"Super Committee" decides to go full stupid

Darla said:
He's deeply stupid. Reading moronic drains on the system like this guy could turn me into a Libertarian some day. Seriously, he probably has offspring. I don't want to pay for this shit, and the shit they spawn. There are a few here who I know are drains on the system and I know their children are.

I give it another 4 or 5 years of this shit and I'll be full-on Libertarian. I got mine, fuck you. I'm not kidding. I get really tired of it.
Click to expand...

I hear you loud and clear, it is changing me, too.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
mott said that without SS, people would be broke...which of course would imply that with SS, you're not broke.

it doesn't even do that. had my grandmother not had one of her sons living with her, she'd gone without some of those basic needs.
Click to expand...

And you support doing away it and you have a grandmother who would have no income if it was cut? WTF?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so Obama was lying to the public when he said that SS checks might not go out if the debt limit wasn't raised?
Click to expand...

I don't recall his saying that, but it sounds like a typical scare tactic. Though it is possible that he was speaking in the context of a possible government shutdown. Now a government shutdown could concievably intefere with SS checks going out since obviously, workers do process them. If he was not speaking in the context of a possible shutdown, then yes, he was lying.
 
Rana said:
And you support doing away it and you have a grandmother who would have no income if it was cut? WTF?
Click to expand...
don't assume. I support doing away with it incrementally. my gramms would have been much better off had she been able to invest that tax money in something more profitable. At least she lived 30 years after retiring, so she probably got all of it back.
 
Anyway, I took tomorrow off for shopping and preparation. No one else wanted to do it (Thanksgiving) this year because everyone is worn out from the wedding preparations. I don’t mind though, I actually like it. So I am gone till Monday. I suppose that will give others free reign to continue spreading myths and false claims on this thread. Maybe DH will come along tomorrow and then he can bat clean up.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all. :)
 
Darla said:
No. Social Security as it stands does not effect the deficit. However, creating private accounts costs money. Where would that money come from right now?
Click to expand...

The money owed to Seniors has to come from somewhere Darla. You either pay the Seniors from current workers and let the system continue as is with the ever present danger of shifts in demographics blowing up the system or you fix the system so you stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. What the shift does is makes us pay for our own way rather than asking future generations to do so.
 
Darla said:
No, this claim:

"They control their own money in the same manner they do the 401k/403b/457 plan. They are provided investment options, their beneficiaries maintain rights to the assets, but they do not get to choose who the assets are invested with.... and the government can restrict the investment options however they wish. "

You speak as if this is already written somewhere. Where did you get this from? Is this the way you would do it, or the way you have evidence showing it would be done? Because I'm pretty sure you're not going to be put in charge of it, and "government restrictions" are othewise known as regulations. Maybe you have heard something about those in recent times? Maybe you have noticed their being decimated due to the influence of big money in politics?

So where are you getting this from. Is this an assumption, a hope, a diversion, or has someone proposed this? If so, who?
Click to expand...

It is an example of how it can be done to alleviate the 'concerns' of the fear mongering left. It is not 'written somewhere' or a current plan. You see, unlike Bfgrn and Mott, I actually have my own thoughts that I share with the board.

Yes, it would be a part of the regulation of SS... you know, that thing they ALREADY regulate. It would simply provide greater retention of assets for beneficiaries and prevent the government from continuing to fix the books like so many Presidents have done by borrowing from SS surplus funds.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
don't assume. I support doing away with it incrementally. my gramms would have been much better off had she been able to invest that tax money in something more profitable. At least she lived 30 years after retiring, so she probably got all of it back.
Click to expand...

And what if Grammy's had been poor investor and lost all her money? Or the market tanked and she lost all her money? What would Grammy's have done then, come and live with you?
 
Darla said:
I don't recall his saying that, but it sounds like a typical scare tactic. Though it is possible that he was speaking in the context of a possible government shutdown. Now a government shutdown could concievably intefere with SS checks going out since obviously, workers do process them. If he was not speaking in the context of a possible shutdown, then yes, he was lying.
Click to expand...

It is what he meant, no workers toroduce the checks, not that SS had to be funded.
 
Rana said:
And what if Grammy's had been poor investor and lost all her money? Or the market tanked and she lost all her money? What would Grammy's have done then, come and live with you?
Click to expand...
I would have loved for her to live with me. I didn't have enough time with her before she died.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
don't assume. I support doing away with it incrementally. my gramms would have been much better off had she been able to invest that tax money in something more profitable. At least she lived 30 years after retiring, so she probably got all of it back.
Click to expand...

Typically the breakeven is around 10-12 years depending on how much you put in.
 
Darla said:
I don't recall his saying that, but it sounds like a typical scare tactic. Though it is possible that he was speaking in the context of a possible government shutdown. Now a government shutdown could concievably intefere with SS checks going out since obviously, workers do process them. If he was not speaking in the context of a possible shutdown, then yes, he was lying.
Click to expand...

We're always informing you about things you don't know (or get wrong)

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
 
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?

Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

more at ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...he-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top