Social Security Is BROKE, Literally

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Well, yes I know as I am signed up for SS to start next January. Fortunately for me, I may end up making to much in my part time, prn, job to draw any of it.

Still thought I needed to be signed up before any more SHTF.

reply to post by liveandlearn


people getting or slated to get SS soon will still get it somehow..

although, SS was never meant to be for your whole retirement in life, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY SOLD IT TO YOU BACK THEN!

reply to post by GreenBicMan

although, SS was never meant to be for your whole retirement in life, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY SOLD IT TO YOU BACK THEN!

Very true. Words you won't hear from a politician but can find on the social security website.

Should I count on Social Security for all my retirement income?

A. No. Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans.

www.ssa.gov...

Yeah, im no where near close enough to know what they sold you on back then, but it prob wasnt as bleak as it is now, I mean its even rarely ever brought up unless someone is complaining about it

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Well, in part no internet. But they don't really have to sell it to you, if you work you get it taken out like it or not.

For an average worker I do have more than most to help me along and unless something catastrophic comes along, my savings will be enough...even to pay for my recently purchased house and living single.

For those who have not thought forward, it is a scary situation

no, i mean how they sold it to the general public way back then..

like was it supposed to be a "save" for all USA workers.. or?

that related back to my point of selling you on thing and pulling the bait and switch

yes, not to mention the cost of Long Term Care even.. with that you are broke if not making 100,000 a year to take care of yourself anymore..

its getting crazy, i have to knock on wood everyday, and trust me, i take nothing for granted.. my life pretty much sucks but at least im trying hahaha

reply to post by GreenBicMan


You are just way to young. We only had the local new paper and gov controlled TV. It actually started before my time and there were no people revolting or concerned about gov. intervention. It was all trust. Older people at that time had no 401K or IRA. They had to know to put extra away and most didn't or couldn't. Even when I started working in the late 60's you had to work at the same job 7 years to get the company retirement. Well, as a woman who had to quit work to take care of children, that didn't work. It was the late 80's or early 90's before your the retirement you earned could follow you without a 7 year waiting period. And I am talking about not getting the last of it rolled in until 7 years after you had been at the company 7 years. That was change in the early 90's I think, not sure.

reply to post by liveandlearn


yeah I think it was ERISA? or something.. ?

either way, yeah thats what I thought

that brings me to my other point about how you don thave to work your whole adult life to get full benefits (nothing against you, or me - currently unemp.) but when you have so many getting xxx amt of dollars and only xx comes in.. well thats pretty obvious

Something will increase or get cut, I could think of a few things but they go against TOS

And, i understand where you are coming from, I have to take care of my neice sometimes and that gets tough after 5 mins

I seriously rather solve statistical probability equations all day long, and those kids shows get old after the first time around.. damn themesongs hahaha

yeah, i cant even take cre of myself let alone someone else

People, people. Read the whole thing. These programs to date have brought in much more than they have paid out. Even though medicaid had a deficit for the year they also have had reserves which they used to pay that deficit. Same deal with social security. These programs are secure for now. Tax revenues have plummetted because everyone is making less money. As the economy recovers so will the tax revenues. If it doesn't recover, people will have to work longer, which also helps the situation.

The article says that they would have to raise the tax by 2% in order to pay for it basically into continuity. That is 1% by employers and 1% by employees. Other options are to lower benefits a bit or raise the retirement age a bit. Nothing sounds so bad as to scrap the program all together.

It should also be known that when you model a program like social security, the tiniest change in assumptions will greatly effect the outcome. If people raise their earnings by 4% a year instead of 3% you would see a huge corrective effect pushing the programs into a surplus.

So basically all this talk is just crying wolf. There are plenty of solutions that will keep the goverment from ever having to fund social security or medicaire out of their own pocket. Anything they pay in the budgets has already been paid and spent on other things. These programs aren't the problem, Congress is the problem.

reply to post by liveandlearn


Well, right or wrong, we are stuck with what we have.

I, for one, am grateful to have woken up and put the piddly retirement fund to work and am much better off today.

There are less excuses for the younger folks today. They have much more information available.

Greenbic, you seem to be on the right track, but don't ignore the concerns about what could be coming down. The market may look great on technicals but it only takes one singular event to take to it waaaay down. Stay wary.

reply to post by liveandlearn


i am always continually adjusting my outlook, and i usually post what i am thinking at least medium term (week) in advance in the market thread, hopefully I have been of some use

markets usually dont go "random" on technicals, esp. with the setup we have had forming over the past 4 months.. thats why at the time way back when i tried my hardest to convince everyone..

although i am wrong sometimes, i know when to limit my "wrongs" and go the other way, of course that is an important part of any so called "system" in life I guess..

disclaimer: i have had no real $ in markets for a while, but IMO that does not matter

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Well, I have all my money in the market, in gold no less. I know, I know, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

However, for the last 15, and more importantly the last 7, years my money has pittance has grown by about 600 percent. I have finally started playing with some of it though, using technicals, to put some away.

Good luck to both of us as we go forward...or wherever.

well you cannot argue with returns, but historically you will not keep making this in gold, i promise..short term maybe, just dont get stuck needed to liquidate when its going to be costly..

this about the push for gold lately by many... what does that mean to you?

what should it mean to you?

"smart" information never travels public

either way of course, GL as well.. although this is only spec. of course

They should at least put out a public service announcement with regard to SS. They should tell the public that SS is just one part of a persons retirement and they should be saving and investing. Some people think SS is their retirement. That could be a problem down the road to millions.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by cloakndagger]

reply to post by cloakndagger


Well that is supposed to be known, but they do not do a good enough job, that is correct.. of course not all people visit CFP/CRPC's either, that of course is due to many variables etc.. but yes they should make that a lot more clear def.