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.


Let's Talk About Social Security

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

I expect my bankrupt creditors to act on the poor side if they want me to believe that they have no money to repay their debt to me!! Not flying a mass of their friends around the world for what was probably more like a nice dinner party than anything else like hillary just did with all our ambassadors. not spending outrageous amounts of money on super bowl parties like obama just did. not giving away ourrageous amounts of money to help foreign governments.. not offering to develop the drugs for the drug companies to peddle. not funding the grammys so that lady gaga can be delivered in an egg. not giving out taxbreaks to companies bribing them to desert their local suppliers for suppliers halfway around the world! not paying their employees and contractors more than the public sector pays theirs.
oh, and well, someone mentioned us boomers as being the let me throw this in the mix also...
around half the kids now days are born out of wedlock, half of the children living in american will be on food stamps at some point during their childhood. Over a quarter of the children in our country live in single parent households.
and, I wouldn't expect them to be devaluing my money and borrowing from whoever is gullible enough to borrow from to keep on their spending spree!
I would also expect to be of same worth as all the other creditors in a bankruptcy court, worthy of an equal portion...ex....if they 50 cents to the dollar, I would expect 50 cents to the dollar also!

and in case anyone think that I am only picking on the dems....
tax breaks for the rich, two senseless wars, homeland security, no strings attached bailouts for wall street, taxpayer trips around the world, and on an on.....
it's funny, some of us were screaming about the debt while the repubs were in office, and we were told that it really didn't matter.....
now that they aren't in,'s matters....
same can be said of the dems...mattered while the repubs were in office, now that they are in...doesn't matter!!!
as long as their pets get taken care of, the rest of the country can go to hades as far as either side is concerned!

edit on 14-2-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:06 AM
To balance the budget Ronald Reagan ended the Federal Civil Service retirement system.

Now Federal Civil Servants have the "FERS" retirement system. It consists of Social Security...they pay into every pay what they save themselves and put into the TSP Fund to invest. Plus they pay into another Fund and receive a tiny, tiny check from that as well from the Government. They mainly rely on Social Security to retire on now.

Meanwhile there are old farts of the Baby Boomer Generation who were in the old system and are banking 75% of their gross wages back when they were a retirement.

Our Government is broke because the Baby Boomer and prior Generation robbed us blind...are robbing us blind. Today's kids won't get squat when they retire.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:31 AM
How you care for your poor and less fortunate still speaks to who we are as a nation. Are we selfish, greedy and spiteful or something better?

Associating parties to the argument is a false argument, left and right are both corrupt and serve the corporations and bankers, so let's not even entertain that distraction.

Many people need SS to survive, so what's more important? having more money everything else or turning your back on someone in need. The vast majority are legitimate in their needs, yet those opposed hold up the small minority abusing the system as the norm. Many here would let others go homeless so they can have a better cable package. I have no sympathy for your selfish arguments and will fight it in every way possible. The amount of money wasted on almost everything else is stunning, yet SS has to be put on the chopping block? really? It's one of the few government programs MOST don't mind paying, it's all the other wasteful programs that are the real problem. Politicians rob cheat and steal from us and then fool people so easily into arguing for more of the same, it's pathetic.

All of us make this country, not just this group or that. You wouldn't have what you do if it weren't for this dynamic. You are fortunate enough to benefit from our society and have the nerve to claim YOU did it alone? Wake up, A few small changes and you might find yourself among the "others". Shame on all of you who put anything ahead of your brothers.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

well, technically the gov't owes the trust fund a ton of $$$$...and is legally obligated to pay it back...
if they did that, the fund would be rather healthy....
it's just that the old "you should pay your bills" bit that they keep telling the peons, well, they don't think it should pertain to the big fishies!

if social security dies, it will be because one group of people in this country wants it to bad enough that they tanked the whole system to get rid of it, all the while consolidating the wealth into a small group of people, thus taking it out of the fica taxable pool.

here's another interesting fact.....
the value of all those tax breaks that are written into the tax code, EXCEEDS the total amount of revenue that is taken in by the same tax code!! what does that mean...
well to me it means that we have a tax code that just doesn't work!! and they know it doesn't work, thus all the exceptions to the rules (tax breaks) for those who play the game the way they want it played!
the recent group of tax breaks that everyone has been squabbling about don't affect my family one bit, matter of fact, they are a big headache since what they giveth through the year, they take back at tax time!!!
give us a tax system that works!!! one that doesn't need a million and one exceptions to keep the economy running!
this might help solve some of the problems surrounding the social security issue also.

Exactly right, dawnstar. Social Security was designed as a Trust Fund. What I pay in belongs to me, I am the Beneficiary of the Trust, the Government is the Trustee. Then came Korea, and the "Police Action," another word for war. North Korea was bombed really bad, and they demanded repatriations from the Americans. So, it was "borrowed" from the Social Security Fund. Ever since that time, every time TPTB need money for anything having to do with WAR, they take from the Fund to pay for it.
The truth of the matter is this: The Government owes Social Security, and the American People, more money than there is in the whole world, Gold included. We have been ripped off to the tune of Trillions of dollars, and it continues even today.
Only We the People can stop them.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

It is quite easy to buy physical gold and there are a number of firms that will sell you gold for a reasonable fee and ship it to you for you to do with it what you want. You are correct that if you want to own physical gold, you need to specifically ask for that rather than a gold fund.

If you know what you want to invest in than of course you would not need an investment advisor, you would simply buy the metals. If, however you wanted a portfolio of assets at a predetermined risk and felt that you could not competently put that portfolio together, then you should see and advisor.

The key is that you can do what you want and that the government can not take your money and do what they want with it on some pipe dream that it will be worth something some day

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by dolphinfan

oh, I know how, and where to buy physical gold and silver, but usually when the start talking about "privatizing" social security, or making similar changes to it....well....
the gov't still wants some control over just what you do with the money. when bush was in office, they wanted us to hand it over to wall street...
that would have went over real welll, wouldn't have???
wall st. was in trouble then I bet, bush knew it and was trying to boost it up!
now well they want us to put in into US treasuries.... a feeling that would work about as well as the idea of putting into wall street.

I do believe that all these ideas would require you to put a similar percentage of your income into some retirement plan as social security does now, it just gave you a little more freedom as far as what you do with it....
Bank bailouts, higher taxes, well, the public is getting kind of sick of such things....
these ideas are just another way, maybe a little more acceptable to the people, of accomplishing the same goal...directing the people's money in the direction our gov't needs it to go.

but, well, they ain't accept buying gold and silver off of ebay or amex as acceptable.
first, there is no way that it be proven that you have invested the required funds, and then, there is no way to prove that you haven't sold the gold or silver on ebay to get the cash...

we can't trust wall street, we can't trust the gov't.....and it kind of looks to me that they are running hand and hand. so well, don't see much difference really...we will still get ripped!
if they want to do away with social security, find, they can just pay me back the money that I've put in, in the form of silver and gold....
otherwise, well....guess we can show up with our lawyers in the bankruptcy court and fight along side china and such for our far share.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

Actually the government does not control where you put your money in an IRA, nor do they control where pension assets are invested, and those assets are invested by institutional money managers, aka Wall Street. There are millions of Americans who have retired quite nicely due to returns generated by competent asset management.

What the government does do with respect to pension assets is qualify the investment vehicle via ERISA (employee retirement investment security act) which sets out parameters which qualify for pension accounts, generally ensuring that the risk is accurately described in so far that it is set forth that an average person can understand what they are buying. Within that spectrum, there are a wide array of investment vehicles along the efficient frontier of investment risk. You can invest in metals, emerging markets, bonds, what ever.

To understand if you have the actual investment vehicle rather than smoke, there are safeguards in place. Your investment advisor/firm does not hold the assets you buy. A custodian bank holds those assets. The custodian ensures that the accounts are held accurately and that the instructions set forth by the investment advisor is legitimate. The custodian is also the entity that prices the funds on a daily. They also calculate the performance of a non-fund portfolio - not the investment advisor. With respect to mutual funds, there is also a transfer agent who ensures that the proper protocols are in place to transfer fund assets from one fund to another or to cash.

To suggest that "Wall Street" is involved in some massive conspiracy to essentially take your money and turn it into smoke is nonsense.

I don't disagree that there is too much collusion between Wall Street and the government, but that is with respect to regulation or the lack there of, in other words, allowing the Street to do things with money that are not in the best interests of investors (particularily private investors in non-ERISA qualified vehicles). That nonsense is easy to and must stop and the government has done nothing to stop it. The revolving door between investment firms, notably Goldman Sachs and high level positions in government also must (and could easily) be stopped.

Wall Street is all about making money. They make money only if there is some integrity and transparency within the markets. Is the transparency and integrity high enough? No, it is not. To suggest that the Street would even be supportive of getting engaged in some scheme to take your assets and essentially commit fraud is suggesting that they would be supportive of going out of business. Keep in mind that firms like Goldman, JP Morgan, and Merrill Lynch are US firms but investment a tremendous amount of international assets. To the extent that these firms did what you want, private investors around the world would dump those firms and invest in non-US firms, like UBS, HSBC or Nomura. That would eliminate the government's ability to play with the money in collusion with the Street.

Now the government could easily come in and say that they are going to take control over all ERISA assets and they may do that. The group that would fight that the most is Wall Street.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

every aspect of the housing market/cdo crash was infested with fraud....
if wall street had even half the concern you seem to think they had, there would have been no need for the regulators to regulate, to prevent that much fraud....
the firms would have done it themselves...
they are too big to fail, have their buddies in gov't waiting to bail them out if their gambling goes bad....

to deny otherwise, well, that's kind of like closing a blind eye to recent events!

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

You're making my point. The issue with the CDOs was due to poor regulation and that is the aspect of the linkage between Wall Street and the Government (and the rating agencys) that must stop.

With robust regulations in place, the investment can properly generate far better returns than the government can by simply placing it in a 30 year bond. Put massive transparency into the market place with regulation and let the market work. Personally, I would much rather give my money to an ethical and talented investment professional than to the government, where I can be certain that they will take my hard-earned money and spend it on things I have no desire to invest in.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

you had people emailing each other talking about how they hoped that the whole house of cards wouldn't collapse before they made their million....
and the only one you blame is poor regulation by the gov't??
what about poor moral standards of the people???
I mean, I would hope that the gov't at least would care about the whole house of cards tumbling down a little more than that...
these people didn't give a dang about anything but their own personal million.
I'll stick to my gold and silver in hand....or social security pittance...thank youj!

edit on 15-2-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

You're right, there were folks out there who were unethical and they should be punished for it severely. The simple fact of the matter is that the government failed in its oversight over the creation and manipulation of these bogus securities. The government knew that significant percentages of the security was junk, yet allowed only the high-grade component be included in the rating. The rating agencys, Moodys and S&P knew the same thing, but have a vested, conflicted interest in giving out high ratings so they also only rated the high grade debt and created the false impression that the junk was not a part of the overall security. The fact that the top 10% of the SEC and Dept of the Treasury did not lose their jobs after this blew up is outrageous. The senior executives of Fanny and Freddy should not have been fired. They should have been tossed in jail for massive fraud.

I'm not about to get into the discussion on the financial collapse, its been discussed in depth on ATS. My proposition is simple and that is why should I have to comingle my retirement assets with someone who has a fundamentally different investment strategy? Why should a 25 year old person have to invest in the same manner as a 60 year old person? Let me do what I want. I don't care if the government mandates that I put a certain amount of money away each month for retirement. Let me take the risk, let me be accountable and should I lose all my money, I can either live on the street, work until the day I die or move in with friends or family. I should have the right to make the decision. If I'm willing to accept the risk and consequences I should be able to.

The government should not be in the investment business, period. Sure, let the government provide those programs for those who like them. Cool. Just don't play with my money. It is, after all, mine.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

there's one small aspect of the situation I think you might be overlooking....

some of us have been putting money into this system for decades now. where has all this money gone?? and well, not only has our gov't piddled away this money, along with our tax dollars, they've also racked up how much debt???
our current problems has nothing to do with social security.....and you can change the ss system all you want, and you are still gonna have the problem. the fact of the matter is, if it wasn't for all the money they've been gleaming from the system, well, they would have our tax rates so skyhigh, we all still wouldn't have anything! o b
it's washington's spending that needs to be addressed more than anything else. and you could completely cut all that aide to the elderly and the poor, and it wouldn't make that much of a difference. there are much, much bigger wastes out there, much of it going to people who have more money than they know what to do with to begin with....
I don't see any sign of them trying to trim it really, ya they are using the situation to fit into their own agendas...but well, alot of what is being said (by both non-truths, half-truths, shreds of truth....and their actions are not supporting any of their truths! so, well, don't ask me to give up all that money that I have put into the system, while they go on their gleeful little way enriching themselves and their buddies with my taxmoney, many times putting that tax money to work against me. ya, so they let you off the hook on that little bit that you give in social security tax, so what, they will still need that money, they will still want the money, and they will still find a way to get that money... they'll just create a new tax to get it.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

I don't disagree with many of your points and think that the solution will need to be layers, in other words, there are groups of people who need different solutions to their retirement issues. I understand why you don't want to give up your social security and depending on your circumstances, you should'nt have to.

My point is that something needs to be done and that will mean that some folks will need to give theirs up, e.g. means testing. The retirement age will also have to be increased.

I think we agree that the challenge with the current system is that it gets pooled and the government simply writes an IOU against it that they can not afford to pay back. That has to stop.

Personally I would rather opt out and do what I want with my SS money. I would not hit the level for means testing, and I am willing to take my benefit as it stands today and would push the date of receipt until I'm 70. I don't want any more of my money going into the system however and would like to invest it as I see fit.

The other problem with the system is that it is a hidden tax. Folks don't even consider that money when the look at their cash flow. Even eliminating the automatic payroll deduction and forcing folks to write a check each year. That would increase the transparency into the system.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by dolphinfan

I've been living in that little crack that their "mean's testing" has built into it....
My family has moved out of the low income housing and into substandard housing...because we couldn't afford the low income housing, and didn't qualify for any help.
I've watched a foot deteriorate to the point where I was actuallly falling at work, the doctor's bill had left me without gas money to get to work, and well, all the money put into medical bills couldn't get a diagnoses, so well, even with me falling down, I wasn't considered disabled....ended up quitting my job, as well as the medical care and just sat and watch the foot continue down till it finally gave out, with two broken bones...
and the, I needed the assistance of a state legislator to convince a surgeon to do the operation without an outrageous down payment in his pocket first!!
I kind of see it quite possible that your "mean's testing" would leave me working till I drop dead, at the age of 105!!

and let's talk about....."can't afford", shall we....
while all this was going on with my foot, I was eating one meal every couple of days...because there wasn't enough food in the house to feed all of us... one son had only one outfit that he could fit in, all I wanted was the money to go to the second hand store and buy some used for him....we couldn't afford it....he ended up taking his ged test and dropping out of school, for the lack of clothes! and according to our dear gov't.....ya, I should have a few thousand dollars sitting around to give the doctor for the operation that was the only hope of me walking again....

yes, let's talk about what is "affordable"!
how much of our taxmoney did obama blow on his super bowl party? how much did his trip to hawaii cost? shall we look at the latest pork report, and see just what stupid things they could afford this past year? how much were the bailouts and all the other efforts that they've made to divert money to those too failed to be big banks that they want to save? how much do the send to other countries in the form of aid?
is you knowing the sex ritual of the everyday lobster really more important to you than your parents being able to survive old age?? I know of people who haven't worked a day in their life and have lived on their heap , their hud, their heap, their food stamps, I've known people who managed to get on disability, just to avoid their child support payments. I've lived in those low income housing till they got so expensive that your average machinist couldn't afford that kind of rent! it was our taxmoney that fed these people, clothed their kids, housed them, and kept them warm in the winter... every year for about three or four years the state, the country, and the city would start griping about how they needed more pay for no, not so much medicare...but MEDICAID!
and oh, ya, that machinist, with his bedridden wife who's surgeon refused to treat for lack of money...could afford to pitch in to help the "less fortunate"!!
mean's testing, ya, go ahead, try it....
and then you can expect not to get another cent from me!

edit on 16-2-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

You definately would not be hit by means testing. Means testing would hit folks who have several hundred thousand in a retirement account or a pension of the same approximately the same value. I don't know what the number is, but it would be an model, say enough money adjusted for inflation to enable someone to live at the poverty level, which would
be a number that would put the person squarely in the middle class. In any event it is the notion of denying social security to folks who have enough money that they really don't need it. I realize that its tough to determine who needs vs. who does not need, but someone is going to have to make a call.

Its just one of the things that needs to be done. Should Warren Buffett get social security? Now he will likely give that away - he will absolutely give that away because he gives a ton of dough away. But what about the retired senior union person who is getting $75k+/year in a pension. Should he get it? Personally, I don't think so

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by dolphinfan

they'd be better off doing away with the hud, the heap, the medicare, the medicaid, the social security, food stamps, and all the other social charity programs and coming up with a guarenteed income.....
as in if you are working, or have a valid reason not to be working, or can't work, well, you are guarenteed x amount of dollars, with x amount of dollars being assumed to be enough to keep one above proverty, your dependants would also be guarenteed y amount of dollars.....which would be payable to the guardian of the child and be enough to cover the extra expenses of that child. and well, if you fall below that x+the ys amount for any quarter of the year, you can file your income tax for that quarter and the deficit would be sent to ya...
you'd get rid how so many agencies, and you would also do away with that little quirk in the system where people find that they would be doing so much better, if they only kicked the breadwinner out of the house and went on the programs! and well, we can all file our taxes quarterly instead of annually....
would probably help some of us, ya know, the ones of us that never really got to keep that nice tax cut of bush's, handle paying uncle sam back at the end of the year for that "tax cut"!!!

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:59 AM
I am all for means testing, but if we do then don't we finally admit that SS is nothing but the giant ponzi I believe it to be? Means testing says that the money is not "yours" put aside in a "trust fund". It means that "your money" is just paying another tax.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

not everyone gets more than they put in....alot, and I do mean alot...will die before they reach retirement age...

neither my mom or my dad got more out than they put in.... just saying..

YEAH both my parents were dead before they could collect - Colon Cancer and Brain Cancer.

If you think what was done to Social Security is bad, Here is the next idea that is being floated by these vampires!

Confiscat ion of Private Retirement Accounts: US Departments of Labor and Treasury Schedule Hearing

...the joint hearings being held with the Department of Treasury September 14-15, 2010 on what is euphemistically called “lifetime income options for retirement plans.” The hearings are being conducted by the Labor Department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration....

The US government is desperate to get its hands on private assets to help cover soaring budget deficits and debts, and this is simply the largest and easiest piggy bank that could be seized. The Investment Company Institute estimates that at the end of 2008 that there were $3.613 trillion of assets in IRAs and $2.350 trillion of assets in 401K plans....

The US government plan is to eventually take ownership of all assets in IRAs and 401K accounts and replace them with US government “Treasury Retirement Bonds.” In the October 2008 hearings, it was proposed that these bonds pay a 3% interest rate. Another major change is that, upon retirement, the individual’s retirement account would be converted into an annuity. Once the individual is deceased, the individual’s heirs would not inherit anything (similar to what happens now with Social Security “accounts”).....

I can not say I am very surprised. I alway thought IRAs and 401K plans "were too good to be true" and when the Baby Boomers retired the US government would do something under handed.

IRAs and 401K plans gave the Banksters lots of money to make "fees" off of. Now that that money is about to go away in large amounts it is no longer in the best interests of the Banksters to protect it.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:29 AM
Yep, I used an option to cash out my IRA back before the bubble burst. I no longer "invest" my money there.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in