Social Security a secretly secure future

Social Security a secretly secure future

There are 81 comments on the The Paradise Post story from Aug 14, 2010, titled Social Security a secretly secure future. In it, The Paradise Post reports that:

SOCIAL SECURITY is going broke. We've heard that a million times, but what if it's not true.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Paradise Post.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Who ToBelieve

Fresno, CA

#1 Aug 14, 2010
well, most of these statements are in conflict with Social Security news reports from every possible source - somebody is full of it !... maybe Paradise has a newsman that knows more than all the national news commentators ... maybe, maybe not

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#2 Aug 14, 2010
Though I'm skeptical, I hope you're right.
Dode Penrod

AOL

#3 Aug 14, 2010
Who ToBelieve wrote:
well, most of these statements are in conflict with Social Security news reports from every possible source - somebody is full of it !... maybe Paradise has a newsman that knows more than all the national news commentators ... maybe, maybe not
Well, we know Jack Jamison doesn't have the same agenda as all those national news commentators.(Make that news prompting board readers.}

One sure proof that the Social Security fund is big and healthy: Bush longingly wanted to take it over for his rich friends on Wall Street!!!
Observer

Chico, CA

#4 Aug 14, 2010
Dode Penrod wrote:
<quoted text>
One sure proof that the Social Security fund is big and healthy: Bush longingly wanted to take it over for his rich friends on Wall Street!!!
Almost right...

What Bush & Co. wanted was the current money being paid in to be channeled to Wall Street. The so-called "Trust Fund" is actually a file cabinet full of IOU's, also known as T-Bills. As the money came in, current payments to recipients was deducted and the balance was "borrowed" by the government and spent for all manner of things. But, since the government was merely moving money from one pocket to another, so to speak, the net balance was zero. So, it doesn't show as part of the national debt.

Likewise, as interest accrued on these "securities," it was never actually paid. It was simply added to the amount "owed." The two trillion or so in the "trust fund" is nothing but a number on an adding machine tape, so to speak.

As the day approaches when pay-outs will exceed income and it becomes necessary to start tapping into the trust fund, that money will have to come out of the nation's general revenues, i.e., it will become part of the deficit. Already, it is being suggested that this cannot be done and that payouts will simply have to be reduced to match what will currently be paid in.

OK, gang, tinfoil hat time... It has further been suggested that this was the intention of the Reagan revamp of Social Security in 1983 which was sold as making Social Security sound far into the future. The idea was that the excess amount of tax collected would be "borrowed" into the general fund, thereby allowing tax reductions on higher incomes. The top rate in 1980 was seventy percent. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, it had been lowered to only twenty-eight percent. Then this "debt" would simply be repudiated, the whole purpose being a massive wealth transfer from the working class to the upper class.
Truly laughed out loud

United States

#5 Aug 14, 2010
"So you see that SS won't run out of money for decades." "No, SS is not going broke in the near future." "Yes SS has problems looming in the future..."

I almost spit my coffee out this morning when I read this column. What about the rest of us who won't be collecting benefits for decades...in the future? As far as I'm concerned, social security benefits for younger workers is a MYTH! And by "younger" I mean anyone under 45. All YOU care about is whether or not there is enough money for YOU to collect YOUR benefits. Your only solution is to have the "rich" pay for everyone else. Shouldn't the "rich" then collect more? Isn't that how SS works? Oh wait - you didn't mean "Society of Socialism"... How about this for a solution... Let me manage my own money. With over 15% of my income, I could buy my own life insurance policy, disability insurance policy and fund my own retirement no matter how long I lived. Easily! With money to spare!
Dode Penrod

AOL

#6 Aug 14, 2010
Truly laughed out loud wrote:
"So you see that SS won't run out of money for decades." "No, SS is not going broke in the near future." "Yes SS has problems looming in the future..."
I almost spit my coffee out this morning when I read this column. What about the rest of us who won't be collecting benefits for decades...in the future? As far as I'm concerned, social security benefits for younger workers is a MYTH! And by "younger" I mean anyone under 45. All YOU care about is whether or not there is enough money for YOU to collect YOUR benefits. Your only solution is to have the "rich" pay for everyone else. Shouldn't the "rich" then collect more? Isn't that how SS works? Oh wait - you didn't mean "Society of Socialism"... How about this for a solution... Let me manage my own money. With over 15% of my income, I could buy my own life insurance policy, disability insurance policy and fund my own retirement no matter how long I lived. Easily! With money to spare!
Well, looks like you have bought into the scare-the-hell-out-of-em mantra of the Repubs who want to take over the "healthy" S.S. now so for sure there would be nothing left for you later.
Of course, you know absolutely for sure that you could manage your Social Security account better than anyone else. You forget that it is not some great scheme to make you rich in your old age, or even to provide you with a lush retirement. It is a safety net for people who reach the age when they are out of a job and have no way to survive. What you should do is what most of us have done. Start your own investment in a good retirement plan. Then when you actually retire you will have the income from that, as well as your monthly S.S. income, and can have nice retirement. But if all you will have is your S.S. to live on when you are 65, and you have failed to have any additional income, you will be living pretty poorly and there won't be any world cruises for you.
jaime

Chico, CA

#7 Aug 14, 2010
Truly laughed out loud wrote: "With over 15% of my income, I could buy my own life insurance policy, disability insurance policy and fund my own retirement no matter how long I lived. Easily! With money to spare!"

Sure you could. If 15% of your income is a couple million a year, maybe. But for the rest of us, 15% of our income wouldn't cover any of those things. Have you actually looked at what medical insurance costs those who aren't in a group plan of some kind? And do you have any idea how much money must be set aside to annuitize retirement? You're either very rich, or you're delusional. And you're not at all clear on the concept of social security. But you have learned to use the word Socialism as a meaningless argument in a discussion of this kind.
Dode Penrod

AOL

#8 Aug 14, 2010
One more thought. For you people who gripe about the fact that you can't leave your Social Security to your heirs, you're free to do this. When you start drawing on your S.S. account, you can give your monthly check to anyone you want to. If you have a good retirement income from your personal investments, you can put your S.S. checks into your savings plan and then your heirs will get it all. And odds are that you will draw out more from Social Security than you ever put in. If you want to know how much you have in your S.S. account now, you can get a statement for free.
Dode Penrod

AOL

#9 Aug 14, 2010
Don't forget -- it's called Social Security INSURANCE and is defined as "primarily a social insurance program providing social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty ..."

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Orland, CA

#10 Aug 14, 2010
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and those who manage, or should tht be mismanage it, should all be jailed. There are others who bilked far fewer out of their money and are now serving time but many people seem to think that it is okay as long as the government is doing the bilking. Does the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" sound familiar? But that's okay I guess as long as you get yours.
Observer

Chico, CA

#11 Aug 14, 2010
Sam Lowree wrote:
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and those who manage, or should tht be mismanage it, should all be jailed. There are others who bilked far fewer out of their money and are now serving time but many people seem to think that it is okay as long as the government is doing the bilking. Does the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" sound familiar? But that's okay I guess as long as you get yours.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme only to the extent that all insurance is a Ponzi scheme. If you have a car wreck, your insurance company pays for it out of the money it collects from all its other customers that didn't have wrecks.
Dode Penrod

AOL

#12 Aug 14, 2010
Sam Lowree wrote:
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and those who manage, or should tht be mismanage it, should all be jailed. There are others who bilked far fewer out of their money and are now serving time but many people seem to think that it is okay as long as the government is doing the bilking. Does the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" sound familiar? But that's okay I guess as long as you get yours.
And you are an anti-American jerk. I assume you are Brad II, a transplanted Canadian, who never has anything good to say about the United States. Ask some of the millions of older folks who love their Social Security and they'll boo you out of town. To call Social Security a Ponzi scheme is blasphemous and shows you to be as stupid at that idiotic child you have on your posts.
L Matthews

Menlo Park, CA

#13 Aug 14, 2010
Truly laughed out loud wrote:
"So you see that SS won't run out of money for decades." "No, SS is not going broke in the near future." "Yes SS has problems looming in the future..."
I almost spit my coffee out this morning when I read this column. What about the rest of us who won't be collecting benefits for decades...in the future? As far as I'm concerned, social security benefits for younger workers is a MYTH! And by "younger" I mean anyone under 45. All YOU care about is whether or not there is enough money for YOU to collect YOUR benefits. Your only solution is to have the "rich" pay for everyone else. Shouldn't the "rich" then collect more? Isn't that how SS works? Oh wait - you didn't mean "Society of Socialism"... How about this for a solution... Let me manage my own money. With over 15% of my income, I could buy my own life insurance policy, disability insurance policy and fund my own retirement no matter how long I lived. Easily! With money to spare!
Silly Boy,(or girl), we need your money! We have figured out that if you are willing to keep your money, you are not re-distributing your "fair share" to those 'LITTLE PIGGIES" who built their house on straw. Don'cha know we are all the same, deserve the same, and just because you like to work harder or have more talent, you think you should have more than me" (puff puff, ouch that needle hurts but it feels so good after, snort, snort, man, what a trip). Now, if I live off the government, you should be willing to do your part to help me; after all, aren't we all human?
Observer

Chico, CA

#14 Aug 14, 2010
David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, certainly an insider's insider, explains that the Republican policies of the last forty years have destroyed the economy of the United States.

An Op-Ed he wrote for the New York Times explains his viewpoint rather well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01s...

Many of us had hopes that President Obama would be able to halt this slide toward disaster, but he has been unsuccessful. There is probably no longer a win on the board. The country will probably lurch forward for a while on sheer inertia. Us older folks may well not live long enough to see the final collapse. But I feel for the children.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Orland, CA

#15 Aug 14, 2010
Dode Penrod wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are an anti-American jerk. I assume you are Brad II, a transplanted Canadian, who never has anything good to say about the United States. Ask some of the millions of older folks who love their Social Security and they'll boo you out of town. To call Social Security a Ponzi scheme is blasphemous and shows you to be as stupid at that idiotic child you have on your posts.
So I am anti-American because I criticize a bankrupt social program? Yes there are millions of older folks who benefit from the social security program but that doesn't mean that the program is not failing. By the way I do believe that Canada has a similar program but am not aware of the status of their program. I recently read that Canada has gained back all the jobs it has lost during the recession, some of the ways they did this was to shrink government and cut taxes, maybe Obama could look north for some help, of course he could always ask Bush, Bush created a lot of jobs while in office, that is until the Democrat caused recession hit.

Back to the SS system. The SS Trust Fund does have $2.5 trillion but that is all in Treasury bonds because the government took the excess from the SS Trust Fund and spent it. So there is $2.5 trillion owed to the SS Trust Fund by the government. The U.S government owes itself money, oh yeah, there is interest on that as well. But the U.S government is broke, they are borrowing money from China. So when the SS system becomes insolvent and goes to use the money from the Trust Fund and there is no money in the Trust Fund, what then? Higher taxes and decreased benefits.

"How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."

http://mises.org/daily/3469

"Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later "investors," or taxpayers, to pay benefits to earlier, now retired, taxpayers. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme."
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99....
Dode Penrod

AOL

#16 Aug 15, 2010
Sam Lowree wrote: "So I am anti-American because I criticize a bankrupt social program?"

No, you are anti-American because you call Social Security a Ponzi scheme and because of all the other anti-American slams you constantly make on these forums.
Firebell

Fair Oaks, CA

#17 Aug 15, 2010
So this means that Boxer should not have been elected in 1992 because she had no experience as a Senator. I guess no one should be elected to the Senate unless they have already been a Senator. That's the pathetic logic Boxer supporters use to try to re-elect this arrogant, hard-core leftist who is so out of touch with the people that she doesn't care about California's more than 12% unemployed, our loss of freedom under "Obamacare" that Boxer happily supported (while not having to participate in it herself) or the thousands of dollars of additional costs Californians will have to pay each year if "Cap and Trade" - Boxer's baby - ever gets rammed down our throats by Boxer and her fellow Leftists in the Senate.

Carly Fiorina doesn't have experience in the Senate. But given Barbara's experience there, and what the Senate does nowadays, that makes Fiorina far more desirable to serve there than Boxer. And come November, we Californians will send her there. Bye-bye Boxer.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#18 Aug 15, 2010
All I want is less to do, more time to do it, and higher pay for not getting it done. I'm applying for a Govt. job.
Truly laughed out loud

United States

#19 Aug 15, 2010
To Dode: Yes, I do know for sure I could manage my money. I’ve always managed my own retirement account and am confident I will reach my goals. I have also managed to buy a house (actually 4 over the years), raise two children, pay my bills and generally do all the things responsible adults do. I don’t need a nanny government to take care of me.

I never said it was a scheme to make me rich or provide me with a lush retirement. I won’t be able to collect social security when I’m 65. I have to wait until I’m at least 67 and there are serious discussions of raising that. YOU get to collect when YOU are 65, cuz you’re older.

Don’t preach to me about taking world cruises. My point is that over 15% of my income is more than sufficient to fund all of the benefits social security provides. For quite some time now “impartial” government agencies have projected that social security will be GONE before I collect any. With no political will to make the changes necessary to fix this, am I supposed to be irresponsible and ASSUME it will be there? That doesn’t seem prudent to me. It seems it does to you. You probably also believe in the tooth fairy and genies in a bottle. I don’t. I’m being responsible and planning for my future with what I can count on – me!

To Jaime: I’m not sure what a couple million a year has to do with anything. Because social security benefits are on a sliding scale (your benefit is lower if your income is lower), it doesn’t matter how high or low your income is. The benefit is adjusted to your income.

Yes, I do know what health care costs are. I have paid for my own private insurance policy for almost 20 years. I have a health savings account, know exactly what my maximum out of pocket is each year and am confident I will be able to pay for my health care needs.

The survivor benefits provided by social security to minor children could easily be funded with a term life insurance policy when a worker had minor children. Because most people have children when they are younger, the cost of such a policy is very inexpensive.

The complete and total disability benefit provided by social security is also relatively inexpensive because you have to be completely disabled to qualify. Most disabled people are only partially disabled and do not qualify.

Yes, I do know how much money must be set aside to pay for retirement. There are variable annuity policies available that will pay you 6% of the amount contributed for the rest of your life, no matter what happens to the principal value. So, for every $10,000 of income I desire, I need $166,667. Not exactly a couple of million.

I’m not “very rich”, nor am I “delusional”. I am very clear on the concept of social security. What started out as a safety net has morphed into a massive government plan with no action being taken to ensure benefits for younger workers.

Definition of socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry. In this example, the industry being owned by the state is that of part of my retirement and my choice of insurance and investments. It is a very relevant and meaningful term.

My suggestion would be to allow those that want to manage their own money and could pass a test (just like we do to drive, hunt, prepare someone's taxes, be a lawyer, etc.) be able to manage part of their account. There's got to be a way to wein ourselves off of this broken system.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#20 Aug 15, 2010
Truly laughed out loud wrote:
To Dode: Yes, I do know for sure I could manage my money. I’ve always managed my own retirement account and am confident I will reach my goals. I have also managed to buy a house (actually 4 over the years), raise two children, pay my bills and generally do all the things responsible adults do. I don’t need a nanny government to take care of me.
I never said it was a scheme to make me rich or provide me with a lush retirement. I won’t be able to collect social security when I’m 65. I have to wait until I’m at least 67 and there are serious discussions of raising that. YOU get to collect when YOU are 65, cuz you’re older.
Don’t preach to me about taking world cruises. My point is that over 15% of my income is more than sufficient to fund all of the benefits social security provides. For quite some time now “impartial” government agencies have projected that social security will be GONE before I collect any. With no political will to make the changes necessary to fix this, am I supposed to be irresponsible and ASSUME it will be there? That doesn’t seem prudent to me. It seems it does to you. You probably also believe in the tooth fairy and genies in a bottle. I don’t. I’m being responsible and planning for my future with what I can count on – me!
To Jaime: I’m not sure what a couple million a year has to do with anything. Because social security benefits are on a sliding scale (your benefit is lower if your income is lower), it doesn’t matter how high or low your income is. The benefit is adjusted to your income.
Yes, I do know what health care costs are. I have paid for my own private insurance policy for almost 20 years. I have a health savings account, know exactly what my maximum out of pocket is each year and am confident I will be able to pay for my health care needs.
The survivor benefits provided by social security to minor children could easily be funded with a term life insurance policy when a worker had minor children. Because most people have children when they are younger, the cost of such a policy is very inexpensive.
The complete and total disability benefit provided by social security is also relatively inexpensive because you have to be completely disabled to qualify. Most disabled people are only partially disabled and do not qualify.
Yes, I do know how much money must be set aside to pay for retirement. There are variable annuity policies available that will pay you 6% of the amount contributed for the rest of your life, no matter what happens to the principal value. So, for every $10,000 of income I desire, I need $166,667. Not exactly a couple of million.
I’m not “very rich”, nor am I “delusional”. I am very clear on the concept of social security. What started out as a safety net has morphed into a massive government plan with no action being taken to ensure benefits for younger workers.
Definition of socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry. In this example, the industry being owned by the state is that of part of my retirement and my choice of insurance and investments. It is a very relevant and meaningful term.
My suggestion would be to allow those that want to manage their own money and could pass a test (just like we do to drive, hunt, prepare someone's taxes, be a lawyer, etc.) be able to manage part of their account. There's got to be a way to wein ourselves off of this broken system.
Sign in Oval Office: "If At First You Don't Succeed ... Blame Someone Else".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Wally Herger Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California Rep. Dreier announces plan to retire (Feb '12) Mar '12 torch 4
News Gloria Darlene Linch, Red Bluff: SmartMeters (Feb '11) Sep '11 Jeanne S 34
News Calif. rep. wants shared sacrifice in debt talks (Sep '11) Sep '11 lastoutlaw 10
News Herger in downtown Chico on Tuesday (Aug '11) Aug '11 Angry American 8
News Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capit... (Dec '10) Jul '11 roaddog 288
News House Republicans seek IRS probe of AARP (Mar '11) Jul '11 joey 37
News GOP calls for IRS probe of AARP (Apr '11) Jul '11 joey 2
More from around the web