Obama Packs Commission w/ Social Security Looters

[JayB]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled h......

 

The irony here is that putting all of those funds into Uncle Sam's Cookie jar made it much easier to fund all of the wars, etc than it would have been if the money were in private accounts subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

 

[rob]

KK just likes to argue

 

well, what a good thing he does. Can you imagine if it was just us libtards on here, preaching to the choir? Yikes.

[Hugh Conway]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled h......

 

The irony here is that putting all of those funds into Uncle aSam's Cookie jar made it much easier to fund all of the wars, etc than it would have been if the money were in private accounts subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

wars that you supported?

 

no irony except in the dumb canuck known as Alanis who doesn't understand irony sense

[JayB]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled h......

 

The irony here is that putting all of those funds into Uncle aSam's Cookie jar made it much easier to fund all of the wars, etc than it would have been if the money were in private accounts subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

wars that you supported?

 

no irony except in the dumb canuck known as Alanis who doesn't understand irony sense

 

So - per your understanding of the term, a "Yes" answer to your question would make pointing out the fact the ability to borrow from the Social Security trust fund makes it easier for the US government to fund wars is...ironic?

 

Looks like we're getting into some recursive, multidimensional irony loops here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Looks like we're getting into some recursive, multidimensional irony loops here.

 

plumbing new depths of irony

[StevenSeagal]

All I know is that rain on one's wedding is not ironic. No I really don't think.

[j_b]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled h......

 

The irony here is that putting all of those funds into Uncle Sam's Cookie jar made it much easier to fund all of the wars, etc than it would have been if the money were in private accounts subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

huh? "protections" like during the last few bubbles? The truth is you wish SS was privatized but you can't seriously make the argument that people's retirements would be safer in private accounts unless you are already suffering from alzheimers.

 

 

[j_b]

I'm hoping that someone, somewhere, is looking at debt forecasts that incorporate a Monte Carlo simulation of future yields on Treasury debt but I doubt it....

 

"Treasury Market Fires Warning Shot

 

[...]

 

 

More fearmongering from the let's privatize everything front. The truth is that SS is doing well considering the current economic downturn (with 8 millions out of work, payroll tax receipts are down 2.5% from 2007). Although some reforms are necessary, like removing the cap on taxable income (anything above 110k per year isn't currently taxed), there is no crisis of social security. Media claims that we have to start borrowing to pay benefits are lies.

[rob]

we should let mortgage lenders privatize our social security. I trust them, don't you???

[prole]

...subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

[JayB]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled h......

 

The irony here is that putting all of those funds into Uncle Sam's Cookie jar made it much easier to fund all of the wars, etc than it would have been if the money were in private accounts subject to all of the protections that bank accounts, homes, and other personal property are covered by.

 

huh? "protections" like during the last few bubbles? The truth is you wish SS was privatized but you can't seriously make the argument that people's retirements would be safer in private accounts unless you are already suffering from alzheimers.

 

 

1. You can put 100% of your IRA balance in CDs if you wish. Every 401(K) plan will have at least one money market fund or equivalent. People that assume more risk with their retirement assets did so because they chose to, not because they had to.

 

2. The government can't "borrow" the money in your personal account, issue an IOU, and use the money for whatever it likes.

 

The fact of the matter is that your favorite sacred cow makes more money available to your favorite regressive neocon warmongers to play-with, not less. Much easier to raid the cookie jar and issue an IOU than to borrow the money from savers who get to choose whether or not to loan Uncle Sam money, and on what terms.

 

If the Dukes and Barons had to keep all of their money in the royal safe, there'd be no Magna Carta.

 

 

 

 

[prole]

1. ...People that assume more risk with their retirement assets did so because they chose to, not because they had to.

 

And yet privatizing Social Security would force people to assume more risk.

 

2. The government can't "borrow" the money in your personal account, issue an IOU, and use the money for whatever it likes.

 

This is exactly what private funds do and why so many unwitting "consumers" lost their asses with what they thought was, and were sold as, fairly ironclad investments when the shit hit the fan. Remember, Gramps?

[JayB]

I'm hoping that someone, somewhere, is looking at debt forecasts that incorporate a Monte Carlo simulation of future yields on Treasury debt but I doubt it....

 

"Treasury Market Fires Warning Shot

 

[...]

 

 

More fearmongering from the let's privatize everything front. The truth is that SS is doing well considering the current economic downturn (with 8 millions out of work, payroll tax receipts are down 2.5% from 2007). Although some reforms are necessary, like removing the cap on taxable income (anything above 110k per year isn't currently taxed), there is no crisis of social security. Media claims that we have to start borrowing to pay benefits are lies.

 

So per your understanding, is the balance in the

Trust Fund filled with something other than special-issue Treasury Bonds? When the total cost of benefits exceeds inputs, and the SSA redeems the bonds in the trust fund to pay for them - where is the money required to cover those redemptions going to come from?

 

Think about that question for a moment and then consider whether or not the fact that the rate that the US government has to pay for money it borrows to cover deficits will have any bearing on the political status of Social Security benefits. It's possible that both Congress and the public will be willing to make heavy cuts everywhere else and raise taxes dramatically in order to fund current entitlement obligations at face value but I'm certainly not going to count on it.

[JayB]

1. ...People that assume more risk with their retirement assets did so because they chose to, not because they had to.

 

And yet privatizing Social Security would force people to assume more risk.

 

2. The government can't "borrow" the money in your personal account, issue an IOU, and use the money for whatever it likes.

 

This is exactly what private funds do and why so many unwitting "consumers" lost their asses with what they thought was, and were sold as, fairly ironclad investments when the shit hit the fan. Remember, Gramps?

 

1. No - but feel free to elaborate.

2. Private funds use the money to pay for wars? Elaborate on which consumers lost money and how.

 

Your answer to 2 is much more likely to be public-sector pension funds than not, which gets us to a deeper layer of irony since the impossibility of financing their payouts made them so desperate for yield that they adopted an invest first, ask questions later strategy.

 

 

 

 

[AlpineK]

We should let Bernard Madoff manage Social Security while in prison

 

[img:center]http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/149919/thumbs/s-MADOFF-ASSAULT-BERNARD-MADOFF-PRISON-ATTACK-large.jpg[/img]

 

I bet a lot of Republicans are behind getting the maximum value out of warehoused inventory

[j_b]

I'm hoping that someone, somewhere, is looking at debt forecasts that incorporate a Monte Carlo simulation of future yields on Treasury debt but I doubt it....

 

"Treasury Market Fires Warning Shot

 

[...]

 

 

More fearmongering from the let's privatize everything front. The truth is that SS is doing well considering the current economic downturn (with 8 millions out of work, payroll tax receipts are down 2.5% from 2007). Although some reforms are necessary, like removing the cap on taxable income (anything above 110k per year isn't currently taxed), there is no crisis of social security. Media claims that we have to start borrowing to pay benefits are lies.

 

So per your understanding, is the balance in the

Trust Fund filled with something other than special-issue Treasury Bonds? When the total cost of benefits exceeds inputs, and the SSA redeems the bonds in the trust fund to pay for them - where is the money required to cover those redemptions going to come from?

 

 

Social Security will run a surplus for quite a few years and would have a lot longer if free marketeers hadn't enabled fraud and economic collapse. Minor tweaking like taxing income over $110,000 are necessary to insure your scenario doesn't come true.

 

Think about that question for a moment and then consider whether or not the fact that the rate that the US government has to pay for money it borrows to cover deficits will have any bearing on the political status of Social Security benefits. It's possible that both Congress and the public will be willing to make heavy cuts everywhere else and raise taxes dramatically in order to fund current entitlement obligations at face value but I'm certainly not going to count on it.

 

 

blablabla there is no SS fund crisis, there is a general fund crisis caused by your policies of warmongering, "free trade" monopoly enabling, race to the bottom labor and environemental costs, etc.. It's very simple, if you are unwilling to pay people a decent wage so they can also save for retirement be prepared to pay higher SS taxes.

[j_b]

Fact - Social Security is entirely solvent and will pay full benefits at least through 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all benefits through 2052 with no changes whatsoever.

 

Fact - The Social Security trust fund has accumulated a surplus of more than $1.5 trillion. That occurred because the fund collected more in payroll taxes from our paychecks than it paid out in benefit checks.

 

Fact - 48 million Americans now receive monthly Social Security checks. Of those, 38% are the disabled, and widows and their children. The remainder are retirees. More than 5 million children receive part of their family income from Social Security.

 

Fact - The current US Social Security program is a model of financial efficiency both for the government and for banks and businesses, in that 99% of all payroll taxes paid into the trust fund are paid out as benefits. Administrative overhead to run the program is only 1% of all monies paid in by us.

 

Fact - In 2018 at earliest, monthly benefit checks sent out will be higher than the monthly payroll taxes collected by the Social Security trust fund. However, the surplus will keep growing until 2028 because of the interest that the Social Security trust fund earns in US Treasury Bonds.

 

Fact - If nothing at all is done to “reform” social security, it will still be able to pay 70% of full benefits after 2042, at worst case.

 

Fact - In 75 years at the earliest, if nothing at all is done to reform Social Security, it could run a deficit of up to $3.7 trillion. Not $10 trillion.

 

Fact - Payroll taxes (called FICA) are now withheld from US workers' paychecks on the first $97,000 of their annual incomes. That means that if a person earns $400,000 a year, he pays exactly the same FICA as the person who earns $97,000 a year. (This is called a payroll tax cap, because it's capped at $97,000.)

 

Fact - If the payroll tax cap was raised to $200,000 per year, there would be NO Social Security funding gap for more than 100 years.

 

Fact - When President Bush states that he will not raise taxes to "reform" Social Security, that means he will not ask the wealthy to pay more because he refuses to raise the payroll tax cap.

 

Fact - President Bush proposes that Americans be allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes into private saving accounts that would be invested in stocks. These accounts are like 401(K) accounts. This is called "privatization."

 

Fact - By diverting payroll taxes away from being paid to the Social Security trust fund, Social Security would no longer be able to pay full benefits. Benefit cuts would range from about 15% to 46%. Most economists project that diverting payroll taxes way from the trust fund will result in the phasing out altogether of Social Security.

 

Fact - President Bush said in 2005 the initial cost to American taxpayers for privatizing Social Security will be $2 trillion!!!

 

Fact - Privatized accounts will be reduced as much as 20% to 30% by fees charged by investment bankers, trustees and account administrators. This occurred in Great Britain, Chile and other countries that adopted privatization. In both Great Britain and Chile, privatizing Social Security has been judged a failure because retirees' benefits were greatly decreased by "fees."

 

Fact - The Security Industry Assn wrote in a 2005 research paper that its member firms will collect at least $39 billion in fees over 75 years from privatized accounts. This $39 billion will be taken directly out of retirees' retirement funds.

 

Fact - The President’s privatization proposals are not intended to and are unable to "fix" any shortages in the Social Security trust fund.

 

The real truth is that conservatives have historically detested and attempted to undermine Social Security since Franklin Roosevelt established it in the dark days of the Depression. Conservatives derided it then, and they do now, as an entitlement, akin to welfare. They forget that Americans PAY for their benefits.

 

Final Fact - Most Americans believe that Social Security should NOT be privatized. There are many excellent, modest proposals to shore up Social Security long-term, that involve raising payroll taxes and/or making very minor benefits cuts decades from now. (And those proposals don't cost $2 trillion.)

 

Until then, most Americans see no reason to "reform" a reliable, trustworthy system that's not broken.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/SocSecReform.htm

[rob]

[kevbone]

 

Seriously!

[j_b]

hey, next time, you won't fall for regressive rhetoric claiming that: "SOcial Security is bankrupt", "social security won't be around to pay benefits to those who are being taxed today", "SS is a ponzi scheme", "SS and other entitlement programs are the reason for the deficit", etc .. ALL LIES meant to pit younger workers against older folks in order to further dismantle the social safety net.

 

Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS.

Edited March 30, 2010 by j_b

[j_b]

hey did you see the ads for coupons and lawn mowers?

[rob]

no, sorry, too busy looking at porn.

[olyclimber]

HOWZ THAT HOPEY CHANGEY WORKEN OUT FER YA????

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

1. No - but feel free to elaborate.

 

you get more disingenuous by the day.

 

SS: government entitlement of benefits. primary investment US treasuries

Privatized: lowest risk US treasuries.

 

The former has lower risk than the latter. The latter provides plenty of opportunity for worthless Wall Street shits to profit from a government mandated program.... so they cna be pseudo-freemarket overpaird admin assistants and you won't get your tax manties in a bunch