Check this out.. the next finacial crisis

[Echo2002]

I also think that when social ecurity was implimented no one thought about the ramifications, because when it all began the majority of the work force was men and their average life expectancy was 64, and the age to collect was 65.

Today if a man or woman collects at age 65, they have a good change to live an additional 20 years or more. I don't think Uncle Sam expected us all to live that long.

You hit the nail on the head. When all of these programs were established, the government didn't think very far ahead, and no one could have predicted the baby boom. I'm not so sure the government intended all of these programs to be permanent.

It's time to reform these programs (welfare, SS) to make them more efficient.

[Guest Sachi001]

You hit the nail on the head. When all of these programs were established, the government didn't think very far ahead, and no one could have predicted the baby boom. I'm not so sure the government intended all of these programs to be permanent.

It's time to reform these programs (welfare, SS) to make them more efficient.

Bureaucracy is always forever and never efficient.

[FunkyTown]

Couple of points:

Obama is a scare-mongering, class warfare abetting, socialist.

Ad hominem. Also irrelevant. Name-calling doesn't teach anyone anything.

The government is quite capable of meeting social security, military pay, medicaid, and interest on the debt obligations.

Quote source. Also, I'd like to know how. My thought? Through careful, managed inflation. If inflation outstrips the interest you get by saving, then people are just getting poorer and poorer as time goes on. This is the current situation.

It just sounds scary to the unlettered if he says it can't. With any luck, these same people will be so paralyzed with fear that they will be unable to get to the ballot box in 2012.

Again, this is simple bludgeoning with name calling and doesn't actually say anything.

Too bad GWB backed down from privatizing SS. Any talk of privatization, if if you tell the old folks their SS checks will still come in the mail, just gets shot down in this country. Even in this economy, there are many places I'd rather put my money than to leave it with the government.

Yes. Social Security being privatized is being attacked by everyone. There are several possible reasons for this:

1) People are terrified that a privatized social security fund will be wiped out by a single financial crisis. Not that unlikely. They feel it's safer to put in the hand of the government, because the government would be able to spread the pain around a lot of people.

2) If everyone disagrees with you on this, then you might want to consider why they're doing it. Simply saying that there are a lot more options without saying what those options are or why people are disregarding them means there is no way for anyone who doesn't agree with you wholeheartedly to learn whether or not your opinion has merit.

If you want people to agree with you, dial down the name calling and start giving more facts. You'll note I never said you were incorrect in anything you said. I simply stated that nothing you said had logical support behind it.

[Traveler]

I can't speak as to whether anyone in particular is getting more out of Social Security than they put in. But consider that the 1980 per capita income was $7787 in 1980 dollars ($19,299 in 2009 dollars), or $650/month.

Then consider that I, who have been in the workforce for barely ten years, already qualify (well, my family qualifies) for nearly $1,000/month from Social Security in the event of my death. My ninety-some-odd grandmother qualifies for about $1600/month.

I realize that such a stipend is hardly magnanimous. But all things considered, I think it likely that most retirees are getting far more money back than they ever put into the system.

The problem is, most Americans don't realize how much retirement truly costs.

This post is in my mind the very reason why social security cannot work. If one were to calculate the average amount of social security paid by individuals of my generation and then determine the average life expectancy of the individuals of my generation and then return just the money collected without a dime of interest that my generation would receive over $70,000 per year - OVER 3 TIMES WHAT THEY WILL RECEIVE. If any private pension or retirement fund was run like that our politicians would demand that the principles of such a scheme be put in jail. By law no private retirement plan or insurance can charge over 6% overhead costs but our government takes over 60% overhead to distribute whatever they do give back to those receiving social security. BTW if social security offered just 3 ½ percent interest on money received then we would get back over $150,000 per year.

The one thing you got right is that Americans do not realize how much social security retirement is costing us.

Very few people understand what interest does to money that is borrowed and the importance of investing for savings. For example if we took $3,000 for a child at the time of birth and invested in whole life insurance that paid out only money accrued on death (and this is not considered a good investment) and did not add another cent except what was earned in interest - then at age 65 that child would have over $1,000,000 for retirement.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

As it is set up, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Those of us who pay in right now are paying for those currently receiving. Eventually, the money will run out, and someone will be left without any benefits. We just sent Bernie Madoff to prison for a Ponzi Scheme in the billions of dollars. Should we send Congress to jail for this one in the trillions of dollars?

Oh, and Congress has been taking money out of Soc Security since before the Reagan administration...

[Just_A_Guy]

Funkytown, I suspect Dahlia is thinking of this article from the Washington Examiner.

In the short run - we have the revenue to cover those core programs; it's just that doing so means we have to cut out a lot of other things (many of which didn't even exist five years ago). Those who advocate stopping payment on social security checks effective August 1st are either a) betraying their true priorities with regard to government spending, or b) indulging in a pretty obvious and revolting display of demagoguery that borders on the thuggish. ("Nice little trust fund ya got there. Would hate to see something . . . happen to it . . . Speaking of which, how you voting next November?")

Sachi, privatizing Social Security probably wouldn't mean you just give everyone their trust account and tell 'em to be careful with it. It would probably mean that you would be allowed to put your savings into one (or more) of a number of pre-approved funds, all vetted to some degree by the SSA.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[rameumptom]

JAG, I disagree. Soc Security is heading towards bankruptcy in the tune of several trillions of dollars. Medicare and Medicaid will be for tens of trillions of dollars. Soc Security has to be managed now, so there will be something in the future for Baby Boomers and those that follow.

Yes, we need to cut many other programs, but most of those are nickel and dime things. Real cuts will come in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid fixes.

[Just_A_Guy]

Sure, Ram; I'm talking short term here.

I wholly agree that there needs to be a fix in the next decade or so--and the sooner the better--but Social Security's long-term problems do not justify the White House's proposal/warning/threat to pull the plug next month.

[prophetofdoom]

The whole US Economy is one giant ponzi scheme. The Private Federal Reserve prints the money and then loans the money for the government to use. The central issue for the first 150 years of this nation was that of having a Central Bank. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, they simultaneously passed the Income Tax the same year. The banks set up a bail out mechanism via the US Taxpayer in 1913. The Robber Barons (JP Morgan, Rockefellar, Warburgs) set up the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve was (we are told) set up to help the nation avert financial panics and bank runs. However, history proves a different story. The Federal Reserve System has a dismal track record.... The Great Depression, numerous boom and bust cycles, credit expansion bubbles, and this current economic disaster we find ourselves in. The politicians will blame the Republicans or the Democrats. They don't look at the Private Federal Reserve, the fiat money system, and the derivatives bubble that has been created by greedy speculators on Wallstreet.

[Traveler]

The whole US Economy is one giant ponzi scheme. The Private Federal Reserve prints the money and then loans the money for the government to use. The central issue for the first 150 years of this nation was that of having a Central Bank. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, they simultaneously passed the Income Tax the same year. The banks set up a bail out mechanism via the US Taxpayer in 1913. The Robber Barons (JP Morgan, Rockefellar, Warburgs) set up the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve was (we are told) set up to help the nation avert financial panics and bank runs. However, history proves a different story. The Federal Reserve System has a dismal track record.... The Great Depression, numerous boom and bust cycles, credit expansion bubbles, and this current economic disaster we find ourselves in. The politicians will blame the Republicans or the Democrats. They don't look at the Private Federal Reserve, the fiat money system, and the derivatives bubble that has been created by greedy speculators on Wallstreet.

You need to review the financial history of this country prior to the implementation of the Federal Reserve. I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve and I believe we could do better - but as bad as the Federal Reserve is there were greater economic problems and less wealth and a smaller middle class pre Federal Reserve.

I believe there are some things that should be investigated. For example why during the last financial crisis were all the privately held banks allowed to fail resulting in a current status of no private banks - all privately held assets were lost to corporate banking interests. A similar thing happened during the great depression when 90% of the farm land in the USA was taken from private families and given to corporate interests.

The Traveler

[dahlia]

No I would not privatize it either.

I get your point. I should have been more detailed. I realize there are some who will never be able to manage their own money and if they want to leave it up to the government, they should be able to do that. What I meant is that private options should be available to those who want them. I might even be OK if you had to make 50% of your retirement contributions to SS, and you can do what you like with the rest, including putting it under your mattress if the market frightens you so much.

The thing is, it's my money. I want it all.

[AGStacker]

Social Security is retarded and it definitely is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because you are FORCING, yes FORCING, the population to participate in it. Anything that forces the masses when others do not wish to participate is unconstitutional.

Social Security is neither social nor secure. Forcing someone to do something is not social and the fact that all government programs are totally bankrupt means they are not secure.

A really, REALLY bad crisis is coming. Hold anything that is tangible especially gold and silver. The dollar is being devalued rapidly! Check zerohedge.com tfmetalsreport.com dailypaul.com and learn something.

[shine7]

want to understand the U.S and world money and debt?? Watch this informative documentary. I didn't make it and not involved in it except as one that learned a lot by watching it.

[Guest Sachi001]

want to understand the U.S and world money and debt?? Watch this informative documentary. I didn't make it and not involved in it except as one that learned a lot by watching it.

Gee whiz brah. 2 hours!? Guess I'll have to fire up some popcorn and ice smoe soda this weekend.

[Guest Sachi001]

Social Security is retarded and it definitely is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because you are FORCING, yes FORCING, the population to participate in it. Anything that forces the masses when others do not wish to participate is unconstitutional.

Social Security is neither social nor secure. Forcing someone to do something is not social and the fact that all government programs are totally bankrupt means they are not secure.

A really, REALLY bad crisis is coming. Hold anything that is tangible especially gold and silver. The dollar is being devalued rapidly! Check zerohedge.com tfmetalsreport.com dailypaul.com and learn something.

Apparently you didn't read the earlier posts (see post #15). SS was found Constitutional by the Supreme Court and is feasible. In fact your Uncle Sam robs the piggy bank to pay the interest on the national debt to the tune of owing SS trust fund 3.5 trillion each year. Then pays it back after April 14 only to rob it again. In essence since Uncle Sam owes SS. The national debt is really about 18 trillion and not 14.

That's right that no good SS trust fund bails your country out of default each year since the Regan administration. If we didn't have that tax taken out of your check and put in that trust fund. This country would have defaulted long long long ago, and we would have been in hyper inflation.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Sachi001

[FunkyTown]

That is a very extreme stance on what is a very nuanced issue, AG.

Let's look at what you're really saying:

Anything that forces the masses when others do not wish to participate is unconstitutional.

Things that are covered by everyone despite not everyone wanting to be involved in it:

Prisons - I'm a fan of having a place to put criminals, even if they disagree that they want to participate.

Hospitals - Believe it or not, some feel that taxation for medicare/medicaid should be stopped and the plug pulled.

The FBI.

The nation's infrastructure via the interstate highway system - A lot of states fought FDR/Roosevelt on this. If they hadn't have been created, much of the US's prosperity wouldn't exist.

Also, saying it is 'Retarded' suggests a lack of understanding of the issue. At the very least, it suggests you're ruled by passion rather than reason. Neither is very good at communicating your opinion.

Social Security is retarded and it definitely is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because you are FORCING, yes FORCING, the population to participate in it. Anything that forces the masses when others do not wish to participate is unconstitutional.

Social Security is neither social nor secure. Forcing someone to do something is not social and the fact that all government programs are totally bankrupt means they are not secure.(

A really, REALLY bad crisis is coming. Hold anything that is tangible especially gold and silver. The dollar is being devalued rapidly! Check zerohedge.com tfmetalsreport.com dailypaul.com and learn something.

[Traveler]

Social Security is retarded and it definitely is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because you are FORCING, yes FORCING, the population to participate in it. Anything that forces the masses when others do not wish to participate is unconstitutional.

Social Security is neither social nor secure. Forcing someone to do something is not social and the fact that all government programs are totally bankrupt means they are not secure.

A really, REALLY bad crisis is coming. Hold anything that is tangible especially gold and silver. The dollar is being devalued rapidly! Check zerohedge.com tfmetalsreport.com dailypaul.com and learn something.

All laws, governments and treaties enacted by man are nothing more than one segment of the population FORCING, yes FORCING, the rest of society to abide by their opinion, morals or standards. The rest is just arguments over whose opinions, morals and standards are legislated by force to become law.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Funkytown, I suspect Dahlia is thinking of this article from the Washington Examiner.

In the short run - we have the revenue to cover those core programs; it's just that doing so means we have to cut out a lot of other things (many of which didn't even exist five years ago). Those who advocate stopping payment on social security checks effective August 1st are either a) betraying their true priorities with regard to government spending, or b) indulging in a pretty obvious and revolting display of demagoguery that borders on the thuggish. ("Nice little trust fund ya got there. Would hate to see something . . . happen to it . . . Speaking of which, how you voting next November?")

Sachi, privatizing Social Security probably wouldn't mean you just give everyone their trust account and tell 'em to be careful with it. It would probably mean that you would be allowed to put your savings into one (or more) of a number of pre-approved funds, all vetted to some degree by the SSA.

Oh! I should also point out: I'm not ignoring your point. I think they're very good. I don't doubt any particular point in that article, nor even the numbers. I just haven't addressed this because I have no knowledge of the specifics of the back end. Because of that, I don't feel confident in either agreeing or disagreeing.