Graphs that should make you sick to your stomach (supporters, vote, Republican)

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

No, the person today will collect less than they contributed.
The boomer generation is the first generation to have paid into the SS system since the day they started working.

Your SS payment is based on what you contributed over your working years.
It's not a fixed "$20K per year" for everyone.

You seem very misinformed about SS.

It was an example genius. But you knew that and tried to ignore what I wrote anyway. Keep defending your worthless ponzi scheme, then blame "the rich" when it finally collapses.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I wonder why we never see a liberal who is upset at the federal financial picture?

You don't? Have any proof to back up this claim, or are you just ASSuming things? I don't know the political persuasion of everyone in this thread, but I'm fairly liberal and not happy about our financial situation... why would you think otherwise?

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by le roi

This comes from the Heritage foundation, of course I don't care about it. They are a propaganda outfit.

Yeah, that too... maybe, AeroGuy, liberals are just better at spotting propaganda?

[the_windwalker]

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

They paid for? Is that what you really think? If that is the case then SS should be rolling in the cash, as it is a one for one pay out, right? More like Person X contributes $1000 a year on average, then turns around and collects $20,000 a year as payout. That is the problem. It is and always was a ponzi scheme that relies on about a 10 to 1 payee to payout sustain itself. We're approaching a 3 to 1 ratio now, which is why it will collapse.

I sure don't know where you get your information, but I would like to...

If a person pays in $1,000 a year, and does so for 45 years, that comes out to $45,000 in a lifetime. (Actually, it's a bit higher than that. $66,000+ would be more accurate.) When that person retires, he/she may get $2,000 a month (Although, the monthly benefits come out to something less than that. I'm getting less than $1,500/month my retirement ). Social Security's own website states, in black and white, that the "average retiree" only collects for a total of 18 months. That comes out to an average of $36,000 in retirement benefits for one person (or less. In 18 months, I will collect less than $25,000). This suggests that on the average, retirees do not get back out what they've already put into the system.

What I'd like to see is an accurate accounting of the ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, because when you figure in those that die before they have a chance to retire, it means people have been paying into the system that will never see any benefits from it. Where is the rest going???????

Someone is lining their pockets, and it's not the retirees. On the average, they're getting back about half of what they've already paid in. When you multiply that by the working population of the country, it quickly adds up to billions of dollars that are going... WHERE???????

I really wish you young folks would get some facts straight before you go off half-cocked and spout a bunch of fictional facts like they are gospel.

[Mac_Muz]

Originally Posted by derosterreich

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Info...hart5_600.ashx
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Imag...600&h=516&as=1

It should, but it doesn't. There is no sense of ethics, or morals any more in the USA.

There won't be a problem until the Govt has raped all the tax payers and has no more to take.

On that day there will be a living hell no one will be able to deal with. By the end of that day no stores will have stock on the shelve or any windows for that matter.

This is what the federal Govt has raised.....

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by derosterreich

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Info...hart5_600.ashx
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Imag...600&h=516&as=1

I feel quite well, thank you.

The first graph doesn't explain why having so much debt is going to kill us. I guess we're supposed to think that 36.6% is good and 89.7% is bad, but why is that so?

The second graph is skewed because it shows percentages and not actual numbers. You could eliminate a lot of spending and keep entitlements the same, and the percentage of entitlements would go up drastically. I see huge cuts in defense, which is probably pretty sensible seeing that ideally our government should be reducing the amount of armed conflict / war that we're involved in, and only cutting defense spending would make percentages of everything else go up while technically reducing spending.

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I wonder why we never see a liberal who is upset at the federal financial picture?

I'ts quite the anomaly, isn't it?

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

But the maneuver I referred to, was even worse.

The govt has been taking in payments from taxpayers, to put into various Federal "trust funds" such as a the Social Security "trust fund".

And when they take those payments in, they count them as "Receipts", and put them in the "Receipts" column.

But then they immediately turn around and "borrow" them back out, put them in the General Fund, and spend them on everything from Defense to Medicare to OSHA to EPA to Obamaphones. And when they "borrow" them back out this way, they count them as "Receipts" again!"

The books are being carefully cooked in this way. Any private company or corporation who did this, would immediately be charged with fraud, and their financial people thrown in jail for a very long time. But not the government itself.

Every administration since FDR has been doing this. It's the reason the National Debt goes up even when the govt claims to be running a "surplus". They are actually taking in less than they pretend to be, while spending goes through the roof.

Yes they have and it's been bipartisan.. The substantial increases to Payroll Taxes imposed during the Reagan years was sold as an attempt to correct this. Once sold, Reagan spent it no different than Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 till there was nothing left. Only thing they did not spend it on was " Obama phones". That's a use tax on your phone bill that been around for decades.

The debt ceiling has been raised for the past 50 consecutive years. All presidential admins, Congress and Senate have taken an active part in repeatedly voting for and raising the national debt ceiling and kicking the can.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Conservative citizens (not elected officials) have always been on the right side of this argument. We have been clamoring for years trying to get America on board with fiscal sanity through balanced budgets. BUT, Liberals have told us time and again that the government budget should not be ran like a household budget. Because there are so many people who feed off the government trough, the liberal argument wins every time.

So how is it that anyone, anywhere can give liberals any sort of credibility in the fical discussions in this nation? How many times have we been told to keep our hands off your government programs, Dems? Meanwhile, we spend our way into oblivion.

This is why liberalism has no credibility. We can NEVER expect a liberal to come forth and proclaim that it's time to get our fiscal house in order. Too many votes from the leeches are at stake.

If this was a simple liberal vs. conservative issue it contradicts the almost past 20 years where Republicans have dominated the house and senate, most years. We as a nation have a problem with saying no and it has nothing to do with party.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

The substantial increases to Payroll Taxes imposed during the Reagan years was sold as an attempt to correct this.

You just can't stop repeating lies can you?

How sad is that?

Do you get off on intentionally trying to harm people by misleading them?

I direct your attention to

112th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 112-102
THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS
INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS

Appendices

Page 152

Table VI.A3.— Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 1957-2011

Year . . . Net Loss......Trust Fund
1975 . . -$1.5 Billion $44.3 Billion
1976 . . -$3.2 Billion $41.1 Billion
1977 . . -$5.3 Billion $35.9 Billion
1978 . . -$4.1 Billion $31.7 Billion
1979 . . -$1.5 Billion $30.3 Billion
1980 . . -$3.8 Billion $26.5 Billion
1981 . . -$1.9 Billion $24.5 Billion
1982 . . .$0.2 Billion $24.8 Billion
1983 . . .$0.1 Billion $24.9 Billion
1984 . . .$6.2 Billion $31.1 Billion
1985 . . .$11.1 Billion $42.2 Billion

Do you deny that the combined OASDI Trust Fund suffered continual net losses threatening the solvency of of the combined OASDI Trust Fund?

Do you deny that the increase in the FICA/SECA tax rates restored the combined OASDI Trust Fund to solvency (even if only temporarily)?

Do you deny this...

Since 1975, expenditures of the OASDI program had exceeded revenues and it was anticipated that, without legislative action, it would not have been possible to continue paying OASDI cash benefits on time beginning in July 1983.

Source: Social Security Bulletin, July 1983/Vol. 46, No. 7

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v46n7/v46n7p3.pdf

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

Once sold, Reagan spent it no different than Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 till there was nothing left. Only thing they did not spend it on was " Obama phones". That's a use tax on your phone bill that been around for decades.

Another lie.

I direct your attention to

Social Security History

Social Security Act of 1935

TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS


OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT



Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account.

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired

(1) on original issue at par, or

(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.

(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.

(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.

(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.



(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.

Provide evidence to refute this public law.

The law is very clear...all surplus FICA/SECA payroll taxes collected by the Social Security Administration are to be turned over to the Department of Treasury.

The Treasury Department will then place the cash surplus in the General Fund to be spent, and issue an interest bearing special treasury security in its place.

From the very first day of operation in 1937, the Social Security Trust Fund never had any cash --- it always had "IOUs."

Your claim that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush spent the money in the Social Security Trust Fund is refuted --- there was never any money in the Trust Fund, nor was their ever supposed to be money in the Trust Fund.

Whether the Social Security Trust Fund consisted of cold hard cash in the form of US Dollars, British Pound Sterling, Swiss Francs, or gold or silver or platinum bullion, or bars of chocolate or baseball cards makes no freaking difference....

...the simple fact is you are not collecting enough in FICA/SECA payroll taxes to cover Social Security's beneficiary payments.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

The debt ceiling has been raised for the past 50 consecutive years.

That is a Lie By Omission.

When the debt ceiling was raised, did the debt ceiling exceed the annual GDP of the United States?

No it did not. Raising the debt ceiling does not harm the US credit rating, nor does it necessarily impact government fiscal operations.

However, raising the debt ceiling in excess of annual GDP does impact fiscal operations; it does impact the US bond ratings.

There is a very obvious distinction here --- and omitting the facts as you did results in people perceiving the events differently, and worse, to their own detriment.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

Greenspan/Reagan substantially increased Payroll taxes over two terms to ensure that there would be sufficient money 20+ years into the future for payouts. Then Reagan deficit spent all collected and left an IOU in the box. Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 did the same.

Your false claims have been repeatedly debunked.

What part of this do you not understand....

Since 1975, expenditures of the OASDI program had exceeded revenues and it was anticipated that, without legislative action, it would not have been possible to continue paying OASDI cash benefits on time beginning in July 1983.

Source: Social Security Bulletin, July 1983/Vol. 46, No. 7

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v46n7/v46n7p3.pdf

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

In 2001, then Secretary of the Treasury let it slip there were no assets in the SS trust fund.

That's a lie in the form of a grotesque characterization.

There have always been assets in the Social Security Trust Fund, however there have never been cash assets.

The assets are special treasury securities.

So you are debunked again.

To suggest that the Secretary of the Treasury "let it slip" is absurd. Everyone has always known the Social Security (and HI) Trust Funds have always consisted of special treasury securities, and not cash.

I don't know what kind of stunt you're trying to pull here, but it is not at all amusing.

If anyone hilariously believed there was cash in the Social Security Trust Fund, then it's because they either don't understand the laws, or they are just plain friggin' stupid.

The only change in the 1983 legislation pertaining to the Social Security Trust Fund was this:

History of SSA-related Legislation - 98th Congress

Section 141 amends Titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to require that OASDI and HI tax receipts be transferred from the Treasury to the OASI, DI and HI trust funds (as appropriate) monthly on the first day of each calendar month; and, sets forth loan conditions and requirements; effective on the 1st day of the month following the month of enactment.

Prior to that if you read Social Security Act of 1935, TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS, OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT, Section 201 you will see that receipts were transferred at the end of the fiscal year.

By transferring the receipts monthly, the Trust Fund generates more interest.

Feel free to provide evidence from a reputable authority to contradict any information I've posted.

You people need to understand that 11 years from now --- sometime around 2023-2024 --- your combined OASDI Trust Fund will be completely exhausted, and all Social Security beneficiaries will have their benefits slashed 28%-32%.

Whether the Trust Fund has cash, gold, Star Wars figurines, cabbage patch dolls or special treasury securities -- IOUs --- makes no difference.

The reason the Trust Fund will be exhausted in 11 years is because you are paying far more in benefits than you are collecting in revenues.

You are short 13.4 Million workers......your wages have been flat or declining since 1995....your FICA/SECA tax rate is too low.

You got one and only one shot to fix this, and if you muck it up, then your suffering will be legendary....even in hell....and I don't mean just Social Security beneficiaries, I mean the entire US.

So focus on the facts and ignore those who foist false info on everyone.

Disgusted....

Mircea

Originally Posted by the_windwalker

If a person pays in $1,000 a year, and does so for 45 years, that comes out to $45,000 in a lifetime. ....

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Read this...


42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

....then tell me which part of "insurance" you do not understand.

I'll be happy to explain it to you and then guide you on understanding and making the distinction between "insurance" and all of the following....

Pension Plan
401 (k) Plan
IRA Plan
Retirement Plan
Savings Plan
Investment Plan
Hedge Fund

If you want to impress me, the do the following two things:

1] call your auto or home insurance agent and tell them you want a refund on 100% of the premiums you paid and post a copy of the refund check (sanitized for personal security reasons); and

2] I'm from Missouri, so you'll have to show me in Title 42 United States Code where it says that Social Security is any one of the following...

Pension Plan
401 (k) Plan
IRA Plan
Retirement Plan
Savings Plan
Investment Plan
Hedge Fund

Originally Posted by the_windwalker

Once someone goes beyond receiving unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted as unemployed.

That is a false statement.

After you waste 3 years of your life looking at Title 42 United States Code trying to find where it says that Social Security is any one of the following...

Pension Plan
401 (k) Plan
IRA Plan
Retirement Plan
Savings Plan
Investment Plan
Hedge Fund

...and then give up in despair, you can go the BLS web-site and learn how unemployment is calculated.

There is no relationship between unemployment benefits and the unemployment rate.

For the deaf and dumb.....

THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.

Do yourselves a favor and go get educated so you stop looking foolish....

Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Originally Posted by the_windwalker

But, the fact that they would still be getting food stamps suggests they have not found a new job yet.

Wrong conclusion.

Wages have been flat/declining since 1995.

It's quite possible someone had a job earning $32/hour, lost it, and are now employed at $8.00/hour.

That is one of the great benefits of being a union member.....that sudden drop in income.

Spitting in the wind...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

It was an example genius. But you knew that and tried to ignore what I wrote anyway. Keep defending your worthless ponzi scheme, then blame "the rich" when it finally collapses.

Uh, he's on your side, actually.

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

We're approaching a 3 to 1 ratio now, which is why it will collapse.

Nope.

You're 2.1 to 1 --- and it will collapse. At least you got that right.

Proportionally...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Then imagine you had made those payments to any of the normal investment accounts run by various companies.

Imagine if Valens had Bradley CFVs at the Battle of Hadrianople.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

If all those SS payments had been deposited into a normal retirement account instead, do you know how much money you'd have by the time you retired?

If Napoleon had Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs at the Battle of Waterloo, do you think we'd all be eating French pastries and those heavy sauces on our foods?

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Social Security has dispossessed more Senior citizens than all the (other) ponzi schemes, con artists, etc. in history.

Prove it. Here, read this...

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

....then tell me which part of "insurance" you do not understand.

I call bull-****.

You all keep saying, "If it wasn't for Social Security, I'd have $Millions in investments."

Yeah?

Well, if you were all such freaking investment wizard geniuses, it wouldn't matter whether you paid into Social Security, or you paid that money as personal income taxes --- you should have been able to save up for retirement, except very few of you actually did.

Not impressed...

Mircea

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Your SS payment is based on what you contributed over your working years.

Nope, your Social Security benefits have nothing to do with Social Security contributions. Your benefit is based entirely on your average monthly wages over a period of 35 years.

See, people don't understand that they look at 35 years....so if you didn't work, then your income was $0 and that results in reduced benefits.

Contributing....

Mircea

Originally Posted by MaseMan

Anyone who uses the term "entitlements" has an agenda (usually a radical right wing one). The correct business term would be "obligations."

Uh-huh. Read this....

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

....then impress us with your vocabulary skills and explain "entitled "

And then when you're done impressing us, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what kind of "radial right wing agenda" FDR had.

Amused....

Mircea

Originally Posted by derosterreich

These charts are sourced from the OBM (Office of Management and Budget - Government Agency).

I don't care from where the charts are sourced.....they are wrong.

You show me under federal law where it says personal income tax revenues, corporate income tax revenues, estate taxes, Capital Gains taxes or imposts fund Social Security.

Show me where Congress budgets money for Social Security beneficiaries.

You can't do it. I can tell you that once, in 1982, Congress budgeted money for Social Security, because the Trust Fund collapsed and benefits would have ceased 100% in June or July of 1983.

Yes, the Social Security Administration does submit a budget to Congress, but that is only for compliance with finance and accounting laws. And if you read the budget, you'll see quite clearly that the only thing SSA is doing is telling the government how much it believes it will collect, what it believes it will payout, and what monies will be used for administration and things related to administration.

Since Congress does not budget money for Social Security, then why include Social Security in the charts?

That is an obvious attempt to mislead people, and you drank the Kool-Aid.

Do you understand that all of the Trust Funds are included in the National Debt?

In other words, the OASDI Trust Fund, which was $2.7 TRILLION but is now $2.6 TRILLION is part of the $16+TRILLION National Debt.......it's just an accounting game....as you convert the treasury securities in the Trust Fund to cash, the intragovernment debt decreases, but the public debt increases, however the National Debt is not affected.

If you want to know where I stand on Social Security, just read my posts, but for now, know that I'm an ultra-conservative, and what I will tell you is this...

You need as many sources of retirement income as you can get. You should negotiate a retirement plan through your employer. You should also save money, and then too, invest money.

But common sense dictates that you insure your retirement future --- in case things go badly --- even more so since I ain't seen no one here even remotely smart enough to predict the future of their own lives.

And that's what Social Security is --- insurance --- basic subsistence level living in the even your life turns into a total nightmare that scares the crap out Stephen King and Wes Craven.

Does government need to be involved? The federal government should not be involved. FDR nationalized the 30 existing social security and pension plans operated by the States for the residents of those States --- he was wrong.

Should the States operate such plans? I'd prefer not, but having the States administer them is better than having the pseudo-federal government with its hands all over it.

Ideally, you should privatize Social Security ---- as insurance, since that's what it is.

These groups like Heritage have an agenda -- they want to privatize Social Security, too, but as an investment scheme.

Listen to me now, and hear me forever, if you let them do that, you will spend the rest of your life regretting it, and you will rue the day you have to retire (assuming you'll ever be able to retire), because you'll be worse off than if you had nothing but Social Security.

Originally Posted by derosterreich

Do you think we borrow money and raise the debt ceiling because we are sitting on a treasure trove of gold coins and benjamin franklins?

No, I don't think anything....I know you are borrowing money and raising the debt ceiling, because your spending is out of control in a failed attempt to Save the Empire.

Again, show me where Congress is funding Social Security.

Social Security has nothing to do with your debt problems.

Medicaid? That's a different story. The United States had Free Market health care until 1939 when the American Hospital Association mortally wounded Free Market health care....and then delivered the death blow in 1943.

You want to reduce health care spending? End the Soviet-style Command System installed by the American Hospital Association and go back to Free Market health care.

That will do wonders for Medicare as well, and yes, Medicare is a problem, but that is because Congress has repeatedly refused to do what the Medicare Trustees have suggested in order to keep the program solvent and not sucking up money from the General Fund.

Tschüß....

Mircea