150 Million wage earners

er

o that

fies

ou

g the

All this stuff about China owning our debt is bulloney- Americans are still the majority holders in one form or another, just barely a majority. The SS Trust is no different than savings bonds, of course the government spent your initital investment, that's why they sold them in the first place. The biggest obstacle to turning the money around profitably is our munificent policy of disallowing the government to compete with private enterprise.

You're such a simple dolt.

I am 85 and lived through that period. It was the Democrat Pres Johnson that put the SS trust fund into the general fund to hide the costs of the Vietnam war, (which Johnson started! ) Don't listen to your lying liberal friends.

that

If the government started competing with private enterprise, it would of course pass laws to let it win, and to maximize union benefits. So it would drive private enterprise out of business. So who would pay taxes then?

Of course, how dumb of me. Government would just borrow from itself to tax itself.

John

Are you willing to reduce your check 3% if every other govenment check is also reduced? Mikek

Hmm.. that's about $14,000, but if your married then your over $25,000. Hopefully by that age you own your home or have assets to cover housing costs. At retirement expenses should be less. Unless your a wine drinker :-)

Helpless is -often- a mindset that starts at about 20 yrs old. The mindset is not living on less than your income.

But, I'm entitled! (tongue in cheek)

Oh good, where is it? Mikek

e r

I included that, naturally.

Here's the situation, easily understandable: today's contributions by

132-odd million workers are completely consumed by current payments to the half that number who are receiving benefits, plus we're borrowing to make up the difference. No money is being saved for anyone. Zero.

Also, there are far more people contributing now than when these people were working.

Thus, it takes at least two (and more likely three or four) people's contributions to pay the benefits received by a single recipient today, with none left over.

Does that make it clearer?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

I think the worst part of it is the effect on poor people. A poor kid with barely two nickels to rub together, who's close to break-even, and the gov't insists on taking 14%, keeping him right on the ragged edge.

If that kid could save that 14% and have the use of it himself for a few years, he could totally change his life for the better. He could save up a "stake," be more secure against unemployment, make investments in himself that would make all the difference for the rest of his life.

But, now, he can't.

James

other

o that

e

JFC!

Hey, be careful. You can damage your vision rolling your eyes that hard.

John

ther

to that

Also consider that government employees outnumber taxpayers. Yes, government employees "pay taxes", but their wages come from taxes on actual producers.

lifies

you

ing the

Now now, don't go uber-Socialist on us. Consider how many of those "fat cats, liars, and thieves" hold government jobs.

re

-

Of course we "have the money", we print as much as we want. Problem is "inflation".

']

s,

it

.

That's because China is divesting itself of dollars as fast as it can as their value falls. Hard assets don't devalue as fast as currency does.

Oh, and China isn't the only foreign US debt-holder doing this. Try spending dollars in Europe. Did you know you can spend Euros in many places on the US East Coast?

What? In what sense can government "compete" with private enterprise?

Mark L. Fergerson

: s

in

to

Of course. I already had my check reduced 6% because we didn't get the usual 3% raise last year, or the year before. But I think Obama is a jerk for suggesting SS checks might not go out next month considering government tax revenue is still coming in at 2 trillion per year. And, the SS income from FICA (payroll tax) is not very far in the red, and only last year and this year had a small shortage. He makes it sound like all the SS payments come from borrowed money.

"Time to eat our peas" is what he said.

-Bill

Nice try, that was not a reduction. You didn't get a raise because as calculated a cost of living increase was not warranted.

But I think Obama is a

Yes, rather than starving the 50 million SS recipients buy cutting them off completely, he might think about cutting 3% from each check. Ya he's a jerk for suggesting he might not be able to send any checks out.

So, I'll ask again, Are you willing to reduce your check 3% if every other government check is also reduced? Mikek BTW, I've had to live on 25% less for the last three years because of this poor economy.

he other

d to that

ies

u

the

re

-

Simon likes this

Do you remember 1983?

Not to quibble, but 2.2 trillion. (That extra .2 trillion alone pays SS for the rest of FY2011.)

But, why don't they just open up that 'ol lockbox and whip out those non-worthless IOUs we've been hearing about?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

nt

Why? Because your buddy Mark Levin said SS was actually a tax and not a contribution. Seems the supreme court ruled in 1937 that non- voluntary contributions are actually a tax without earmarks. Pretty much the same today with Obama care requiring purchase of health insurance, which will ultimately become a tax.

I'm not sure if it's possible to earmark federal taxes for some single purpose? The states do it with property tax going to the schools, why not the feds?

BTW, the 405 freeway is being closed for the 53 hours this weekend from West LA to the SF Valley. 30 mile traffic jams are expected. They call it "Carmageddon"

-Bill

e:

akes

ed" in

e to

, S

Amen. What we're seeing these days is the thin end of the ultimate correction. We either reduce our numbers or it will be done for us.

-- Joe