United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Rick Perry is Right: Social Security Really is a Ponzi Scheme
Source:
Dissenting Opinions
URL Source: http://jwpegler.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -is-right-social-security.html
Published: Sep 10, 2011
Author: Eric Blankenburg
Post Date: 2011-09-10 21:05:00 by jwpegler
Keywords: None
Views: 112674
Comments: 228
Rick Perry's comments during this week's GOP debate at the Reagan library has caused quite a stir in the liberal media. During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme". After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program. The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon. Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people. Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something. The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system. The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system. Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from the foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate until it blows up in our face and old people without resources really do wind up in the street. So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids? We will all be left holding the bag. There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed. That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out. The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid. Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear. Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing. The big question is what can be done? Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own. Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people? They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future. When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women. The math just doesn't work. We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy. Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing. The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, sneakypete, hondo68, A K A Stone, BorisY, Captialist Eric, CZ82, Murran, no gnu taxes, nolu chan, e_type_jag, We The People (#0)
Chris Mathhews admits that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme
All these words. The above says it all about the Scheme. Anybody but the gov't enablers goes to the slam for this.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. (decided to retire the beatdowns on old worthless retread posters that are bozoed)
Those who are on the retire at 65 plan should hold the gov to their contract. Teenagers just starting work should be given the option of not participating in the SS ponzi. The racketeers in congress can raise the retirement age, but only for those who agree. Any (most) congress-criters who participated in the theft of retirement funds are eligible for trial, and jail. Ya, like that's really going to happen in the good 'ol boy club!
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
I guess those would be the guys who voted for the Bush tax cuts and signed the "no new taxes" pledge.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
http://www.gocomics.com/garyvarvel/2008/12/18/ Gary Varvel cartoon: [Detective] All right Madoff! Where did you get the idea of paying early investors with money from late investors? [Madoff] From the Social Security system.
There is no enforceable contract. The government can take it away or define it out of existence. Look at the promise of free heatlh care for life for military vets after 20 years active duty service. Promised military benefits were provided in writing. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter12.htm Part 12 - - Military Medical and Dental Care By Rod Powers, About.com Guide Continued from Part 11 If the recruiter promises you free health care for life, turn around and run (or find another recruiter). Seriously, up until the mid 1980s, recruiters were promising just that. It wasn't their fault -- up until that time there was free health care for life. Any military retiree, and their immediate families, could get care (space available) at any military medical facility. That law hasn't really changed. What has changed is the "space availability" of health care. As a result of down-sizing, 35 percent of the military hospitals that existed in the United States in 1987 are closed today. Several dozen others have cut services. The number of doctors, nurses and medical technicians in military service has declined along with the number of other service members. Despite this, the total number of people seeking health care through the military’s health care system has dropped only slightly. Slowly, but steadily, military retirees, their families, and many active duty family members, were forced to seek medical care off-base, with only partial reimbursement from a program called CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services). Those who could still receive care through the military medical facilities found that even urgent care appointments were taking weeks -- if not months -- to obtain. Let me say right from the start: The current military health care system (Tricare) is not bad when compared to most civilian health care plans. We have a health care cost crisis in this country, and Tricare is certainly one of the least expensive plans available anywhere. However, many military veterans and retirees are understandably upset with the provisions of Tricare for two primary reasons: Up until this year, retirees completely lost their Tricare benefits when they become eligible for Medicare. A new law now allows Medicare eligible retirees to use Tricare to pay any costs not covered by Medicare. To use this benefit, retirees must be enrolled in the Medicare "Part B" plan. Active duty military members and their dependents receive free medical care, under the Provision of Tricare known as "Tricare Prime." This works kind of like an HMO. The member (and his/her dependents) are assigned to a "Primary Care Provider," which is usually (but not always) the base hospital. The Primary Care Provider takes care of their medical needs, and makes authorized referrals to specialists when they don't have the capability to handle the problem. Guard and Reserve. Members of the Guard and Reserve (and their dependents) can use any of the Tricare Options anytime the member is called to active duty for more than 30 days. Use of Tricare Prime is free, as it is with active duty family members. Health coverage is also provided up to 90 days prior to activation for servicemembers who receive a 'delayed-effective-date' order. The coverage lasts until 180 days following their activation. After that 180 day "transition" period, following activation, Guard and Reserve members can purchase special Health Care Coverage under the Tricare Reserve Select program, if they were activated for a contingency operation for 90 days or more. Dental care is free to active duty members and to members of the Guard/Reserve who are on active duty, but not free to non-mobilized Guard/Reserve members or military dependents. However, the services have a family dental plan which -- for just a few bucks a month -- gives dental insurance coverage to military family members and non-mobilized members of the Guard/Reserves (and their families). Military Health Care - The Issue of Promised Benefits - CRS Report 98-1006F Updated 12aug2003 At 4: This language, of course, does not mention “free” health care. Nor does it mention that such care is to be provided via the military health services system and/or in military facilities. This advertised statement is correct in that military retirees do receive their promised lifetime benefits via MTFs (including space- or serviceavailable care in retirement), Tricare and Medicare — all earned as a result of their federal military service. The health care promised to be provided is not promised to be free, and at disappearing military medical facilities it is on a "space available" basis. There might be "space available" for a retired senior officer, but there is no "space available" for the lowly enlisted retiree.
I think that's a good idea. No need to turn it into Wall Street investment "scheme."
No ping to me? I'm saddened....;}
You must be in a Combat Zone to get free for life.
SS is the only place left that has cash. And Obama wants it.
Show me that law or that written promise. Every 20-year vet is "eligible" for medical or dental care at any military medical facility on a space available basis. Actual care is scarce, especially at overseas locations.
SS has no cash and now runs a negative annual balance. The funds were transferred to the general fund and have been spent. All the SS has are credits based on the full faith and credit of the government. The government is 14T in debt. To pay SS back, the government would have to print money or tax the people. If the general government defaults, the IOU's are worthless.
Great cartoon and oh so true.
Huh??? Social security is paying out more every year in benefits than it receives in taxes. There isn't any cash on hand. None.
Approximately $2.6 trillion of Social Security funds were transferred to the general fund and spent. Here's the problem: over the next 75 years, current projections show that the government will spend $211 trillion more than it takes in (net present value of expenses minus revenue). $211 trillion. Most of this is because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is no way that this can possibly work. People are living with their heads in the sand. Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away.
You have to be a real a$$hole to try blaming those folks who had their money confiscated by government for 50 years with the promise of getting it back with interest when they could no longer work. If they did not pay, guys with guns were sent to wring it out of them or put them in prison. That is no damned Ponzi scheme that is armed robbery. The damned government stole the money from those folks and from their children and grandchildren and I tired of hearing this crap blaming the victims of government armed robbery for their own problems. It takes a real gutless bastard to blame other victimized Americans for the theft of their future by a criminal government because they are too frightened to do something about it now.
This is not news, but was anticipated decades ago; payroll taxes were increased, a reserve was created, and interest is collected on what the government borrows from the trust fund.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
So, your answer is to steal our money to pay them off? Who is going to pay us off when we retire? At some point it has to stop. People with a pension income and/or investment income that places them in the top 25% should be cut off right now. Young people should be allowed to divert their payroll taxes to private bank accounts. The employer's portion of the payroll tax can continue to pay for the 75% of current retirees who remain in the system until they die. Then it can be diverted to individual accounts as well. Not sure that the numbers completely add up here without further investigation, but this is generally the approach that we should take -- cut the wealthy off and let people start saving for their own retirement.
I'm sure the private sector thinks it has a god given right to American's retirement money to risk and loose.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Godamit! The criminal government is stealing from you and all you can do is blame those the government has already fleeced. All the a$$holes who think that way need to gut up and place the blame where it belongs. Your government is pissing away trillions on building an empire and the gutless wonders are wringing their hands at the prospect of giving promised billions to some old folks. Get a grip!
Why? Why not raise the cap on earnings and pay out benefits in a more progressive manner. Since it is an "insurance" program, the purpose is to insure that people have a modicum of support in their old age. So even a wealthy person may have some unfortunate set events occur that plunges him into poverty and he does need it.
SS is a retirement insurance program - it does not function like a "Christmas club" account where after a period of deposits you get your money back when the day comes around. You want a ponzi scheme? Invest in the private sector like Wall Street.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
So what? Invest in the private sector like Wall Street. What happens when baby boomers start cashing in their investments?
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Listen Bozo, current retirees joined the greedy geezer lobby (AARP) and they lobbied for the goodies. It is their fault that we are in this mess.
Current retirees paid for your grandparents retirement, medicare, while keeping you in diapers and paying for your education. It's time for you to man-up and do your share.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Social Security needs to be abolished, today. Government has proven that it can NOT be trusted with the peoples wealth.
Nonsense! Stupid people do not realize the dollar is worth only a small fraction of what it was. If the dollar has been devalued by about 90% over that time, you argument is specious and ignorant.
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. Nonsense! I also said it was nonsense - I highlighted that passage to re-explain to the stupid GOPers that SS is an insurance program that is not an investment.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
You are as ignorant as you are stubborn. AARPs are a political lobby that comprise a tiny minority of stupid liberal/socialist slugs. Gut up you ignorant fool and direct the blame for your anxiety where it belongs, the government you now still are so godamned scared of confronting.
Well, you are correct. What in hell is wrong with the a$$holes who decide it is easier to blame the older victims of government theft for their own chicken shit, cowardly, ineptitude in correcting the situation in their own time?
SS is not theft.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
LOL! What happens if you do not pay? Guys with guns come to wring it out of you or put you in prison. What do you call that?
It is a government program and does not function like any commercial insurance program. With the government program, the "insurer" can change the benefits at any time and in any manner of its choosing. You can pay in for 40 years, retire, and the government may increase, decrease, or eliminate the benefits. There would be political consequences, but the government has the power to do it. An insurance company cannot unilaterally absolve itself of responsibility. The only government responsibility is to pay in accordance with the effective law, but they can always change the law. The fund itself basically consists of bookkeeping entries. The money collected has been transferred to the general fund and spent. The government is over $14T in debt. The amount in the fund, including any interest, is a bookkeeping entry. It is payable by the U.S. government. If the government does not have the funds, there are few ways to produce the funds on demand. They can just print money which acts like a tax, decreasing the value of all existing U.S. currency, and the value of all savings. They can collect the amount needed with revenue, but that is just handing the bill to the people to pay them what they are owed (or what is due by law). They could borrow the money, or perhaps sell some national infrastructure. In its current form the system will go bust. Effective reform means changing the eligibility or benefits to reduce the overall payment to beneficiaries, or to increase the revenue stream coming in.
Is that was what promised? Is that the fault of those who had their money confiscated by a criminal government?
No. Every single credible politician over the last 50 years has been scared to death to tell the truth about Social Security, because the Greedy Geezer Lobby is too powerful. Why are the politicians scared? Because old people vote and they love Social Security. This is a well know fact. No amount of huffing and puffing with change that fact. We finally have a very credible politician who stands up and tells the truth about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme. It tells me that something in the country is changing. That's a good thing.
You are new on this board. I already like you because you deal in facts. No, Social Security does not function like any commercial insurance program. The Social Security "trust fund" does not function like any private trust fund either. The whole system is a fraud. The big question is how do we unwind it? That's what I'm trying to address. We can't sit here and just say: "I paid in so I want my money". The math doesn't add up. The system needs to change.
My 60+ year-old friend told me his Dad said, "Social Security is enough to starve on."
Bullshit! You need to face the fact that you are too godamned timid to tell the government criminals that they are no longer going to take your future from you. You pussies need to gut up and tell the politicians of your time to kiss your ass. What in hell is wrong with you?
Commercial insurance companies change their benefit programs all the time and in many cases they don't pay out.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?
Government has proven that it can NOT be trusted with the peoples wealth. SS is paid for thru 2024. Your Unfunded cheney wars? Not so much...;} Egyptian Junta Vows 'Harsh Measures' Against Dissent by Jason Ditz, September 11, 2011 | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum Underscoring just how thin their commitment to the Arab Spring protest movements actually is, the Obama Administration is loudly demanding that the Egyptian military junta launch a crackdown on dissent to “meet its obligations under the Vienna Convention.” They warned the junta of “consequences” if they didn’t crush the protests around the Israeli Embassy.
I can see why you've had banning issues here and elsewhere...8D
None. Only because the US Gov't has been systematically robbing the SS Fund since Nixon.... And leaving IOU's. It's the Unfunded Wars....How many are we waging now?.... 8D
SS is good to at least 2024.
SS is no different from any other pooled risk that gets paid out... A ponzi scheme never has the funds to pay for itself...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
And leaving IOU's. They only borrowed $2.6 trillion from Social Security. Over the next 75 years, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare will run deficits of $211 trillion. The system no longer works. It need major surgery or it is going to collapse.
Government has proven that it can NOT be trusted with the peoples wealth. While it is true that the government cannot be trusted, the Social Security system cannot be abolished today because the Greedy Geezer Lobby (AARP) is too powerful.
40 million people is not a tiny minority of stupid liberal/socialist slugs. What other political pressure group has 40 million members?
They only borrowed $2.6 trillion from Social Security. Over the next 75 years, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare will run deficits of $211 trillion. BUWAHAHAHAHAHA ...,intake....BUWAHAHAHA 8D Didn't know you were tracking....LMFAO ONLY $2.6 Trillion You can't even imagine what $2.6 Trillion is. And when did they pay it back? When did they plan on paying it back? At Interest? Say 5% interest (which is fucking low ball over 30 years. Suppose your 30" wiast grows at 2%. How big will it be in 50 years. 80 inches! So SS should have at $7 Trillion owed to it by the US Gov't JUST on interest.
But as an actuary, you war, of all people should know that SS is solvent. It's the thieves of US Gov't 'borrowing' and 'leaving' IOUS. Until we talk UNFUNDED WAR and that EVERY WAR SINCE WWII has been illegal, we're talking nothing but bullshit... Masters and Slaves. The longer we keep up this charade, the harder we will fall. Then again, that presents a huge dilemma, the essence of our human tragedy. As long as our leaders and media deny the reality of what's happening, we are all too eager to follow. We're therefore pretty much guaranteed to walk, nay run, into our own traps eyes wide open. For who wants to see this all for what it is? Who's ready for the fall?
Take away my SS and you'll have to bring the troops home. Cause we'll be in the Winter of 32/33 when 7 million in FlyOver Country starved to death. No Food Stamps then either....;} Rip up the Social Contract and see how long you can keep driving your Beamers....;}
You're missing the point as usual. The money they borrowed is a tiny drop in the ocean of red ink that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will run up over the next 75 years. A tiny drop. The fact is, the federal government doesn't have any mechanism to save money. They can't open a bank account. They can't invest in the stock market. They only choice they had was to spend what they took it. What they should have done over the last 3 decades, is allow people to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to private accounts. If they had done that instead of spending the money, people would have $2.6 trillion in their own retirement funds, which could lesson the burden on the system, provided that the system is reformed to cut off people with substantial pensions and investment incomes. Both parties decided to spend the surpluses instead. Regardless, what is done is done. We can't go back and undue it. The question is how to move forward. I've already outlined what I would do.
The money they borrowed is a tiny drop in the ocean of red ink that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will run up over the next 75 years. A tiny drop. No, and here's why. The past to Nixon that Trillions have been stolen from the SS Funds for Unfunded War is FACT. The next 75 YEARS? R U Serious? Can you give me ANYTHING that guarantees out 75 years?
Like this. We won't have nearly the amounts of oil needed for anything like civilization in 75 years, and you're talking SS Funding? 8D please.
This does NOT include the current and proposed reductions in the payroll tax, which will make the annual deficits much worse. Medicare is in much worse shape than Social Security.
Dawn Kay-Woods filed suit against Minnesota Life Insurance Company alleging the insurance company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by failing to pay an insurance claim after her husband died in a one-vehicle car crash on March 7, 2007. http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/208897-insurance-company-sued-for-not-paying-off- mortgage-after-husbands-death
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Law enforcement.
------------------------------------- Your so-called deficit was anticipated and prepared for decades ago - that's why there is $2.6 trillion in the trust fund (and please - I know the cash has been replaced by IOUs as you call them). If I save money for my retirement, retire, and begin to spend down my savings put aside for that purpose, do I claim my finances are in deficit?
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
People who got in early received 15 times the amount of money they put it. Current retirees are receiving back 2 1/2 to 3 times the amount of money they put in. By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that they put into system. Raising the cap on earnings will mean that people will get back less than 76 on the dollar. Like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security is a bad deal for people who get in late. The right thing to do is treat this like another welfare program. It should be reserved for retirees who are poor. Retirees who have substantial pension and/or investment incomes should be booted off the dole now. Young people should be able to put a portion of the payroll tax into their own retirement account.
You want government to mandate that people use their SS contributions to buy financial instruments, put it in bank accounts and invest in the stock market? Haven't you opened your eyes during the last five years?
So you are saying that 13% of Americans who are old "stupid liberal/socialist slugs" is some sort of unsurmountable political problem?
Have you lived in America for the last several decades??? If so, then you already know what the answer is. A lot of Americans are under 18 years old. They can't vote. Of the people over 18, there are 169 million registered voters. AARP membership is 24% of the voting population, not 13%. Old people vote at a much higher rate than than young people. There are a about 40 million people over 65 in the U.S. There are 40 million AARP members. You can join AARP at 50 years old, so not every retiree is an AARP member, but almost all of them are. AARP is the most successful political pressure group in the country.
I know quite a few people over 65 and not one of them is a member of any socialist PAC. I do believe, however, if one considers all the Communist/Socialist/Democrat political slugs in all the communes across America you might get a little less than 1/4 of voters stupid enough to be counted in the ranks of these parasites. I also believe the hard core socialists are a small minority and most of the slugs are clueless followers who would not go as far a destroying America. It is the job of the remaining 3/4 of voters to make certain the slugs are ridiculed into oblivion.
[Godwinson] Dawn Kay-Woods filed suit against Minnesota Life Insurance Company alleging the insurance company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by failing to pay an insurance claim after her husband died in a one-vehicle car crash on March 7, 2007. http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/208897-insurance-company-sued-for-not-paying-off- mortgage-after-husbands-death This case has nothing to do with an insurance company just deciding not to pay. It had no legal liability to pay anything. This case was removed to Federal jurisdiction where it was decided in the United States District court for the Southern District of Illinois. The case, heard before District Judge Michael J. Reagan, was Dawn M. Kay-Woods, Plaintiff vs. Minesota Life Ins. Co., Defendant, Case No. 08-cv-0211-MJR, dismissed by order of April 8, 2009. Plaintiff Dawn Kay-Woods ("Dawn") had no legitimate legal claim to payment. The policy contained an explicit provision exempting it from liability for the death of the insured if his death resulted incident to his commission of a felony. At the time of his fatal collision with a tree, he was was drunk and his driver's license had been revoked for DUI. Driving while on a DUI suspension was a felony. As the Court determined, "In the case at bar, construing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dawn, the non-movant, the Court reaches the only conclusion permissible on the ample record before it – MLIC is entitled to summary judgment." As a matter of law, Dawn Kay-Woods had no case. At 4-5: There is no ambiguity in the contract here. On May 23, 2006, MLIC issued the insurance policy in question to Dawn and Brian – Contract #0390019 001101554159 (“the Policy,” copy at Doc. 43). The Policy includes an accidental death and dismemberment benefit, furnishing a lump sum payment when MLIC receives “proof satisfactory to us that you died or suffered a dismemberment loss” resulting from an accidental injury. An exception to coverage is central to this case. The Policy plainly provides that benefits will not be paid if the death or dismemberment results from or is caused directly by, inter alia, “your commission of a felony” (Doc. 43, p. 3). The issue is whether Brian’s March 2, 2007 death in a one-vehicle accident resulted from his commission of a felony. The accident report prepared by the Illinois State Police (Doc. 31-4, pp. 12) states: The Jersey County Coroner’s toxicological evaluation establishes that, at the time of his death, Brian Woods’ blood contained 0.184 gm% alcohol (ethanol) and 0.094 mg/ml cocaine (Doc. 31-4, p. 3). Under Illinois law, a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or more constitutes driving while under the influence (DUI). 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1). Driving under the influence with a suspended or revoked driver’s license for a previous DUI constitutes a Class 4 felony. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(G) and (d)(2)(A). At 7 At 10-11: [...] Furthermore, this Court may find that a genuine issue of material fact exists, precluding summary judgment, “only if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists to permit a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Argyropoulos, 539 F.3d at 732, citing Sides v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820, 826 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1450 (2008). In the case at bar, construing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dawn, the non-movant, the Court reaches the only conclusion permissible on the ample record before it – MLIC is entitled to summary judgment. C. Conclusion No genuine issue of material fact remains, and MLIC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court GRANTS MLIC’s renewed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Minnesota Life Insurance Co. and against Dawn M. Kay-Woods herein. This Order results in the cancellation of all settings herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of April 2009. - - - Doc 70 - Dawn M Kay-Woods v Minnesota Life Ins Co, ILSD (2009), MJR Memorandum and ORDER
That is a matter of opinion that has to have a court figure out - clearly the customer who paid for the insurance thinks otherwise. Thus, Social Security thus is better than private versions and more reliable. Read also: California investigates 10 life insurance companies over lack of payments to beneficiaries http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/california-life-insurance-investigation.html
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
We can't sit here and just say: "I paid in so I want my money". The math doesn't add up. The system needs to change. Ross Perot explained the general problem when he stated that they are buying your vote with what used to be your money. I do not know what is politically feasible, and am unqualified to say what is an actual viable economic solution. Regarding SS, Chilean Plan, favored by Herman Cain, may offer an economic solution. I doubt anything will offer a viable political solution. The politician that attempted to do something like the Chilean Plan would likely fall victim to the Gray Panthers, so politicians do not dare to do anything. No matter what is done, anything based on the dollar is based on the full faith and credit of the Federal government. If the currency is grossly inflated, even your currency based savings in a bank or under your mattress get devalued. If the government goes bankrupt and defaults, the currency is worthless. I'm unsure that required economic change is politically feasible before the nation faces actual bankruptcy or inflates the currency to worthlessness. I can view the problem with simple arithmetic. Many people do not seem to grasp a $1T deficit. A population of 300M would have to pay an extra $3,333 per year for the Federal government to break even. ($1T/300M) That is every man, woman and child—or over $13K per year average for a family of four. That is in addition to all that is currently paid. Only then can we start to talk about paying down the soon to be $15T debt. Just the interest on the debt is about $500B per year, or about $1,666 for every one of 300M people ($500B/300M), or $6,664 per year for each family of four. That buys nothing but debt service. SS (and Medicare) are entering a period where, without change, the government will incur very large deficits. Either revenue goes up, benefit payouts go down, or the Federal annual deficit and total debt rises at an accelerated rate until the government goes bust. No politician wants to admit the size of the problem or what has been done. We are kicking the can down the road until benefits eligibility, out of inescapable necessity, will be greatly restricted and the actual benefits will be greatly diminished.
[Godwinson] That is a matter of opinion that has to have a court figure out - clearly the customer who paid for the insurance thinks otherwise. That is a matter of fact that a court did figure out. I gave you to Court decision. As a matter of law, the case was kicked on summary judgment. "In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the Court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here, Dawn)." With all view in the most favorable light, Dawn on no case on which to proceed to trial. That is fact. "There is no ambiguity in the contract here." Applying the law to the facts, there was no case. If you have a license suspended for DUI, and go drive drunk, and crash into a tree, under the terms of the insurance contract in place in the case you cited, MLIF has no liability according to the terms of the contract existing at the time the drunk (0.18 more than qualifies), doper (cocaine) drove into a tree killing himself. The customer who paid for the insurance did not think when he drove drunk on a revoked license, and has not thought since driving into a tree while drunk. The plaintiff who claimed the purported benefits has had time to think. The docket report does not show any appeal. This claim has no apparent visible support. If the government changes the eligibility or benefits, you do not even have a lawsuit to go to court with, unless you propose to challenge the new law as unconstitutional. If you manage to void the old law with the new, nobody has any benefits.
California investigates 10 life insurance companies over lack of payments to beneficiaries http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/california-life-insurance-investigation.html These investigations (not cases) have nothing to do with the insurer changing the terms of benefits or refusing to pay on demand. The issue involved is the alleged failure of the insurer to identify and seek out the beneficiary of unclaimed benefits, or to pay the unclaimed benefit to the state.
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks. Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other. Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit. President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today: “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.” Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer? Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.” Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks? The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling. Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades. [snip] Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. http://twitter.com/MerrillMatthews
Exactly right. That's a point lost on too many people.
Singapore has a similar system -- people save for their own retirements. The working poor get a taxpayer subsidy. This is how the Singapore healthcare system works as well, which is why they spend less than 3% of GDP on healthcare while we spend 16.5%
I should have mentioned that this is the Federal government "borrowing" from the Federal government. It's like you borrowing from yourself, spending the money, looking at an IOU from you to you, and thinking you still have the money. It makes no financial sense.
I like this Scribd thing you always use. Is it a searchable database? Do you add your own stuff there?
The analogy I always use is your checking account borrowing from your savings account. It's a complete fiction. They should put Social Security in the general fund and pay for it like any other welfare program.
They should put Social Security in the general fund and pay for it like any other welfare program. Sure. But then the Social Compact since the Winter of 32/33 is broken. The Plutocracy never knows when it has gone too far until it does....;} And then you have revolution....your call...8D ""Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S ... Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time." According to the Citigroup experts, a plutonomic economy is driven by the consumption of the classes, not the masses:
Phuck a bunch of classes.
As nolu chan's article stated, and no one here will respond: Were our leaders (Raygun/Greenspan) lying then? Or now? A recent EPA study estimated that just one law — the Clean Air Act — prevented 230,000 deaths, 3.2 million lost school days, and 13 million lost work days a year in 2010. The benefits of this act, including savings in medical expenses and increased worker productivity, are 30 times greater than its cost of implementation, and the benefits of regulation, more generally, also have been shown to exceed costs [PDF].
;} "“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And so in the Orwellian world of the right-wing, the word “rich” is out and “job creators” is in. There simply are no more rich people in the Tea Party fantasyland. Of course, no jobs are being created, and the rich are simply sitting on their billions, accumulating a staggeringly disproportionate amount of the wealth to shame the Gilded Age — the richest “400 people have more wealth than half of the more than 100 million U.S. households,” Politifact was grudgingly forced to agree that Michael Moore’s statement was correct. So one would have to be a sheep to keep calling them job creators."
We Rat For You. ?? Nice pic James.
Its like an insurance program. No government program functions exactly like a private sector entity.
http://support.scribd.com/home http://support.scribd.com/forums http://www.scribd.com/nolu%20chan I have an account there for about two years with about 400,000 reads. You may search across your own content or the whole of scribd. You can put tags on a document just as you put tags on a thread here. The document appearing at #65 was uploaded to scribd my myself and I then just copied the embed code (sort of like a youtube) to post it here. Most scribd stuff I embed is from my own scribd account. scribd will accept Microsoft Word format for upload but recommends using only PDF format to properly retain formatting. "Collections" can be created, similar to a "folder" or "directory" in Windows or DOS. For example, here is my collection where I uploaded the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission hearings regarding the JFK Assassination. I have collections to group together the documents for lawsuits, or various topics.
It is also exhibits characteristics of a Ponzi scheme where early investors are paid with the money of later investors, and it works as long as the number of investors keeps increasing at the necessary rate. When the increase in new investors slows or stops, the system fails. An insurance company cannot unilaterally void or change its liability. The government program (a "social compact") can be changed at the whim of the government and there is no legal recourse. The private insurer is subject to enforcement by the courts. A government program or social compact is not an enforceable promise. It does not really equate to an enforceable contract in commerce, whether one chooses to compare it to a commercial retirement or insurance plan, or any other enforceable contract. It is a thing unto itself, based on the full faith of the government, and the credit of the government.
But the government can always make modifications to raise revenues. Real Ponzi Schemes always fall apart. There is no reason that Social Security must fail. When the increase in new investors slows or stops, the system fails... It does not really equate to an enforceable contract in commerce, whether one chooses to compare it to a commercial retirement or insurance plan, or any other enforceable contract. When an insurance company fails (revenue slows down too much), the state guarantee corporation must pay out benefits and may not pay out as much as originally insured for. Doesn't this indicate that private insurance does have certain characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme as well.
When a Ponzi-like government program requires more money than the government can raise, the funding will fail. The government cannot raise infinite money just by passing confiscatory laws. When the program payments exceed what those paying in can provide, something has to give. Governments can, and do, fail. Without change, the social security program will fail. The proportion of persons paying to persons receiving benefits is diminishing. At some point it becomes unsustainable. I do not see the relationship between this and a Ponzi scheme. In any case, the State does not pay out the benefits from some existing fund. It sells the remaining pieces and pays pennies on the dollar and passes on the remainder of the expense to other surviving insurance companies. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_48/b4110100507198.htm Your Life Insurance Policy May Not Be Protected Some major insurance companies are in trouble. If they fail, policyholders shouldn't count on guarantees By Ben Levisohn [excerpt] When insurers do fail, state regulators sell off what they can and bill the remaining life insurers operating in that state to make policyholders whole. "The funds have been pretty good at providing a basic level of consumer protection," says Peter G. Gallanis, president of the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Assns. But the system runs on the assumption that only small insurers are likely to fail, and then only one at a time.
Especially the people who receive the checks......
When asked by a Liberal what I bought my Granddaughter for her 1st birthday I replied, "MORE AMMUNITION"!!!! -----------------------------"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Any insight on why you'd devote so much effort to interweb forum research instead of trying to get laid?
------------------------------------- I got laid on Sunday afternoon. The database doesn't lie.
?? We Eat for You. ;}
Okay, thanks.
It's more like lending money to a close relative at interest. You may belong to the same family, but you are not the same entity.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Insurance companies amend their terms all the time. Insurance companies deny payments all the time. The investigations show insurance companies doing so on a wide scale.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
And Franklin Roosevelt is dead. So what?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/24/business/la-fi-metlife-heirs-20110524 State Controller John Chiang and Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones ask whether the life insurer is boosting profits by delaying or failing to pay death benefits quickly enough to heirs or to search aggressively for the beneficiaries. The overwhelming majority of claims are submitted to the company by heirs, who provide copies of death certificates, Katz said. The Social Security master death list provides "a useful safety net when the normal processes do not work," he said. Better tracking policies should be more than just a safety net, Chiang said. The company's motto — "Get Met. It Pays" — may not be totally accurate "because it's unclear at this time what they pay," the controller said. "They have a business-based rationale for their practices instead of a consumer-based approach to fulfill their promises."
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Who can you trust? Banks? What about the stock market? Real estate? Perhaps gold buried in the backyard?
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
The govt using peoples wealth, funded the TVA, Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, the defeat of many evil empires (Axis and Soviet), ended pandemics in our lifetime, landed men on the moon and invented the computer and the internet. The private sector brought us cheap internet porn.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Like building a complicated machine. Or playing chess and performing a complicated maneuver. You have a tendency to not see when your Queen is mortally exposed. Same Shite....;} "Rival factions turn on leadership after the attempt to secure Bani Walid ends in chaos. Kim Sengupta reports from Tripoli September 12, 2011 The rebels had fought their way in through the narrow streets and alleyways when they ran into an ambush. A desperate appeal for help to their comrades, exiles from Bani Walid whose advice they had followed on the assault, was answered by instructions to fall back to a rendezvous point outside the town. But when the revolutionaries reached their destination, having fought their way out under intense fire, there was no sign of the Bani Walid contingent. Then, as urgent attempts were being made to establish communications, came salvos of mortar rounds and rockets."
And Franklin Roosevelt is dead. So what? Further. The gop has been desperate in their Gambit to eliminate any trace of the New Deal. Not realizing it signs their death warrant upon success. # Gross US Debt Surges By $240 Billion Overnight, US Debt To GDP ... www.zerohedge.com/.../gro...-240-billion-overnight-... - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Aug 3, 2011 – However, how marketable debt could increase by a whopping $125 ... of $15.003 billion, total US debt to GDP is now a post World War II high ...
I see that you are back on the crack pipe again today.
Most of the gains in life expectancy have been made at the front end - reduction in deaths due to childhood illness. Once making it past childhood, life expectancy has only increased by a little more than 6 years for the upper class and about 2 years for the common folk.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
and ENRON (all form and no content).
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
And I see that you have stopped taking your prescribed meds. Just want to feel normal. Your old self, eh? And of course note how your state and You, JW, miss the $$$ Quote from Jackie: Jackie O: LBJ Had My Husband Killed www.thenewamerican.com/.....o-lbj-had-my-husband-ki... - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Aug 11, 2011 – London's Daily Mail says Jackie Onassis, the widow of President John F. Kennedy, believed Vice President Lyndon Johnson had her husband ... JFK Assassination: Kennedy's Head Wound mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm - CachedSimilar You +1'd this publicly. Undo The campaign has been to push Kennedy's head wound to the very back of his head, ... None of the three had access to the autopsy photos and x-rays, so the ... Triangulation Assassination. # My God, they are going to kill us all. ... Å8; # Nellie Connally www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKconnallyN.htm - CachedSimilar You +1'd this publicly. Undo Then, she wrote, John Connally "was hit himself by the second shot and said ... "My God, they are going to kill us all" And they're still in charge....8D
And the poor see SS FICA as a tax as most will not make it to 'pay off'.
Were you in full black leather?
------------------------------------- And speaking of $2.6 Trillion stolen by the US Gov't. Here's $2.3 Trillion Missing from the Pentagon by Rumsfeld on 091001. LMFAO worth 5 minutes. Exactly right.
No, I was in my church clothes...until I hit the bedroom. It's a Catholic thing.
Then you should not be meeting such an insurmountable problem providing an on-point example. So far you have provided an example that a court threw out because the claim was explicitly outside the pre-existing coverage, and irrelevant investigations into insurance companies not paying unclaimed benefits. You have provided not a single example of an insurance company changing the terms of a policy during the term of paid coverage. They may always set new terms prior to entering into a new contract.
http://www.mlnlaw.com/Articles/Insurance-Company-Loses-Lawsuit-over-Cancelling- Coverage.shtml INSURANCE COMPANY LOSES LAWSUIT OVER CANCELLING COVERAGE A Boulder County, Colorado jury found that an insurance company was in breach of contract when it canceled Jennifer Latham’s health insurance coverage after her wreck. The jury awarded $37 million in damages to Latham.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
You only document that they CANNOT LAWFULLY do as you claim. The contract can be enforced. Unlike the Federal government program. They can just up and change the law and you cannot sue them to change it back again, or pay the benefits no longer authorized by law. There is no legal recourse.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. - - - - - Social Security - Bill Summary & Status - 98th Congress (1983 - 1984) - HR1900 - - - - - - - - - - Social Security - Trust Fund FAQs - - - - - - - - - -
You talk as if the govt is not of the people, by the people, for the people and a third party.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Exactly right. The "assets" in the "trust fund" are in fact government debt. There is $2.6 trillion dollars worth of debt in the Social Security "trust fund". critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018 This must be an old article, because the Social Security system fell into deficit this year. The deficits will increase dramatically as the baby boomers continue to retire. According to MSNBC, over the next 75 years, the government is projected to spend $211 trillion more than it takes in (in today's dollars). Most of those deficits are due to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The economy is only $14 trillion a year. To pay for projected deficits over the next 75 years, the government would have to completely confiscate 15 years of GDP. This is on top of current taxes. We are headed for the biggest financial catastrophe the world has ever seen. It's absolutely maddening that the economic illiterates just don't get it.
That assumes that projections over 75 years are accurate, and that the economy never gets larger than $14 trillion - not likely.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
It's absolutely maddening that the economic illiterates just don't get it. Yes we are, and yes it is. And its going to happen a lot sooner than most think.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
The point is that insurance companies, like in a Ponzi Scheme,depend on continued investments from investors to pay out current benefits. If the insurance company fails, the controlling guarantee corporation is no longer required to pay out all the benefits.
Insurance companies do not promise to out pay multiple times the money every single person puts into the system. Only Ponzi schemes like Social Security promise that. They can't deliver, so the people who get it late get screwed.
I talk as if the sovereign enjoys sovereign immunity and can only be sued with permission. If Congress passes a law, and the President signs it, and it is constitutional (however bad it may be), what do you think you can ask a court to do for you? If Congress passed a law repealing Social Security in its entirety, all benefits null and void, and the President signed it into law, who would you sue, and for what? The people can vote out the politicians and/or amend the Constitution. That takes a while.
:). Dude you're good.
They do not depend on an ever-growing base of customers to pay benefits to earlier customers. An insurance company does not go bust due to failure of an impossible rate of increase in customers, but it may go bankrupt.
As one may observe from the information quoted below, Social Security actually gets funded month to month. The Treasury Department estimates what is needed and transfers that amount each month to the Social Security Trust Fund. It is a transfer from the general fund. I captured the stuff from the SSA today. Had the debt ceiling not been raised recently, the general fund would have gone into default. The transfer to the Trust Fund would not have occurred. Social Security would have had no funding with which to issue checks or direct deposits. Social Security Administration, In-Depth Research, Legislative History Social Security Amendments of 1983, H.R. 1900/P.L. 98-21, (Enacted April 20, 1983) At pages 11-12 of the scribd PDF. Normalization of Social Security Tax Income Establishes accounting procedures for crediting the OASDI trust funds and the HI trust fund at the beginning of each month with estimated revenues for the entire month. Treasury will be required to estimate the amount of tax revenue to be collected each month and transfer such sums to the trust funds at the beginning of the month. The trust funds will pay interest, at rates equivalent to those earned on trust fund investments, on amounts so credited to the extent that they are credited prior to Treasury's actual receipt of taxes. Under prior law, Social Security taxes were transferred to the trust funds on an estimated as-received basis throughout the month. The provision is a change primarily in accounting procedures and, under alternative II-B assumptions developed for the 1983 Trustees Report, is unlikely to have a cost effect on the trust funds. Under these assumptions, the amounts transferred under normalization in all likelihood will not be needed to pay benefits and amounts transferred to the trust funds in advance of tax receipts will be invested in Government obligations at the same interest rate that the trust funds must pay Treasury. Therefore, the interest earned on the advances will offset the interest payments to Treasury. The Social Security FAQ presents it with a bit of spin. As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary. Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government. Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity. If the debt ceiling had not been raised recently, the general fund would have defaulted. With Treasury incapable of performing the normal funds transfer, Social Security would have been unable to issue checks. When Social Security ran a surplus, that surplus was used to fund the general government. As it now runs a deficit, new tax revenues must be used to fund the Social Security Trust Fund. The payments from the general fund to cover the Social Security monthly revenue shortfall add to the Federal debt. With the existence of a debt ceiling, a collision with that ceiling renders the Social Security program vulnerable to a default of the general fund.
From the Summary of the 2011 Annual Reports of the Boards of Trustees: At page 1: Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085. That had to be written by Rosie Scenario. The economy is not exactly strengthening as we approach 2012. At page 3 Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare. Signed:
What ever it takes. The USSA eliminates SS/Medicare and continues the Unfunded Wars we're at 1932/33...with no New Deal and WWIII. Master and Serf.
Social Security doesn't depend on ever growing base of customers either. In fact it has had a shrinking base of customer but yet it still has survived. And all that is needed is to tweak revenues and benefit to continue. Its no more like a Ponzi Scheme than an insurance company.
Which Ponzi Scheme has lasted for almost seven decades?
The people will never let that happen unless we actually bankrupted and then they would have no choice. The people will decide in the end what we do with Social Security and Medicare. Congress cannot and will not do it independently.
Yea, because the American court system is a quick system, right?
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
As compared to amending the Constitution?
You can't be serious.
Just what have the people done, or what will they do? Hold their breath unti they turn blue? Congress, with the President, can pass laws against the will of the people. They did not have support for NAFTA. They did not have support for the bailout of Wall Street. They do not need the people's permission to pass a law. They can create something like a joint committee and then just point fingers at each other regarding the result. We reelect them in great numbers. Incumbents have great approval at the ballot box. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-07.pdf Historical Prevalence of Reelected Representatives in the U. S. House, by Congress and by State. For the above numbers, factor in that not all representatives run for reelection. For example, in the 106th Congress 403 sought reelection and 394 won reelection. In the 107th Congress, 399 sought reelection and 382 won reelection.
Just some tweaking can get SS to survive past our lifetimes and America's population is not shrinking. The only ones trying to end SS are the fucking minority kook party, a party that is composed of people who believe Jesus rode dinosaurs, Obama is a Soviet KGB plant to weaken America and believe little girls should not be immunized from HPV because they think the fear of getting cervical cancer from HPV is the only thing keeping them virginal till they marry.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
So you want to pay out less? Or raise taxes? Don't you care about the deficit?
I would tax multi-millionaires at 90% like the Republicans did under Ike.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Social Security. It's lasted 7 decades because we are FORCED to participate. If government FORCE wasn't behind it, it would have collapsed a long time ago.
The U.S. population is growing. It is not growing fast enough to support the next generation of retirees. That's why my generation will get back LESS from Social Security than we paid in. This is called a Ponzi scheme.
More than slight tweaking is needed. The funding shortfall forecast indicates a significant increase in revenues or decrease in spending, or some combination thereof will be required. Brian Beutler | September 14, 2011, 5:59AM [excerpt] "I think really the fundamental question for you is not how we got here, but where you want the country to go, what role do you and your colleagues want the government to play in the economy and the society?" said Doug Elmendorf, who heads the Congressional Budget Office. He was addressing the six Democrats and six Republicans on the new joint deficit committee, and for three hours he did his best not to get buried under the same avalanche. "[I]f you want a role that has benefit programs for older Americans, like the ones we've had in the past, and that operate for the rest of the government like the ones we've had in the past, then more tax revenue is needed than under current tax rates," Elmendorf said. "On the other hand, if one wants those tax rates, then one has to make very significant changes in spending programs for older Americans" or all the rest of the government's functions.
I think one possible or probable course of action is to eliminate the cost of living increases. Once that is gone, they can inflate the currency. The dollar amount of benefits would remain, but the buying power would be reduced.
Americans are under taxed. How long will we have to deal with the mythology that lower taxes creates prosperity? Are people still arguing this as fact? That would be like arguing the sun revolves around the earth.
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
So this chart shows you from 1960 and beyond This chart shows you the same ratio from 1945 onward. So you can tell that the number of investors to the plan has, for the most part, steadily decreased.
Ping to #138
Which Ponzi scheme has paid out as much in benefits and done as much for the population as Social Security?
The fact that Social Security has always been one of the government's most popular programs for almost 70 years and the fact that most politicians are scared to even mention cutting benefits (the so-called third rail of politics) leads me to believe that politicians will only make changes with the public's permission.
No comment. :o)
Hey, ASSHAT... it's not a decline in the "customer base," that you're showing, it's the number of people that are supporting each CUSTOMER! That is, this graph shows the number of paying in, versus those who are pulling money out.... And NOW.........? Shit, there's aren't enough people left to STEAL from, to keep the Ponzi Scheme alive............ Jeez...... (((((shaking head in utter disgust)))))
To:Skippy, toe-jam, old man Fred Alzheimers Mertz, _jim, loonymom/ming, e-type-jackoff, goober56, Wrek, calcon, dummy DwarF, continental op, Biff, gobsheit and meguro From: Capitalist Eric Message: You're SOCIALIST morons. ESAD. No, your premise is unrelated to your conclusion. The chart shows a declining RATIO of workers to beneficiaries which I have repeatedly said is the case and the problem. The RATIO does not express anything in terms of the quantity of participants, investors, or beneficiaries. To retain the RATIO, the system would have had to sign up 40 new workers for each addition to the rolls of beneficiaries. The number of beneficiaries has risen to 54,032,097. To maintain a 40:1 ratio you would need to find 2,161,283,880 investors to pay in. That is about 7 times the population of the entire United States. The number of people paying in has gone UP. The number of people collecting benefits has gone up at a higher proportional rate. Where there one was over 40 people paying in for each person drawing benefits, it appears there are now between 3 and 4 persons paying in for each person drawing benefits out. The baby boomers are retiring, swelling the number of beneficiaries in numbers the system never could sustain. This is the type of thing that happens in a Ponzi-like system.
Wise choice.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
The number of people paying in has gone UP. The number of people collecting benefits has gone up at a higher proportional rate. In other words, it's a Ponzi scheme. The 2 + billion number is really interesting because we are bumping up against the entire population of the world. At a 40 to 1 ratio, there aren't enough people to keep this pyramid scheme from continuing past the current generation of retirees. Of course, this is what the Social Security Trustees have already concluded.
Didn't see your response before I said about the same thing. This shows the Ponzi-like nature of the scheme. The number of beneficiaries swells at a rate that is impossible for the population to keep up with, resulting in an ever diminishing RATIO of donors to beneficiaries. As the ratio diminishes, the burden on each donor rises until the donors no longer meet the needs of the beneficiaries. Social Security Beneficiary Statistics
That is true up until 1975; since then the ratio has been pretty darn stable, ranging between 3.2 and 3.4. In 2009 the ratio dropped to 3, and was 2.9 in 2010. www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html Because workers generally spend more years (about 50) working than they do in retirement (15-20), the ratio should remain relatively stable as long as the economy creates jobs and population isn't declining.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Except that an adjustment in the amount collected was made during the Reagan administration to compensate for the dreaded baby boomer retirement.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
It is actually 1.75 people per social security recipient. You can't rightfully say people who work for the government who "pay" social security taxes adds anything to the system since their paychecks and "taxes" they pay is actually tax money itself. Some group did a study on this and they came up with 1.75.
Baby boomers who have publicly stated their support for abortion shouldn't get any Social Security. They should be sent to Jack Kevorkian. That would go a long way towards solving the problem and it would be just.
Jack's dead. You don't get out much, do you?
I know they should be with him. lol
You only wish death on others because you are so pro-life, yes?
That does not include the overhead for administration. At a ratio of 3:1, each worker needs to pay almost $400 per month. When it shrinks to 2:1, that would rise to nearly $600 per month. As the ratio shrinks, the burden on each worker rises at a much more rapid rate. From 3:1 to 2:1 causes a 50% increase. The ratio will continue to shrink unless the worker base increases at an impossible rate.
Everything collected has been spent, plus over 14T more. The SSA is running monthly deficits. The deficits must be paid with tax dollars from the general fund, adding to the national deficit and debt. There's a problem.
People who argue that a child is a burden and you should be able to murder er abort it. They should reap what they have sown. If they become a burden they shoudn't get any help and they should be left to themselves. Is that unjust?
That is an opinion you read, I disagree.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
You argue people who don't agree with you should die and claim you are pro- life. And you expect me here to argue in good faith with such insanity. Save it for your psychiatrist. He gets paid enough to hear such crap; I don't.
It is not an opinion it is a fact. They number you quoted. Does it include people who are paid with tax dollars? If it does, and it does your number is skewed and not true. You can't count people who only receive tax dollars and pay taxes that way. They aren't adding anything new to the system.
In that case, neither should they nor their employers contribute.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Pro life is a term that has no definition. You say you are pro life but you would let a murderer go free. That is anti life. You say you are pro life but you vote for Obama the man who champions baby murder. Your words are hollow. I never said people who disagree with me should die. That is ridiculous. I said if someone is running around saying abortion abortion. Who is going to pay for the kid. We can't afford it. Abortion is a right. People who say that then at the end of life want government help should be aborted.
They participate in the flow of money and thus add to economic activity that takes place within our borders.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
That may or may not be true. But they get all of their money from other tax payers. So you can't say that it is 3 taxpayers for social security recipient. Because all of the money they put in came origianlly from someone with a "real" job. If you don't get that or can't be honest enough to admit that then that is your problem and not mine.
Your position is more akin to exposing a new-born baby to the elements.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
They participate in the flow by grabbing out some of the money from the producers. Thomas Jefferson said something about those people in the Declaration of Independence. They don't add to economic activity though. They just took something of what someone else produced. That person who produced it would have been to stimulate the economy with the fruits of their own labor. So the government parasite didn't add anything to the pie. They just spent it instead of someone who earned it spending it.
This post is conflicted and convoluted. It in no way merits being taken seriously. For example; being against Capital Punishment turns no murderer loose. Which makes this hyperbolic sentence utterly meaningless. As I said, save it for your shrink.
Yes I am for babies being allowed to be born and breathe air and eat food. The liberal parasite says the baby is a burden kill it. That is why Americans think of liberals as sickos. Well one of the many many reasons.
Tell that to Dukakis and Willie Horton.
Since when did Stonie ever care about any human life after birth?
Stone, if government workers pay the tax then they are taxpayers by definition. If you don't get that or can't be honest enough to admit that then that is your problem and not mine. Good try , Stone but no cigar.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
So you are claiming I don't care about people? Mike you are stupid if you believe that. Really stupid. Your rhetoric is separated from reality.
You're not being honest with yourself. This isn't about if the government workers are necessary or not. They don't add anything to the pie that isn't already there. So your number is inflated. I don't think you will get it. Your bran doesn't work correctly. You are infected with a mental disorder called liberalism. If you want I will try to heal you. I know you will probably resist it. But I think deep down that is why you are here, you know because you question your irrational thoughts.
Social Security Online - Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries - 1940-2085 - - - Social Security 2011, Facts and Figures
Illinois: Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003 • Sent to death row on the basis of "confessions" extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment. North Carolina: Jonathon Hoffman, exonerated in 2007 • Convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. During Hoffman's first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, made undisclosed deals with the prosecutors for testifying against his cousin. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty- facts/death-penalty-and-innocence Our system of justice which is predicated on the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt is compromised by a cruel and unusual punishment that cannot be reversed should an innocent woman or man be executed and then be revealed to actually have been innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Murderers are always going to get away with their crime now and again unless we had a 'you have to break an egg to make an omlette' apprach that postulates it is preferable to kill some innocents least one guilty person escape justice. I see no rationality to your point.
So Obama should be impeached for practicing cruel and unusual punishment against babies without a court order. Screw that asshole. Now go report me to the Obamunist snitch line. Tell him I said to fuck off.
Your chart is pretty discouraging. Does it include government workers in those numbers? If it does then wouldn't you say that the actual number is quite lower as they add nothing new to the pie?
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. You can't impeach a POTUS elected in 2008 for a SCOTUS decision made in 1972. You do not make a rational point.
It is color of law you pretend pro lifer. You're pro abortion. That is why every president that you have ever voted for in your entire life is pro abortion. You're not fulling anyone.
Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun who wrote the Roe V. Wade decision. So, using your emotion trumping rational thinking modus of argument, no Republican deserves to be elected to the White House after this man wrote it and voted for it. As for my view on abortion, I have consistently made it clear for a great many years what it is, and your froth at the mouth claim I am actually for abortion might give you a feeling as warm as a pee in the swiming pool, but that does not mean it has any veracity. You have no standing as my agent to represent my political view points.
The proof is you voted for a man who is the most pro abortion in our history. That is like saying you love Jews and posting at freedom4um and voting for Hitler.
I do like Jewish people. I just have no use for Zionism. As for your hyperbolic claim that President Obama would scare the crap out of Darth Vader because he is so evil, save it for the election.
A president is under no obligation to enforce supreme court decisions. President Andrew Jackson famously told the supreme court to stuff it. Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
And it is a shame Jackson had not been appropiately sanctioned with empeachment for this concern to support this unconstitutional action. The interment of Japanese Americans in the emotional hysteria at the start of WW II was also a retracted error that was quite unconstitutional. All this proves is the system has human failings to it. So?
Social only needs to be modified to account for the change in demographics. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm The Logic of Pay-As-You-Go Systems In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you- go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity. If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.
My bowls are fine, thank you, I don't require bran.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
ROTFLOL
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
It's a presidents duty to ignore the human failings of the supreme court and uphold the constitution and rule of law, as they swore in their oath of office. Jackson upheld his oath of office. FDR did not because he was a statist progressive communist, like Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Clinton, Bush(x2), and Obama. The whole later bunch went along with SCOTUS rulings that violated the constitution. It's been a very long time since we had a law abiding president.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Jackson ignored his duty to enforce a High Court decision is very clear in our system of government. The U.S. Constitution has three branches of government sharing power to create checks and balances in the system. Jackson did what he did not so much because he was just in ignoring his constitutional duty he swore an oath to preform; he did it because of the greed and racism of those lobbying him to do so. There was not a thing that was law abiding in his action any more then the graft and greed that those agents contracting to provide food and medicine to Native Americans forced onto small reservations were guilty of was right or legal. This application of Apartheid that was an inspiration for concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War in South Africa or those of Nazi Germany in WW II was very unjust as well and this action of Jackson has put blood on his hands for many decades after his presidency. Manifest Destiny and the Papal Bull called the Doctrine of Discovery that were much the basis of the Trail of Tears was evil and responsible for many deaths and acts of genocide after the Indigenous People of North America were largely rubbed out helped kill many people for generations in other parts of the world. What Jckson did was predicated on greed and hate and helped empower and create much death and suffering in the world. There was nothing good or just about this violation of his oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitutuion.
I think you lie. Show me in the constitution where it says the Presidents job is to enforce Supreme court decisions. I read that it is his duty to enforce the constitution. You're a very feminine fake poser.
I know that should the SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade and a future POTUS then sign an executive order authorizing abortion in spite of it, you would be howling bloody murder that he or she has no right to go against this new hypothetical ruling. Now as for the charge I am feminine, that is an interesting slant of insult. Does this mean you view over half the population of the U.S. as inferior to those of us who are fueled by testaterone instead of estrogen? I am much amused.
A proper ruling would simply acknowledge the error that the evil court made and correct it. They are people and citizens. You are not pro life. You vote for anti life politicians that give kids no choice. Democrats are anti kid. They hate kids. Can't stand the idea of them being born.
If you are female if is good to be feminine. If you are male you come across as some kind of faggot freak.
This view would help give you a flunking grade in any 400 level course on the Supreme Court in the United States in any university of the land. The rest of your post is merely spiteful and quite irrational. You fail to succeed in the task to bait me. I am merely amused by your antics here.
You and me bofe.
Bait you? What is this crap about baiting you? Bait you for what? I simply tell it the way it is.
I will readily admit that sometimes I say things to rile you guys up. You never know if I am serious or not.
I can push your buttons like a walk in the park, Taliban boy.
Gee Dr Ruth, thsnks for sharing your master baiting skills. Most gays are very masculine and unless you know them well on the personal level, you would have no clue to their sexual orientation. ;-D
... the (successful) calls to "level the playing field." First, it is not a sporting event, and second, there is not supposed to be a level playing field. The original idea was that it was better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. Prosecutors hide evidence and present perjured testimony (testilying) and judges look the other way.
I wouldn't know. Apparently you know very well. By the way it is preference not orientation. To say it is orientation is an insult to God.
Not so; I always take insanity from you with a grain of salt. So you don't relish having veracity when you post. That is your problem, not ours.
I've seen that first hand. That is why I don't like pigs or judges. Are you a lawyer or just a knowledgeable layman? Or maybe you used to be one?
Government workers are included. They pay into SS and receive benefits just as non-government workers do. The charts from SS show there is a real problem. Regardless of what we call it or who we blame, there is a problem that needs fixing.
I agree; and this is a big reason I cannot support Capital Punishment as being moral or just.- Good post. ;-)
Mike, I'm happy you showed back up here. I enjoy the banter. Stoner is an ideologue and a lost sheep at that.
I know they do that. My father retired from the government after retiring from the Army. Anyway. If it says that it takes 3 workers to support 1 social security recipient. Since government workers salary is entirely compromised of tax money. They don't add anything new to the government treasury. So it is actually less then 3 workers paying for each retiree. For if those private sector employees didn't work then the government people wouldnt' have a job in the first place. It is just a more detailed way of looking at it.
Merci mom ami. Tu es tres gentile. Vraiment. ;-D
Whatever happened to folks retiring after 35 years (+/-) a few and getting the gold watch and enjoying their twilight years? Answer me that, Stoner. The corporate masters want them to work for beans until they're 70.
That is why I work for myself.
Those are the nice ones. Most want the retirement age to be 70 and have people drop dead at 69 which would be an appropriate number as they would then be really fucked.
I know a guy about a dozen years ago who got his first SS check and died of a massive heart attack about a week or two later. His wife baptized him with tap water as he laid on the floor.
Your scenario only works if each of your 40 million workers pays the full amount of the average retirement benefit each month. That would be about $1200 per month plus the administrative costs. That is not happening. It is impossible to grow the population enough to support the system, as it is, in a stable and sustainable manner. People have worked and paid in for 40 years and retired and now the government must diminish their benefits or raise taxes to pay for them. A ratio of 2:1 does not work.
Sad. My Mom died of cancer at age 67 right after she retired and had been holding out for the highest retirement S.S. payment level one can get at age 69. Death can be as unfair as life often is. She was quite the horse fancier and competed in horse shows when she was younger in Connecticut. You two would of had much in common to talk about. I still own most of her tack and her best English saddle.
Does each citizen get to chose for himself whether to obey judicial interpretation of the Constitution? If SCOTUS reversed Roe v. Wade and declared abortion unconstitutional, could the president pass an executive order making it lawful? Could the Governor's or State Legislatures make it lawful in their state? Could the President or a State simply refuse to enforce the new interpretation and let an abortion clinic stay open? What is the point of judicial interpretation if not even the government has to pay any attention to it?
It seems to me it is to overthrow and lie about what the constitution says. At least often that is the case.
Yesterday I visited a 44 year-young woman, dying of cancer - I'll guess she has a few weeks. Boy, did that hurt, but I put on my happy face and we talked about everything but the hospital and her health. Ten minutes later I visited a spry 94 year-old in an assisted living facility. Life is weird. My former horse partner, and friend, is looking for another partner at 5, 10, 25 percent. This thoroughbred might be the bomb. If he is, I'll send you a PM.
STARE DECISIS Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts. To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law. There would be no raison d'etre for the high court if their rulings meant nothing. For the record, my favorite Justices were William Orville Douglas and Hugo Black. I miss those two gentlemen quite a bit.
Should the interstate commerce clause be reexamined?
Beverly (My Mom) visited her last horse shortly before she started round two of chemo. Christain General (his name) had a tight bond with her and knew she was ill. It was touching to watch this last meeting between them. My niece does horse shows in Salem, OR (on Arabians) and was the last to ride him before Mom sold her share in him. He still is a great horse and we all are making sure he has a retirement in his sunset years.
They say our pets/animals know more about us than (not then) we know about them and I believe that.
Gibbons v. Ogden? Which dicision do you refer to?
Agreed. The first month she had him he cow kicked the shit out of me. It was quite perceptive of him to know how to treat a smart ass like me. I was quite impressed by that. ;-D
The Pope could walk through my front door and my dog would bark at him like any stranger...she's gone now.
Certainly supreme court justices are more than just citizens in their official positions, as the third branch of government. There is supposed to be conflict between the branches, and none is subservient to the others. Justices are appointed to the court "for a term of good behavior", and are subject to removal. Presidents may be impeached and removed. Congresspersons likewise. There are remedies built in. It is the presidents job to enforce the constitution and the law, as he sees it.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Correct.
To:Skippy, toe-jam, old man Fred Alzheimers Mertz, _jim, loonymom/ming, e-type-jackoff, goober56, Wrek, calcon, dummy DwarF, continental op, Biff, gobsheit and meguro From: Capitalist Eric Message: You're SOCIALIST morons. ESAD. Take away precedent (stare decisis) and we have no functional legal system. It is fundamental to the Common Law system. A legal system which does not rely on precedent is the Roman Civil Code system. Many Latin countries have a Civil Code based system. Louisiana is the only state that uses such a system (for State law), adopted from the Napoleanic Codes as a French colony.
The authority of the President is not as he sees it, but as the courts have interpreted it. The constitutional arbiter of what the Constitution says is the Judiciary, not the Executive. SCOTUS ruled against President Nixon's claim of Executive Privilege regarding the tapes that he was forced to turn over. Had he refused, he certainly would have been impeached and removed from office based on the refusal. According to your version, President Nixon would have had the lawful, constitutional authority to tell the Court that he preferred his own version of Executive Privilege and to go bugger off. Armed with such recognized, constitutional authority there would seem to be no restriction to what he could lawfully do, based solely on his own interpretation of the Constitution. Bush/Cheney surely interpreted everything they did to be constitutional. Can the SCOTUS interpret the law to mean one thing, and the President within his constitutional authority ignore that based on his interpretation, and then the Congress remove the President from office based on the President's actions, within his constitutional authority, being a high crimes or misdemeanors?" Why would the tapes case even go to court or be defended if the president had the constitutional authority to ignore the court? United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974) (the Tapes and Executive Privilege)
Ping
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#2. To: All (#0)
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#3. To: jwpegler (#0)
Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it.
#4. To: jwpegler, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#1)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
Any (most) congress-criters who participated in the theft of retirement funds are eligible for trial, and jail. Ya, like that's really going to happen in the good 'ol boy club!
#6. To: jwpegler (#1)
#7. To: hondo68 (#4)
Those who are on the retire at 65 plan should hold the gov to their contract.
What the Recruiter Never Told You
They feel they were promised FREE health care for life in exchange for a minimum commitment of 20 years. Veterans believed this promise, and put up with dismal work/living conditions and low pay in order to win this compensation. Many retirees and veterans feel that their Government lied to them.
Numerous claims have been made concerning “promises” to military personnel and retirees with regard to health care benefits. Many appear to believe that they were “promised free health care for life at military facilities.” Efforts to locate written authoritative documentation of such “promises” have not been successful. However, some military recruiting literature does make general statements about health care. As an example, a recruiting brochure cited by The Retired Officers Association states:
Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.
#8. To: jwpegler (#1)
They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.
#9. To: jwpegler (#1)
#10. To: nolu chan (#7)
#11. To: jwpegler (#0)
#12. To: mcgowanjm (#10)
You must be in a Combat Zone to get free for life.
#13. To: mcgowanjm, jwpegler (#11)
SS is the only place left that has cash.
#14. To: nolu chan (#6)
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#15. To: mcgowanjm (#11)
SS is the only place left that has cash.
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#16. To: nolu chan (#13)
(Edited)
The funds were transferred to the general fund and have been spent.
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#17. To: jwpegler (#0)
The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
#18. To: jwpegler (#15)
Social security is paying out more every year in benefits than it receives in taxes.
#19. To: eskimo (#17)
The damned government stole the money from those folks
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#20. To: jwpegler (#19)
Young people should be allowed to divert their payroll taxes to private bank accounts.
#21. To: jwpegler (#19)
So, your answer is to steal our money to pay them off? Who is going to pay us off when we retire?
#22. To: jwpegler (#19)
Young people should be allowed to divert their payroll taxes to private bank accounts.
#23. To: jwpegler, e_type_jag, hondo68, lucysmom, nolu chan, NewsJunky, eskimo, mcgowanjm (#1)
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
#24. To: Godwinson (#23)
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
#25. To: eskimo (#21)
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#26. To: jwpegler (#25)
Listen Bozo, current retirees joined the greedy geezer lobby (AARP) and they lobbied for the goodies. It is their fault that we are in this mess.
#27. To: jwpegler (#0)
Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.
#28. To: Godwinson (#23)
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in.
#29. To: eskimo (#28)
#30. To: jwpegler (#25)
Listen Bozo, current retirees joined the greedy geezer lobby (AARP) and they lobbied for the goodies. It is their fault that we are in this mess.
#31. To: Godwinson (#29)
I also said it was nonsense - I highlighted that passage to re-explain to the stupid GOPers that SS is an insurance program that is not an investment.
#32. To: eskimo (#31)
What in hell is wrong with the a$$holes who decide it is easier to blame the older victims of government theft
#33. To: Godwinson (#32)
SS is not theft.
#34. To: Godwinson (#23)
SS is a retirement insurance program - it does not function like a "Christmas club" account
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
The fund itself basically consists of bookkeeping entries. The money collected has been transferred to the general fund and spent. The government is over $14T in debt.
#36. To: eskimo (#30)
You are as ignorant as you are stubborn. AARPs are a political lobby that comprise a tiny minority of stupid liberal/socialist slugs.
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
It is a government program and does not function like any commercial insurance program.
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#38. To: Godwinson (#23)
SS is a retirement insurance program -
#39. To: jwpegler (#36)
No. Every single credible politician over the last 50 years has been scared to death to tell the truth about Social Security, because the Greedy Geezer Lobby is too powerful.
#40. To: nolu chan, eskimo, jwpegler (#34)
It is a government program and does not function like any commercial insurance program. You can pay in for 40 years, retire, and the government may increase, decrease, or eliminate the benefits.
#41. To: Godwinson (#40)
Commercial insurance companies change their benefit programs all the time and in many cases they don't pay out.
#42. To: We The People (#27)
Social Security needs to be abolished, today.
#43. To: nolu chan (#41)
Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?
#44. To: jwpegler (#15)
There isn't any cash on hand.
#45. To: All (#44)
#46. To: jwpegler (#0)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#47. To: mcgowanjm (#44)
Only because the US Gov't has been systematically robbing the SS Fund since Nixon....
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#48. To: We The People (#27)
Social Security needs to be abolished, today.
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#49. To: eskimo (#30)
AARPs are a political lobby that comprise a tiny minority of stupid liberal/socialist slugs
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#50. To: jwpegler, All (#47)
.
#51. To: war (#46)
#52. To: All (#51)
#53. To: mcgowanjm (#50)
(Edited)
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#54. To: jwpegler (#53)
You're missing the point as usual.
#55. To: All (#54)
Can you give me ANYTHING that guarantees out 75 years?
#56. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#57. To: nolu chan (#41)
Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?
#58. To: eskimo (#33)
What happens if you do not pay? Guys with guns come to wring it out of you or put you in prison. What do you call that?
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#59. To: jwpegler (#56)
This does NOT include the current and proposed reductions in the payroll tax, which will make the annual deficits much worse.
#60. To: NewsJunky (#22)
Why not raise the cap on earnings...
Anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us -- jwpegler
#61. To: jwpegler (#53)
What they should have done over the last 3 decades, is allow people to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to private accounts. If they had done that instead of spending the money, people would have $2.6 trillion in their own retirement funds, which could lesson the burden on the system, provided that the system is reformed to cut off people with substantial pensions and investment incomes.
#62. To: jwpegler (#49)
40 million people is not a tiny minority of stupid liberal/socialist slugs.
#63. To: eskimo (#62)
(Edited)
So you are saying that 13% of Americans who are old "stupid liberal/socialist slugs" is some sort of unsurmountable political problem?
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#64. To: jwpegler (#63)
There are a about 40 million people over 65 in the U.S. There are 40 million AARP members.
#65. To: Godwinson (#57)
[nc] Can you cite an instance of where all contributions have been completed, as with a retiree, the plan payout is due, and the company simply decides not to pay for any reason other than default (bankruptcy)?
Where the terms of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be applied as written. Terms are ambiguous if they are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, “not simply if the parties can suggest creative possibilities for their meaning.” BASF, 522 F.3d at 819. Ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter of the policy, but a court should not search for ambiguities where none exists. Id.
Unit 1 [Brian’s vehicle] was traveling northbound on Rt. 111 at Whispering Oaks Lane. Unit 1 left the roadway on the right shoulder for no apparent reason and traveled 192 feet before striking a tree.... Witness 1 stated Unit 1's brake lights were activated shortly before it struck the tree. No skid marks on roadway or grass. The driver of Unit 1 was declared dead on scene. Unit 1 driver’s license was in Revoked Status at time of crash.
When he received the May 2003 reckless driving citation, Brian’s “license was still revoked for the prior DUI conviction,” and the “reckless driving conviction resulted in the DUI revocation being extended” (id. ¶¶ 5-6, emph. added). Additionally, the Glahn Affidavit attests: “As of March 2, 2007,” Brian’s “driving license remained revoked for DUI” (id., ¶ 7, emph. added; see also driving record at Doc. 57, p. 6). Because Brian’s license was revoked for a prior DUI offense when he was DUI on March 2, 2007, he was committing a Class felony at the time of the fatal crash.
The Policy excludes accidental death coverage if the death resulted from or was caused by the insured’s “commission of a felony” (Doc. 43, p. 3). Brian Woods was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the fatal crash. At that time, his license was revoked for a prior DUI conviction. The Illinois Vehicle Code provides that driving under the influence of alcohol on a revoked license that resulted from a previous DUI violation is a Class 4 felony. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(G) and (2)(A). Therefore, under Illinois law, Brian was committing a felony at the time of his death.
#66. To: nolu chan (#65)
(Edited)
It had no legal liability to pay anything.
#67. To: jwpegler (#37)
The big question is how do we unwind it? That's what I'm trying to address.
#68. To: Godwinson (#66)
[nc] It had no legal liability to pay anything.
[Godwinson] Thus, Social Security thus is better than private versions and more reliable.
#69. To: Godwinson (#66)
Read also:
#70. To: jwpegler, mcgowanjm (#47)
They only borrowed $2.6 trillion from Social Security.
7/13/2011 @ 2:25PM |74,208 views
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#72. To: nolu chan (#67)
Regarding SS, Chilean Plan, favored by Herman Cain, may offer an economic solution
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#73. To: jwpegler (#47)
They only borrowed $2.6 trillion from Social Security.
#74. To: nolu chan (#65)
#75. To: nolu chan (#73)
I should have mentioned that this is the Federal government "borrowing" from the Federal government. It's like you borrowing from yourself, spending the money, looking at an IOU from you to you, and thinking you still have the money. It makes no financial sense.
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#76. To: jwpegler, nolu chan (#75)
It's a complete fiction.
#77. To: mcgowanjm (#76)
#78. To: All (#76)
#79. To: Fred Mertz (#77)
(Edited)
Phuck a bunch of classes.
#80. To: mcgowanjm (#79)
#81. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
the "insurer" can change the benefits at any time and in any manner of its choosing
#82. To: A K A Stone (#74)
I like this Scribd thing you always use. Is it a searchable database? Do you add your own stuff there?
#83. To: NewsJunky (#81)
Its like an insurance program. No government program functions exactly like a private sector entity.
#84. To: nolu chan (#83)
It is also exhibits characteristics of a Ponzi scheme where early investors are paid with the money of later investors, and it works as long as the number of investors keeps increasing at the necessary rate. When the increase in new investors slows or stops, the system fails.
#85. To: NewsJunky (#84)
But the government can always make modifications to raise revenues. Real Ponzi Schemes always fall apart. There is no reason that Social Security must fail.
When an insurance company fails (revenue slows down too much), the state guarantee corporation must pay out benefits and may not pay out as much as originally insured for. Doesn't this indicate that private insurance does have certain characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme as well.
Insurance November 20, 2008, 5:00PM EST
#86. To: jwpegler (#71)
If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit. Exactly right. That's a point lost on too many people.
#87. To: nolu chan (#82)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#88. To: Biff Tannen (#87)
#89. To: Fred Mertz (#80)
We Rat For You.
#90. To: mcgowanjm (#89)
#91. To: nolu chan (#73)
I should have mentioned that this is the Federal government "borrowing" from the Federal government. It's like you borrowing from yourself, spending the money, looking at an IOU from you to you, and thinking you still have the money.
#92. To: nolu chan (#69)
#93. To: mcgowanjm (#76)
But then the Social Compact since the Winter of 32/33 is broken.
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#94. To: nolu chan (#68)
(Edited)
That is a matter of fact that a court did figure out.
#95. To: We The People (#27)
Government has proven that it can NOT be trusted with the peoples wealth.
#96. To: lucysmom, We The People (#95)
Government has proven that it can NOT be trusted with the peoples wealth.
#97. To: jwpegler (#93)
And Franklin Roosevelt is dead. So what?
#98. To: jwpegler (#93)
(Edited)
But then the Social Compact since the Winter of 32/33 is broken.
#99. To: mcgowanjm (#97)
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#100. To: jwpegler (#0)
When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.
#101. To: Godwinson (#96)
The private sector brought us cheap internet porn.
#102. To: jwpegler (#99)
#103. To: lucysmom (#100)
#104. To: Fred Mertz (#88)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#105. To: Biff Tannen, Fred Mertz, All (#104)
#106. To: Biff Tannen (#104)
#107. To: Godwinson (#92)
Insurance companies amend their terms all the time. Insurance companies deny payments all the time. The investigations show insurance companies doing so on a wide scale.
#108. To: nolu chan (#107)
(Edited)
#109. To: Godwinson (#108)
A Boulder County, Colorado jury found that an insurance company was in breach of contract when it canceled Jennifer Latham’s health insurance coverage after her wreck. The jury awarded $37 million in damages to Latham.
#110. To: lucysmom, jwpegler, mcgowanjm, all (#91)
The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund."
In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.
#111. To: nolu chan (#109)
Unlike the Federal government program. They can just up and change the law and you cannot sue them to change it back again
#112. To: nolu chan (#110)
essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#113. To: jwpegler (#112)
We are headed for the biggest financial catastrophe the world has ever seen.
#114. To: jwpegler (#112)
We are headed for the biggest financial catastrophe the world has ever seen.
#115. To: nolu chan (#85)
I do not see the relationship between this and a Ponzi scheme.
#116. To: NewsJunky (#115)
(Edited)
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#117. To: Godwinson (#111)
You talk as if the govt is not of the people, by the people, for the people and a third party.
#118. To: nolu chan (#109)
You only document that they CANNOT LAWFULLY do as you claim. The contract can be enforced.
#119. To: NewsJunky (#115)
The point is that insurance companies, like in a Ponzi Scheme,depend on continued investments from investors to pay out current benefits.
#120. To: jwpegler (#112)
Exactly right. The "assets" in the "trust fund" are in fact government debt. There is $2.6 trillion dollars worth of debt in the Social Security "trust fund".
MECHANISMS TO ASSURE CONTINUED BENEFIT PAYMENTS-- "FAILSAFE"
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?
#121. To: jwpegler (#112)
(Edited)
This must be an old article, because the Social Security system fell into deficit this year. The deficits will increase dramatically as the baby boomers continue to retire.
Social Security
Conclusion
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and Manageing Trustee
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor and Trustee
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services and Trustee
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee
Charles P. Blahous III, Trustee
Robert D. Reischauer, Trustee
#122. To: nolu chan (#100)
(Edited)
#123. To: nolu chan (#119)
(Edited)
They do not depend on an ever-growing base of customers to pay benefits to earlier customers.
#124. To: jwpegler (#116)
Only Ponzi schemes like Social Security promise that. They can't deliver, so the people who get it late get screwed
#125. To: nolu chan (#117)
If Congress passed a law repealing Social Security in its entirety, all benefits null and void,
#126. To: nolu chan (#117)
The people can vote out the politicians and/or amend the Constitution. That takes a while.
#127. To: Godwinson (#126)
the American court system is a quick system, right?
#128. To: NewsJunky (#123)
Social Security doesn't depend on ever growing base of customers either. In fact it has had a shrinking base of customer but yet it still has survived.
#129. To: NewsJunky (#125)
The people will never let that happen unless we actually bankrupted and then they would have no choice. The people will decide in the end what we do with Social Security and Medicare. Congress cannot and will not do it independently.
#130. To: nolu chan, NewsJunky (#128)
Social Security doesn't depend on ever growing base of customers either. In fact it has had a shrinking base of customer but yet it still has survived.
#131. To: Godwinson (#130)
Just some tweaking can get SS to survive past our lifetimes
#132. To: A K A Stone, NewsJunky (#131)
So you want to pay out less? Or raise taxes? Don't you care about the deficit?
#133. To: NewsJunky (#124)
Which Ponzi Scheme has lasted for almost seven decades?
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#134. To: NewsJunky (#123)
(Edited)
In fact it has had a shrinking base of customer
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#135. To: Godwinson (#130)
Just some tweaking can get SS to survive past our lifetimes and America's population is not shrinking.
Super Committee Riven By Major Divide Over Basic Facts
Talking Points Memo
#136. To: jwpegler (#134)
my generation will get back LESS from Social Security than we paid in.
#137. To: nolu chan (#135)
More than slight tweaking is needed. The funding shortfall forecast indicates a significant increase in revenues
#138. To: nolu chan (#128)
#139. To: jwpegler (#134)
#140. To: jwpegler (#133)
#141. To: nolu chan (#129)
#142. To: lucysmom (#95)
Who can you trust? Banks? What about the stock market? Real estate? Perhaps gold buried in the backyard?
#143. To: NewsJunky, jwpegler, nolu chan (#138)
#144. To: NewsJunky, jwpegler (#138)
This chart shows you the same ratio from 1945 onward. So you can tell that the number of investors to the plan has, for the most part, steadily decreased.
#145. To: We The People (#142)
No comment. :o)
#146. To: nolu chan (#144)
(Edited)
To maintain a 40:1 ratio you would need to find 2,161,283,880 investors to pay in. That is about 7 times the population of the entire United States.
Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon Johnson were president? -- Jackie Kennedy
#147. To: Capitalist Eric, NewsJunky, jwpegler (#143)
And NOW.........? Shit, there's aren't enough people left to STEAL from, to keep the Ponzi Scheme alive............
#148. To: nolu chan, NewsJunky, jwpegler (#144)
(Edited)
This chart shows you the same ratio from 1945 onward. So you can tell that the number of investors to the plan has, for the most part, steadily decreased.
#149. To: nolu chan (#144)
The baby boomers are retiring, swelling the number of beneficiaries in numbers the system never could sustain. This is the type of thing that happens in a Ponzi-like system.
#150. To: lucysmom (#148)
That is true up until 1975; since then the ratio has been pretty darn stable, ranging between 3.2 and 3.4. In 2009 the ratio dropped to 3, and was 2.9 in 2010.
#151. To: lucysmom (#149)
Except that an adjustment in the amount collected was made during the Reagan administration to compensate for the dreaded baby boomer retirement.
#152. To: A K A Stone (#151)
#153. To: Ferret Mike (#152)
#154. To: A K A Stone (#153)
"I know they should be with him." lol
#155. To: lucysmom (#148)
That is true up until 1975; since then the ratio has been pretty darn stable, ranging between 3.2 and 3.4. In 2009 the ratio dropped to 3, and was 2.9 in 2010.
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,177 at the beginning of 2011. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.
#156. To: lucysmom (#149)
Except that an adjustment in the amount collected was made during the Reagan administration to compensate for the dreaded baby boomer retirement.
#157. To: Ferret Mike (#154)
#158. To: A K A Stone (#150)
You can't rightfully say...
#159. To: A K A Stone (#157)
(Edited)
#160. To: lucysmom (#158)
#161. To: A K A Stone (#151)
Baby boomers who have publicly stated their support for abortion shouldn't get any Social Security.
#162. To: Ferret Mike (#159)
#163. To: A K A Stone (#160)
If it does, and it does your number is skewed and not true. You can't count people who only receive tax dollars and pay taxes that way. They aren't adding anything new to the system.
#164. To: lucysmom (#163)
They participate in the flow of money and thus add to economic activity that takes place within our borders.
#165. To: A K A Stone (#162)
You say you are pro life but you vote for Obama the man who champions baby murder.
#166. To: lucysmom (#163)
They participate in the flow of money and thus add to economic activity
#167. To: A K A Stone (#162)
"Your words are hollow."
#168. To: lucysmom (#165)
Your position is more akin to exposing a new-born baby to the elements.
#169. To: Ferret Mike (#167)
For example; being against Capital Punishment turns no murderer loose.
#170. To: lucysmom (#165)
"Your position is more akin to exposing a new-born baby to the elements."
#171. To: A K A Stone (#164)
So you can't say that it is 3 taxpayers for social security recipient. Because all of the money they put in came origianlly from someone with a "real" job.
#172. To: Ferret Mike (#170)
#173. To: lucysmom (#171)
#174. To: Capitalist Eric, NewsJunky, jwpegler, lucysmom, A K A Stone (#155)
(Edited)
#175. To: A K A Stone (#169)
(Edited)
Examples of wrongful convictions: Arizona: Ray Krone, released in 2002 • Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence.
#176. To: Ferret Mike (#175)
Our system of justice which is predicated on the notin that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt compromised by a cruel and unusual punishment that cannot be reversed should an innocent woman or man be executed and then be revealed to actually have been innocent.
#177. To: nolu chan (#174)
#178. To: A K A Stone (#176)
#179. To: Ferret Mike (#178)
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
#180. To: A K A Stone (#179)
(Edited)
#181. To: Ferret Mike (#180)
As for my view on abortion, I have consistently made it clear for a great many years what it is,
#182. To: A K A Stone (#181)
(Edited)
#183. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#178)
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land
President Andrew Jackson, who had the executive responsibility of enforcement of the laws, stated, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#184. To: hondo68 (#183)
(Edited)
#185. To: nolu chan (#144)
#186. To: A K A Stone (#173)
Your bran doesn't work correctly.
#187. To: A K A Stone (#173)
#188. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#184)
the system has human failings
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#189. To: hondo68 (#188)
(Edited)
#190. To: Ferret Mike (#189)
Jackson ignored his duty to enforce a High Court decision is very clear in our system of government.
#191. To: A K A Stone (#190)
"I think you lie. Show me in the constitution where it says the Presidents job is to enforce Supreme court decisions. I read that it is his duty to enforce the constitution."
#192. To: Ferret Mike (#191)
I know that should the SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade and a future POTUS then sign an executive order authorizing abortion in spite of it, you would be howling bloody murder that he or she has no right to go against this new hypothetical ruling.
#193. To: Ferret Mike (#191)
Now as for the charge I am feminine, that is an interesting slant of insult. Does this mean you view over half the population of the U.S. as inferior to those of us who are fueled by testaterone instead of estrogen?
#194. To: A K A Stone (#192)
(Edited)
"A proper ruling would simply acknowledge the error that the evil court made and correct it. They are people and citizens."
#195. To: Ferret Mike (#194)
I am merely amused by your antics here.
#196. To: Ferret Mike (#194)
You fail to succeed in the task to bait me.
#197. To: Fred Mertz (#195)
#198. To: A K A Stone (#197)
#199. To: A K A Stone (#193)
#200. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#175)
Our system of justice which is predicated on the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt is compromised by....
#201. To: Ferret Mike (#199)
Most gays are very masculine and unless you know them well on the personal level, you would have no clue to their sexual orientation. ;-D
#202. To: A K A Stone (#197)
"I will readily admit that sometimes I say things to rile you guys up. You never know if I am serious or not."
#203. To: nolu chan (#200)
Prosecutors hide evidence and present perjured testimony (testilying) and judges look the other way.
#204. To: A K A Stone (#177)
Does it include government workers in those numbers? If it does then wouldn't you say that the actual number is quite lower as they add nothing new to the pie?
#205. To: nolu chan (#200)
"Prosecutors hide evidence and present perjured testimony (testilying) and judges look the other way."
#206. To: Ferret Mike (#202)
#207. To: nolu chan (#204)
Government workers are included. They pay into SS and receive benefits just as non-government workers do.
#208. To: Fred Mertz (#206)
#209. To: A K A Stone (#207)
#210. To: Fred Mertz (#209)
#211. To: Fred Mertz (#209)
"The corporate masters want them to work for beans until they're 70."
#212. To: Ferret Mike (#211)
#213. To: NewsJunky (#185)
So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever.
#214. To: Fred Mertz (#212)
#215. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#190)
Show me in the constitution where it says the Presidents job is to enforce Supreme court decisions. I read that it is his duty to enforce the constitution.
#216. To: nolu chan (#215)
What is the point of judicial interpretation
#217. To: Ferret Mike (#214)
#218. To: nolu chan (#215)
"What is the point of judicial interpretation if not even the government has to pay any attention to it?"
#219. To: Ferret Mike (#218)
#220. To: Fred Mertz (#217)
(Edited)
#221. To: Ferret Mike (#220)
#222. To: A K A Stone (#219)
#223. To: Fred Mertz (#221)
"They say our pets/animals know more about us than (not then) we know about them and I believe that."
#224. To: Ferret Mike (#223)
#225. To: nolu chan (#215)
Does each citizen get to chose for himself whether to obey judicial interpretation of the Constitution?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#226. To: A K A Stone (#177)
If it does then wouldn't you say that the actual number is quite lower as they add nothing new to the pie?
#227. To: A K A Stone (#216)
It seems to me it is to overthrow and lie about what the constitution says. At least often that is the case.
#228. To: hondo68 (#225)
There are remedies built in. It is the presidents job to enforce the constitution and the law, as he sees it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]