Posted on 06/11/2018 8:09:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Social Security is like the classic children's tale, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." So many warnings have been made, no one listens anymore. Well guess what? The wolf's now at the door. Are you listening now?
For the first time in 36 years, Social Security will take money out of its "trust fund" — an accounting fiction that would get you jailed for fraud in the private sector — to pay retirees. The truth is, Social Security is for all intents and purposes bankrupt.
Since 2010, Social Security has been spending more than it took in, making up the difference by tapping into the interest paid on a $2.9 trillion government bond fund. That "interest" is really your tax dollars. Congress, you see, spent the actual money that came in through your payroll taxes and left IOUs. Now, even the interest on those entitlement IOUs is no longer enough. So they're going to have to start selling off assets to pay what they owe. Last year, it was $41 billion. It will only grow.
By 2034, the entire pile of IOUs will disappear. Everything. It will require slashing benefits by at least 21%, or raising payroll taxes by 31%. That's for workers who are today 50 years of age. It is a devastating fiscal picture, one that has profound meaning for our society going forward.
As Cato Institute economist Michael D. Tanner estimated in 2015, Social Security faces a long-term funding shortfall of $25 trillion and Medicare of $48 trillion. Yes, that's trillion with a "t." No doubt, it's far bigger today. To do nothing is tantamount to an irresponsible declaration of national bankruptcy over entitlements.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Means-testing.
Sorry greedy geezers (and I’m getting there myself), but the politicians YOU elected robbed the funds to buy votes. The $$$ you paid in is long gone, and the wealthiest generation in American history should not be stealing from their grandchildren.
THIS AGAIN! OMG! The sky is falling! Granny’s (and my) checks will bounce. (actually debit account).
I’m sorry, I don’t see any bread lines in my future.
All they have to do is print more money. I don’t care if the money I spend at the store isn’t “real”, as long as they keep taking it.
NOTHING I mean NOTHING is more sacred (safe) than Social Security retirement payments. More than welfare, more than the military, more than sex changes for trannies.
Inflation? I’ve been hearing that for YEARS! WHERE is it?
It’s certainly not in my retirement payments (which I EARNED).
So, Cry Me A River, about Social Security going “broke”. I’ve heard it for DECADES!
Get a new tune.
Besides, Trump’s economy will fix it all anyway.
Your appreciation of “skill” and mine differ.
The excerpts you chose really ARE words chosen at random. Article IV, as written, makes sense. The terms “Property” and “Territory” used in it have a meaning which you have twistedly taken out of context to write your own story.
Amendment X, however, stands clearly as a capstone to limit the powers of the Government being created to what is described in the rest of the document. There is no Welfare Department, Waste-Management truck, or Unicorn-Ranch provided for in these described powers. You may wish it, but there is probably a reason it isn’t there, and only your “skilled” twisting of text can imagine that it is.
I know this will never happen, but..
Give the American people what they paid into it and then shut it down.
“Will collect at 62”
Unless you are in poor health, it generally is best to hold off collecting Social Security until you hit full retirement age, which for you is 67 I believe, or for as long as you can before age 67.
SS cuts your benefits by 8% a year before full retirement age, I believe.
One can run down their assets, go on food stamps and in my county delay paying property tax after a certain age.
Even delaying by just a year spares you from an 8% cut.
You have to expect to live at least 12 years to expect that 8% reduction avoidance to pay off.
We have Constitutionalist here arguing that Trump must obey the Constitution 110% while the ones that defiled it did not. My opinion? That which was unconstitutionally put into place likely can not be ripped out Constitutionally. We need a reset.
Diversity leads to perversity, perversity leads to tyranny.
Been drawing it for 17 years with a 40% penalty for other retirement.
Over-regulation is probably the issue, perhaps Trump, with the help of Scott Pruitt, will change that.
I try never to underestimate the genius of the unbridled American tinkerer.
Glad to get a response - most people are unaware of the possibilty.
I am not sure that I get your point. The Constitution is always under interpretation. Does that mean that it has no meaning? I don’t think so. Sometimes it is interpreted more honestly than others.
The 20th century stands now in history as testimony to the power of Man’s dishonesty. The “perverted politicians” you spoke of killed and enslaved more people during that century than at any other time in history. More people lived and died under tyrannical, oppressive governments than ever before.
Only the structure of America’s Government and the kind of people that lived under it limited the impact of that century to the wanker-isms of FDR and the like. We can thank the Founders for that, but we have a duty to defend their work, if we want to continue to live free.
Amendment X actually doesn’t impact federal power:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Amendment X makes the most of the Bill of Rights binding on the States and federally recognizes that States, except for the Federal Constitutional limits, have power over their people.
The Congress has the “power” to tax and the “power” to dispose of the money that has become the property of the United States.
dispose: “to transfer to the control of another”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispose
dispose: “get rid of by throwing away or giving or selling to someone else”
Bing
dispose: “To give or transfer to someone else, especially permanently”
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/dispose
Congress didn’t have the ability to dispose of much money until Amendment XVI was added. Congress was previously limited in direct taxation by the ability of people in the poorest state to pay.
The “progressives” that created Amendment XVI knew what it was for.
“The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto 1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
“’2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.’
“The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy....”
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html
Absolutely we do, I am just not sure it can be defended by itself, after all the Constitution was imposed on the people with little comment from them.
You seem bent on dishonesty. You state one thing, and then include a quote from the Constitution that clearly states the exact opposite. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution is written in a language I can read, so I can see the dishonesty in your interpretation.
Maybe government should be prohibited to those whose practice is law.
You seem to be increasing your effort to make my point for me, taking individual words out of context and trying to use possible definitions to piece together a narrative of your own choosing. Article IV doesn’t mean anything even close to what you claim it does.
“You seem bent on dishonesty.”
It was the “progressives” that got an Amendment that allowed for a Marxist “progressive” income tax (and other income taxes) that were dishonest.
The attribution in your posts between your own words and those you ascribe to “progressives”, is lost, then.
I no longer understand, or care, what point you were trying to make.
I don’t understand how there can possibly be a problem with SS.
Ida Mae Fuller only received nearly 1000 times as much in benefits as she contributed!!
And my pal from high school has only been on SSDI for 35 years (and counting). His father probably thought he was doing his son a great favor.
RE: And my pal from high school has only been on SSDI for 35 years (and counting).
What kind of disability does he have?
I don’t know specifically. Punch drunk I guess. His father (who encouraged his sons to box competitively) claimed someone spiked his water at a boxing match. I suspect he got hit in the head too many times.
I believe that is what I expressed, though in a different way. Perhaps you did not read the second half of my post?
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.