Beating Social Security

[ThoughtCrimes]

On almost any given day I can "beat" Social Security - but that's not the point of Social Security. Social Security is an insurance safety net - a valuable lesson learned from the Great Depression. The Trust Funds are invested in U.S. government securities - that same "safe" investment that China and Japan like. Imagine using the stock markets to insure your home, health, and vehicles - instead of actually having insurance policies for specific protection.

"Social Security is an insurance safety net."

1. Can you find the article of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to create 'insurance'?

2. Can you explain why the Left, behind all sorts of government expansion, has not formed and advanced an amendment for that purpose?

Ask SCOTUS.

I'm asking you....why do you oppose the United States Constitution....the 'law of the land'?

SCOTUS has upheld Social Security.

On May 24, 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SocialSecurity Act.

Social Security Online History Pages

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935

How Social Security Was Defended by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

So....you agreed with this decision, too?

March 6, 1857 The court held that Dred Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly, both decisions were wrong.

If you don't believe it, brush up on the English language, and read the Constitution....specifically article 1, section 8.


No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution.

Your ignorance stems from your refusal to accept the principle of Judicial Review as laid out by Hamilton in Federalist #78, IN SPITE of its history and relevance since before the Constitution was even ratified!

In your utter ignorance you wrote the following in the post, to which I'm responding:

"No Supreme Court decision is correct unless it is directly related and consistent with the language of our Constitution." [Emphasis Added]

Were did you ever get the notion that proposed legislation had to be DIRECTLY RELATED to the enumerated powers in Art.I, Sec. 8? Can you find a single scrap of evidence which predates the ratification of the Constitution that displays in upper and lower case script that proves your very false claim? Don't C&P esoteric crap from Coulter, Tea Party blather or their idiotic spawn. You're simply in ERROR!

The bottom line is that in May 1937 the Supremes in Helvering v. Davis found SS constitutional given the Congress had appropriately used the "taxing power" to provide for the "general welfare" of Art. I, Sec 8, Cls. 1. < Helvering v. Davis > The decision was based on the "implied powers" of Congress. Will you accept this? OH HELL NO, because you will not admit your ERROR!

But here is another instance that you might be more familiar to you living in Brooklyn. When Hurricane Sandy hit youse guys, how much relief money did NY & NYC get from the Federal to improve the "general welfare" of your area? According to you, that aid was unconstitutional, but I bet you along with other New Yorkers took the benefits that funding brought very willingly at the time, which would make you a HYPOCRITE!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Lefty idiots think everybody who disagrees with them hates them

The real issue here is that if people had control over where their SS contributions went they would retire much richer than they can now and the government can't have that after all when less people are dependent the government and the fucking crooks who run it have less power

Not unless you tell retirees to pound sand. If your SS contributions when to your personal account it would grow. Just not as fast as the income tax increases that are required to pay the benefits of existing retirees. This is a left pocket is rich, and we ignore the right pocket which is full of bills.

funny how we can find money to fund all kinds of bullshit yet you think we can;t find a way to grandfather people in during a transition to a new system that in the long run would decrease dependence on government thereby resulting in a savings of far more than any funding required to keep paying those already trapped in the current system

the BS is a million dollars. The grandfather is a trillion dollar problem. It isn't a matter of 'funny'. It is a matter of commas and zeros in very large numbers.

The only way that the new system results 'in a savings of far more than any funding required to keep paying those already trapped.' is to tell those people to pound sand. The Trust Fund has about 3 years of scheduled benefits, beyond that it is nothing more than renaming taxes. What you call the tax isn't going to create anything.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

It is a 'safety-net' for which 1/5th of the poorest quintile of retirees is not even eligible - some safety-net. Something like 40% of benefits paid go to those people in the highest quintile of earnings history.

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

 

[Lakhota]

Who pays for Social Security?

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Now that you put it that way, I will sleep easier.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The workers almost none of whom are eligible.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

This statement is ignorant.

Prior to Social Security most people worked on the family farm or in the family business. As they got older, they got reduced responsiblities.

Industrialization made it so the elderly had to get out of the way. And they had no where to go.

Once again, piss poor history lesson from the left.

Baloney. Back to poor houses and Potters' Fields- The Golden Age that only exists in demented Reaganism. Read "The Good Old Days- They Were TERRIBLE!".

You are still the same stupid ass you've always been.

Nobody referenced anything about Reagan.

Are you drunk ?

 

[Lakhota]

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

Because of the size of the payments they get.

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

Because of the size of the payments they get.

The payments they get are based on what they paid in.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

Because of the size of the payments they get.

The payments they get are based on what they paid in.

Which is besides the point I was making.

I don't dispute the size of the trust fund.

I am simply pointing out that just saying that we have all this money in the bank does not equate to all seniors getting what they need to eat and sleeping in a warm home.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

Because of the size of the payments they get.

There was something funny here ?

If I were a senior in poverty, I'd be laughing too......I guess.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

I am not a fan of any politician. Sanders is about worst of a bad lot. I took a lot of flak for this piece because people said well everyone does it. I said yes, but Sanders is simply more visible.

OPINION: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Quite Get It on Social Security - IVN.us

Solvent means that you are able to pay your bills in total. SS will currently is paying its bills, but the accrued cost is all kept off-balance sheet. When SS reaches insolvency, it is unable to pay scheduled benefits. It reduces the benefit level of retirees to a 'payable benefit'.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim that "almost none of whom are eligible" - after they paid into Social Security.

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

I am not a fan of any politician. Sanders is about worst of a bad lot. I took a lot of flak for this piece because people said well everyone does it. I said yes, but Sanders is simply more visible.

OPINION: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Quite Get It on Social Security - IVN.us

Solvent means that you are able to pay your bills in total. SS will currently is paying its bills, but the accrued cost is all kept off-balance sheet. When SS reaches insolvency, it is unable to pay scheduled benefits. It reduces the benefit level of retirees to a 'payable benefit'.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You asked who PAYS for Social Security. It is workers - who may or may not attaining eligibility. They aren't dead. They aren't by and large 62 or older. Given that the system has $25 trillion in unfunded obligations, it is impossible to guess who will and who will not get paid.

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

I am not a fan of any politician. Sanders is about worst of a bad lot. I took a lot of flak for this piece because people said well everyone does it. I said yes, but Sanders is simply more visible.

OPINION: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Quite Get It on Social Security - IVN.us

Solvent means that you are able to pay your bills in total. SS will currently is paying its bills, but the accrued cost is all kept off-balance sheet. When SS reaches insolvency, it is unable to pay scheduled benefits. It reduces the benefit level of retirees to a 'payable benefit'.

Sorry you had to answer that.

Jerkwad Lakhota really is just an unpaid robot who has no sense of context.

I understand what solvent means.

My point was that Sanders (who I actually like) raises an issue about what S.S. pays out and how it might not be enough.

The question is...so what ? Or what's to be done about it.

I don't like Lizzy Warren's crazy approach. There needs to be some understanding of how the system failed if it needs to be fixed. She takes this "how dare you even ask attitude" which really pisses me off.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

With a current surplus of about $2.7 trillion - how could it not meet needs now?

Because of the size of the payments they get.

There was something funny here ?

If I were a senior in poverty, I'd be laughing too......I guess.

Would you care to elaborate on what is so funny ?

Or are you just being you....a complete asshole ?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security has a SURPLUS of about $1.7 trillion last I heard. What are you talking about? You seem lost.

It is about 2.8 trillion. That sum is held against nearly $30 trillion in promises for which SS does not expect to generate cash. When you take the former out of the latter you get 24.9 trillion in the hole. The SURPLUS is nothing more than left pocket/right pocket where you have cash in the left and bills in the right. Yes if you think only about the left pocket you can claim that you are rich.

Joe, don't be alarmed, because Social Security will simply need some tuning and tweaking just like it always has to keep it solvent for future retirees.

Listen to Bernie Sanders.....

It's his feeling that it does not meet needs now.....so what does "solvent" mean ?

I am not a fan of any politician. Sanders is about worst of a bad lot. I took a lot of flak for this piece because people said well everyone does it. I said yes, but Sanders is simply more visible.

OPINION: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Quite Get It on Social Security - IVN.us

Solvent means that you are able to pay your bills in total. SS will currently is paying its bills, but the accrued cost is all kept off-balance sheet. When SS reaches insolvency, it is unable to pay scheduled benefits. It reduces the benefit level of retirees to a 'payable benefit'.

Sorry you had to answer that.

Jerkwad Lakhota really is just an unpaid robot who has no sense of context.

I understand what solvent means.

My point was that Sanders (who I actually like) raises an issue about what S.S. pays out and how it might not be enough.

The question is...so what ? Or what's to be done about it.

I don't like Lizzy Warren's crazy approach. There needs to be some understanding of how the system failed if it needs to be fixed. She takes this "how dare you even ask attitude" which really pisses me off.

In its inception, SS was supposed to be an earned benefits - something that you paid for. Sanders wants to make it less earned, a product of politics. Sanders is just another step towards making the needs of the elderly a political priority. That isn't a good thing.

We are asking the wrong question. We shouldn't ask what should be done, until we ask what the hell is the matter. We are putting 12.4% of our wages into a system that does little more than print empty promises.

 

[RicO'Shea]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

 

[RicO'Shea]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Galveston opted out of the SS system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0