Social Security is not going broke .. because it can't

Thing1 said:
The market is already back to 14K. And anyone who retired after 30-40 years in 2008 still had HUGE returns.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

Relative to what they expected when they were looking ahead in 2005? Let's pretend that in 2005 they were projecting the "benefits" that would flow from their 401k in 2008. You mean to tell me they didn't experience huge benfit cuts?

Also, too, you didn't answer my question.
 
Superfreak said:
The 'cost' of $2T is simply wrong. It is shifting the amount owed and paying for it in a different time. The costs of privatizing 100%, privatizing 50% or privatizing 0% are all the same. It is, again, simply a matter of when/how we pay for it. What privatization will do is highlight the unfunded liability we face so that people like you will realize it is not sustainable under the current system.



I would not take anything of hers. Privatization would be an OPTION. People could CHOOSE to take a portion and put it into a private account or they could choose to leave it as is.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. You are doing a lot of dancing. So your plan is the same as Bush's. And his two trillion dollar estimate was wrong.

And when these young people " choose" to take some of their SS contributions and put them into private accounts, then that is money taken out of SS. WHich means it has to go into the trust fund years sooner, which means it exhausts the trust fund years sooner. Which means that we either cut off seniors completely, or we raise taxes or we add to the deficit.

Which is fine, but say so. This idea that we are not going to "hurt" future generations by raising taxes or raising the deficits, so we'll privatize SS, is a fantasy. It's worse. It's three-card monte.
 
Dungheap said:
Relative to what they expected when they were looking ahead in 2005? Let's pretend that in 2005 they were projecting the "benefits" that would flow from their 401k in 2008. You mean to tell me they didn't experience huge benfit cuts?

Also, too, you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

Why are you making it relative to 2005? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary?

Why not make it relative to what they are actually getting now, which is barely enough to get by for many seniors?

As for your other question, I'd be all for that. I just think privatization is a more effective long-term solution.
 
Darla said:
Uh huh. You are doing a lot of dancing. So your plan is the same as Bush's. And his two trillion dollar estimate was wrong.

And when these young people " choose" to take some of their SS contributions and put them into private accounts, then that is money taken out of SS. WHich means it has to go into the trust fund years sooner, which means it exhausts the trust fund years sooner. Which means that we either cut off seniors completely, or we raise taxes or we add to the deficit.

Which is fine, but say so. This idea that we are not going to "hurt" future generations by raising taxes or raising the deficits, so we'll privatize SS, is a fantasy. It's worse. It's three-card monte.
Click to expand...


The above is quite comical, because under the current system you are completely screwing over the future generations.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is quite comical, because under the current system you are completely screwing over the future generations.
Click to expand...

No I don't feel that we are. IMO we are protecting them. Anyway, let's not forget about me and my generation. In our rush not to "screw" future generations, you don't mind if Gen X isn't left pushing a cart around, I'm sure. No need to rush over the dead bodies of Gen X in order to protect "future" generations. We all know the Boomers are getting what's coming to them, they are too powerful a voting block and that's why any scheme, for instance Paul Ryan's schemes, all assure them that "of course, this wont' affect you".

It's a bit of self-interest for me to be concerned about myself as well as about the millennials, I know. I am like that what can I say. Not willing to live on the streets at 75 so Grind can enjoy a cushy retirement. Not that I believe the millennials would benefit under your plan, but that's your premise. To which I say; nah.
 
Damocles said:
They won't grow them, they'll print them up. I'm hoping for a new kidney, one that won't give me stones every month or so...
Click to expand...

try cranberry concentrate or time release potassium citrate for kidney stones, that and more water intake

i have had kidney stones and they suck, the surgery that got rid of them sucked too, but less than having the stones

oh well
 
Thing1 said:
I get those things too. Brutal.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of the pain. One about ever 3 to 4 weeks for about 5 years now. The doctor keeps blaming me. The only things I drink any more are two cups of coffee in the morning and water all day long... I'm tired of water only... I'm tired of pain.
 
See! You don't need a doctor! Superfreak is going to diagnose you over the internet - and not only that, he will then give you the cure! It will always come down to something you are doing wrong! And there is an easy fix!

This is how we are going to lower health care costs! Most people don't even need doctors! Dear Superfreak will be widely syndicated and available at a website near you soon!
 
Damocles said:
I'm tired of the pain. One about ever 3 to 4 weeks for about 5 years now. The doctor keeps blaming me. The only things I drink any more are two cups of coffee in the morning and water all day long... I'm tired of water only... I'm tired of pain.
Click to expand...

Have you tried cranberry juice? Some have sworn by that.

I use an old wive's thing, but I swear that it has decreased the frequency dramatically (I only get them about once a year now, if that). I put a couple of tablespoons of Apple Cider Vinegar in my drinking water every day. Totally used to the taste at this point, and can't argue the results.
 
blackascoal said:
How about simply fixing the most successful and popular program in American history rather than trashing it?

Is that not a sane and responsible thought?
Click to expand...

You don't like realistic fixes, so what will happen is we'll hold on to it like a conservative socialist (yeah they exist, in a nation of socialism the conservatives were the ones that wanted to keep the socialist government) until it is in crisis then we'll change it minimally. Basically, it is my prediction that we'll push the age out until it is useless to most who will need it, means-test the program, and it will suck like never before. They'll then use the money we contribute in the general fund and pretend they "fixed" it. Only a small portion of what we pay in will go to retirees, those who did manual labor that were lucky enough to live long enough.

I base this on the past actions of this government. Impossible to get them to act until it is absolutely in crisis, then they act foolishly or with larcenous intent.
 
Darla said:
No I don't feel that we are. IMO we are protecting them.
Click to expand...

No, we are not. As things stand today they are not going to get but 75% of their promised bene's. That is not protecting them.

Anyway, let's not forget about me and my generation. In our rush not to "screw" future generations, you don't mind if Gen X isn't left pushing a cart around, I'm sure. No need to rush over the dead bodies of Gen X in order to protect "future" generations. We all know the Boomers are getting what's coming to them, they are too powerful a voting block and that's why any scheme, for instance Paul Ryan's schemes, all assure them that "of course, this wont' affect you".
Click to expand...

Yes, the goal is to try not to screw anyone over. The baby boomers will get what has been promised to them. That won't change even as their generation begins to diminish via death. This is why we should look at all viable options. The donut hole on taxation, privatization, adjustments to COLA, adjustments for longevity... all of these should be on the table as all have the potential to help alleviate the current problem we face.

It's a bit of self-interest for me to be concerned about myself as well as about the millennials, I know. I am like that what can I say. Not willing to live on the streets at 75 so Grind can enjoy a cushy retirement. Not that I believe the millennials would benefit under your plan, but that's your premise. To which I say; nah.
Click to expand...

Again, try reading what 'my plan' actually is.
 
Thing1 said:
Have you tried cranberry juice? Some have sworn by that.
Click to expand...
It only works with calcium stones. Since I get both types it actually will make uric acid stones more prevalent.

I use an old wive's thing, but I swear that it has decreased the frequency dramatically (I only get them about once a year now, if that). I put a couple of tablespoons of Apple Cider Vinegar in my drinking water every day. Totally used to the taste at this point, and can't argue the results.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'll give this a go.
 
Dungheap said:
Also, too, it should be noted that 75% of scheudled benefits in 2035 will still result in higher initial benefits than current retirees receive because scheduled benefits grow based on median earnings and earnings grow faster than inflation. So, like, doing nothing means that future retirees will still be better off than today's retirees in terms of value of payable benefits.
Click to expand...

Is that why median income has gone down while inflation has risen?
 
Thing1 said:
The answer to everything can't always be "more taxes."

And it shouldn't be. We're a smarter country than that. Taxes can only pay for so much. For every problem we face - medical costs, debt, SS - the answer just can't be "more taxes."

Think creatively. There are ways to solve our problems that do not involve postponing solutions for a generation or 2.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that the answer can't always be more taxes .. and I bet the vast majority of Americans believe that as well my wise brother.

HOWEVER .. if believing that, and still willing to pay more taxes to solve the problem demonstrates their support of and faith in the program. That was the point.

I ask again .. why not fix the most successful program in American history rather than trashing it?

This isn't about profit or dividends .. it's about a safety net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top