Old people get $2Trillion a year of gov't assistenace for the 'necessities', and you act is if its peanuts. That attitude is why we are in huge fiscal trouble. We simply cannot afford your economics and your understanding of humans is poor. More than half out there would rather sit at home than work if you gave them food, medical care, and paid their mortgage. People would quit working in masses and noone would come to you looking for work. Secondly if people always want more, then why the hell don't old people work? most of them don't have money for stocks. All this bitching?? yet if we don't do as you say then what exactly do you call your complaints?
maybe so, but at least when you buy a hamburger the employees would say "Thank You" I really don't care that much about deadbeats, as long as they are not homeless, hungry and sick. I have bigger problems than going around worrying about who is getting a free ride (if you want to call sitting around at home without even enough money to buy a cigarette and a beer a "ride".)
I wouldn't care either, except for the fact that I have to pay for them and the federal budget is a catastrophic mess with social welfare poised to send us all to the poor house... no you're right, other than that I have bigger worries
Thank you so much for that link to the Pew Foundation Research. Quite disturbing demographics. Here is something that may help somewhat with understanding what is going on with Social Security these days: "XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX The Hon. Roger Wicker United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Wicker: I am again writing in regard to a matter of considerable concern. In previous correspondence you stated that current workers in the Social Security system support those already retired. This seems at odds with my own understanding of how Social Security is designed, which is that retirees pensions come first from their own contributions plus interest and secondarily from the contributions plus interest of retirees who died before reaching their actuarial death age, and not from current workers. Since current Social Security contribution dollars are fungible with Trust dollars, naturally the Trustees could apply current contributions first toward pension payments and then redeem bonds to make up any shortfall if revenue from current contributions is insufficient to cover current liabilities; as it would be when the number of current workers is fewer than the number of retired workers. In a climate of large deficits in the discretionary budget, it is understandable that Congress may attempt various measures to slow the rate at which the Treasury must redeem the Trust's bonds, since the money needed to redeem the bonds must be borrowed. This is not, however, due to any defect in the design of Social Security. To imply that current pensions come from current workers' contributions, as your correspondence has implied, without a full explanation, is misleading in my opinion, as it suggests Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, which it most definitely is not! Naturally, an unfavorable ratio of current workers to retirees adds indirect pressure to the deficit in the discretionary budget, because it occasions the Treasury to borrow still more in order to pay the Trust what is owed to it. However, and I think you would agree, the need to pay what is owed to retirees is not related to the deficit as cause and effect. If I am incorrect about any of this, I would very much appreciate your letting me know. I am concerned that some in Congress are telling their constituents that current workers are supporting retirees, which is untrue. Paying retires first from current revenues and secondarily from Treasury redemption of Trust bonds using fungible Social Security dollars certainly does not constitute support of retirees by current workers. I also want to take this opportunity to encourage you to act as soon as possible to adopt the Trustees recommendation âsee the 2011 Trustees summary report â of a 2 cent/dollar increase in the contribution rate. Delaying this will only make it more costly to adjust later. It is unwise, in my opinion, to try and reduce the rate of Trust bond redemption by increasing the retirement age because this will aggravate an already unfavorable shift in worker age-demographics. In seeking remedies for over expenditure I urge you to focus on the two areas directly related as cause and effect to long term deficits, defense and medical costs. These are the two areas that are grossly out of whack with what other industrialized nations spend. Short term deficit causes related to recession, such as stimulus money, will largely take care of themselves provided Congress wisely uses the increased revenue that will attend a recovery from recession. May you and your family enjoy a merry and safe holiday season. Sincerely yours, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX"
I hear ya, especially about the "delaying it will only make it harder later" we're the greatest damn country on the face of the earth, and we can't even run a simple retirement program? maybe they will fix social security after they raise the price of a postage stamp another 2 cents good or bad, almost everybody likes it, especially if you are getting older, or have a relative you care about who is shit man, if you ever play poker at one of those Indian casinos, they have a "Bad Beat" prize awarded to all the players at the table. Nobody complains that ideologically it is not fair. Same with social security. It's just the booby prize that we pay to all those that played the game
Oldtime, I truly like your way of expressing yourself. A little on the folksy side occasionally, but heartfelt and true to the bone. I particularly like "... just the booby prize that we pay to all those that played the game." I think that sums up the situation very nicely. Well put.
laugh if you want. Capturing the "folksy" side is much more difficult than capturing what they teach at Harvard. I've been trading a long time man. and I'm not still alive because I've listened to what the "experts" said. But I will be the first to admit, occasionally they are right And if you go against them hard, you will lose your ass
Mav, here are some differing points of view I though might interest you. They are all from a simple Web search, so you might prefer doing your own. Social Securityâs ROI By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Posted: 9 am ET Monday was my 61st birthday -- one year away from retirement, or least one year away from the right to collect a small amount of Social Security. I was thinking about this retirement planning milestone when I stumbled on an Associated Press story published Monday that said: "A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank." The piece continued, quoting people both defending and reviling the program, but I couldn't get past those initial numbers. They looked wrong. So I called Richard Johnson, who is the director of retirement policy for the Urban Institute, and asked him to explain how it worked. Johnson said that the AP story leaves out some key parameters. In order for a couple to be getting back less than they put in, they'd both have to have earned the average income on which Social Security is based over the last 40 years -- no breaks. If during those 40 years, they had put the money they'd paid in Social Security payroll taxes into an account returning a steady 2 percent interest, then they would have accumulated more than they would be eligible to receive -- unless they live to be older than 82 and 85. Johnson said, "These numbers are based on prototypical people, and those people aren't common. In fact, they are very rare. We have numbers that look at the entire population's experience and in general, most people are doing much better." The typical worker born between 1951 and 1955 at full retirement age will get back at least 17 percent more in benefits than he contributed in taxes. A worker born after 1956 will get back at least 15 percent more than he contributed. "Social Security remains a good deal for most people approaching retirement," Johnson says. and this one is especially interesting: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html Or this from WJS: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704073804576023890972991846.html There are countless other such articles, and of course the most reliable source -- the one I can't recommend too highly-- is: socialsecurity.gov It pays in both real dollars and cents and in piece of mind to become well- informed. Happy reading Mav!