Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,704,258 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Not true, as to the first point (see cite by the Social Security Administration explained below), and misleading at best on the second (those 55 and younger are 75.9% of the population, and it is incorrect and misleading to use the word "only" when describing a very large majority of 3 out of 4).

Actually, today the average life expectancy is only 77.9, even if you are born today (lower if you are older than a newborn). (The 2011 Statistical Abstract: Life Expectancy) That leaves less than 11 years after retirement at 67 (as anyone born after 1960 must wait for)--not 20 years.

And while life expectancy was lower when SS was established, much of that is a result of higher infant mortality. For terms of analysis, we can ignore the infant deaths, since they do not affect the cost effectiveness of the system (the infants who died wouldn't have paid Social Security taxes at all, nor collected benefits). So the difference in life expectancy from the 1930s to now is less significant than a straight comparison of the life expectancy figures would lead us to believe.

A thorough discussion and explanation of the above is found at Life Expectancy for Social Security. The Social Security Administration itself concludes: "...the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940.

And as for "only" affecting those 55 or younger, let's be clear: that is 75.7% of the population, or 3 out of 4. The number of Americans affected is 230,272 out of 304,280 total citizens. (The Older Population in the United States: 2010 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/age/older_2010.html - broken link)) Any reduction in benefits, or increase in taxes, are a major economic hit to those who were forced into this poor excuse for a retirement plan--the mandatory tax of 15.3% of every dollar earned, no matter how poor you are, with government under NO legal obligations to provide a penny in retirement benefits in return.

I realize that demographic changes doomed this program, as should be expected in any Ponzi Scam. No way can 2.1 workers per retiree sustain Social Security, as will be the case when I retire. Even worse, the working class was destroyed in the last few decades, leaving far less workers who get paid far less than even the 2.1 workers/retiree.

But my problem is that the federal government taxed the Baby Boom for both existing beneficiaries, AND to create a Social Security Trust Fund for the Baby Boom's retirement. And as should be expected, federal politicians STOLE the Trust Fund money and spent it--all $2.6 trillion. It's gone. They should have invested the money for our future, but didn't.

Politicians in power avoid dealing with the crisis by pretending that the "securities" in the Social Security Trust Fund are not worthless IOUs. But the securities in the SS Trust Fund are "special" securities, created and labeled that way because IOU reveals that there are no assets to be tapped. Since they are connected with no investments or savings or assets, are non-negotiable, have no value, in fact are simply IOUs to raise taxes or reduce benefits, they shouldn't be called securities at all. Even the government admits it, yet people still don't want to face that once again our politicians lied and stole our tax money, leaving the benefits : "These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits." (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

For this reason I think every politician in power during the decades of annual theft of all the Trust Fund monies, should be sued in a class-action lawsuit, to recover the money stolen from their PERSONAL assets. These thieves should be in jail, and all Washington can talk about is how to further rob Americans to keep the system solvent, given the $2.6 trillion dollar loss.

I also believe that although SS is a terrible excuse for an investment, we have a fat and 100% wasteful Defense/Offense Budget that can simply be cut to pay for all the Social Security obligations. Americans get absolutely nothing in return for flooding the world with arms and foreign aid, and waging endless and pointless foreign wars that could never be won, even if we had the slightest idea what we were trying to accomplish. We certainly don't gain any security--nothing incites terrorism more than when America proves its arrogance by spewing murder and mahem across the globe. We don't even defend our own borders, yet 1/3 of the federal budget is called "Defense"?

Even I'm ashamed of America's arrogant militarism, and I'm one of the suckers enslaved to pay huge federal income taxes to pay for it all. Just once I wish the religious people would object to our tax dollars being used for mass murder of adult humans, both American and foreign, instead of worrying about the potential people who won't be born if a poor woman gets an abortion. Actual murder of a human, on a mass scale, is far more horrendous than killing a cluster of cells that can't think or have consciousness.

So use the tax dollars that would have gone to mass murder and keeping the sick and evil Military Industrial Complex in power and riches, and pay back the money stolen from those who paid Social Security taxes their whole lives.

Then let's just dissolve Social Security and simply allow tax credits for any money put into a retirement savings account. With Defense/Offense and SS/Medicare gone, the rest of the federal bloated government can be abolished and not a single honest working America will see any effect other than keeping a much bigger share of their own earnings. Since government has proven it cannot be trusted, cannot do anything right, and will grow until it destroys the economy and the nation, time to smarten up and go back to the Libertarian principles that made America great.
Pure drivel. Of course life expectancy at the terminal end has increased.

U.S. Life Expectancy Hits All-Time High - Real Time Economics - WSJ

"The report finds that life expectancy at birth rose to 78.2 year in 2009, an all-time high, based on preliminary data that includes death certificates from all 50 states, Washington DC, and the U.S. territories. That’s up from 78.0 years in 2008. For men, life expectancy rose two-tenths of a year to 75.7 years in 2009. For women, life expectancy ticked up one-tenth to 80.6 years.

To put this in perspective, life expectancy in 1930 (a few years before the Social Security system was established), was 58 for men and 62 for women, according to the Social Security Administration."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Orlando
8,274 posts, read 12,822,284 times
Reputation: 4137
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay View Post
Hope and Change, Baby! Hope and Change!!!!
This was brought on by the actions of the repugs... so why blame BO? oh silly me, I forgot that's what repugs do... blame everyone for their issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:01 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,192,049 times
Reputation: 22751
Come on, guys. Admit it. The Left would just as soon shoot anyone over 75 and get it all over with. Just come out and be honest about it. GenXers hate Boomers. Kill us all off and that solves that.

Just know - we Boomers realize this and y'all are getting nuttin' as far as inheritances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:02 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,192,049 times
Reputation: 22751
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
Don't forget to make a fabulous gown out of those expensive drapes.
Oh, I pulled the sewing machine out yesterday, when I realized my mutual funds were gonna tank. I am repurposing sheets this go round. Leaving Momma's drapes alone . . . too hot for velvet this time of year . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:05 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 10,385,909 times
Reputation: 2881
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
This was brought on by the actions of the repugs... so why blame BO? oh silly me, I forgot that's what repugs do... blame everyone for their issues.
If you have children please be sure to pass on your educated use of the word repugs when you explain to them why they are living in a third world country that used to be great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,490 posts, read 3,777,503 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Come on, guys. Admit it. The Left would just as soon shoot anyone over 75 and get it all over with. Just come out and be honest about it. GenXers hate Boomers. Kill us all off and that solves that.

Just know - we Boomers realize this and y'all are getting nuttin' as far as inheritances.

That was Cheney's plan for social security, not the lefts. As a GenXer who has paid into SS since I was 14, and now at the ripe old age of 38, I agree following your plan would save us alot of money in the long run.

It would save the Fed money anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:22 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,192,049 times
Reputation: 22751
Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
That was Cheney's plan for social security, not the lefts. As a GenXer who has paid into SS since I was 14, and now at the ripe old age of 38, I agree following your plan would save us alot of money in the long run.

It would save the Fed money anyway.
Hee Hee.

Well, I have never heard that this was Cheney's plan . . . but I assure you, my hubby and I don't trust our GenXer kids to contemplate pulling the plug on us or not . . . we know they would pull it. Our youngest is a Millenium Kid, Thank God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,171,244 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
That was Cheney's plan for social security, not the lefts. As a GenXer who has paid into SS since I was 14, and now at the ripe old age of 38, I agree following your plan would save us alot of money in the long run.

It would save the Fed money anyway.
I am 78 and have been paying SS ever since I was 12. Of course, I don't plan to die anytime real soon so you need to send in you shock troops to get rid of me. My wife has only been paying in for 39 years but will be taking out SS in a couple of years unless you people get too nasty and then we will begin sooner.

I forgot to say that I have a tiny part time job to allow me to pay my Medigap insurance without taking it from my SS check. You do know that we haven't had a COLA in two years, but they keep taking more out of our checks to pay for Medicare. That shows what Obama and crew are willing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:31 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,912,035 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
This was brought on by the actions of the repugs... so why blame BO? oh silly me, I forgot that's what repugs do... blame everyone for their issues.
Yeah, lets vote out those irresponsible GOP spenders who had $120B deficits in 2007, and replace them with Democratic ones, because we all know $1.5T isnt enough.. LETS SEE HOW HIGH WE CAN GET IT, and then Blame the GOP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,171,244 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Yeah, lets vote out those irresponsible GOP spenders who had $120B deficits in 2007, and replace them with Democratic ones, because we all know $1.5T isnt enough.. LETS SEE HOW HIGH WE CAN GET IT, and then Blame the GOP
Now you stop replying to one of THEM with facts. THEY really are overcome by facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top