But there's no reasoning with the elderly on...

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
and gambling our future is idiotic, and not even worth discussing.

we see how the GOP handles finances and grows the government to huge porportions.

maybe time for a real conservative then? imagine that!

So what is your realistic plan besides waiting for the implosion?

What "implosion"?

The one you and Bush imagine as an excuse to destroy Social Security?

I dont know maybe when we start having to fund SS from more borrowing or directly from tax revenues after 2018? Sure it will start off small at about 6 billion a year but by the mid 2020s it will ramp up to the tune of about 2-300 billion and by 2040 about 1 trillion.

You dont think having to find 1 trillion extra to fund SS is an implosion? Especially considering how we run deficits now with a SS surplus to rape.

If you're saying 200 -300 billion up to 1 trillion per year I'd like to see YOUR proof.

Even if you were right, and you're not, we could have started by saving $300 billion on an unnecessary invasion.

Trustee report had revenues vs outlays for the next 70 years for both medicare and SS.
And yes it is nearly 1 trillion a year in 2040 and by 2080 Medicare + SS will top 20 trillion a year shortfall.

btw here is some information on FICA hikes over the years

http://www.nrln.org/SocailSecuirtyHistory.htm

On January 1, 1937 the tax rate to employees and employers was 1% of earnings up to a maximum of $3000.00/year. On January 1, 2005 the rate stands at 7.65% to employee and employer and the self-employed pay a tax of 15.30%. This rate includes Health Insurance (HI) that was added to the program in 1966. The earnings cap is $90,000.00 on the OASDI portion and with no income cap on the HI portion. The OASDI now has an annual escalator built in. (The breakdown is: 5.3% OASI; 0.9% DI; 1.45% HI).

The FICA tax rate has changed 21 times after 1937 (1% in 1937; 7.65% in 2005).

The taxable earnings ceiling has changed 39 times

So your total is one trillion but you tried to make it sound like one trillion per year.

Uh huh.

You're worried about a measly $6 billion per year? Hell, we waste that much in Iraq EVERY MONTH!!!

Elimination of the FICA cap will take care of that no problem.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
you are lost.....gives up on you..... I spelled it out.

Not running a war? Republicans out of office? WTF does that have to do with a shortfall in SS revenues?

You seriously cant be this uneducated about this can you?

 

[BBond]

PS Stop being obtuse. I'm talking about ELIMINATING the cap. Not raising the tax.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
and gambling our future is idiotic, and not even worth discussing.

we see how the GOP handles finances and grows the government to huge porportions.

maybe time for a real conservative then? imagine that!

So what is your realistic plan besides waiting for the implosion?

What "implosion"?

The one you and Bush imagine as an excuse to destroy Social Security?

I dont know maybe when we start having to fund SS from more borrowing or directly from tax revenues after 2018? Sure it will start off small at about 6 billion a year but by the mid 2020s it will ramp up to the tune of about 2-300 billion and by 2040 about 1 trillion.

You dont think having to find 1 trillion extra to fund SS is an implosion? Especially considering how we run deficits now with a SS surplus to rape.

If you're saying 200 -300 billion up to 1 trillion per year I'd like to see YOUR proof.

Even if you were right, and you're not, we could have started by saving $300 billion on an unnecessary invasion.

Trustee report had revenues vs outlays for the next 70 years for both medicare and SS.
And yes it is nearly 1 trillion a year in 2040 and by 2080 Medicare + SS will top 20 trillion a year shortfall.

btw here is some information on FICA hikes over the years

http://www.nrln.org/SocailSecuirtyHistory.htm

On January 1, 1937 the tax rate to employees and employers was 1% of earnings up to a maximum of $3000.00/year. On January 1, 2005 the rate stands at 7.65% to employee and employer and the self-employed pay a tax of 15.30%. This rate includes Health Insurance (HI) that was added to the program in 1966. The earnings cap is $90,000.00 on the OASDI portion and with no income cap on the HI portion. The OASDI now has an annual escalator built in. (The breakdown is: 5.3% OASI; 0.9% DI; 1.45% HI).

The FICA tax rate has changed 21 times after 1937 (1% in 1937; 7.65% in 2005).

The taxable earnings ceiling has changed 39 times

So your total is one trillion but you tried to make it sound like one trillion per year.

Uh huh.

You're worried about a measly $6 billion per year? Hell, we waste that much in Iraq EVERY MONTH!!!

Elimination of the FICA cap will take care of that no problem.

Can you read? I was pointing out that we have raised the FICA and tax rates several times over the past 70 years and it hasnt stopped the system from collapsing. What makes you think raising it again will work?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I ran across this the other day and I think it makes alot of sense. The elderly don't care if any change to SS will affect them or not. They can't get over the fact that they bought into a failed scheme and want to continue it because they think it's grand. Well, after reading this I think I tend to agree with the writer:

Given the demographic changes ahead ? beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers ? don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.

That's something that older generations need to understand ? and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.

Whatever.

The younger generation needs to figure this out. 70 million baby boomers = 70 million votes.

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

You want more of my money , bring your kneepads because you are going to have to earn it...

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I ran across this the other day and I think it makes alot of sense. The elderly don't care if any change to SS will affect them or not. They can't get over the fact that they bought into a failed scheme and want to continue it because they think it's grand. Well, after reading this I think I tend to agree with the writer:

Given the demographic changes ahead ? beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers ? don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.

That's something that older generations need to understand ? and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.

Whatever.

The younger generation needs to figure this out. 70 million baby boomers = 70 million votes.

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

You want more of my money , bring your kneepads because you are going to have to earn it...

I'm already getting your money. If you need some sort of release, and you seem to be someone who really does, perhaps you should take some of your money into town and see how far it goes there.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I ran across this the other day and I think it makes alot of sense. The elderly don't care if any change to SS will affect them or not. They can't get over the fact that they bought into a failed scheme and want to continue it because they think it's grand. Well, after reading this I think I tend to agree with the writer:

Given the demographic changes ahead ? beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers ? don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.

That's something that older generations need to understand ? and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.

Whatever.

The younger generation needs to figure this out. 70 million baby boomers = 70 million votes.

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

You want more of my money , bring your kneepads because you are going to have to earn it...

LOL

Nope, all they need is a law..you don't pay they'll just send the masked government combat troops to your domicile and seize it. You'll have to prove your innocence to get anything back, pay fines of over 300%, and borrow from family to present your case.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
you are lost.....gives up on you..... I spelled it out.

Not running a war? Republicans out of office? WTF does that have to do with a shortfall in SS revenues?

You seriously cant be this uneducated about this can you?

It has a lot to do with it. How can we trust Bush when he not only can't he balance his budget, he wants more tax cuts for the rich.

The problem can be solved, but it will take a leader that people trust. You may trust Bush, but your not retired or a baby boomer. It certainly can't be solved by letting old people starve, which is the only solution you can seem to come up with.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87
One question I do have is does SS have a law which doesnt allow it to deficit spend?

Not to my knowledge. And besides, laws change all the time anyway. Congress isn't done tinkering with SS. It'll have to revisit the issue sometime in the future.

Meaning in 2042 when it is nearly 1 trillion short they are required to lower benefits to match the projected shortfall?

They're not 'required' to do anything, but benefit cuts are likely.

Well that sucks ass then. If the thing was required to be balanced then my opinion on the matter would change as it would eventually implode itself and not take the rest of the country with it.

Just like the federal deficit and trade deficit are currently doing.....

Way too bring up something that is completely irrelevant to the conversation of social security. You must be so proud of yourself.

/pat

No, I think there is a point to what he says. If the gov't is allowed to spend money it isn't taking in - then what happens when SS starts sucking more and more money from the treasury. It's a recipe for gov't implosion. However mandating balanced budgets and true accounting would prevent that. It's part of the equation although it isn't a "fix"

CsG

Yes but the implication I am sure he will spit back out is this is Bush's fault which it isnt. The system is broken, has been flawed since the start, and wont be fixed by ignoring it.

It's not just Bush's fault...it's all of DC's fault. However, there are no fiscal conservatives on either side, and history has shown that a GOP administration, especially when they control both sides, spend like hell and raise the deficits very quickly (much faster than GDP).

My point above WAS entirely revelant. If we can't keep the regular deficits from sucking us into the ground and open approve of spending that way, why not do the same for SS?

(P.S. I'm not for the wild spending at all. I was 100% for a balanced budget amendment which I have backed away in light of maybe growing the economy faster than the debt, but the twin debts are/will be causing pain in the future...and SS will be piled on top (unless cut)).

Thanks for the pat!

If you thought I was going to throw in the expected Bush Sucks...then you're right. Bush sucks and is sucking up the US future economy right along with the rest of DC!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Anybody who repeatedly calls me a thief is going to be in trouble in a face to face encounter. Simple as that.

I do believe I said you advocate the theft. But hey, if you and red need to resort to physical intimidation because you run out of substance - then so be it...

<- trembling

CsG

:roll:
First of all how do you physically intimidate someone over the Internet? Secondly I know I never threatened you, all I said is why don't you respond to me here like you would in person. I think you are just being extremely petty especially when I was trying to engage you in an honest and frank conversation without the little insults and innuendos. In fact I thought we kind of came to a meeting of the minds regarding this topic, you know that the best thing to come out of this situation is that the issue of correcting SS was turned into a major issue.

I do know that one side accusing the Baby Boomers and Elderly of being at fault and the other side calling Gen X a bunch of spoiled selfish brats isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

:roll: Nice backtrack on your e-thugness. While I know you were both not actually threatening me, it's hilarious that you both thought your physical presence would somehow change what I say or think.

All I said is that you wouldn't be as arrogant if you were talking to me or anyone else in person if you were raised right which by the way I believe you were. Tell me, do you actually insult someones intelligence or Character when you discuss politics in person? I bet you don't. Keep in mind that I am probably a good 20 years your senior, way beyond being at the age getting in a fight because someone dissed me. I might be bigger than you (just trying to beat advancing age the best I can) but I also don't recover as well as you:laugh: If I were you I wouldn't be intimidated by me either

True, engaging the elderly with reasoned debate isn't possible if they won't even entertain change - which is what what we find here. This has never been about "fault" - it's about accepting the reality of the situation. Do I blame each individual? Heck no - but I do blame the overall attitude those of "advanced age" seem to have regarding entitlements. Entitlements will bankrupt the gov't - just as they have bankrupted big corporations. A gov't or company can't continue to pay those who no longer put into the system. Call it mean, throw nasty names around, or whatever you wish - that's the truth of the matter. Now can we come up with a system that doesn't burden those who put into the system while taking care of those who can't provide for themselves when they hit an advanced age - damn straight we can. But the problem comes in when the aged won't even admit there is a problem or allow anything to be done about it.

CsG

Well if there is a Generation that deserves to be entitled it is the "Elderly" who did after all give their all to save us the following generations from World Tyranny. Most of them have only been paid lip service for their sacrifice and it's understandable that they don't trust the Boomers and the following Generations.

As for us Boomers, well we should take into consideration the welfare of the latter Generations as all we did was bore them and give them bad examples for the most part. Of course as time goers on we will be the deciding factor on how things work out (hey it's Boomers who came up with this current idea)

The problem red is what you consider "arrogant". In an exchange you know I respond in kind - we've both been here long enough to know that Just because the exchange is typed words doesn't mean that I wouldn't happen the same way if it were spoken words. Now some might lose their intensity or some might even shy away from an exchange due to confrontation fears, but I do not suffer that malady. I speak my mind. Does it get me in trouble at times in front of certain PC people? Sure, but then again I really don't care because I really don't care what wishywashy people think about me.

I agree that the some of the aged has earned respect but I also think some have now fed that into their entitlement type of mentality. It's like they now just expect things. That is what their juniors see and are now trying to copy except they don't have the same to back it up like the elders do. There's nothing worse than trying to reason with a person who thinks that just because they are old that "deserve" and are "entitled" to something.

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

not so much the arrogance part as the lack of content not straight from foxnews's special report of whatever bs the administration is upset about today.

And if you did not care why did you just type all that? Sure sounded like you were trying to justify your empty style of trolling to me.

Waking up anytime soon cad? or still content being led around by your shorthairs for bush? :laugh:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I ran across this the other day and I think it makes alot of sense. The elderly don't care if any change to SS will affect them or not. They can't get over the fact that they bought into a failed scheme and want to continue it because they think it's grand. Well, after reading this I think I tend to agree with the writer:

Given the demographic changes ahead ? beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers ? don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.

That's something that older generations need to understand ? and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.

Whatever.

The younger generation needs to figure this out. 70 million baby boomers = 70 million votes.

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

You want more of my money , bring your kneepads because you are going to have to earn it...

LOL

Nope, all they need is a law..you don't pay they'll just send the masked government combat troops to your domicile and seize it. You'll have to prove your innocence to get anything back, pay fines of over 300%, and borrow from family to present your case.

I will probably do what I do every time a tax is raised. I will just pay it and use the time tested tradition of passing it on down the line to the people that I exploit to make my living. (that would be the poor and middle class). They will feel good about it though cause the evil rich have to pay more tax. Heh.

 

[zendari]

I have a question for the middle aged generation people here:

I am 18. Been working for about 2 years at Circuit City and such, I just started a real fulltime summer job with decent pay for the first time in my life.

This Fuller woman put in $20 and collected $20000 out of the program. I'd love that kind of return, if I get it I will gladly pay for your retirements.

Obviously, I won't get anything like that. In fact, I likely wont get a damn thing at all in 50 years. You put into the system expecting a payout, would you put into the system now expecting no payout?

I can understand why they don't want to have to pay for something they may nmot see themselves. I don't think it's their intention (well for most of them) to screw the Older Generation, just to find a way so they don't get screwed themselves

This sums up my position really. The system itself is flawed and has been from the start. The way I see it, either my parents generation gets screwed or my generation get screwed. If you want me to take the hit, I will do so unquestioningly. The least you could do is not call us "greedy" for doing it.

At some point as the population rises they will have to abandom the system totally, or reduce benefits so far (raising the ret age, reducing premiums, etc), that it really won't be a factor in any individuals retirement plans.


And for whomever want to raise the FICA tax: If you want the rich to pay more into the system, do you also plan on paying them out more when they retire?

 

[BBond]

Where do you get the idea that you won't get anything in 50 years?

ONE LAST TIME. EVEN IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE EVER TO ADDRESS THE SHORTFALL SOCIAL SECURITY WILL STILL PAY OUT SEVENTY PERCENT OF PROMISED BENEFITS.

And if a simple tweak or two are put in place you'll get one hundred percent. But the Republicans led by Bush don't want to fix Social Security. They want to destroy it.

Since a simple fix will take care of the problem how do you justify destroying Social Security and cheating people who have paid into it all their lives?

Fix it because with the numbers against you, you aren't going to win this argument. Fixing it is your only viable option.

And the fix is simple. There are a number of options. Eliminate the FICA tax income cap. Means test benefits. Stop electing people who create huge budget deficits that make the situation worse.

PS Read what Reagan had to say about Social Security and compare that with what Bush is saying now. Just see my sig. How do you explain the discrepancy between what Ronnie said and what these current supposed "conservatives" are saying?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond
Where do you get the idea that you won't get anything in 50 years?

ONE LAST TIME. EVEN IF NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE EVER TO ADDRESS THE SHORTFALL SOCIAL SECURITY WILL STILL PAY OUT SEVENTY PERCENT OF PROMISED BENEFITS.

Then lets start doing that. Today. If I can take a 30% hit, you can too.

Besides that 70% figure is inaccurate, because the trust fund ISNT THERE. Regardless of blame for the issue that is the truth. Starting in 2018 SS runs a net loss. And because it runs a net loss, it is that date, not 2042, that should be the focus on any "fixes".

A private business wouldn't be around for 20 years losing money without making some changes.

And if a simple tweak or two are put in place you'll get one hundred percent. But the Republicans led by Bush don't want to fix Social Security. They want to destroy it.

Since a simple fix will take care of the problem how do you justify destroying Social Security and cheating people who have paid into it all their lives?

I don't. Social Security is a leaking pipe. We can either put on more and more duct tape, or get a new pipe.

I would prefer the latter personally.

You can increase payroll tax by 2% or cut benefits further and further onwards, but eventually that reaches a limit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52771-2005Jan31.html

Those 2 fixes last for 75 years, past which you probably don't give a damn, as you'll be dead. I'll possibly be alive though.


Fix it because with the numbers against you, you aren't going to win this argument. Fixing it is your only viable option.

And the fix is simple. There are a number of options. Eliminate the FICA tax income cap. Means test benefits. Stop electing people who create huge budget deficits that make the situation worse.

Ideally, the SS budget would have been completely seperate from the rest of the government as its more of an income transfer. Sadly that isn't quite the case.

And as I said before, if you are eliminating the FICA cap, are you paying the rich out SS at the same rate that they are putting in?

PS Read what Reagan had to say about Social Security and compare that with what Bush is saying now. Just see my sig. How do you explain the discrepancy between what Ronnie said and what these current supposed "conservatives" are saying?

They aren't true conservatives. Not in my book.

Reagan himself categorizes social security as an investment, if I was a retiree in 2042, I sure as hell wouldn't want my money in an investment thats been losing money for 20 years.