It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

#WWJVD: Social Security Is Screwed!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:25 PM
a reply to: anonentity

I am a little befuddled by your response. Possibly intended for another thread I have commented in?

The OP asked for ways to 'Fix' Social Security, and I proposed simply leaving it for Government Employees as it is codified. Everyone else; stop participating and do your own retirement planning.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:43 PM
Well, I agree. Social security should go back to what it's supposed to be. It's an insurance policy. And those who pay for the insurance reap the benefits of it, and for those who put nothing in should get nothing out- it's that simple. But that's unfortunately not what it is. Today it's an entitlement program where people get it but never put any money into it.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: JesseVentura

Governor Ventura, I think that we should first off stop allowing SS to be treated as a "piggy bank" for pet projects.

Next, all fines from the banks "misdeeds"( if that's what we are calling outright theft by the banks these days) should be funnelled into it.

Also the same banks guilty of said "misdeeds" should give a prime interest rate on those funds, as they got to steal them and misuse that money for years before they got fined.

In their world, they knew they could make more off the money than the fines, thus after the fines it was a net gain for them.

This should be rectified by prime interest at a minimum, from the initial date if the transgression.

Thus it costs them money instead them gaining it.

On top of that, spending cuts from from the budget should also be funneled into it.

It makes little sense to structure the economy around it and let older generations profit from it, and then leave those of us paying into it holding the bag with no return.

This can be easily achieved at a net loss of zero simply by not raising the budget for a few years, allowing growth to outstrip debt.

If we spent the same at the fed level for 10 years we could wipe most of the debt and achieve a surplus at current growth rates.

Another 5 years at present spending levels and we would approach black ink for all liabilities.

So a decade and a half no I crease in spending.

That is all we would honestly need.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:17 PM

originally posted by: itsallmaya
a reply to: Legman

Yep, governor too!

Ex governor, Just citizen JV.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: JesseVentura

And this is precisely why I am not counting in SS for my retirement.

I'll already have pensions from my 20 years in the Navy and 20 years in my civilian job. If SS is bankrupt, it won't affect me much. Of course if it is there, it will add nicely to what will already be a comfortable retirement.

Nobody my age (51) should count on SS for their retirement. It is all a big joke, and the government continues to raid it.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:30 PM
If the government were to put back all the monies they robbed from it over the decades, I'd bet my firstborn that there would actually be a surplus of funds, not a deficit.

Many people die before they get a chance to collect on what they paid into, or die in their early to mid-seventies never actually collecting as much as they paid into it.

It's important to also note that those banked monies earn daily compound interest based on the running balance, so when the government robs the funds from it, they're also robbing the potential interest income.

When you look at the annual trust fund statements (monies in vs. monies out) going all the way back to 1957 in the US, you can see that there's actually a surplus of funds at the end of the year...

So where the hell is all of the surplus monies accumulated over the decades ?!

Both the US and Canadian governments are guilty of using the funds for other means and not replenishing what they took from it. Otherwise known as "embezzlement". This is what has caused the deficit in funds, moreso than people collecting who didn't pay into it.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:37 PM
Where are you guys getting your info and data from because I keep seeing reports from various sources saying that SS has a surplus and there isn't a crisis at all. However, there is a projected problem for the future, like 10 to 20 years, if some actions aren't taken soon to make sure it will be there in the future, but for right now it's just being misreported.

So what's up with the completely opposite viewpoints??

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:07 PM
a reply to: JesseVentura

I did not read all the replies but I do have a question.. Why is it ever so often we hear about Social security going belly up but we never hear about welfare running out of money ?

If they would return all the money I have paid in for 48 years @ just 5% interest I would be more than happy and could live the remainder of my life worry free.

If they can print money to save the banks then a few print runs for those who have paid all their lives should be no big step..

Someone will come along and declare how my money paid in was used to pay others... It is true a certain percentage went to those on social security and the rest went to government programs with an official IOU and everything.. Start collecting back for the IOUs first step... You will hear the pigs in Washington squealing all the way to Alabama.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:22 PM
Everyone must realize that the Social Security trust fund is mainly composed of special Bonds that are different than all other issued US bonds. They are not a bond that the SS admin would sell on the market like any other US T-Bill or note. If I remember correctlly it's a bond that the SS admin takes to treasury and then they would give the SS admin the money out of current accounts or more likely borrow the money by issuing standard bonds. The bonds the SS admin hold do not even have a CUSIP.

Social Security old age insurance is in trouble mainly because of all the looting done by politicians over the years. Despite that there are some relatively minor fixes that could bring it to long term solvency. Tax all wages instead of stopping at the $117,000 like they do now. Put a limit on the maximum monthly benefit, as anyone drawing the max should have saved up enough in other retirement to live well in their old age.

The problem with Social Security truly lies in the SSDI portion of Social Security. The amount of fraud in that part of SS is astounding. I'd not be the least bit surprised if somewhere between 20-40% of people receiving that could be productive in some form of work, if not their original profession. I don't know how to address that without massive demagougary or possible social upheaval.

The true budget breaker of all the entitlements are Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare spends more than it takes in tax while Medicaid is funded from general revenues without a specific tax to fund it. The only way that either of these will not eventually break this country fully is to collapse the cost of medical services and products. I think there are two ways to do this.: one socialist, and one free market. The socialist approach would be a nationalized health system like exists in the Commonwealth, the health and welfare clause of the Constitution would be the legal foundation for such a system. The free market approach would force doctors, hospitals, Big Pharma, and other players in the industry to abide by the same laws that every other industry must. Anti-trust, first sale doctrine, reimportation of products, transparent pricing, binding quotes for cost of services and a host of other things that everyone but healthcare has to abide by. I think that such actions would collapse the cost of healthcare by up to 80% which would leave most routine procedures like childbirth, simple broken bones, and regular and even common specialist doctor visits affordable to all but the poorest who would fall under state and even federal social safety nets and leave insurance to truly be insurance for the unexpected condition or event, instead of the tax by another name it is now.I prefer the latter but could live with the former as long as it doesn't become yet another way to extract the wealth from citizens that it is now (it's already at $1 out of every $5 spent in the US economy).

However, fixing SSI, SSDI, Medicaid, or Medicare and the underlying costs of medical services in the US requires things sorely lacking in American body Politic-Leadership and Vision particularly. I doubt even anyone with those qualities would be unsuccessful in the attempt util it's obvious to everyone that it's about to fall apart.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in