right now has been incurred in the last 10 years.

181

The whole system just sucks! I don't own my house, If I don't pay my mortgage the bank will toss me out. If I don't pay property taxes, the man throws me in jail. The fed/state take my money directly from my paycheck, I have no say. If I get creative on my tax returns the IRS hunts me down and harasses me until I comply. This is not freedom, this is not liberty this indentured servitude at best. I've told my wife many a time that I don't need this shit anymore. The house, the cars, the TV's, cell phones etc. etc. etc. I have no problem living in a shack in the woods, off the grid if possible. All I need is a place to earn a meager wage, a place to buy beer and place to swing a golf club. I just hope the off the grid people( where ever they are) will accept me as one of there own.

 

  

 

182 I would agree with lifting the cap on SS taxable income for individuals (not matching), if it included reasonable means testing and a lock box.  No more stealing SS taxes to pay for general funding.

183

I agree with you 100% - but who in the entire political class has the brains to fix it?  None of them.  And the Dems know this best - but also know full well that it's what keeps their little serfs pulling the lever for the guy with a D by his name.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 04, 2011 10:54 AM (xUM1Q)

It goes back to that 24th amendment. Prior to that, ONLY taxpayers could elect Congress and the President. We had a system for regulating fiscal restraint till the free loaders could vote as well.

184 Now, now, sexy. Don't be in such a bad temper. I know you still think about me, at night, in your bed, while your wallet is aching in your loins. Don't be so distant. I'm still your one friend who longs to feel your hands blackened with my ink, crushing my paper beneath your firm, virile body politic. You will come to me, we were made for each other.

185 Why aren't we including medicaid in this discussion?  It's growing even faster than medicare and ss.  It is part federal and part state.  And it's killing state finances.  Obamacare would basically cut medicare, hence the need for the death panels,  and transfer money to and greatly expand medicaid.  Medicaid pays for health care for low income people and also indigent seniors who need nursing home care.  The health care for low income people is the part which will be greatly expanded by Obamacare.  Think: illegals and their children.  They are Obama's constituency.  Not the aging baby boomers who are mostly white and vote against Obama.

186 I have a conservative friend who said that even he would turn against the republicans if they went after grandma.

The way to both reform SocSec and also not toss grandma from the train is to FIRST convert SocSec from a guaranteed benefits program to a contribution program. I.E. you only get out what you put in (plus simple interest). Then you start allowing a certain percentage of the 15% to go into private funds.

Also, you get people who have never paid into SocSec out of the fund. It was set up for workers and their widows and children. It wasn't designed for paying out to the permanently disabled, no matter how worthy a minimal safety net is for those individuals. They should be paid out of a different fed fund and eventually, should be the responsibility of the state, no feds.

187

I don't think there should be a limit on wages paying into Social Security.  Why should there be a max?  All wages should be considered.

There was a limit on the wages taxed because there was a corresponding limit on the wages counting toward future benefits. So, if you want to tax all of Mr. Wall-Street-Banker's $100M salary & bonus take this year, do you want that whole $100M go into calculating his future benefits, too?

188

Damn Mandy, who knew old people were such a promiscuious lot? Are these gay retirees? Just askin.

Posted by: Trumka and Sparky at March 04, 2011 10:45 AM (Q5+Og)

Hell no. Straight as a frigging board. They just don't think it could happen to them. STDs are a plague of the young to them. So they don't bother with protection at all. STDs are rampant in The Villages.

Same thing happens at a place around here. I've heard stories about oldsters being caught in flagrante delicto outside between hedgerows. A bartender at a place near the big neighborhood here told me that he has been propositioned by many of the older women that live there.

Worst though is the foursome discovered in the neighborhood swimming pool.

189

Believing SS contributions are in a Trust Fund is like believing Obamacare will reduce costs of healthcare.

It's a lie. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 10:57 AM (wuv1c)

Anyone remember Tip O'neals "Lockbox?"  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

190 If you are retired or near retired, you belong to age cohorts that will receive much more than they ever put into the system - adjusting for inflation etc. Young people will actually have a negative return if nothing changes. That makes you the thief.

I'm in my 30's.

191 I gotta say Monty, you should run for political office. You're the man. My campaign slogan: It's a hard old world, folks. You won life's lottery by being born in America, the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, but it didn't completely absolve you from dealing with reality. Remember this if you remember nothing else -- reality always wins. Always.

192

Let 'em (the elderly) compete with the young and force the 'kids' into living with their parents another decade or two while they establish themselves.

Who needs the old to do that? Tht's *our* job.

193 Attention Grumpy Old Farts, Ancient Bitches, and assorted Aged Denizens of the Future Wastelands: It is understandable that you fear for your futures. Your leaders have lied to you. There is no money. There will BE no money. You wonder who will hire you in your dotage. You feel hopeless. Fret not. I offer you purpose, meaning - I offer you HONOR. In times past, the highest place of honor in battle was at the front. Those of you who are ambulatory will be my Shock Troops, leading the way fearlessly through minefields, barbed wire and assorted kill zones, laughing courageously in the faces of those residents of Topeka who would withhold the stores of canned goods and blondes which are rightfully ours. Your sacrifice will allow our younger soldiers to exploit the gains you have so honorably won. Those of you who survive can look forward to increased food, liquor and Viagra rations. There will be Comfort Battalions to see to your recreational needs. As I understand it, whores can find work well into their mid-nineties. You have value, my aged friends. Gather to me.

194 I see dum-dum is back incoherently lecturing us.  Yeah, not wanting a board of politically-appointed hacks decide life or death is EXACTLY the same as wanting to do something about a gaping money pit.  You fucking Dunce.  Yes, we are "inconsistent" in that we rationally apply different solutions to different problems.

In Dunce's world, we don't scale back their beneifts-we just kill them off as soon their medical care gets too expensive.  

Who says old people have to starve?  Nothing will happen to present beneficiaries, so that line is bullshit.

I think the solution is to simply end the program and pro-rate the benefits, i.e. the closer you are to retirement age the more you will get...going down to zero if you are 18 right now.  Do the same thing for the payroll deduction, though it would probably have to lag the rate of decrease in payouts since the thing is so fucked up.

195 Anyone remember Tip O'neals "Lockbox?"  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

There's a bunch of IOU's in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, WV. Sharon Angle was right about that. She just sounded like a stroke victim recovering their speech skills during debates and couldn't sell herself to voters enough to make up the 5 pt MOE for Dem cheating.

196

I've got a small 401K and I just pray that they don't get their hands on it and give it to this wretch. 

Posted by: Sarah at March 04, 2011 11:03 AM (lT+S

If you haven't figured this out already, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with the government printing presses pushing out the paper money, the funds in your 401k become worth less and less every day.

When a cup of coffee costs $50.00,  the problem will become obvious to everybody. They are going to "solve" the problem by printing dollars.

197 . Throwing a tantrum about how you deserve more of my money--because you DESERVE IT! for being born and not dying yet--is the exact same fucking mindset as those "waaah! deserve free tuition" parasites.

Sheer genius, Heather. Ignore the people are upset about their own earnings being confiscated and call 'em parasites. Sounds like the libtards mocking TEA party members for being SS/Medicare welfare queens.

Who now is sounding like a Kossite? Look in the mirror, asswipe.

198

Also, you get people who have never paid into SocSec out of the fund. It was set up for workers and their widows and children. It wasn't designed for paying out to the permanently disabled, no matter how worthy a minimal safety net is for those individuals. They should be paid out of a different fed fund and eventually, should be the responsibility of the state, no feds.

The disability portion is a separate part of the program. A portion of your (and your employer's) FICA taxes is segmented for old age, a portion for disability, and a portion for Medicare. Fixing or even completely eliminating the disability program would be a blip. The problem of the disability program is dwarfed by the future shortfalls in the retirement program which is in turned dwarfed by the future shortfalls in Medicare.

199

If you are retired or near retired, you belong to age cohorts that will receive much more than they ever put into the system - adjusting for inflation etc. Young people will actually have a negative return if nothing changes. That makes you the thief.

That's some bullshit right there. According to the yearly statement I get between what I and my employer paid in over the years I would have to live until I was 82 to break even. Life expectancy is 76.

The only way that might work out to be true is if I contracted some expensive illness and spent more of medicare than I paid in. Of course that is true of all of our insurance policies.

200 I think the solution is to simply end the program and pro-rate the benefits, i.e. the closer you are to retirement age the more you will get...going down to zero if you are 18 right now.  Do the same thing for the payroll deduction, though it would probably have to lag the rate of decrease in payouts since the thing is so fucked up.

This.

201

A note to the "I paid in, I want mine" club--

Technically, what you get is someone else's.

Just because you got screwed, that does not justify screwing someone else.

202

And if people don't save for retirement, then that is their families problem. What do you think humans did for all our existance. Parents would often die living with their children. I think we're going to be reverting to pre 1930s life and norms fairly soon.

Days of Retirement Being You're Golden Years (1933-2011) :We hardly knew yee.I want to live in an America with consequences.

Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 11:04 AM (wuv1c)

I think you're right, but I also think we are going to be less able to do so. 1930s people were hardy compared to what we have today.

203 I don't think there should be a limit on wages paying into Social Security.  Why should there be a max?

Theoretically, it is because the benefits are capped.

No need to argue folks, the complete financial collapse is likely in the next 10 years, so it'll be everybody for themselves, and those dollars in SS will be worthless.

204 Not the aging baby boomers who are mostly white and vote against Obama.

Posted by: chris at March 04, 2011 11:10 AM (B/WwP)

They overwhelmingly support Obama. He's their new Kennedy! Especially the ones in PEU's storming the WI capitol and others across the nation in solidarity. Obama won because of white boomers.

205

Anyone remember Tip O'neals "Lockbox?"  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 04, 2011 11:11 AM (/G5LI)

and chrissy was a big part of all this, he still talks about when he worked for ol tip....

this makes my dad so annoyed.

206
That sentiment might have washed in the sixties, when there were jobs to be had, but now? Whose irresponsibility is it that there are Zero jobs to be had (see what I did there?)?

And, kids, plenty of good, pre-inflation money was skimmed from my damn pockets previously, so if you don't think there's gonna damn well be age warfare if you pups try to screw us twice on this issue, well, duck.

Posted by: ktnxbai *cough* at March 04, 2011 11:06 AM (tYLdY)

Your comments miss the point. There should be an INCENTIVE to find work as opposed to collecting welfare.

The Incentive should be that Welfare recipients should not have an easy time of it. They should have to go get their food (at least once a week) and prepare it themselves. 

Choices should be left to people who work and pay taxes.

207 If you set a retirement age of X, you can divide people into (Y)oung and (A)ncient groups. If the average tax per person among the young is Z, and the average benefit for the ancient is B, then you can run the thing perpetually so long as YZ >= AB.

Or, to put it another way, the ratio of benefits/taxes is less than the ratio of retirees/workers -- B/Z =< Y/A.

There's nothing particularly mysterious about this. There are only five variables that matter and the math is clear.

208

Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt Show

HH: Now the Wall Street Journal today put out one of these classic polls that begins to show the turning of the MSM tide against budget cutting, saying that less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare. This is one of those manufactured polls, Mark. TheyÂ’re going to try and persuade the House GOP and other budget cutters that there really isnÂ’t support in the country for cutting budgets.

MS: Well, and it doesnÂ’t make any difference. I mean, polls show that more American males would rather date Ann Hathaway than Helen Thomas. But it doesnÂ’t mean itÂ’s going to happen. And in this case, the polls can say what they like. But the fact is, these entitlements are unsustainable. So Americans can tell pollsters that theyÂ’re quite happy with 1930s entitlement provisions for Social Security, but it ainÂ’t going to be there. And the longer it takes you to figure that out, the more likely it is that this country will simply slide off a cliff. And I mean that not entirely literally, but I mean that we will reduce vast swathes of the United States to a third world landscape. This country is broke. DonÂ’t go from being broke to being bankrupt. This isnÂ’t anything to do with mid-century projections. This is happening now. WeÂ’ve got maybe a couple of years to turn this around before the world abandons the dollar as the reserve currency.

209 I'm in my 30's.
Then you are going to receive much less than you will put in, if the program is not reformed soon. In fact, if the program is not reformed, by the time you near retirement age about half of all your income will have to be taxed to pay for those on SS and Medicare at that time. I don't know what scraps you'll be left with when you also have to pay for defense (not that there'll be anything left to defend), courts, schools, welfare, etc. etc. Suffice it to say that the odds that you'll be able to save any money for yourself over your working life (if there are still jobs) will be close to nil.

210 Nothing at all will happen to "very mature Americans" who are already on SSI, so anyone pulling the Destitute Grandma card is either an idiot or a liar. 

It is people in their 40s and younger who likely have no or much reduced SSI payments in their future.

211 I don't know how old you are but unless you just turned 18 recently you can change you to we ignored it. 64% of the debt we have right now has been incurred in the last 10 years.

So...this is why we should pay your social security benefits?  Or are you arguing that social security would have been fine if the last ten years hadn't happened?

212

Technically, what you get is someone else's.

Just because you got screwed, that does not justify screwing someone else.

Did you go to public schools? Public universities? Take any student loan, Pell grant? Who do you think was paying for that ... technically?

213 #214.  Great, another moby dunce.  Go peddle that weak shit at HotAir or NRO.  It doesn't sell here.

214 Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at March 04, 2011 11:23 AM (0IPsJ)

My dad is in his 60's, my mom her 50's, they can't imagine being able to retire.

They will get screwed to, they can see it already.

215 209 - not true.  Obama does best with under forties.  He currently has the least support amoung boomers and elderly.

216 Yes, SS is unfair to the young people today. OTOH, in generations past before SS and Medicare, children had to take care of their parents by having them come live in the spare room, etc.

With today's smaller families (my Dad was one of 12) it is going to be a pretty expensive proposition to take care of the folks in the absence of gubmint money.

So in a way there is no escaping from the responsibility of caring for your elders. Either you do it yourself, or you pay a tax and do it for everybody.

217 Social Security and Medicare IS the fault of 'old folks'. THEY are the ones that voted in pols that set these programs up, then let the pols steal all of the fucking money from SS and expand medicare to a welfare program.

I'm not really feeling a lot of sorrow for 'old folks' because they are largely responsible for this mess. We could see SS would be in trouble in the 80s, when those of us under 50 were either still kids or just casting our first votes and getting our first jobs and had no say. They are the ones that could have done something about this boondoggle but chose to ignore it and eat at the government trough.

Now it's on us and our children to support two generations of people that 'had their cake AND ate it, too', while telling the baker we would pay the bill.

'old folks' need to feel the pain of their decisions. Actions, or inactions, have consequences.

218 HH: And I wonder, Mark Steyn, none of the House leadership went to the Tea Party Patriots summit, not one of them.

MS: No.

HH: And it makes me think theyÂ’re in a cocoon inside of the Beltway.

MS: Yeah, and I think the cocoon, actually, isnÂ’t up to speed on this, because I think if you listen to the way the conversation in the Beltway is going, theyÂ’re saying well, yes, perhaps we do need a spending cut here and a spending cut there, cutting the Great Lakes Restoration initiative, or whatever the PresidentÂ’s big idea is. But we also need to increase revenue by putting up taxes. ThereÂ’s no, all the evidence shows you canÂ’t get revenue up beyond about 19% of GDP. So if youÂ’re spending 25% of GDP on government spending, you canÂ’t increase that with revenue. And thatÂ’s the problem when John Boehner and the Republican leadership just talks to Wolf Blitzer and the New York Times and all the rest of it. TheyÂ’re not actually even asking the right questions. And I think this will, I think that this is very dangerous as we go into the 2012 cycle, that the Republican leadership is already demonstrating how far out of touch it is.

HH: I agree with that.

219 When a cup of coffee costs $50.00, the problem will become obvious to everybody. They are going to "solve" the problem by printing dollars. Oh -- Baby... (lowers head and raises eyes upwards with a stung look of coy invitation) Why do you want to hurt me with words like that? I only wanted to give you more and more of myself. You always took from me in the past. Why can't we just love each other and be happy?

220

They overwhelmingly support Obama. He's their new Kennedy! Especially the ones in PEU's storming the WI capitol and others across the nation in solidarity. Obama won because of white boomers.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 04, 2011 11:21 AM (mHQ7T)

Do you even read the fucking news or know how to use Google? The Genx and Geny slackers put Obama into office, The boomers were evenly split.

CNN Exit Polls showed that Boomers split their votes evenly between Obama and John McCain: 50 percent to 49 percent. The GenY (Millennial) generation voted most lopsidedly for Obama, by a two to one margin, while GenX favored him by a smaller margin. The Silent Generation was the only age cohort that went for McCain, who is, after all, one of them.

221 The Boomers cast their first votes for LBJ, who screwed up SS. Ever since, they've been voting for pols without the guts to fix the problem, and for more and more goodies, and they'll be the first generation totally screwed out of SS.

222 These SS threads are pointless.

223 WeÂ’ve got maybe a couple of years to turn this around before the world abandons the dollar as the reserve currency.

Posted by: maverick muse at March 04, 2011 11:22 AM (H+LJc)

I liked much of your doom-related commentary, but I think the demise of the dollar as reserve currency is still some distance off.  There's nothing good to replace it with.  It's the best of the worst.  The Euro is going to start swirling faster soon, and anybody who'd trust the Chinese to provide the reserve currency is smoking some serious crack. 

224

I know that i will be working until the day I drop dead, I don't like it but I accept it.

when are Grandpa & Grandma going to accept some reality?

 

Q: Hey Grandma! that's really a well built brick wall you have there, isn't it getting a little close and aren't we coming up on it kinda fast?

A: mine! Mine! MINE!

225 222 Yes, SS is unfair to the young people today. OTOH, in generations past before SS and Medicare, children had to take care of their parents by having them come live in the spare room, etc.

With today's smaller families (my Dad was one of 12) it is going to be a pretty expensive proposition to take care of the folks in the absence of gubmint money.

So in a way there is no escaping from the responsibility of caring for your elders. Either you do it yourself, or you pay a tax and do it for everybody.

Posted by: PJ at March 04, 2011 11:25 AM (QdxaI)

Without the government to 'ensure people can retire', we would never have fallen into the trap you speak of.

Of course there is no responsibility of escaping from the care of your elders. It is our duty and our responsibility as good children to our parents if needed. It is also the responsibility of our parents to make sure they put enough money away to plan for the scenario that their kids might not or can't take care of them.

It is NOT my responsibility to take care of someone else's parents who planned poorly or not at all. That is nothing more than legalized theft.

226 Jaysus on a Pony, I'm sick of the whining. You wonder why people who played by the rules are ready to say "fuck you" back? You want to see an intergenerational fist fight? Just keep on saying to people getting Soc Sec/Medicare right now, after 50 years of paying into it, that they are nothing but welfare queens.

You know, the "young folks" could say almost the same thing.  And this is what democrats want.

You have the young folks (like me) many of whom (like me) are trying to be responsible, get out of debt now, build a retirement plan, etc., and have just accepted that SS won't be there when we retire, or that the money it does provide will be so devalued that our SS checks won't buy a single loaf of bread in a month.

What we're saying is it needs to be fundamentally changed.  It needs to be fixed (or, better, ultimately cut) so that it doesn't take our private retirement down with it.  As soon as someone mentions that, immediately the older generation starts in with "I paid.  I just want mine back!" or whatever.

Okay, I get that.  I understand it.  I'm not suggesting (and I haven't actually seen Monty suggest) that we should just stop SS and not pay out another red-cent.  It might be the most fiscally responsible thing, but it's not practical (for a number of reasons) and so it's not really an option on the table.

However, the current reactionary nature of the whole issue prevents any logical discussion of it at all.

What I would like to see would be for SS and Medicare to be set on a "glide path" to stability by saying something along these lines (note: the numbers are out of my rear end, but they should get the point across)

People within 5 years of Retirement: It's too late for you to do anything substantial- you'll get full benefits.
People between 5 & 10 years from retirement: That's enough time, if you have your own money, to build up a small nest-egg.  You get 75% of your "projected" retirement.
People between 10 & 20 years from retirement: You have even more time than the previous folks.  You get 50% of retirement.
People beyond 20 years of retirement:  You have more than plenty of time to set up your own nest-egg that will make you independently wealthy when you retire.  You ain't gettin' nothin.
For the two middle groups, your SS withholding will stop (employer will still make contributions) and you'll get that 6.5% to invest as you will.  For the outer two groups: sorry, you're boned for the next 20 years.  After 20 years, SS withholding and employer contributions will cease completely, and we'll use General Funds to pay for SS until we're no longer paying benefits.

It would take a lot of work to make that into something workable, but I think it (along with possibly increasing the retirement age or whatever) would then set SS (Medicare just needs to end, or go back to being Major Med (Part A) only) on a path to stability, and we'd just have to bear up under it until it was, indeed stable.

It kind of sux for everybody, but I think it's both the most plausible scenario (as far as getting votes without congress people committing political suicide) and a decent one for actually addressing the problem.

227

That's some bullshit right there. According to the yearly statement I get between what I and my employer paid in over the years I would have to live until I was 82 to break even. Life expectancy is 76.

The only way that might work out to be true is if I contracted some expensive illness and spent more of medicare than I paid in. Of course that is true of all of our insurance policies.

You do realize, don't you, that you can expect to contract an expensive illness - called "old age". I suggest you look up what expected medical costs are as you age. They are astronomical, and they come disproportionately in the last couple years of life.

228 228 These SS threads are pointless.

Posted by: Vic at March 04, 2011 11:29 AM (M9Ie6)

As are most threads regarding reduced size of govt, reducing waste and fraud..etc.  Nobody has the balls to do anything meaningful  and face the music.

229

The Boomers cast their first votes for LBJ, who screwed up SS.

In 1964, the youngerst voters were born in 1943, which demographers put at the very tip of the "Baby Boom" (1943-1960) generation. Voting age was still 21 then ("You're old enough to kill, but not for voting" went the protest song of the day). So LBJ must have won on the strength of the GI Generation (early 1900's to 1925) and Silent (1926-1942) generations.

230 #219

He/she/it also has facts wrong.  The Social Security Act happened in 1935.  Israel proclaimed itself a State on May 14th, 1948.  Truman immediately recognized them.

231 Obamacare is the solution to the Social Security problem.

Posted by: Mr. Barky at March 04, 2011 10:54 AM (qwK3S)

So you make physician assisted suicide the most easily accessible "health care" option available for those collecting SS or morbidly obese and restrict life-extending treatments to anyone over 40 not collecting SS. Base the restrictions on some "scientific study" approved by the Sec of HHS. [Hire some out of work climate scientists so that you will know the solution is settled science]. Peddle some special placebo flu vaccine to old timers, etc.

Problem solved. No wasted money on health care for those who could use it. No SS payouts. Solves that longevity problem. No need for death panels. It's all win.

BTW Palin lied about death panels, making you think you would have an individual hearing to argue your case. LOL. No, you'll read the death panel decision in the Federal Register when a new "rule" makes a certain demographic with a certain pre-existing condition is no longer eligible for a treatment. There will be no hearing, no appeal. There is no appeal from science.

232 @220 I think they will both be alright.  It would help the math a lot once-if ever, we get back to normal levels of unemployment. 

And for those of you arguing it is the baby boomer's fault, try to remember that quite a few of them never voted for any of this shit.  It is not their fault they were chained to the progressive fucktards of their generation.

It would also be interesting to see if the young are more willing or less willing to countenance cuts in programs that they think are beneficial to them, i.e. how about that home mortgage deduction or child care credits?

233

So what part of "the money is gone" do some of the older folks here have trouble with?  It's irrelevant that you paid into the system for however long.  The money is fucking gone.  That means folks from our generation are subsidizing you, not your so-called contributions.  It's really not a hard concept to grasp. 

It's not your fault and it's not ours.  But by god something needs to be done about it before we're completely fucked.

So we're fucking heartless because we no longer want to pay into this scheme to fund you because there won't be shit left for us by the time we get there?  Yeah, makes sense if you adopt the liberal knee-jerk emotional bullshit style of argumentation.  You guys would rather see the whole system collapse on us after you're fucking dead just so you can get your table scraps?

Rome's ablaze, but damn we gotta keep worrying about electability.

234 Then you are going to receive much less than you will put in, if the program is not reformed soon. In fact, if the program is not reformed, by the time you near retirement age about half of all your income will have to be taxed to pay for those on SS and Medicare at that time.

That's why I want the program reformed. 10% of Medicare payments are fraudulent. The unfunded liabilities in these programs would break the bank. You would have to raise taxes 81% to cover thte shortfall. Together, they are 50% of the US government's budget. If we reform it now, I get back exactly what I put in, and I'm fine with that.

235 223 - Hey, blindside, YOU let Obama in, by your logic. And cake? S'cuse me, CAKE? Don't give me shit, sonny, I've got a turd in every pocket.

236 163 Actually, you owe us. You need to be going after your money from people older than you. Better hurry. Oh, goody. Another genius who thinks fucking over old people will create the political will to reform SocSec. No, they were just stating the harsh truth..

237 LISTEN YOU IDIOTS, EVERYBODY WILL GET WHAT THEIR SS STATEMENT SAYS THEY WILL GET.  THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE WORTHLESS.

PLEASE PLAN ACCORDINGLY WITH OTHER HARD ASSETS.

238 So...this is why we should pay your social security benefits?  Or are you arguing that social security would have been fine if the last ten years hadn't happened?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2011 11:23 AM (TpXEI)

It would have been fine for us. There would have been enough room to borrow to pay back the $2.4 Trilliion surplus which would carry both programs until after the boomers are mostly dead.

You would still be fucked though. What you don't understand is that the boomers (other than the debt that boomers GenX and GenY) let happen doesn't affect your social security. Your Social Security problem is that there are not enough people behind you to pay your way.

Social security has nothing to do with how much you paid in (other than the surplus) it has to do with the people behind you paying.

239

So where does that leave us?

Is it better to prolong the inevitable? Or allow it to unfold sooner rather than later?

 I wonder if it wouldn't be best to just get on with the crash, so that we can get on with the rebuild. the longer we prolong, the worse we make things for our kids and grandkids.  Tell me why we shouldn't just step back, let the 52% install the socialists for 4 more years in '12, and focus our energies on the rebuild.

240 230 WeÂ’ve got maybe a couple of years to turn this around before the world abandons the dollar as the reserve currency.

Posted by: maverick muse at March 04, 2011 11:22 AM (H+LJc)

I liked much of your doom-related commentary, but I think the demise of the dollar as reserve currency is still some distance off.  There's nothing good to replace it with.  It's the best of the worst.  The Euro is going to start swirling faster soon, and anybody who'd trust the Chinese to provide the reserve currency is smoking some serious crack. 

Posted by: Reactionary at March 04, 2011 11:30 AM (xUM1Q)

 

two years is an overly optimistic estimate, the World won't be able to wait that long, they will be forced to choose another reserve currency of some kind before another year goes by as our government prints the dollar into oblivion.

241 #240. Here-fucking-here!

242 The reality of your existence appears to be that you're a heartless, lonely bastid now looking for a second wife. Well, heartless, maybe. Lonely? Not so much. (You'd be surprised how many people see life in the same way I do.) "Heart" (of the bleeding kind) is what got us into this mess. How is it a conservative value to depend on the government for your daily bread? To take the sweat from someone else's brow as your own due wage? Look, I'm not deluded: I realize that SS is going to be around, in some form or other, for a long time. I hate it, but like I said -- the reality is, we're stuck with this turd until the whole thing falls over in ten or twenty years. But I'm doing something that too many other people are failing to do, namely, saving my own money. I'm providing for my own old age because I have no confidence that the government will do it. Nor do I expect them to! The government does not exist to make sure that my old age is comfortble; that's my job. Remember: when you give the government the power to give you something, you are also giving the government the power to take that thing away. It's hard, but it's a hard old world.

243 see if the young are more willing or less willing to countenance cuts in programs that they think are beneficial to them, i.e. how about that home mortgage deduction or child care credits?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at March 04, 2011 11:32 AM (0IPsJ)

Im 36, Id be happy with those being lost as long as there are no medi scam and ss taxes out of the paychecks

244 #229.  Like I said, dunce: Nobody is proposing that current elderly recipients lose anything, so gin up a new concern troll meme.  This one is bullshit.  Dunce.

245

218:  Student loans have to be, y'know, paid back.

As to the rest, I know full well where it comes from.  I've paid those taxes all my adult life, thank you very much.  And I can tell the difference between 'reasonable and useful use of funds' and 'throwing good money after bad'.

There's a difference to being entitled to other people's money to support yourself, and enjoying the benefits of what your taxes pay for.  When you can learn that difference and articulate it at better than fourth grade playground level, feel free to re-engage.

246 @203 38% of today's SSI payouts is not a "blip."

247 As are most threads regarding reduced size of govt, reducing waste and fraud..etc. Nobody has the balls to do anything meaningful and face the music. Hey, that's not fair. We promised to cut $100 billion and managed to get it down to $61 billion, and we'll get it to $25 billion before we are done. Can YOU say you eliminated less than one percent of the federal budget? Heh. We rock.

248 Thanks for that Steyn comment. He's exactly right.

Telling the truth about what's going on with Social Security may not be popular with the old folks or certain PW bloggers, but that doesn't really matter.

The system will collapse under its own weight. Any reforms that could have been made to it would've simply delayed the inevitable anyway, and the time for this has already passed.

249 People beyond 20 years of retirement:  You have more than plenty of time to set up your own nest-egg that will make you independently wealthy when you retire.  You ain't gettin' nothin.

No, you are giving me back every dollar you took from my paycheck, or I will go on tax strike. Fuck you.

250

Remember this if you remember nothing else -- reality always wins. Always.

The reality of your existence appears to be that you're a heartless, lonely bastid now looking for a second wife. And also making the Republican Party look like fools for stepping on the third rail, again and again -- that is, if you had your way. Which you won't.

You remind me of the Arabs yelling about the legality of the existence of Israel, 60 some years after the fact. Yeah, both Israel and Social Security have been around the same amount of time.

I don't think anyone here is debating the legality of SS or Medicare. It is clearly the law of the land. We're simply pointing out the fact is has an end date. It's not sustainable. We're not saying that because we're heartless, it's simply a reality. The sun rises in the east and you can't spend more money than you take in.

You're analogy is idiotic and not really worth responding too, but I couldn't resist. The existance of the state of Israel has nothing to do with Social Security

251

two years is an overly optimistic estimate, the World won't be able to wait that long, they will be forced to choose another reserve currency of some kind before another year goes by as our government prints the dollar into oblivion.

We are waiting. Because the Euro and the Yen have the same problems only bigger, and no one trusts the Chi-Coms.

252 The Boomers cast their first votes for LBJ

Actually my first vote after I turned 18 was for Nixon. I have never voted for one Dem. And I railed against SocSec 40 years ago and supported GW's modest efforts that went no where.

Why did they go no where? Because of exactly the fisticuffs you see here in this thread. You have sneering at old people by younger ones that the oldsters should fuck off and either get a job or die because they are stealing from younger people and not one of those young'uns (and I have asked several times now) seem to consider that their elders have paid their schooling through college and beyond.

Who, again, isn't facing "reality"?

As long as this intergenerational pissing match goes on, SS will not be reformed.

253 The Boomers cast their first votes for LBJ, who screwed up SS. Ever since, they've been voting for pols without the guts to fix the problem, and for more and more goodies, and they'll be the first generation totally screwed out of SS.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at March 04, 2011 11:28 AM (g9neE)

Amazing how little people know about history these days.

I am a boomer genius, I was 10 when LBJ was elected. I cast my first vote for Nixon.

254

218:  Student loans have to be, y'know, paid back.

Posted by: DarkLord, phoning it in at March 04, 2011 11:35 AM (GBXon)

well, so are mortgages and other contracts, but that doesnt seem to be very popular at this time.

255 EVERYBODY WILL GET WHAT THEIR SS STATEMENT SAYS THEY WILL GET. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE WORTHLESS. You and I are through. Don't call me ever again.

256 Did I mention the referral bonus for every cannon fodder heroic friend you bring in to the Grey Lion Shock Trooper Regiment?

257

No, you are giving me back every dollar you took from my paycheck, or I will go on tax strike. Fuck you.

I think our voting for the Right candidates is tantamount to tax striking. And more power to us/them. Because sorry Tattoo, we won't be getting back what we paid in, and if we do somehowm, it will be in utterly devalued currency.

258 Just increase unemployment benefits, that will grow the economy.

259 Oh, for fuck's sake.

260 So the facts are that Social Security has been around longer then the state of Israel? How exactly does that in any way, shape, or form weaken my argument?

Just the opposite.

So thanks for the correction.

My bad.  Sorry.  I'd forgotten that opinions and viewpoints can be proven by providing incorrect facts.

I see that a lot on MSNBC and other fine networks.

261

Oh, for fuck's sake.

it's okay. I got it despite the strike through error. Still funny.

262
These SS threads are pointless.

Posted by: Vic at March 04, 2011 11:29 AM (M9Ie6)

I agree. Let's talk about Sarah Palin instead.

263 hey Andy

There's nothing wrong with truths. It still doesn't negate the political need to stop trying to fuck over the people who paid for your college by telling them to go get a job at 80 years old.

264

It would have been fine for us. There would have been enough room to borrow to pay back the $2.4 Trilliion surplus which would carry both programs until after the boomers are mostly dead.

The present value of the unfunded liabilities for SS & Medicare combined for the next 75 years (the length of time the program actuaries forecast) is something on the order of $60 Trillion. That is, the entire GDP of the nation for the next four years - everything we earn and produce - would have to be set aside now to put the program in a balance that would meet GAAP accountung standards. That is the magnitide of the future funding problem. Look into the official reports sometime and see how high taxes will have to go up.

265 Student loans have to be, y'know, paid back. Not so fast. ...a modification to the Income-Based Repayment program (IBR) that was created in 2007. The current program forgives certain unpaid federal student loans after 25 years, or 10 years for people who work in public service. Borrowers enrolled in the program pay a lower monthly payment based on income, family size, and loan amount as long as the monthly payment is lower than what would be paid on a standard 10-year repayment plan. The Obama-Biden administration wants to modify the program to cap federal student loan payments at 10% of the borrower's discretionary income (vs. 15%) and forgive unpaid federal student loans after 20 years (vs. 25).

266 Social Security is solid for at least the next 5 zillion years. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got whore houses to close.

267  That is the magnitide of the future funding problem. Look into the official reports sometime and see how high taxes will have to go up.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 04, 2011 11:42 AM (7EV/g)

That is exactly what I was saying. Most boomers will be dead in 20 years.

268 At this point, I'm perfectly willing to say the gubmint can boot me out of the SS scheme and stop taking the money from me.  Right now.  Hell, they can keep the last 22 years of contributions. 

269

well, so are mortgages and other contracts, but that doesnt seem to be very popular at this time.

Yeah, I know, silly of me to think actually fulfilling legal and moral obligations should be the overwhelming standard practice.

May as well let the whole thing burn down and start over.  It's what you do with any other rotten structure.  Silly of me to want to find a way to fix it without maximizing the pain to all involved.

If sacrifice and basic decency are that far dead, none of it is worth saving.

270 Remember when libtards would visit your favorite conservative site and:

1. Did not pretend they were "conservatives," while erecting libelous straw man after libelous straw man?
2. Made assertions that, on their face, at least sounded sort of plausible?
3. Could actually write a sentence that did not include at least two logical fallacies?

Yeah, me neither.

271 #270 I agree. Let's talk about Sarah Palin instead.

We are.  She's a GILF.

272 Throw in a comment about Christine O'Donnell and Mike Castle and we can goose this thread into the 500+ range.

273 Student loans have to be, y'know, paid back.

Posted by: DarkLord, phoning it in at March 04, 2011 11:35 AM (GBXon)

On paper. And they are still subsidized federal loans, rather than a private consumer loan.

Thanks for playing, our hostess will give you your consolation prize on the way out.

274

I do disagree with Denninger's statement that "[w]e can fix Social Security in part by indexing the retirement age upward." This is not a "fix", but simply pushing the failure further on into the future.

This would technically be a fix, assuming the retirement age were set to around 95 years of age...

275 76 million 'Baby Boomers' born between 1946 and 1964. From 1973 on, Generation X was nowhere near a populous as their parents. The total births rose to 3.6 million in 1980 and then 4.16 million in 1990. For 1990 on, the number of births has remained somewhat constant – from 2000 to now, the birth rate has hovered at 4 million annually. It’s amazing that 1957 and 1961 are the peak birth years in raw number of births for the nation even though the total national population was 60% of the current population. Obviously, the birth rate among Americans has dropped precipitously.

276

274:  ...okay, let me rephrase that:  In a sane world, loans have to be paid back.

I think I see my problem...

277 As long as this intergenerational pissing match goes on, SS will not be reformed. The onus is on the beneficiaries, Darlene. If they won't accept even the possibility of cuts, then it's hopeless. The problem with cuts, you see, is that you actually have to cut. And that means that someone, somewhere is going to get less money. You can't just jack up taxes endlessly; there's a reason why taxes never make up more than ~20% of GDP. Taxes aren't going to do it -- and if you keep trying, lots of working people will dodge the taxes. Look at Greece -- you can tax at whatever rate you want, people will just avoid them or quit working altogether. And cutting other programs won't work -- as I pointed out earlier, you could cut out every single dime the government spends outside of SS, Medicare, and defense, and it won't solve the problem. The "intergenerational pissing match" is already joined, like it or not. No one wants to be the last participants in a Ponzi scheme. All we're saying is: we want out.

278 It still doesn't negate the political need to stop trying to fuck over the people who paid for your college by telling them to go get a job at 80 years old.

It ain't me that's fucking them over, sweetie. They did this to themselves.

Blaming the messenger might make you feel good, but it isn't much of a solution.

279 I agree, Darleen, this thread is a micro version of the class war that erupts when the government picks the winner and the losers--exactly what guys like Hayek predicted.

280 This would technically be a fix, assuming the retirement age were set to around 95 years of age... Well, Vulcans live until 150, so let's all get pointy ears and dispense with emotion.

281 Social Security is solid for at least the next 5 zillion years. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got whore houses to close.

One -- two zillion max.  Read the CBO estimates.
Damn liberals ...

282

On paper. And they are still subsidized federal loans, rather than a private consumer loan.

Actually the loans I took out were private, until they got...well, let's call a spade a spade here, nationalized.

I cannot be held responsible for the behavior of individuals I demonstrably have no control over.

And for the record, the practise of federal subsidized loans of any kind is one of a hundred things that have to stop.  But that's a rant on a different subject.

283 Open the lockbox and give them their money. You voted for Demonrats, now prepare to reap the whirlwind.

284

The problem with cuts, you see, is that you actually have to cut. And that means that someone, somewhere is going to get less money. You can't just jack up taxes endlessly; there's a reason why taxes never make up more than ~20% of GDP. Taxes aren't going to do it

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 11:46 AM (4Pleu)

Its at all levels, new budgets are coming out nationwide and as soon as the cuts start getting specific, all hell breaks loose..party is over people...time to clean up.

285 this thread is a micro version of the class war Now you have our interest.

286 Look at the bright side:  After the boomers start dying off, the worker-to-beneficiary ration ought to get better, so we've got that going for us.

Unless everyone's kid is getting SSI for either attention-deficit disorder or autism, that is.

P.S. I am not insensitive to the concerns of you older folks, since I am retired military-and military pensions and medical benefits are just oh-so-tempting a target for libtards who wish to pose as fiscal conservatives.

287 They did this to themselves

Ignored my point again, I see. You have no problem taking from your parents and want no responsiblity to repaying 'em.

Gotcha.

288

That is exactly what I was saying. Most boomers will be dead in 20 years.

The first Boomers are just reaching SS retirement age now. How exactly are "most" of them going to be dead in 20 years? Not even taking into account increases in longevity (which are not fully reflected in life tables currently in use) the drain that the Boomers will make on the system will just be getting into full swing in 20 years.

289 This is not a "fix", but simply pushing the failure further on into the future.

On the other hand, I won't be alive "further into the future," and the people left folks the bills will be the foolish young people who delivered unto us the the reviled Obama.  So there's that.

290 I think Monty could provide you with some statistics on that fact that would show you the error of your thinking. I'll have to dig the link out of my archives, but I had some stats published by some think-tank or other that showed the average amount of savings for Americans was less than 20% of their yearly income. Total. So if you make the median $35K yearly income, your total savings was around three grand. Federal government figures posted by the labor department aren't much rosier. The personal savings rate crept up over 4% for the first time in a long time during the 2009/2010 part of the downturn, but it's trending down again as Bernanke shouts "Buy! Consume!" from the rooftops. And these numbers don't tell the whole story, because personal indebtedness at retirement is at an all-time high. More and more people are carrying debt into retirement: car loans, mortgages, student loans for the kids, etc., etc.. So basically, lots of people are just saying "fuckit" to saving their own money for retirement.

291 No politicians will touch SS and Medicare, the old folks are "safe".  $700 for a viagra pill will piss them off though.

292

No, you are giving me back every dollar you took from my paycheck, or I will go on tax strike. Fuck you.

I hope you are being sarcastic; otherwise, you are just taking on the same attitude that you seem to resent.

I think part of the problem is that no one wants to admit that SS is just another welfare program.

293

Damn, y'all are depressing. Accurate, as usual, but depressing.

This is the direct result of our indifference to politics IMO. Had we been vigilant and not stupidly assumed that the idiots we elected to orifice were acting in our best interests, I doubt we'd be having this and many other problems in Washington.

I'm right on the cusp, at age 56. I hope there's something left for me in six years. Naturally, my retirement plan didn't include me living this long...

294 I think our voting for the Right candidates is tantamount to tax striking. And more power to us/them. Because sorry Tattoo, we won't be getting back what we paid in, and if we do somehow, it will be in utterly devalued currency.

I actually didn't pay that much into it, in the grand scheme of things. Maybe like $15,000. So Uncle Sugar can cut me a check and stop my payments right now, and we're good. I will vote for the candidate who lets me do that.

295 After the boomers start dying off, the worker-to-beneficiary ration ought to get better, so we've got that going for us. The problem is we don't have that kind of time. It'll be 30-40 years before the fabled curve would start to bend, and we're screwed long before that happens. Further, too many people are assuming that demographics will continue to be net-positive -- I'm not convinced that's the case. Certainly it hasn't been for other first-world industrialized nations.

296 I hope you are being sarcastic; otherwise, you are just taking on the same attitude that you seem to resent.

No, I'm not. That money was supposedly invested for my retirement. If it was not, then that is theft, which is illegal.

297 1930s people were hardy compared to what we have today.

I'd agree.

Aside from physical and mental durability from lifetime experience and generational traditions maintaining the principle of sacrifice in personal life, Expectations today reflect in no way the Expectations of 1930 US citizenry. Americans transferred from naivety to gullible, from accepting to demanding faith in "entitlements", including the entitlement to totally abandon the Social Security scam sooner than later.

298
On the other hand, I won't be alive "further into the future," and the people left folks the bills will be the foolish young people who delivered unto us the the reviled Obama.  So there's that.

Posted by: Silver Lining at March 04, 2011 11:52 AM (8/DeP)

Jib/newsletter.

299 The problem with cuts, you see, is that you actually have to cut. And that means that someone, somewhere is going to get less money.

How about letting people keep their own fucking money?

You want to keep saying people who paid into SocSec for 30,40,50 years don't have any right to think of their own contributions as "theirs"? Fine. Then no student who went to a public university  (taxpayer subsidized) and used student loans (taxpayer subsidized) should expect such "free" education. Let's cut out all taxpayer subsidizing of all "higher" education.

Someone somewhere has to get "less money", lets start everywhere, eh?

300

Posted by: Darleen Click at March 04, 2011 11:37 AM (jWqwx)

Gonna call bullshit on you here. 

Up until about, oh, post 20 on this thread, the discussion was pretty much a discussion of the cold hard realities of the situation.  Then the fisticuffs started when you waded in with the knee-jerk intergenerational warfare crap.

The fact is, you're being shown the harsh light of reality and considering it being "dumped on", when you're ready to have explosive diarrhea on future generations and tell them it's raining.

301

No, I'm not. That money was supposedly invested for my retirement. If it was not, then that is theft, which is illegal.

More accurately, it was misrepresented as such, which is fraud.  Funny how you can't prosecute government for that.

302

76 million 'Baby Boomers' born between 1946 and 1964.

I know demographers like the 1946-1964 dates because of sheer numbers, but arguably the generational "Boom" began with the first babies to fear the Vietnam draft (1943) and ended with those born in 1960. Those born 1961 and later definitely are more Generation X, economically and politically.

303 We can help you with your longevity problems. Even your own President admires our efforts.

304 All we need to do is extend this crap sandwich a little into the future until after I die of old age.

305

The first Boomers are just reaching SS retirement age now. How exactly are "most" of them going to be dead in 20 years? Not even taking into account increases in longevity (which are not fully reflected in life tables currently in use) the drain that the Boomers will make on the system will just be getting into full swing in 20 years.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 04, 2011 11:52 AM (7EV/g)

I know math is hard but the life expectancy is 77. I reach retirement age 67 in 9 years, I am scheduled to die 10 years after that. Most of the boomers were born between my age and those now retiring.

306 Ignored my point again, I see. You have no problem taking from your parents and want no responsiblity to repaying 'em.

No, I didn't ignore your point. If you want to enlarge this into a discussion of other federal spending, I'm more than willing to go there.

All this shit needs to be cut out. Better?

But annual spending on Pell grants is pretty off-topic, so let's stick to the $100 trillion gorilla in the room, shall we?

307 I don't understand this new math.

308
All we need to do is extend this crap sandwich a little into the future until after I die of old age.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at March 04, 2011 11:56 AM (qIHlG)

+1,000

309

I think part of the problem is that no one wants to admit that SS is just another welfare program.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater

No, at this point, SS is not even another welfare program.

310 If it was not, then that is theft, which is illegal. Actually, the feds were quite sneaky about it. For all the talk about how it was a "savings plan" or "pension", it's actually just a tax, and it says so in the law itself. It's not theft to collect taxes (alas). You paid a tax, which the government duly collected and then spent as soon as it came in. Philosophically, I agree: the stole the money. But in legal terms, they had every right to do it. It's a mandatory tax, and was collected and spent as such.

311 Ok, am I technically a baby boomer?  I was born in 1962 and would really not like to be considered one.  If not, what is my generation called?

312 Doesn't anyone wonder why I'm suddenly showing up everywhere and pontificating on all things economic?

313 Take a break from your incessant boning and take a good read.

314

If not, what is my generation called?

Boned.

315

Who has asserted that? What I've seen asserted is a property right. The right to one's earnings. Just because the Fed government has acted like Madoff doesn't negate that fact that the SS contributions still morally are the property of the contributors.

Posted by: Darleen Click at March 04, 2011 10:35 AM (jWqwx)

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that contributors have no property right in the funds contributed.

316 Good one.  I am so looking forward to old age.  Well, the good thing is that my only child will only have to take me in.  The way my husband drinks and smokes he'll be dead before he collects anything.

317 Darleen, I don't recall seeing your name on any of the tuition checks I handed over to the registrar. MY name was on them. Some was my money, some I borrowed from a PRIVATE lender. And when I drank myself out of school and into the Army, I don't recall getting a hand from you in repaying my debts. I worked off my mistakes. I find your passion intoxicating, arousing, and in my imagination you are riding a horse through the surf, butt nekkid, with your glorious gray-streaked red curly mane streaming behind you, highlighted by the rays of dawn's early light. But you're wrong about the whole "OWE" thing.

318 No, you are giving me back every dollar you took from my paycheck, or I will go on tax strike. Fuck you.

Then prepare to eat roots.  And boiled shoes.  Because that's what most people will be able to afford.  This really isn't hard- Social Security has to (eventually) go away.

If you're 20 years from retirement, and you put $200.00/month in an IRA making 15% for that 20 years, you'd be a multi-millionaire when you retired.  Call it 1.7 Million (which is low, by the way, but I don't want to do the math).  Okay.  Now, you don't have a job you have to go to, you (theoretically) don't have kids eating you out of house and home, your expenses, in general, go down.  You convert your 1,700,000 to a fix rate annuity averaging 8% per year, and you take just the interest to pay your bills, and you're looking at (1700000 * .0 136,000/yr.  I think you can manage to live on that.

Now, 200.00/month SOUNDS like a fair amount, but it's not, really.  My wife and I are still climbing out of debt, and we could probably do that (we're choosing not to until everything but the house is paid off, though- so about another year, based on our projections).  That'll make me 33 when I can start putting that aside.  If I retired after 20 years, I'd be a retiree at 53.  I wouldn't even be eligible for Senior discounts at IHOP or Denny's.

319

I know math is hard but the life expectancy is 77.

I'm going to give you a little hint and suggest that you don't want to be taking the "math is hard" swipes. Instead, you might want to actually go read one of the reports put out by the actuaries and see how the demographics play out. Either that or open a dictionary and find out what the word "most" means. See, I can do that too.

320 259

two years is an overly optimistic estimate, the World won't be able to wait that long, they will be forced to choose another reserve currency of some kind before another year goes by as our government prints the dollar into oblivion.

We are waiting. Because the Euro and the Yen have the same problems only bigger, and no one trusts the Chi-Coms.

Posted by: Gold, Silver and other precious metals at March 04, 2011 11:37 AM (ujg0T)

 

that's what I think will happen, some combination of precious metals will have to be agreed upon to back all currencies, because ALL currencies suck right now, nobody trusts their own government, soon people will extend that lack of faith to the currency it prints, paper money HAS to be backed by something of value or it is worthless and since there isn't enough gold in the world to cover all the assets other precious metals will have to be included in the mix, maybe all of them. 

321 My mother never made over 10.00 \ hr and was able to retire at 55 after 30 years and 5 years after my father passed away at 56. She was able to do this because she put the max in her company's multiple stock and profit sharing plans. Our family lived within our means and frugal when necessary. She never expected SS to be part of her retirement. I am not dismissing the fortune she had that her company was successful. Even still if it had not been she would have just continued to work and lived the best she could without complaint and owing no one anything and giving away what she could. We haven't followed that model for a long time.

322

No, I'm not. That money was supposedly invested for my retirement. If it was not, then that is theft, which is illegal.

You were lied to, the same way the old people were lied to. This money was never invested for your retirement, it was paid out to people already on SS or spent on other stuff. And yes, if a private citizen had done this it would be fraud and the person would be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, the government has the power to commit fraud, only they call it taxation.

323 It could be worse.  We could be China in forty years, with a whole cohort of cranky old men who never found wives.  Those ought to be "interesting times."

324 Seriously AllenG?  If I put $200 a month away in 20 years that will really be worth something.  No shit.  I suck at financial crap, that's why I only have my condo and a whole bunch of credit card bills.  LOL.

325 Monty @319

+1000 points

326 They take 14% of your income for 50 years to pay for 10 years of benefits?

327

218:  Student loans have to be, y'know, paid back.

On paper. And they are still subsidized federal loans, rather than a private consumer loan.

Thanks for playing, our hostess will give you your consolation prize on the way out.

Posted by: Darleen Clickat March 04, 2011 11:46 AM (jWqwx)

Hmmm... those payments I'm making every month on these student loans...they seem pretty damn real to me.

And yes, they are subsidized loans.   Subsidized by being non-dischargeable in bankrupcy court.

So, to recap.  I have a monthly check to write that has a pretty substantial impact on my  bottom line.  And a debt that will never be discharged, short of paying it all off in full.

Yeah, if that's just a "paper" loan, that is one fuckin' heavy piece of paper.

328 Since we all agree that the system is either only slightly broken and therefor only needs tweaking, or that it is completely boned and unfixable, why don't we use SS to our political advantage?

Leverage the preservation of SS against all the useless, unconstitutional crap the Federal government is doing. 

329 320 Ok, am I technically a baby boomer?  I was born in 1962 and would really not like to be considered one.  If not, what is my generation called?

Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 11:58 AM (9U1OG)

Technically a boomer. Cutoff is 1964. Welcome to the club, youngster. 

330 What 401K or IRA makes 15%?

331 32 I hope the end of SS comes sooner than later. I don't want to have paid in a ton on money. Each passing year costs me money that I know i am never going to get back. And its not like income tax where I know at least some of it will be spent on things i use like roads, police, legal system, etc.

That's what my sons say. You are probably about their age (late 20s?). And I agree. Its wrong to continue the fraud and suck in more and more young people.

Thats why the more I think about it, and the more I see of the GOP's chronic inability to take anything other than baby steps, the best course may be to lay down in 12, let the socialists run hog wild, and wave good bye to them as they slip beneath the waves later in the decade. And then the rest of us can finally go forward with a rebuild on strict constitutional (ie, non-socialist) principles.

332

Ok, am I technically a baby boomer?  I was born in 1962 and would really not like to be considered one.  If not, what is my generation called?

Generation X. Or Boned, as someone else put it. I was born in late 1967 myself. We are hosed. Just in our peak earning years, the Affirmative Action Housing bust and subsequent market crash has wiped out what we were good boys and girls saving in our 401Ks. We knew back in the 1980's that Social InSecurity was a cruel joke, but now even our private efforts are cruel jokes.

333 338 320 Ok, am I technically a baby boomer?  I was born in 1962 and would really not like to be considered one.  If not, what is my generation called?

Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 11:58 AM (9U1OG)

Technically a boomer. Cutoff is 1964. Welcome to the club, youngster. 

Posted by: 1949'er at March 04, 2011 12:06 PM (DffuX)

 

C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! !

334 @327 Who the hell gets a consistent 15% return?  Not that I am disagreeing with you.  I am just not agreeing as much, or something.

335 No, I'm not. That money was supposedly invested for my retirement. If it was not, then that is theft, which is illegal.

We beg to differ.

336 272 Like I said, dunce: Nobody is proposing that current elderly recipients lose anything, so gin up a new concern troll meme.  This one is bullshit.  Dunce.

Ad hominem attacks only make you look like the fool. The reality is even if SS was eliminated people would NOT SAVE MONEY FOR RETIREMENT. That is reality. I think Monty could provide you with some statistics on that fact that would show you the error of your thinking. So the problem would not go away, but some new huge government bureaucracy would inevitably arise to deal with the issue of 75-100 million old folks starving to death in 20 years.

Posted by: Heartless Republican at March 04, 2011 11:42 AM (IhHdM)

 

you are absolutely right, most people will not save for their retirement/old age.

only a liberal\progressive think that means the government has too for you.

337 an IRA making 15% for that 20 years.

15%?  I'll have what you're having.  them is some good drugs.

338 We could be China in forty years, with a whole cohort of cranky old men who never found wives. Oh hell yeah. I say this to all the "China bulls". Whatever problems we face in demographic terms, they pale next to the shitstorm China is facing in 20 years or so. For a glimpse of what our future may hold, just keep an eye on Japan in the next 5-10 years. Their debt is close to 200% of GDP, they're in a demographic crash, and a whole raft of current workers are on the cusp of retirement. And then bear in mind that Japan is ethically homogeneous, and that the people are far less liable, in cultural terms, to the ructions the more diverse Americans are prone to.

339

Someone somewhere has to get "less money", lets start everywhere, eh?

Agreed. Just understand that SS will be hit too. Of course we will hit elsewhere first, as we should, as it is more egregious and more politically feasible. But just understand no one will be immune from cuts. Not even you.

340

Eventual Economic Reality : Julian Assange

US :  Some Unfortunate Swedish Woman

341

Oh, and MandyP's comments about The Villages down here in Florida are just the tip of the iceberg. I played a gig there a couple of years ago and one patron passed out drunk and had to be taken out on a stretcher before we were set to go on at noon. One of the waitresses (a young'un) said she'd been in the business for years and had never seen a group of folks drink as much as the fine residents of that place.

Did I mention I'd like to retire there? It sounds like Moron Central for the aged...

342 Open the lockbox and pour out the riches.

343 346 an IRA making 15% for that 20 years.

15%?  I'll have what you're having.  them is some good drugs.

Posted by: Senior Citizens that were falsely told SS was a retirement program at March 04, 2011 12:08 PM (qqrPQ)

 

I'm an idiot and even I thought that was a tad high.  What's more realistic?

344 #309 Burn the witch

Excuse me, but in the original post we have the "I don't mean to dump on old people but OMG young people are SO screwed!" so my pointing out that getting into an intergeneration fight is a non-starter is something I started.

Many people of my generation have been saying SS is fundamentally flawed for decades. It gets no where because Leftists and Libs have screamed from the rooftops about "trust funds" and "lock boxes" and releasing all sorts of stats about the health of SocSec and then turned around and depicted anyone pro-reform as wanting to starve grandma.

Which the latter attitude has manifested itself right on this thread. I want actual serious talk about how to both address the moral concerns about property rights as well as transforming SocSec into a defined contribution rather than defined benefits program. I said so upthread.

When 40% of every dollar earned is sucked from earners into all the taxes/fees we required to pay, is it any wonder why savings is so dismal? And the one major asset a lot of middle class people use for retirement, their home, has been devalued because of government shenanigans.

Young people who live in  taxpayer-subsidized glass dorms shouldn't be throwing stones.

345 @341 No kidding.  I retired just in time to simultaneously avoid  serving under Obama and burn through the money I put in a mutual fund.

*I would have retired when  I did regardless of whom we elected-unless Reagan rose from the grave and won.  That would have been worth sticking around for another enlistment.

346 343 @327 Who the hell gets a consistent 15% return?  Not that I am disagreeing with you.  I am just not agreeing as much, or something.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at March 04, 2011 12:07 PM (0IPsJ)

I was thinking the same thing...seemed a little generous. I like 8...a litle less disappointing

347 15%?  I'll have what you're having.  them is some good drugs.

Mine averaged 18% over 30 years.
I wish I'd been able to put my SS contributions into it.

348 328: If you're 20 years from retirement, and you put $200.00/month in an IRA making 15% for that 20 years, you'd be a multi-millionaire when you retired. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 04, 2011 12:01 PM (8y9MW)

Where does one get this average 15% return over 20 years?

349

What 401K or IRA makes 15%?

15% is peanuts. I can show you how to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in just ten months.

350 Excuse me, but in the original post we have the "I don't mean to dump on old people but OMG young people are SO screwed!" so my pointing out that getting into an intergeneration fight is a non-starter is NOT something I started.

351 347 ethnically?

352

Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 12:03 PM (9U1OG)

Yes, really.  I know this because Dave Ramsey says so (and actually showed the math that proves it, so I'm more trusting the math).  Compound interest is your friend, when you're investing.

Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 12:06 PM (9U1OG)

There are very few 401K's which make that (there are some, though).  IRAs do better, because the IRA isn't actually a plan, its a Tax designation on whatever stock portfolio, mutual fund, or bond package you put it on.

If you do your homework, you can find mutual funds which have made better than 20% average since their inception.  You want to look at funds that have made 12 - 15 (or better) for at least the previous 20 years, though.  You've got to do homework, but you can find them.

353 I'm an idiot and even I thought that was a tad high. What's more realistic? Realistically? The official "no-risk" rate is about 4%, but I personally think that might be closer to 3%. If you're brave and/or foolhardy enough to go into equities in a big way, you might get as much as 8-10%, annualized.

354

If you're 20 years from retirement, and you put $200.00/month in an IRA making 15% for that 20 years, you'd be a multi-millionaire when you retired. 

What IRA do you have?

I guess there maybe be some corporate debt out there that is in the 7-8% range, but I don't know anyone who consistantly can get 15% returns

355 I'm an idiot and even I thought that was a tad high.  What's more realistic?

1.5% when you include inflation destruction.

356 I've paid into social security for my whole life! It's only fair that I get my money. The generations behind me who didn't get to vote on any of this can fix it.

357 @272 'cuse me Dunce.  Wouldn't want to drop any ad hominem attacks on a guy who calls himself "Heartless Republican" and claims we are just tossing granny out on the street.  Consider this my apology and a gentle invitation to go fuck yourself.

You have a nice day, Dunce.

358 Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 12:10 PM (9U1OG)

It's not outlandish.  Heck, one of my 401K options at work averages 17%.  Like I said, they're out there.  There aren't that many of them, because there don't need to be.  If you're looking, you'll find the ones that exist.

359 Mine averaged 18% over 30 years. Yeah, but the 1970-2000 period is going in retrospect to seem like the "halcyon days" of stocks. I highly doubt future returns in equities will even approach those numbers. 8-10% is much more likely. (And I'm not even taking into account the purchasing-power-killing impact of inflation, which is almost certainly going to go way up in coming years. It's already here, if you have to do things like buy gas or food.)

360 Some investments are treading water with the effect of the imperial printing presses.

361

I guess there maybe be some corporate debt out there that is in the 7-8% range, but I don't know anyone who consistantly can get 15% returns

Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 12:12 PM (wuv1c)

we did!!!!!

362 Realistically? The official "no-risk" rate is about 4%, but I personally think that might be closer to 3%. If you're brave and/or foolhardy enough to go into equities in a big way, you might get as much as 8-10%, annualized.

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 12:12 PM (4Pleu)

Thats why I use Goldline

363

When someone starts talking financial stuff, I glaze over and my grade school days come flashing back when Dad would hit me over the head with the butter knife if I didn't get the algebra problem.  I shudder.

I'm a bookkeeper by trade, but not an accountant or financial planner.

I STUPID!

So I should just walk into a bank holding out $200 singles and hope someone can point me in the right direction?

364 REIT does pretty well over the long haul.

365 Agreed. Just understand that SS will be hit too. Of course we will hit elsewhere first, as we should, as it is more egregious and more politically feasible. But just understand no one will be immune from cuts. Not even you.

Curm ... I have no issue with that at all. I don't think I should get one cent more that I put in (to start) and I'd even take off a percentage of that as long as everyone is in the same boat with me.

I object to unrealized hypocrisy of taxpayer-subsidized college students blaming retirees for wanting their own money back.

366 OK, seriously ...

1.  Gradually raise the retirement age.

2.  Gradually raise the cap on wages for which SS taxes are owed.

3.  Allow partial private investment for the younger folks.

4.  Quit pretending there's a SS trust fund or lock box or any of this other shit - there isn't, and there isn't going to be.  Just treat what's due as a liability owed by the government like everything else and be done with it.

Net result:  In 15 years you'll have people retiring at 68 (with partial at 65), and paying 17.5% instead of 15% into the fund.  The government will owe what it owes, and will probably only be able to afford it the same way England does now: by abandoning its projection of foreign policy by military means.  At least we have an ocean between us and the rest of the world.

This plan only fails if the whole governmental structure comes down.  History tells us our fall will take much longer - a whimper not a bang, etc.

Within 30 years I'll be dead and won't care what happens.  Enjoy your lives young people, but know this: Atlas is already shrugging.

367 Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2011 12:12 PM (wuv1c)

I don't have the names of the funds handy, but they're out there.  Like I said previously, there's a 401K option through my company that has averaged 17% for about the last 20 years.  10 - 12% is easier to find, and still a significant amount of dough when you figure in compound interest.

368

Stolen from the interwebz:

ItÂ’s common knowledge that stocks return an average of 6% a year (at least going back to 1900).  However, Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton from the London Business School recently revealed that when you remove dividends, stocksÂ’ gains drop to a mere 1.7% a year (even lower than the return from long-term Treasury bonds over the same period).  

 

Put another way, dividends account for 70% of the average US stock returns since 1900. When you remove dividends, stocks actually offer LESS reward and MORE risk than bonds. If youÂ’d invested $1 in stocks in 1900, youÂ’d have made $582 with reinvested dividends adjusted for inflation vs. a mere $6 from price appreciation.

 

ThatÂ’s only 600% in gainsÂ… over 109 years.

369 Thanks for the information though.  I will have to get on this ASAP.

370 I think the only solution to the big entitlement programs is to sunset them.  Regardless of the math, the political calculus turns against the entitlement program with every passing year, as more taxpayers (voters) pay in without the prospect of receiving anything. 

The political question is how do you survive those first years - one, you need to implement the minor palliatives (means tests, age extensions, limit SSI, etc.), two you need to provide a good, tax preferred retirement/medical savings vehicle for those under the sunset line - with perhaps a one-time, age adjusted tax credit or even payment to smooth out the those caught in the gap.  The hard math comes in picking the sunset line.

371 ADGAS.

372 242 223 - Hey, blindside, YOU let Obama in, by your logic. And cake? S'cuse me, CAKE? Don't give me shit, sonny, I've got a turd in every pocket.

Posted by: ktnxbai *cough* at March 04, 2011 11:33 AM (tYLdY) 

Wrong. My point was that YOU were dumb enough to believe the government would 'take care of you'. It's not like there isn't recorded history that proves governments never 'take care' of their people, unless that means 'killing them by the droves'. It's not like history didn't show that governments have a habit of wasting taxpayer money.

As a result, I am trying to save for retirement sans SS. I recall hearing as a kid in the 80s that SS would never be there when I was old. And my parents, who were only in their mid 20s said the same thing. And they PLANNED for it accordingly. As did my grandparent.s

You ate your cake and OUR cake before I ever had a chance to make my first dollar. Your generation elected pols that spent up all the money. Maybe YOU personally voted against it, but if you didn't decide to plan on your own and just ASSumed that your kids and their kids would foot the bill to take care of you, then that is your mistake; as I said, recorded history from way before 1930 proved that the government could not be trusted to look out for your welfare.

Lots of other people ASSumed quite the opposite and did what they could to be independent of SS when they retired.

Sorry that you have to have your bennies cut; take it up with the assholes your generation elected that stole all of the damn money, and, BTW, spent it on 'stuff' for your generation.

373

Either that or open a dictionary and find out what the word "most" means. See, I can do that too.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 04, 2011 12:02 PM (7EV/g)

\You could but you would be wrong, births spiked in the mid 40's went down and stabilized in the early to mid 50's and started a long decline in the late 50's and on into the 60's.

http://tinyurl.com/2cfjj9o

374 Posted by: Jaimo at March 04, 2011 12:15 PM (9U1OG)

No.  A bank won't help you.  Go to a Certified Financial Planner as a starting point, but go talk to several- working for different companies- before you give any of them one red cent.

And you're looking for someone you can trust.  If they're painting you a picture of sunshine and roses, don't give them your money.  Good financial planner types will be very careful to explain the risks you're taking.  You'll also find that it's fairly easy to understand what they're saying: a good command of the topic will allow them to use terms that you understand, or define new terms fairly concisely.

375 If you guys want to take the money I PAID IN TO, forget it!

How the hell am I going to pay the mortgage on my retirement beach house? I worked hard for that. If you need the money, take it from the greedy corporations, man.

376 So I should just walk into a bank holding out $200 singles and hope someone can point me in the right direction?

pssst, Over here.

377 It just pisses me off that younger people don't appreciate what my generation did for them.

If it weren't for people like me, women's rights probably wouldn't even EXIST and black people would be OUTLAWED.

So think about that, you punks.

Hey, did I ever tell you guys about my experience at Woodstock?

378 SS only sees the top 3 years of earnings and 17 years of longevity. Spend at least 30 of your working years as a hobo, and try to have 3 big years.

379

I object to unrealized hypocrisy of taxpayer-subsidized college students blaming retirees for wanting their own money back.

OK, that's once too often to that well. Let's be clear about something, and that's what's actually subsidized--the lender, not the borrower.  The government backs the risk of the loan, so if/when the borrower defaults, the lender is made whole.

You got that?  I didn't get taxpayer money.  If I default, the lender gets taxpayer money, and I get hounded for the rest of my natural life, or until I pay up.  Either way I'm on the hook, since I pay taxes, so technically I'm not only paying for my own loans, but the loans for everyone in default.

So please, if you're going to take issue, make it be for an actual, valid reason.

380 323 If not, what is my generation called?

Boned.

ah, hahahaha! Winner of the last 100 or so comments (all I can read).

381 I'm 54, I've paid into medicare and SS since 1974. I went to work right out of High School. Did not waste 4 years in college getting a "Liberal arts" degree. just give me back  what I put in over all these years and we'll call it even.

382 For those of you who don't think I deserve my benefits, I was right there in the shit in Vietnam. If you go back and look at some old news reels, you might even see me carrying protest sign and sticking it to The Man.

So don't tell me about sacrifice.

383 I object to unrealized hypocrisy of taxpayer-subsidized college students blaming retirees for wanting their own money back.

Huh? You don't know my life age. Or my tax bracket.

I'm paying a shitload into this system. Have for 25 years. And I expect to get exactly $0 of my "own money" back from it, because I know I'm paying a tax and not funding a retirement plan.

Where does that put me on your hypocrisy scale?

384 Can't they sell bonds to China to cover the discrepancy? That would work.

385

No kidding.  I retired just in time to simultaneously avoid  serving under Obama and burn through the money I put in a mutual fund.

*I would have retired when  I did regardless of whom we elected-unless Reagan rose from the grave and won.  That would have been worth sticking around for another enlistment.

All I know is that suddenly the office California Lottery Pool that a score of us put a few bucks a week into, went from being an amusing teambuilding lark, to a desperate wish for a way to pay off our underwater mortgages. Not to retire, mind you, but to have our debts paid off so we could go back to investing again. Pathetic, yes?

386 To Darleen and Martha and others,

You are going to get your SS.  No need to argue.  No politician has the balls to change it. Just be prepared that those dollars are not going to be worth much.

387 I object to unrealized hypocrisy of taxpayer-subsidized college students blaming retirees for wanting their own money back. You keep saying "my own money" LIKE IF FUCKING MEANS ANYTHING. It is not "your money." You got fucked, honey. Happens to the best of us. Life isn't concerned with "fair." It's concerned with survival. Not that you don't have the right to bitch. But let's be realistic, here.

388 @327 Who the hell gets a consistent 15% return? Not that I am disagreeing with you. I am just not agreeing as much, or something. Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at March 04, 2011 12:07 PM (0IPsJ) ---------------------------------------------------------- I have some funds that perform quite well..... 15% to 20%. I would be willing to interview a select few of you and might even let one or two invest with me.

389 205 I think the solution is to simply end the program and pro-rate the benefits, i.e. the closer you are to retirement age the more you will get...going down to zero if you are 18 right now.  Do the same thing for the payroll deduction, though it would probably have to lag the rate of decrease in payouts since the thing is so fucked up.

This.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 04, 2011 11:18 AM (mHQ7T)

Ditto. It's the only reasonable way.  Which is exactly why it will never happen.

390 You are going to get your SS.  No need to argue.  No politician has the balls to change it. Just be prepared that those dollars are not going to be worth much.

Exactly.
I'd like to have "the balance" of what they're dripping out now, though.  I'd invest it and leave the balance to my kids & grandkids.

It's a selfish attitude, but it's the only one I have left.

391

Excuse me, but in the original post we have the "I don't mean to dump on old people but OMG young people are SO screwed!" so my pointing out that getting into an intergeneration fight is a non-starter is NOT something I started.

Young people who live in  taxpayer-subsidized glass dorms shouldn't be throwing stones.

Posted by: Darleen Click at March 04, 2011 12:10 PM (jWqwx)

Considering Monty didn't say what you're attributing to him in quotes, I'm gonna stick to calling you on your bullshit.  Need me to parse out what Monty said for you?

But let's assume for a moment Monty did say what you quoted above.  Why don't you go ahead and explain how it's untrue. 

And considering that... 1) most of the people to whom you're directing your "glass dorms" comment aren't students, 2) are taxpayers and probably have been for a decade or two, and 3) are probably former or current military... you should probably fuck off

392 The FY '12 budget is going to deal with both Medicare and Medicaid. How the Rs are going to reform the system (majority of conference has to agree) is a matter of debate at the moment.

393 I'm 54, I've paid into medicare and SS since 1974. I went to work right out of High School. Did not waste 4 years in college getting a "Liberal arts" degree. just give me back  what I put in over all these years and we'll call it even. Posted by: martha at March 04, 2011 12:27 PM (kFsTd) No.

394 Guy Fawkes: If the Gubmint just gave me back what they took, I'd be happy with that. I also have no problem with the raising of the retirement age a couple of years if that would help, I would like to see the fraud and the $ going to illegals and goldbrickers stop first though and then see how much more has to be fixed.

395

So, does anyone here have any advice on overseas bank accounts?  Would they protect you against the coming tax armagedon / IRA 401K confiscation?

Are they even feasible for regular folks?

Monty, what say you?

396

There's 50,000 names on a chunk of granite down in Washington DC that you denigrate with that comment. We had a military force of 500,000 troops in Vietnam at one point, iirc. Compare that to 140,000(?) today. The vast majority of Baby Boomers got drafted and quietly went off to war. Most returned. To blanket portray them as draft-card burning peacenicks is an insult to every one of them who admirably served their country.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people that age *did not* get drafted and quietly go off to to war. More were student deferred, and many just lucked out with low lottery numbers. This is not to denigrate those who did go after a draft, and even volunteered, but they were not anywhere near a majority of men born between 1943 and 1953 (the years of the Vietnam Draft)

397 Guy Fawkes: If the Gubmint just gave me back what they took, I'd be happy with that. I also have no problem with the raising of the retirement age a couple of years if that would help, I would like to see the fraud and the $ going to illegals and goldbrickers stop first though and then see how much more has to be fixed.

Pass legislation stopping benefits for any non-citizen and their offspring, and we'd solve a lot of the "immigration problem".

398 just give me back what I put in over all these years and we'll call it even. ...sigh. It's like people don't even listen when I say this. YOU. PAID. A. TAX!!!ONE! You didn't "pay in" to jack shit. Your money is gone, long since. There is no magical bank vault with your name on it with piles of money inside. Every red cent you'll get out of SS has to be taken from some current taxpayer.

399

Monty: I get it however it was not sold to us that way now was it?

Sort of like Obama: He campaigned as a centrist, a fiscal hawk-I heard his bullshit, sounded good, then went out and voted for Palin anyway

400 Somewhat on topic - If you arene't saving at least 20% of your income to pay for retirement, you had better start immediately.  Otherwise you aren't going to retire.  Social Seccurity was sold and enacted as a whole life insureance policy, not a pension plan; I don't know how so many people believed it would become one - actuarilly, it cannot be one based on the contribution level.

401 Followup to #408 above. Not sure how many men undertook gay acts, abused their bodies to flunk physicals, or found sympathic doctors. San Francisco in part became a "gay" city because those dishonorably discharged for homosexual activity in WW2, Korea and Vietnam were shipped back to Hunters Point (later flown back to SFO) and dropped off there.

402 Just keep it going until I'm gone and won't have to worry about it. That's what's fair.

403 Martha, everybody would take that deal.  What I am trying to say is that SS in now paying out more than it takes in.  That means that SS is now adding to the national debt instead of being used to fund it.  This will cause more fiat money printing, making each dollar worth less on a daily basis.  The debt spiral will now really pick up speed.  $14 Trillion will be $20 Trillion in about 4 years.  This does not include the $60+ Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.  The GDP is 13 Trillion.  Math will not be denied.  Printing those tens of trillions will make what you get from SS just pennies on the dollar of today.  You have to make other plans.

404 #408 Unfortunately, the vast majority of people that age *did not* get drafted and quietly go off to to war. More were student deferred, and many just lucked out with low lottery numbers. This is not to denigrate those who did go after a draft, and even volunteered, but they were not anywhere near a majority of men born between 1943 and 1953 (the years of the Vietnam Draft)

I beg to differ.
Those of us who went to Vietnam did go quietly.
Personally, I chose to volunteer because I knew I was getting drafted.
Those who got deferred mostly didn't go and chose to be noisy, rude, and violent.  They now run the government and our universities.  You are correct, though -- those are the majority of that era.

... and a LOT of us wondered "what the hell is this lottery number thing, anyway?"

405

Guy Fawkes: Yeah I know, I get that, it just so royally pisses me off. We acted in good faith and got hosed up the ass for our trouble.

Bernie Madoff went to jail for this so that begs the question.........

406

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 12:46 PM (4Pleu)

Again, this is why I'd be completely satisfied with the gubmint tossing me out of the system and refraining from taking any more money.  Hell, as an employer, I'd love it if I didn't have to contribute to it either and I know for a fact that my employees would appreciate that money going straight to them or a private retirement account.

407

I hear ya Monty.

there is the Social Security Tax, the last word is the operative, a tax is a tax, is a tax, the Constitution gives the government the power to tax, it can call a tax anything but it is still only a "tax".

there is the Social Security Administration, the last word is the operative, it is a government program and is NOT in any way legally bound by or to the Social Security Tax. Just because both things have the words "Social Security" attached to them is only a device to fool the rubes.

Social Security is worse than a welfare program, it is intergenerational theft pure and simple.

408 If you're 20 years from retirement, and you put $200.00/month in an IRA making 15% for that 20 years, you'd be a multi-millionaire when you retired. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 04, 2011 12:01 PM (8y9MW)

I'd go with something along the lines of 8% instead of 15%

409 It ticks me off too Martha.  But it ticks me off more that instead of trying to do something about it and save my children from facing a totally destroyed nation, all of those bastards argue about $4 Billion.  And keep adding on new social programs.

Pathetic.

410  I get it however it was not sold to us that way now was it?

Posted by: martha at March 04, 2011 12:50 PM (kFsTd)

SS is still not REALLY a tax, since future payouts depend on past payment into the system, via very tax-like charges.  SS is treated like a tax only because it would be totally and ridiculously un-Constitutional (from the fee side) if it were described any differently - though the expenditure side is clearly, unequivocally, amazingly un-Constitutional - no matter how you describe it.  But, it really isn;'t a tax, since your payment level of taxes has nothing to do with how the government is supposed to treat you in law and benefits.

SS is an un-Constitutional program that gets all different sorts of descriptions but which is nothing, in the end, but wrong.

411 My two cents. We all need to:

1.) Come to grips with the reality that we are not going to "fix SS this year." This is not going to happen, no matter how much it is to be desired.
2.) Cut the budget to the bone. Any attempt to go after SS without having first eliminated whole govt. departments and programs will only inflame the elderly and work-shy, and insure a Dem victory in every election for the next decade.
3.) Improve the economy by cracking down on illegal aliens - no benefits at all, especially hospital care - tougher enforcement, a wall, etc. Every job they have is an unemployed American. You can't save for retirement without a job.

At this point, the economy would be in better shape (since the money formerly sent to Mexico will now be retained in the US), so we can:

4.) Eliminate the SS tax. Increase Income tax rates to compensate. Remove the SS tax as a bone of contention and as a burden on employers.
5.) Replace SS with an Old Age Pension, paid out of the general fund, and sold as what it is - a welfare program to keep poor old folks from starving to death, not a way for middle class folks to afford vacations after they retire.

This isn't perfect, and will not satisfy the "I saw this coming and anyone who didn't deserves to starve to death under a bridge" folks, but its a lot closer to politically possible than the more extreme remedies I've seen touted.

412 This whole discussion depresses me because it shows how even conservative people past a certain age simply will not entertain even the mere possibility of significant reform to SS. It's hopeless. I don't bitch as much about Medicare/Medicaid because everyone can see and understand that these programs are doomed -- even Democrats. But with SS, there seems to be this willful blindness, this obstinate refusal to face facts that just drives me nuts. The future isn't a choice between 'good' and 'bad' options regarding SS. The choice is between 'bad' and 'utterly calamitous' -- if we choose the hard but necessary reforms right now, we may limit and contain the damage; if we don't, we're simply admitting that we're going to let the program fail chaotically down the road sometime. I consider fixing the problem now to be more humane to the elderly, because an uncontrolled collapse down the road may leave many of them with nothing at all.

413

\You could but you would be wrong, births spiked in the mid 40's went down and stabilized in the early to mid 50's and started a long decline in the late 50's and on into the 60's.

http://tinyurl.com/2cfjj9o

Posted by: robtr at March 04, 2011 12:19 PM (MtwBb)

I'm not sure what you think the Wikipedia page on the definition of the Baby Boom proves. I know when the Baby Boom happened. What I objected to was your assertion that in 20 years the SS and Medicare problem goes away because "most" of the baby Boom will be dead then. That is just when the problem will be starting to peak. You can't just subtract 65 from 77 and declare victory. That's not how demographics work out.

So, to put it bluntly, you're wrong. You don't know demographics or understand life tables. Demonstrate that you've read and understood the annual trustee reports for SS and Medicare (including, this year, the Chief Actuary's dissenting opinion) and then you'll be worth debating. Until then you're an obstacle to a reasoned discussion of the problems we face.

414

Personally, I chose to volunteer because I knew I was getting drafted.

And a good many men volunteered so they would have more choice in the matter, seeking duty in Germany, Korea or stateside over Vietnam. Not to denigrate them either.

415 #423 SS is an un-Constitutional program that gets all different sorts of descriptions but which is nothing, in the end, but wrong.

Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in 1937.

I agree with you 1000%.

I hope history does not repeat itself with the "Affordable Health Care Act" or whatever it's called (Obamacare).

416

Guy Fawkes: I've had a long list of programs i would cut. Starting with defunding the UN which 10 years ago I was in favor as i could see what a useless pile of bricks it has become.

I think everyone on this blog does and we could probably go a long long way of fixing what ails the US and grow jobs too

417 Josef K. (are we a fan of Kafka?), Everything you say is true -- but a tautology. Of course if we did everything you say, the problem could be alleviated. But none if it is going to happen, because it would require a completely different government than the one we have -- and I'm not just talking about the GOP/Democrat difference. We'd need to go back in time before the Civil War for the kind of government you're talking about; certainly to before 1910. In short: you're insisting on conditions that can never be met, which is tantamount to saying that you refuse to address the problem at all.

418

I consider fixing the problem now to be more humane to the elderly, because an uncontrolled collapse down the road may leave many of them with nothing at all.

That's the truly ironic part--the folks who benefit from status quo, are the ones who'll get ravaged worst from its inevitable consequences.  If I were twenty years younger (and in better economic shape), I'd actually hope that nothing got done, because I'd be in a far better shape to deal with a post-collapse situation--and no longer on the hook for the obliterated programs.

We're so far down the rabbit hole there isn't enough LSD in the world to make the status quo seem sensible.  And yet, here we are.

419 ed, If they are post-tax dollars and they sit in a non-interest bearing account, it's fine. The US taxes you on your worldwide income, so if you've got money on the street earning, you have to report that or face tax evasion charges. Which also means giving up the bank info. Having dollars converted to a stronger currency is certainly a good idea, but if it's not earning, you essentially have your money in a foreign mayonnaise jar. And if that foreign bank has US operations, the govt can force them to disclose your info. That's why Wegelin, Switzerland's oldest bank, told the US to fuck off and shuttered their US ops. Use them.

420 415 ...The debt spiral will now really pick up speed.  $14 Trillion will be $20 Trillion in about 4 years.  This does not include the $60+ Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.  The GDP is 13 Trillion.  Math will not be denied. [...]

The specific figure for unfunded liabilities is even worse than that--- $88.6T. According to the CBO, debt will overtake the economy in 2037. Last year the prediction was 2054, so it's scary to think about how far it will jump next year. 

421 #427 And a good many men volunteered so they would have more choice in the matter, seeking duty in Germany, Korea or stateside over Vietnam. Not to denigrate them either.

I "placed at the top" of my classes in fundamental schools.
Went in as an E-2, because I had a year of college.
Had my pick of duty stations.
Had a burning desire to see Japan, and picked "West Coast Sea Duty".
I'm not denigrating anybody.  I just took advantage of being able to do something I always wanted to do, and accidentally got "meritorius" medals and stuff along the way.  And a shellback card.  I value the shellback card more than the other stuff.

422 429 Any attempt to go after SS without having first eliminated whole govt. departments and programs will only inflame the elderly and work-shy, and insure a Dem victory in every election for the next decade.

This.

Indeed. We need to start by downsizing government,starting with all those useless and duplicative programs that were recently identified.

423 431 Josef K. (are we a fan of Kafka?),

Everything you say is true -- but a tautology. Of course if we did everything you say, the problem could be alleviated. But none if it is going to happen, because it would require a completely different government than the one we have -- and I'm not just talking about the GOP/Democrat difference. We'd need to go back in time before the Civil War for the kind of government you're talking about; certainly to before 1910.

In short: you're insisting on conditions that can never be met, which is tantamount to saying that you refuse to address the problem at all.

Posted by: Monty at March 04, 2011 01:10 PM (4Pleu)

But isn't what you're saying: "[A]t some point, beneficiaries are going to have to accept that the situation is untenable." also insisting on conditions that can never be met?  Do you really think you'll ever have SS recipients agree to draconian cuts, or elimination of payments?

All this is wishcasting, blue-skying, fantasizing - whatever you want to call it. In the end, our economy is going to shudder, stutter, gasp and wheeze its way to collapse. That collapse will "solve" the SS problem in the same way that it solves every problem we have with government. Chaos will ensue and rebuilding a new government, and a new America, will give us a chance to build a better state, more focused on the basics.The real question is, how long will it take to collapse?

So, yeah, I guess in the end we truly are boned, and a more useful thread would focus on how to contain the urban dwellers once the S hits the F.

424 I PAID FOR YOUR STUDENT LOANS! ($30 billion a year in federal expenditures) HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY ($700 billion a year). YOU ARE THE THIEVES!!

425 ...we're simply admitting that we're going to let the program fail chaotically down the road sometime.

I keep seeing people talk about their kids having to pay, and Monty's mentioned 10 to 20 years for SS to collapse entirely. I don't understand that level of optimism. Denninger has quite convincingly made the case IMO, based on the amount of debt that needs to be wiped out of the system, that accepting something on the order of a 40% hit to GDP was the optimal solution in late 2008 and every day that goes by makes the situation worse and more unstable. With housing prices looking to crash again, and the issues with commercial property still needing resolution, and the stock market wildly overvalued, and the oil shock coming if the Saudi Arabian riots are as fruitful as others in the region have been, I just don't see how the time to the reckoning isn't measured in months or weeks, much less years.

426
I don't know who the sock puppet/Warden is. But I see this intergenerational poking at the Boomers all the time. When I see it applied to the military I get pissed.

Look at you getting all puffed up and self righteous.

I'm playing a character and poking fun at a mindset--one we've seen in abundance on this very thread. Figure it out, dummy.

427 "It is people in their 40s and younger who likely have no or much reduced SSI payments in their future."

SSI is SS welfare for people who have not paid in enough or not at all. That definitely should go away completely.  When they get on SSI they also get Medicare and Section 8, just like regular SS.

428 Take the two percent you're not paying to Social Security this year and put it in the bank. Then keep investing and reinvesting it.

Don't touch it for anything but growth.

You may not generate the same "promised" amount as your yearly statement will tell you, but you'll do better than the government really would. And it will be yours, not theirs.

Until they steal it, of course.

429 It's absolutely no surprise that you would want to avoid paying the same tax that your father, and his father, and his father all paid. Then denigrate Vietnam Veterans and make some lame excuse when called on it.

Hahahaha!


Oh, look. The meathead has invoked his moral authority!

I didn't denigrate Vietnam Veterans. I denigrated people who equate protesting the war with the sacrifices of those who fought. But you apparently are quite stupid and have a reading comprehension problem, so you got all worked up about it.

Oh, and FYI, it's NOT the same tax "my father and his father and his father all paid."  Originally, withholding was 2%. Then it jumped to 6.15% under Carter in 1977. They made more tweaks in 1983 under Reagan, but I don't care to look it up.

So, you don't even have your facts right, dipshit.

But even if you did, no I don't want to pay the same tax as my father and grandfather because it's a fucking ponzi scheme. Why would I want to perpetuate that?

If we don't address this situation now through cuts, means testing, and raising the retirement age, younger generations will be taxed even more to pay for the next generation of retirees.

But you're okay with that, right chief?

430 I'm a veteran and I approve Warden's sock. Are you happy, now? Go wash the sand out of your vagina, dude.

431 Your generation was coddled and spoiled beyond measure.

Oh, and I want all you Gen Xers and Gen Yers to read this.

Don't touch "Heartless Republican's" SS bennies, you spoiled little assholes. He's deserving of them.

You? Not so much. In fact, you'll need to pay some higher taxes so he'll be comfortable.

Thanks for being the living embodiment of my sock puppet. I guess it was unnecessary after all.

432 Did I hear something about a flogging of the elderly?  Sounds like a great break for a hobo hunting weekend. 

433 First, we round up the Democrats and exile them to Venezuela.

Rid of Dem pols, there will be much lower federal spending.  Rid of Dem voters, there will be many fewer parasites.

On the down side, public restrooms are going to be really filthy.

434 I disagree. If we moved the retirement age for social security up a year every two or three or five years, eventually it would get to the point no human lives that long and it would cease to exist as a retirement plan.

435 Monty,
If we got rid of Medicare and just gave everyone a voucher to get coverage on their own would that somewhat fix SS (along with upping the start age)?  In reality, SS itself is a "voucher": the gubmint sends you a check and you can spend it on rent or on moonshine, whatever you want.

Part of the problem with Medicare IMHO is that the bureaucrats and pols mediate the transfer of wealth between payers and takers; at least with SS they are almost out of the equation.

436 1) push the retirement age up for 60 and unders
2) 60-65 (like me) take a x% haircut (use private insco actuaries to figure this, not those imbeciles in Congress)
3) stronger enforcement of age-discrimination laws - if you want us boomers to work longer (this really only applies to soft hands jobs - I have no idea how to handle broken down blue collar workers - maybe they could all work for the state DOT just standing around - they'd blend right in)
4) with respect to 3) frackin' enforce immigration law - we don't want the Euro/ Arab problem of idle yout's laying around without job prospects
5) offer those of significant means a lump sum payout of what they put in to compensate for walking away from a much larger net present value payout over 15-20 years
6) and while you are at it, claw back Bush's gift of that Medicaid drug rider nobody paid for or planned for
7) and also crack down on fraudulent disability payments from SS

or don't
then I'll take every $ I can lay hands on and pass it on to my kids

437

#206 - addressing the I paid in now I want mine crowd...

The reality for me is, I have been paying in at last 25%  (more recently 30%) of my income over a 50 year period and get nothing for another 25 years, while all this money is being sucked from my hard work. 

Yeah!  When it's my turn, I want mine. It's not your f'n money, it's mine that I paid in.  Either that, or keep your grubby hands off my money and let me know up front that I'm responsible for my own upkeep.  (Although I've pretty much already realized I'm going to be responsible for my own upkeep).  In the meantime, I have to save from my meager after tax, SS, state tax to pay my bills now and be able to afford the cardboard box in the alley when I retire - all my thousands of dollars of SS money overe a 70 years period being spent already to make people who are Chavez-like happy.

 

 

438 Only about 10% of our armed forces served in Vietnam during that period. I don't know what the percentage for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but if we had to enact stop-loss I'd imagine it is comparable.

439 The reality for me is, I have been paying in at last 25% (more recently 30%) of my income over a 50 year period and get nothing for another 25 years, while all this money is being sucked from my hard work. Yet another reader who completely fails to understand the difference between "tax" and "savings plan". You could say the same about the income tax; what do you think your chances are of getting all that back?

440

We need a conservative Roosevelt.  Someone completely committed to counter-revoution, to dramatically down sizing FedGov and all it's works - willing to bash heads like FDR was to create this monster.   Reagan was far too nice and honest to do anything that harsh.  Even being a conservative , a true conservative isn't enough.  You have to be an ass kicker, ego-maniac - I know what's right, damn you, and I'm doing ti. You have to have belief in the ultimate morality of your cause, and also perhaps even its historic inevitabiltity (to steal a page from the bad guys)...  nobody with the desire to be a nice guy like Mitt, Huck, Pawlenty or Newt can get it done.   Ron Paul has  bit of the messianiac streak needed, Michelle Bachman never apologizes.  But they are still only shadows of who we need.  Trump has the right sized ego and sense of pernoal invulnerability we need, but is ideologically untethered.  

441 449 I disagree. If we moved the retirement age for social security up a year every two or three or five years, eventually it would get to the point no human lives that long and it would cease to exist as a retirement plan.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 04, 2011 02:30 PM (61b7k)

 

it can't cease to exist as a retirement plan because it has never existed as a retirement plan, you paid a tax from your payroll checks for years, just because one of those taxes was labeled "Social Security Tax" does not mean you paid into any retirement system. The Social Security Administration is only that a government entitlement program like any other government entitlement program.

442 ""I wonder what the economy will look like when the remainder of the baby boomer generation (me, born 1962) don't get shit and are collecting welfare instead of SS."


You are missing the point. Social Security is welfare. Legally, it is indistinguishable from Food Stamps, AFDC or any other welfare program. They could double the rate and cancel all payments tomorrow and it would be perfectly legal. Not moral and political suicide but perfectly legal.

You have no, none, zip, nada, zilch, right to any SS payments regardless of how much or how long you have paid SS taxes.

For those who mentioned the Laffer curve in response to my wondering why nobody talks about increasing the SS tax rate.

I am very familiar with the Laffer Curve. I am not certain which side SS is on. It might be that increasing the rate would decrease collections. Or maybe not. I suspect not but don't feel strongly about that.

On the other hand, with regular income tax, I think a strong case can be made that increasing rates will decrease collections. Yet there is no hesitancy about discussing increasing income tax rates.

Or pretty much any other tax rates.

SS seems to be the only one nobody talks about and I find it curious.

John Henry

443

So, yeah, I guess in the end we truly are boned, and a more useful thread would focus on how to contain the urban dwellers once the S hits the F.

Posted by: Josef K. at March 04, 2011 01:24 PM (7+pP9)

 

that would be a useful thread... urban dwellers will definitely be a problem, there will be a lot of looting and plundering when people first get hungry, the stupid ones will be easy targets but the survivors of the first wave will be smarter, meaner and hungrier. don't build a fortress, a fortress is a target.

stash food, weapons and ammo in small amounts in various places, stay on the move, try to look as desperate and destitute as those you meet, don't draw attention to yourself. 

444

#454 - Monty - maybe you didn't read my entire post.

What I NOW understand, is that I will NEVER see any of the money that has been taken out of my pay for 50 years for my GOVT. ADVERTSISED RETIREMENT PLAN of SS.

I have no choice about paying into this govt. SS plan, and I am being robbed of my money that I will never see while being promised some sort of retirement security.

Believe me.  I'm not counting on it. 

445 Re urban dwellers after the crash - what did they in Argentina?

446

My hubby and I attended a financial planning seminar back in 1987.  The guy who led the seminar gave us one great piece of advice:  "Plan your retirement without Social Security, because it won't be there by the time you retire."  We've followed his advice, and twenty-four years later, we have a decent nest egg.  When we get our SS statements, we just ignore them.

I'm glad SS is there for our parents, but we're not counting on it for ourselves. 

447 I would take issue with the statement:"...this crisis took root many years ago when current beneficiaries had a chance to change it, but chose not to." I  paid into the system from the time that I was fourteen years old, not because I wanted to, but because I was given no opportunity to opt out. How were current beneficiaries ever in a position to make changes to the system? How could we have stopped the Congress from looting the surplus by transferring it to the general fund and spending it on their pet boondoggles?