Democrat says we're going bankrupt...

Amazing. Please explain how digging the debt hole faster is going to fill it in. SS has quit buying USGovernment bond secutities and is now redeeming them to meet its obligations. They no longer have any money to buy bonds with.

At what point did the politicians decide to spend SS withholding ?

The "promise" of a retirement if you just "pay into this little insurance policy" has not held up as the original framers had thought.

My history in vague on these points.

Can some one help one who was schooled in a gov'mt skool.

hamilton

With the first dime collected.

It was sold to the people as an "insurance policy", but to the Supreme Court as a "tax". Remind you of anything recently?

Well, I went to one, too, but before they stopped teaching civics (or just teaching, for that matter).

erskine...

in

debt

=3D

its

icly

bout

he

f the

omy-...

ximate

land

own

ll

se

or

d add up

cess

in

point.

e?

Well, if my grandmother is 95 and has 500K under the mattress, she can spend 30K a year for the rest of her life, without worries.

What's so hard about that explanation?

-Bill

Thomps>> >> > >>>>>> Democrat says we're going bankrupt...

up

That 500K isn't under the mattress. She instead takes a little each day out of all her decendants pockets and many others as well. So does every other grandmother. Do you like millions of other grandmothers dipping into your pocket every day?

Part of the LIE was the statement "insurance"; if the system had actually been set up like any other, true insurance, the "Social Security" funds would be a lot different, more secure, and un-available to spendthrift government types. FDR screwed us in many ways..

Oh yes...since the money PAID IN was TAXED, is it not illegal for the government to TAX the pay-outs? Constitution? WTF is that????

Let's see: USA GDP =3D 14 trillion. National debt =3D about 14 trillion. Hence national debt can be paid off if all of us work and produce for a year and buy and consume nothing for the same time.

As it turns out, the debt per citizen is $42,693. The assets per citizen (and that includes all business and corporate assets but not government assets) is $237,024 That would mean your idea would require an 18% percent tax on ALL assets or for EACH and EVERY citizen to fork over $43 grand to do their part. Yeah, that will work. Where's yours? Please mail it to B. Obama, White House Washington D.C.

But wait, not just the government but Americans themselves have debt. And that is about 55 trillion which means it would take four years of GDP to pay off all debt. Of course current revenue is about 30% of GDP so that means it would take 12 years of government collecting revenue but spending ZERO. Well obviously that won't work because bureaucrats would raise hell. So lets just say the government somehow grows some balls and stretches up and allocates 1/3 of revenue to debt service so as to pay off the total debt of the citizens. So that means that it can be done in 36 years.

But wait. There's more. To cut spending would mean that all government obligations would have to be cut. That would include all unfunded liabilities: Social Security, Medicare, Prescription drugs (and this doesn't even cover Obamacare). And those come to about 110 trillion dollars so to pay that off, using our 1/3 of revenue figure, That adds another 70 years or so to the total. So now we are up to 106 years! In other words if right now Government totally closed down paying NOBODY ANYTHING except for Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs, and we assume the economy keeps humming alone as per usual (or maybe actually BETTER given government is shut down) it would take 60 years, or nearly a lifetime to pay off the mess created up to now.

So just what is the balance sheet problem?

Idiot.

I am SO glad I'm an old geezer and I don't have to deal with this problem. I'll be dead in a few years and all you young whippersnappers can use your lifetimes and all the work you do in that lifetime trying to fix this mess "we" made! Good luck!

Robert Baer wrote in news:Y_KdnfKH0b5L3dTRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.localnet:

the BIG part of the Lie was that the SS funds would be "invested". next was that the retirement age was 65;it's now rising and new entrants will not be able to retire until several years past 65.

It's a classic pyramid scheme.

Except that any fool should know that the government cannot "invest" in anything and still have a free society.

That ship left almost thirty years ago when the retirement age, depending on your birth date, was raised from 65 to 66 or 67.

No, it's a tax-and-redistribute scheme. Pyramid schemes aren't enforced at gunpoint.

al

or the

The SS funds were invested in government bonds, which is the safest investment in the world. Where else would you invest the funds, the stock market that loses 50%, or a bank vault where it earns no interest? I prefer government bonds.

Anyone can retire at age 62 and collect SS income and still earn 13K a year on top of the benefits. I think it's just Medicare coverage that goes out a few years to 66, 67 or whatever. Retirement age doesn't mean much, other than you might lose cash benefits to cover medical insurance when you reach the so-called retirement age.

on

d at

No, they weren't "invested" in any way. That is only an accounting trick, and a poor one at that. Basically, the government used the money for its day-to-day expenses and left IOUs for your grandchildren to pay off, and called it even. That is *not* investing. If anyone else had done this it they'd be in prison.

Wrong. Full retirement is somewhere between 65 and 67, depending on your age. You can take "early retirement" at age 62, but at a greatly reduced amount. You're right about "early retirement" and the limited earnings. *That* should be abolished. My retirement age is 66.

All government is overhead that comes at the expense of its citizens. Total government, whatever its colors, is always totalitarian, always tyranny.

I figure Mr. Obama's work thus far will cost me two extra hours each day, employed in the government's service (whose service in turn is of redistributing the proceeds of those two extra hours, and the three or four before them). Or I could just not.

Change. Indeed.

on

Just raise it to 97--that'll fix the whole thing.

d at

Au contaire--now, they are.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

ck, and

is it

That's a good point. The funds weren't put into a factory that hired workers to make something people wanted and needed, an enterprise that creates jobs and value and makes the country richer. That's investment. These funds were handed out, like candy, and, like candy, now they're gone.

The fact that the government promises to pay them back Tuesday with interest (by confiscating funds from people not then yet born) does not make it an investment, does not create value, make it safer, or sustainable. It's none of those.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

cial

ional

ing

ght.

had

able

l for the

ck, and

is it

nts

ur age.

t.

ould

ing on

rced at

Well, the first thing is to consider is how much you LOSE by delaying retirement past age 62. If your benefit is 1K per month at age 62 and you wait until age 66, you lose 48K. How long do you have to live at the increased benefit at age 66 to get that 48K back? Do some math and it turns out about age 88. Full retirement age goes to age 70. Every month you delay retirement past 62 adds more to your benefit up to age

1. It doesn't matter which month or year you take benefits. It's all on a scale from 62 to 70.

-Bill

"You delay your retirement past your full retirement age."

Social Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on your date of birth) if you delay receiving benefits until past your full retirement age. If you do so, your benefit amount will be increased until you start taking benefits or you reach age

-Bill

cial

ional

ing

ght.

had

able

l for the

ck, and

is it

nts

ur age.

t.

ould

ing on

rced at

First thing to consider is LOST benefits from waiting past age 62 to age 66 or 48K at 1K per month. Next question is how long do you need to live to get that back at increased rates? Do some math and it's about age 88.

And full retirement is anything from age 62 to 70, it's all on a scale, so every month you wait adds a little more, and costs you a thousand dollars. Hope you live to 88.

"You delay your retirement past your full retirement age. Social Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on your date of birth) if you delay receiving benefits until past your full retirement age. If you do so, your benefit amount will be increased until you start taking benefits or you reach age 70."

-Bill

Not in the least. The guarantees are about repeated criminal trial. Your representatives can tax you all you will put up with.

on

Completely different issue. If you've lived to age 66, the chances of you living to 88, today, are very good. It's a good bet. Waiting until after that, not so much.

No, "full retirement" age is somewhere between 65 an 67. One can delay benefits until 70 and collect somewhat more money, but this is considered "full retirement".

Note: "past your full retirement age"

...and your point is?

Except that "reelection" thing. ;-)

From what I've read, delaying retirement age two years and deleting the "early retirement" option will pretty much do it. ...and only for those currently younger than 55, according to Ryan.

Our dictionaries differ. ;-)