Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 3 years, 6 months ago
    I never get tired of saying this: Ida May Fullep was the first recipient of a Social Security check. She had paid $22.54 into the system prior to her retirement. She lived to be 100. She had been paid $22,888.92 when she died. The Socialistic idiots who created the program had projected that average lifespan for a male, then 64 years, would not increase.
    What went went wrong, Michael? We are living too long. Either we have to scrap the system or go bankrupt. There are no other choices left.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 6 months ago
      When SS was started the planners expected that most people would not live long enough to collect, and for many years many did not, or collected very little. The premise from the beginning was to buy votes with welfare promises that could never be fulfilled without escalating taxes beyond feasible limits.

      SS as it is understood today cannot be saved. While taxes have been increased incrementally in the name of "saving" SS, the money collected has been spent and taxes still cannot be raised enough to pay what people have been led to expect.

      Demagogic appeals like Christie's to cut off the "rich" while ignoring that they have paid for it several times over continue to count on belief in sacrificial collectivism for votes and to further morally entrench the system and the politicians while doing nothing to "save" it fiscally. There aren't enough "rich" to soak, only enough to attack in class warfare for votes.

      Neither would raising the age limit to the point where most people can't collect save it. It would only be intentional welfare while putting more people into poverty because their potential savings were taken from them. The statists want to keep SS financially in the ponzi-black as a means to spend more money on other programs without appearing to raise taxes. That is not "saving" the system as people have been led to expect it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
      Of course there are other options besides "Either we have to scrap the system or go bankrupt."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 3 years, 6 months ago
        And they would be?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
          Eliminating the cap for one. Raising the minimum retirement age is another. Raising the FRA to 70 is another. And I am sure if people were to put there minds to it there would be other solutions found. However this would not be the forum where reasonable solutions can be found to maintain a social safety net.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 3 years, 6 months ago
            The social safety net is an illusion based on the absurd notion that if enough money is created and distributed, everyone will have enough to live on. This has never worked under any form of government and never will.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
              So your suggestion for those who have encountered bad luck late in life and find themselves without resourse would be....?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
                the only bad luck I had was a government sponsored economic melt down my answer was to go to work up thorugh age 65 as a deck hand on a freighter or tanker. Sometimes life is tough but i think of the thousands of starving children arouond the US who reportedly have nothing to eat yet we are in a country that feeds the world. if we have enough surplus to do that what's wrong with filling up the thousands of food banks around the country?

                Personally I don't believe the figures are facts but another form of scam fo rwhich undoubtedly some children pay the price but then this is a country that treats it's dogs better than it's children.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
    SSI is a CON, and has been ever since implemented.

    People should have always been allowed to starve if they are too stupid to save for their own care in the future.

    I have posted and can post dozens of articles about simple Janitors and other low income people who retired millionaires, not by screwing others, but by doing a few SIM PLE things.

    Work Hard
    Live Below your means
    Save your money
    Invest Your money wisely

    http://nypost.com/2015/02/04/frugal-e...

    Hard work and a frugal nature and we do not need Government at all to do anything for us other than keep our shores safe so we can enjoy freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by cjferraris 3 years, 6 months ago
      Actually, SSI is different from Social Security.. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is for people that can't work... Severe disabilities drug additions and other issues can be a reason you can be in your 20's and draw SSI... SS was never designed to run both regular payouts and SSI payments..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by VetteGuy 3 years, 6 months ago
      Hi Woodlema,
      Your comments regarding "a frugal nature" caught my attention. Several years ago, I did some investigation into the Voluntary Simplicity movement. It wasn't exactly life changing, as we had always lived within our means. A lot of it seems to mesh with Objectivism, as it is very logical - don't spend more than you make. Also, using cash is considered a virtue.

      I don't think I've seen anyone mention VS here in the Gulch, just wondered if you were familiar with the concept.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
        I have never heard of that term before, however in principal my wife and I follow a few very simple rules.

        1) ALWAYS and without exception, spend less than 75% of what you take home, we usually spend about 30 - 35% of my take home.
        2) ALWAYS put aside at least 20% of funds you do not spend into some form of savings.
        3) ALWAYS keep at least 6 months of your take home in liquid assets, i.e. cash in a safe.
        4) If you cannot afford to pay cash for it, you cannot afford it.

        5) be prepared for emergencies, i.e. Tornado's, Hurricanes, Economic collapse, and Obama's being elected.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 6 months ago
          We're definitely on the same page. I say that you should never spend more than 70% of your take home pay; invest the rest. I also say that you should have at least a year's worth of your expenses covered in an emergency fund.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by NealS 3 years, 6 months ago
          Excellent Five Points, perhaps a little too aggressive for some but well worth it if you can swing it. On top of regular savings I bought company stock at a discount that I maxed every year. I was fortunate to work for a great company, 3M. I keep at last 6 months in liquid cash, and just paid out of my emergency fund about $9000 to have a new water line pushed through underground from the house to the meter at the street.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
            That is why the "emergency fund" Personally I would have rented a trencher from Lowe's or Home Depot for a couple hundred bucks, bought a couple hundred feet of PEX tubing used for the connections, a $250.00 dollar crimper set, and done it myself,. But that is just me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
            You living in Michigan?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by NealS 3 years, 6 months ago
              No, I actually live in Redmond WA. Started with 3M in Los Angeles in 1969, retired form 3M in Seattle in 2001 (right after 911, I couldn't stand the air travel anymore).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
                Amen to that . All the amateurs showed up , The experienced professionals were ignored and the whole thing became the usual government cluster f--k intent on building a new empire and air travel was no more safer than it was before with the TSA Gestapo standing watch. I don't fly in the USA for that very reason. I want to go somewhere I fly out of latin america to where ever.
                good service and a warm y safe fuzzy feeling that isn't present north of the border.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
        Actually! Néver heard of it . But I've been doing it. is there a site specific or just google Voluntary Simplicity?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by VetteGuy 3 years, 6 months ago
          You can google it and get a pretty good flavor from the websites. Don't get turned off if the fist one doesn't suit you, though. It means a lot of different things to different people. One book I read on the subject was "Your Money or Your Life" (Joe Doninguez and Vicky Robin). I certainly didn't buy in to the whole lifestyle (I like my "toys" too much) but it's an interesting perspective.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
      "Hard work and a frugal nature and we do not need Government at all to do anything for us other than keep our shores safe so we can enjoy freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness." Except when we suffer one of life's many misfortunes then your solutions is "people should be allowed to starve." Sweet!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
        NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY in this country, with half a brain and a little bit of work would EVER starve in this country.

        If you are too damn lazy to "do" something, and just want to sit around like a lump, then yes, you deserve to starve.

        Also, there is another point to this. "IF" you are an atheist, then by definition you must believe in evolution. Rules of Darwinian evolution, STRONG survive Weak DIE. This is good for the species, so what is the issue?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
          "If you are too damn lazy to "do" something, and just want to sit around like a lump, then yes, you deserve to starve." Misfortune. Accidents. Sickness. Shit happens. But I see your point; if your solution for a victim of any number of such to suggest to the victim to just "die" than you laid out your moral code and good luck to you.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
            Please refer to the Objectivist Oath.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
              I do not see in the Objectivist oath where there is a caveat for accident, or misfortune...do you?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by miami-sid 3 years, 6 months ago
                I suspect Objectivist do not check their common sense at the door. Suggesting "just die" as alternative to the all too common bad luck that some encounter in life is not a viable or reasonable suggestion it is however an indication of something more venal.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by woodlema 3 years, 6 months ago
                  An interesting point to make. If you read EXACTLY what I wrote above, I never suggested "just die."

                  No place did I even infer such.

                  I stated that if people paid attention to themselves, there is no NEED for any government to take care of us.

                  If you belong to a group, a church, have family, you should already have a support mechanism. There is insurance you can BUY to take care of that possibility.

                  The long and the short is society has no real need to take care of you, I am not my brothers keeper, everyone should be accountable and responsible for themselves and their lives and not impose their problems on other period.

                  Now if YOU, for your sake have the internal need to support people in dire straights, then by all means do so, you would be doing it for your sake with the product of YOUR labor.

                  Should I choose to or not to that is all for my own sake and based on my personal sense of what I value.

                  But I am always happy to alter my personal view,, so here is my challenge.

                  Using the Objectivist lexicon, or any writing of Ayn Rand within the Objectivist philosophy, show me where Government, or you or I are responsible or accountable in any way to support for or provide for anyone else regardless of their circumstances self imposed or otherwise because THEY want, need or expect it..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 6 months ago
    Of course it is a con job, but a very artful one. The government persuaded people that it (the government) needed to be given license to act as a legal and mandatory investment firm, regardless of the fact that government is not only unqualified to fulfill such a role, nor is it subject to market self-regulation, nor are the funds actually invested, and probably most importantly: that all this was done without any direct edict in the Constitution granting them any such power!

    Where did you go wrong?

    You didn't, unless you voted for LBJ in the 1970's or supported any of the politicians who lied about the purpose, scope, and implementation of SS. You, like the majority of the American people, were sold a vial of snake oil and told it was a potion of happiness.

    The second place where you got robbed was in the constant inflation of US currency and it's resulting devaluation which dramatically and negatively affects savings. As the government has devalued the dollar so as to devalue the enormity of its debt, it has also devalued your savings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
      No way I would have voted for Lyndon B for butcher Johnson. Fifty thousand of my generation died because of that fascist son of a a bitch. i'd piss on his grave if I knew where it was.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 3 years, 6 months ago
    How many of you that are not yet retired have saved enough on your own that you really won't need your SocSec? And how many of those plan on abiding by the law by signing up for it and then figuring out some way not to take the money?

    I planned well, actually much better than I had expected and really don't need my SocSec. But, there is no way I'm going to work hard (or at all) to try to give it up, I'm just too selfish, and you can use all those other nasty words the left calls me. I don't argue that, that's just me. I'm entitled, SocSec is the law, and I'm going to abide by the law. Besides it does allow us to go out much more often, three or four time a week, and not having to worry about the menu prices. What I do have to worry about is the price of calories, I'm down 25 pounds as of this morning in the last 60 days. You should see me naked in front of the mirror, I look great (that was a true joke). Another five and I'm getting a huge Porterhouse with Baked Potato with all the fixings, of course using my SocSec money. I'd probably be driving my Corvette anyway, but I like to tell people I used my SocSec money to buy it.

    Two things I tell all young people, "Don't Smoke", and "Save Your Money".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 3 years, 6 months ago
    You were told by your financial advisor to expect a reasonable return on investment on conservative investments like bonds. That would be reasonable in a country that viewed its citizenry with respect, but instead you were viewed as an easy target by the looters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
      Doesn't apply. to me nor to the question. The question is when did Social Security go from being a safety net for the truly destitute to becoming a key part of retirement preparation for the general public. i shudder to think of the other folks who didn't have the last minute opportunity to raise the amount of Social Security and get back some of the loot. In any case .. the question remains but by looters if you mean the government you got that right. Come to think of it I guess I am more than a little embarrassed to have believed the government. i give you a point for that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 3 years, 6 months ago
        When you started investing in your 401k and IRA, the American government was far more trustworthy than it is now. The problem is that governments change so drastically over a person's lifetime. And people wonder why I don't build chemical engineering plants expected to last 20+ years anymore.

        To be fair to you, you really had no choice in the matter. Pay up, or go to jail. That's not really a great set of options.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 6 months ago
        What was it Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste." The depression was a crisis that FDR didn't let go to waste, and he imposed so many doodads that people came to believe that they had a "right" to them. Once that happened, the politicians expanded those programs so much that they're bankrupting the country. SS stopped being a safety net when WE THE PEOPLE elected politicians who promised us more. The politicians who promised us reality were never elected.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 6 months ago
    A Con that for many has become a Necessity thanks to mixed market economic policies and huge tax burdens foisted upon the productive by over-bloated statist government. It has made it quite difficult for most to save for themselves when wages have been stagnant partly due to unfair trade and immigration policies, job market outsourcing and innovation stifled. The program itself was destined for failure, being nothing more than a ponzi scheme with unsound math and foresight. Although it can be argued that the creators of the scheme, according to well documented reports, knew it was so and thus it would not be shortsighted, but intentionally disingenuous for political gain... FDR!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by hattrup 3 years, 6 months ago
    A few numbers .....
    US unfunded liabilities: $211 Trillion
    (and INRCREASING at $4Trillion/year)
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff...

    US population (2014): 319 Million

    Unfunded Liability per PERSON in US: $660,000

    It would take about a $50,000 payment (in addition to all current taxes) per person per year to ever start paying this off.

    Social Security is clearly a Con.
    And our welfare state is clearly heading in the direction of Greece - just not as fast as some other countries/territories (ie: Puerto Rico).

    It somewhat amazes me that, with all the looting, there is still a lot of producers/wealth production. One wonders how long the producers will tolerate all the free loaders - and how slowly/fast the system will change/collapse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 6 months ago
    I think that the Gulch has shown in the past that a moderate investment strategy would outstrip the S.S. return by a very wide margin. So all of that money, taken by force, is not only a rip-off, but to add insult to injury, a Ponzi scheme as well. You didn't go wrong. Your country did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 6 months ago
    Xenokroy, I thought about the same as you do, but
    the HR man at the plant insisted I should, and he
    said the company (although they had paid it in) would not regard it as robbery. So I took it. (I also
    thought I would be able to pay it back to the company because I would soon have a job).
    I have been unable to get the kinds of part-
    time, seasonal jobs one of the others mentioned.
    I had good attendance, and am still very strong;
    I lift weights on a barbell I have in the house. I
    have never been unemployed this long before,
    since I left my father's house in 1970.-The long-
    est before was about a week and a half in 1977,
    and that was the extreme case, and only once;
    I had needed time to get business arranged be-
    fore I moved to Richmond. Once I had been
    unemployed about 4 days between the Dairy-
    Rite (see www.dairy-rite.com) and the furniture
    factory; and my speed record was walking out
    of a mill at 3:15 or so A.M. and being put to work
    at a poultry plant in Bridgewater within about 4
    hours and 15 minutes.--Not that I always got a
    job I wanted; I've worked for very long stretches
    at one place while trying to get hired at another.

    But I'm still trying.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 3 years, 6 months ago
    It's a Ponzi scheme and has always been mathematically doomed to fail.

    The root of the problem is the concept of retirement itself, which began in 1871 when Bismarck created the first modern welfare state. Before that time, if you became too old to continue working -- anywhere in the world -- your only recourse was to have your children support you. Which meant everyone had better marry and have enough children that at least two or three will still be alive when the time comes. (This is why birth rates fall when a country becomes rich.)

    With the old age pension, and the existence of voluntary retirement, the nuclear family became possible, and thus the extended family was doomed. Many people, even libertarians, see this as entirely a good thing, but I'm not convinced.

    I believe retirement will and should still exist in the future, but not for everyone -- only for the wealthy. Let voluntary charities (and welfare while we have it) do what they can, but don't burden everyone with "entitlements" for the old -- especially since old people, on average, are the richest demographic in society. Let's wind down Social Security (and stop making its promises to the young) before the cost becomes even more astronomical than it already is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 6 months ago
    When I learned that the people on Social Security
    were being paid by the younger people working,(be-
    cause their own money was now gone) it seemed to
    me that it was unjust any way I figured it. Now I
    am unemployed and have been since October (except for a few days shovelling snow this
    past winter). My younger brother wants me to
    go on it, but I don't want to. I have tried and tried to get a job. Then I thought, that if my
    brother did not mind this money being taken from him, it might be all right to go on it for a
    few months, till I got a job. So I asked him about
    that and he said no, he didn't mind. My sister
    (also younger) said the same thing. So I went
    to the Social Security office, and asked,if I went
    on retirement could I get off of it when I got a
    job?--No, I was told.And other things about hav-
    ing to pay stuff back later. I got very upset and
    left without filing. But I went back the next day
    and was told that if I got disability I could get
    off it when I got a job. (I'm 63). So I have an
    appointment, but I am living on borrowed money
    till then. I am ashamed to call myself disabled;
    I have epilepsy; but there are plenty of jobs I
    can do, although it does interfere with getting
    some jobs. But my unemployment (I filed for
    it, at my former employer's insistence) has been
    cut off. I just hope I can get a job soon. I hate
    this welfare state, and I believe that it has had
    a share in my being unemployed now.--But I
    have been trying and trying to get a job.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 3 years, 6 months ago
      I hear ya man.

      I was out of my profession for a year and a half. I never took a dime of government loot.

      I did do seasonal work with the Mexicans (picked cherries, watermelon, cantaloup, pumpkins and corn) and was so stiff from the physical work the next day that it about killed me for the first month. I delivered news papers too during that time and that was really bad.

      The seasonal jobs sucked but they got me by until I found something in my profession again. The reason Americans will not take those jobs is because I would have had a better income on welfare or unemployment than I made picking crops and delivering papers. It was work I could drop at a moments notice and it left me able to interview and look for work. In the end it worked out, but I hated not having a job I could use my knowledge in.

      I feel for ya.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gafisher 3 years, 6 months ago
        Be aware that every employer pays for unemployment insurance; although it's administered by the government the first twenty six weeks are paid for by workers and employers; it's not welfare. (The so-called "extensions, of the other hand, are indeed welfare.) No worker should be ashamed to accept the insured portion of their unemployment benefits, any more than they would be ashamed to let health insurance pay for medical care or auto insurance pay for collision damage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 3 years, 6 months ago
          Since I think it unethical for a government to force those who never experience unemployment to pay for those that do experience unemployment by the force of government ran legal theft. I do not think it ethical for me to take such funds.

          I am not stating that to be the case for everyone. Each person must live as they see fit. For me taking funds which are taken by force from businesses and then distributed to others is no different than taking other moneys the government takes by force.

          If I can I will always avoid doing so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
            True if you can afford it. For example if i magically won a lottery- took the fifty percent option, paid the taxes took the remaining 54% after taxes or 27% of the original divided by life expectancy plus five or ten. I wouldn't think twice but as we found out it's not possible to opt out of SS and damned if I'll opt out of military retirement. which means pay the tax on that or have turbo tax do it. and transfer all of it as fast as possible outside the country.into a non-interest bearing account. the emphasis on security of funds against future raids.Then support efforts such as this website or the next Rand films.Actually I wouldn't say a word about where it was but I would leave a lot of false trails.

            Where's the money

            What money

            your big lottery win

            too many double zero bets at the casino

            and then I found out I was going to die?

            What about a will?

            Why should I care?

            Who will pay to bury you?

            Why should I care?

            But I'm a government agent you aren't allowed to lie to us?

            If I'm going to die why should I care?


            Besides...you have no jurisdiction outside the US. But see that polizei over there. he does!

            We''ll get a court order.

            What makes you think I'm going to be here?

            What?

            Why should I care? I'm going to die.

            What of?

            Ahhhh yes...I'll answer that.

            Old Age !!!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 6 months ago
          Yes, it's the system we are forced to live under and which we have paid for many times over. No one should be ashamed to get back what he can.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
          True but it's still part of the total wage packet as is the nine percent for social security.the military used to pass out a corrected annual wage and benefits fact sheet with everything listed. Some items such as the annual expenditure for the serving member and the cost of for families (such as extra housing allowance,, medical, education for dependents. When I retired i found my 50% retirement pay based solely on base pay was more like 33 1/3 percent retirement. Which was fine it was up front and we planned for it. What I didn't plan for was the reduction or disappearance entirely of the promised retirement benefits.Nor the massive reduction in buying power that everyone suffered. Some inflation sure but nothing like the shellacking we all took and the insulting one percent annual increases in COLA that came nowhere near the real Cost of Living increases. the governments of the last three Presidents, especially the las two Presidents were venomous. I also watched the early retirement buy back program with shock. how they justified that took more than smoke and mirrors it took treachery. There has to be a huge reservoir of veterans and aware active duty types out there that truly do fit former Janet Neapolitanos characterization of us as the greatest danger this government faces. All of us still following the Constitution and none of would lift a finger to save this government. Constitution? What's that got to do with Obama and Bush before him and the Government Party? But back to reality I really don't see under the circumstances and in view of the lies and chicanery
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
      On average it takes one year to get on disability and a lawyer.that specializes. The automatic answer first time is No. Persevere and remember you paid the insurance premiums it's not welfare they owe it you as contractual obligation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 6 months ago
    The SS program as administered by our government is a ponzi scheme. They billed it as a trust fund containing the accumulated savings of the workers that they could tap when retirement came. But the government spent the money- all of it. Now, all that is paying retirees is the tax on payroll of the NON-retired workers. Our politicians should be rounded up and shot for this. It was theft. But, what can we expect from government when it tries to run this kind of program. They are all thieves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 3 years, 6 months ago
    The easiest way to tell if what the government is doing is Legal Plunder is simple.

    If you attempt to do EXACTLY what the government does, and are sent to jail for committing a crime, then it's legal plunder.

    Is Social Security Legal Plunder? Go ask Bernie Madoff.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 3 years, 6 months ago
    Wow Michael, I am not to far behind you in years but I have about 6 more years before I qualify for SS. I plan to take my 401K and blow it on some property in Mexico or Belize with a house, all paid for up front. Then live off my savings and military retirement until 62, then SS, if there is anything left or the dollar has not tanked. I figure all the Mexicans will be here so it will nice and safe on the beach in Tulum or move to Belize as my parents live there, at least it is still cheap there. Unfortunately I have to keep paying taxes as a US Citizen or I lose my military retirement, so I will lose 30% or so to good old Uncle Sam. What I don't spend on housing and property, I will invest in more investment property wherever I am as the stock market and bonds are nothing but a casino and the house always wins.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  BYJR 3 years, 6 months ago
    Part 2 -- [Continued from July 21st posting]

    Of course people like "woodlema" will tear this down. After all, to them, the very concept of team just means that "some group thinks they can tell me what to do", and "why should I give a damn about people 'too stupid or too lazy' to plan for their future survival?"

    Whoever you are, I hope for your sake that you are never in a car accident, or in a fire, or in any situation for which you did not plan, or for which you may have your life or your freedom saved by someone who was not paid by you to save it.

    "Survival of the fitest" is for animals in a jungle or an ocean, not free, intelligent beings.

    Beings such as we, look to the survival of all, sometimes even our former enemies.

    If John Galt thought as you do, he would have made his millions selling his power machine -- not caring what it was used for -- and took his fortune, bought a castle, some yachts and planes and such, and lived large to the end of this days -- and totally ignored the entire world while it crashed to dust all around him - until it imploded and crushed him as well.

    John Galt gained no personal advantage by saving his fellow producers and creating the Gulch. He just knew that a sane TEAM of able individuals was what was needed to put the world back together again.

    That's the kind of guy who stops his car and helps pull your car from going over the cliff -- not because he is an altruist -- but because he is not an animal, but instead a free, able being who knows what a sane world looks like.

    And "I got mine, but you didn't get yours because you were too stupid or lazy so that's too bad for you" doesn't build a sane, pro-survival world.

    Please Gulch, stop the snickering and snarling, and how about some more positive responses, eh?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cranedragon 3 years, 6 months ago
    There is a difference between SS being "half of my retirement income" and "even after cutting my living costs to the bone, SS funds half of my retirement expenses". Without explaining which one is the case, any attempt to determine "what went wrong" is destined to fail.

    Many baby boomers are faring much worse than our parents because they refinanced their houses over and over, rather than retiring with a small house that was fully paid for; they paid for expensive educations for their children rather than the public college and university educations that many of the baby boomers had found sufficient; they borrowed against their houses and took loans or distributions from their [already insufficient] 401K plans to help out their kids; they co-signed education loans for their children who then left their parents to pay them off; and other financial errors that the Depression era parents would have recognized as foolhardy. Any one of those -- and especially more than one of those -- would be failing to plan, if not actually planning to fail.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Wnston 3 years, 6 months ago
    Social security benefits are a priviledge offered to those who are gainfully employed, and a right to those who've paid into that system as a measure of their contribution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 6 months ago
    My Viewpoint:

    It's taken about a century to dig the money pit of SocSec.

    It's going to take a generation or two to fill the hole so we might be able to climb out.

    Any change/solution should be implemented over at least a generation or a 'working lifetime' of at least 40 years or more.

    Phase out the current system gradually and implement its replacement in steps over that period.
    If it's supposed to be a Supplemental Retirement Safety Net, workers/employees should be 100% vested for every dollar in their accounts, and not the government.

    If it's a "retirement" benefit, the ownership and contributions should be fixed by contract with every individual, negotiable between themselves and their employer (which might be they, themselves!) as to what the contributions would be on their part or the employer's part.

    If it's related to life expectancy, which makes sense, 'retirement age' or 'eligibility age' should be adjusted for life expectancy every five or ten years.

    Individuals should be able to choose the age they want to retire at, and should take full responsibility for providing for their retirement expenses.

    In some sense, you could retire at any age, but your 'payments' (if government-managed...) would be proportional to how long you worked before retiring.

    Retire young => get less money... Just as if it were your own savings for retirement... which it should be.

    imnsho.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 3 years, 6 months ago
    Social Security is very much a Ponzi scheme - it depends on an ever-increasing number of contributors to pay off the ever-increasing number of "investors" (to say nothing of those many whose votes were purchased by adding them into the payout system without having to pay in). Better nutrition and better medical care both contributed to the losses, as we're simply living longer. But the underlying problem is that the SS system is inherently socialist - none of the money paid into the SS coffers is permitted to earn interest, so (1) SS is nothing more than a big mattress and (2) money paid in can never keep up with inflation, so more and more people have to pay in to support each person taking out - the SSA will tell you itself that in 1940 there were 159 contributors for each beneficiary so, even if we figure a 50% operational cost, each worker had to contribute only about 1/80th of a single recipient's benefit. Today the worker to beneficiary ratio is less than three to one; if we figure the same operational cost percentage, each worker must pay about 2/3 of an average beneficiary's benefit check. With the baby boomers now well into SS, and the birth rate and incomes down, it's only a matter of time before each working person has one or more SS recipients riding on his or her back, and I promise you that will not continue - prepare to be "shrugged."

    Edited to add SSA ratio info: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 6 months ago
    Ponzy scheme? Yes. Could it have been constructed in a fair free market way?, Yes. Ah, but whom do you trust? Not government, not in any paradigm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
      But a ponzi scheme with a purpose. Keep control of you and what you have. It's all about left wing fascist government controls citizens. nothing more nothing less.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  3 years, 6 months ago
    Just as a way of advertising another thread ....in New Category. The path from the big hubub about same sex marriage to it's root cause. I was right about it being a setup.Nought to do with this subject
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 3 years, 6 months ago
    SS might have been a good program, albeit a forced one if the funds taken in were actually used as loans to business or invested wisely.
    But instead President Johnson and the Congress gave away the money to welfare and the "Great Society". SS is now an accounting fiction. It is a tax and not, since the 1960’s, a contribution to a “trust”. No one is paying IN to anything, they are only paying OUT. SS can be eliminated for those not already collecting benefits by refunding all past “contributions” with interest and putting that in a real retirement fund. Current recipients would continue being paid from taxes, or choose to opt out by receiving their past “contributions” plus interest.

    For more see the article "Uncle Sam Madoff with your money" http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 years, 6 months ago
    This program needs to be killed, gradually phased out so 70 year old people are not out in the street, but if you are 50, you are out.
    Replace it with a purely self-funded set of private plans, that are required like ObamaCare.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo