The money you put into social security isn't yours.

[dkf]

It would be if it was a privatized account for you but it isn't. You are only entitled to whatever the laws say you are at the time of payment.

Medicare doesn't go into your account either.

[DURHAM D]

1. What's your point?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

Accept what your benevolent government decides or you're helping elect Sarah Palin.

[WinkyDink]

42. Didn't quite pull that one off, I'm afraid.

[Capn Sunshine]

138. I think the point is it's a communist plot

but the money you put into Social Security determines the ultimate benefit you will be paid at your retirement. If we raised the FICA cap a few hundred thousand, the system would be funded for 100 years. Right now we start to run out of money in 2037. Start. the SS system is not broken and does not need fixing.

However, many of my Wall Street Colleagues have run out of places to steal money from, and would like a chance at SS. C'mon, you guys, what's the worst that could happen?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Yes, I understand that future SS payments to me come from the status quo of

employment at that time. I pay now to fund my father's payments.

[mmonk]

4. You do realize privatizing social security is getting rid of it, don't you?

[dkf]

87. I'm actually trying to fix the misconception that the money we put in is ours.

We haven't privatized so it isn't.

[mmonk]

101. It depends on if the concept of we the people still exists, that we are the

government, and the concept of public as being the people still exists. The right has managed to trick people into thinking various business enterprises are the people.

[dkf]

110. Well for one, the $2.2 trillion fund would pay the $700 billion in yearly SS payments for 3 years

So most of the funds we put in are gone.

There are minimal funds to claim as "ours". Certainly not anything near what we need to receive the payments we expect.

[mmonk]

139. It's 2.7 and we're ok for 25 more years.

But I tell you what. Let's keep this Freidman shit going and become Chile in the 1970's, ok? Only one thing. Don't expect me to live here though. Banana Republics suck.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Odd framing of facts everyone knows. What is your point?

Also, the world is round and water is wet.

[amborin]

57. distortion intended to push privatization

[dkf]

73. Actually just pointing out that people are assuming it's already privatized

Thus they call the money they put into social security as theirs.

[jtown1123]

6. It's a transfer program. Unrec. Why do you hate SS so much? Every day it's a new post.

[xchrom]

7. +1

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

47. +1+1+1+1

[Rex]

Good question.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinboy3niner]

97. +1

Damn, I miss blondeatlast. She was all over those threads, as she would be all over this one, too...

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

118. everyone knows too

makes me wonder why and I know it makes many others here ask the same question.

[dkf]

134. I am a donor to the party, to Obama, to my Rep, huge for Howard Dean.

Canvasser...all of it.

Big time sign waver, phone banker, yard sign provider...

I have walked MILES for candidates.

But we can't have the conversation if people don't understand how things work. They won't get why we need to touch the program at all.

[girl gone mad]

137. Sell the garbage somewhere else.

Social Security will always be solvent as long as we have a sovereign currency. It's that simple.

[scarletwoman]

133. It's a mission, apparently. Unrec for the OP, big thumbs up for you.

[RC]

8. The money may not be "ours", but...

There is a contractual agreement for payback at a specified later date.

[alc]

23. there is no contractural right

From http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

[WinkyDink]

106. It is not a right in the sense that Congress can amend the SS laws. UNTIL such

amending, however, the current law stands.

[Yavin4]

9. We Know That Already

It's been given to our wealthy overlords through tax cuts.

[Skink]

10. The average 401K comes to about 98,000

enough for a really cool party.

[hobbit709]

11. Same song, same verse, same singer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Remember the 700th time you heard "stairway to heaven"?

Me either.

[dkf]

82. I'm still not breaking through.

Read all the responses and recognize those who understand how the system works and those who either don't or will deny it til the end.

[whatchamacallit]

142. ops wrong spot

[lonestarlib]

13. Privatization wouldn't guarantee anything--want to take a look at

my 401K?

[hobbit709]

14. Is it like mine-a 101a?

[dkf]

15. That 401k is still yours. It's not going to be used to fund the next guy's retirement.

For pension plans it may be a different story. If the guys that came earlier got generous benefits, it may run out before the later guys can receive theirs.

So the 401k may go down, but everything in it is still yours. Grandpa and grandma aren't going to get to deplete it before you do.

[Oilwellian]

19. Oh my God. You think Grandpa & Grandma depleted SS?

The stupid. It hurts.

[dkf]

43. There was no fund there for them to deplete.

It's a transfer program. See you dont get it.

[WinkyDink]

29. Look. Just argue from your own selfish viewpoint and use the pronoun "I". Drop "the later guys".

[dkf]

44. I'm not expecting anything.

I'm worried that people who depend on it won't survive because they haven't prepared properly.

Good luck to you all.

[dgibby]

75. Do you always drink the republiCON tea? n/t

[WinkyDink]

107. Thanks. Your concern is duly noted.

[girl gone mad]

66. How many times do you have to be reminded..

that a sovereign currency government can never run out of money?

[dkf]

78. Your economic lesson on how we can print numerous trillion dollar coins

To retire any debt we incurr without inflation failed to convince me.

It kind of maybe made sense with one trillion, but then that goes to why you couldn't do that with the entire debt and why we don't do that on a constant basis. There must be some downside or why don't we do it?

[girl gone mad]

99. We can do it to retire all of the debt.

I actually think it would be a good idea.

The thing that seems to freak people out about the national debt is the belief that this debt needs to be "paid back" and that eventually taxes will have to be raised in order to do so. Both of these assumptions are false. Coin seigniorage to retire our debts would eliminate those concerns and also eliminate the need to borrow from China.

[dkf]

114. Why doesn't Paul Krugman advocate this?

Are there any economists or papers that have suggested this as something to be done perhaps now?

[girl gone mad]

122. You can read Krugman's opinion on the platinum coin solution..

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lawyers-coins-and-money

A handful of economists advocate this type of approach now. More will likely adopt it as time goes on, since our government has utterly failed to manage the economy in a responsible manner and this ignorant debt hysteria is preventing us from being able to invest and innovate appropriately.

[dkf]

124. He says it sounds "ridiculous".

"These things sound ridiculous — but so is the behavior of Congressional Republicans. So why not fight back using legal tricks?"


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lawyers-coins-and-money/

He also doesn't say it wont impact inflation if used on a permanent and on going basis. I'm think he anticipates it would be a maneuver that would be used then reversed when an agreement comes.

[girl gone mad]

125. He says it "sounds" ridiculous, but he also says "why not use it?"

He never says it would be inflationary. No neoclassical economist has argued that it would be inflationary.

No idea where you get the notion that it would be "reversed".

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. This is a very important point

Social Security is not a personal savings account; it has a much deeper meaning than that. When I pay into SSI, I am not banking funds for my future. What I am doing is providing for the senior citizen walking down my block, or getting on the bus: any senior citizen in general. The meaning of that act - the payment into the fund - is a social meaning, not an individual meaning. It says, "I am part of a society that seeks to provide for others when they are vulnerable or otherwise unable to provide for themselves."

Is there an implicit agreement that by doing so, the same will be done for me? There may be an implicit agreement of that kind, but it is not the primary function of the social act - it does not redound to the self. I am not investing in my own future; I am, rather, providing for others in the present. If the Republicans deeply despise Social Security it is because, in its essential meaning, it is the policy implementation of a simple social principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It's not about me. It's about the social agreement on our treatment of others.

It is perhaps deeply ironic (or a symptom of our particular stage of capitalist development) that elements of the Left have started using the language of investment to describe this kind of act. In doing so, they seek to preserve the system by likening it to a savings or investment account held by an individual: I paid in; I should receive MY returns. Such language, of course, only plays into the rejection of the social meaning of the act that Republicans themselves have foisted upon us.

As we reflect on the social meaning of the act, we should also, I would argue, recognize the difference between means and ends. Social Security is a specific policy tool designed to produce a particular social end: the good society provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. That's the end, or purpose, that we have sought to achieve with this particular tool, this means to that end. If there is a second problem apart from representing Social Security as a personal investment vehicle or savings account, it is that we fetishize the means, confusing means for ends. I don't doubt that this particular tool is not only the sole means we have at this point for achieving the social goal. Nor do I doubt that it is a good means, a good tool that has served us well in achieving the goal thus far. That said, when we mistake means for ends, we become inflexible and dogmatic. Do i know if Social Security will continue to be the best means toward our social goal in 30 years time? Might a better means to that end be invented? After all, the particular tool was itself invented - nothing bestows on it some transhistorical effectiveness.

Yes, we must fight like hell for the preservation of this particular tool - not only because it continues to work, but because the tool itself holds a social meaning that is better for society and the people in it. But we should recognize that social meaning, and we should also recognize that the tool is not an end in itself, and that other tools may emerge that allow us to reach our social goals even more effectively.

[Recursion]

27. +1. In some ways the Trust Fund confuses things more.

By changing it to a rentier program. The effect is the same (future workers will need to pay the same amount whether it's for direct funding through levies or the redemption of bonds through taxes) but focusing on "how much can it pay?" rather than "how much is it obligated to pay?" is dangerous.

[Pholus]

39. VERY nice post! But we have not seen any new tools which seem to fit your bill.

In fact, the destruction of individual pension programs seems to underscore the need for a shared risk pool.

[JimDandy]

98. Nice point yourself! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

72. Self-delete due to technical error. n/t.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Excellent post, alcibiades_mystery.

I believe you nailed what the essence of the debate should be about.:thumbsup:

[dkf]

77. Thank you.

[Cirque du So-What]

17. You mean there's not a pile of money stashed away with *MY* name on it?

Here's hoping they have someone come around and flip it over occasionally - otherwise those first dollars I earned would be on the bottom for a long LONG time, and they'd be somewhat moldy by now.

You've been beating around the bush for quite awhile with your innuendos that people here are sofa king stoopid, and judging from the sheer quantity of posts you've been making on the subject of Social Security, I'd really like to know what's your end game. From where I'm sitting, it looks for all the world as though you're advocating for the regressives who are trying to severely restrict eligibility for receiving SS benefits at all. A lot of posts. Yup. Practically spam-like in nature.

[kenny blankenship]

18. As all Republicans Always say.

thanks for repeating it. Some of us may have forgotten.

[Jim__]

20. The money we put into SS was not put there to fund government operations.

Using it for that purpose while cutting taxes for the rich and then claiming there is no SS trust fund is a lie, plain and simple.

[Cirque du So-What]

22. And I'm so grateful that 'some people' are working sofa king HARD on their behalf!

And we don't even need to visit a RW message board to get a daily dose of it - several times a day, in fact!

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. No. It's "ours".

As in, "it belongs to workers and is intended to finance the needs for which the social insurance system indemnifies us."

[WinkyDink]

25. You're really trying hard not to call SS a "Ponzi scheme," aren't you?

The mask, she is falling fast.......

[JackRiddler]

38. Eighty years worth, with at least 30 years left... some Ponzi scheme!

How many people have been ruined in the markets or had their private or corporate pensions fail in the same period that Social Security has always paid on schedule?

[dkf]

48. Lol. I just described how it works.

If you think that is a ponzi scheme that is your take on it.

Funny enough the SSA has a piece on the difference between a Ponzi scheme and social security. Here you go;

The Logic of Pay-As-You-Go Systems

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

[EC]

28. Well, from what I can see

we collect alot more from it than we put in.

[kctim]

30. Come on dkf

You know damn well people don't want to hear how things really are when it doesn't fit into their 'how things should be' box.

[WinkyDink]

32. Arguing for the Republican side doesn't sit well here, that is true. Your point, though?

[kctim]

55. My point is that

dismissing the facts by claiming they are the "Republican side," is not how to argue against the point made.

It is an insurance program for those who truly need it. There is no guarantee. It has become a retirement program for everybody and is now weaker because of that.

[fascisthunter]

35. if you are a republican I guess you could conclude what you have

[TK421]

31. who's money is it?

[dkf]

50. It went to a retiree.

[RebelOne]

58. Well, I am a retiree, so does that mean the money

I am receiving every month from what I had put in SS for the past 50 years is not mine.

[dkf]

61. Someone else gave it to you

[TK421]

89. so...we're giving it to each other? and the money belongs to no one?

edited to add: something just-isn't-adding-up here

[dkf]

91. It's a pay as you go system

Current worker pays retiree. When he retires another worker will pay him.

From the SSA:

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.



There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

[TK421]

92. whew! OK, I thought I was reading that the money won't be there for me someday

I must have misread a post somewhere stating it wouldn't

[dkf]

94. There is no money in there or not enough to represent what you paid in.

They would have to collect it from someone who is still working.

They overtaxed $2.2 trillion or so which is in non negotiable bonds. But that is only three years of payments. It really depends on new funds from workers to pay retirees.

So no there is no fund representing all the money you put in that is growing to pay you out when you retire.

There is a line of workers and future workers you are depending on to provide for you. Your livelihood in retirement rests on how well they can optimize their education and skills and earn a decent enough wage so they have some to spare for you.

[fascisthunter]

33. more anti-ss BS

this is the crap the majority here are fighting against and yet a Duer is advocating just that. Must be nice to have money so you never have to depend on a social saftey net. YOU do not represent the majority of this site nor this country.

[dkf]

51. Here I'll post this for you too. It's from the social security administration.

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.



There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

[madfloridian]

34. I love the fact that DU is now a place to disparage Social Security.

Ain't it amazing?

[WinkyDink]

36. DU has a liberal immigration policy. ;-)

[dkf]

52. Describing how social security works is disparaging it?

It seems you are unhappy with the reality of how it's designed?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

69. +1

It's unbelievable

:-(

[JackRiddler]

37. The money you put in equities or bonds or Wall Street "retirement accounts" isn't yours, either.

Only once you divest yourself of an investment by sale or maturity under whatever conditions the contract allows is the money again yours. In the meantime, there are probabilities but no certainties of what you actually have or will have at maturity.

In that sense, Social Security is the same. You pay in and under the conditions of the contract (the law) you later are paid. When you're paid, the money you get then is again your money.

Many people have discovered they didn't have what they thought they did in their retirement accounts.

So your damned point?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Very good reply.

Excellent, in fact.

[ellenfl]

49. i've seen that avatar before. jon, is it you? eom

[JackRiddler]

62. Nope, sorry.

[ellenfl]

146. that's ok. you never know if you don't ask. eom

[dkf]

53. Stocks and bonds are assets that you own like any other thing you own.

Yes you can sell it and covert to cash. But it will show up on your balance sheets as your assets. Social security does not.

[JackRiddler]

63. Retirement accounts are NOT like that at all.

You can liquidate only under the conditions of the pension plan or account, in which case you LOSE MONEY. Otherwise you must wait until maturity, in which case you don't know if you will get what you hope for, or a lot less. A lot of people get screwed. It's not their money prior to maturity.

Even straight up stocks and bonds are not always liquid and depending on the crisis you might not get to sell, if there are no buyers just then, or sell only at massive losses.

By contrast, Social Security has paid as planned on schedule for 80 years without failure, ever. You can calculate exactly what you will get out of it at what age, inflation adjusted, and so far it has ALWAYS worked.

[dkf]

83. What does gain or loss or penalties have to do with ownership?

I see your point about a pension plan. I made that same point upthread.

[pscot]

40. What we have here

is a failure to communicate.

[William769]

45. But the people that want to fuck with it answer to me & about 57 million other Americans.

Take your chances.

[dkf]

54. Exactly.

So it is our best interest to see that it can do what we expect of it.

But fighting to not touch it won't get us there.

[Modern_Matthew]

46. Then I demand it be left on my paycheck.

I make less than $12,000 a year.

[amborin]

56. BILGE! don't distort to push privatization; workers' payroll taxes fund Soc Sec, it's their $$

[dkf]

64. If you believe in a system where what you pay in goes to a retiree then you

Support social security as a pay as you go system.

If you want the funds you put in to be yours you believe in privatization

[amborin]

65. stop pushing privatization

[dkf]

71. I'm not pushing it. I'm just pointing out that some seem to think

It's already privatized thus alluding to "their" money.

[AlabamaLibrul]

59. Wheeee! Right wing talking points! Privatized accounts are the way ahead for the private individual!

[dkf]

67. Or maybe you could cheer for a system where you pay for retirees and

When you retire someone else pays for you but you acknowledge what happened to your money...that it has long been gone

[Taverner]

68. But unemployment money IS yours

[dkf]

76. I guess I would call it group term insurance if I needed to categorize it

[leftstreet]

70. unRec

Enough with the rightwing talking points

[dkf]

79. This is why the Democrats will lose you all when they try to fix social security

Tell me how what I posted is incorrect?

[leftstreet]

80. Please explain why Wall Street & the DOD think OUR $$ belongs to THEM

Why isn't anyone 'fixing' that? It's the only thing that's actually broken.

[jtown1123]

84. What needs to be fixed about SS? Just raise the damn cap.

[dkf]

85. Lol that is a fix!

[metalbot]

86. It's actually the opposite of the RW talking point

When you start to say that it IS your money, then it's fair to talk about privatizing your retirement. It completely opens the door to "it's my retirement money, I should be able to do what I want with it".

If instead it's a social agreement that we have in which today's workers take care of old people, then it's hard to talk about privatizing it.

[dkf]

116. Thank you.

People don't realize what they are saying when they call SS "their" money then scream about privatization. It's contradictory!

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

88. He gets it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

90. Cat

Dog
Janet
Mark

[ThomWV]

93. Correct - its a premium payment on an insurance policy, and you own it.

you paid for it, you own it.

[bvar22]

96. Not anymore!

Cherish your memories, SUCKERS!
because we're TAKING everything else!
Hahahahahahaha!

[Nye Bevan]

100. Fascinating thread. Nobody has disputed the accuracy of your statement,

but the reaction of DUers has been overwhelmingly hostile (including referring to you as "vermin").

I guess your OP falls under the category of "unpleasant truths" (unpleasant to DUers, at least).

[WinkyDink]

103. You must not have read every post.

[dkf]

111. Calling this a right wing statement does not refute the basic facts.

[girl gone mad]

104. I dispute the merit of her arguments.

It's been pointed out to her over and over again that Social Security can never be insolvent, but she still repeats the same tired talking points about how we will run out of money if we don't cut benefits now.

It's illogical and obscene.

[dkf]

112. As long as there are taxes coming in there are funds that can come out

But will it be what people expect and think they can get if only they insist upon it?

Again, if we can mint trillion dollar coins to get rid of all our debt without inflation, and if that is your explanation why we will always be solvent, why don't we do so on a regular basis?

[girl gone mad]

119. Taxes don't fund government spending.

We could continue to pay out even if tax collection dropped or was halted completely. Of course, this would eventually lead to inflation. That's why we have taxes in the first place, to combat inflation. Maintaining dollar's purchasing power, as well as redistributing wealth and influencing consumer choices, are the primary reasons for taxation under a fiat system.

Treasury's ability to mint a platinum coin of large face value has nothing whatsoever to do with why we will always be solvent. That's simply a legal loophole which would allow us to quickly retire debts without needing Congressional approval and without risking inflation.

We will remain solvent so long as we have a http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/07/what-is-a-sovereign-currency.html">sovereign currency.

[fascisthunter]

120. .

[Matariki]

102. IT'S OURS

It's a collective account to be used for all our retirements. In that sense it is mine. Mine, yours, ours.

[WinkyDink]

105. The premise is disingenuous. True, what I paid in at age 26 I will receive in some govt-determined

form not until or before age 62, as opposed to my being allowed to take from the SS fund to, say, buy a car at age 28.
True, there are no Social Security funds kept as "the personal account of WinkyDink."

HOWEVER:
With the full faith of the United States govt and current law, I will, at age 62 if I choose not to wait, receive a SS check from the SS fund into which I paid for 30 years.

MEANWHILE, between my beginning employment (11/1971) and my retirement (6/2002), OTHER TAX-PAYERS who were disabled, orphaned, widowed, or retired received SS checks from that same SS fund.

I could not care less whose collected tax monies were sent out and are being sent out before I reach age 62, as long as the SS fund is viable when I do so reach.

I didn't need to put my initials on every dollar taken in SS tax to make sure "I got mine back."

[Pholus]

108. Exactly! I pay for insurance to cover risk, not as an investment account. Analogy fail in OP.

However, I seem to get statements indicating how my level of payment would relate to my eventual benefits anyway.

Lots of people depend on the risk pool for their retirements, more than should have to, but that is a consequence of the seeming theft and incompetence that characterizes way too many investment brokers and banks. The worst of them (and there are tooooo many) see retirement accounts as profit opportunities, not something the customer needs.

[dkf]

117. That is how your payments look if they don't change the laws.

With one signature, those benefits change. No amounts promised are set in stone.

[Pholus]

128. So what? My private accounts guarantee nothing as well.

The fine print from all private investment accounts is a wonderful bit of wall-street speak which says if they rob me blind I was a willing party.

[dkf]

115. Why is it disingenuous to point out there is no "personal account of winkydink"

In the SS fund?

You get whatever the Govt says you get. You aren't owed any specific amount that can't be changed with the swish of a pen.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a la izquierda]

113. Edit: Not worth getting the mods involved over

[DirkGently]

121. In the same sense, money you deposit in a bank is not "yours." It's a contract.

You put it in, with the understanding the bank will pay you back under prescribed conditions.

[hansberrym]

123. You are correct, we have no legal claim to the money we pay in. Rich guys buy bonds

and if they don't get paid back, there is hell to pay.

But we have to rely on the "generosity" of Congress to actually return with interest the money they forced us to pay into the system. The only privatization scheme I would favor is one which converts the money in our "accounts" into a real obligation on par with treasury bonds, and at no less a rate of return.

[Odin2005]

126. Yes, it's false, but that idea is what protects SS, so STFU about it.

[dkf]

129. You know I'm beginning to think that is the truth.

But that is also the reason rank and file Democrats don't understand that a pay as you go product needs to be modified every once in a while.

[cherokeeprogressive]

127. This post is tenderizer, intended to soften up the masses for when cuts to SS are called "necessary"

by Obama et al. The all or nothing Obama supporters will happily jump on board when that day comes and say "but but but... HE HAD NO CHOICE!" or "HE WAS FORCED!"

Take that to the bank.

Fuck a buncha that.

[dkf]

130. Do you understand that in order to not cut benefits you have to make changes?

[cherokeeprogressive]

132. Yup Yup.

And I'll bet my bottom dollar that those changes will be called "cuts to providers" by the all or nothing club, and they will be passed on to the general public.

Doublespeak. The all or nothing club is becoming masterful at it.

[rustydog]

135. MY S.S. payments are going to my fathers retirement check

and to his neighbors. My Father's S.S. payments went to his fathers Social Security checks... My son's S.S. payments will go to my retirement SS check.
This is how the system works. It is highly successful and is solvent for 25 more years then will only be able to pay 75% to every recipient...so it is far from broke. It needs adjustment, not privitazition.

[dflprincess]

140. Actually, the fix put in during the Reagan administration changed that

That's when the rate went up and the Boomers began paying for both our parents' and our Social Security benefits. It's also why SS is solvent and will remain that way for quite a while.

[quaker bill]

136. True

but it really isn't yours in a "private account" either, unless you can withdraw it whenever you like. Do not take dollars out of my paycheck by force of law and hand them off to Wall Steet Privateers. If republicans truly want me to be in control of my money, then they would not collect the tax in the first place. What they want is for Wall Street Privateers to be in control of my money. I prefer bureaucrats, at least they are held to some ethical standards.

[Pholus]

141. Ahhhh, we get to what privatization is actually all about. A few people getting rich.....

Thanks for pointing out that highly relevant fact while the disinfo is flying here.

[quaker bill]

144. The actions republicans take do not match

their rhetoric. If they want "freedom" and "personal responsibility" then the path is really quite direct. SS "private accounts" and Medicare "vouchers" have nothing to do with "freedom" as both use government to direct how you spend your money.

[Pholus]

145. In other news, water is wet.... ;) Yet we'll be hearing about the joys of BOTH shortly.

It's how the establishment won on everything else lately.

1) Tons of astroturfed posts and opinions picking at the system
2) a media driven disinformation campaign which exaggerates risks and downplays successes
3) a manufactured "crisis" which includes some kind of gridlock where a "compromise" is needed
4) As a result, bipartisan "reforms" get crammed down our throats at the last minute in the dead of night with no discussion
5) Protests are attacked by a bunch of apologists as being divisive within the party
6) TPTB relax as yet another part of the social safety net that worked well for over 70 years gets dismantled as part of a campaign to create a brave new world where our working conditions are such that in terms of costs its competitive with overseas.

We seem to be at stage 1 here.

By all means, let's discuss SS "private accounts" if only to realize what a cracking bad idea they are.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.