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: 114369
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
Comments (1-51) not displayed.
.
.
.
#52. To: All (#51)
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.
Comments (93 - 228) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]