Posted on 05/09/2015 10:53:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 05/09/2015 11:21:13 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
According to the government, the Social Security trust fund is due to go broke in 2033. But two recent studies show that the Social Security Administration is using incorrect accounting procedures and that the fund will run out of the money years before that.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Of course, there is that one little pesky problem.
Compute Social Security with the disability rules that were in place in 1990, and see how much smaller the problem becomes.
In the 1990s, the ‘bent one’ with the willing assistance of a nit-wit congress, “ended welfare.” Actually, all he did was take the cancer called welfare and infect numerous other programs with it. None took as significant hit as Social Security did with the ‘new’ disability rules (ie, take worthless cancers off welfare, call them ‘disabled’ and bury the cost in Social Security).
And I have an absolutely simple solution (which will also put proper definition to the word ‘entitlement’). Every social security benefit is reduced by 90%. You get a 3% increase for every year YOU PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. When the people that ACTUALLY paid into Social Security are the people that actually receive Social Security, the problem will virtually disappear.
Good thinking.
Go to any Social Security office and black gang bangers will outnumber seniors...
What percentage of Baltimore is ‘disabled’?
And what if you're not willing to run a deficit?
Socialist ponzi schemes always run out of money eventually.
Usually sooner rather than later.
Go into any Social Security office in a large city and more than half the people waiting to ‘sign up’ for Social Security are black men in the twenties and early thirties.
These men plan on collecting for a lifetime... full benefits for 40, 50, and 60 years... Often receiving more than people who have worked their whole life...
And the politicians solution? It’s to make those who work for a living work longer. Work until they drop...
Ask.
Ask how many men in Baltimore’s black community are collect ‘disability’... Same percentage as other races? Same as Korean grocery store owners? Same as whites? How come we can’t see the number?
He obviously missed that lecture in college on German economics in the 1930’s.
The disability fakers accelerated its death.
Don’t bother with Rick Moran’s ripped off excerpt from CNBC. Read the whole article here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102659216
Then you total up the budget and decide what you're going to cut, and what promises the government can no longer afford to meet. No different than your own budget, but harder to do, politically speaking, at present.
It is extremely unlikely those men are applying for Soc Sec. 99% of people in their twenties cannot apply for Soc Sec.
More likely, they are applying for disability. The "full benefits" you mentioned rarely exceed $800/month. Disability is the new welfare and it is corrupt to the core.
I’ve heard that there is a huge amount, perhaps as much as $10 trillion, which Americans have saved in IRA accounts, and other retirement accounts such as 401K accounts.
I’ve heard that there are long range plans, for laws regarding these accounts to change. And the plan is that we will all be compelled to invest these types of savings in government bonds of some sort.
Under such a plan, Social Security will be “saved” for a time with the savings each of us has put aside for our retirement.
I haven’t heard much talk of this sort of thing recently, but, with trillions set aside in retirement accounts, and with Social Security becoming insolvent, something like this could happen. Both Democrat and Republican politicians may see it as irresistible, to take over all of our retirement savings.
As to how they do this, I’m not sure. But my guess would be that you will lose your tax deductions for these types of savings, unless you invest in government bonds. They will take away the incentive for retirement savings which is currently in the tax code, unless you give your money to Uncle Sam for “safekeeping”.
What nonsense. Social Security is a federal program like any other as far budgeting is concerned. Congress will fund it and that will be that.
As a side note to this thread, consider that if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then the bill that established Social Security would probably been killed by the Senate as per the following explanation.
Although I question the motives of FDR era justices, these justices had evidently made the same mistake in interpreting the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) in deciding the constitutionality of Social Security that the 14th Congress had made in trying to use the GWC to justify its federal public works bill.
More specifically, President Madison, generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had vetoed Congress’s bill to build roads and canals which Congress had used its “specific power” of the GWC to justify. But as Madison had put it, the problem with Congress using the GWC to justify building roads and canals is that the GWC was not intended to be interpreted as a delegation of specific power to Congress.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817.
So based on Madison’s words, the GWC is nothing more than an introductory clause for the clauses which follow it in Section 8 which do enumerate specific powers.
Also note that both the FDR era 74th Congress which wrongly passed the bill that established Social Security without constitutional justification, and the 111th Congress which likewise wrongly passed Obamacare without justification, had also wrongly ignored the option to lead Congress to propose appropriate amendments to Constitution to the states to establish such spending programs. And if the states had chosen to ratify such amendments then Congress would have the constitutional authority that it needs to establish these programs.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and a bunch of corrupt senators along with it.
It is also worth noting that, at the inception of SS, the age at which you could first get benefits was older than the average age of death at the time.
“There lies the deceit. There is no Trust Fund. It was raided long ago. Now its a pay as you go IOU.”
It’s aways been seen as a pay as you go program. The problem is that early on the Congress spent the excess revenue that was generated, so that now this Ponzi scheme is going belly up sooner that it would have if the Congress hadn’t pi$$ed away the money. Beyond that the Congress also added “benefits” that were not paid for, which have also hastened the demise of the program.
That's true, but just because a government program goes bankrupt does not mean that government program ends. They just add it to the debt and increase the program even larger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.