What They Won't Tell You (Hillary on Social Security)

[The Rabbi]

Hillary speaking to AARP on Social Security. So, she is against cutting benefits, against raising the age for benefits, and against privatizing.  But she promises to "save social security" through "renewed commitment."
Hello?  There is only one other way to go, and that's raising payroll taxes.  But she won't tell you that part.  Neither will the media.

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the taxpayer-funded system.


The New York senator told the AARP's legislative conference that she would bring a "renewed national commitment to Social Security" to the White House.

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partial benefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue.

Bush sought to change the program to create personal savings accounts while trimming future benefits for workers younger than 55. Democrats rallied in opposition, and Republicans shrank from the political challenge of remaking a program that provides benefits to millions of elderly voters.

[Monkeyleg]

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States."

I'd like to see her idea of a failure.

There are only so many options available. If cutting benefits isn't an option (and it isn't for me), and increasing the age isn't an option (I'd oppose that, too), and privatization isn't an option (too bad, it's the best idea)...well, young people, get ready to pay 25% of your income to SS.

[The Rabbi]

It's succesful from the point of view of the people who initially paid into it in the 1940s-1960s.  Their return on investment was phenomenal.
For the rest of us younger folks, it's a Ponzi Scheme.

[Monkeyleg]

"Their return on investment was phenomenal."

Oh, yeah. My father, age 90, started paying into the system in 1937. IIRC, it was something like ten cents a week or a month.

He's been receiving the highest possible monthly benefit for 25 years. Right now that's $1800+, or over $21,600 a year. I looked at the SS site, and figure he's received about $460,000 since he retired.

There's no way that he paid even a fraction of that amount into the system.

Meanwhile, I've payed about $130,000 into SS (FICA and co-FICA) since 1966, with most of that paid in from 1978 on. My monthly FICA and co-FICA payments have been right around $1000 for many years.

I'll be eligible for SS in less than nine years. But I'll never see that kind of "return." And my nieces and nephews will be paying a much higher percentage.

[Paddy]

But she promises to "save social security" through "renewed commitment."
Hello?  There is only one other way to go, and that's raising payroll taxes. 

There is another way.  Quit filching the money from the system and replacing it with low (or no) interest IOU's.  Instead, invest the money in, say, index funds.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ya mean like Bush's plan?

[jnojr]

But she promises to "save social security" through "renewed commitment."
Hello?  There is only one other way to go, and that's raising payroll taxes. 

There is another way.  Quit filching the money from the system and replacing it with low (or no) interest IOU's.  Instead, invest the money in, say, index funds.

Can't be done.  What happens if (when!) there's a market downturn, and they need the money now, not in a couple of years?

And the "IOUs" are actually interest-bearing Treasury instruments.  The problem with that is, in order for the Treasury to redeem those instruments, they must either take money from tax receipts or print it up... since the government does not generate wealth or turn a profit, there is nowhere else for that money to come from.  A business may borrow money, use that money to make more money, and pay the interest and principle of the loan they took out from those profits.  The government has no such option... every dollar they borrow, and all of the interest to be paid on that borrowed money, must be confisacted from taxpayers or conjured out of thin air.  Or, I suppose, it's theoretically possible that they could sell various assets, but if the US government sold every building, every piece of land, ever fighter jet, etc. they would have enough to pay a tiny fraction of what they owe.

The only answer is to phase Socialist inSecurity out as rapidly as possible, but that isn't going to happen, so the system is going to have to collapse.  And everyone in Washington DC knows this... all they care, though, is that the crash happens when they're safely out of office, so the current incumbents will be blamed.  The angry taxpayers won't care about the current politicians pointing their fingers at past politicians, saying "But they handed us this mess!  We never had a chance to do anything!"  It won't matter... we'll want blood, and digging up some decades-old corpses to hang from lampposts won't do it.

Revolution or complete collapse.  There is no other possibility for this country.

[Paddy]

Ya mean like Bush's plan?

Doubtful.  What Bush says and what he does are completely unrelated.

It's basically the government's problem.  Politicians will not get away with cutting off social security benefits, whether they have to borrow, print, or tax.  And frankly, I don't care what they do.  No skin off my b**ls.

[The Rabbi]

But she promises to "save social security" through "renewed commitment."
Hello?  There is only one other way to go, and that's raising payroll taxes. 

There is another way.  Quit filching the money from the system and replacing it with low (or no) interest IOU's.  Instead, invest the money in, say, index funds.

That would make the gov't the majority shareholders in many companies.  They would be in a position to dictate policy.  Does anyone think the gov't will refrain from using this power for more and more interference?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Perhaps Hillary could have some of her illegal Chinese contacts fund our Social Security system.  They have lots of money, and she seems to have no shortage of them.

[The Rabbi]

Perhaps Hillary could have one of her illegal Chinese contacts fund our Social Security system.  They have lots of money, and she seems to have no shortage of them.

Yeah, but retirees don't allow export of sensitive technical stuff or weapons and seldom have access to military secrets.  It's quid pro quo, even in Chinese.

[Paddy]

That would make the gov't the majority shareholders in many companies.  They would be in a position to dictate policy.  Does anyone think the gov't will refrain from using this power for more and more interference?

Not necessarily.  Set up a firewall; some sort of blind trust.  It's done everyday.

[HankB]

It's succesful from the point of view of the people who initially paid into it in the 1940s-1960s.  Their return on investment was phenomenal.

Some years back, when Fortune magazine had a column called Keeping Up, they studied the rate of return.

They assumed a person had retired that year at age 65 after paying the maximum amount into SS since, IIRC, age 21. They included his contributions, his employer's contributions, and assumed a 3% rate of return, had he invested the money himself.

The lump sum that resulted would have, at that time, allowed the hypothetical retiree to purchase a lifetime annuity that paid 75% more than his maximum SS benefit.

One problem with SS is that there are too many people besides retirees collecting - it's become another welfare program. When my dad retired and applied for benefits, he guessed that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the other applicants in the SS office were nowhere near retirement age . . . and at least half of those spoke no English.

Another problem is taxation of benefits, instituted by Reagan (Thanks Ronnie!) and made worse by Clinton. The government pays a benefit to a senior, then the taxman takes some of it and it goes into the general fund, NOT back into SS. This is a way for the government to pirate the fund, without any pretense of paying it back. IMHO, if the benefits ARE taxed - they shouldn't be, but let's say they are - the revenue ought to go right back into the SS trust fund.

[K Frame]

There's another way, and Hillary won't tell you that, either...

It's kill all the old people.

[Fjolnirsson]

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

I think this says all anyone needs to know about Hilary....

[El Tejon]

Mike, have you read this book=>http://www.newstatesman.com/200705210049???

I laughed all the way through it.

After talking to my CFP and my father, I believe that the feds will have to raise FICA contributions and confiscate my SEP and Roths (eeevil white males like El Tejon invested privated and hurt women and minorities, time to stick it to whitey, yet again) is what I anticipate and am making the necessary arrangements.  I would guess that the estate tax will not die and will come back with a vengence.

[charby]

Mike, have you read this book=>http://www.newstatesman.com/200705210049???

I laughed all the way through it.

After talking to my CFP and my father, I believe that the feds will have to raise FICA contributions and confiscate my SEP and Roths (eeevil white males like El Tejon invested privated and hurt women and minorities, time to stick it to whitey, yet again) is what I anticipate and am making the necessary arrangements.  I would guess that the estate tax will not die and will come back with a vengence.

They may not confiscate your ROTH but they may decide to tax your withdraws.

[El Tejon]

Is that not confiscation???

[The Rabbi]

Is that not confiscation???

No, that's changing rules midstream.  Not unknown of course.

[French G.]

I like the part where my very motivated father and wife are both self-employed and pay double into SS to cover their "employer" share too.  Way to kill initiative, it's the 6% self-employment tax! Yay! Something about producers supporting looters, I dunno.

[Tallpine]

6% self-employment tax

More like 7.53% counting Medicare


(or about 15% total)

[Werewolf]

It's kill all the old people

  Uhhhhhhh - Define OLD...

[Paddy]

There's another way, and Hillary won't tell you that, either...

It's kill all the old people.

Well, you did say you are German. 

It wouldn't surprise me to learn plans are well underway.  At first, I thought it might be happening already with chemtrails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory but the 'old people' don't seem to be dying off very quickly.

However, I see a new possibility on the horizon.  There is a trend of defective and dangerous 'Made in China' products, setting us up for the plan to poison some pharmaceutical (or other product?) used almost exclusively by 'old people'.  As the boomers suddenly take dirt naps by the millions, the government will remain 'perplexed' as the 'investigation continues'.

Don't get too cocky, though.  The NWO won't stop there.  They'll cull the rest of you 'useless eaters' later, after you've served your purpose.

[Hutch]

Every time I think hyperinflation is just around the corner, I lie on the couch and nap.  Just because I don't see any plausible alternatives doesn't mean there aren't any.  I was a long-time subscriber to Howard Ruff and Gary North (remember them?), and all it cost me was sleepless nights and thousands of dollars of useless hedges.

Who knows, maybe one day it WILL happen.

[HankB]

. . . There is a trend of defective and dangerous 'Made in China' products, setting us up for the plan to poison some pharmaceutical (or other product?) used almost exclusively by 'old people'.  As the boomers suddenly take dirt naps by the millions, the government will remain 'perplexed' as the 'investigation continues' . . .

And to replace the oldsters . . . well, I just read a story about thousands of defective, Communist Chinese-made condoms being distributed in New York . . .