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.
The younger generation has always payed for teh older generation that is nothing new. It is the wat the trust fund itself and the way it was setup that hurts iut. It has moved beyoind a retirement subsidy in teh last deacdes. But looking at other programs such as unearn tax creadits it means that alot of peole are getting benefits that really never pay anyhting. Inotherwards too many freloaders actually.If SS was any oither truast fund with the way it is setup ;it would be illegal.For one thng the governmentt is the only one that the monay can be invested in and at very low rates.But tehn their are alot of young peole that actually get SS from their parents and because they ar disabled. Wait until we see the bil for what uni9versal healtyhcare cost and it will make SS;medicare and medicaid look cheap.
Contrary to popular wisdom, Social Security does not need payments from the younger generation or from any generation. Social Security (and Medicare) could and should be supported exactly the same way every other federal agency is supported: deficit spending.
There are 400+ federal agencies. All but two are supported by deficit spending. When the military needed $150 billion for Iraq, no problem. Congress voted and the money was created.
When the Treasury wanted to send $150 billion into the economy as a stimulus, no problem. Congress voted and the money was created.
Social Security and Medicare should be folded into the total federal budget and funded the same way as the other 400+ federal agencies.
Further contrary to popular wisdom, our children and grandchildren never have and never will pay for the federal deficit, which has grown 900% in less than 30 years. With tax rates down, do you know anyone who has paid for the federal deficit? All this talk about children and grandchildren paying simply does not square with the facts. Taxpayers never have and never will pay for the federal debt.
The federal government has the unlimited ability to create money, and so, does not need your or my taxes. For that reason, FICA could be eliminated, Social Security benefits could be doubled and we could have universal health care -- and the government and the economy would do just fine.
Before you have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this, stop and think. If debt is bad, how have we been able to handle a 900% debt increase in less than 30 years, without a tax increase and without high inflation, and would we achieve the same result with another 900% debt increase in the next 30 years?
Mod cut
Last edited by Waterlily; 08-27-2008 at 12:43 AM..
Reason: No personal web sites
My solution? To not have either. Instead, just divert that 15% of a worker's salary (After the employer's matching contribution) to whatever 401K the worker chooses and forget about it.
As far as Medicare, the supreme irony is that Medicare and Medicaid were both intended to drive down the cost of health care, and have done exactly the opposite. Before both programs were implemented, healthcare accounted for roughly 5% of the GDP. Today, after both cost-savings programs were implemented, it's somewhere around 18%. Further, this has occurred at a time when technology has made diagnosis and treatment to be more efficient, not less.
In fact, in just about every industry, technological advances ultimately result in lower costs to the consumer. Yet healthcare defies this economic law, chiefly because it is buoyed by Federal subsidies and devotes a huge amount of resources coping with Federal requirements. Hospitals, doctors, and consumers alike would be far better off if they simply devoted a certain percentage to indigent care.
My solution? To not have either. Instead, just divert that 15% of a worker's salary (After the employer's matching contribution) to whatever 401K the worker chooses and forget about it.
You solution has merit! I like the utter simplicity of it, but the politicos won't for that very reason. Since most of them are lawyers, they love writing laws with volumes of leaglese to confuse the people. Another problem with your solution is that it would clearly be OUR money, they couldn't waste it on wars and other important programs as giveways to the special interests who paid for their elections. .
My solution? To not have either. Instead, just divert that 15% of a worker's salary (After the employer's matching contribution) to whatever 401K the worker chooses and forget about it.
You solution has merit! I like the utter simplicity of it, but the politicos won't for that very reason. Since most of them are lawyers, they love writing laws with volumes of leaglese to confuse the people. Another problem with your solution is that it would clearly be OUR money, they couldn't waste it on wars and other important programs as giveways to the special interests who paid for their elections. .
Well, you hit the nail on the head there. The Federal Government has been robbing Social Security since the Johnson Administration. When government officials oppose privatizing, it isn't because they're actually worried about the welfare of SS recipients. It's because they know that can't indulge in sneaky accounting anymore.
And they use scare tactics to make people think otherwise... privatizing will make much more money than social security will ever pay out... oh well... let the continue rape of America continue... we must "like" it...
Dollars is US currency, money is what you use to pay for something. In most cases the terms can be used interchangeably until recently. I have also seen a lot of people here talk about "money" and how the US spent money for this and that.
Can we agree that a DEFICIT means we DON'T HAVE MONEY, all we have is credit!!
Okay are you with me here?
Can we also agree that "Devaluation of the dollar" means you get less for what you have when you pay with "dollars"?
So, if your stocks went up 5 percent but the US Dollar Dropped 50 percent, how much did you make?
Okay, got my point?
Now, every times the Government (FED) prints more "Dollars" it dilutes the "Dollars" you and I have in our pocket agreed?
So, since the US has NO MONEY, and we make NO PRODUCTS because we import more then we export. Why would anyone want to accept a US Dollar if it is going to depreciate? If when I was hired at my work 8 years ago and had my salary written in Euros instead of dollars I would be doing a lot better now.. Maybe you see where I am going with this.
So, soon Saudi Arabia will conform to the consensus and require EUROS for Oil. Nobody will take our dollar and even China who has enough of the US Dollars will tell us "YOU PAY ME WITH EURO, YOU PAY ME NOW!". What are we going to do about it? Nothing, nada, daddy's credit card has been declined.
So, you got say 1/2 million of US Dollars in your 401K? You think? What is a dollar anyway?! If your 401K is based on Stocks and stocks are based on dollars, and the companies your mutual fund is investing in is not making a profit, why would anyone want to buy your stock. i.e. stock sinks. So, when the ^&*t hits the fan, you will have no retirement and no 401K money. It is as simple as that.
To fix the problem globally you need to fix it locally. So, better get a grip about what is going on her folks and stop buying things to ease the pain. For example, stop buying luxury items to show off to those you don't even know or like. For example, If you are financing or leasing a luxury car and carry a credit card balance, student loan or other debt you may want to take a step back, reflect on what you are doing and what is really important. AND BUY LOCAL.
So here I am, worked a full-time job for most of my life and put the maximum contribution into my 401K. But now it seems there might not even have enough to retire (since the dollar will be worth nothing) and no SS.
To top it off, eminent domain can take my house at any time and pay me with,.... you guessed it "Dollars" so they can put in a Walmart.
Gasoline? Get ready for $7/gallon friends, not because it is worth more but because what you are using to pay for it is worth less.
"Pay me in Euros, I no longer accept US currency either"
the first (of many) problems with ss is that when it started it had no prior funding
people who happened to be at "retirement age" when it start or close to it were given full benefits without ever paying into it forcing us to always be behind
there are 3 pros to social security:
1)you happen to be one of those early people who got benefits without paying into it
2) you live to your nineties, then you might actually start to recoup what you put into it
3) you are a complete idiot with money who would have pissed that money away anyway. Fortunately for you mommy oh i mean the US government has held your hand and made you invest in pure garbage at a ****ty rate of return. Since you would have had nothing anyway something is better than nothing.
Let me take my 15.2%, just the 13-14% that doesnt go into disability and invest it how I want. I will have so much more money a month from that than I will when the inefficient incompetent buerocratic gov't has waiting for me (if anything) when I am of retirement age
Contrary to popular wisdom, Social Security does not need payments from the younger generation or from any generation. Social Security (and Medicare) could and should be supported exactly the same way every other federal agency is supported: deficit spending.
There are 400+ federal agencies. All but two are supported by deficit spending. When the military needed $150 billion for Iraq, no problem. Congress voted and the money was created.
When the Treasury wanted to send $150 billion into the economy as a stimulus, no problem. Congress voted and the money was created.
Social Security and Medicare should be folded into the total federal budget and funded the same way as the other 400+ federal agencies.
Further contrary to popular wisdom, our children and grandchildren never have and never will pay for the federal deficit, which has grown 900% in less than 30 years. With tax rates down, do you know anyone who has paid for the federal deficit? All this talk about children and grandchildren paying simply does not square with the facts. Taxpayers never have and never will pay for the federal debt.
The federal government has the unlimited ability to create money, and so, does not need your or my taxes. For that reason, FICA could be eliminated, Social Security benefits could be doubled and we could have universal health care -- and the government and the economy would do just fine.
Before you have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this, stop and think. If debt is bad, how have we been able to handle a 900% debt increase in less than 30 years, without a tax increase and without high inflation, and would we achieve the same result with another 900% debt increase in the next 30 years?
Mod cut
you cant actually be serious
take the blinders off- they are ROBBING you blind thru the tax known as INFLATION
Hell why does anyone in this country work- Nanny Government should just print enough money to send everyone 100k at the begining of each year and watch us all profit
LMAO
Do you even have a slight clue how the economy works? Yea just print print print forever with no boundries,there will never be any consequnces at all.
My solution? To not have either. Instead, just divert that 15% of a worker's salary (After the employer's matching contribution) to whatever 401K the worker chooses and forget about it.
As far as Medicare, the supreme irony is that Medicare and Medicaid were both intended to drive down the cost of health care, and have done exactly the opposite. Before both programs were implemented, healthcare accounted for roughly 5% of the GDP. Today, after both cost-savings programs were implemented, it's somewhere around 18%. Further, this has occurred at a time when technology has made diagnosis and treatment to be more efficient, not less.
In fact, in just about every industry, technological advances ultimately result in lower costs to the consumer. Yet healthcare defies this economic law, chiefly because it is buoyed by Federal subsidies and devotes a huge amount of resources coping with Federal requirements. Hospitals, doctors, and consumers alike would be far better off if they simply devoted a certain percentage to indigent care.
as with almost everything, we would be so much better if the govt just stayed the **** outta the way
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.
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.
Lets not confuse "Dollars" with "money"
