Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
how does it help this country to ONLY help the wealthy?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
how does it help this country to ONLY help the wealthy?
This is the 4th post since the thread was started 45 minutes ago. Why is it still labelled "Old"?![]()
Its a liesmatters thread....
her hack shit gets old fast.![]()
![]()
![]()
.
I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...
... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.
... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself
... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science
Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.
.
So what you're saying is that the Mods play favorites?
What about reducing the SS benefit payout on a sliding scale and reducing, if not eliminating SSI?
And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.
If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.
The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.
Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.
What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.
Myth No. 1: Social Security won't exist when I retire.
Those who want to dismantle Social Security often suggest it's about to collapse into rubble. That false assessment is one of the reasons so many people are convinced the system won't be there when they need it.
It's true that Social Security's finances need fixing. Without changes, the system will be able to pay only 75% of promised benefits after 2037.
Until 1984, the trust fund was pay-as-you-go, meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.
As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.
If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.
According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than todays retirees do.
The system wont be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive. That is what the dictionary defines as lying.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
Why doesn't the government just print more money and use that for social security? Seemed to work nicely for the corporations...
Until 1984, the trust fund was pay-as-you-go, meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.
As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.
If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.
According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than todays retirees do.
The system wont be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive. That is what the dictionary defines as lying.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
And that's the point everyone fails to grasp. In order to maintain 100% funding and current benefit levels then action is required. Otherwise benefit levels may go down. And 70% in a worse case scenario is better than nothing.
Think when at retirement Wall Street is down again and your 401 k is in the hole. That $1,000 or more per month from Social Security Insurance will be very very very nice.
Medicare will also be sweet instead of no medicare insurance.
Millions upon millions have lost both due to Wall Street scams and republicans destroying the economy. Don't be stupid ... BEWARE.
Meanwhile:
Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative for good reason.
During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.
After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.
In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Pres. Bush was lying.
If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
And if nothing is done before 2037 the Government still has to find the money from somewhere to pay back the IOU's and as your link states that will cause problems long before 2037.
If nothing is done BEFORE 2037, in 2037, assuming ( big assumption) that the current rate of people paying in stays the same and the number drawing benefits does not increase more then projected, only 75 percent of the money needed to pay for benefits will be available.
The program is in jeopardy and no one seems to want to do anything about it. And no we can't just keep changing when people are eligible to draw their money.
Since you are a lefty, perhaps you could tell us what the left plans to do about Social Security? The right has presented several plans over the years and all have been ignored.
What has the right presented besides "partial privitization"? That would have only reduced the money being paid into it even more (worsening the situation) and face it, we all know how the stock market has been doing. Diverting SS money into investments would have proved disasterous.