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.


Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:37 PM
I just want to share with everyone a HUGE Secret. It really is something we should all know, because we are talking about OUR MONEY and there is a lot of it involved: The
Social Security Fund was DESIGNED to go bankrupt. That's not a conspiracy theory -- it's because it's a FUND. That means there were plans for it to ZERO OUT, sometime around 2024 or such.

Around 1981, they did this thing called; "Planning Ahead" --- I know, it sounds like it's creepy and wrong, probably Communist even. After the biggest Tax Cut for the wealthy in our nations history (and a bit sizable for the Middle Class -- let's be hones), Reagan implemented the largest tax increase ever on the Middle Class. But history and his party, record him as a big tax cutter -- so that's all you need to know, just don't think if Social Security as a TAX -- just as money the Government takes.

Anyway, they realized that the Baby Boomers were a big group of people, and when they retired, they couldn't just eat dog food (at least not the ones that vote). So they decided to double the SS tax, from something like 7.1% to 14.2% -- but then cap it, so that the rich actually paid less, after they made a few million a year.

Now, when Clinton left office, it was solvent, and on track to run out in 2048 -- when all the Baby Boomers are no longer ALIVE. See? And compared to all our other problems SS is the most rock-solid program because Republicans have not been aloud to touch it. Well, I think Bush "touched it" and there MIGHT be some "IOU - luv Boosh" on strips of paper -- I'm not really sure.

Anyway, You add more money to the fund, and the people start using the money that is there (not treating it like an investment -- because money is always leaving the fund). So the Idea that it goes "Bankrupt" is another way of saying the fund "Zeroes Out" -- but it's a better spin for Politicians who run as "anti government" and have people that vote for them that think having rights to lots of weapons will help them when their house is foreclosed (sorry, if I'm popping your bubble). And it's crazy that the Social Security Administration hasn't been more outspoken about "It's supposed to do that!"

So here we are today, and people are freaking out that "more will be coming out than going in" and well, yeah, because the Baby Boomers are retiring -- there are a lot of them. And we already PAID INTO THE FUND, to cover that. Of course, the dame people who can get bailed out because they speculated on a manipulated market and could then blame poor people getting mortgage loans and GOOD CHUNK of people believed this (and still do) -- well, they might have gotten a bunch of tax breaks we cannot afford.

Oh, and they hired some rabble rousers and got some confused Americans to FREAK OUT about spending money so everyone can have Health Coverage -- as if we can't afford it. YOU don't want to be covered for a $2 Million bill on Cancer? That's up to you. Nobody seems to ask me about hat $50 Billion for an aircraft carrier that can't find Osama - but all of a sudden we don't have "choice" on policies when they want to make sure someone's grandma or your kid can get health care.

I'm just glad that I could illuminate people on this Scary Social Security Conspiracy.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe
And the ponzi scheme begins to fall. I wonder why that is? S&F for the article and for you opening more eyes. I wrote a thread about the ponzi schemes awhile back.

If you go to the SS website, they tell the standard propaganda twists. That the fund is secure to like 2035. What a joke.

Edit to add-the year figure they use, is in regards to the IOU's sitting in Virginia.

Here is the thing, those IOU's are just that. The money is gone, so what is there solution? To add more zeros to a ledger somewhere. Ultimately, printing more fiat money, creating more inflation, decreasing the value of the dollar, hence taxing you indirectly.

Don't you love your government?

[edit on 3/26/2010 by endisnighe]

>> The problem really is, people who say "Government" and then voted for George Bush. If you don't like government -- stop voting. Especially for people who say "Government doesn't work" and then prove it by using it for a private slush fund for all their buddies.

If there are IOUs in place of money -- that is PEOPLE who did that -- and we need to find the People. For instance, America did not invade Iraq illegally, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney did -- along with that cowboy they hung out with.

However; MONEY, is printed by the Fed, and backstopped by the Taxpayer. If a certain money is earmarked for Social Security, then it will be there, because we will just print it. If it was missing -- then it probably went to a tax break, when someone was saying; "Hell yeah -- let's lower taxes, only we are going to buy a few of them Bombers, and we want lots of prisons and roads for our SUVs." You know, STUFF that wasn't around 200 years ago, when we didn't have an income tax.

The Social Security Fund -- as I just posted, was supposed to PAY OUT more than it took in (through taxes) and they planned for that -- that's why it had a surplus. It came about during the Great Depression -- when there was NO MONEY and no investment that wasn't taken by taxes. It was so old folks weren't going to starve -- they couldn't go back to work, and there would be anarchy if you just asked them to politely die -- so FDR started Social Security -- and God bless him for it. A bake sale or charity auction just doesn't really deal with anything important getting done.

>> The FUND are available, and if not, the hopefully they will raise taxes on Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson and Dick Cheney, and a couple thousand leveraged buyout wizards.

Paying taxes is just part of being in a Society that has roads and things -- it is NOT the main thing that is going to make you bankrupt. And "redistributing wealth" is the only way to keep Capitalism alive. However, Economic Royalists have done a good job of making that a dirty word.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by antonia

Social Security is doomed,

The late George Carlin said it best. Careful, this short clip has typical Carlin foul language...but it is OOOH so true!

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:05 PM
Never let your reach exceed your grasp.

At one point in time, this country was wealthy enough to engage in all kinds of social services providing food, medical care, retirement benefits, income and the like to people who were taking out more from the government than they had put in. That path is now known to most to be unsustainable without massive amounts of debt and borrowing. How long can we continue borrowing without cutting benefits?

I believe the answer is indefinitely. Not because it is smart or a good idea. But rather the politicians and planners fear the backlash of a US population deprived of benefits more than repercussions of taking on more debt.

This is why I am a libertarian. Government has under the guidance of both democrats and republicans let its reach far, far exceed its grasp.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Sibilance]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by romanmel

Carlin was spot on. I've seen that show before. My main concern here is what going to happen when other programs have to be cut to pay for Social Security. That's what is going to happen first as the baby boomers are a huge voting block. You know the politicians are going to pander to them as long as possible to keep appearances up. So what get's cut? Welfare? The Wars (HAHAHAHA), Infrastructure? Welfare would be the scariest as you'd probably see riots over it's cutting. The older folks are probably going to be too ill to burn down their cities so, that I wouldn't worry about.

Those talking about how Social Security was never meant to be the only source of retirement income are correct but, let's be realistic, it is going to be the main income source for many older people. How many people were wiped out in 08? Now the government is talking about mandating certain pension funds invest in toxic assets as part of a "resuce" plan. Haha, poor people won't even have a retirement.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by antonia]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:29 PM
I seem to remember that you could opt-out of social security. I can't remember where it was, am I wrong? I am not up on things like that. Any info would be appreciated.


posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Chronogoblin

You can opt-out but, taxes are still mandatory. Good luck trying to opt-out though. It's a pain in the butt to live without that SSN number.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by antonia]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Boy, you are living in a fantasy world. Yeah, they are going to raise taxes on Bernanke and folk.

Who is, exactly who do you think is going to do anything against the real government(Federal Reserve)?

As we speak this government is giving your masters more power to control this country.

As for the fund, they have been stealing from it since 53. Okay, lets throw every politician in jail for fraud that has ever voted for a finance bill since then. Because they have been using that fund to take over the world.

700+ bases in 100+ countries around the world.

Now, who exactly is this government protecting? The citizens or the multi-national mega corps that actually run your government.

You ever hear this rhetoric "our military protects the interests of the US around the world".

Which particular interests are these? Mine? Yours? The citizens?

Or maybe, just maybe the REAL interests of the US, the Banks and the Corporations.

Your arguments about the funds and the like are laughable.

The income of the US government is not just taxes from income of citizens. That is like the smallest component of the income of the US government.

Think of it this way, if you owned the bank that finances all other banks in the US, how much money do you think you would make?

The Federal Reserve and the IRS are not even part of the US government. Think about that. Think of it this way, the Federal Reserve prints the money for the US, there pay for that is ALL income taxes paid in each year.

Quite a racket huh? Now, we have the US government taking money in for SS since Roosevelt, they started raiding it back in 53 for the general fund.

Still think everything is going to be fine?

HC bill was passed as a new revenue stream for the government. It was not created to give any damn free HC, it was created to bailout the insurance industry, bring in money to the gov and to CONTROL YOU.

See video here-

Welcome to reality, sorry about smashing your perception that your government is benevolent. Welcome to the real world NEO.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:40 PM
The government, with the influence of the FED and people like Paulson,
decided to lavish $100s of Billions in oUp Front money to the banks/financial houses & the like (saving perhaps 500,000 overpaid brokers/banker/accountants from unemployment)
And Instead left the 10 million, middle class, blue collar workers in the miserable unemployment condition instead....
& as a result the SS withholding & the medicare withholdings from weekly, semi-monthly paychecks was dried up- evaporated!

Good choice dumbass's... No wonder the SS revenue flow dried up -- the elite brokers & banker guilds contributed LITTLE in comprison to the masses that got canned/axed/pink-slips, but that bevy of high priced Elites drained the FED Reserve and the TREAS. in both keeping their overpaid positions And hunkering up to the public trough for their awaited bonuses..

Hey Government leadership, You chose wrong---but its still us peons that suffer. Someday the tables will be turned ! Amen

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

Based on the current retirement age, social security funds will be paid out at a rate of approximately 76% [74%?] of the above amounts by the time you are eligible to claim benefits.

Congress has, and continues to have, the right to change any of the above at any given time.

Thank you for confirmation of my post. The second sentence in your quote above is very true.

Congress can cancel or change social security at anytime and all the money you paid into it are nonrefundable.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by antonia

IMO you don't have to worry about borrowing from other funds to pay social security benefits. This nation will be bankrupt shortly (next 5 years or less). BigGov would like to play off the old against the young, or the Dems against Reps so no one pays attention to how we are all being robbed by TPTB. In the final analysis we all either sink or swim as a group.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Please provide a link showing that benefits have been frozen. I know that the COLA was fozen last year, (cost of living raise) and that is pretty detrimintal given that it offsets medical costs of recipients, but I know plenty of folks who draw benefit checks, both elderly and disabled, and no one has been affected as of yet, their checks are still coming. I cannot find any article that states that they will not recieve their benefits, please check out this link:

I am not lessening the severity of what is happening, but, people ARE still getting their checks right now, and that is quite important if that action takes place, it will be really really imediately bad.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

I didn't say Bernanke and Paulson WOULD be taxed to pay for it - I said the "SHOULD" be taxed -- if this were a fairer world. Even better, they'd be in prison.

Who exactly are you laughing at? Do I know things are corrupt and WRONG? Yes. That doesn't take a genius.

But this nonsense about "we can't afford Social Security" is promoted by the very people you say run our government. They do, as long as everyone has this attitude. All the things that HELP the public at large, are demonized and "expensive" and saying "the government ripped off social security" doesn't mean that we should end a program that keeps millions of retirees from starving to death -- as well ad help orphans and people who are permanently disabled.

What alternative is there, for people who CANNOT provide for themselves? You live in a society, and you can complain all you like about "taxes" and the government and inefficiency -- but the alternative to "government that is not perfect, nor even close to being good" is total anarchy.

How bad do you really have it, that you'd prefer grabbing a shotgun and protecting your house, and stealing cans of food or turnips from a garden? The only alternative to "EVIL GOVERNMENT" is letting corporations run everything or total anarchy.

Libertarianism does not have any REALITY based solution that ever worked in the real world. Total non-interventionist government without regulations looks a good bit like Haiti. Is there a government that is less corrupt, responsive to the public, and doesn't rip people off? Yes. But those are Democratic Socialist countries. Are there more corrupt and less responsive governments that have more Libertarian principles? Yeah, they are called "failed states."

George Bush did nothing but create more military and less government regulation and bigger tax breaks and it didn't grow a single job. All the GDP growth in this country was due to borrowing from China. The worst SOCIALIST experiment in America came from FDR -- and we've been coasting on the infrastructure and the increased wealth that created since the 1980's.

This country no longer exports much, and it's main source of revenue is financial services and weapons production, copyrights and patents. Even the weapons require parts from other countries. There is nothing that can sustain us if the rest of the world doesn't want to put up with our crap anymore beyond our ability to launch nuclear weapons. We are totally dependent on the entire world - and YOU AND I are totally dependent on an infrastructure that requires electricity, the Internet, roads, trains, communications, and a lot of people doing their jobs.

Your grocery store, drug store, and gas station have about a 3-day supply.

You cannot run everything through government and you cannot let everything be up to a profit-inspired business, it all takes a balance of interests. Do I like paying taxes, do I like the Federal Reserve system? No. That system is rigged and broken and the GOVERNMENT should be in charge of banking and creating money -- because we don't WANT it to be the principle source of revenue. If Financial services were very boring and very simple and useless for making money -- then it would force people to make money by MAKING THINGS and building up businesses rather than raiding them through a venture capital scam.

All the "social welfare programs" are a drop in the bucket compared to what it costs us to NOT have Government regulation. We do not have a good system -- but it is the one we are kind of functioning in.

After all the violence against Democrats signing the Health Care Reform bill, the Media has started to wake up and wonder "maybe all this violent talk is going a bit too far" -- where have they been for 10 years?

The thing is; ditching Social Security because some in Government has ripped it off, is a useless, unproductive and cold-hearted move. You would instantly shut down the economy, because businesses depend on all these people who CANNOT WORK, spending their SS Check. Money is really ONLY useful, if people can use it to transact for goods and services, and that means that POOR PEOPLE, need money too -- or they get no goods and services from Business. That means they either starve, or the government steps in.

There is plenty of corruption in Business -- 90% of the Medicare fraud is from large corporations -- not the public or doctors. The "NON-Free Market" military, is expensive, but the mercenary troops that are now part of the scene, have no code of conduct and cost ten times more.

If you let the FREE MARKET take care of people -- there is no lowest common denominator to limit them. If someone will work for $3, and there is no Welfare to compete with that wage -- someone will eventually work for $1, or $.27 an hour as they did in Haiti. There is no incentive to educate anyone for business -- they'd rather someone else pay for that. But eventually, if all the people in the world were making what Haitians do, there would be NO reason to make anything to sell to them, or support them in any way.

WE can fix the system we have, or let it all fall to pieces. If we just get rid of government, what fills the vacuum is the worst exploitation and greed.

Grow up and deal with what you have, before saying that it all can go to Hell -- you and you're friends have not lived there and you do not know how good you have it until it is all gone. If the banks and dollar all fails -- the ONLY thing that could keep all our services going is a new currency and just giving people an allowance until order is established -- that's if everything doesn't just break down.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:00 PM
You guys still don't get the point; what is the alternative to Social Security?

85-year-0lds competing with teen agers for low skill jobs in food courts and paper routes. Or just starving to death.

Nobody is "bursting my bubble" about how much corruption there has been or about Wall Street.

But the economy is not going to go "BANKRUPT" with Social Spending. We went BANKRUPT, borrowing instead of taxing. If you don't want a huge debt: cut things that don't stimulate the economy, like the Military, Prisons, and Corporate Welfare.

When you close schools, cut out welfare, shut down health care and the like -- that means people losing jobs, and their is NO PROFIT to provide these goods and services for the poor, so beyond a few charities -- it won't happen. Our US economy will shrink, without these people spending money -- and California is about to go through this death spiral with the idiotic moves of Governor Swarzennegar.

>> Just remember: In the "Republican Great Depression" our country was broke, and it was caused by pretty much the same rampant speculation on Wall Street as this current debacle -- the only difference was; America was a major exporter, the bread basket of the world, and many poor people had farms.

This time, if things go south; very few of us can keep our standard of living up for more than a couple weeks at best. There isn't much we could do to recover through exports in the short term. Much of our society and "value added" technology, depends on a lot of imported energy.

The value of our money is all an illusion at this point anyway -- it is backed by nothing. The off-market trading in Credit Default Swaps got to over $1.4 Quadrillion.

Whether or not Social Security costs money, or will put us more in debt is a pointless argument -- it would COST US MORE, to not have it -- it keeps people employed. The damage has been done and we have to deal with the Bansksters and level the playing field. It's debatable whether or not, however, it would be better for the dollar to just collapse right now, and let everyone be poor, or "honor" our debts and try to pay them off. We cannot, however, pay off our debts by cutting vital services -- all that would do is provide MORE profits and power for the Robber Barons at the expense of ciivil order.

So we limp along trying to patch holes in the system we have or see the worst chaos that US history has yet recorded. Social Security is NOT our current vital problem, nor would cutting it improve anything.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Hey, initially SS was probably one of the only types of socialist things I would have believed in.

But as we ALL know, the government cannot be trusted. PERIOD.

They do not even make an attempt to control their spending.

That is what this HC bill is. More revenue stream.

Sorry, but central control of people's labor is NOT WORKING. They take the money and create more government. More government. More government.

That is one of two things they can do, CONTROL. The other is TAX. Period.

Nothing more, nothing less. Take a look at the CAFR's and tell me what you see.

Sorry, Tired of Control Freaks. On the Dems side and the Repub side.

They have shown they CANNOT control their spending, either party.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:05 PM
Social Security was a basically a contract between generations which the "baby boomers" fulfilled for the World War 2 generation. We are all still fulfilling that contract but it looks like the baby boomers will have paid the most before everyone jumps ship and rebels at the beck of right wing influences who have long tried to sow mistrust between the generations.

They really should have put a lock box on it as our much maligned former Vice President suggested...if they'd privatised it like GWB wanted it would have been really, really bad news...don't you think? They raided it and we are paying the consequences for that breech of trust now.

The Republican party has been driving a wedge between generations for a long time and I don't know what the answer is but make no mistake about how and by whom this trust between generations was violated and deliberately cast into doubt.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by ChrisCrikey

Yes, those evil repubs. We know the dem/repub paradigm has NOT been visible to some.

But more are waking up.

Deny ignorance.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by antonia

I am on social security disablity and I am young fairly strong. There are many others who are on social security disablity as well who have mental issues and are strong pyshically.
There would be a huge outcry if social security is cut. I don't think that can happen but who knows anymore....

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:23 PM
Don't worry! I hear the guys at Goldman's Sachs are going to cut their bonuses in half and step up to the plate and write out a check for the difference!


top topics

<< 1   >>

log in