AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 5, 2011 14:04:07 GMT -5
So, big government types, I have a question for you: How long would you need to make it work? How long would your dream program of national healthcare, or social security, or welfare need in order to produce successful results?
Let's review the report card so far:
United States Postal Service (USPS) has been in operation since 1775-- that's 236 years. Has it been successful? No. It's broke. After running an $8.5 billion loss in its last fiscal year, it'll be bankrupt at the end of this fiscal year.
Social Security was established in 1935. The government had over 76 years to make it work, and it's broke. Think about that for a second-- imagine a retirement planner that had the power to force every American to contribute a fixed percentage of their pay to a retirement plan selected by that planner running out of money to pay retirees. People would want to know, after 76 years-- hey, where the hell is OUR money? Government couldn't manage to do it. The government "borrowed" from the program-- a practice that would land a registered investment advisor in the pokey-- and now that it's time to start making distributions, the government doesn't have the money.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They've had over 73 years to make it work. It's broke, and the recipient of an un-ending, no-strings-attached bailout.
Medicare and Medicaid, established in 1965, have had over 46 years to figure out a way to make that program work. It's broke.
In fact, between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there is an unfunded liability of more than $109 trillion dollars. Someone that says they aren't broke, or that the problem isn't that big is either hopelessly ignorant, or lying.
The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) commonly referred to as "Cash for Clunkers" went broke after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to have been produced by foreign countries.
The $787 billion "stimulus" bill passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Barrack Obama...
Do we really have to ask?
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Jun 5, 2011 14:17:32 GMT -5
So, big government types, I have a question for you: How long would you need to make it work? How long would your dream program of national healthcare, or social security, or welfare need in order to produce successful results? Let's review the report card so far: United States Postal Service (USPS) has been in operation since 1775-- that's 236 years. Has it been successful? No. It's broke. After running an $8.5 billion loss in its last fiscal year, it'll be bankrupt at the end of this fiscal year. Social Security was established in 1935. The government had over 76 years to make it work, and it's broke. Think about that for a second-- imagine a retirement planner that had the power to force every American to contribute a fixed percentage of their pay to a retirement plan selected by that planner running out of money to pay retirees. People would want to know, after 76 years-- hey, where the hell is OUR money? Government couldn't manage to do it. The government "borrowed" from the program-- a practice that would land a registered investment advisor in the pokey-- and now that it's time to start making distributions, the government doesn't have the money. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They've had over 73 years to make it work. It's broke, and the recipient of an un-ending, no-strings-attached bailout. Medicare and Medicaid, established in 1965, have had over 46 years to figure out a way to make that program work. It's broke. In fact, between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there is an unfunded liability of more than $109 trillion dollars. Someone that says they aren't broke, or that the problem isn't that big is either hopelessly ignorant, or lying. The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) commonly referred to as "Cash for Clunkers" went broke after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to have been produced by foreign countries. The $787 billion "stimulus" bill passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Barrack Obama... Do we really have to ask? And let's not forget about the homebuyer's tax credit. Most of those homes are underwater now and who knows how many have already been foreclosed upon?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:08:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 14:38:50 GMT -5
The truth is Paul that it's a waste of time explaining anything on these boards. Conservative have their views & Liberals have their views. There is no such thing as proof (except proof that supports your beliefs) for either side. The U.S. is pretty much doomed either thru spending or socialist changes. Either way in 15 years we will be able to look around & not see the country that we grew up in. I just never figured that old saying "This to shall pass" applied to my country.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 5, 2011 14:45:03 GMT -5
... Either way in 15 years we will be able to look around & not see the country that we grew up in. ... If those social programs had not been in place, the country that you grew up in would have been radically different.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 14:55:43 GMT -5
Those programs are ALL beloved and not supposed to make a profit- they're supposed to be "broke" . Nobody's for "big government", but non RW misled ideologues know only the government can do some things well... Luckily only about 20% are so blind to reality
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 5, 2011 15:11:20 GMT -5
If those social programs had not been in place, the country that you grew up in would have been radically different. Do you mean that we would have had a lot more people who were more responsible for their own survival and less dependent on the government? How is that so bad? It becomes an interesting "what if" game. In my mind, the term survival is very poignant.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 5, 2011 16:19:15 GMT -5
Those programs are ALL beloved and not supposed to make a profit- they're supposed to be "broke"
This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read in all my 50 years. Warsaw you are classic.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 5, 2011 19:01:46 GMT -5
The truth is Paul that it's a waste of time explaining anything on these boards. Conservative have their views & Liberals have their views. There is no such thing as proof (except proof that supports your beliefs) for either side. The U.S. is pretty much doomed either thru spending or socialist changes. Either way in 15 years we will be able to look around & not see the country that we grew up in. I just never figured that old saying "This to shall pass" applied to my country. The survival of the country depends on persuading enough people of the moral superiority of liberty. If I didn't think that was possible, I'd be pretty discouraged. If we can't reverse this mistake we're all dead-- politically, culturally, and ultimately-- literally.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 5, 2011 19:05:09 GMT -5
Those programs are ALL beloved and not supposed to make a profit- they're supposed to be "broke" . Nobody's for "big government", but non RW misled ideologues know only the government can do some things well... Luckily only about 20% are so blind to reality These programs aren't supposed to be broke. They are supposed to deliver the services promised for the money received. They are not supposed to be operating at catastrophic annual deficits. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are most certainly NOT supposed to represent a $109 trillion unfunded liability. The programs weren't sold that way, because they COULD NEVER have been sold that way. It IS interesting to me that after the fact, you admit they were designed to FAIL, and you couldn't care less.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 19:07:45 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone is for BIG government; I believe most are for ADEQUATE government.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 20:40:25 GMT -5
Medicare/aid, SS are just fine, need some tinkering- you are sorely misled. The Post Office is adjusting in the computer age. Try and remain calm. ;D
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Jun 5, 2011 20:49:56 GMT -5
. . o O ("Cash for Clunkers" was beloved?)
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Jun 5, 2011 20:51:02 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone is for BIG government; I believe most are for ADEQUATE government. And many of us would actually like government that does a bit better than adequate.... but we need to be realistic, right?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 20:52:47 GMT -5
Really? Got any proof? Social Security Isn't Broke, But We Still Ought to Fix ItSocial Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy? www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/15/social-security-isnt-broke-but-we-still-ought-to-fix-it/
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 20:59:12 GMT -5
Another Chicken Little PBP thread based on misinformation and BS....
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 20:59:44 GMT -5
Top 5 Social Security MythsRumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Myth: Social Security is going broke. Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security. Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1 pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 5, 2011 21:04:56 GMT -5
Yes, the government's failed attempt at forcing people to buy deferred annuities from them is broke. Instead of being fully reserved, as insurance should be, it's a ponzi scheme that is reliant on a new base to pay the benefits of the retiring citizens.
They cannot pay their promised benefits without increasing the age of retirement, increasing the amount contributed, and most likely both.
In the early 80's, when the last major overhaul to SS took place, they did not go the distance necessary to ensure solvency for longer than 60 years. They've been managing this ponzi scheme from generation to generation because the politicians know that they only need to make the current majority voting block happy...and the politicians themselves will be long gone when the decisions need to be made.
It's no worse than those that rail against mismanagement of companies when senior management is only concerned about the now without respect to the future.
In the next 20 years, this mentality is going to backfire greatly as Gen Y becomes the majority voting block and the boomers are too much of a financial burden for the country to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 21:05:59 GMT -5
Trust Fund FAQs1.What are the Social Security Trust Funds? 2.How are the trust funds invested? 3.What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn? 4.What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds? 5.If all the income is invested, how do benefits get paid each month? 6.What were the amounts of securities bought and sold during recent years? 7.Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism? 8.Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program? 9.Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past? www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 21:08:59 GMT -5
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 21:11:10 GMT -5
The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) commonly referred to as "Cash for Clunkers" went broke after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to have been produced by foreign countries.
Total horse patoot. ;D
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Jun 5, 2011 21:12:55 GMT -5
The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest.
Government bonds? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 21:18:34 GMT -5
The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest.Government bonds? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Would corporate bonds be more secure? No!
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 21:22:15 GMT -5
So, Burnsy, how come Canada didn't have a great recession? No Pubs!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 16:08:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 21:26:29 GMT -5
SS isn't broke, they can just push back the retirement date (again). If your 30 now it will still be around when you can draw off of it.......assuming you live to the new retirement date of 103 years old. But It's solvent & will remain so!!!!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 5, 2011 21:27:05 GMT -5
From your link:
Yep - pretty much sums up SS. Well, not exactly. At least those that contributed to Ponzi's scheme HAD A CHOICE.
I'm pretty sure I understand insurance better than most people on these boards. I'm absolutely positive, without an ounce of doubt that if the US government were any private insurance company, they would have been under receivership and under control of the state insurance commissioner the moment they tried this "pay as you go" shit. The US switched from a reserve based to a pay go scheme in the late 30's; within 5 years of implementation of train wreck.
I'll also say that the aggregate return of an insurance portfolio is close to 6.5%; or 200 basis points higher than the US governments shell game they're playing with the trust fund. The interest they're earning on the trust barely covers inflation. If the US government were to actually invest these monies instead of using it as their credit card, then the premiums paid may have been sufficient for the claims that they promised to the boomers - i.e. we wouldn't have this insolvency issue we have - where the system will have to raise ages and premiums on the next generation.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 5, 2011 21:29:08 GMT -5
From your link:
Yep - pretty much sums up SS. Well, not exactly. At least those that contributed to Ponzi's scheme HAD A CHOICE.
I'm pretty sure I understand insurance better than most people on these boards. I'm absolutely positive, without an ounce of doubt that if the US government were any private insurance company, they would have been under receivership and under control of the state insurance commissioner the moment they tried this "pay as you go" shit. The US switched from a reserve based to a pay go scheme in the late 30's; within 5 years of implementation of train wreck.
I'll also say that the aggregate return of an insurance portfolio is close to 6.5%; or 200 basis points higher than the US governments shell game they're playing with the trust fund. The interest they're earning on the trust barely covers inflation. If the US government were to actually invest these monies instead of using it as their credit card, then the premiums paid may have been sufficient for the claims that they promised to the boomers - i.e. we wouldn't have this insolvency issue we have - where the system will have to raise ages and premiums on the next generation.
Keeping those assets in high grade bonds and diversified would be much better than 100% treasuries...an extra 200bps as I said above.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 21:31:35 GMT -5
From your link: Yep - pretty much sums up SS. Well, not exactly. At least those that contributed to Ponzi's scheme HAD A CHOICE. I'm pretty sure I understand insurance better than most people on these boards. I'm absolutely positive, without an ounce of doubt that if the US government were any private insurance company, they would have been under receivership and under control of the state insurance commissioner the moment they tried this "pay as you go" shit. The US switched from a reserve based to a pay go scheme in the late 30's; within 5 years of implementation of train wreck. I'll also say that the aggregate return of an insurance portfolio is close to 6.5%; or 200 basis points higher than the US governments shell game they're playing with the trust fund. The interest they're earning on the trust barely covers inflation. If the US government were to actually invest these monies instead of using it as their credit card, then the premiums paid may have been sufficient for the claims that they promised to the boomers - i.e. we wouldn't have this insolvency issue we have - where the system will have to raise ages and premiums on the next generation. WOW, that's too bizarre to even respond to!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 5, 2011 21:36:36 GMT -5
Um, actually the statement is false for two unrelated reasons:
1. There is no "Social Security Trust Fund". It doesn't exist. It's a line item in the budget, and
2. Raid it, don't raid it- it doesn't matter. There are no IOU's because the government doesn't "owe" you anything. You are NOT entitled to Social Security benefits. The Congress may change the law at any time, there is no guarantee-- there's no binding contract. Doubt it? Don't.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 5, 2011 21:38:33 GMT -5
"If your 30 now it will still be around when you can draw off of it.......assuming you live to the new retirement date of 103 years old." oooo- very scarey....actually, everything will be fine if Pubs are never elected again- huge deficits, boom and bust fraud, STUPID wars....unbelievable
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 5, 2011 21:43:53 GMT -5
What's your point? No one ever said Charles Manson had the right to his Social Security benefits.
Nothing is secure! Wages can even be attached/garnished, etc.
|
|