Whats with the Social Security farce these days?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"and the democratic plan to save ss is..... "

leave it alone.
Which will eventually fail. Nice to see they want to destroy SS.:)

CkG
You don't know that, you don't even know if it will rain tomorrow.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"and the democratic plan to save ss is..... "

leave it alone.
Which will eventually fail. Nice to see they want to destroy SS.:)

CkG
You don't know that, you don't even know if it will rain tomorrow.
OK- believe what you want but the writing is on the wall. Too bad most people and experts don't agree with you since they seem to agree that SS will bankrupt itself in short order once the BBs start drawing their "retirement" check.

CkG
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"OK- believe what you want but the writing is on the wall. Too bad most people and experts don't agree with you since they seem to agree that SS will bankrupt itself in short order once the BBs start drawing their "retirement" check.

CkG "

But they don't. It's primarily the "experts" who have something to gain from the mass influx of cash into their grubby little hands, when Social Security funds are put into mutual funds managed by the likes of Gary Pilgrim and his ilk.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"OK- believe what you want but the writing is on the wall. Too bad most people and experts don't agree with you since they seem to agree that SS will bankrupt itself in short order once the BBs start drawing their "retirement" check.

CkG "

But they don't. It's primarily the "experts" who have something to gain from the mass influx of cash into their grubby little hands, when Social Security funds are put into mutual funds managed by the likes of Gary Pilgrim and his ilk.
OK - if you think SS won't go bankrupt fine - the numbers show otherwise. SS NEEDS to be dealt with - "leaving it alone" won't fix those numbers. Do some research if you don't think SS will become insolvent.

CkG
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"OK - if you think SS won't go bankrupt fine - the numbers show otherwise. SS NEEDS to be dealt with - "leaving it alone" won't fix those numbers. Do some research if you don't think SS will become insolvent.

CkG "

I know the figures, I just don't believe anyone knows what the GDP is going to be for the next 50 years.

It will be at least 20 years before there is even a potential problem, provided the US Government doesn't welch on the Bonds SS holds, no one in their right mind could possibly forecast the GDP for the next 5 years, let alone 20 or 50.

The hysteria is based on nearly meaningless projections, and it's being done as a tactic that's two fold, it will line the pockets of money managers,etc. and some politicians hope to cover up their rediculous fiscal policies by using the Social Security money to give big tax cuts to the rich.

That is the only SS problem, can we trust Bush or someone else not to steal it ?

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK - if you think SS won't go bankrupt fine - the numbers show otherwise. SS NEEDS to be dealt with - "leaving it alone" won't fix those numbers. Do some research if you don't think SS will become insolvent.

CkG
SS will be dealt with the the next crop of political wimps. (see the definition of recursion :p )

Funds will end up coming out of the general treasury.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"OK - if you think SS won't go bankrupt fine - the numbers show otherwise. SS NEEDS to be dealt with - "leaving it alone" won't fix those numbers. Do some research if you don't think SS will become insolvent.

CkG "

I know the figures, I just don't believe anyone knows what the GDP is going to be for the next 50 years.

It will be at least 20 years before there is even a potential problem, provided the US Government doesn't welch on the Bonds SS holds, no one in their right mind could possibly forecast the GDP for the next 5 years, let alone 20 or 50.

The hysteria is based on nearly meaningless projections, and it's being done as a tactic that's two fold, it will line the pockets of money managers,etc. and some politicians hope to cover up their rediculous fiscal policies by using the Social Security money to give big tax cuts to the rich.

That is the only SS problem, can we trust Bush or someone else not to steal it ?
You don't even need to go as far as putting GDP numbers into the equation to know that SS will become insolvent.

EagleKeeper - Funds already do come out of the general treasury(because that's where our money goes). But yeah - I'm sure it'll be put off because people like DPS don't think there is a problem and/or "leave it alone" is the answer.

CkG
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
Leaving it alone won't really solve the problem. As the older population grows larger and the drain on SS gets higher, it will eventually bottom out. I for one don't see a problem with the elderly using it as a retirement supplement. I also have no problem in providing for those that become disabled on the job, or through some other means. I especially have no problems providing for the servicemen and women that have served the country. The real problem lies in the way that it has been handled. Utilizing it as his own personal piggy bank hasn't helped things either. Instead of "fixing" it Bush has entirely backed away from his promises that he made three years ago. I also blame congress and the senate for doing absolutely nothing in the way of a long term solution for the SS program. Posting blame does nothing to deal with the problem none-the-less.

The real "fix" would be to channel the money away from the US government into retirement bonds. Set a fixed rate bond where the monies taken from the payroll checks buy into. Just like a savings bond. Forcing people to save for retirement so they can support themselves. Relying on giving money back and doing the stock market goes against what the program was origionally intended for. It is a safety net that keeps people from going into the welfare system. Investing in the stock market is really little more than a crapshoot. Let people save for retirement tax free. I could also see this kind of thing being utilized as a replacement for a 401k or a roth IRA. Just be sure that there is no way to become reimbursed from the account until they are retiring. In a way the system I have described is better than SS. Since it allows people to save for themselves instead of relying on future generations to pay for the previous. Which could even be better than having the Government involved at all. Cutting down the waste in spending funding the bearucracy behind it all.

Unless the US government goes south, and all goes into anarchy, said bonds could be reimbursed at retirement tax free. Say age 60 or so. Quite possibly sooner if special circumstances are met. AKA loss of both limbs, etc.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"You don't even need to go as far as putting GDP numbers into the equation to know that SS will become insolvent.

EagleKeeper - Funds already do come out of the general treasury(because that's where our money goes). But yeah - I'm sure it'll be put off because people like DPS don't think there is a problem and/or "leave it alone" is the answer."


LOL, I have no idea what you mean about not putting GDP numbers in. How can you predict insolvency without including incoming revenues, which would be based on GDP ??

Furthermore, since people who want to change SS always focus on long term predictions, how come nobody talks about the fact that the baby boomer bump is only a termporary problem anyway ? There is a period of 20 years or so when there will be increased outlays, but then that phenomena goes away. It isn't permanent.

And the whole idea of paying more into SS than what is coming out, since the 1980s, is to build up a surplus to take care of the bump. The only issue is whether SS haters can stir up enough fear so that that surplus isn't used for SS.

It's possible the surplus will be insufficient, but nobody knows that, it's impossible to have any real concept of financial matters more than a few years into the future, or many of the other variables. But the SS surplus is good enough to take us well beyond the range of what is reasonably knowable.

If twenty years from now, or even 10 years from now, the shorter term forecasts that are halfway reliable show there is still a problem then that's the time to make adjustments.

The supposed "fix" that opponenets of SS talk about, isn't a fix at all. It's an attempt to steal the SS surplus, not use it to pay SS benefits, because if the SS fund is actually used for it's intended purpose we can't afford to give millionaires their ludicrous tax cuts, as an example.

And some money managers got the clever idea that they could greatly increase their fee income if they could get their hands on SS funds.


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"You don't even need to go as far as putting GDP numbers into the equation to know that SS will become insolvent.

EagleKeeper - Funds already do come out of the general treasury(because that's where our money goes). But yeah - I'm sure it'll be put off because people like DPS don't think there is a problem and/or "leave it alone" is the answer."


LOL, I have no idea what you mean about not putting GDP numbers in. How can you predict insolvency without including incoming revenues, which would be based on GDP ??

Furthermore, since people who want to change SS always focus on long term predictions, how come nobody talks about the fact that the baby boomer bump is only a termporary problem anyway ? There is a period of 20 years or so when there will be increased outlays, but then that phenomena goes away. It isn't permanent.

And the whole idea of paying more into SS than what is coming out, since the 1980s, is to build up a surplus to take care of the bump. The only issue is whether SS haters can stir up enough fear so that that surplus isn't used for SS.

It's possible the surplus will be insufficient, but nobody knows that, it's impossible to have any real concept of financial matters more than a few years into the future, or many of the other variables. But the SS surplus is good enough to take us well beyond the range of what is reasonably knowable.

If twenty years from now, or even 10 years from now, the shorter term forecasts that are halfway reliable show there is still a problem then that's the time to make adjustments.

The supposed "fix" that opponenets of SS talk about, isn't a fix at all. It's an attempt to steal the SS surplus, not use it to pay SS benefits, because if the SS fund is actually used for it's intended purpose we can't afford to give millionaires their ludicrous tax cuts, as an example.

And some money managers got the clever idea that they could greatly increase their fee income if they could get their hands on SS funds.
:p You really don't have a clue about this do you?:p Have you read anything in this or the many other SS thread? SS will die because there won't be as many people paying in as there are taking out soon. GDP doesn't change that fact. SS goes into the general fund to be used - don't like it? change it. But then again you want to "leave it alone". Yeah - good call there DPS

Some of us here want to fix this eventual problem NOW instead of waiting until it's too late to change course or be forced to make even tougher or more unpleasant decisions.

BTW - can I ask your age? A range would be sufficient.:)

CkG
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Wolfdog-

In essence Social Security already does what you suggest. The Social Security taxes people pay are invested in government bonds already. They are earning interest at a good rate, and Social Security runs very efficiently so there is not that much cost in terms in that regard.

Social Security is a wonderful program, it provides a number of benefits at low cost, disability, survivor benefits, retirement benefits. These benefits are rudimentary, but they are enough to alleviate a great deal of human suffering, and prevent what would be a much more costly burden on society if the millions of people who benefit from the program, after at least partly paying for it themselves, had to be taken care of some other way.

In fact, look at the tremendous growth in productivity in the last century, there are many factors for it, but some things which may have contributed greatly, are overlooked. I would suggest that things like Social Security, civil rights, and enviromental protections, are some of the things that helped produce that increase in productivity, and we screw with them at our peril.


 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
Look, this crap started almost *immediately* after the program was started. Think about it: Huge cash pile+politicians=guaranteed corruption.

Not that Socialist Security was EVER a good idea *anyway*. It was always a bad idea that should NEVER have been implemented. It's an expensive waste of time that only passed because of a lot of sniveling and rhetoric about "caring for the elderly." What it amounted to was the generation of that time slipping a neat little harness over every subsequent generation's neck. I say kill the beast, bear with the consequences and move along.

Jason
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
In essence Social Security already does what you suggest. The Social Security taxes people pay are invested in government bonds already. They are earning interest at a good rate, and Social Security runs very efficiently so there is not that much cost in terms in that regard.
Jeez, you just don't get it. The government is the one with the future liability for SS payments for the boomer. Bonds are by definition a future liability, a future claim on tax revenues. You can't balance two liabilities against each other. You can't "invest" in your own debt.

Let me try it another way which might be easier to understand for you. You have the money for next month's rent payment in your pocket. You spend it at the mall, replacing the cash with an I.O.U. note to yourself saying "On February 1st, I'll pay myself $900," is your rent covered?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY