150 Million wage earners

Hey, the ratio is still above 1.

People can save money, but governments can't. The very concept makes no sense. That's why the Social Security "trust fund" is "invested" in government debt.

John

Quite a large percentage was in fact spent on kids and doing other things to secure their future and create a nation where they would have a future. You're a simple-minded troll, probably bitter because you don't get anything.

Investing in government debt makes sense if that debt goes towards building an economic infrastructure of such prosperity that revenue to debt ratio increases.

Somebody does that? My town mostly invests in potholes, panhandlers, and funding agencies to drive businesses away.

John

The federal governmnet was doing exactly that during the 1930s when SS was enacted.

Why not? Companies can hold their own stock ("treasury stock"), and / or buy it back.

The US equivalent would have a similar effect--increase the value of the citizens' stake.

But that's a hypothetical problem--spending $1.76 for every dollar in revenue, it's not like this federal government is in any danger of saving any money.

It shouldn't be. They ought to simply use the revenue. (As they already do, of course, but without apology or the sham of a bogus "trust fund.")

That's at least honest, plus it reduces the debt service.

-- Cheers, James

in

We've increased spending 24-odd percent in two years. Are any potholes fixed?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Make that 132 million.

Employment chart:

Interesting: That chart clearly shows the recession Clinton left Bush, and today's situation.

In 2011 we've got the same number of jobs as 2004 (which were at recession levels), but we're bigger.

James Arthur

If you consider putting the kids deep in debt and driving the country towards second class status as part of "securing their future" I think your mistaken. It's clear to me the the government has allowed payers versus takers to become lopsided regarding the percentage of the population getting taxpayer paid benefits. Yea, your right, I don't get a monthly government check. Something wrong with that ? Bitter, no, motivated by the stupidity, yes.

Funny, I added the *note, just to make it clear that the money was not there, but had to be borrowed, for the 70 million checks, and it got all the feedback.

My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of the other posts said it was 132 million to 70 million. There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that

70 million. We're having fun now! Mikek

in

Sure the fed was doing the same thing back then , but we didn't have a

14 trillion debt then either. The times are changing. What worked then doesn't work now because we are broke and can't spend our way out. Time to throw away the credit cards.

-Bill

Ronald Reagan was a s*****ad for raiding the social security fund. Once Reagan broke it, everyone else was forced to do the same. Of course Bill Clinton managed things well enough that raiding social security was not needed by the end of his second term. Al Gore wanted the lock box, but George W Bush was selected, and the rest is history.

rs

These people are getting hardly any money at all, it barely qualifies as survival income. Your attack on this system is typical of the vicious rightwing, you don't have much to say about fat cats, liars, and thieves, ripping the government for trillions, but go after the near helpless.

es

" in

to

And when the SS law was enatced in 1935, the US population was just

127 million. Look at now. And look at every other overpopulated country in the world. Overpopulation means poverty and bankruptcy.

r

at

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

You're missing the math of it. Most recipients are getting far more out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more. If you do a time- integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true. Medicare is worse.

It's not close to sustainable. Benefits will be cut, period, by China, if not by us. We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when-- that's pure theater.

"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions'] are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis, United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans. They're just pointing out reality.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

My town invests in big infrastructure projects, where they put out an RFQ containing every bell, whistle, and wish list item that they can think of, and then, after all the bids are way over their budget, pick a winner and then see what they can get for the money that they have...

or, at least, THINK they have!

Charlie

her

that

Where is the time integral of the interest earned on their 40 year contributions??? The big bad USA should have enough intellectual capital to figure out a way to make it sustainable.

That's all been spent, too. The government doesn't *earn* interest, it

*pays* interest.

If individuals had been allowed to invest some of the mandatory SS deductions privately, things would be a little better. The Dems are dead-set against that. They want all the money, and they want it now.

John

hat

s

he

The SS Trust *earns* interest on its holdings- that's the way it's supposed to work, the excess isn't supposed to just sit there..

But the Trust loaned it to the government, who spent it all, and the government has a $14 trillion net deficit. The interest never existed. We owe it all to the Chinese now.

John