New SSA Retirement Estimator

uscitizen said:
right and you answer was incomplete/incorect because of your aviodance of the entire picture.
Click to expand...

I am starting to lose respect for you, which is sad, because I don't have respect for that many people on here, and you did earn it.
 
uscitizen said:
Same from here Trog, the closer to election time the further right you seem to lean.
Click to expand...
I'm not on the right or the left. I am on the side of clarity here. We have MAJOR issues facing us, U.S., here and now. I see those in power completely failing to create a solution while 'concentrating on the placement of, and fabric patterns on, the deck chairs of the Titanic.'

Does anyone other than me recall the Bush energy bills of 2001, 2002, 2003, that the Dem Congress killed? It's coming back to kick us in the ass right now isn't it?

Congress NEVER solves a problem, it only buys votes through manipulation and expands its power. Congress had a large hand in the subprime debacle, yet can't render a mea culpa becasue the arrogant SOBs can't ever see that they were wrong! The same morons who helped create the mess are supposed to save us from it. F' you Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer!

The tax system is often used to redistribute wealth. This mortgage bail out garbage is being used to redistribute debt.
 
Bush energy bills ?

I thought all that was secret stuff ?

And how would they have hepled ?
I never heard any details on those bills so I cannot say if they would have helped or not.


But yes lets just analyze this for a few more years.
 
Social security is still one of the best things Americans do for Americans, why don't you people find something less good to complain about.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/women.htm

* Women reaching age 65 in 2006 are expected to live, on average, an additional 19.7 years compared with 17.2 years for men.

* Women represent 57 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 70 percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older.
 
I do recall that the 2001 energy bill handed all sorts of shit to the energy producers.

Its as if the energy Cos wrote it.........hmmmmm?
 
uscitizen said:
Yepper, but you should have read a bit farther in the link you provided.

"Off-Budget" Again-

In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.

The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:

1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992.

2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).

3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.

Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts.

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-

The next important change in Social Security's budget treatment came in 1985 with the passage that year of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This law--informally known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, or GRH, after its three principal Senate sponsors: Senators Phil Gramm of Texas, ****** Rudman of New Hampshire, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--pushed forward from 1993 to 1986 the date by which the Social Security program would be made immune from generalized budget reductions. However, GRH also mandated that the Trust Funds be included in the budget for the purpose of determining if the total budget exceeded the deficit targets in the law. This provision was to be in effect for the entire time that GRH was in effect, which turned out to be 1986-1993.

The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in. So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983). So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit.

From your link.
Click to expand...
The above is a bunch of spin itself. The FACT is that the surplus is, by mandate dating back to 1968, "invested" in U.S. Treasury bills. (And I use the term "invested" very loosely indeed....) When Reagan's admin pushed through their mods that significantly increased the surplus and the rate at which the surplus grows, that surplus was STILL "invested" in U.S. Treasury bills. The only difference is whether the budget acknowledged the debt the general budget owed to the fund via treasury bills (taking SS fund "off budget") or simply counted the purchase of treasury notes as general fund income (putting SS funds "on budget").

The end result is the same, whether the budget boys cook the books on deficit spending or not. The end result is the SS surplus was spent and continues to be spent as we speak - and not on SS checks. Had a private corporation done to their pension fund what the U.S. government has done to the SS surplus fund, any administrative people involved in the scam would have been tossed in Club Fed for several years.

Instead we have various admins (and congresses) over the years using the procedure to gain political points by claiming they accomplished something that they did not, in fact, accomplish.
 
uscitizen said:
The above is official govt "facts"
Click to expand...
My point is it does not MATTER whether the funds are "off-budget" or not. They are still being spent via the sale of U.S. treasury notes to the SS fund. The practice needs to stop, and a plan put in place to buy back the notes as rapidly as possible. Then take the surplus and invest it in the same manner a private retirement fund is invested: in a wide and diverse range of investments calculated to maximize the combined factors of security and ROI. Such a maneuver would essentially end the SS crisis, and simultaneously end any talks about the need to privatize it.
 
Good Luck said:
My point is it does not MATTER whether the funds are "off-budget" or not. They are still being spent via the sale of U.S. treasury notes to the SS fund. The practice needs to stop, and a plan put in place to buy back the notes as rapidly as possible. Then take the surplus and invest it in the same manner a private retirement fund is invested: in a wide and diverse range of investments calculated to maximize the combined factors of security and ROI. Such a maneuver would essentially end the SS crisis, and simultaneously end any talks about the need to privatize it.
Click to expand...

And lose money when the market loses money.

I agree on spending the surplus. but since we already or around 3 trillion to it is is a bit late now.
 
uscitizen said:
And lose money when the market loses money.

I agree on spending the surplus. but since we already or around 3 trillion to it is is a bit late now.
Click to expand...
Investment of surplus is a long term investment, not short term. Only short term investments are subject to potential loss. In the long term (longer than 10 years) stock investments (when properly diversified) have NEVER lost money. Those times when pension funds are badly hit, it is the result of over investment in a single stock - such as the company's own stock - that causes the problem.

When is the last time you saw a net annual loss on DOW and NASDAQ three years running, let alone 10 or more? Try never. Pension funds use investment in stock markets, as well as money markets etc, all the time. 99% of them show a net increase annually even in bad years. Find the company that has the best record of handling pension funds and learn their secrets, then apply them to the SS fund.

And no, it is not too late. We obviously cannot pay back the SS surplus over night. But we need to stop spending it first, and start paying back what is owed over a couple decades - which will happen anyway as treasury bills owned by the SS fund come due. Cash them in and don't buy new ones.
 
Desh said:
Do you guys ask for a refund from your inssurance companies because you never got in an accident or had your house blown away by a tornado?

The insurance Co pockets profit from you premium and gives the CEOs big salaries and seweet retirement deals yet you dont seem to harp on them?
Click to expand...

apple and orange comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top