The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
2.49 people are supporting 1 now.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/social-security-beneficiaries-hit-record-61859250

or http://alturl.com/q8ncq

On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:58:54 -0600, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
2.49 people are supporting 1 now.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/social-security-beneficiaries-hit-record-61859250

or http://alturl.com/q8ncq



.. demographics = fake news ?

.... wait for it .

On 2017-12-28, wrote:

... wait for it .

Wait for what? You to explain yer meaning? As if......

nb

On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

--
Snag
Ain't no dollar sign on
peace of mind - Zac Brown

Dean Hoffman writes:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high. 2.49 people are supporting 1 now.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/social-security-beneficiaries-hit-record-61859250
or http://alturl.com/q8ncq

It's not home repair, but anyone can see this is a problem that will
repair itself. People get old, they retire, then they collect SS,
then they die and don't.

--
Dan Espen

On 12/27/2017 5:58 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Â*Â* The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
2.49 people are supporting 1 now.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/social-security-beneficiaries-hit-record-61859250


Â* orÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* http://alturl.com/q8ncq

Except for the fact that the baby boomers paid double for most of their
careers to pay for themselves and their parents. They've already paid
their part. Now, their kids are paying for their own retirements.

"The fourth way the boomers may end not doing quite as well as their
parents is Social Security. The 1983 Social Security Commission
recommended a big payroll tax increase €” just as the boomers were
becoming productive members of the labor force.

The Commission recommended the tax increase to fund Social Security, but
not really for the benefit of the boomers, whose retirement was still
far off at the time. Who was it for, then? Once again, the primary
beneficiaries were the boomers' own parents.

These soon-to-be retirees had paid much lower taxes when they worked,
and then generously allowed inflation (and Congress) to crank up the
benefit levels. The solution to the resulting funding problem was simple
€” let the boomers pay. "

https://www.theglobalist.com/the-bab...e-time-losers/

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.
Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.



Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was created. And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.



--
Snag
Ain't no dollar sign on
peace of mind - Zac Brown

On 12/28/2017 12:57 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.
Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.



My 401k minimum distribution is more than my SS and I only paid into it
for maybe 10-15 years. Most of it was not in stocks but paid fixed
interest. Big government does not trust people to think for themselves
but want to inflict their bad choices on us.

On 12/27/2017 9:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb


Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

On 12/28/2017 7:31 AM, Frank wrote:
On 12/28/2017 12:57 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3
times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.
More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it
own problems.
Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on
your own.



My 401k minimum distribution is more than my SS and I only paid into it
for maybe 10-15 years.Â* Most of it was not in stocks but paid fixed
interest.Â* Big government does not trust people to think for themselves
but want to inflict their bad choices on us.

The problem some people are having with SS is they never did anything
more and figured they would retire on it. Maybe you could in 1955, but
not today. Without the 401k I'd be eating a lot less steak today.

On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/27/2017 9:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades.Â* They're jes returning what they stole!

nb


Yes, I have a problem with it.Â* There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it.Â* Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect.Â* I have a big problem with that.

Claimin' is one thing, collectin' is something else...

--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.


In other words, just a line item on the $20 trillion debt. It has not
even been a separate trust fund since LBJ put that money "on budget"
to hide some of the cost of his war. (Much like FDR allowed that money
to be taken to hide the cost of his upcoming war)
Neither told us exactly how that debt would be paid.


Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.

On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.


In other words, just a line item on the $20 trillion debt. It has not
even been a separate trust fund since LBJ put that money "on budget"
to hide some of the cost of his war.

That is just flat out wrong. SS has always been a trust fund. That
money is separate from the money for govt operations, from contributing
to the deficit either positive or negative. All that was done was to
include the SS taxes as part of overall govt money taken in and to
show the expenditures as part of govt spending in a more comprehensive
budget. It did not change the fact that it's still a trust.




(Much like FDR allowed that money
to be taken to hide the cost of his upcoming war)
Neither told us exactly how that debt would be paid.


Again, nobody "took" anything. Money is paid into the SS trust each
year in payroll taxes. Money is paid out to beneficiaries. The
excess, which has been slowly dwindling, is placed into US treasury
securities, exactly as required by the original law. The money is
there in the form of US treasury securities, which are just as legitimate,
just as valuable, as any other US security that's held by investors
all over the world. It was not "spent".




Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.

It's no more a Ponzi now than it ever was. We still have a surplus in
the trust. Nothing changed, nothing was spent on anything other than
retirees and disabled workers, etc. Sure with people living longer,
there are less people paying in for each retiree. But that's nothing
new, that problem has been addressed in the past and will have to be
addressed again.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 10:37:12 AM UTC-5, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/27/2017 9:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades.Â* They're jes returning what they stole!

nb


Yes, I have a problem with it.Â* There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it.Â* Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect.Â* I have a big problem with that.

Claimin' is one thing, collectin' is something else...

--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.

IDK, I see plenty of people on TV even, saying they are collecting SS
disability. One was on The People's Court show. In his twenties, on
SS disability, claims he has ADD. In the last recession the number
of people on it shot way up. Was there suddenly a disability plague?
Or did a lot of people decide they could cash in?

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-5, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb

So, one abuse, one fraud, now justifies another, eh?

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.


In other words, just a line item on the $20 trillion debt. It has not
even been a separate trust fund since LBJ put that money "on budget"
to hide some of the cost of his war.

That is just flat out wrong. SS has always been a trust fund. That
money is separate from the money for govt operations, from contributing
to the deficit either positive or negative. All that was done was to
include the SS taxes as part of overall govt money taken in and to
show the expenditures as part of govt spending in a more comprehensive
budget. It did not change the fact that it's still a trust.




(Much like FDR allowed that money
to be taken to hide the cost of his upcoming war)
Neither told us exactly how that debt would be paid.


Again, nobody "took" anything. Money is paid into the SS trust each
year in payroll taxes. Money is paid out to beneficiaries. The
excess, which has been slowly dwindling, is placed into US treasury
securities, exactly as required by the original law. The money is
there in the form of US treasury securities, which are just as legitimate,
just as valuable, as any other US security that's held by investors
all over the world. It was not "spent".




Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was
created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.

It's no more a Ponzi now than it ever was. We still have a surplus in
the trust. Nothing changed, nothing was spent on anything other than
retirees and disabled workers, etc. Sure with people living longer,
there are less people paying in for each retiree. But that's nothing
new, that problem has been addressed in the past and will have to be
addressed again.

Maybe you need to look at the history of SS a little. In 1939 it was
discovered that SS was accumulating a huge surplus. Some thought that
meant that the government should just cut the tax. FDR saw it another
way. He decided they should take that money and spend it on the war he
knew was coming. (lend lease at first, then real war)

They put the money into a "trust fund" but anyone who understands debt
understood that this was just the government spending the money.
In 1968 LBJ removed all doubt by putting the SS/MC money "on budget"
and actually gave Nixon a real surplus ... on paper in 1969.

The idea that loaning yourself money and then saying the interest you
pay yourself is an "investment" is ludicrous. This is just a line item
on the debt and there is no real idea of how we will repay a dime of
it. It is just an unfunded obligation laid on our kids.

You have also not explained how this is not a Ponzi. There is no real
investment component and the plan was always to pay the old with
contributions from the young. Politics would not allow congress to
adjust the benefit age to accurately reflect the demographics so the
whole program is doomed without serious cuts in benefits or much
higher FICA taxes. Neither are politically viable.
The scary thing is how many boomers "maxed" out their FICA so they
will get the max benefit when they collect. That is over $25000 a
year. The 2.4 workers. That is over $10,000 per worker (including both
sides) and the average worker ($50k a year) + employer pays more like
$6,000. Since the FICA and the general fund are less than it takes to
meet the obligations, current benefits add to the debt. Nothing
actually comes from any trust fund.

THAT is what makes this a Ponzi.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

On 12/28/2017 11:16 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb


Different altogether. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, nor am I
in favor of scamming SS with alleged disability. Leave that alone and
the real retired people can get what is due.

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

On 12/28/2017 12:33 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 10:37:12 AM UTC-5, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/27/2017 9:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.

You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades.Â* They're jes returning what they stole!

nb


Yes, I have a problem with it.Â* There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it.Â* Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect.Â* I have a big problem with that.

Claimin' is one thing, collectin' is something else...

--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.

IDK, I see plenty of people on TV even, saying they are collecting SS
disability. One was on The People's Court show. In his twenties, on
SS disability, claims he has ADD. In the last recession the number
of people on it shot way up. Was there suddenly a disability plague?
Or did a lot of people decide they could cash in?


The lawyers advertising on TV will help you get what they claim you
"deserve" Just visit a SS office and see who is there looking for
benefits. Very few are retirement age.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 1:09:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.


In other words, just a line item on the $20 trillion debt. It has not
even been a separate trust fund since LBJ put that money "on budget"
to hide some of the cost of his war.

That is just flat out wrong. SS has always been a trust fund. That
money is separate from the money for govt operations, from contributing
to the deficit either positive or negative. All that was done was to
include the SS taxes as part of overall govt money taken in and to
show the expenditures as part of govt spending in a more comprehensive
budget. It did not change the fact that it's still a trust.




(Much like FDR allowed that money
to be taken to hide the cost of his upcoming war)
Neither told us exactly how that debt would be paid.


Again, nobody "took" anything. Money is paid into the SS trust each
year in payroll taxes. Money is paid out to beneficiaries. The
excess, which has been slowly dwindling, is placed into US treasury
securities, exactly as required by the original law. The money is
there in the form of US treasury securities, which are just as legitimate,
just as valuable, as any other US security that's held by investors
all over the world. It was not "spent".




Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was
created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.

It's no more a Ponzi now than it ever was. We still have a surplus in
the trust. Nothing changed, nothing was spent on anything other than
retirees and disabled workers, etc. Sure with people living longer,
there are less people paying in for each retiree. But that's nothing
new, that problem has been addressed in the past and will have to be
addressed again.

Maybe you need to look at the history of SS a little. In 1939 it was
discovered that SS was accumulating a huge surplus. Some thought that
meant that the government should just cut the tax. FDR saw it another
way. He decided they should take that money and spend it on the war he
knew was coming. (lend lease at first, then real war)

They put the money into a "trust fund" but anyone who understands debt
understood that this was just the government spending the money.

IT most certainly is not spending the money. It's in US govt securities.
You keep complaining that they should have put it in equities. If they
put it in equities, instead of govt bonds, would that be spending it?
If they handed it to a wall street balanced fund, and that fund put half
of it in govt securities, would that be "spending it"?




In 1968 LBJ removed all doubt by putting the SS/MC money "on budget"
and actually gave Nixon a real surplus ... on paper in 1969.

No doubt was removed, there never was any doubt. Again, all that was
showing it as a govt expenditure even though it is entirely separate
in a TRUST FUND. It doesn't add to or subtract from the deficit.
All it did was better reflect the flow of money. SS is collecting taxes
too you know. So, they included those taxes in revenue and showed the
payments as part of govt spending, which it always has been. Zero
changed. Changing it would require a law, there is no law that undid
the trust fund.





The idea that loaning yourself money and then saying the interest you
pay yourself is an "investment" is ludicrous. This is just a line item
on the debt and there is no real idea of how we will repay a dime of
it. It is just an unfunded obligation laid on our kids.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that those treasury
securites have the value that's attributed to them. Treasuries trade
around the world every day, are bought and sold as one of the safest
investments in the world. If we keep adding to the national debt,
that could change. But that doesn't meant that the trust is bogus,
the money has been taken, etc.




You have also not explained how this is not a Ponzi. There is no real
investment component and the plan was always to pay the old with
contributions from the young. Politics would not allow congress to
adjust the benefit age to accurately reflect the demographics

The age has been adjusted several times as well as other components.
Taxes into the fund have been raised before. We'll have to do similar
again. A true Ponzi scheme is one where investors are promised some
crazy return for an investment. The early investors get the return
those coming later get nothing. SS has and can continue to be kept
solvent with some more modest adjustments. And unlike a Ponzi, no one
every said SS was anything other than what it was.





so the
whole program is doomed without serious cuts in benefits or much
higher FICA taxes. Neither are politically viable.
The scary thing is how many boomers "maxed" out their FICA so they
will get the max benefit when they collect. That is over $25000 a
year. The 2.4 workers. That is over $10,000 per worker (including both
sides) and the average worker ($50k a year) + employer pays more like
$6,000. Since the FICA and the general fund are less than it takes to
meet the obligations, current benefits add to the debt. Nothing
actually comes from any trust fund.

That's another thing that is simply not true.
Of course it's coming from the trust fund. As I said earlier, it's
being slowly drawn down, those govt securities converted to cash,
which goes out to pay the benefits. The incoming new taxes, plus
the trust fund are being used to pay the benefits. Right now, it's on
track to be
depleted in 2037, unless more changes are made to extend it.
Fortunately we still have plenty of time to do that.




THAT is what makes this a Ponzi.

Show us a Ponzi that's lasted 80 years and is on track to last at least
another 20.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:28:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 1:09:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:27 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The number of people receiving some sort of SS benefit hit a record
high.
You gotta problem with that!?

I paid into it fer decades. They're jes returning what they stole!

nb

Â* Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes .

That is untrue, no one stole it. By law, the ss surplus was to be in a trust invested in us treasury securities and it always has been.


In other words, just a line item on the $20 trillion debt. It has not
even been a separate trust fund since LBJ put that money "on budget"
to hide some of the cost of his war.

That is just flat out wrong. SS has always been a trust fund. That
money is separate from the money for govt operations, from contributing
to the deficit either positive or negative. All that was done was to
include the SS taxes as part of overall govt money taken in and to
show the expenditures as part of govt spending in a more comprehensive
budget. It did not change the fact that it's still a trust.




(Much like FDR allowed that money
to be taken to hide the cost of his upcoming war)
Neither told us exactly how that debt would be paid.


Again, nobody "took" anything. Money is paid into the SS trust each
year in payroll taxes. Money is paid out to beneficiaries. The
excess, which has been slowly dwindling, is placed into US treasury
securities, exactly as required by the original law. The money is
there in the form of US treasury securities, which are just as legitimate,
just as valuable, as any other US security that's held by investors
all over the world. It was not "spent".




Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .



That's true, but that is very different from saying it wasn't invested, was stolen, etc. It was invested exactly as the original law required. And remember that while you and most people today realize equities are a better vehicle, people sure were not going to stand for that in the depths of the depression, when ss was
created.
And the main point, the promise, the plan was never one based on investment to begin with.


It was originally a pay as you go plan but demographics scuttled that
idea by the 60s when the boomer problem became apparent. Goldwater
tried to warn us in time to actually do something about it and was
roundly criticized about it.
Now it is just a Ponzi and the pyramid has already flattened out. When
the top of a pyramid is only 2.4x the base there is no point to it.

It's no more a Ponzi now than it ever was. We still have a surplus in
the trust. Nothing changed, nothing was spent on anything other than
retirees and disabled workers, etc. Sure with people living longer,
there are less people paying in for each retiree. But that's nothing
new, that problem has been addressed in the past and will have to be
addressed again.

Maybe you need to look at the history of SS a little. In 1939 it was
discovered that SS was accumulating a huge surplus. Some thought that
meant that the government should just cut the tax. FDR saw it another
way. He decided they should take that money and spend it on the war he
knew was coming. (lend lease at first, then real war)

They put the money into a "trust fund" but anyone who understands debt
understood that this was just the government spending the money.

IT most certainly is not spending the money. It's in US govt securities.
You keep complaining that they should have put it in equities. If they
put it in equities, instead of govt bonds, would that be spending it?
If they handed it to a wall street balanced fund, and that fund put half
of it in govt securities, would that be "spending it"?

You are just falling for the lie. The government certainly spends the
money, as soon as it comes in. The idea that they put an IOU in the
box does not change that. "Government securities" is just a polite
term for dumping debt on our children.
You still have not said where the money comes from to pay the current
deficit.
The reality is now, the government has no surplus to spend and not
even enough revenue to cover expenses so the difference is simply
borrowed. (so much for the lie that SS is not adding to the debt)



In 1968 LBJ removed all doubt by putting the SS/MC money "on budget"
and actually gave Nixon a real surplus ... on paper in 1969.

No doubt was removed, there never was any doubt. Again, all that was
showing it as a govt expenditure even though it is entirely separate
in a TRUST FUND. It doesn't add to or subtract from the deficit.
All it did was better reflect the flow of money. SS is collecting taxes
too you know. So, they included those taxes in revenue and showed the
payments as part of govt spending, which it always has been. Zero
changed. Changing it would require a law, there is no law that undid
the trust fund.

They just admitted SS is welfare for the old at the expense of the
young since there is no separation between the FICA money and the
general revenue..

The idea that loaning yourself money and then saying the interest you
pay yourself is an "investment" is ludicrous. This is just a line item
on the debt and there is no real idea of how we will repay a dime of
it. It is just an unfunded obligation laid on our kids.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that those treasury
securites have the value that's attributed to them. Treasuries trade
around the world every day, are bought and sold as one of the safest
investments in the world. If we keep adding to the national debt,
that could change. But that doesn't meant that the trust is bogus,
the money has been taken, etc.

The only value in government paper is the ability and willingness for
the American tax payer to pay taxes and as we just found out, that is
pretty low.






You have also not explained how this is not a Ponzi. There is no real
investment component and the plan was always to pay the old with
contributions from the young. Politics would not allow congress to
adjust the benefit age to accurately reflect the demographics

The age has been adjusted several times as well as other components.
Taxes into the fund have been raised before. We'll have to do similar
again. A true Ponzi scheme is one where investors are promised some
crazy return for an investment. The early investors get the return
those coming later get nothing. SS has and can continue to be kept
solvent with some more modest adjustments. And unlike a Ponzi, no one
every said SS was anything other than what it was.

The age was adjusted by about 18 months and the life expectancy since
1935 has increased about 15-16 years.
That is nothing significant at all.






so the
whole program is doomed without serious cuts in benefits or much
higher FICA taxes. Neither are politically viable.
The scary thing is how many boomers "maxed" out their FICA so they
will get the max benefit when they collect. That is over $25000 a
year. The 2.4 workers. That is over $10,000 per worker (including both
sides) and the average worker ($50k a year) + employer pays more like
$6,000. Since the FICA and the general fund are less than it takes to
meet the obligations, current benefits add to the debt. Nothing
actually comes from any trust fund.

That's another thing that is simply not true.
Of course it's coming from the trust fund. As I said earlier, it's
being slowly drawn down, those govt securities converted to cash,
which goes out to pay the benefits. The incoming new taxes, plus
the trust fund are being used to pay the benefits. Right now, it's on
track to be
depleted in 2037, unless more changes are made to extend it.
Fortunately we still have plenty of time to do that.

You are using old data. It is not 2037 anymore but there IS no trust
fund., It is just more debt.
They are just using bookkeeping tricks to say they are transferring
the old "trust fund debt" to new debt but it is still all on the $20
trillion we owe and have no way to pay back.






THAT is what makes this a Ponzi.

Show us a Ponzi that's lasted 80 years and is on track to last at least
another 20.

All Ponzis last until income no longer covers outflow. That happened
well over a decade ago for MC and several years ago for SS. We are
just waiting until our bonds stop selling at an interest rate we can
cover. That already happened a few years agop and the bond market was
bailed out by the federal reserve to the tune of $4.5 trillion.
How long can we sustain that before the dollar becomes the Weimar
Mark?

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:13:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:03:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:13:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:20:59 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:03:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:13:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%
Assuming you live long enough, you'll get all that back no matter it was expensed.
Unlike other expenses, such as executive salaries and perks.
Hell, I expensed new suits and the cleaning and starching of my shirts.
Nobody but the haberdasher and cleaners saw any of that money.
But it came out of laborers wages.
Small change since I wasn't an exec. They ride a real gravy train.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:


You are just falling for the lie. The government certainly spends the
money, as soon as it comes in.

First the vast majority of the money coming in today and that has come
over the years, has immediately gone right out as benefits paid. Only
a small percentage is excess that goes into the trust fund. Second,
let's say that instead of the trust fund being invested only in govt
securities, as has been required from day one, it was required to be put
into US corp bonds. So, the excess is used to buy 100 mil worth of
Ford bonds. What does Ford do with the money? They spend it. So, now
is the whole thing not a trust, just a fake, fraud, etc? Same thing
if they put it into equities. What does the seller of the equities do
with the money? Who knows. Some of it is spent, that's for sure.





The idea that they put an IOU in the
box does not change that.

As per above, the "IOU" could be a stock certificate, a corp bond,
etc. The fact that it's a US govt security, doesn't make it somehow
suddenly worthless. You believe US bonds are worthless, highly risky.
You're entitled to your opinion. But that isn't the opinion of investors
around the world. US govt securities are traded in huge volume, around
the world, every day. And the prices they are trading at is the judgement
of investors that they are among the safest investments in the world.
Could that change someday? Sure. But that doesn't make SS a fraud,
fake, mean that it's not a trust, that something changed along the way.
The fact is, it's always been a trust with the money invested in US
treasury securities.



"Government securities" is just a polite
term for dumping debt on our children.

I see, so you're against govt having any debt, that's the real issue.
And note that what was done with SS, has nothing to do with the govt
running deficits and having debt. If the SS trust was not holding
those US bonds there are plenty of investors around the world ready,
willing and able to hold them instead.




You still have not said where the money comes from to pay the current
deficit.
The reality is now, the government has no surplus to spend and not
even enough revenue to cover expenses so the difference is simply
borrowed. (so much for the lie that SS is not adding to the debt)


I didn't say because you didn't ask and I assumed you knew. The
deficit is financed by the Treasury selling US govt securities.




In 1968 LBJ removed all doubt by putting the SS/MC money "on budget"
and actually gave Nixon a real surplus ... on paper in 1969.

No doubt was removed, there never was any doubt. Again, all that was
showing it as a govt expenditure even though it is entirely separate
in a TRUST FUND. It doesn't add to or subtract from the deficit.
All it did was better reflect the flow of money. SS is collecting taxes
too you know. So, they included those taxes in revenue and showed the
payments as part of govt spending, which it always has been. Zero
changed. Changing it would require a law, there is no law that undid
the trust fund.

They just admitted SS is welfare for the old at the expense of the
young since there is no separation between the FICA money and the
general revenue..

Untrue.






The idea that loaning yourself money and then saying the interest you
pay yourself is an "investment" is ludicrous. This is just a line item
on the debt and there is no real idea of how we will repay a dime of
it. It is just an unfunded obligation laid on our kids.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that those treasury
securites have the value that's attributed to them. Treasuries trade
around the world every day, are bought and sold as one of the safest
investments in the world. If we keep adding to the national debt,
that could change. But that doesn't meant that the trust is bogus,
the money has been taken, etc.

The only value in government paper is the ability and willingness for
the American tax payer to pay taxes and as we just found out, that is
pretty low.


That may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of the world bond
markets, of the people and govts that actual hold them.








You have also not explained how this is not a Ponzi. There is no real
investment component and the plan was always to pay the old with
contributions from the young. Politics would not allow congress to
adjust the benefit age to accurately reflect the demographics

The age has been adjusted several times as well as other components.
Taxes into the fund have been raised before. We'll have to do similar
again. A true Ponzi scheme is one where investors are promised some
crazy return for an investment. The early investors get the return
those coming later get nothing. SS has and can continue to be kept
solvent with some more modest adjustments. And unlike a Ponzi, no one
every said SS was anything other than what it was.

The age was adjusted by about 18 months and the life expectancy since
1935 has increased about 15-16 years.
That is nothing significant at all.


I haven't looked at the actuarial data. I do know that there is
sufficient money there to pay all the benefits for the next 20
years. Before that time more adjustments will have to be made.
People like you were screaming the end was at hand decades ago,
before each of the previous adjustments were made. And starting
in a few years, the trust fund will be slowly going down. Those
US Bonds will be converted to cash, again, because they have
their full value.








so the
whole program is doomed without serious cuts in benefits or much
higher FICA taxes. Neither are politically viable.
The scary thing is how many boomers "maxed" out their FICA so they
will get the max benefit when they collect. That is over $25000 a
year. The 2.4 workers. That is over $10,000 per worker (including both
sides) and the average worker ($50k a year) + employer pays more like
$6,000. Since the FICA and the general fund are less than it takes to
meet the obligations, current benefits add to the debt. Nothing
actually comes from any trust fund.

That's another thing that is simply not true.
Of course it's coming from the trust fund. As I said earlier, it's
being slowly drawn down, those govt securities converted to cash,
which goes out to pay the benefits. The incoming new taxes, plus
the trust fund are being used to pay the benefits. Right now, it's on
track to be
depleted in 2037, unless more changes are made to extend it.
Fortunately we still have plenty of time to do that.

You are using old data. It is not 2037 anymore but there IS no trust
fund., It is just more debt.

It's always been a trust fund, since day one. It never changed. If
that money went into Ford stock, would it be a trust then? If some
of the money was put into Ford bonds, would it be a trust then?
What does Ford do with it's bond money? It spends it. Does that make
it a fraud? Not a trust?



They are just using bookkeeping tricks to say they are transferring
the old "trust fund debt" to new debt but it is still all on the $20
trillion we owe and have no way to pay back.


There is no old trust fund debt vs new trust fund debt. Again, per
the original SS law, the funds had to be invested 100% in US govt
securities. They always have been.









THAT is what makes this a Ponzi.

Show us a Ponzi that's lasted 80 years and is on track to last at least
another 20.

All Ponzis last until income no longer covers outflow. That happened
well over a decade ago for MC and several years ago for SS. We are
just waiting until our bonds stop selling at an interest rate we can
cover. That already happened a few years agop and the bond market was
bailed out by the federal reserve to the tune of $4.5 trillion.
How long can we sustain that before the dollar becomes the Weimar
Mark?

It didn't stop, the trust fund is still growing. It won't start to be
drawn down until 2019. According to you, that will be the end of the
world, because the US govt securities are really worthless.

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2017 11:16 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb


Different altogether. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, nor am I
in favor of scamming SS with alleged disability. Leave that alone and
the real retired people can get what is due.

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

I watched Judge Judy yesterday. They had some skunk on there suing a
customer for unpaid bath renovation work. Turns out he had a public
works job, is out on medical disability, is collecting SS disability,
and I think pension too.
She quizzed him first on what kind of work he does, whether he does it
alone, etc. He said alone and he does siding, renovation, etc. Ain't
that nice? He looked about 45 or 50, fit, to me. You'd think they
would go after these shysters. If you can run a home improvement
business, including doing the work yourself, you're certainly capable
of holding down a job instead of collect SS disability. In the last
recession, the number of people collecting like that shot way up.
Sudden mass illness or fraud?

On 12/29/17 9:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2017 11:16 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb


Different altogether. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, nor am I
in favor of scamming SS with alleged disability. Leave that alone and
the real retired people can get what is due.

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

I watched Judge Judy yesterday. They had some skunk on there suing a
customer for unpaid bath renovation work. Turns out he had a public
works job, is out on medical disability, is collecting SS disability,
and I think pension too.
She quizzed him first on what kind of work he does, whether he does it
alone, etc. He said alone and he does siding, renovation, etc. Ain't
that nice? He looked about 45 or 50, fit, to me. You'd think they
would go after these shysters. If you can run a home improvement
business, including doing the work yourself, you're certainly capable
of holding down a job instead of collect SS disability. In the last
recession, the number of people collecting like that shot way up.
Sudden mass illness or fraud?

If you engage in what Social Security calls "substantial gainful
activity" (which is what the rest of us call work), by their definition
and regulation, you're not disabled and thus are not entitled to swill
at the public trough.

--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-5, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 12/29/17 9:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2017 11:16 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I have a problem with it. There are far more than retirees
collecting the money we paid into it. Some 30 year old stubbed a toe
and claims disability to collect. I have a big problem with that.

Izzat like my last company? They made so much money during the
dot-com bubble, I was able to retire at age 53 (I was jes a tech), yet
our govt (DARPA) jes hadda hand 'em 75 million dollars, one year. Our
company was NOT even involved with any "Defense" projects. I think the
term is, "corporate welfare". Kinda like that huge "bailout" to our
slimy banking system. And you wanna blame it on some guy that
"stubbed a toe"?

Whatever works, for you, Ed.

nb


Different altogether. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, nor am I
in favor of scamming SS with alleged disability. Leave that alone and
the real retired people can get what is due.

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

I watched Judge Judy yesterday. They had some skunk on there suing a
customer for unpaid bath renovation work. Turns out he had a public
works job, is out on medical disability, is collecting SS disability,
and I think pension too.
She quizzed him first on what kind of work he does, whether he does it
alone, etc. He said alone and he does siding, renovation, etc. Ain't
that nice? He looked about 45 or 50, fit, to me. You'd think they
would go after these shysters. If you can run a home improvement
business, including doing the work yourself, you're certainly capable
of holding down a job instead of collect SS disability. In the last
recession, the number of people collecting like that shot way up.
Sudden mass illness or fraud?

If you engage in what Social Security calls "substantial gainful
activity" (which is what the rest of us call work), by their definition
and regulation, you're not disabled and thus are not entitled to swill
at the public trough.


Yep, which is why I said you'd think the govt would go after these
frauds. That home renovator, when Judy had him on the grill, said
something about $765 a month or something. I think he was saying
that as long as that's all you make, it's allowed. That's kind of
a second problem. The first problem is people going on the disability
when they really could do some reasonable job. For example, just
because you have a bad back, doesn't mean in all cases that you can't
perform some kind of job.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:55:44 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:20:59 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:03:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:13:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%
Assuming you live long enough, you'll get all that back no matter it was expensed.
Unlike other expenses, such as executive salaries and perks.
Hell, I expensed new suits and the cleaning and starching of my shirts.
Nobody but the haberdasher and cleaners saw any of that money.
But it came out of laborers wages.
Small change since I wasn't an exec. They ride a real gravy train.


The exact percentage taken is not important. The relevant thing is
that money was immediately spent and an IOU was put in the box. Any
surplus from the FICA tax is gone forever. It is just another line on
a debt the government can never pay off. These days they are just
borrowing more money to cover the payments on the money they borrowed
before. How long can that last?
As for what the boomers or anyone actually paid in, that was paid back
in about 5 years if you start collecting at 62. It is faster if you
wait longer because you get more. Since I actually retired at 49, in
1996, I did not actually pay much because the cap was so low. The
"max" for years 66-96 totals about $100k, both sides. Collecting at
age 64, I got that back in a little over 4 years.
They raised the cap, simply to try to stave off the plan going upside
down and it held off the inevitable for about 5 years but it is broke
now, spending more than it takes in and borrowing to cover the
deficit. The SS alone would have to clip the average worker about $10k
a year to make the plan solvent and the real number is closer to $5.5k
based on the average salary being 44,148 a year. (BLS)
I suppose we could raise the cap more to make people feel better but
since that will only affect the top 10% that hit the cap now I am not
sure how high it would have to go to cover the deficit. Medicare is
not capped at all and it is in worse shape than SS going upside down
sooner and having more trouble.

On 2017-12-28, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Just because one slimeball corporation gets a freebie does not make it
OK for others to cheat.

Yet, they do it, constantly!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailou...lated_programs

I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

nb

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 06:35:43 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:


You are just falling for the lie. The government certainly spends the
money, as soon as it comes in.

First the vast majority of the money coming in today and that has come
over the years, has immediately gone right out as benefits paid. Only
a small percentage is excess that goes into the trust fund. Second,
let's say that instead of the trust fund being invested only in govt
securities, as has been required from day one, it was required to be put
into US corp bonds. So, the excess is used to buy 100 mil worth of
Ford bonds. What does Ford do with the money? They spend it. So, now
is the whole thing not a trust, just a fake, fraud, etc? Same thing
if they put it into equities. What does the seller of the equities do
with the money? Who knows. Some of it is spent, that's for sure.

The difference is Ford makes a profit that they can pay us back from.
The government has not made a "profit" (collected more than it spent)
since the Eisenhower administration.

Nuff said about the "investment" bull****

No doubt was removed, there never was any doubt. Again, all that was
showing it as a govt expenditure even though it is entirely separate
in a TRUST FUND. It doesn't add to or subtract from the deficit.
All it did was better reflect the flow of money. SS is collecting taxes
too you know. So, they included those taxes in revenue and showed the
payments as part of govt spending, which it always has been. Zero
changed. Changing it would require a law, there is no law that undid
the trust fund.

They just admitted SS is welfare for the old at the expense of the
young since there is no separation between the FICA money and the
general revenue..

Untrue.

Why not. When you take general fund revenue and give it away, it is
welfare



The idea that loaning yourself money and then saying the interest you
pay yourself is an "investment" is ludicrous. This is just a line item
on the debt and there is no real idea of how we will repay a dime of
it. It is just an unfunded obligation laid on our kids.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that those treasury
securites have the value that's attributed to them. Treasuries trade
around the world every day, are bought and sold as one of the safest
investments in the world. If we keep adding to the national debt,
that could change. But that doesn't meant that the trust is bogus,
the money has been taken, etc.

The only value in government paper is the ability and willingness for
the American tax payer to pay taxes and as we just found out, that is
pretty low.


That may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of the world bond
markets, of the people and govts that actual hold them.

That is simply because we have never defaulted in the past but that is
the past. SS and similar unfunded entitlements is an unprecedented
situation and who knows what the future may bring. The dollar still
survives because it is the biggest, not necessarily the strongest.


I haven't looked at the actuarial data. I do know that there is
sufficient money there to pay all the benefits for the next 20
years. Before that time more adjustments will have to be made.
People like you were screaming the end was at hand decades ago,
before each of the previous adjustments were made. And starting
in a few years, the trust fund will be slowly going down. Those
US Bonds will be converted to cash, again, because they have
their full value.

Money WHERE? There is no money there. It is simply a future ability to
collect taxes and we can't even collect enough tax revenue to pay our
bills now.

All Ponzis last until income no longer covers outflow. That happened
well over a decade ago for MC and several years ago for SS. We are
just waiting until our bonds stop selling at an interest rate we can
cover. That already happened a few years agop and the bond market was
bailed out by the federal reserve to the tune of $4.5 trillion.
How long can we sustain that before the dollar becomes the Weimar
Mark?

It didn't stop, the trust fund is still growing. It won't start to be
drawn down until 2019. According to you, that will be the end of the
world, because the US govt securities are really worthless.

The trust fund is NOT growing. SS runs at a deficit. Any "growth" is
simply a bookkeeping trick paying ourselves interest on money that is
not there.
Go back to the top of this note and read what I wrote about the
difference between a Ford bond and a US bond. Ford pays you back based
on profits. The US pays you back based on selling more bonds. That is
a Ponzi.

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 11:04:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:55:44 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:20:59 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:03:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:13:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:47:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:06:10 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:57:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:09:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:36:37 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Ed Zachary ! That money was supposed to be in a trust and invested
for our retirement . Instead the ****in' politicians stole it to buy
votes . Had that money I paid in been invested in something that had a
return similar to what I invested on my own I'd be getting about 3 times
what I draw from SS .

That is true. If my SS money had been put into the stocks of the dow I
would have about 2.5 million bucks and If I had the dividends
reinvested it would be more like 3.5 - 4 million depending on the
stock mix.

More likely the entire stock market industry would be entirely different.
Boom and bust, panic, vast corruption. Public revolts, lynch mobs.
Maybe we'd have a different form of government by now.
Probably would be lucky to get a dime back.
Unless the government was running the stock markets, which presents it own problems.

There are other investments, I just used that as an example. Besides,
having that much pension money in the market would tend to stabilize
it since most would actually be in funds.
I will agree that we might face the same fate as SS since the boomers
will be pulling that money out, never to return but that may still be
a problem when the wave hits the 401k money.

Besides, nobody stopped you from investing a similar percentage on your own.

I did. That is why I could afford to retire at 49.

Hey, too bad you have to settle for a paltry 2.5-4 million, huh?
Is this country ****ed up, or what?

I did not start saving early enough to get all of that money because
Sammy took his 13% off the top and I did not have enough income to
match that for a number of years. The money I was saving, I used to
buy big ticket items without having to borrow. The last time I
borrowed any money was in the Ford administration.

Probably more like 7% when you started paying in.

Six point 4 percent on my pay stub and another 6.4% of my labor, that
my employer got to write off as a business expense. (plus MC)
You pay both sides of that FICA tax as part of your compensation, the
employer just gets credit saying he paid for half of it.
When they are budgeting the value/cost of your labor, it is all in
there.

7.25% was the total when you started paying in, assuming 1964.
3.625% from you, and 3.625% from your employer.
It hit 6.2 each in 1990 where it remains. Never hit 6.4%
Assuming you live long enough, you'll get all that back no matter it was expensed.
Unlike other expenses, such as executive salaries and perks.
Hell, I expensed new suits and the cleaning and starching of my shirts.
Nobody but the haberdasher and cleaners saw any of that money.
But it came out of laborers wages.
Small change since I wasn't an exec. They ride a real gravy train.


The exact percentage taken is not important. The relevant thing is
that money was immediately spent and an IOU was put in the box.

What happens if instead of putting the excess into US treasuries,
they put the excess into a new issue of Ford corporate bonds?
Ford gets the money, spends it, an IOU gets put in the box.
What happens if it was stock? It's always an IOU of some kind.
The original SS law said that it had to be US treasuries, which
were and still are, one of the safest investment vehicles in the
world. You may not believe it, but markets worldwide, set by
real investors, believe it. I agree if we continue adding to the
national debt, there will come a day when the ability to pay comes
into doubt, but so far we aren't there and there is time to fix it.
Though sadly, I sure don't see any sign that either party is serious
about doing it.

notbob wrote:


I'd actually forgotten all the bailouts we've seen. Now The Orange
One is attempting to "bailout" his donors with his tax plan.

Not just his "donors", don't forget all of his mar a lago customers /
members, himself, his heirs and of course all of the foreign investors
who stand to save a fortune in taxes.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:23:09 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 11:04:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:

The exact percentage taken is not important. The relevant thing is
that money was immediately spent and an IOU was put in the box.

What happens if instead of putting the excess into US treasuries,
they put the excess into a new issue of Ford corporate bonds?
Ford gets the money, spends it, an IOU gets put in the box.
What happens if it was stock? It's always an IOU of some kind.

We just did this but the important difference is Ford makes the money
to pay back those bonds.

Who would buy bonds in a company that has not shown a profit in 63
years? In fact that company would be a distant memory.