Social security to be out of money sooner than projected and democrats ignore growing problem (Baby Boomers, drug)

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by albert648

Exactly. Money in an IRA or 401k or even a normal brokerage account would go to their heirs, creating generational wealth.

Money in the Socialist Insecurity Trust Fund is stolen from them by the Government, creating generational poverty and Government dependence.

Which is the intent, given that FDR was a communist.

Not sure that FDR would have supported the current mess. He did not expect congress to mess it up so bad.

[albert648]

Originally Posted by Floorist

Not sure that FDR would have supported the current mess. He did not expect congress to mess it up so bad.

No he would have supported all of it. You don't take out insurance against something with a 100% probability of occurrence.

He was just as economically illiterate and statist as the current crop of dems demanding to throw more money at this ponzi scheme.

[moneill]

Originally Posted by xray731

I've been hearing this for the last 40 years.

40 -- more like 50 years. Late 70's we started hearing how there won't be any money left by now.

I'm a little confused.

So clearly the point of this thread is to lash out at Democrats who said they don't want to touch Social Security benefits BUT

when Biden accused Republicans of wanting to cut benefits (which is what reducing payouts or increasing age would do), Republican politicians booed and heckled him. When he made some comment of then we ALL agree not to touch Social Security Benefits there was a bi-partisan applause and even a standing ovation.


So in fact, Biden was right. Republicans are wanting to reduce benefits. Why are they pretending they don't ?

I don't have a problem with raising the age of retirement. 65 today is not 65 of 40 years ago.

So it isn't about what the Republicans are proposing -- it's the bull they are pedaling to voters.

[moneill]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's true. Most people LOSE money on SS. They'll get less back in benefits than they've paid in SS tax throughout their working years. This was reported over a decade ago (2012):

Social Security no longer a good deal for workers - AP

But we were told we would get NOTHING from it.

For 50 years we have heard how people won't be able to collect......and now we are collecting.

[albert648]

Originally Posted by moneill

But we were told we would get NOTHING from it.

For 50 years we have heard how people won't be able to collect......and now we are collecting.

You put in more than $0. $0 is less than what you put in.

And people who joined Madoff's ponzi scheme early also collected. Means nothing.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Floorist

What happens to the billions that are left in the fund by people who die before they collect all or any of what they paid in? Why not make congress pay back the billions they "borrowed" from the funds?
I would have to live to 95 to get back all that I was forced to pay in. I was self-employed most of my life and so paid in both halves.

Those "billions" evaporated a long time ago, because the majority of retirees do live long enough in retirement to recover what they paid in.....

if we think in terms of constant non-inflated dollars; but more and more of us (and we're not all that rich) know better.

And what happens when the short-sighted lumpenproletariat, their numbers inflated by the baby boom, illegal immigration, and "anchor babies", shows up among the barbarians at the gate, seeking security that was inflated and looted by the politicians years ago?

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by moneill

40 -- more like 50 years. Late 70's we started hearing how there won't be any money left by now.

I'm a little confused.

So clearly the point of this thread is to lash out at Democrats who said they don't want to touch Social Security benefits BUT

when Biden accused Republicans of wanting to cut benefits (which is what reducing payouts or increasing age would do), Republican politicians booed and heckled him. When he made some comment of then we ALL agree not to touch Social Security Benefits there was a bi-partisan applause and even a standing ovation.


So in fact, Biden was right. Republicans are wanting to reduce benefits. Why are they pretending they don't ?

I don't have a problem with raising the age of retirement. 65 today is not 65 of 40 years ago.

So it isn't about what the Republicans are proposing -- it's the bull they are pedaling to voters.

You are right, I will be 75 in a couple weeks. I retired before I wanted to retire because of health issues and still worked past 65. My parents and both sets of grandparents died before they were old enough to draw. My in-laws both paid in for 45 years and only drew a couple years of social security. Retirement age could be 70 today and pay out for 10 years or so like it did for most people in the past who retired at 65.

[leastprime]

JMO,
SS is social welfare.

equal time:
SS is there because the capitalistic system has failed.

YSMV

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by albert648

You put in more than $0. $0 is less than what you put in.

And people who joined Madoff's ponzi scheme early also collected. Means nothing.

Puleeze. It doesn't mean nothing (regardless if people put in more overall). And the Boy that Cried Wolf nonsense is just that. We have all heard the same claims about SS not being around. Not one of the claims have come true.

[Retroit]

Who would have ever guessed that a Ponzi Scheme like Social Security could ever fail?

(sarcasm)