On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:29:31 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:
amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:26 AM, Rex wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:50:51 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
I'm 60 yrs old and just now started to think I will not receive the
full Social Security benefit until death.
This article caused the change in my thinking.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers
Mikek
That disclaimer has been on my statements for many years. It's one
reason I started SS at 62
But it's more than the disclaimer.
Something will need to be done by 2033. Probably before.
Either raise SS withholding, reduce SS benefits or take it out of the
general fund. ah, oh wait.
In 2033 the lock box* will only have 73 cents for every $1 of out
going benefits.
* a mythical place within the general fund for the money that is
credited to the SS fund. The money credited to this account has been
spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. Then more money was
borrowed and spent. :-(
What the government did (naturally when Dems had the White House and The
House and Senate at the same time) was literally, legally, the same
thing Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels did in Dumb and Dumber. They took the
money and replaced it with IOU's.
There never was any money there. Ever. It's a combination of ordinary
Treasury bonds and "special obligation" bonds. It always has been.
But us conservatives are just so dumb aren't we.
Ah, well, you said it. g
Fox News is so stupid as certain posters like to say (well
actually I stopped watching all TV news in 1984). Bush is such a dummy,
etc. But seriously, Christopher Hitchens had a great retort for the
people who repeatedly chanted "Bush is stupid." He said it was the kind
of criticism stupid people would come up with. (His exact words are on
youtube somewhere, in a Bill Maher interview IIRC.)
During the 1990's they kept chanting "affordable housing" and I wondered
what the hell they could possibly have in mind. Pay construction
workers less? Open land for development? Repeal regulations? They
were more clever than that. It turned out what they had in mind was to
force banks to give mortgages away under threat of prosecution on Civil
Rights grounds.
No, that wasn't the basis of it. The basis was to build lower-cost
housing when builders just wanted to build ever-higher-priced housing.
There was no plan or policy behind that; just a desire, which fit into
the reality when it seemed like every builder in America was building
McMansions and lobbying housing commissions and zoning boards to build
bigger houses on ever-smaller lots.
What you're talking about is another part of the puzzle, based on the
CRA and banks that complained the feds were forcing them to make risky
loans. But the banks had spent decades making loans at higher rates to
perfectly credit-worthy customers, with rates based solely on their
race. If you don't know the origins of the mortgage enforcements, look
up "redlining" and "reverse redlining," particularly the practices of
Wells Fargo Bank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Mortgages
Anarcho-capitalists, like our friend Jon Ball, will now go into
overdrive while leaning on the horn, to dispute this. g But it can't
be disputed. Several banks were indicted for doing the same things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html
Banks wanted to make the loans, and, when they figured out how to
offload them in fraudulent "tranches" that were mixed with some
quality loans, they went at it hell-bent. Countrywide was getting rich
on it. Meantime, the feds *were* pressuring banks to make loans that
were bad bets. There was plenty of bad faith to go around. It was a
mess that will be argued for years to come.
So now, when they say there is no problem with Social Security, what do
they really have in mind this time? I think I know. They will
confiscate private property, starting with corporate property.
There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth.
Then
they will effectively take from the value of 401k's and other savings.
When they can't possibly get enough revenue from the current year's
income, they will essentially tax past years over again. Eventually
they will move on to personal property by indirect means like imposing
property taxes comparable to charging rent. When they achieve their
goal of the state owning all property there won't be a SS problem or any
problem because they'll just pull all the strings.
What's it like, living in a world of fear-fueled paranoia? Does it
make you happy to believe all of these cockamamie myths? Do you bother
to check them out? If not, why not?
--
Ed Huntress