Social Security - Cost of living

[BigRob]

I and my wife are retired and depending on SS. What I want is for the government to quit skimming off the excess and spending it. They can do that now without touching the Treasury bonds. But no. They depend on the SS payments I made over the last decades to help fund the government.

I spent a day creating a spreadsheet calculation that computed how much I put in over my lifetime and the resulting compound interest and was surprised to learn that at nominal interest rates the money I put in pays for what I'm getting till I'm 90. But my money doesn't exist anymore because the government spent it and I'm now living off of what current wage earners are putting in through FICA. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to them.

I don't think anyone from either party is ever going to ask the Treasury for my money back, and that pisses me off.

It is understandable...you paid the money in and now you want it back...I hardly think anyone can fault you for that.

That said, would you agree you would have been better off putting your own money into your own retirement account? Even if forced to put it in FDIC insured items like a CD or something, you could have seen a better rate of return, and know that your money is there when you need it.

Additionally, from my perspective, (someone in their 20s), it bothers me that I am going to have to pay in my entire life, and then when I want my money back, it won't be there, and there won't be a trust fund either. What I would propose is the following:

People 55 and over: Social Security remains the same...there is no change in your benefits etc.
People 40-55: You are given a lump sum to be bought out of the program.
People 30-40: Given a much smaller lump sum to be bought out of the program.
People 29 and younger: You get nothing.

If needbe you can allow employers to continue to deduct from your paycheck and deposit the money directly into personal retirement accounts etc...but either way, you get to keep your money, and we don't have to deal with the crushing burden that SS will become.

 

[BigRob]

2042 is still over 30 years away. There is plenty of time to see ahead, and to do reform that will not affect people who are retired today, and not even people who will retire within the next 20 years.

We can't just kick the can down the road forever. People in my generation are going to pay into a system their entire lives that is clearly set up so we will not get our money back...how is this not a problem?

Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about cuts in social security today, when the whole economy is in such a dramatic downturn, rather than to wait a few years (even 2 or 3 years) when we may be experiencing an upward turn in the economy.

The only reason there is a push to do it now is that stupid "all or nothing" attitude of politiciens who just want to hit Obama and make him fail by any means possible.

That is simply not factual. Social Security reform has been an issue for years...I recall Bush trying to reform the program when he was in office.

 

[Openmind]

We can't just kick the can down the road forever. People in my generation are going to pay into a system their entire lives that is clearly set up so we will not get our money back...how is this not a problem?

I don't think I suggested "kicking the can down the road FOREVER!" What I suggested was that THIS is the worse time to do it! The stupid "compromise" imposed by the tea party is already doing enough damage to our economy. I was just listening to Rachel Maddow, who had two economists discussing the issues. One is a Cornell economist, the other a Bloomberg and Washington post economist. BOTH stated that there was NO REASON for the "job providers" to create more jobs right now, because the demand is so low, that they have plenty of stock and that if they made more products, it just wouldn't sell. Both agreed that cutting spending at this time is the worse thing that could have been done if we wanted to create new jobs!
But, obviously, YOU will disagree with reality! However, the stock market sure knows better! I suggest you check for those interview on MSNBC. I know you probably prefer Fox News twist. . .but then do not blame anyone in the Democratic party when unemployment continues to deepens!

That is simply not factual. Social Security reform has been an issue for years...I recall Bush trying to reform the program when he was in office.

This actually supports my point: It has been an issue for ever. . . Why trying to burn the candle from both end? Our economy is in the pits. . .and you want to push it down even further by decreasing the money available to people to SPEND, to CREATED DEMAND, so that there is a reason to hire people!

So. . .you have the money. . .why don't you go and hire a couple of people tomorrow? EVERY big corporation has made huge profit last year, and yet. . . they are NOT hiring. . .they are laying off. Why? Because they KNOW that there is not going to be increased demand, on the contrary, there is going to be a DECREASE in demand!

And it is not in Europe that they will find more demand either! And even China's economy is slowing down. . .so WHERE would anyone find people to buy their products?

 

[BigRob]

I don't think I suggested "kicking the can down the road FOREVER!" What I suggested was that THIS is the worse time to do it! The stupid "compromise" imposed by the tea party is already doing enough damage to our economy. I was just listening to Rachel Maddow, who had two economists discussing the issues. One is a Cornell economist, the other a Bloomberg and Washington post economist. BOTH stated that there was NO REASON for the "job providers" to create more jobs right now, because the demand is so low, that they have plenty of stock and that if they made more products, it just wouldn't sell. Both agreed that cutting spending at this time is the worse thing that could have been done if we wanted to create new jobs!
But, obviously, YOU will disagree with reality! However, the stock market sure knows better! I suggest you check for those interview on MSNBC. I know you probably prefer Fox News twist. . .but then do not blame anyone in the Democratic party when unemployment continues to deepens!

I will not "disagree with reality", I will simply come down on the other side of the debate, which is packed full of equally as intelligent and well educated people...

And the notion that you are somehow "fair" by blindly following MSNBC and then in the same breath bemoaning those who watch FOX is quite juvenile.

This actually supports my point: It has been an issue for ever. . . Why trying to burn the candle from both end? Our economy is in the pits. . .and you want to push it down even further by decreasing the money available to people to SPEND, to CREATED DEMAND, so that there is a reason to hire people!

They didn't cut benefits..they left them the same.

So. . .you have the money. . .why don't you go and hire a couple of people tomorrow? EVERY big corporation has made huge profit last year, and yet. . . they are NOT hiring. . .they are laying off. Why? Because they KNOW that there is not going to be increased demand, on the contrary, there is going to be a DECREASE in demand!

Article

And it is not in Europe that they will find more demand either! And even China's economy is slowing down. . .so WHERE would anyone find people to buy their products?

How about we just print money into oblivion? That will stimulate us out of this right? If you truly believed that worked, how do you explain spending $4 trillion and getting the results we have gotten?

 

[Openmind]

I will not "disagree with reality", I will simply come down on the other side of the debate, which is packed full of equally as intelligent and well educated people...

And the notion that you are somehow "fair" by blindly following MSNBC and then in the same breath bemoaning those who watch FOX is quite juvenile.



They didn't cut benefits..they left them the same.



Article



How about we just print money into oblivion? That will stimulate us out of this right? If you truly believed that worked, how do you explain spending $4 trillion and getting the results we have gotten?

Did you watch MSNBC tonight?
I watched both MSNBC and FOX . . .I also watched CNN.

If you can't see the difference, maybe you are juvenile!

And. . .even Reagan's economist stated that same concern about the "spending cuts." You say there are plenty of intelligent people who believe that this was a good deal for the economy? Where are they?

How do THEY plan to create job? How long do we need to wait? We have already waited 6 months since the Congress was taken over by the teaparty. . .and still no more jobs, except for those created through Obama's programs. . .

 

[BigRob]

Did you watch MSNBC tonight?
I watched both MSNBC and FOX . . .I also watched CNN.

If you can't see the difference, maybe you are juvenile!

I didn't watch any of them tonight. I guess since I missed Rachael Maddow I must be out of touch huh?

And. . .even Reagan's economist stated that same concern about the "spending cuts." You say there are plenty of intelligent people who believe that this was a good deal for the economy? Where are they?

Seriously? You are going to argue there are no credible economists that view our spending as out of control, and disagree with the Keynesian model?

If you want to get specific, and target solely the debt ceiling issue...here is the release of 150 economists that supported the GOP's ideas.

"An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government’s spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president. We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow. An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

How do THEY plan to create job? How long do we need to wait? We have already waited 6 months since the Congress was taken over by the teaparty. . .and still no more jobs, except for those created through Obama's programs. . .

YES! We have waited six months....but where is it that all this legislation is stuck? Oh yea... the Senate...currently controlled by Democrats.

Here is a snapshot of all the legislation that addresses jobs passed by the Republican House and KILLED in the Democratic Senate.

Democrats cannot even pass a budget...and then they expect anyone to take them seriously as they attempt to lecture us about financial issues?

 

[Openmind]

I didn't watch any of them tonight. I guess since I missed Rachael Maddow I must be out of touch huh?



Seriously? You are going to argue there are no credible economists that view our spending as out of control, and disagree with the Keynesian model?

If you want to get specific, and target solely the debt ceiling issue...here is the release of 150 economists that supported the GOP's ideas.

"An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government’s spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is critical that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president. We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow. An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt."

Sounds pretty clear to me.



YES! We have waited six months....but where is it that all this legislation is stuck? Oh yea... the Senate...currently controlled by Democrats.

Here is a snapshot of all the legislation that addresses jobs passed by the Republican House and KILLED in the Democratic Senate.

Democrats cannot even pass a budget...and then they expect anyone to take them seriously as they attempt to lecture us about financial issues?

You know better than that, Rob! No, I don't think you are out of touch because you didn't watch Rachel Maddow tonight! My point was that TONIGHT her program was exceptionally interesting and fact based (as usual, but very timely).

And, really, I don't care if you never watch her, as long as you make an effort to get your information from a variety of sources (and If I didn't respect you, I wouldn't care about that either!)

Those 150 economists are obviously biased. . .because if they were really serious, they would have at the least stated that increase in revenue were ALSO needed to deal with the deficit!
Come on, you have to at least recognize that much!

And. . .really, 150 economists is not a very large number! How many of them are also members of the Republican Congress?

All those "job creation bills" are nothing more than additional "gifts" to the GOP wealthy sponsor! They ALL include "throwing more money, and removing regulations" from big corporations!

That hasn't worked for 8 years under Bush (that's exactly what HE was doing!), why would it work now????

 

[dahermit]

If there is no money, there is no money.

Nonsense. There is money for new weapons systems (new jet fighter, even though there is no one capable of defeating the ones we already have), rebuilding Iraq, wars, tax breaks for oil companies, any spending that the Republicans want. Who are we kidding here? Republicans are trying their best to eliminate social security, if they cannot just legislate it away, they will destroy it gradually, by not making any inflationary increases.

 

[BigRob]

Nonsense. There is money for new weapons systems (new jet fighter, even though there is no one capable of defeating the ones we already have),

If you are talking about the F-22, that was program was cancelled. If you are talking about the F-35, are you attempting to argue there was no need for it?

rebuilding Iraq, wars, [.quote]

That is hardly a Republican issue.

]quote]
tax breaks for oil companies, any spending that the Republicans want.

There are also tax breaks and subsidies for "green" energy companies...and plenty of money for pet programs of the Democrats.

Who are we kidding here? Republicans are trying their best to eliminate social security, if they cannot just legislate it away, they will destroy it gradually, by not making any inflationary increases.

Bush tried to reform the whole system to make it last....Social Security is set up to eliminate itself anyway.

 

[BigRob]

You know better than that, Rob! No, I don't think you are out of touch because you didn't watch Rachel Maddow tonight! My point was that TONIGHT her program was exceptionally interesting and fact based (as usual, but very timely).

And, really, I don't care if you never watch her, as long as you make an effort to get your information from a variety of sources (and If I didn't respect you, I wouldn't care about that either!)

Clearly I only read one newspaper...now if I could just remember the name.

Those 150 economists are obviously biased. . .because if they were really serious, they would have at the least stated that increase in revenue were ALSO needed to deal with the deficit!
Come on, you have to at least recognize that much!

You can't ask for names of people who are on the other side of the argument, then broadly claim they are bias because they do not believe as you believe.

And. . .really, 150 economists is not a very large number! How many of them are also members of the Republican Congress?

Zero...and that is just 150 that signed on to Speaker Boehner's letter. There are more than just 150 in total.

All those "job creation bills" are nothing more than additional "gifts" to the GOP wealthy sponsor! They ALL include "throwing more money, and removing regulations" from big corporations!

Creating a favorable business climate is something we need to pursue.

That hasn't worked for 8 years under Bush (that's exactly what HE was doing!), why would it work now????

It is not exactly what he was doing at all...and by this token, why are we continuing to do anything Obama has done? Clearly it has worked so well right?

 

[Lagboltz]

It is understandable...you paid the money in and now you want it back...I hardly think anyone can fault you for that.

That said, would you agree you would have been better off putting your own money into your own retirement account? Even if forced to put it in FDIC insured items like a CD or something, you could have seen a better rate of return, and know that your money is there when you need it.

Additionally, from my perspective, (someone in their 20s), it bothers me that I am going to have to pay in my entire life, and then when I want my money back, it won't be there, and there won't be a trust fund either. What I would propose is the following:

People 55 and over: Social Security remains the same...there is no change in your benefits etc.
People 40-55: You are given a lump sum to be bought out of the program.
People 30-40: Given a much smaller lump sum to be bought out of the program.
People 29 and younger: You get nothing.

If needbe you can allow employers to continue to deduct from your paycheck and deposit the money directly into personal retirement accounts etc...but either way, you get to keep your money, and we don't have to deal with the crushing burden that SS will become.

The Bush administration already suggested something similar to what you are saying.

You seem to agree that people can't be trusted to think of saving for retirement especially when they are younger. They max out credit cards, or they work at minimum wage jobs with little discretionary income, or they just simply have poor financial sense.

In short when it comes to planning for the future, people are just short sighted. Without SS these people will become a burden on society or to their relatives if they have any. Nobody wants to live in a society where these people are all over the place. Their problems then becomes everyone's problem.

Here is my suggestion. Keep SS as it is, but stop running it as a virtual Ponzi scheme. Separate the retirement savings from the national debt so that the government is forced to let the retirees have it back when needed. That seems to be in essence what you are suggesting, but the difference is that I think it can be done without getting rid of the SS structure.

The one remaining problem is that the monthly SS check amount is dependent on life expectancy. Since that is getting longer, there is not enough to cover retirement at historical rates. Older people will have to face reducing their standard of living simply because they are living longer or increase their contribution.

 

[Lagboltz]

You can't ask for names of people who are on the other side of the argument, then broadly claim they are bias because they do not believe as you believe.

Zero...and that is just 150 that signed on to Speaker Boehner's letter. There are more than just 150 in total.

Openmind is right in the sense that the signer who was a nobel prize winner is well known for his supply side economics. Others are from the decidedly conservative Hover Institute. It is not so much an issue of what Openmind believes. Supply side economics is in disfavor by most economics now.

Creating a favorable business climate is something we need to pursue.

I believe you know that "regulations" is a very misleading word. When conservatives decry "regulations" they often give examples of very silly or burdensome outdated regulations that should be eliminated. But big corporations also want to get rid of regulations that prevent them from, for example, gross pollution, or eliminating wetlands, or Wall Street creating faulty financial derivatives. These regulations should be kept or tightened. Yes. we need a favorable business climate, but not specifically when the lack of regulations allow businesses destroy other critical things.

 

[Openmind]

Openmind is right in the sense that the signer who was a nobel prize winner is well known for his supply side economics. Others are from the decidedly conservative Hover Institute. It is not so much an issue of what Openmind believes. Supply side economics is in disfavor by most economics now.


I believe you know that "regulations" is a very misleading word. When conservatives decry "regulations" they often give examples of very silly or burdensome outdated regulations that should be eliminated. But big corporations also want to get rid of regulations that prevent them from, for example, gross pollution, or eliminating wetlands, or Wall Street creating faulty financial derivatives. These regulations should be kept or tightened. Yes. we need a favorable business climate, but not specifically when the lack of regulations allow businesses destroy other critical things.

Thank you for clarifying my thoughts.
It is at times like these that I realize the limitations placed on my ability to communicate because I am not a native English speaker.

Emotions also tend to "muddle" my writing! Thanks.

 

[Lagboltz]

Thank you for clarifying my thoughts.
It is at times like these that I realize the limitations placed on my ability to communicate because I am not a native English speaker.

Emotions also tend to "muddle" my writing! Thanks.

I think you are very articulate. I would never have guessed that you are not a native speaker.

Also, the issues really are emotional. You are arguing deep human feelings against males who argue from theology or abstractions. I agree with you that abortions are a bad, but sometimes inevitable method of birth control. Men have absolutely no right to judge a woman in that regard.

 

[BigRob]

Openmind is right in the sense that the signer who was a nobel prize winner is well known for his supply side economics. Others are from the decidedly conservative Hover Institute. It is not so much an issue of what Openmind believes.

Yes..Openmind is right that the signers do not agree with her position...and apparently therefore they are misguided and wrong.

Supply side economics is in disfavor by most economics now.

Except among the many where it is not.

I believe you know that "regulations" is a very misleading word. When conservatives decry "regulations" they often give examples of very silly or burdensome outdated regulations that should be eliminated. But big corporations also want to get rid of regulations that prevent them from, for example, gross pollution, or eliminating wetlands, or Wall Street creating faulty financial derivatives. These regulations should be kept or tightened. Yes. we need a favorable business climate, but not specifically when the lack of regulations allow businesses destroy other critical things.

No one is saying allow companies to flood rivers with toxic waste, but we can easily create a regulatory environment that is far less burdensome and pro business..and at the same time protect rivers etc.