My response to the Social Security gripe.

[Strings]

RACIST!!!

 

[Scout26]

RACIST!!!

 

Sadly, they don't allow the use of cameras or other recording devices there.  Just reporting what I observed.

[kgbsquirrel]

My brother was at a seminar once, where an old guy was spouting that same argument. "All I'm getting is the money back that I've paid in for 40 (or however many) years!"

The guy presenting the seminar asked a few questions about his annual pay, age, monthly benefits. etc. After a brief bit of figuring he told the old pharte that he had received every penny he put into his 'account' in the first three years he drew payment. The old guy started yelling: "Bullshit! I'll never live long enough to get it all back!." He refused to believe the numbers. Facts and figures don't matter in an emotional argument.

jb

Ida May Fuller

Paid into SS: $24.75

Drew out of SS: $22,888.92

Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme operating under the Color of Law, and has been so from the beginning. The popular fiction is that it's just a retirement savings investment account, and that you just get what you've paid in, plus the interest from the "investments" that the government made with your money. The reality is they just take money from current workers, and give it to former workers, and have pissed away all the excess funds that had accumulated by "buying treasury instruments," aka, they gave that money to the government to spend-spend-spend-now-now-now!!! in exchange for IOU's that have no hope of ever being met, because they are now being repaid by taking out additional IOU's.

[brimic]

The reason she was on SSDI? Couldn't hold a job because of her pot smoking

Of course, that's a crippling disability she has...

[Hawkmoon]

My brother was at a seminar once, where an old guy was spouting that same argument. "All I'm getting is the money back that I've paid in for 40 (or however many) years!"

The guy presenting the seminar asked a few questions about his annual pay, age, monthly benefits. etc. After a brief bit of figuring he told the old pharte that he had received every penny he put into his 'account' in the first three years he drew payment. The old guy started yelling: "Bullshit! I'll never live long enough to get it all back!." He refused to believe the numbers. Facts and figures don't matter in an emotional argument.

jb

The dollars don't matter, either. Social security is a contract. In exchange for a bite out of every paycheck for as long as I work, the .gov promises to provide me with a steady (albeit woefully inadequate) income after age ___ (depending on whether you file early or when fully vested). How is this different from buying an investment vehicle that guarantees X percent return upon maturity?

The fact that the .gov treated MY money as free money instead of managing the investment the way they were supposed to does not in any way alter the validity of the contract.

[kgbsquirrel]

The dollars don't matter, either. Social security is a contract. In exchange for a bite out of every paycheck for as long as I work, the .gov promises to provide me with a steady (albeit woefully inadequate) income after age ___ (depending on whether you file early or when fully vested). How is this different from buying an investment vehicle that guarantees X percent return upon maturity?

The fact that the .gov treated MY money as free money instead of managing the investment the way they were supposed to does not in any way alter the validity of the contract.

Because it is a system that as designed is unsustainable, and such an "investment" arrangement in the private world is illegal.

[lupinus]

Of course, that's a crippling disability she has...

It would be against the spirit of the forum for me to express what I'd like to do to little shits like that.

Meanwhile, legitimately disabled folks don't get hardly anything.

[Hawkmoon]

Because it is a system that as designed is unsustainable, and such an "investment" arrangement in the private world is illegal.

But in the real world they put the schemers in prison, not the victims. I started working for pay that was subject to social security withholding in 1963 ... it's not as if I had a choice. Nobody was offering officially-sanctioned alternatives back then. I've upheld my end of the contract, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the .gov to uphold their end. I agree that the system needs to be fixed or replaced, but it's unconscionable to propose "fixing" it by penalizing the people who have spent their entire working lives paying into it.

A contract is a contract. (Unless, of course, you are the United States Department of Defense. Stop loss, anyone?)

[cordex]

But in the real world they put the schemers in prison, not the victims.

No one is talking about putting SS recipients in prison.  I'd be all for imprisoning politicians who stole that money over the years to pay off voters if it came down to that.

I started working for pay that was subject to social security withholding in 1963 ... it's not as if I had a choice. Nobody was offering officially-sanctioned alternatives back then. I've upheld my end of the contract, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the .gov to uphold their end. I agree that the system needs to be fixed or replaced, but it's unconscionable to propose "fixing" it by penalizing the people who have spent their entire working lives paying into it.

Default on an agreement - no matter how fanciful that agreement was - sucks.  Especially when you have no choice in the matter.  No question about that at all.  People have for years budgeted for retirement while counting on social security. 

But what you're really talking about is not preventing defaulting on SS agreements.  You're just talking about changing who gets defaulted on.  You (understandably) don't want it to be you, but the only real alternative is that it will be your kids and your grandkids who will be screwed out of the same - or more - money as you are afraid of losing.

And, of course, given your age you really don't have much to worry about.  Your generation has (with or without your participation) successfully kicked that can down the road.  It is my generation and my daughter's generation who will have to shoulder that burden and spend our entire lives paying for your retirement as well as trying to put away enough money to cover our own without relying on social security.

[Hutch]

Contract.  Promise.  Obligation.  Insurance.  Guaranteed.

None of these words matter.  It.  Can.  Not.  Happen.  It doesn't matter how badly recipients need it.  Not all the tears under Heaven can bring this into existence.  If we raise taxes high enough to make good on the promises made, it will ultimately crush the economy.  If we print enough money to pay the amounts promised, it will ultimately crush the currency, followed by the economy.  Xers, millenials, you are all irremediably, irretrievably, and irredeemably screwed.  It's wrong, it's sinful, it's unfair.  But it is.  We have been duped, lied to, and hornswoggled.  There will be a mighty reckoning.  I don't know if it will take the form of the October Revolution, or more closely resemble the Hutus and Tutsis.  I just hope that those who climb out of the rubble learn from the mistakes we made, and pursue a more sustainable and equitable paradigm.

[kgbsquirrel]

But in the real world they put the schemers in prison, not the victims. I started working for pay that was subject to social security withholding in 1963 ... it's not as if I had a choice. Nobody was offering officially-sanctioned alternatives back then. I've upheld my end of the contract, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the .gov to uphold their end. I agree that the system needs to be fixed or replaced, but it's unconscionable to propose "fixing" it by penalizing the people who have spent their entire working lives paying into it.

A contract is a contract. (Unless, of course, you are the United States Department of Defense. Stop loss, anyone?)

Do you have a solution that does not involve having the government uphold it's end by stealing the wealth of future generations?

Your money is gone, as surely as if some thief robbed you and than drank away all the money. It doesn't matter that you know who the thief is as said thief can not repay you without stealing more from someone else. A government is not a creator of wealth, it is only a consumer, it can give you nothing that it has not first taken from someone else.

[Myself]

Not meeting promised obligations has been going on in the private sector for some time.  When a company is no longer solvent they cannot print money, they default and fold.  Look at all the lifetime employees who have counted on pensions that are just gone.

It's not just the private sector either.  Take a look at your local school district, or whatever other gov't agency you like.  They have all underfunded there pension obligations big time since the economy took a dump.  It has been going on for long enough already the chances of it ever getting made up by big investment windfalls are almost nil.

[brimic]

The dollars don't matter, either. Social security is a contract. In exchange for a bite out of every paycheck for as long as I work, the .gov promises to provide me with a steady (albeit woefully inadequate) income after age ___ (depending on whether you file early or when fully vested). How is this different from buying an investment vehicle that guarantees X percent return upon maturity?

The fact that the .gov treated MY money as free money instead of managing the investment the way they were supposed to does not in any way alter the validity of the contract.

The fact that the contract is entered under duress does alter the validity of the contract.

Besides that, its nothing more than a socialist excuse for intergenerational theft.

[Monkeyleg]

The fact that the contract is entered under duress does alter the validity of the contract.

If the party under duress at some point decides at some point to honor the contract, but the party that created the duress decides not to honor the contract, can it be void? IOW, if Luca Brazzi holds a gun to the head of a band leader while Don Corleone gets the band leader to sign a contract releasing Johnny Fontaine, can Don Corleone later say the contract was entered under duress, and Johnny Fontaine is still obligated to perform with the band leader?

The answer is yes, because Don Corleone is a vicious gangster who can do what he wants. Actually, come to think of it, so is Congress.

[Boomhauer]

As someone who has spent an inordinate amount of time in SS offices, I can attest to the fact that I was one of the few people that spoke English*, aside from a few elderly couples.  And most everyone else there looked perfectly capable of putting in a 40 hours work week.








* Ebonics is not English.

The leftists insist that you are lying Scout. They say that only happens in a "few isolated" cases, just like fraud of other mechanisms of welfare...

(My ass...the problem is widespread. I just love how someone oh, in their early 30s and quite spry will pull up to my park in a brand new truck and camper and demand their disability discount. But you know, its just an isolated incident that only happens multiple times a week)

[longeyes]

Don't feel too sorry for the twentysomethings and the thirtysomethings, they are having the time of their lives.  No one in history has had it as good as young Americans.

[Boomhauer]

It would be against the spirit of the forum for me to express what I'd like to do to little shits like that.

Meanwhile, legitimately disabled folks don't get hardly anything.

Ive met people missing limbs who dont qualify as "disabled". Thats jacked up.

[brimic]

The answer is yes, because Don Corleone is a vicious gangster who can do what he wants. Actually, come to think of it, so is Congress.

To paraphrase someone here, I don't remember who or when- "The government is a lot like the mob except a whole lot more violent and a lot less moral.."

[CAnnoneer]

Don't feel too sorry for the twentysomethings and the thirtysomethings, they are having the time of their lives.  No one in history has had it as good as young Americans.

I am not so sure about that. The modern 20s and 30s are to try and build a career in a failing economy with mountains of personal, state, and federal debt. They are screwed. Most just don't know the full extent of their screwed state. Just because the youth nowadays gets to waste a ton of money in college having sex and getting drunk and stoned does not mean their 20s or 30s are or will be a cakewalk.

[brimic]

Just because the youth nowadays gets to waste a ton of money in college having sex and getting drunk and stoned does not mean their 20s or 30s are or will be a cakewalk.

Al truth be told, they aren't much different than the college students that came before them, except for being lied to that a liberal arts degree will lead to meaningful employment in today's workforce.

[Monkeyleg]

...except for being lied to that a liberal arts degree will lead to meaningful employment in today's workforce.

Hell, it didn't lead to getting meaningful employment when I was in school. That's why I left school and got a job instead. Learned a lot more on the job than in school.

[lupinus]

Ive met people missing limbs who dont qualify as "disabled". Thats jacked up.

My mother is disabled. About the biggest perk is she gets medical care, which allows her to get the meds she needs to be at least somewhat functional. Cash? EBT? She get's crap.

The bunch of 20/30 somethings that live around her without a damn thing wrong with them, other than their outlook on life and a never ending line to exit their vaginal cavity? They mysteriously never seem to be hurting for government supplied cash. They drive nicer cars, have more and nicer food, etc. Hell, often enough better then me and I work for a living.

Not trying stirring up the validity of such programs to start with, but I've long held the view that if you kicked off every free loader you could give the truly disabled enough to live like decent human beings AND still come out ahead. From my experience it's at least 5-6 free loaders for every actually disabled person, more if you count those who only need some help but stay on full benefits to avoid loosing the ones they actually require.

[longeyes]

I am not so sure about that. The modern 20s and 30s are to try and build a career in a failing economy with mountains of personal, state, and federal debt. They are screwed. Most just don't know the full extent of their screwed state. Just because the youth nowadays gets to waste a ton of money in college having sex and getting drunk and stoned does not mean their 20s or 30s are or will be a cakewalk.

For the vast majority of younger Americans this has been the best time to be alive in human history.  This nation has been in mostly a peaceful, highly prosperous bubble since WW II that is unlikely to ever be repeated.  Every generation faces challenges, but I refuse to single out the under-40 American crowd as victims.  They are benefiting mightily from the amassed benefits of Americans, and others, who have gone before them and living off that capital.  Let's not romanticize or victimize any group.  I am more concerned about the people who built modern America and are being vilified for it, cheated out of what is rightfully theirs.  It's just about government benefits, it's about phony government fiscal policies that make safe investments return zero.

[CAnnoneer]

For the vast majority of younger Americans this has been the best time to be alive in human history.  This nation has been in mostly a peaceful, highly prosperous bubble since WW II that is unlikely to ever be repeated. 

I see it rather differently. We are experiencing the crumbling of our infrastructure, military might, economy, democratic institutions, and cultural and technological advantages. People in their 20s will certainly not have the same standard of living or opportunities that older generations have had. Just because they still benefit from old glory and prosperity for the time being does not make them any less of a victim of current and future circumstances being a direct consequence of self-destructive policies adopted decades before these people were even born. Yet they will bear the brunt of the consequences.

By contrast, people in their 50s and 60s grew up in post-war prosperity and had the run of their lives. Even if their retirement is now endangered, none of that can take away the good life they have already had.

[ArfinGreebly]

I see it rather differently. We are experiencing the crumbling of our infrastructure, military might, economy, democratic institutions, and cultural and technological advantages. People in their 20s will certainly not have the same standard of living or opportunities that older generations have had. Just because they still benefit from old glory and prosperity for the time being does not make them any less of a victim of current and future circumstances being a direct consequence of self-destructive policies adopted decades before these people were even born. Yet they will bear the brunt of the consequences.

By contrast, people in their 50s and 60s grew up in post-war prosperity and had the run of their lives. Even if their retirement is now endangered, none of that can take away the good life they have already had.

No to pick nits, but the "prosperity" I've had has been significantly diluted by an economic culture of "bubbles" wherein I've had the opportunity to see what could be, just in time to have it stripped away in the next round of government meddling and foolishness.

I wonder if it can be called a "good life" to repeatedly live through financial catastrophes, accompanied by a steady increase in meddling and loss of liberties.  Certainly, I've had my "moments," but I've had a disproportionate number of opportunities to look back and contemplate "how good it used to be" as the nation and my personal dominion has been methodically marginalized over decades.

The "good lifers" are actually in their seventies, eighties, or nineties, and even they have lived to see the demise of the prosperity they thought they had handed off to their heirs.

My son, in his twenties, has more than I ever had and, if he plays it cagey, may enjoy some prosperity of his own, but he can't lose what I lost, because he's never had it.

I pray he never has to reflect on the "loss of liberties" by comparison with what he has today.