Social Security is ours not Congress

[JoeTheEconomist]

Put the money back, Congress.

Take away the welfare program and Social Security would flourish. When people no longer will sit on their asses having the government steal from me to give to lib fucktard, either the fucktards get to work or starve. Clinton signed the Contract with America, and after 2 years the welfare was cut off, and more people went to work. Working people put more money into Social Security and Congress doesn't have to touch it. Simple as that.

Why is it Social Security always has problems, but the welfare problem never goes broke?

Liberals hate working people, but love the slaves who have to be fed.

First, welfare gets reduced all the time. Look at Meals On Wheels an actual welfare program that serves all seniors. So you are starting with a flawed set of principles.

Second, Social Security is a defined set of revenue and expenses. It's problem is that its defined set of revenues does not cover its defined set of expenses. Every time that Congress looks at this problem it solves the imbalance for existing voters. It is called kicking the can.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Put the money back, Congress.

Welcome to govenrment, if you had your own account, this wouldnt happen, but since FICA has been general fund money since the 30s, its gonna happen.

If we all had our own accounts, we would be only as good as the last recovery, and I will darned if I let any private bean counter get a commission on my money.

Obama cut SS and no one cared. What is different now?

When did Obama "cut SS"?

 

[gipper]

Put the money back, Congress.

Welcome to govenrment, if you had your own account, this wouldnt happen, but since FICA has been general fund money since the 30s, its gonna happen.

If we all had our own accounts, we would be only as good as the last recovery, and I will darned if I let any private bean counter get a commission on my money.

Obama cut SS and no one cared. What is different now?

When did Obama "cut SS"?

Here you go....it happened just a few months ago. Were you unaware and please do not tell me it is NOT a CUT?

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker
Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

I wonder if an R did this, would the MSM and D party be silent about it?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Sure, right wing morons, lets give social security funds to Wall Street gamblers and see what could possibly go wrong.

Picture yourself as a 90 year old in a nursing home getting a letter from some WS bank stating, "sorry, we gambled and lost your money......have a nice time out on the street."

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Ok genius, how does it work. I put money in the bank, the bank loans it out, they get interest, they pay me a portion of that interest for allowing them to use my money. Very simple explanation of how my money grows into enough for retirement.

You understand that that little bit of money you pay in isn't the amount paid back to you right? It is much more than what you paid in.

So, oh enlightened one...what is the mechanism that produces the increase?

Not exactly, but close.

Social Security isn't like a retirement plan which you own. It is closer to a very poorly run health insurer. The money that you pay in health premiums does not come back to you when you get sick. It comes from a shared pool of resources. In my case, my insurance costs $12 to 15 K, but I do not use anything close to that amount. So the mechanism that produces the increase for those who collect is called shared risk.

The problem with your analysis is that the return on Social Security is not "much more". In fact a typical worker expects to lose money today because of the high cost of the program. The cost of the program is a serious problem because it lowers the savings rate of Americans.

The problem is that the first X generations did collect vastly more than they contributed. This is where the poor run part comes into the equation. These benefits were paid by giving younger workers a promise of more benefits. The benefit levels are rising faster than our economic capacity to service them. This is the crazy part about the 'put-the-money-back' lunacy. The Trust Fund is short $12 trillion - now - and that assumes that the money is fully invested.

This information was provided to Congress in 1944 (before the baby boomers were even contemplated). I am happy to share a link to the Congressional testimony of A.J. Altmeyer who ran Social Security at its inception. Considering the man's job, his testimony is very easy to understand. He said :

There is no question that the benefits promised under the present Federal old-age and survivors insurance system will cost far more than the 2 percent of payrolls now being collected.... It is a mathematical certainty that the longer the present pay-roll tax rate remains in effect, the higher the future pay-roll tax must be if the insurance system continues to be financed wholly by payroll taxes.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Put the money back, Congress.

Welcome to govenrment, if you had your own account, this wouldnt happen, but since FICA has been general fund money since the 30s, its gonna happen.

If we all had our own accounts, we would be only as good as the last recovery, and I will darned if I let any private bean counter get a commission on my money.

Obama cut SS and no one cared. What is different now?

When did Obama "cut SS"?

Here you go....it happened just a few months ago. Were you unaware and please do not tell me it is NOT a CUT?

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker
Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

I wonder if an R did this, would the MSM and D party be silent about it?

First, it was Congress that made these changes. Both houses were controlled by Rs. Second, the 'benefit cut' wasn't a benefit. It was filing strategy that had been available for only 10 years that wasn't available to all seniors. This is the kind of crap that the government needed to end long ago. It was pork-barrel politics passed through Social Security to reward a set of voters. Good riddance.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Sure, right wing morons, lets give social security funds to Wall Street gamblers and see what could possibly go wrong.

Picture yourself as a 90 year old in a nursing home getting a letter from some WS bank stating, "sorry, we gambled and lost your money......have a nice time out on the street."

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Should be, but isn't. Not a dime from your check came from your pocket, it came from your children. Just like any other welfare recipient

Anyone who calls it an entitlement or welfare is simply not being honest.

Everyone calls it that. Even the people who created it.
What is it then? And who else agrees?

Technically, Social Security was defined to be not-welfare. FDR insisted that the program not be a public dole. Do you need links? So the people who created it specifically wanted it to not be welfare.

The program has changed, but it remains difficult to call it welfare. Welfare is typically considered a government program to help the poor. According to Andrew Biggs, 1/5 of our poorest seniors are not even eligible for benefits. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders and his wife collect nearly 50K. How is that welfare?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Sure, right wing morons, lets give social security funds to Wall Street gamblers and see what could possibly go wrong.

Picture yourself as a 90 year old in a nursing home getting a letter from some WS bank stating, "sorry, we gambled and lost your money......have a nice time out on the street."

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Should be, but isn't. Not a dime from your check came from your pocket, it came from your children. Just like any other welfare recipient

Anyone who calls it an entitlement or welfare is simply not being honest.

Anyone who says social security is not welfare or an entitlement is not being honest.

Not a dime of the money in your check came from you. There is no other way to describe it other than as welfare

Here are some facts. 1/5 of the poorest seniors are not eligible for SS where as Bernie Sanders and his wife collect roughly $50 K every year. Can you explain how that is welfare?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Should be, but isn't. Not a dime from your check came from your pocket, it came from your children. Just like any other welfare recipient

Anyone who calls it an entitlement or welfare is simply not being honest.

Everyone calls it that. Even the people who created it.
What is it then? And who else agrees?

Apparently

Jake getting Welfare

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

We all agree on that, if Jake gets welfare, taxpayers are paying him money.

Now let's examine the cash flow for Social security:

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

OMG, it's identical! Clearly it's a different thing then ...

That isn't how Social Security works though.

It goes Taxpayer -> Social Security -> Jake
back to Taxpayer <- promised benefits
excess cash -> general fund -> bonds in the Trust Fund -> Jake

This works a lot like a private pension why isn't a private pension welfare? It works exactly like a private pension, the only meaningful difference is the price. Originally it was a lot lower than a private pension, and how is a lot higher. Why is that no private pension is saying just-put-the-money-back.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Ok genius, how does it work. I put money in the bank, the bank loans it out, they get interest, they pay me a portion of that interest for allowing them to use my money. Very simple explanation of how my money grows into enough for retirement.

You understand that that little bit of money you pay in isn't the amount paid back to you right? It is much more than what you paid in.

So, oh enlightened one...what is the mechanism that produces the increase?

And what happens when the growth evaporates as it always does during recession. You do understand that, do you not?

BUZZER!!!!! Sorry, wrong answer. Thought you were an expert? What the fuck happened?

Let's try it again.

You understand that that little bit of money you pay into Social Security isn't the amount paid back to you right? It is much more than what you paid in.

So, oh enlightened one...what is the mechanism that produces the increase?

You may at any time opt to ignore this question and concede that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You understand that the first three years in which you receive SS, you will have received more including inflation then you put in.

bucky and easyt the rest are right there with you.

Hmmm.... Source please?

The urban institute and SSA say that a typical worker will lose money on the program assuming that the money would have earned 2% real.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Missourian et al live off the infrastructure as much as possible, Joe. They will receive far more than they put in.

[PDF]Chapter 4 FINANCING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE The ...
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/80chap4.pdf
financed through the payroll tax, would continue to be financed by taxes levied equally on employers and employees (and by the employed paying the employee rate). A value added tax has been suggested as an alternative to increasing payroll taxes to finance the Social Security and Hospital Insurance programs.
[PDF]Social Security Financing
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v43n5/v43n5p18.pdf
interest in the future of social security financing, the Council's detailed ... see Social. Security Financing and Benefits: Reports of the 1979 Advisory Council on.
[PDF]Financing Social Security: Simulating Different Welfare State - IZA
ftp.iza.org/dp4135.pdfby C Dieckhoener - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles
Financing Social Security: Simulating Different Welfare State. Systems for Germany. Caroline Dieckhoener. EWI, University of Cologne. Andreas Peichl. IZA and ...
[PDF]Financing social protection - ILO
www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed.../---soc.../wcms_secsoc_8030.pdf
May 19, 2004 - International Social. Security Association. International Labour Office. Geneva. Financing social protection. QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN.
Options to Balance Social Security Finances | National Academy of ...
National Academy of Social Insurance › Learn › Social Security
Have you seen, “Social Security: Just the Facts? ... To fully finance benefits over 75 years, policymakers will need to choose between increasing revenues or ...

 

[gipper]

Welcome to govenrment, if you had your own account, this wouldnt happen, but since FICA has been general fund money since the 30s, its gonna happen.

If we all had our own accounts, we would be only as good as the last recovery, and I will darned if I let any private bean counter get a commission on my money.

Obama cut SS and no one cared. What is different now?

When did Obama "cut SS"?

Here you go....it happened just a few months ago. Were you unaware and please do not tell me it is NOT a CUT?

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker
Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

I wonder if an R did this, would the MSM and D party be silent about it?

First, it was Congress that made these changes. Both houses were controlled by Rs. Second, the 'benefit cut' wasn't a benefit. It was filing strategy that had been available for only 10 years that wasn't available to all seniors. This is the kind of crap that the government needed to end long ago. It was pork-barrel politics passed through Social Security to reward a set of voters. Good riddance.

It was a cut...and it was a benefit.

Yes as you must know, Congress passing bills does not make them law until the POTUS signs them. Obama signed it...then it becomes law.

Hence...Obama cut Social Security.

 

[nat4900]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

 

[kaz]

Here is one looming fact that all of us I think can agree on. No one on this forum is knowledgeable enough to debate this on the merits one way or the other.

And we can all agree that Missourian has no idea of what is being discussed.

One, SS is not an entitlement.

Two, it is an old age insurance program into which we all pay.

Three, it is our money.

Should be, but isn't. Not a dime from your check came from your pocket, it came from your children. Just like any other welfare recipient

Anyone who calls it an entitlement or welfare is simply not being honest.

Everyone calls it that. Even the people who created it.
What is it then? And who else agrees?

Technically, Social Security was defined to be not-welfare. FDR insisted that the program not be a public dole. Do you need links? So the people who created it specifically wanted it to not be welfare.

The program has changed, but it remains difficult to call it welfare. Welfare is typically considered a government program to help the poor. According to Andrew Biggs, 1/5 of our poorest seniors are not even eligible for benefits. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders and his wife collect nearly 50K. How is that welfare?

FDR didn't create the program where the government spent the money instead of investing it, that came later.

And you're playing word games. They save no money, they take the money from taxpayers just like any other welfare program. What kind of "economist" are you who thinks taking money from taxpayers and giving it to someone else is any kind of trust fund? Not a good one, or you just made it up.

Here's the difference between those on social security today and those on other welfare programs today.

The ones on social security today gave us a tip. Do the same to your kids ...

I reject that and want to change it. I don't want to do that to my kids even if our parents did do it to us

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we all had our own accounts, we would be only as good as the last recovery, and I will darned if I let any private bean counter get a commission on my money.

Obama cut SS and no one cared. What is different now?

When did Obama "cut SS"?

Here you go....it happened just a few months ago. Were you unaware and please do not tell me it is NOT a CUT?

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker
Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

I wonder if an R did this, would the MSM and D party be silent about it?

First, it was Congress that made these changes. Both houses were controlled by Rs. Second, the 'benefit cut' wasn't a benefit. It was filing strategy that had been available for only 10 years that wasn't available to all seniors. This is the kind of crap that the government needed to end long ago. It was pork-barrel politics passed through Social Security to reward a set of voters. Good riddance.

It was a cut...and it was a benefit. Yes as you must know, Congress passing bills does not make them law until the POTUS signs them. Obama signed it...then it becomes law. Hence...Obama cut Social Security.

Hence, you don't understand words. That's fine. Not much is expected from you here. The Congress passed the short-term benefit, Obama signed it, and later it was rescinded. Thus, Obama restored SS that Congress cut.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

 

[gipper]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

Obama cut Social Security. It is a FACT. Why is it that you two dummies can't accept facts?

Two popular methods of claiming Social Security benefits are disappearing thanks to the budget deal worked out between Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the Senate is widely expected to follow suit.

“File-and-Suspend” and “File-and-Restrict” are both used by couples to boost the amount of Social Security they receive together. They were the unintentional results of a hastily-written piece of legislation called “Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act” passed in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

The main intention of this Act was to remove the penalty on individuals who were receiving Social Security benefits and income from a job. If your annual earnings from work exceed a certain amount, Social Security stops paying you some - and potentially all – of your benefits for the year. This law eliminated the benefit hold-back once an individual reached full retirement age (FRA).(1)

 

[Votto]

Put the money back, Congress.

LMAO!

The government owes you NOTHING!

They don't have to pay you one cent.

Social Security was created as a slush fund. It is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that the average citizen benefits from, so who dares touch it? You?

Al Capone created charities. Did you know that? Being charitable gives an air of legitimacy to criminals, much like the money laundering scheme of the Clinton Foundation.

In the end, they could only get Al Capone behind bars for tax evasion, even though everyone knew he was a cold blooded murdering hoodlum.

 

[Votto]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

Obama cut Social Security. It is a FACT. Why is it that you two dummies can't accept facts?

Two popular methods of claiming Social Security benefits are disappearing thanks to the budget deal worked out between Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the Senate is widely expected to follow suit.

“File-and-Suspend” and “File-and-Restrict” are both used by couples to boost the amount of Social Security they receive together. They were the unintentional results of a hastily-written piece of legislation called “Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act” passed in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

The main intention of this Act was to remove the penalty on individuals who were receiving Social Security benefits and income from a job. If your annual earnings from work exceed a certain amount, Social Security stops paying you some - and potentially all – of your benefits for the year. This law eliminated the benefit hold-back once an individual reached full retirement age (FRA).(1)

What we need is a revolution!!

Which is a left wing code word for world wide tyrannical socialism.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Missourian et al live off the infrastructure as much as possible, Joe. They will receive far more than they put in.

[PDF]Chapter 4 FINANCING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE The ...
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/80chap4.pdf
financed through the payroll tax, would continue to be financed by taxes levied equally on employers and employees (and by the employed paying the employee rate). A value added tax has been suggested as an alternative to increasing payroll taxes to finance the Social Security and Hospital Insurance programs.
[PDF]Social Security Financing
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v43n5/v43n5p18.pdf
interest in the future of social security financing, the Council's detailed ... see Social. Security Financing and Benefits: Reports of the 1979 Advisory Council on.
[PDF]Financing Social Security: Simulating Different Welfare State - IZA
ftp.iza.org/dp4135.pdfby C Dieckhoener - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles
Financing Social Security: Simulating Different Welfare State. Systems for Germany. Caroline Dieckhoener. EWI, University of Cologne. Andreas Peichl. IZA and ...
[PDF]Financing social protection - ILO
www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed.../---soc.../wcms_secsoc_8030.pdf
May 19, 2004 - International Social. Security Association. International Labour Office. Geneva. Financing social protection. QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN.
Options to Balance Social Security Finances | National Academy of ...
National Academy of Social Insurance › Learn › Social Security
Have you seen, “Social Security: Just the Facts? ... To fully finance benefits over 75 years, policymakers will need to choose between increasing revenues or ...

You have a statement "They will receive far more than they put in, and random links that have nothing to do with your statement. This article that I wrote will explain the economic returns of Social Security. No people on average do not get their money back. It provides links to data from the SSA and Urban Institute.

http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2014/0...ion-everyone-should-be-as?slreturn=1479392378

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

Obama cut Social Security. It is a FACT. Why is it that you two dummies can't accept facts?

Two popular methods of claiming Social Security benefits are disappearing thanks to the budget deal worked out between Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the Senate is widely expected to follow suit.

“File-and-Suspend” and “File-and-Restrict” are both used by couples to boost the amount of Social Security they receive together. They were the unintentional results of a hastily-written piece of legislation called “Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act” passed in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

The main intention of this Act was to remove the penalty on individuals who were receiving Social Security benefits and income from a job. If your annual earnings from work exceed a certain amount, Social Security stops paying you some - and potentially all – of your benefits for the year. This law eliminated the benefit hold-back once an individual reached full retirement age (FRA).(1)

When I was working in Saudi Arabia, not having to pay taxes other than FICA, William Jefferson(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton was bantering about doing away with Social Security because the liberals in the House and Senate were stealing SS from the lockbox. So at that time I heavily invested in the stock market and today have a considerable fortune to retire on. Now I did pay the full amount into the SS fund, and now, I shouldn't receive the full amount I am Due? The shitfucks who sat on their liberal asses sucking from the government teat, who didn't pay anything into the system, should get more? And I guess you libtards want the US to eventually end up like Venezuela also?