RECEIVED THIS EMAIL-PASS IT ON

[HUSKER55]

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.


If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays onthe money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.


If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire atage 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme thanBernie Madhoff ever had.

We paid cash for our social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make our benefits some kind of charity or handout OR AN ENTITLEMENT!


Congressional benefits ---- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sickdays, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call our social security retirement an entitlement?


We're "broke" and can't help our own seniors, Veterans,orphans or homeless. In the past we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile,and Turkey. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and tons of food to foreign countries!


They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the GOVERNMENT gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it?

[chickenhead]

Yes, it is an entitlement. It's a pay as go transfer program. Always has been, never been in the fine print, always been right out in the open for nearly 100 years now.

When you worked your money went to your grandparents and their friends, and then to your parents and their friends. When you retire the money in your check comes from your kids and their friends and your grandkids and their friends.

Whether you love or loathe social security there is no point in being indignant about being tricked, its clear and upfront. If you get a check it comes from your kids and their friends and your grand kids and their friends. That's it, that's all. One group writing checks to another group. Always has been what it is.

If you stomp your foot, that's who you are stomping your foot at. And correctly so, because that's also who doesn't really feel like writing such large checks, right now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

Yes, it is an entitlement. It's a pay as go transfer program. Always has been, never been in the fine print, always been right out in the open for nearly 100 years now.

When you worked your money went to your grandparents and their friends, and then to your parents and their friends. When you retire the money in your check comes from your kids and their friends and your grandkids and their friends.

Whether you love or loathe social security there is no point in being indignant about being tricked, its clear and upfront. If you get a check it comes from your kids and their friends and your grand kids and their friends. That's it, that's all. One group writing checks to another group. Always has been what it is.

If you stomp your foot, that's who you are stomping your foot at. And correctly so, because that's also who doesn't really feel like writing such large checks, right now.

No, it's not correctly so! They were forced to pay into the scam, just as we're forced, under the color of law, to also pay into it.

Funny how we demand "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.." in advertising from the private sector and the government passes all kinds of elaborate, complex laws to protect consumers' rights , yet who is watching the foxes who pass these laws on "our behalf"? Why aren't all the facts about SS printed on the label for all to see. Maybe once a year, for example, all employers should be required to issue printed fact sheets regarding SS with nothing but the facts and ALL of them. They could start by informing Americans that there is no such thing as a "SS trust fund" or a "lock box" where our funds are secure. That would be a good start.

The U.S. government makes the Madhoffs of the world look like saints!

And one other thing since this Ponzi Scheme is one of my biggest pet peeves. You and others, Chick, say SS is an "entitlement"? I would agree 100% with you if by "entitlement" you meant:

Social Security is an investor funded program that has also been used to fund the government, it is NOT an entitlement program nor was it intended to be any form of welfare. The “entitlement” the government speaks of would be more aptly applied to them; they feeling they are entitled to avail themselves of our investments and use that money for whatever they choose to.

Exactly right! The SS revenue goes into the General Fund for use by the government as it sees fit. In other words our SS money funds the government. The Government does not fund, nor has it ever, the recipients' SS checks. The entitlement is the State's!

http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/02/17...ement-program/

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

moot point -- social security isnt running a primary surplus and never will again. Ever. It's done. There isn't any money being left over anymore. SS taxes aren't even funding SS anymore.

The gov't (or, aka "the people") aren't borrowing anything, or funding anything else, currently with SS dollars and never will again. We are in the "paying it back phase". I presume it will all get paid back, and don't really think its the issue. No one, anywhere, ever, of either party -- has suggested cutting benefits for the people covered up to that point. It's simply not part of the debate. That "entitlement" is as secure as anything can be.

The unfunded liability part of it, the big SS deficit -- has to do with what happens after that. But no one can do anything about it, because chain emails like the above show up, and people *currently* on SS, for which the changes have absolutely no bearing and have no place in the discussion (unless they live to be 150), get all pissed off and shout it down.

[Tom]

SS is a way to make sure those who work all their lives are deprived of the fruits of their labor. It is a BAD BAD program. It just shows how government screws up everything it gets involved with.

Of course, someone here will defend it......

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

SS is a way to make sure those who work all their lives are deprived of the fruits of their labor. It is a BAD BAD program. It just shows how government screws up everything it gets involved with.

Of course, someone here will defend it......

Chick just did!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

moot point -- social security isnt running a primary surplus and never will again. Ever. It's done. There isn't any money being left over anymore. SS taxes aren't even funding SS anymore.

The gov't (or, aka "the people") aren't borrowing anything, or funding anything else, currently with SS dollars and never will again.

Excuse me! We are funding the General Fund, which means politicians can spend out of that fund anytime they want. Why do you think politicians don't participate in SS? THEIR money isn't in the General Fund! They have their own little nifty, spiffy pension plan! They are too good to participate in the Plan of the Serfs!

And, no, don't obfuscate the issue here. The government is stealing from the people. Two different entities here. Now...should the people do something about it? Absolutely! But this is why there is no truth in government with the respect to the people, that is to say, there is no truth to these "entitlement bills" -- no truth in government advertising. If the people really knew and understood the ramifications to this Ponzi Scheme, they would have demanded a repeal of this wicked law that legalizes theft a long time ago.

We are in the "paying it back phase". I presume it will all get paid back, and don't really think its the issue. No one, anywhere, ever, of either party -- has suggested cutting benefits for the people covered up to that point. It's simply not part of the debate. That "entitlement" is as secure as anything can be.

Of course it is! On the backs of the poor working people! It's as easy as saying "apple pie" for the government to change the rules of the game. They think the people's pockets are as deep as the bottomless pit to hell! And now that we're all living so much longer, it's equally as easy to raise the retirement age to 75, 76 -- or why not 80!? Then the only time the government will find old people expendable is when they can't work any longer. Really great what miracles our politicians can work, isn't it?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Chick just did!

Boxcar

What are you talking about? I haven't defended anything about social security. Calling SS an entitlement isn't a defense of it, it's an accurate description. None of your posts have anything to do with anything I've said.

Social security is a welfare program for old people that worked for at least 10 years in their lives. That's basically it. It's got a bunch of fancy, meaningless stuff wrapped around it, but that's it. That's all it has ever been. The only curious wrinkle is that they pay this welfare to all old people, even if they are rich.

When it first started -- it was only for REALLY old people, for that time. Oddly old people. That's been watered down over time, so basically any barely old person qualifies. And it's subsequently become a really, really expensive program.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

What are you talking about? I haven't defended anything about social security. Calling SS an entitlement isn't a defense of it, it's an accurate description. None of your posts have anything to do with anything I've said.

Social security is a welfare program for old people that worked for at least 10 years in their lives. That's basically it. It's got a bunch of fancy, meaningless stuff wrapped around it, but that's it. That's all it has ever been. The only curious wrinkle is that they pay this welfare to all old people, even if they are rich.

When it first started -- it was only for REALLY old people, for that time. Oddly old people. That's been watered down over time, so basically any barely old person qualifies. And it's subsequently become a really, really expensive program.

Ahh...now it's a welfare program? Good! I'll contact the SSA and tell them I want all my money back because I'm not interested in being on their stinkin' welfare rolls that welfare should only be for those who need it. I'm sure that will fly really well with them.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Excuse me! We are funding the General Fund, which means politicians can spend out of that fund anytime they want. Why do you think politicians don't participate in SS? THEIR money isn't in the General Fund! They have their own little nifty, spiffy pension plan! They are too good to participate in the Plan of the Serfs!

And, no, don't obfuscate the issue here. The government is stealing from the people. Two different entities here. Now...should the people do something about it? Absolutely! But this is why there is no truth in government with the respect to the people, that is to say, there is no truth to these "entitlement bills" -- no truth in government advertising. If the people really knew and understood the ramifications to this Ponzi Scheme, they would have demanded a repeal of this wicked law that legalizes theft a long time ago.




Of course it is! On the backs of the poor working people! It's as easy as saying "apple pie" for the government to change the rules of the game. They think the people's pockets are as deep as the bottomless pit to hell! And now that we're all living so much longer, it's equally as easy to raise the retirement age to 75, 76 -- or why not 80!? Then the only time the government will find old people expendable is when they can't work any longer. Really great what miracles our politicians can work, isn't it?

Boxcar

NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!!!! NO!!!!! NO!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not in the General Fund. When there is a surplus in the Social Security fund-that is more money than is needed to pay that year's benefits-the surplus, by law is used to buy US treasuries. The reason for this is so the money is working but yet is safe.

Of course US Treasury bonds are purchased with money that the government uses to pay for various programs. In exchange Social Security has the bonds which the government will redeem at a specific future date.

The way you express it the government comes in with a mask and gun and steals the money and Social Security never sees it again.


You are also wrong about politicians not being in Social Security. This has been explained to you many times, yet you continue to post this drivel.

I recently came across a psychological study the title of which was, "Conservatism Negatively Correlates To Intelligence." I have not had a chance to read it yet, But I LOVE the title.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by mostpost

When there is a surplus in the Social Security fund-that is more money than is needed to pay that year's benefits-the surplus, by law is used to buy US treasuries.

Just cuz you're such a good student, could ya roll some numbers by us on that surPlus you's talkin' 'bout?

From one of your main Motherships, (DailyKos) I'm getting a reading of $22 trillion!

Schweet. That'll come in handy.

[Robert Goren]

I love how guys get so excited over an email thats been around almost as long as email. Somebody changes the numbers every once in a while, otherwise it the same email I got 1997. I must have got this same email at least 20 times over the years. It belongs in the junk mail file, but you guys take it as Gospel.

[HUSKER55]

Robert, the whole point is that this system is going bust by 2037 if something isn't done. The link is a system in Chili which seems to be working. At least we should consider it. take a look at what you paid in compared to what you will get out.









http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chart...html#financing

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by mostpost

[B]
It is not in the General Fund. When there is a surplus in the Social Security fund-that is more money than is needed to pay that year's benefits-the surplus, by law is used to buy US treasuries. The reason for this is so the money is working but yet is safe.

Of course US Treasury bonds are purchased with money that the government uses to pay for various programs. In exchange Social Security has the bonds which the government will redeem at a specific future date.

The problem is that Treasuries, both tax and principle, are "redeemed" by current taxpayers paying for it with taxes. There isn't some other source of money the government uses.

Whatever the sum total of the "trust fund" is, whatever the total T-bills holdings are -- those are just part of my generations future taxes.

As a current worker -- I pay my SS tax, 100% of which goes to current retirees, and I pay my Federal taxes, a portion of which goes to current SS retirees (in the form of T-bill interest). All of the money in the trust fund, all T-bills in fact, are nothing more than future taxes to be paid by future taxpayers. That amount increases every year from now into eternity per SS.

The trust fund running down is nothing more than current and future workers paying both full boat into SS and also paying back the SS trust fund via taxes.

It's an awesome deal.