Social Security is now in the red

• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;452944 wrote:It seems to me that this talk of the inevitable collapse of SS is overblown. I don't see mainstream economists having such doomsday predictions. It seems to me that most people are saying we just have to get through the boomers and we should be alright. Medicare is a different story though. Nonetheless, it seems to me that people on the right need and desire social security to fail in the long hall because it kills them that a big government program has made many people happy and secure for 75 years. It is the antithesis to their fundamental position that government is always the problem and can never be a solution. JMHO.

  
  Check out the US Debt Clock - http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  
  Look at the lower right hand corner and notice the unfunded liabilities will topple $110,000,000,000,000 within the next day or so. That's 110 TRILLION dollars. Nobody's worried about it, eh? Guess I'm a nobody.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;452944 wrote:It seems to me that this talk of the inevitable collapse of SS is overblown. I don't see mainstream economists having such doomsday predictions. It seems to me that most people are saying we just have to get through the boomers and we should be alright. Medicare is a different story though. Nonetheless, it seems to me that people on the right need and desire social security to fail in the long hall because it kills them that a big government program has made many people happy and secure for 75 years. It is the antithesis to their fundamental position that government is always the problem and can never be a solution. JMHO.

  At what cost?? The federal government paying off my mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt would certainly make me "happy and secure".
  

  BGFalcons82;453003 wrote:Check out the US Debt Clock - http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  
  Look at the lower right hand corner and notice the unfunded liabilities will topple $110,000,000,000,000 within the next day or so. That's 110 TRILLION dollars. Nobody's worried about it, eh? Guess I'm a nobody.

  And Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;452944 wrote:It seem Nonetheless, it seems to me that people on the right need and desire social security to fail in the long hall because it kills them that a big government program has made many people happy and secure for 75 years. It is the antithesis to their fundamental position that government is always the problem and can never be a solution. JMHO.

  C'mon Boatshoes...."Happy and secure"? It may have given retirees a modest income for 75 years and in that fixed flow of income a certain level of "security"...but "happy"?
  
  I'm NOT happy that the Feds have by mandate confiscated part of my income for 35+ years and forced me to participate in the program rather than giving me the freedom of choice to invest or spend that money as I see fit.
  
  Do I feel secure that I might be able to get some of that "investment" back when I hit 65 and a half? Perhaps but I'm not having multiple orgasms either.
• ManO'War

  

  Here's the bottom line.....IF Social Security was such a great idea, then it wouldn't be forced upon you; you would have people clammoring to sign up.
• BoatShoes

  ManO'War;453826 wrote:Here's the bottom line.....IF Social Security was such a great idea, then it wouldn't be forced upon you; you would have people clammoring to sign up.

  
  For one, SS and the payroll taxes aren't "forced" on anyone. You, believer, Jmog and others need to stop saying that because it is not true. You willfully choose when you start working under the laws of the United States to participate in the U.S. economy on the condition that money be withheld for Social Security. You know this and yet choose to stay and be and work as an American. You could easily have expatriated and moved to the Bahamas.
  
  Two, most people would agree that saving for retirement is a "good idea." Don't you agree? Yet, the middle class is effectively living under a consumption tax system and get consumption tax treatment for their retirement investments and yet Savings are at an all time low...people don't save on their own even though it's a good idea.
• BoatShoes

  believer;453312 wrote:C'mon Boatshoes...."Happy and secure"? It may have given retirees a modest income for 75 years and in that fixed flow of income a certain level of "security"...but "happy"?
  
  I'm NOT happy that the Feds have by mandate confiscated part of my income for 35+ years and forced me to participate in the program rather than giving me the freedom of choice to invest or spend that money as I see fit.
  
  Do I feel secure that I might be able to get some of that "investment" back when I hit 65 and a half? Perhaps but I'm not having multiple orgasms either.

  
  You're lucky the feds took it, otherwise your bad soulmate choices would've taken at least half of what you put away yourself (assuming you would have even saved that amount the feds "confiscated" from you). If your free choices to invest that money as you saw fit were anything like your soulmate choices; being subject to the will of a free market; there's a chance you might not have a retirement nest egg.
  
  And yes, Secure and at least a little happy. Americans answer on polls that they're less happy than other nations but they do poll in favor of social security and medicare.
  
  Re-reading this I feel like it might come off like I'm insulting you but I intend no such thing. Lord knows I've made a great many poor choices in regards to the female sex; make even less sense than Obamakare IMO.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;453019 wrote:At what cost?? The federal government paying off my mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt would certainly make me "happy and secure".

  
  Well, all of those things would cost a lot and they don't necessarily follow from a desire to have social security from old folks...the SS taxes coming out of your check doesn't seem like a high cost to pay for a retirement wherein you don't have to worry about being mired in poverty when your joints can no longer muster up the hard work you put out for 45 years.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "You willfully choose when you start working under the laws of the United States to participate in the U.S. economy on the condition that money be withheld for Social Security."
  
  Sweet mother of any mother that is holy. Did you ever sign a SS contract? I never signed a SS contract. Do you think you're guaranteed to any of the money you've funded with your withholding? You aren't. It is simply a promise, that the country can't continue to keep. It isn't politics, it is math.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;454077 wrote:"You willfully choose when you start working under the laws of the United States to participate in the U.S. economy on the condition that money be withheld for Social Security."
  
  Sweet mother of any mother that is holy. Did you ever sign a SS contract? I never signed a SS contract. Do you think you're guaranteed to any of the money you've funded with your withholding? You aren't. It is simply a promise, that the country can't continue to keep. It isn't politics, it is math.

  
  You signed an employment contract and a term in the employment contract is that you will have ss taxes withheld. By working in the U.S. I make a legally enforceable promise to pay payroll taxes whether I see a return on them or not...if you didn't think this was a fair term you could have moved to a country that had no such terms. I have a friend who just moved to Canada...he doesn't pay any taxes for their national healthcare or retirement systems...could have done so yourself, no?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I have never signed an employment contract. I wager most Americans haven't.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;454148 wrote:I have never signed an employment contract. I wager most Americans haven't.

  
  a contract is not a piece of paper but a relationship. The contract you sign is just a memorial of the agreement. If you promise to pay me compensation for services rendered and in exchange I promise to provide services (and albeit, agree to pay taxes on the compensation you pay me); you nonetheless are in a legally enforceable contractual arrangement.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;454193 wrote:a contract is not a piece of paper but a relationship. The contract you sign is just a memorial of the agreement. If you promise to pay me compensation for services rendered and in exchange I promise to provide services (and albeit, agree to pay taxes on the compensation you pay me); you nonetheless are in a legally enforceable contractual arrangement.

  
  And that has what to do with SS?
• HitsRus

  

  What a bunch of dumbasses we are!....If we don't work we don't have to pay Social Security. WE can just go out and make babies and get a check handed to us!. What a great country!
• believer

  

  HitsRus;454657 wrote:What a bunch of dumbasses we are!....If we don't work we don't have to pay Social Security. WE can just go out and make babies and get a check handed to us!. What a great country!

  
  And don't forget those checks are tax-free! As a bonus you'll also receive a few hundred dollars a month in Food Stamp benefits, subsidized federal housing complete with cable television, AND free health care.
  
  All we ask is that you raise your kids to be good little Democrats.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;454657 wrote:What a bunch of dumbasses we are!....If we don't work we don't have to pay Social Security. WE can just go out and make babies and get a check handed to us!. What a great country!

  
  Or move? Isn't that the same thing suggested to leftists who want healthcare for free and all that jazz? You don't think it's a great country, leave! Isn't that how it works??
• believer

  

  ^^^Or we could just stay put and keep voting for the right combination of elected officials who might have the balls to pare back the socialist programs that have created the entitlement mentality. That works better.
• ManO'War

  

  I didn't ask to be born into this country, and it's not that easy to gain citizenship in another country, since they take their immigration laws a little more serious than we take ours, so moving to avoid being sucked into the scam system that is Social Security is not a real viable option.
• BoatShoes

  believer;455299 wrote:^^^Or we could just stay put and keep voting for the right combination of elected officials who might have the balls to pare back the socialist programs that have created the entitlement mentality. That works better.

  
  How so, then you have conservatives like Believer who demand spending cuts but also demand their cut of socialism and refuse to pony up more mulah to pay for it.
• BoatShoes

  ManO'War;455366 wrote:I didn't ask to be born into this country, and it's not that easy to gain citizenship in another country, since they take their immigration laws a little more serious than we take ours, so moving to avoid being sucked into the scam system that is Social Security is not a real viable option.

  It's not that hard...here's a guide on how to expatriate and legally never pay U.S. taxes and live in paradise.
  
  www.escapeartist.com/Sovereign_Society/Avoidance.html
• BoatShoes

  Social Security keeps 20 million americans out of poverty. I'd feel secure and at least a little more happy if I weren't in poverty but that's just me.
  
  www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3260
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;455393 wrote:Social Security keeps 20 million americans out of poverty. I'd feel secure and at least a little more happy if I weren't in poverty but that's just me.
  
  www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3260

  
  From your link:
  
  "One critic of estimates such as these argues that they “do nothing to answer the question of what would have happened if Social Security had not existed.”[4] Indeed, this analysis does not take into account other changes that would occur in the absence of Social Security. If Social Security did not exist, most elderly individuals likely would have saved somewhat more and worked somewhat longer"
  
  Two words: no duh. They wouldn't have had 12%+ of their paychecks taken.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;455395 wrote:From your link:
  
  "One critic of estimates such as these argues that they “do nothing to answer the question of what would have happened if Social Security had not existed.”[4] Indeed, this analysis does not take into account other changes that would occur in the absence of Social Security. If Social Security did not exist, most elderly individuals likely would have saved somewhat more and worked somewhat longer"
  
  Two words: no duh. They wouldn't have had 12%+ of their paychecks taken.

  
  Why should we make that assumption? Most Americans effectively live under a consumption tax and are saving less than ever. Americans don't save. Most Americans are living hand to mouth because their wages have been outpaced by inflation...But suppose those retirement savings would have happened, which is unlikely; Imagine the bloodbath when they were subject to the volatility of this recession?
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;455379 wrote:How so, then you have conservatives like Believer who demand spending cuts but also demand their cut of socialism and refuse to pony up more mulah to pay for it.

  
  Let's see...FORCE me by federal mandate to pay 12% for SS and Medicare and I'm an ass for not wanting to pay more. Yep...I'm also an ass for having the audacity of expecting a return on my forced federally mandated retirement program I've been paying into for 35+ years.
  
  I guess since these programs are approaching insolvency in the next 10 to 15 years I'm also an ass for suggesting that we cut spending on other socialist entitlement programs to insure I get that return on my forced federal mandate investment.
• BoatShoes

  believer;455439 wrote:Let's see...FORCE me by federal mandate to pay 12% for SS and Medicare and I'm an ass for not wanting to pay more. Yep...I'm also an ass for having the audacity of expecting a return on my forced federally mandated retirement program I've been paying into for 35+ years.
  
  I guess since these programs are approaching insolvency in the next 10 to 15 years I'm also an ass for suggesting that we cut spending on other socialist entitlement programs to insure I get that return on my forced federal mandate investment.

  
  Again, you keep saying forced when you chose to participate in the United States' regulated capitalistic system under your own free will knowing that you would have to give up 12% of your income to support those programs.
  
  But of the Federal Budget, what do you suggest you cut? The biggest bad boys are the ones that you say are off the table.
  
  
• CenterBHSFan

  

  What is "Other Mandatory" and "Other Discretionary" ?