Bernanke is INSANE

[tcsenter]

Mere assertion is not fact. You need to substantiate that. Good luck doing so.

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

 

[rudder]

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

Maybe medicare will get cut back so much a bunch of old people will die sooner. Unlike private investments you lose all of your SS contributions when you die.. no passing it on to your family.

 

[Patranus]

The fact is, your contributions to Medicare and Social Security don't come close to covering what you'll probably take from it (on average). These programs were supposed to pay for themselves (i.e. only those who contribute earn a benefit) but they don't.

Funny.
Bernie Madoff went to jail for doing the same thing but Washington politicians just sit back and rape the taxpayer.

 

[sandorski]

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

Back with the Ponzi BS...not a Ponzi Scheme, at all.

 

[Patranus]

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

There is a country in Texas that is actually exempt from Social Security. They have a privatized version. The return on each dollar contributed is something like 24x social security (if I remember correctly - I read a book about it many years ago)

 

[Patranus]

Back with the Ponzi BS...not a Ponzi Scheme, at all.

It is exactly what it is. The Government has to keep bringing in investors (young taxpayers) to pay the returns for the previous investors (older taxpayers)

 

[sandorski]

It is exactly what it is. The Government has to keep bringing in investors (young taxpayers) to pay the returns for the previous investors (older taxpayers)

Living up to your name.

 

[Patranus]

Living up to your name.

What a fact filled comeback. Way to support your position. Please, enlighten us with your wisdom.

 

[sandorski]

What a fact filled comeback. Way to support your position. Please, enlighten us with your wisdom.

Everyone has read the Ponzi Scheme debunking so many times here it shouldn't even be brought up anymore. Go Search if you need a Re-debunk.

 

[Patranus]

Everyone has read the Ponzi Scheme debunking so many times here it shouldn't even be brought up anymore. Go Search if you need a Re-debunk.

Nice deflection.

 

[Double Trouble]

Administrative costs? Shee-it, Sherlock, SS has extremely low admin costs, typically far less than mutual funds or similar types of investment.

What good is a low administrative overhead when you get a very very very lousy return on your (involuntary) "investment" in SS? If memory serves, historically, SS gets around a 2% return on the money invested. Historically, the stock market averages about an 8% return per year. Basically SS is a terribly lousy investment vehicle for retirement.

Bernanke's remarks are typical of the rightwing, of the monied elite. Take it out on the little guy, don't mess with my pile... SS obligations aren't the problem-

You appear to be confused. SS is not an "obligation", it's a mechanism put in place to provide a safety net for the elderly. From the little guy to the rich guy, they're ALL getting screwed on SS: they're paying in lots of money that the politicians are happily spending and replacing with IOU's. On top of that, even if they do get SS, they'll be getting a lousy return on their money. The rich are geting screwed exactly the same as the "little guy".

all of the other debt racked up by the Heroes of the Right- RR, GHWB & GWB are the real problem, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot knows it. The only fiscally responsible Admin of the last 30 years was Clinton's.

I think the left and the right are both guilty of wasteful spending, but once again you appear to be confused: the deficits of the "heroes of the right" you describe simply pale in comparison to the current deficits. Further, you might recall from civics class that the executive branch does not hold the purse strings, congress does. Don't kid yourself, the economic boom of the 90's caused the surplus during those years; government spending increased just as rapidly.

Make more money investing? Heh. How lame. Check the market, and the state of bonds in general to figure that one out. The only bonds anybody wants are govt bonds, or those having an explicit govt guarantee... Pension funds have taken a huge hit, as well.

There are ups and downs, but on average, over the longer time span -- and we're talking about a retirement vehicle -- the market is a much better return. Even last year's historic financial crash has been largely turned around in terms of market returns: the markets are way up this year.

 

[rchiu]

heh, the OP article simply play into people's emotion with this old wall st. vs main st. crap and I see that bunch of suckers here still buy it.

Bernanke didn't pass the $700b bailout, house/senate passed it and president signed it. Fed is just the instrument of what's already been decided.

As for the SS/medicare, he is simply stating the obvious. Everyone knows that SS/Medicare is not sustainable with the current scheme. If you have problem with that, yell at those politicians keep promising benefit without the money to pay for it.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/bernanke-channels-willie_n_378963.html

He wants to cut back on Medicare and social security while Wall Street keeps raping us? He can do this if he pays me back for thirty fucking years I have paid in for these entitlement programs.

Yup. Just like the Republicans. Cut back on social programs all the while expanding the unnecessary wars.

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[bamacre]

I'd like to have all I paid in back in one lump sum so I could invest it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Bernanke didn't say that at all, really. HuffPost is actually quoting a self-avowed socialist in Bernie Sanders as an appeal to authority about entitlement spending. Let's be real here, they're going to be ultra-sensitive to anything that threatens liberal establishment programs. It's kind of sad since nowhere that I can see did Bernanke say let's cut off Medicare and SS to grandma. He talked about costs and unless Bernanke used a poor choice of words, that's simply not the same as reducing benefits as HuffPost claims.

This is true.

I don't like Bernanke, but First is correct here in his assertion, and I would add that most in Congress are taking advantage of the spotlight being on the Fed. The truth is that Congress' spending is as much a problem, so if they get a chance to point fingers at someone or something else, damn right they'll do it.

 

[jhu]

This is true.

I don't like Bernanke, but First is correct here in his assertion, and I would add that most in Congress are taking advantage of the spotlight being on the Fed. The truth is that Congress' spending is as much a problem, so if they get a chance to point fingers at someone or something else, damn right they'll do it.

The silly thing is that privately, the senators are okay with what Bernanke's doing. But turn on the cameras and they all point their fingers at him. It's all about public perception.

 

[Jhhnn]

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

That isn't your original allegation, at all, something you haven't seen fit to support, because you can't.

The SS trust will become insolvent ~2042, iirc, which leaves a fair amount of time for adjustments to see to it that doesn't happen. the SS trust's role as a cashcow supporting fatcat taxcuts will end ~2017, which is the biggest problem that wingnuts face, considering that their hero, RR, and their Idol, Alan Greenspan, were the guys who sold increased SS contributions as a way for Boomers to pay it forward, create their own retirement benefit, essentially by lending to the govt. It'll be revenue neutral for a few years, but then paying it back, slowly, will become rather burdensome, particularly considering all the other debt successive repub admins have racked up... If the SS trust were the only federal debt, it'd be no problem at all

 

[Deeko]

At the age of 25 - I am fully planning my retirement assuming there will be no social security at that time. And assuming I stay the course I've set at this point, I will retire just fine on that money. So the sooner social security collapses and I stop paying that ridiculous % of my paycheck towards money I'm never going to see, the better. I could raise my current contribution, and still have more left over to live on now.

 

[Deeko]

Social Security is in fact structured NO DIFFERENTLY than a classic Ponzi scheme, albeit a government-sanctioned one. Our parents and grandparents were the early "investors" and will make out. You or your children will be the late "investors".

Nobody disputes the future solvency of the SS trust, they only disagree on the exact year the SS trust will go broke and the disagreement is only by a few years. Well...nobody disputes this except you, apparently.

I hate social security, but that first part really is untrue.

 

[shira]

Actually ....

On average I think (today) it takes 11-12 years on the SS 'dole' to recoup the 'actual' (without interest) money an individual pays into the system if they retire at 65.

And I think the 'average' will (maybe in the next 5 years or so) be rising to 13-14 years to get 'your' money back.

I've had earned income above the SS maximum almost since I first started working. That is the WORST situation in terms of "efficiency" of payback, since well over half of my SS income is above the so-called second "bend" (where each additional average dollar earned per month adds only 15 cents per month in SS benefit). Yet, when I compute how much I've paid into SS over my lifetime (and extrapolate for the remainder of my career) and I compare that amount to the the estimate of how much I'll get paid back in SS benefits each month, I think it will take me only about EIGHT years to get paid back - that's the WORST case.

For those with lower incomes, the situation can only be better. For example, those with incomes below the first "bend" get paid 90% of each average monthly dollar earned. So, for example, someone with an average monthly SS wage of 700/month (an amount entirely below the first bend) over the course of their career will get paid back 630/month in SS income. And don't forget that to compute the average SS wage of an individual, every past dollar earned is adjusted to current dollars based on the growth in United States average earned wage. So, for example, if the total increase in the US average wage has been 5-fold since 1970, then a dollar earned in 1970 will count as five dollars if the computation is performed in 2009.

The example "first bend" person above will have paid only about 1/13th as much as I have in SS taxes, but will receive a monthly SS benefit of greater than 1/3rd MY benefit. Thus, the payback period for such an individual will be MUCH faster - less than TWO years.

 

[shira]

Actually ....

On average I think (today) it takes 11-12 years on the SS 'dole' to recoup the 'actual' (without interest) money an individual pays into the system if they retire at 65.

And I think the 'average' will (maybe in the next 5 years or so) be rising to 13-14 years to get 'your' money back.

I've had earned income above the SS maximum almost since I first started working. That is the WORST situation in terms of "efficiency" of payback, since about half of my SS income is above the so-called second "bend" (where each additional average dollar earned per month adds only 15 cents per month in SS benefit). Yet, when I compute how much I've paid into SS over my lifetime (and extrapolate for the remainder of my career) and I compare that amount to the the estimate of how much I'll get paid back in SS benefits each month, I think it will take me only about EIGHT years to get paid back - that's the WORST case.

For those with lower incomes, the situation can only be better. For example, those with incomes below the first "bend" (which is about $760 in 2009) get paid 90% of each average monthly dollar earned. Thus, someone with an average monthly SS wage of 700/month over the course of their career will get paid back 630/month in SS income.

And don't forget that to compute the average SS wage of an individual every past dollar earned is "indexed" to current dollars based on the "National average wage index" for the year in which the dollar was earned. For example, a dollar earned in 1970 gets indexed to $6.68 2009 dollars for the purpose of computing a person's benefit in 2009 (because the average wage was $6,186.24 in 1970 and is $41,334.97 in 2009 - 6.68 times as much).

Putting it all together, the example "first bend" person above will have paid only about 1/13th as much as I have in SS taxes, but will receive a monthly SS benefit greater than 1/3rd my benefit. Thus, the payback period for such an individual will be MUCH faster - less than TWO years.

Edit: Edited to improve clarity.

 

[Zebo]

You haven't figured out bankers own this country lock stock and barrel? I mean theses guys failed and they get bailed out while little SBA and continuation/bridge loans for small to medium sized successful businesses are no where. Successful business getting nothing while losers put tax payers in perpetual debt. Not to mention tight ass bankruptcy laws passed a couple years back and loan shark interest rates hikes by banks to hit us on the private realm.. Then they are selling garbage back to the FED, with no bids nor independent evaluation, as repayment for their loans.

So much fraud so much deciet so fucking discusting and we will all pay a VERY long time for it.

 

[Zebo]

They will (are) just hyper-inflate these problems away. While you still will get a check for $3000 SS a gallon of gas will cost $20. There is nothing ponzi or bankrupt about a gov't, which can print (as they doing) or borrow two huge advantages Mr. Ponzi or Madoff didn't have.

 

[Craig234]

Fix ss, don't get rid of it. Get rid of the surplus Reagan put in as part of te plan. Before SS 90% of seniors were in poverty, now 10% are. Keep that success, the most successful program.

 

[halik]

Back with the Ponzi BS...not a Ponzi Scheme, at all.

The definition of ponzi scheme is that you use new investor proceeds to "create" returns for the older investors. IIRC social security is not covering their liabilities with asset returns, so it's by definition a ponzi scheme.

Also no way we should abandon SS and go to self-saving plan. Most people are idiots and apparently cannot handle stuff like mortgage or credit card contracts, much less portfolio allocation and risk management or for that matter saving money in general.