This is good

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.
Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

.. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.

Er, how do you figure that? I have no idea of the exact numbers, but
I'd offer that most folks taking benefits from SSI have not contributed
much to "the fund" as they have paid very little tax or otherwise
contributed to the general funding of the Fed.

Now, if you're talking about old age benefits, those folks have
contributed, in general, but there is no way that take-out will continue
to exceed input and when the whole "Trust Fund" **** hits the fan
(granted, not for a coupla-three decades, if projections are halfway
close), your age group's kids and my age group are gonna be lucky to get
anything and certainly my "take-out" is not going to be anywhere near my
_overall_ input.

Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

No, but a proper investment strategy will, over the years, yield more
than the various Fed programs ("old age" - "Social Security") and
welfare (SSI) schemes

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

Well, sure...suppose someone fell asleep with the cookies in the oven...

HTH,
R

As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

My numbers may be off and need updating but that is the general shape
of it. Bottomline is that Wall Street and their Congressional lackeys
made a good fight to rip off America's largest single source of
retirement income, and almost convinced a giddy populace that they
could get rich in the magical stock market. They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Its another example of conflating the ideology of greed, with
political expression. The reforms of the Roosevelt years saved this
country from a radical turn to the left. The social security system,
the unemployment insurance trust fund, the workmen's compensation
system, the banking (FDIC) and financial system reforms, and the fair
labor laws of our fathers, established a safety net and a firm set of
ground rules within which capitalism and free market enterprise could
flourish.

Sadly, greed and one political party's obsession with tearing down the
stabilizing structure of our father's hard earned Roosevelt reforms,
that has resulted in the mess we are currently in. Now, panicked we
see the unseemly near nationalization of the tattered system by the
administration. We see over reactions that threaten the basic
competitive and entrepreunurial character of our economy. I find it
ironic that it will fall to the Democrats to rebuild the competitive
and entrepreunurial character of our economy.



Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? *I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Of course you would. And I would like my tax money used to subsidize
those 400 or so substantial US and offshore companies who pay no
taxes. I would like to be able to tell them pay their share of police,
fire, school etc costs. Boeing flies its planes out over international
waters to avoid taxes. Microsoft runs its money thru a closet in
Nevada so Bill Gates can posture about how my school taxes should be
spent, I subsidize Intel's factory roads, the Hartford forest lands
and Weyerhaeuser pay diddle squat. And I have a better insight these
days on just how the Ag bill works since I bought some farm land.


Bottom-line is that a lot of this ideology stuff has clouded what we
really need to do in this country to both take proper care of our
people and build up a productive, competitive and entrepreneurial
private sector that can pay for our way of life in a sustainable
basis.

Dave

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Horse caca. If I had invested my SS payments when I first started
paying them sixty six years ago, I would be a helluva lot better off
than I am now. No one loses in the stock market unless they panic or
make foolish investments.

I wish to hell I would have had the option to invest in the market
instead of SS when I first started to work/pay into the fund.

If you had bought stocks in 87 when the market "crashed", you would
be even richer today. Today is the time to buy, not worry about the
market losing everything.

Dave

On Oct 28, 1:27*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
SNIP Snip

Hooray for you. Of course you understand that the majority of working
people are so pressed that they cannot even see their way to max their
matched 401k accounts?

Dave
The stock market is a figment. Real investment is when a society and
an economy saves and builds needed physical, scientific and social
infrastructure, plant and equipment, soil fertility and a healthy,
educated, and safe working population, which can be engaged freely
in the production of needed goods, services and new technologies in a
sustainable way. That is why even Wall Street calls it the "REAL
ECONOMY" And that is why almost all really significant investment
involves government in some way.

We have just seen the effect of more and more money pursuing equities
that represent fewer and fewer real productive assets. Many companies
are just hollowed out shells, mere marketing and distribution arms of
Red Chinese conglomerates. You put your money into Commisar/General
One Hung Low's hands. I think I'll put my money on America.

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:53:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

Well, duh. That goes without saying, Dave. I started saving when I
got back from Japan in 1960. The market has been nothing but good to
me ever since. Dips, mini-crashes? Sure. But for the long term, you
can not do better.

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said. Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:36:41 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

See above.

TC,
R

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **