PDA

View Full Version : greedy seniors want increase even when cost of living flat




cindy25
10-11-2010, 06:34 PM
this is ridiculous! its a cost of living increase, and these greedy bastards want an increase anyway. talk of entitlement mentality

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senior-citizens-brace-for-apf-3618961764.html?x=0&.v=11

paulitics
10-11-2010, 06:38 PM
fuck them.

forsmant
10-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Doesn't everyone want more money?

awake
10-11-2010, 06:42 PM
In the war of all against all, every man uses the government against everyone else. Take away the middle men, and you have a situation whereby these individuals would have to do the work themselves, or rather open and unabashed looting.

LibertyEagle
10-11-2010, 06:43 PM
greedy seniors want increase even when cost of living flat

What makes you think that the cost of living is flat? Personally, I've noticed a great deal of inflation.

squarepusher
10-11-2010, 06:50 PM
clicked the link from OP

Tight budgets lead to more civilians used for policing

amy31416
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
I'm far more irked about how much politicians get paid (in both salary, pension and benefits), than how much people who've paid into the system do.

Can't get on board with this--if we were getting angry and talking about cutting pay and benefits to gov't workers, fine...but I can't get worked up over senior citizen "greed" when the biggest leeches in the world are being voted into office time and time again.

Stary Hickory
10-11-2010, 07:15 PM
There has been inflation...lots of it. I agree the program is bad, and ought to be done away with. But I do have a hard time just cutting people off from an income they planned their entire lives on.

I am in favor of a transition away..but not just turning it off. But if there are people that just want to turn it off I won't blame you or try and force you to be a part of the transition program.

It kind of does piss me off..in some ways. The retiring seniors these days are the ones who constantly voted for more and more spending and gave us this lopsided bankrupt system to deal with. They ought to be thankful for every penny they receive. It's up to the next few generations to double down and sacrifice for the excesses of the current retirees and retiring older people.

torchbearer
10-11-2010, 07:20 PM
cost of living is not flat. i pay more to live now than i did 4 years ago. that is rapid price inflation.

JK/SEA
10-11-2010, 07:20 PM
A little out of line calling seniors 'greedy'...fuck you. How about calling out the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, and call them greedy?...damn assholes. Yeah, you.

Romulus
10-11-2010, 07:22 PM
inflation is denied... food and energy cost have gone through the roof....

awake
10-11-2010, 07:23 PM
The wonderful thing about the idea of transition on humane grounds is that in the end the only thing that actually gets transitioned is the interest in completing the promised transition. I becomes a stalling position.

Take age out of the equation and you simply have the foolish being rewarded by the promised enslavement of the unborn.

I think the economic realities will be the harshest master. Fixed incomes will be decimated in a galloping inflation.

nobody's_hero
10-11-2010, 07:37 PM
next time I'll read the associated article before I post, lol

cindy25
10-11-2010, 07:40 PM
What makes you think that the cost of living is flat? Personally, I've noticed a great deal of inflation.

overall it is probably flat, because of the drop in housing prices.

the same formula that favored them for years is now working against them. they should accept it

cindy25
10-11-2010, 07:44 PM
next time I'll read the associated article before I post, lol

had too many tabs open, sorry

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senior-citizens-brace-for-apf-3618961764.html?x=0&.v=11

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 07:47 PM
What makes you think that the cost of living is flat? Personally, I've noticed a great deal of inflation.


There has been inflation...lots of it. I agree the program is bad, and ought to be done away with. But I do have a hard time just cutting people off from an income they planned their entire lives on.

I am in favor of a transition away..but not just turning it off. But if there are people that just want to turn it off I won't blame you or try and force you to be a part of the transition program.

It kind of does piss me off..in some ways. The retiring seniors these days are the ones who constantly voted for more and more spending and gave us this lopsided bankrupt system to deal with. They ought to be thankful for every penny they receive. It's up to the next few generations to double down and sacrifice for the excesses of the current retirees and retiring older people.


cost of living is not flat. i pay more to live now than i did 4 years ago. that is rapid price inflation.


inflation is denied... food and energy cost have gone through the roof....

I agree, whoever came up with inflation being flat is probably trying to make things look better than they are. (who was it, Ben Shalom Bernanke?)

oyarde
10-11-2010, 07:48 PM
inflation is denied... food and energy cost have gone through the roof....

Correct .

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-11-2010, 07:48 PM
What makes anyone automatically think they are greedy? How much have they paid in versus how much have they received accounting for inflation?

heavenlyboy34
10-11-2010, 07:49 PM
A little out of line calling seniors 'greedy'...fuck you. How about calling out the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, and call them greedy?...damn assholes. Yeah, you.


Exellent point. Also, to the OP, it's unfair to say this of all seniors. Plenty of seniors dislike the system but have no alternative (yet).

squarepusher
10-11-2010, 07:50 PM
+lol's for inflammatory title

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 07:52 PM
One can only buy just so many cans of cat food for the amount of money they receive. Are they supposed to eat less of it because the price has gone up?

squarepusher
10-11-2010, 07:53 PM
One can only buy just so many cans of cat food for the amount of money they receive. Are they supposed to eat less of it because the price has gone up?

they are probably on food stamps too

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 07:56 PM
they are probably on food stamps too

If not, they should be.

cindy25
10-11-2010, 07:57 PM
social security is a ponzi scheme, the "contributions" are already spent on someone else. these so called entitlements need to be phased out.

one way would be to permanently end the COLA, and then start a slow phaseout, say a 2% cut every year.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:00 PM
social security is a ponzi scheme, the "contributions" are already spent on someone else. these so called entitlements need to be phased out.

one way would be to permanently end the COLA, and then start a slow phaseout, say a 2% cut every year.
Yeah, that's one way.... just starve those old folks out of the system.

awake
10-11-2010, 08:01 PM
The other aspect of this conversation is this: If the Fed creates keystroke money to meet the program commitments, you will have the collectors of these checks as the actual cause of part of the overall inflation tsunami. The new money enters the economy at specific points...this would be one.

Michigan11
10-11-2010, 08:02 PM
with food and energy excluded from inflation, the two basics for living, yeah maybe there isn't any inflation lol...

This is just going to be another catalyst towards revolution in the end. Social Insecurity is bankrupt along with this whole system..

torchbearer
10-11-2010, 08:03 PM
sell the elderly for food. a modest proposal.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:05 PM
sell the elderly for food. a modest proposal.

Yeah, that should work. Everybody is going to get old someday. :D
They can label it 'Old Food'.

torchbearer
10-11-2010, 08:07 PM
Yeah, that should work. Everybody is going to get old someday. :D
They can label it 'Old Food'.

Soylent Green.
Cheers!

cindy25
10-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Yeah, that's one way.... just starve those old folks out of the system.

that is why I said gradual phaseout; but it has to be phased out at some point. no one will starve with a 2% cut. and it will begin to teach people to save on their own.
no one starved before food stamps or social security.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Soylent Green.
Cheers!

Just don't let them get too old. They may start tasting like what they've been eating. (cat food anyone?)

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:10 PM
that is why I said gradual phaseout; but it has to be phased out at some point. no one will starve with a 2% cut. and it will begin to teach people to save on their own.
no one starved before food stamps or social security.

So adding 2% on top of inflation and they are not going to have any problems down the road? Must be they are not expected to live more than a few years.

torchbearer
10-11-2010, 08:10 PM
Just don't let them get too old. They may start tasting like what they've been eating. (cat food anyone?)

I think we've figured out both the SS problem and starvation.

hillbilly123069
10-11-2010, 08:12 PM
Let them keep eating cat food because the frivilously spend all their money on medicines prescribed by dr's in the back pockets of the phaurmacuetical industry.
What the hell did they think they were going to get for 40 yrs of working and paying taxes?

Seriously though, I worked as nurse aid for well over a decade and I wouuld approximate 10 to 20% of nursing home residents come into nursing homes because they can't live on their fixed income.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:13 PM
I think we've figured out both the SS problem and starvation.

If not, at least we've figured out one hell of a cat food.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:22 PM
No, really.... the best way to get rid of it is to tell the next generations they can opt out of it and save their own money for their retirement.

LibertyEagle
10-11-2010, 08:25 PM
No, really.... the best way to get rid of it is to tell the next generations they can opt out of it and save their own money for their retirement.

+1

cindy25
10-11-2010, 08:28 PM
you can't pay 15% for 40 years, then expect to collect an amount to live on for 35 years. its just not possible. the retirement age must be raised, to 72 for blue collar, 75 for white collar ( the blue collar paid in while white collars went to college so yes it is fair)

and a phaseout has to begin.

social security was never meant to be the only source of income. private savings has to be popular.

perhaps you could keep the check at the current level, with 2% considered a loan against the estate. the next year 4% etc.

klamath
10-11-2010, 08:29 PM
I get ticked off when I see seniors with an entitlement attitude but I actually am starting to know more young people that figured out how to work the system called SSI "I've been working 5 years I deserve to get the insurance I paid for, the rest of my life.":rolleyes:

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:31 PM
you can't pay 15% for 40 years, then expect to collect an amount to live on for 35 years. its just not possible. the retirement age must be raised, to 72 for blue collar, 75 for white collar ( the blue collar paid in while white collars went to college so yes it is fair)

and a phaseout has to begin.

social security was never meant to be the only source of income. private savings has to be popular.

perhaps you could keep the check at the current level, with 2% considered a loan against the estate. the next year 4% etc.

I think they already have something like that, it's called a reverse mortgage. As I recall, the home reverts to the government. Now I have to wonder, what the government is going to do with all of those homes.

oyarde
10-11-2010, 08:33 PM
I would be happy if , say , they would give me my approximate $120,000 back now . I would even be gracious enough to let them steal and keep what I wil pay for the next 16 years or so before I retire if I live that long.

RonPaulwillWin
10-11-2010, 08:35 PM
Looks like we won't be getting much love from the AARP forums

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 08:36 PM
Looks like we won't be getting much love from the AARP forums

No worry, as I recall, they like the Obamacare package anyway.

paulitics
10-11-2010, 08:46 PM
Social Security hurts minorities, young and poor working class mothers the most, and they complain the least about their checks.

I think we know who we are talking about. The guy who lives on a golf course, has no home or car payment, and has been retired for 30 years, complaining to the government because he only made 6% on his investment portfolio.

Cry me a river. Things are tough in this country for everyone right now. Social Security should have always been means tested, and primarely a state program. Once the middle class accepted bribes from the government at the expense of their grandkids, then the day of reckoning was inevitable.

oyarde
10-11-2010, 08:48 PM
Social Security hurts minorities, young and poor working class mothers the most, and they complain the least about their checks.

I think we know who we are talking about. The guy who lives on a golf course, has no home or car payment, and has been retired for 30 years, complaining to the government because he only made 6% on his investment portfolio.

Cry me a river. Things are tough in this country for everyone right now. Social Security should have always been means tested, and primarely a state program. Once the middle class accepted bribes from the government at the expense of their grandkids, then the day of reckoning was inevitable.

Means tested yes .

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-11-2010, 08:57 PM
I am still not convinced on the greedy presumption. If you paid in at 30% and receive at <4% is that being greedy?

http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/2008/June/27/1/US_Dollar.jpg

JK/SEA
10-11-2010, 09:08 PM
I am still not convinced on the greedy presumption. If you paid in at 30% and receive at <4% is that being greedy?

http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/2008/June/27/1/US_Dollar.jpg

Thats where i'm at. Started paying in 1967...

paulitics
10-11-2010, 09:12 PM
I am still not convinced on the greedy presumption. If you paid in at 30% and receive at <4% is that being greedy?

http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/2008/June/27/1/US_Dollar.jpg

Social security tax was miniscule comapred to what it is now. Anyone who payed in before Reagan jacked up the payroll tax is benefiting more than what they put in.

Romulus
10-11-2010, 09:17 PM
Every MSM article that I have read about inflation being flat always say EXCEPT for food and energy. - hmm, imagine that! No inflation except for those 2 little things. They'll keep trying to bury it in hopes we buy into it.

V4Vendetta
10-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Cost of living isn't flat, however, I don't think S.S. should even exist, hell, they are writing checks for money that doesn't even exist anyway, S.S. has been broke for a long time, the checks are being fulfilled by borrowed money.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Every MSM article that I have read about inflation being flat always say EXCEPT for food and energy. - hmm, imagine that! No inflation except for those 2 little things. They'll keep trying to bury it in hopes we buy into it.

Well, of course nobody uses those two little things. LOL :rolleyes: :D

majinkoola
10-11-2010, 09:36 PM
I see it this way: the people who paid into social security are like people who worked for a company and are set to receive a pension afterwards from that company. The current retirees let the company (the government) take huge risks and spend well beyond its means, such that the money intended for them was all spent. Now, the company (government) can't pay its bills, and needs to go bankrupt. What usually happens when a company goes bankrupt? Their assets are sold and whatever money is made is given to the bondholders. That's sort of what should happen here. The government is bankrupt, so they should sell off any assets they have (foreign bases, vast amounts of federal lands and buildings, vast numbers of foreclosed homes) in order to pay off the bondholders (Social Security recipients, vets who are owed medical care, default on the banks and Chinese). Then start from scratch.

Dr.3D
10-11-2010, 09:38 PM
I see it this way: the people who paid into social security are like people who worked for a company and are set to receive a pension afterwards from that company. The current retirees let the company (the government) take huge risks and spend well beyond its means, such that the money intended for them was all spent. Now, the company (government) can't pay its bills, and needs to go bankrupt. What usually happens when a company goes bankrupt? Their assets are sold and whatever money is made is given to the bondholders. That's sort of what should happen here. The government is bankrupt, so they should sell off any assets they have (foreign bases, vast amounts of federal lands and buildings, vast numbers of foreclosed homes) in order to pay off the bondholders (Social Security recipients, vets who are owed medical care, default on the banks and Chinese). Then start from scratch.

Thing is, who would they sell that stuff to? I don't know if the Chinese would be anxious to acquire any of that stuff.

heavenlyboy34
10-11-2010, 09:41 PM
Every MSM article that I have read about inflation being flat always say EXCEPT for food and energy. - hmm, imagine that! No inflation except for those 2 little things. They'll keep trying to bury it in hopes we buy into it.

This is usually called "core inflation". I'm also amused (in a dark way) at how MSM economists/reporters ignore it.:o

majinkoola
10-11-2010, 09:53 PM
Thing is, who would they sell that stuff to? I don't know if the Chinese would be anxious to acquire any of that stuff.

Well, most of the Western United States is federal land. So there are literally hundreds of millions of acres, maybe over a billion acres counting Alaska. I know of several people, including myself, who would buy some of that as it would come at a pretty steep discount with all of that available.

Then you look at all the Federal Reserve Buildings, all the DC buildings (which would be worth a lot less with DC gutted, but I imagine still worth a lot). It seems like some companies would make use of those when so many people live or want to live near DC.

And finally of course, all of the currencies the Federal Reserve has could just be transferred to Social Security.

amonasro
10-11-2010, 11:00 PM
Not all the seniors are angry...


Jack Dawson will buy cheap whiskey instead of his beloved Canadian Club.

Problem solved :)

nobody's_hero
10-12-2010, 03:26 AM
No politician has the guts to tell these seniors that the problem is about a 80-90% devaluation of the dollar since the time these folks worked their first job.

Tweaking social security isn't going to solve anything.

libertarian4321
10-12-2010, 04:26 AM
A little out of line calling seniors 'greedy'...fuck you. How about calling out the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, and call them greedy?...damn assholes. Yeah, you.

This makes no sense.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Did it occur to you that BOTH groups may be greedy?

The fact that the military industrial complex may be greedy does NOT preclude old people from being greedy, too.

Old people are supposed to get a COLA raise based on certain criteria. When those criteria indicate that inflation is flat, they don't get an "adjustment," nor should they expect one.

Social security is a mess as it is, I see no reason to make it even more financially un viable by giving people upward adjustments that aren't jusitified.

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 06:11 AM
No, really.... the best way to get rid of it is to tell the next generations they can opt out of it and save their own money for their retirement.

that would be the first step, then we sell them for food.
Some of you old farts could at least thank me for making your SS payments for you.
Too busy working for you to save for me. Thanks mom and dad.

Southron
10-12-2010, 06:20 AM
I'm no fan of social security, but I'm also no fan of the younger generations who put their old folks in nursing homes on the federal dime.

Greed works both ways. It's your moral responsibility to care for your aging family. Or are you too greedy?

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 06:45 AM
I'm no fan of social security, but I'm also no fan of the younger generations who put their old folks in nursing homes on the federal dime.

Greed works both ways. It's your moral responsibility to care for your aging family. Or are you too greedy?

If my parents ignorance of the political situation has put themselves and myself in a position of slavery...hmmm, i don't think i'm feeling very appreciative right now.
Nursing home for serfs sounds like the right place for serfs.

BillyDkid
10-12-2010, 06:48 AM
Well, SS should never have been instituted, but to call people who are getting, say, 25 thousand a year from the government and from a income insurance program the government has been selling to them for many years when you have billionaires and billionaire families gorging continually at the public trough is a little be silly.

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 06:51 AM
Well, SS should never have been instituted, but to call people who are getting, say, 25 thousand a year from the government and from a income insurance program the government has been selling to them for many years when you have billionaires and billionaire families gorging continually at the public trough is a little be silly.

um, SS is not an insurance, the government admitted that decades ago.
It is a tax, by which the money is syphoned through the general fund to go to connected individuals within the government.
mom and dad, your money was stolen by bad people. are you going to enslave me so that you can retire?
how will i save for my retirement if I'm paying for yours and paying the SS tax?

Danke
10-12-2010, 07:01 AM
um, SS is not an insurance, the government admitted that decades ago.
It is a tax, by which the money is syphoned through the general fund to go to connected individuals within the government.
mom and dad, your money was stolen by bad people. are you going to enslave me so that you can retire?
how will i save for my retirement if I'm paying for yours and paying the SS tax?

Good way to put it.

Reminds me of P. T. Barnum.

Jordan
10-12-2010, 07:43 AM
Social Security was designed to be cashflow positive since the day it was launched. It was thought that at the time 50% would live to collect, while 50% wouldn't. The government would actually make money in the process.

People like to focus on the however many trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities as our national debt. This argument is extremely disingenuous. It's the equivalent to saying that WalMart should have to account for all of its costs of business from 2011-2040, but it cannot figure in any revenue in that same time period.

Social Security is not beyond repair. In the next few decades, when it will experience the greatest shock, it will still take in 75% of what it pays out.

All we have to do is reduce overall benefits by 25%, either by an increase in the age or a decrease in payouts. When the baby boomers finally start becoming an extinct breed, Social Security will be in the black.

Do I agree with the program? No. Do I think it is inherently a bad program? Yes. But I'm not going to throw up charts of the devaluation of the dollar (largely irrelevant, since lower currency prices actually help SS stay nominally cashflow positive) or point to the fact that it will eventually pay out $100 B with its sister program Medicare and pretend like no revenue will come in during that time.

erowe1
10-12-2010, 08:44 AM
A little out of line calling seniors 'greedy'...fuck you. How about calling out the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, and call them greedy?...damn assholes. Yeah, you.

They're on average almost the wealthiest segment of society. And yet they want more welfare given to them out of the pockets of those who have less. The military contractors may be worse. But the folks crying about their SS checks being too small are right up there.

One of the reasons SS is such a problem is that its COLA is based on wage increases, rather than actual increases in cost of living, based on CPI. Obviously CPI is manipulated by the government and is problematic on its own. But it's not as bad as using wages for this, since using wages automatically makes it so that the amount getting paid out per person will always go up as fast as the amount getting paid in, so that it's mathematically impossible to catch up with the unfunded liability without killing off the recipients.

squarepusher
10-12-2010, 08:50 AM
They're on average almost the wealthiest segment of society. And yet they want more welfare given to them out of the pockets of those who have less. The military contractors may be worse. But the folks crying about their SS checks being too small are right up there.

One of the reasons SS is such a problem is that its COLA is based on wage increases, rather than actual increases in cost of living, based on CPI. Obviously CPI is manipulated by the government and is problematic on its own. But it's not as bad as using wages for this, since using wages automatically makes it so that the amount getting paid out per person will always go up as fast as the amount getting paid in, so that it's mathematically impossible to catch up with the unfunded liability without killing off the recipients.

Yeah, I was going to say, seniors are much more likely to have 401k's, pensions, have their house paid for, and have possibly significant investments or saved wealth.

JK/SEA
10-12-2010, 09:19 AM
Yeah, I was going to say, seniors are much more likely to have 401k's, pensions, have their house paid for, and have possibly significant investments or saved wealth.

Proof?

Dr.3D
10-12-2010, 09:21 AM
Proof?

LOL, yeah, those service jobs really are paying people enough to pay off everything and the pensions those jobs provide are just fantastic.

Original_Intent
10-12-2010, 09:24 AM
um, SS is not an insurance, the government admitted that decades ago.
It is a tax, by which the money is syphoned through the general fund to go to connected individuals within the government.
mom and dad, your money was stolen by bad people. are you going to enslave me so that you can retire?
how will i save for my retirement if I'm paying for yours and paying the SS tax?

Well, if we eliminate SS, will you take resposnibility for Ma and Pa, who spent their whole lives paying into the system? Or are they on the street for being fooled by the government?

Sounds like greed and selfishness are not reserved for the elderly.

ChaosControl
10-12-2010, 09:31 AM
I wish people could practice more restraint in their language sometimes. This place sounds like a den of high schoolers with all the vulgarity.

Anyway, I don't see anything greedy about wanting a little more money to help when in reality costs have gone up despite what some report may say. If you look at the prices on goods and services, they have gone up over the last couple years, but these reports will say inflation is flat or even having gone down. These reports are as useless as many of the unemployment reports that say we're at 9 or 10% when we're more likely at 18%.

erowe1
10-12-2010, 09:31 AM
Proof?

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

The data there comes from CNN, who got it from Nielsen Claritas.

JK/SEA
10-12-2010, 09:48 AM
http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

The data there comes from CNN, who got it from Nielsen Claritas.

Interesting. Thankyou.

Acala
10-12-2010, 09:48 AM
It is a game of musical chairs but half the chairs vanished all at once and the music is slowing down. Lol. Watch everyone scramble for the remaining chairs. Strife is inevitable. The true wealth is not there to support the economy. Not by a long shot.

Seraphim
10-12-2010, 09:55 AM
It is a game of musical chairs but half the chairs vanished all at once and the music is slowing down. Lol. Watch everyone scramble for the remaining chairs. Strife is inevitable. The true wealth is not there to support the economy. Not by a long shot.

That is probably the most accurate and concise analysis I've seen so far.

It's true. Paper is poverty. All the wealth has been quietly syphoned away from the middle class. Most people are now not self reliant but reliant from the trough of government and banking credit. Turn the trough off or slow it down and chaos ensues...This is precisely what they want.

squarepusher
10-12-2010, 10:05 AM
Proof?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/what-handouts-to-cut.html

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256712&highlight=handouts+walter+williams

Because of failure to heed the limitations of the U.S. Constitution, which has produced runaway federal spending, our nation sits on the precipice of disaster. Former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, co-chairmen of President Obama's debt and deficit commission, in a Washington Post article "Obama's Debt Commission Warns of Fiscal 'Cancer'" (July 12, 2010) said that "(A)t present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries."

The commission added the current budget trend is a disaster "that will destroy the country from within" unless checked by tough action in Washington. The tough action required is spending cuts in programs, including the so-called nondiscretionary, eating most of the federal revenues.

According to the Census, around 80 percent of Americans 65 and older own their own homes compared to 43 percent under 35. Twenty-three million households, or 37 percent of all homeowners, own their homes free and clear, and most of these are seniors aged 65 and older. According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2007 "Survey of Consumer Finances," the median net worth of people 65 and over is $232,000, those under 35 years have a net worth of $12,000 and for those 35-44, it's $87,000.

For good reason, older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people; the primary reason is that they've had more time to do it. There is no logical case that can be made for using the tax system to force Americans with less wealth to subsidize those with more wealth. But it's not clear who is subsidizing whom.
Consider an elderly widow, say 70 years old, with a modest retirement income of $18,000 living in a $300,000 house that's fully paid for. She might receive local property tax forgiveness, medical and prescription drug subsidies and other federal, state and local subsidies based upon her age and income.

When subsidies are provided for this lady, whom are we truly benefiting? It's not the lady but her heirs. Conceivably, the lady could make a deal with a financial institution to pay her property taxes, allow her to live in the house for the rest of her life and give her a lump sum cash settlement so that she can live without the handouts. Upon her death, the house becomes the property of the financial institution, not her heirs. Giving the widow handouts allows her to bequeath to her heirs her assets, a $300,000 house. If her children want to inherit the house, they, rather than taxpayers, ought to take care of their mother.

We can start getting the federal spending under control by ending subsidies to people with high net worth that can be ready turned into cash such as a home or business. While seniors might say that they support reduced government spending, they, like other handout recipients, believe they have a right, through government, to live at the expense of others. What's more, they have considerable clout — they vote in large numbers. Only 50 percent of young people vote, but up to 70 percent of seniors vote.

Political guts have always been in short supply and politicians fear senior retaliation at the polls. Moreover, it's a practical matter for seniors and politicians. The true economic calamity won't hit the country until 2030 or 2040. By that time, both today's politicians and seniors will be dead so why should they make sacrifices now to prevent an economic calamity decades off into the future? Seniors might protest my cynicism but they can easily prove me wrong by waging an effective campaign to end handouts based on superannuation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 11:41 AM
Well, if we eliminate SS, will you take resposnibility for Ma and Pa, who spent their whole lives paying into the system? Or are they on the street for being fooled by the government?

Sounds like greed and selfishness are not reserved for the elderly.

i'd take care of ma and pa if i didn't have to pay SS.
i'd have the money to do so.

It may be selfish to want to have your own money for your own retirement, but it isn't greed. greed is wanting your childrens money for your retirement.

erowe1
10-12-2010, 11:42 AM
i'd take care of ma and pa if i didn't have to pay SS.
i'd have the money to do so.

It's just cutting out the middle man.

Stary Hickory
10-12-2010, 11:43 AM
It's just cutting out the middle man.

Nay the leeching bureacracy. The amount of waste in the SS sytem is probably mind boggling.

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 11:45 AM
It's just cutting out the middle man.

send them a dollar, get back a nickle.
yeh, cut out the middle man.

libertygrl
10-12-2010, 11:54 AM
A little out of line calling seniors 'greedy'...fuck you. How about calling out the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, and call them greedy?...damn assholes. Yeah, you.


DITTO! What the hell is wrong with you people?? My parents are seniors. You act as if all seniors are wealthy and living the high life. Many have to choose between buying food or paying for life saving medication. What "A" holes! :mad:

erowe1
10-12-2010, 11:58 AM
My parents are seniors.
So are most of ours.

You act as if all seniors are wealthy and living the high life.
Who's wealthier? You? Or your parents?

Many have to choose between buying food or paying for life saving medication.
Not that many.

amy31416
10-12-2010, 12:49 PM
DITTO! What the hell is wrong with you people?? My parents are seniors. You act as if all seniors are wealthy and living the high life. Many have to choose between buying food or paying for life saving medication. What "A" holes! :mad:

Yeah...I gotta agree with you here. My grandmother knit blankets and slippers to try to make ends meet and buy medications, her kids helped her out with the utilities and other things too.

Of course, I'd take care of my parents or relatives whether they collected social security or not. Which reminds me, I have a 90+ year old great aunt who's probably run out of whiskey--better get on that before the guilt trip sets in and the Manhattan's run dry.

(Seriously though, that's her only indulgence.)

HOLLYWOOD
10-12-2010, 12:58 PM
We are a Narcissistic Society... created by government for dependence and slavery... oh, and to vote the same cocksuckers in office, term after term.

Buying the people with their own stolen money... shoveling it own of your wallets to Washington DC, so they may turnaround and spoon feed you.

Original_Intent
10-12-2010, 01:46 PM
Not assigning motives to the OP, but this is just more of the divide and conquer paradigm that we are being programmed with, and that our Masters just love to see us waste energy on.

Men vs. Women
White vs. non-white
Rich vs. poor
Young vs. old
Management vs. labor
believers vs. non believers

etc.

Learn who your real enemies are and quit wasting energy squabbling amongst ourselves. The power of Ron Paul was the ability to transcend the squabbling and get people to work together that never would have conceived of cooperating. If we lose that, we lose everything about this revolution worth having.

Deborah K
10-12-2010, 01:51 PM
sell the elderly for food. a modest proposal.

Ever see the movie Soylent Green?

Edit: n/m

teacherone
10-12-2010, 01:54 PM
thought fuel prices had risen more?

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/images/NAT_grph.jpg

Acala
10-12-2010, 02:18 PM
Not assigning motives to the OP, but this is just more of the divide and conquer paradigm that we are being programmed with, and that our Masters just love to see us waste energy on.

Men vs. Women
White vs. non-white
Rich vs. poor
Young vs. old
Management vs. labor
believers vs. non believers

etc.

Learn who your real enemies are and quit wasting energy squabbling amongst ourselves. The power of Ron Paul was the ability to transcend the squabbling and get people to work together that never would have conceived of cooperating. If we lose that, we lose everything about this revolution worth having.

Exactly^

Acala
10-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Social Security was designed to be cashflow positive since the day it was launched. It was thought that at the time 50% would live to collect, while 50% wouldn't. The government would actually make money in the process.

People like to focus on the however many trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities as our national debt. This argument is extremely disingenuous. It's the equivalent to saying that WalMart should have to account for all of its costs of business from 2011-2040, but it cannot figure in any revenue in that same time period.

Social Security is not beyond repair. In the next few decades, when it will experience the greatest shock, it will still take in 75% of what it pays out.

All we have to do is reduce overall benefits by 25%, either by an increase in the age or a decrease in payouts. When the baby boomers finally start becoming an extinct breed, Social Security will be in the black.

Do I agree with the program? No. Do I think it is inherently a bad program? Yes. But I'm not going to throw up charts of the devaluation of the dollar (largely irrelevant, since lower currency prices actually help SS stay nominally cashflow positive) or point to the fact that it will eventually pay out $100 B with its sister program Medicare and pretend like no revenue will come in during that time.

Social Security was financially unsound the day it was born. If you tried to market a private sector pension plan on that financial model you would go to jail.

Has it "worked" in the past? Yes. But ALL Ponsi schemes work. Until they don't.

Welcome to the unraveling of a global Ponsi scheme.

torchbearer
10-12-2010, 04:37 PM
Ever see the movie Soylent Green?

Edit: n/m

:D The teacher in high school that turned me on to libertarianism showed the film in his physics class.

Deborah K
10-12-2010, 04:38 PM
:D The teacher in high school that turned me on to libertarianism showed the film in his physics class.

I saw that movie when it came out in the theaters. Awesome movie. My husband and I are big into despotic movies and that one was one of the first of its kind.

Deborah K
10-12-2010, 04:39 PM
Sorry for the derail but:

YouTube - Soylent green trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU)

Jordan
10-12-2010, 04:43 PM
Social Security was financially unsound the day it was born. If you tried to market a private sector pension plan on that financial model you would go to jail.

Has it "worked" in the past? Yes. But ALL Ponsi schemes work. Until they don't.

Welcome to the unraveling of a global Ponsi scheme.

No, actually it wasn't. Social Security was designed with a payout age that was equal to or above the average life expectancy at that time. It was expected that very few would collect, and even fewer would collect for very long.

It's spelled Ponzi. It wouldn't exactly be a Ponzi scheme if it took in $10 and only spit out $9, would it? Nope. It'd just be theft. Which it is.

You conveniently ignored my point that the system can be turned solvent with a 25% reduction in payouts, either by altering the age at which people start receiving benefits, or reducing them across the board.

oyarde
10-12-2010, 04:52 PM
No, actually it wasn't. Social Security was designed with a payout age that was equal to or above the average life expectancy at that time. It was expected that very few would collect, and even fewer would collect for very long.

It's spelled Ponzi. It wouldn't exactly be a Ponzi scheme if it took in $10 and only spit out $9, would it? Nope. It'd just be theft. Which it is.

You conveniently ignored my point that the system can be turned solvent with a 25% reduction in payouts, either by altering the age at which people start receiving benefits, or reducing them across the board.

The reduction would be the way to go with your idea. That way the penalty is equal . The reason I say that is moving the age puts many more people into the status of never getting back anywhere near what they have paid or getting none at all ( deceased early , no spouse or deceased spouse , children grown ) .

romacox
10-12-2010, 05:07 PM
this is ridiculous! its a cost of living increase, and these greedy bastards want an increase anyway. talk of entitlement mentality

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senior-citizens-brace-for-apf-3618961764.html?x=0&.v=11

This is not a comment about social security increase: but if you believe there has been no increase in the cost of living lately. let me sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.

Deborah K
10-12-2010, 05:10 PM
Yeah, the whole "inflation is flat" is a crock! They're lying. Schiff discusses this in his book "Crash Proof".

Acala
10-12-2010, 05:10 PM
No, actually it wasn't. Social Security was designed with a payout age that was equal to or above the average life expectancy at that time. It was expected that very few would collect, and even fewer would collect for very long.

It's spelled Ponzi. It wouldn't exactly be a Ponzi scheme if it took in $10 and only spit out $9, would it? Nope. It'd just be theft. Which it is.

You conveniently ignored my point that the system can be turned solvent with a 25% reduction in payouts, either by altering the age at which people start receiving benefits, or reducing them across the board.

The system was based on the idea that an ever-increasing supply of newly impressed participants would cover the payout for the newly retiring. This is nearly identical to the Ponzi scheme in which the investment of new investors pays for the "return" of the old investors. The Ponzi scheme works as long as an ever-increasing supply of new investors can be recruited.

The Social Security system "worked", although with ever-decreasing benefit to burden ratio, as long as the population climbed steadily and force could be used to make people participate.

Now that the demographics are not cooperating, even the point of a gun will not make it work.

Could you put it into the black again by further lowering benefits and raising taxes? Yes. Except that the Federal Government was not insolvent and unable to pay the IOUs in the trust fund. According to David Walker, the system is currently underfunded by about $20 trillion. Where will you get that?

romacox
10-12-2010, 05:23 PM
Here is an interesting article from Ron Paul on the subject:

But there is another critical issue that has quietly devastated seniors financially over the last few decades. It concerns how the cost of living is calculated. How does the administration justify not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients this year?

According to the official Consumer Price Index calculation, life has gotten cheaper for the first time in decades. If the government can show statistically that the cost of living has gone down, not up, then they can make the case for not giving a cost of living increase to social security recipients. But does this match reality? Using older calculations of CPI, the cost of living has actually increased – by roughly 5 percent!

The government eventually started using it to determine cost of living adjustments for entitlement programs. Couple that with politicians’ discovery that they could raid the social security trust fund to pay for new spending programs, and you have a perfect storm to deny seniors what they were promised, while hiding the true size of the deficit. For politicians, it is a win-win.

For seniors, it is a different story. Economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics has estimated that if the original methodology of CPI had not changed, Social Security checks would be nearly double what they are today. This represents a lot of money that politicians have been able to literally steal from seniors, to spend on their own wasteful programs.

I have introduced legislation to keep politicians in Washington from ever raiding the Social Security trust fund again. HR 219 The Social Security Preservation Act would assure that all monies collected by the Social Security Trust Fund would only be used in payments to beneficiaries, or be placed in interest bearing certificates of deposit. This would at least stop the bleeding of the fund, and take away some incentive to tease and torture the numbers in order to give seniors the minimal amount. This would also cut off a source of funding for government growth, so it is not likely to get easy support from many politicians.

It is a good read...more at this link: http://www.ss.com/ron-paul-politicians-must-stop-stealing-social-security

Jordan
10-12-2010, 06:43 PM
The system was based on the idea that an ever-increasing supply of newly impressed participants would cover the payout for the newly retiring. This is nearly identical to the Ponzi scheme in which the investment of new investors pays for the "return" of the old investors. The Ponzi scheme works as long as an ever-increasing supply of new investors can be recruited.

The Social Security system "worked", although with ever-decreasing benefit to burden ratio, as long as the population climbed steadily and force could be used to make people participate.

Now that the demographics are not cooperating, even the point of a gun will not make it work.

No, it was based on the idea that if government took your money now it could give it back to you later. It originally did not need an ever-increasing supply of new investors. However, due to the increases in life expectancy, and no change in the "retirement age" to balance it out, the system broke.

This is a pretty simple concept really.

The demographics don't really matter. What matters is fixing it in the here and now, and that solution is very simple, as I've explained before.


Could you put it into the black again by further lowering benefits and raising taxes? Yes. Except that the Federal Government was not insolvent and unable to pay the IOUs in the trust fund. According to David Walker, the system is currently underfunded by about $20 trillion. Where will you get that?

The IOUs in the trust fund don't matter. Forget about that money, it's gone. Get over it.

All we need is an adjustment in the retirement age or in the benefit amount that will reduce payouts by 25%, that's it! That will allow SS to run neither a deficit or a surplus while the majority of the baby boomers reach "retirement age" then croak.

After the boomers die, the system, with adjusted age or benefit levels, will then take in more revenue than is spit out.

Look, its a simple cash flow problem.

LibForestPaul
10-12-2010, 06:50 PM
What makes anyone automatically think they are greedy? How much have they paid in versus how much have they received accounting for inflation?

1962 soc + medicare= 4.7 + 0
1990 > = 12.400 +2.900

Yes, greedy.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Danke
10-12-2010, 07:02 PM
1962 soc + medicare= 4.7 + 0
1990 > = 12.400 +2.900

Yes, greedy.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Didn't Johnson also expand it to include one's spouse, even though they may have never paid the tax?

therepublic
10-12-2010, 07:08 PM
Here is an interesting article from Ron Paul on the subject:

But there is another critical issue that has quietly devastated seniors financially over the last few decades. It concerns how the cost of living is calculated. How does the administration justify not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients this year?

According to the official Consumer Price Index calculation, life has gotten cheaper for the first time in decades. If the government can show statistically that the cost of living has gone down, not up, then they can make the case for not giving a cost of living increase to social security recipients. But does this match reality? Using older calculations of CPI, the cost of living has actually increased – by roughly 5 percent!

The government eventually started using it to determine cost of living adjustments for entitlement programs. Couple that with politicians’ discovery that they could raid the social security trust fund to pay for new spending programs, and you have a perfect storm to deny seniors what they were promised, while hiding the true size of the deficit. For politicians, it is a win-win.

For seniors, it is a different story. Economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics has estimated that if the original methodology of CPI had not changed, Social Security checks would be nearly double what they are today. This represents a lot of money that politicians have been able to literally steal from seniors, to spend on their own wasteful programs.

I have introduced legislation to keep politicians in Washington from ever raiding the Social Security trust fund again. HR 219 The Social Security Preservation Act would assure that all monies collected by the Social Security Trust Fund would only be used in payments to beneficiaries, or be placed in interest bearing certificates of deposit. This would at least stop the bleeding of the fund, and take away some incentive to tease and torture the numbers in order to give seniors the minimal amount. This would also cut off a source of funding for government growth, so it is not likely to get easy support from many politicians.

It is a good read...more at this link: http://www.ss.com/ron-paul-politicians-must-stop-stealing-social-security

bump