Check this out.. the next finacial crisis

[bcguy]

As you know, the Us is very poor shape..with record debts. If the United states looses its AAA redit rating with other countries, the Dollar would drop into a steep decline. Interest rates would skyrocket and well..watch the rest.

BTW, Obama has said its very possible, that next month, Social Security payments may not go out, because there is no money to pay out.

[Saldrin]

Obama has the say on what gets paid and doesn't in a shut down.

if we default who cares its not the end of the world, nor is this the only time America's money has been devalued a bunch. we will live.

[applepansy]

Our elected officials need to stop paying themselves.

[Guest Sachi001]

As you know, the Us is very poor shape..with record debts. If the United states looses its AAA redit rating with other countries, the Dollar would drop into a steep decline. Interest rates would skyrocket and well..watch the rest.

BTW, Obama has said its very possible, that next month, Social Security payments may not go out, because there is no money to pay out.

Bluffing.

The US government has been robbing the SS trust fund since the Regan adminstration. This fund is a separate tax that by law is not to be touched except for medical, disability and retirement. However our beloved congress take the money out to pay the interest due on the national debt. Then returns the money after April 14 when the general tax has been recovered or what is paid.

It's like dad or mom robbing the child's piggy bank to pay for something. Then putting it back when they have the money. Currently our US government has borrowed 3.5 trillion from the SS fund and not paid it back yet. The money is supposed to be there. It's just owed by the government in an IOU. How do you think they do bailouts with money that's not there?

Second if you have direct deposit. Your money will come as computers and not physical government employees process the transactions. Whether the checks bounce that's a different story, but you will see the deposit nonetheless.

If you stole money from the mafia well let's just say....

[LittleWyvern]

I really think this debt ceiling "crisis" is really more a political ploy than an actually crisis. I kinda came to this position from Obama's recent press conference, and then listening to this deconstruction of it. I know the video I linked to is a msnbc video but it does make some good points and it kinda bashes on Obama almost:

1) The US has had these problems before. They've throughout history just raised the debt ceiling.

2) The press conference with mostly political speak. Not a lot of it was true.

3) There's really no "big deal" that Obama is hoping for, but he want to make voters to believe that he wanted a big deal but Republicans were the ones at fault.

4) Now, to President Obama, a simple debt ceiling raise is the worst option, even though it's a routine thing.

So, I'm not worried. Obama is being really clever and scoring a lot of points, but I don't think there's an actual crisis here.

[LDSJewess]

Social Security is NOT an entitlement. Those of us that are collecting or hope to in a few short years have paid far more into it than we will ever get out of it even if we live way beyond our life expectancy.

If my husbands check which is automatically deposited and then automatically withdrawn to pay the mortgage does not arrive, the mortgage does not get paid. And when the bank wants to know where the payment is I think I'll just tell them to sell the bill collections notice to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

With the amount of post war babies collecting SS right now, and the senior population being as high as it is, Obama can kiss his job good bye.

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.

[Saldrin]

Our elected officials need to stop paying themselves.

we need to stop paying them. no elected official should get a paycheck! then you are truly doing your country a service.

[Saldrin]

Bluffing.

The US government has been robbing the SS trust fund since the Regan adminstration. This fund is a separate tax that by law is not to be touched except for medical, disability and retirement. However our beloved congress take the money out to pay the interest due on the national debt. Then returns the money after April 14 when the general tax has been recovered or what is paid.

It's like dad or mom robbing the child's piggy bank to pay for something. Then putting it back when they have the money. Currently our US government has borrowed 3.5 trillion from the SS fund and not paid it back yet. The money is supposed to be there. It's just owed by the government in an IOU. How do you think they do bailouts with money that's not there?

Second if you have direct deposit. Your money will come as computers and not physical government employees process the transactions. Whether the checks bounce that's a different story, but you will see the deposit nonetheless.

If you stole money from the mafia well let's just say....

It was testified before the supreme court that social security was a general tax on the population to be used how the government saw fit, this happened a long time before the Reagan Administration....

[LDSJewess]

But the original social security act reads like this:

Social Security Act of 1935

And it was sold to the people that they would be investing for their old age fund.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

[Guest Sachi001]

Social Security is NOT an entitlement. Those of us that are collecting or hope to in a few short years have paid far more into it than we will ever get out of it even if we live way beyond our life expectancy.

If my husbands check which is automatically deposited and then automatically withdrawn to pay the mortgage does not arrive, the mortgage does not get paid. And when the bank wants to know where the payment is I think I'll just tell them to sell the bill collections notice to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

With the amount of post war babies collecting SS right now, and the senior population being as high as it is, Obama can kiss his job good bye.

I also think that when social security was implemented 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.

In 1982 the SS trust fund was at 2.2 trillion dollars earning compounded daily interest. Even with Uncle Sam borrowing on such. Today it stands at 3.5 trillion with Uncle Sam still borrowing. That's a 1.3 trillion increase with actual growth in the senior department on drawing more retirement, medical, and disability with inflation accounted for. It is sustainable and viable. It needs to be left alone to earn more interest. In fact it is even against the law for Uncle Sam to touch that money other then retirement, medical and disability. You are duped in all the political rhetoric of how it is not viable as a service. However it is, and the sad part that politicians are so naive about. The fact it is our SS tax that goes into the trust fund that bails the US government from defaulting on the interest owed on the National debt. If they dissolve the SS trust fund. They will be shooting themselves more in the foot. The National Debt ceiling will have to be raised an additional 3.5 trillion more than what they are asking for now.

[LDSJewess]

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.

It really depends n how long you are paying into it and if you wait to collect at maximum age. Barring any major financial issue I will collect at 66 in just a tad less than 3 years. I have been working and paying into it since I was 14 and working full time since I was 17.

I became self mployed 3 years ago and no longer paying in so I paid in full time for 43 years. When I collect at 66 it is highly unlikely I will live 40 years from now.

Now my husband started working full time at 18, and retired at 50 (good union plan company with a pension). So he paid in 33 years. He is in excellent health and if he lives as long as his father did he will have collected for 45 years. So assuming SS isn't abolished for those already collecting he may be ahead of the game.

The problem is though that those who knew they would be collecting, planned that money as a part of their retirement income, even if they had pensions etc: If social security is abolished or taken from those already collecting, many retirees will lose their homes.

It looks as if they will need to do something, like keep moving the age up. Stands to reason since statistics say we are living longer. And it would be fair of younger people had the option to invest in their own retirement rather than give it to the government to be spent frivilously. It's a catch 22.

I guess we do need to step back though and count our blessings because people in other countries are starving.

[Guest Sachi001]

It was testified before the supreme court that social security was a general tax on the population to be used how the government saw fit, this happened a long time before the Reagan Administration....

Hmm...testified before Supreme Court or do you mean Congress?

[Saldrin]

Supreme court, social security is unconstitutional so it was challenged when it was first made. but don't take my word for it go research it.

[Guest Sachi001]

Supreme court, social security is unconstitutional so it was challenged when it was first made. but don't take my word for it go research it.

Yes I read that it was challenged in 1937 by 3 cases. However it was not deemed unconstitutional by 7 to 2 vote.

"On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the three cases. Justice Cardozo wrote the majority opinion in the first two cases and he announced them on what was, coincidentally, his 67th birthday.

Mirroring the situation in Congress when the legislation was considered, the old-age insurance program met relatively little disagreement. The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program. And even though two Justices disagreed with the decision, no separate dissents were authored. The unemployment compensation provisions, by contrast, were hotly disputed within the Court, just as they had been the focus of most of the debate in Congress. The Court ruled 5 to 4 in support of the unemployment compensation provisions, and three of the Justices felt compelled to author separate dissents in the Steward Machine case and one Justice did so in the Southern Coal & Coke case."

You can read the whole history here.

Social Security Online

[Guest Sachi001]

A side note I stand corrected on the "it is illegal for the US government borrowing the SS trust fund"

Apparently I was payng attention to a wrong source. I looked up the law and it is permissible fr the Managing Trustee (BTW appointed by the President on a 4 year term. What a suprise huh?) to loan money toward profitable interest bearing accounts or obligations. More than likely the US government debt apparently is a money making interest account. Who would have thought.

Anyhow if you want to read on the whole thing here is a link:

Social Security Act 201 Subsection c and d

Social Security Act §201

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes I read that it was challenged in 1937 by 3 cases. However it was not deemed unconstitutional by 7 to 2 vote.

Indeed. "A switch in time saves nine", and all that. SCOTUS knew where their bread was buttered by the late thirties.

[Saldrin]

Yes I read that it was challenged in 1937 by 3 cases. However it was not deemed unconstitutional by 7 to 2 vote.

"On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the three cases. Justice Cardozo wrote the majority opinion in the first two cases and he announced them on what was, coincidentally, his 67th birthday.

Mirroring the situation in Congress when the legislation was considered, the old-age insurance program met relatively little disagreement. The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program. And even though two Justices disagreed with the decision, no separate dissents were authored. The unemployment compensation provisions, by contrast, were hotly disputed within the Court, just as they had been the focus of most of the debate in Congress. The Court ruled 5 to 4 in support of the unemployment compensation provisions, and three of the Justices felt compelled to author separate dissents in the Steward Machine case and one Justice did so in the Southern Coal & Coke case."

You can read the whole history here.

Social Security Online

the court ruled that way only because the court was threatened successfully by FDR. he threatened to stack the court with new appointees if they didn't back the raw deal. (that is his executive power to do so)

[Guest Sachi001]

Not disagreeing with that. However the SSA is constitutional until ruled otherwise. Guess someone needs to to challenge when it's stacked in a more conservative favor.

[Just_A_Guy]

As a matter of law, yes.

But remember: this is the Supreme Court that agreed fine a farmer for daring to growing his own wheat when the FDR Administration wanted him to buy wheat on the open market.

(And never let it be forgotten, FDR was exactly the kind of @%#$ who would have his Justice Department prosecute a guy for doing that.)

[mordorbund]

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

Geriatric quote: It's called your Golden Years because it takes a lot of gold to live them.

[estradling75]

It really depends n how long you are paying into it and if you wait to collect at maximum age. Barring any major financial issue I will collect at 66 in just a tad less than 3 years. I have been working and paying into it since I was 14 and working full time since I was 17.

I became self mployed 3 years ago and no longer paying in so I paid in full time for 43 years. When I collect at 66 it is highly unlikely I will live 40 years from now.

Now my husband started working full time at 18, and retired at 50 (good union plan company with a pension). So he paid in 33 years. He is in excellent health and if he lives as long as his father did he will have collected for 45 years. So assuming SS isn't abolished for those already collecting he may be ahead of the game.

The problem is though that those who knew they would be collecting, planned that money as a part of their retirement income, even if they had pensions etc: If social security is abolished or taken from those already collecting, many retirees will lose their homes.

It looks as if they will need to do something, like keep moving the age up. Stands to reason since statistics say we are living longer. And it would be fair of younger people had the option to invest in their own retirement rather than give it to the government to be spent frivilously. It's a catch 22.

I guess we do need to step back though and count our blessings because people in other countries are starving.

The problem with this is that it defers the payment of the bill as it were down the line to people that will never see the benefits. Let take your situation but knock 20 to 30 years off your age. You pay the same amount (if not more depending on the raising of taxes) and you in theory have the same promise of retirement. But given that you are going to miss the cut offs the retirement age retreats, and because the money just isn't there by the time you do reach retirement there is nothing but a whisper of money. Paying a whole lot money for nothing.

Now you can say we are young we can plan differently for our future, and this is correct. But consider two things. First the whole idea of social security was to 'protect' those that for whatever reasons (poor planning, unexpected events) reached retirement with nothing. Those reasons will still exist. In fact they could be made more likely because the government taking more taxes out of the paychecks. Money that could have very well gone to building their retirement nest egg. And two how is it fair to shift the burden of care off to the next generation. Because lets face it this is not a new problem, but the older generation has always had more political power then the younger and they keep passing it off until we have reached this point

[dahlia]

Obama is a scare-mongering, class warfare abetting, socialist. The government is quite capable of meeting social security, military pay, medicaid, and interest on the debt obligations. 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.

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.

[Guest Sachi001]

Obama is a scare-mongering, class warfare abetting, socialist. The government is quite capable of meeting social security, military pay, medicaid, and interest on the debt obligations. 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.

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.

No I would not privatize it either. I would rather it be eliminated before that. Many Americans lost their 401k's due to the investment into Home Mortgae Credit Default swaps via their companies investments into such areas. Con artists like Bernie Madoff and the likes etc.... all goes to show the fraud perpetuated on Americans everyday for their hard earned cash. A vast majority are not money wise especially in the investment market. This was part of the reason SS was created because so many lost their savings in the investment sectors in the Great Depression.

[Guest Sachi001]

Also if any of you read the link I gave earlier. You will find that the Managing Trustee and it's appointed board can invest the Social Security into investments with interest bearing accounts. It's just they never have the money as the US government keeps emptying the trust fund toward paying off the interest payments on the national debt.