Comments
161 - 180 of 298 Comments Last updated Jan 24, 2013
Chip

Watertown, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Jan 4, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You sarcastically said, "Sure sounds like a proponent of progressive taxation."
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
That settles that.
Please try and keep up as that has been gone over recently here.
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

Maybe you should do some more research on the founding fathers. Did they agree that a goverment needs funds to operate and therfore would have to tax, Yes. They did not think that the goverment should operate to tax people into economic equality. Only a fool would think otherwise.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Jan 4, 2013
 
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Charter schools in New Orleans have been very successful, many other places too.
I have no problem with people taking their money from public schools and using it in charter schools if that is what you are referring to. The money for the child should fallow the child. If charter schools can't compete with public then they will fail and close. If they succeed and the public schools fail then they should close(like in New Orleans). I hardly see a child's education as pork barrel spending. Hurricane sandy's urgent money is only part of the money being spent in that legislation. Money for a fish fund is going to Alaska. Algae research is also in that legislation. There are many things in there that have nothing to do with the victims as advertised by the Politicians
"Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.[6] State-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.[7] Additionally, school districts sometimes permit corporations to manage chains of charter schools.
The schools themselves are non-profit entities. Corporate management does not affect the status of a school.
As of September 2012, in the United States, the only school system with the majority of children educated in charter schools was the New Orleans Public Schools.[8]"
Although charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition.
Ya know, I believe you. You have no problem taking the money from the tax payers for what YOU believe in. What you don't believe in you spit enough venom to kill a small village. You're a bigot.

Feeling restricted by the public educational system? Take your own f**&en money and let me put my money where I want to.

No, the money for the child SHOULD NOT follow the child when it's taken out of my ability to have a say in how it's spent like I had in the public school system. You're a petty thief.

How's it feel pick pocket?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Jan 4, 2013
 
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought everyone cared about the kids, and thank you for the compliment.
No I don't feel restricted. I just believe when I pay for a service I expect the service, not a failed service when a good service exists. I don't need you or public schools being a pick pocket. What do they do with that extra money they steal from the taxpayer anyway? It should be about the results not the politics that's where you are making your mistake.
You have every right to look into what the public school system is doing with the money they "stole" from you and do something about it as a tax payer. You DON'T have that right with a charter school/system.

http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/n...
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Jan 5, 2013
 
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
To my knowledge public schools are still keeping the extra money when parents opt to send their kids to private or charter schools so it would not be past tense.
it's my understanding that in a charter school, as the parent, you are expected to be involved in your children's education, in fact, in some charters, it is part of the privilege of sending your child to that school. Perhaps if the public schools made it mandatory, more students would succeed?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
Jan 5, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>it's my understanding that in a charter school, as the parent, you are expected to be involved in your children's education, in fact, in some charters, it is part of the privilege of sending your child to that school. Perhaps if the public schools made it mandatory, more students would succeed?
Don't take this as I am against parents being involved in their children's education. We were with ours and our children excelled in school and both are doing very well. I do think it's very important.

That said; then the parents had better be making enough income so that one parent doesn't have to work. Or both not have to work so many hours, for whatever reason(s) they may not have control over to keep the job(s), they have the free time necessary to divert from everything else they are responsible for in properly raising their children.

When I hire someone to do anything I don't expect I should have to be right in there doing it with them in order to get a good job done. But then I have spent more of my additional time and additional resources getting businesses to do what they expected to be getting paid for. It's a double edged sword to expect the payer to put in as much effort as the payee to do their job the way it's supposed to be done.

So what I am saying is, if charter schools are expecting parents to be as involved in the children's education it isn't the charter schools that are doing the better job.
Dr Xray

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Washington DC is corrupt and filled with mini dictators and collectivist oligarchs. There is only one way to right this ship and it's to march on DC and take it back by force. They (in DC) caused this and they will only have themselves to blame if and when this occurs. States could also secede from the Union and put the squeeze on the DC ogre by eliminating billions of taxes that Uncle Sam would no longer be able to collect. Drastic times call for desperate measures. Everyone will know by March if America is over for good. By the way, if those dickheadedassholes in Washington are not required to follow the laws then why should we? The first horse is out of the barn as of today.
BulletBusters

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186
Jan 5, 2013
 
Dr Xray wrote:
Washington DC is corrupt and filled with mini dictators and collectivist oligarchs. There is only one way to right this ship and it's to march on DC and take it back by force. They (in DC) caused this and they will only have themselves to blame if and when this occurs. States could also secede from the Union and put the squeeze on the DC ogre by eliminating billions of taxes that Uncle Sam would no longer be able to collect. Drastic times call for desperate measures. Everyone will know by March if America is over for good. By the way, if those dickheadedassholes in Washington are not required to follow the laws then why should we? The first horse is out of the barn as of today.
Before we decide on something that drastic, we should at least march on DC with guns slung around our shoulders in a SHOW of force. That might wake up the dopes that are raiding our children's piggy banks to finance their lavish lifestyles. I'm with you though if it comes to a head. It's been building for a long time now.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187
Jan 5, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't take this as I am against parents being involved in their children's education. We were with ours and our children excelled in school and both are doing very well. I do think it's very important.
That said; then the parents had better be making enough income so that one parent doesn't have to work. Or both not have to work so many hours, for whatever reason(s) they may not have control over to keep the job(s), they have the free time necessary to divert from everything else they are responsible for in properly raising their children.
When I hire someone to do anything I don't expect I should have to be right in there doing it with them in order to get a good job done. But then I have spent more of my additional time and additional resources getting businesses to do what they expected to be getting paid for. It's a double edged sword to expect the payer to put in as much effort as the payee to do their job the way it's supposed to be done.
So what I am saying is, if charter schools are expecting parents to be as involved in the children's education it isn't the charter schools that are doing the better job.
Then why were you involved in your children's education? Why shouldn't parents be involved in the school, both with their children AND the administration? I don't understand your thought process. Apparently your children doing well in school is important, but not enough for you to be at that school??? And why is a charter school not doing well by asking the parents to be involved in their child's education? I guess you prefer the either or method...either it is elitist private education or it's failing public education. Whatever, SIB.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188
Jan 5, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Then why were you involved in your children's education? Why shouldn't parents be involved in the school, both with their children AND the administration? I don't understand your thought process. Apparently your children doing well in school is important, but not enough for you to be at that school??? And why is a charter school not doing well by asking the parents to be involved in their child's education? I guess you prefer the either or method...either it is elitist private education or it's failing public education. Whatever, SIB.
We were involved in our children's education AFTER school on OUR time. Parents being in the classroom, in my opinion is an unnecessary distraction...in answer to your saying "but not enough for you to be at that school???"

We were involved with the school and the administration, again, after school hours.

On our time we taught our children from a very young age that learning is a fun thing to do. Not some necessity for them to make it in the world. I am pleased they caught onto that very well and are passing that very same principle to our grandchildren. Unfortunately the way the school systems have had to be set up is education is a necessity to make it the world. A production line of achieving grades over understanding.

I do not believe it appropriate for the school to be keeping tabs on the parents. And what I have heard, so I am operating on hearsay, is that, at least some, charter schools (as much) threaten parents if they want their children there the parents will be as involved as the school "dictates".

However that was not my major point. From what I have seen charter schools are not the panacea to K-12 education it's being made to to be. ANY school can do well when they are allowed to pick and choose what students will attend. Any school can do well when they are allowed to pick and choose their class sizes. All of which the public schools have not been allowed to do by law.

At that, the charter schools having a broader choice of what the public schools are not allowed by law, they, the charter schools are not measuring up all that well. Especially seeing the handicap they have been handed. Not that well over the public system including the handicap they have been given.

I watched the "movement" toward charter schools in this area. It was clear to me from looking at the details of the arguments that what was being pushed for was a tax payer subsidized private style school system. In other words the charter schools would have certain advantages not allowed the public schools by law, yet, tax payer subsidizing lowering the cost to the parents that could afford to send their children to them.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
Jan 5, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
We were involved in our children's education AFTER school on OUR time. Parents being in the classroom, in my opinion is an unnecessary distraction...in answer to your saying "but not enough for you to be at that school???"
We were involved with the school and the administration, again, after school hours.
On our time we taught our children from a very young age that learning is a fun thing to do. Not some necessity for them to make it in the world. I am pleased they caught onto that very well and are passing that very same principle to our grandchildren. Unfortunately the way the school systems have had to be set up is education is a necessity to make it the world. A production line of achieving grades over understanding.
I do not believe it appropriate for the school to be keeping tabs on the parents. And what I have heard, so I am operating on hearsay, is that, at least some, charter schools (as much) threaten parents if they want their children there the parents will be as involved as the school "dictates".
However that was not my major point. From what I have seen charter schools are not the panacea to K-12 education it's being made to to be. ANY school can do well when they are allowed to pick and choose what students will attend. Any school can do well when they are allowed to pick and choose their class sizes. All of which the public schools have not been allowed to do by law.
At that, the charter schools having a broader choice of what the public schools are not allowed by law, they, the charter schools are not measuring up all that well. Especially seeing the handicap they have been handed. Not that well over the public system including the handicap they have been given.
I watched the "movement" toward charter schools in this area. It was clear to me from looking at the details of the arguments that what was being pushed for was a tax payer subsidized private style school system. In other words the charter schools would have certain advantages not allowed the public schools by law, yet, tax payer subsidizing lowering the cost to the parents that could afford to send their children to them.
Hey SIB, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear this, but I agree with a lot of what you are saying. What I'd like to hear are your solutions. Home schooling and Private Schools do much better than public schools because as you say, they can pick and choose who they take. Charter schools were supposed to be a compromise between a private school atmosphere without the cost. Some places that happened and others it didn't.

But the public schools have to take everyone, from the great student to the gang banger. A private or charter school can, in theory send a disruptive student back to public school, but the public school can't (short of a criminal conviction).

I've even seen articles where public schools have tried paying parents to get involved, but it hasn't worked. And it isn't a situation of the job getting in the way, it's simply the parents don't care and the kids don't care. Think of inner-city Detroit/Chicago/Los Angeles/Kansas City/Etc.

We're spending more than twice as much per student today as we did when I was in school, and the learning is less but there is a day care center at the high school. I would walk into my kids classroom and think that we as a society are spending $300,000 per year to educate that one third grade class. Obviously the teacher wasn't making the big bucks, but what do we get for that $300K?

So, your solutions?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
Jan 5, 2013
 
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey SIB, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear this, but I agree with a lot of what you are saying. What I'd like to hear are your solutions. Home schooling and Private Schools do much better than public schools because as you say, they can pick and choose who they take. Charter schools were supposed to be a compromise between a private school atmosphere without the cost. Some places that happened and others it didn't.
But the public schools have to take everyone, from the great student to the gang banger. A private or charter school can, in theory send a disruptive student back to public school, but the public school can't (short of a criminal conviction).
I've even seen articles where public schools have tried paying parents to get involved, but it hasn't worked. And it isn't a situation of the job getting in the way, it's simply the parents don't care and the kids don't care. Think of inner-city Detroit/Chicago/Los Angeles/Kansas City/Etc.
We're spending more than twice as much per student today as we did when I was in school, and the learning is less but there is a day care center at the high school. I would walk into my kids classroom and think that we as a society are spending $300,000 per year to educate that one third grade class. Obviously the teacher wasn't making the big bucks, but what do we get for that $300K?
So, your solutions?
My solutions? There are no solutions, per-say, to remedy the situation as a whole.

There are students that learn in different ways that just don't fit the mold for accepted performance. I have two grandchildren that were doing poorly in school until it was recognized they were bored. They got it and were ready to move on so they weren't paying attention to what was being taught because they already knew it. Once it was recognized they were both moved up a grade and perked right up. There are students that "get it" but just don't test well. They can go right out and put what they've learned into action but freeze under testing and fail the test(s).

We'll never be rid of kids that can't learn under the system the way it is. We'll never be rid of kids that just don't think it's important to learn it's a structure. We'll never be rid of kids that don't think it's important to learn, they'd rather be doing.

We'll never be rid of some teachers that are in the profession because they get a vacation all summer long.

We'll never be rid of the parents that really don't care. But then we don't take the time to realize there are parents out there who really do care but count on the schools to do their jobs because the parents are drowning just trying to keep a household together. To that we have a presidential candidate who pronounces it's wonderfully the American way for someone to work three jobs just to keep head above water.

The biggest issue we have is the public in general. They don't want to pay the taxes. They don't want to pay the taxes for a system they see as not working because they would rather criticize it than be a part of the solution. They criticize teachers because they think they're getting paid too much. And lets not forget it's all the union's fault too.

Our school system(s) are also caught in a keep up with the Jones' syndrome. A popularity contest so-to-speak. Distracting them from the job of education. At the same time trying to teach 35 and more kids per class room.

I realize it's coming very late in this rant, and I'm running out of characters. I've always thought it would be a great idea to get the kids in the class that are getting it to tutor the ones that aren't. Set aside one day per week to catch them up. Or somehow during the week to accomplish it. Some kids have authority issues and a peer helping them out just might relax them enough. It also might break down some peer issues.
TimeOut

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191
Jan 6, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
My solutions? There are no solutions, per-say, to remedy the situation as a whole.
There are students that learn in different ways that just don't fit the mold for accepted performance. I have two grandchildren that were doing poorly in school until it was recognized they were bored. They got it and were ready to move on so they weren't paying attention to what was being taught because they already knew it. Once it was recognized they were both moved up a grade and perked right up. There are students that "get it" but just don't test well. They can go right out and put what they've learned into action but freeze under testing and fail the test(s).
We'll never be rid of kids that can't learn under the system the way it is. We'll never be rid of kids that just don't think it's important to learn it's a structure. We'll never be rid of kids that don't think it's important to learn, they'd rather be doing.
We'll never be rid of some teachers that are in the profession because they get a vacation all summer long.
We'll never be rid of the parents that really don't care. But then we don't take the time to realize there are parents out there who really do care but count on the schools to do their jobs because the parents are drowning just trying to keep a household together. To that we have a presidential candidate who pronounces it's wonderfully the American way for someone to work three jobs just to keep head above water.
The biggest issue we have is the public in general. They don't want to pay the taxes. They don't want to pay the taxes for a system they see as not working because they would rather criticize it than be a part of the solution. They criticize teachers because they think they're getting paid too much. And lets not forget it's all the union's fault too.
Our school system(s) are also caught in a keep up with the Jones' syndrome. A popularity contest so-to-speak. Distracting them from the job of education. At the same time trying to teach 35 and more kids per class room.
I realize it's coming very late in this rant, and I'm running out of characters. I've always thought it would be a great idea to get the kids in the class that are getting it to tutor the ones that aren't. Set aside one day per week to catch them up. Or somehow during the week to accomplish it. Some kids have authority issues and a peer helping them out just might relax them enough. It also might break down some peer issues.
Excellent post! Are you, or were you, a teacher perhaps? If not, you sure sound like you're speaking from experience.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
Jan 6, 2013
 
TimeOut wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post! Are you, or were you, a teacher perhaps? If not, you sure sound like you're speaking from experience.
No. I've never been in the teaching profession of any sort.

Thanks. I've always tried to follow common sense.
TimeOut

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193
Jan 6, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I've never been in the teaching profession of any sort.
Thanks. I've always tried to follow common sense.
Well, maybe you should have been a teacher :)

Sounds like you have the right idea of what the hell is wrong with our education system.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
Jan 6, 2013
 
There has been much todo about the necessity in cutting/adjusting etc. Social Security to address the National debt. This points out clearly why those assertions are, in my words, deceit and intended deception. I term it that because those in power have the access to know better, have the access to all sources to know better and should know better for those reasons. If by chance they don't actually don't know better is because they don't want to and instead try to indoctrinate the public into what they want to believe.
"We often hear people claim that addressing America's long-term deficits will require "reforming entitlement programs", including Social Security and Medicare. While future Medicare spending is projected to grow significantly, which will likely lead to future budget problems, Social Security does not currently, and never will, contribute to America's deficit. In fact, Social Security is forbidden by law from ever running a deficit. Social Security cannot legally ever go into debt or add to the deficit, and so, regardless of anything else, Social Security is not now, and will never be, a contributor to the federal deficit. If Social Security revenues are insufficient to pay promised benefits, the system is required by law to pay lower benefits, not to borrow to pay promised benefits."

"When many people talk about Social Security adding to the deficit, what they are talking about is the "repaying" of the Trust Fund. What "repaying" the Trust Fund actually involves is "selling" the securities held by the Trust Fund. How this is exactly done can make a big difference. Over the past 30 years $2.5 trillion in excess Social Security taxes have been collected and "put into the Trust Fund", which essentially means that they have been buy long-term government bonds, thus that $2.5 trillion served to finance the national debt. It is a debt owed to American workers and retirees who paid excess taxes for the past 30 years in order to establish a "savings" for payment of Social Security benefits to the baby boomer generation.

What is important to keep in mind is that the Social Security system is not the cause of the debt, the Social Security system was used to finance debt that was already being incurred. If either the Social Security Trust Fund didn't exist or the money for the Trust Fund was put into something else, like for example invested in the stock market, either that debt would still have been incurred or income taxes would had to have been raised in order to avoid the debt, which means that total tax rates would had to have been higher for the past 30 years had the Trust Fund not existed in its current form.

To say that any strains placed on the budget due to the redeeming of securities in the Trust Fund are "caused" by Social Security would be like saying that the Chinese are a cause of our deficits due to the fact that we have to pay them back for the money we borrowed from them. Or, as a more individual example, it would be like borrowing money from your 401K (which you are legally required to pay back), and then when you have to pay the money back, stating that your 401K is the cause of you not having enough money."
http://rationalrevolution.net/blog/
Under the heading of What People say about Social Security.

So what we are experiencing from the "fiscal hawks" is a distraction from the reality to divert attention from the need to do what they have been charged to, act on behalf of the American People not just their preferred sector of it.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#195
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

People have to pay income tax on unemployment checks. Why not on Bridge cards......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196
Jan 6, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
Maybe you should do some more research on the founding fathers. Did they agree that a goverment needs funds to operate and therfore would have to tax, Yes. They did not think that the goverment should operate to tax people into economic equality. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Missed that one Chip.

I'm not talking about taxing anyone into economic equality. I'm talking about taxation in what is necessary, say the national debt, in equity.

Like I have posted before the right claiming it will reduce the national debt by reducing Social Security benefits, reducing the Federal Government's spending, when in fact Social Security has nothing to do with the national debt.

The reason they want to lower the SS benefits is so there is more money in the fund to use toward paying the debt off. Then, knowing in advance, the result will be a harder time in keeping SS in effect so by law the benefits will be have to be lowered some more, as it illegal to borrow to "shore up" the Social Security Trust Fund, hopefully enough to bankrupt it. Thus getting rid of what Republicans have been aggressively against from it's inception.

That the right-wing has been presenting Social Security as part in parcel to the national debt is unconscionably deceptive. To being outright deceitful.

The American People should be made aware that the Social Security Trust Fund has no cause whatsoever in the national debt. And again, the ONLY reason they want the benefits reduced is so there is more money in the Fund they can use toward paying down, at least they say they would, the national debt so they don't have to act with integrity and increase (Federal) income taxes.

Again, the Social Security Trust Fund has absolutely NOTHING to do with the national debt. Period!
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#197
Jan 7, 2013
 
SIB is partially correct. Sorry, SIB, but your premise that it is only the Republicans that "borrow" from the SS fund can be, and has been, disproven many, many times. Every single administration has "borrowed" from the SS fund to help keep them afloat. The last number I saw was $3 Trillion is owed to the SS fund by the government. Your post on another thread about "borrowing" to buy Treasury Bonds is also partially true. But, again, not totally the case. I have posted the links that disprove this theory well over a year ago. I disagree that the SS Fund has nothing to do with the national debt if one looks at "borrowing" from the fund to cover our debt. Last I looked, "borrowing" implies repayment?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198
Jan 7, 2013
 
Really wrote:
SIB is partially correct. Sorry, SIB, but your premise that it is only the Republicans that "borrow" from the SS fund can be, and has been, disproven many, many times. Every single administration has "borrowed" from the SS fund to help keep them afloat. The last number I saw was $3 Trillion is owed to the SS fund by the government. Your post on another thread about "borrowing" to buy Treasury Bonds is also partially true. But, again, not totally the case. I have posted the links that disprove this theory well over a year ago. I disagree that the SS Fund has nothing to do with the national debt if one looks at "borrowing" from the fund to cover our debt. Last I looked, "borrowing" implies repayment?
I never said the Republicans were the only ones that have "borrowed" from the Social Security Fund. That's your misinterpretation of what I said.

Perhaps it would be better said that the Social Security Fund has had no cause in creating the national debt. Because it's been borrowed from to pay other debts and needs to be paid back is...well it was explained quite clearly in the link and there's no sense in my attempting to re-explain it.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199
Jan 7, 2013
 
Hi SIB:
When following the link I didn't see anything that said "What People Say about Social Security" but I found the one titled "The Truth About Social Security." Unfortunately it didn't tell much of the truth. If you have a chance you should read the trustee report on SS.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/in...
When SS was first established the age it used to determine when benefits began was set at 10+ years past the average life expectancy. The goal of the program was that more than 1/2 the people who paid into the system wouldn't live long enough to collect. If we made that change today the starting age would be in the mid 70's and would increase every year so that people being born today wouldn't be eligible until their late 80's or early 90's.
The real truth is that in net-present-value terms, Social Security owes $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. Your article said "As was stated earlier, Social Security taxes typically bring in more revenue than needs to be paid out" which was true when the article was written but hasn't been true since 2010 and won't be true again (or at least in our lifetime).
This 2012 number consists of $2.7 trillion to repay the special-issue bonds in the trust fund and $6.5 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2033. This is an increase of $2.2 trillion from last yearís report. This is the largest one-year drop in the programís finances since 1994.
Congress would have to invest $11.3 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Securityís promised benefits through 2086. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes.
The trustees reportís perpetual projection extends beyond the usual 75-year planning horizon. The perpetual projection is $20.5 trillion, including money necessary to repay bonds in the trust fund. Last yearís number was $17.9 trillion.
This means that Social Securityís deficit after 2086 is $9.2 trillion. These projections show that the programís total deficit continues to grow well beyond the 75-year projection period. For that reason, a successful reform would need to eliminate the deficits over the 75-year window and address those that come after that period.
BTW, the existence of a trust fund does not make Social Security healthy. Although those assets are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the bonds it contains must be repaid using general revenue that would otherwise go to other programs. Similarly, the interest that Social Security receives on existing trust fund balances is not spendable income. It merely inflates the numbers in the trust fund and increases the amount that Social Security will eventually receive from general revenue. The only part that counts today is the cash that Social Security receives from the Treasury to cover its annual operating losses.
And contrary to some raising payroll taxes by about 2.7 percent (the average percentage difference between revenues and outlays over the 75-year period) would not solve Social Securityís problems. The reality is that the programís future deficits are projected to be both large and growing, so this tax increase would still leave a huge shortfall.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

10 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Juneteenth - " celebrating the end of slavery 9 min Dr X 796
New Year's Rapist Takes Plea Deal 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is Good 1
Is Terri Lynn Land a slumlord? (Jan '12) 3 hr Shes awful 79
When will the poledancer grow a set? 5 hr Jim 4
Local News Women (Apr '09) 12 hr Red Wood 2,294
What about the Malaysian jetliner? Tue Gville Jim 56
Fifth Third Bank loses $202 million (Jul '08) Tue JACK 216
•••
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••