Cuban Boating
 

Ponzi scheme

ROFL!

See you in 2016 when it goes "upside down" and they start trying to cash
those
worthless SS bonds.

I always get a huge laugh at the entire social security nightmare.

The same people who scream bloody murder about the evils of socialism are the
first to get real territorial about the US Socialism Security program-
espically if they are receiving a monthly stipend.

I think we should take the "retirement" aspect of the program and junk it, or
certainly revamp it to reflect today's realities. When the program was started,
it was a program for destitute widows, orphans, and the extremely elderly. At
the time the program began, people commonly died of "old age" in their late
50's and early 60's. At 65 you were a fossil. A significant portin of the
population died before they were eligible to collect, and those who lived to
the ripe old age of 65 seldom lived much longer. Anymore, you find people at 65
and 70 who are still in the later stages of "middle age". 75 years of age
today is probably equivalent to the 65 years standard that was used back during
the 30's when the program was initiated. Kids who are teenagers and in their
20's today will routinely live to be over 100, if we can believe what the
scientists are projecting.
At 65, those kids will still have about 1/3 of their lifespan to go.

The program was initiated to keep people off the streets. "off the street"
isn't intended to mean four feet above the street in a luxurious motor coach,
touring incessantly around the country and expecting social security to pay all
the bills. That's not reality.

The retirement portion could be easily phased out. It would have to be done by
age brackets. The closer one might be to current retirement age, the greater
the portion of the existing benefit that would need to be preserved. It isn't
fair to allow people to (foolishly) plan during an entire career that Social
Security will pay them for not working after a certain age, and then change the
rules just as they reach the "finish line."

Young kids in their 20's? Sorry kids, no retirement benefits for you......but
we'll cut your SS tax rate by 50% and let you invest in whole life insurance,
stocks or bonds, or
etc. (If you spend the money and don't provide for your own retirement, that's
your choice and you'll have to live with it when you get older). Everybody
would still be covered by the disability benefits, widows and orphans benefits,
etc.

For people between their 20's and the mid to late 50's, a series of step
adjustments could be made. As each age bracket reached "retirement" age and
more kids come along, the system would be simpler to administer. Within a few
decades, all workers would be on the "no retirement benefits/ reduced SS tax
program."

And besides, the US economy is now just a branch of the global economy. Our
old people will soon be working until they die. Who can save for retirement (or
pay in much in SS taxes) on minimum wage?

Cuban Boating
 

The retirement portion could be easily phased out.

The problem with this is that the "boomers" are going to break the system long
before the phase out could occur. In fact we are still trying to add
entitlements to the system like expanded health care and drugs. The boomers
will be hitting the system in less than 10 years and most have been paying into
the system for 35 years. It isn't going to be easy to convince them all this
money went down a rathole and not expect a backlash.
I believe the government (polititians) will try to maintain the illusion of
solvency until the whole house of cards collapses. Bear in mind that the real
problem is we can't have 35% of the country "retired" and living off the other
65%. This effect will ripple down through the stock market and financial
institutions as boomers cash in 401ks and other investments, driving down
values, making pension plans fail. ERISA payments will just compound the
problems we will see when SS is upside down. The government will be left with
the option of massive taxation or abandoning promises made since the days of
FDR.
I see no indication that the polititians are looking at any kind of phase outs.
one party is adding to the entitlement burden while the other is cutting taxes.
(the exact opposite of logic) We are sitting here dumb fat and happy,
believing it will work.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.


You think the government should
eliminate social security, which is what I assume you mean by
"retirement
funds", eliminating what is an important option for people who
habitually
make bad investment decisions with their "other" money?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you put that money in interest
bearing accounts (such as a mutual fund or 401K), the interest accrued
will exceed what you would get back from the S.S. as it currently
stands. Those of us who manage our money effectively, would be way
better off in the long run. But of course, you want to let the those who
can't make their own decisions hold the rest of us back. Where's the
freedom of choice there?

Dave


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as a
citizen.

Cuban Boating
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


No fruit or vegetables for you, Dave, for an entire year. Or, you
can
openly
admit your understanding that of all the produce picked HERE IN THIS
COUNTRY, 80% of the labor is done by illegals and YOU LIKE EATING
THE
RESULTS.

Yeah - but many of them do alright. I know illegals that own have
taken out mortgages and purchased their own homes. There is just
about zero enforcement of our immigration laws once you get into this
country.

I'd rather have productive illegal neighbors who appreciate living here.
Newcomers are often hungry for knowledge about their new home, and as a
result, end up being better informed citizens than "real Americans"
who've
become complacent.


You mean like the complacency to look the other way when immigration
laws are being broken?

Dave

It's irrelevant. All that's important is whether people make meaningful
contributions to society, and help preserve peace and order by being good
neighbors. The only difference between you and an illegal immigrant is a
piece of paper from Big Government.

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

noah wrote:

Really? I see things very clearly. Maybe because I don't spend my time
making excuses and exeptions for things that should not be.

This statement is patently untrue. The government, "our" government,
does things daily that "should not be". I make no excuses and pull no
punches. From reading your posts, you see this too, but you don't
want to admit the failings. Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies.

That's almost funny. Here the left is always spouting about the
shortcomings of our government, and how they don't trust it to keep
terrorists at bay, and to make the world a better place for freedom, and
human rights. Yet, they want the same government, to be the
administrators of healthcare, day care, our retirement funds, and to
weigh in on lifestyle issues.

It sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

Dave


Dave, you are a constant source of enlightenment, especially on a Monday
morning. Please explain why we should assume that if some government
programs/plans don't work, they ALL don't/can't work.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just drawing on the left's seeming
hypocricy surrounding their love/hate relationship with the government.
It would seem that the left is always spouting off about "secret
government deals", corruption, favoratism, placing wealth above human
rights, placing the needs of the rich above that of the rest of the
country. Yet, these are the same people who WANT the government managing
our retirement funds, our healthcare, our education, making rules which
invade lifestyle choices, and whether we can own a gun etc.

It's a idealogical contradiction. Either you want big government, or you
don't.


It may be easier if you dredge up what you should've learned about
electronic gates (NAND,AND,NOR, etc). Simple logic.

That's exactly how I see it. Maybe you should learn something about it.

Dave

Cuban Boating
 

My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act? It was the "Widows and Children's act". Most of the people
getting SS paid $330 / year for most of the years they contributed. Was
maybe the mid 70's when the rate increased from the 1% of the first $3300 /
year. Matched by the employer for a $660 / year input. Can not support a
retirement plan at those rates, and the Social Security Trust Fund is
non-existant. If any private person borrowed from a trust fund with zero or
even an interest payment, they would go to jail.
Bill

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
"Gfretwell" wrote ...
The problem with this is that the "boomers" are going to break
the system long before the phase out could occur.

I suspect that that is not the problem, but rather a symptom of the
problem... In my opinion, the problem with Social Security is that is
basically a pyramid scheme... It it was run by anyone other than the
government, it would be illegal... The invention of the birth control pill
was the nail in its coffin... As long as we had a geometrically increasing
population, the system could continue to work... With the average family
only having around 2 kids, that means that the SS taxes that those 2 kids
pay must support their parents in their retirement... Back before The Pill
with people having 6-8 kids (more if they were Catholic, I guess), it
didn't
take as much from each of the contributors to support the people on SS...

Cuban Boating
 

My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act?

1935

From SSA.gov FAQ;
Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, Social Security only paid retirement benefits to
the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and
benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits
were added.

Cuban Boating
 

"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
My question is still: When did Social Security become the national
retirement act?

1935

From SSA.gov FAQ;
Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement
program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, Social Security only paid retirement benefits
to
the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and
benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability
benefits
were added.



They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Cuban Boating
 

They paid retirement benefits. But it appears to now be the total, full
load of benefits retirement plan.

Actually I suspect you are really talking about SSI that is basically a welfare
program for people who may have never paid a penny in their life. It still
comes out of the SS funding tho.
Actually since 1968 it is all academic. Social Security was put "on budget" and
all of the money is dumped into the general fund so I suppose you could say
your FICA taxes are paying for the Iraq war. (along everything from studies of
endangered beach mice in Florida to the drug war)

Cuban Boating
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

noah wrote:

Do you have a reading disability, Dave? If so, I apologise.

I said:
"Patriotism DEMANDS critical thought- no
matter where your allegiance or affilliation lies."

No kidding. My point is that the left is always critical of the
government when it's in their best interest, yet runs to hide behind
its skirt, when they feel the need for dependance.

Everyone feeds at the same nipple, Dave. Polluters love to complain about
government control until a willing puppet is elected and that puppet
appoints another puppet to run the EPA. When the puppet then relaxes
regulations on pollution, the industries involved fall all over the evil
government with campaign contributions. It's not a left-wing thing, Dave.
You know that.

You have nothing but speculation to support this point. You have no
first hand knowlege of what hand shaking, back slapping or "bribery" did
or did not occur, or the reasons behind them.



I am critical of things which deseve criticism. Too many people are
critical of things which they either do not understand, or are lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

FWIW, I am a registered Republican, who happens to believe that
thought is more important than dogma. This country is FULL of
"me-too's", who are willing to believe whatever they are told by the
Party Line. Sheep. Nothing but sheep. Both parties.

Most of them are standing in line right now to throw rocks at GWB, over
something they are ill-informed about.

Many are standing in line right now to spout theories about religions and
cultures which are relatively new to this country.

Such as?

I suspect your ancestors,
who were native Americans, didn't have to put up with such nonsense. They
were natives, right? They must be. You speak as if you belong here and
others don't.

Where did you come up with that one? Never mind, I'm sure you have a
very active immagination.

Dave