Perspectives on the global economic meltdown- (Nov 28 2010)

[Neshant]

soon people from greece, spain, portugal, italy and ireland will be considered illegal immigrants into switzerland, germany and other nordic countries.

they'll machine gun these savages at the borders if they don't have their immigration papers in order.

-----
Switzerland to restrict Western Europe immigration
Swiss government to restrict immigration from Western Europe, cites constant increase

NEVA (AP) -- The Swiss government said Wednesday it plans to restrict immigration from Western European countries starting next month, citing constant growth in the number of people coming to work in the prosperous non-European Union country.

http://news.yahoo.com/switzerland-restr ... -container

[pentaiah]

SS is not a tax even though it is collected like one.
It is actually a deferred savings like Public provident fund in India
It starts paying out after retirement like annuity

But GOTUS is cheating by showing SS as earned revenue to balance the budget
just like GM was caught showing workers pension as earnings....

in away it is ponzi scheme becaue future generations earnings have to finance the curent payees.
while GOTUS spent away the money it collected, it should have set aside in an escrow account the collections and paid out of it.

the only thing that is a legitimate change is income (wealth)test if some is having incomes in excess of 500K through 401K savings and investments, then their SS benefits should be prorated.

actually lot of unemployment benefits do that the deduct any other income from the UC and pay.

[panduranghari]

Neshant,

Please go back and read the posts that discredited your claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

SS is a tax, all taxes are paid by some to benefit all or specific groups/areas. SS is no different even if the program spending is determined by age.
You can argue that a rising tax burden will affect the economy but not that a confidence crisis will cause the scheme to collapse like in a Ponzi scheme.

Through the worst of the recent depression SS taxes were paid and old folks were taken care off, congress even raided the surplus to pay for other things taking the account now into negative. But it is easily fixed. Breitel calculated that raising taxes by 0.7% of GDP, 20 years from now, would be enough to make SS solvent for the next 80 years. Less if done sooner. Roughly 6 months of economic growth anywhere in the next 20 years or so, will do it. Even if we do nothing SS will pay out 80%+ of what was promised for the next 80 years. It right wing nutcases who try to demagogue this debate into a makers and takers nonsense.

SS is also a transfer from the strong to the weak. Ponzi's are usually first in first out, meaning transfer of money from the most gullible to the most rapacious. This is what causes collapse.

SS is not a huge burden at all and completely unlike a Ponzi scheme which quickly turns into a physically unviable model exceeding GDP.

Still this is OT here, if you want to continue we can take it to another thread....

[TSJones]

Even if Congress takes *no* action concerning social security, that is just leaving like it presently is, it will be able to pay out 75% of the projected benefit for most of the rest of this century. Asteroid, comet collisions, invasion of alien body snatchers, welfare jihadis resulting in a economy crippling police state could change that equation but hey, you could always cross the street and be hit by a bus too. So no, it's not a Ponzi scheme. What happened was the baby boomer generation is arriving at retirement and they will live way longer than the WWII generation. But still, even with those circumstances, the system will be able to pay out a 75% benefit. Do I want to take a 25% drop in benefits? Hell, no! But I could still survive because I never planned on retiring on just social security anyway. Unfortunately 50% or better of people retiring will only have social security benefits. That's it. No other retirement plan. And most of them will be women. So, yeah, I would like to see adjustments made for social security as long as it doesn't get down to the 25% benefit cut. I could live with it but other people can't. I think some reasonable adjustments could be made to the system.

[saip]

the only thing that is a legitimate change is income (wealth)test if some is having incomes in excess of 500K through 401K savings and investments, then their SS benefits should be prorated.

It is already done in a way. Part of SS is taxed if your income exceeds certain level. Remember you already paid tax on it when you earned it and so this tax is a double whammy.

If your income exceeds 44 K 85% of the SS is taxed. In other words the Govt pays you say 25K as SS and then takes back 7K as taxes
if you are in top tax bracket/

[Neshant]

Even if Congress takes *no* action concerning social security, that is just leaving like it presently is, it will be able to pay out 75% of the projected benefit for most of the rest of this century

Who's making these projections?

Hopefully not the guy below.

If the economic storm which i think is coming actually arrives, people fortunate enough to have a job are not going to make ends meet - let alone pay for a hoard of others dependent on their paycheck. SS and govt workers who thought they hit the jackpot with lavish taxpayer funded pensions will be in for surprise as govt revenues tank even while borrowing costs rise along with interest on the existing debt.

Better get ready to survive on a 0% payout. The SS meal ticket will only be available to the very bottom of the barrel - like homeless families living on the street. If you can afford an Internet connection, you won't qualify for SS. You may even be classified as rich and get an additional slew of taxes to "share the pain".

[TSJones]

Here's what Mother Jones, a left wing rag has to say:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... t-75-years

and here's what the Chief Actuary of Social Security has to say:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Take your pick. You may now go back to your planning for the collapse of civilization.

[pentaiah]

Hmmm
Interesting Mother Jones quoted by TS Jones
Heavens what have come to
Next goes on to bum maker blogs and praises barf aka brf asthe best place to hang out

[Theo_Fidel]

What happened was the baby boomer generation is arriving at retirement and they will live way longer than the WWII generation.

TSJ, not arguing with you but this is another talking point that the right nuts have somehow turned into a consensus.
No actual social statistician says this.

The rise in Lifespan has less to do with living longer and more to do with lowering of childhood mortality.
Even a 2% reduction in childhood/infant mortality has a dramatic effect on total lifespan and this is what has happened.
Children who would have died earlier are now arriving at old age, but it does not mean folks are living longer in quite the way the numbers are being pushed.
Still the USA has a very high childhood mortality for such a rich country still.

So raising the retirement age very much leaves old infirm and helpless folks, as TSJ points out,
mostly women casting about for sustenance.
I can directly see the effects of this on desperate people I know who are sicker and poorer as they get older.

It still amazes me how ‘Tea Party’ garbage has become the established economic agenda.
Old/middle aged white males have gotten SDRE types to follow them blindly.
Interesting behavior pattern.
------------------------------------------

Pentaiah,

That is particularly execrable nonsense and one expects better from you.
Assigning all sorts of value judgments to a posters handle/name? What next, do we send spinster to an oldage home for unmarried women…

[TSJones]

However you want to look at it, there are fewer workers paying into social security per retiree. That is an incontestable fact. We can argue about the reasons why, but we can't argue about the metric. And here is a maddening thought: even if the govenrment hadn't spent the social security surplus in the general revenue fund it still wouldn't be enough to stop the coming benefit cut (if nothing is done by congress). It would only delay it a few years.

Anyway, it's medicare that is in danger not social security, although the recent tax increase may help it out some. Look for more deductibles and co-pays. Those that can't afford it will have to go on Medicaid although there are a lot of red states fighting this.

[TSJones]

delet

[Theo_Fidel]

Yes , I agree, I question the impact of this increased social spending on the economy.
But it still upsets me how much wrong ‘tea party’ information is floating around and taken as gospel.

WRT to Medicare, the major expense there is the catastrophic cases. I remember a statistic that the 10% worst cases suck up 60% of resources
So how did the catastrophic cases move from private insurance to medicare you ask? Good question….

Another thing, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are, no one in USA hires people over 55 to 60 years, esp. for new jobs.
The raising of SS age limit has now created an incredible surge of folks on disability, all waiting to be eligible for SS.
The purpose of SS, Unemployment and Medicare was to provide a safety net and soften the blows of American style slash and burn capitalism.
The safety net protects capitalism from revolution. You remove the safety net and capitalism itself will quickly go under threat.
The lower levels of America already seeth with unrest and an urge to burn it all down.
If the middle class joins them, there will be no protection from revolution.

People should be careful…..

[vishvak]

Cyclic troubles in France link

official French forecasts were “systematically affected by an optimistic bias”
..
All this explains why the government is pleading with Brussels to let it off its promise to cut the deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of 2013
..
In a sign of how hard rationalisation can be, voters in Alsace recently rejected in a referendum a plan to merge their two departments and one region into a single body.
..
In France, however, where public spending is now at 57% of GDP, a euro-zone record, and the public debt is expected to reach 94% of GDP next year, a serious attack on spending is urgently needed.
..

First world country France may join other European first world countries in economic mess this year on.

[TSJones]

Yes , I agree, I question the impact of this increased social spending on the economy.
But it still upsets me how much wrong ‘tea party’ information is floating around and taken as gospel.

WRT to Medicare, the major expense there is the catastrophic cases. I remember a statistic that the 10% worst cases suck up 60% of resources
So how did the catastrophic cases move from private insurance to medicare you ask? Good question….

Another thing, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are, no one in USA hires people over 55 to 60 years, esp. for new jobs.
The raising of SS age limit has now created an incredible surge of folks on disability, all waiting to be eligible for SS.
The purpose of SS, Unemployment and Medicare was to provide a safety net and soften the blows of American style slash and burn capitalism.
The safety net protects capitalism from revolution. You remove the safety net and capitalism itself will quickly go under threat.
The lower levels of America already seeth with unrest and an urge to burn it all down.
If the middle class joins them, there will be no protection from revolution.

People should be careful…..

Unfortunately, it's not just tea party know nothing sentiment at work here. Crusade against "entitlements" have been going on since Prsident Roosevelt in the 1930s. At present there is a billionaire, Pete Petersen, who constantly promotes "entitlement reform" with dire warnings that these entitlements will sink the nation under a wave of debt causing the potential collapse of the nation. Never mind the fact that both Social Security and Medicare are self supporting and have so far contributed NOTHING to the nation's rising level of debt. Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson also campaigns for entitlement reform in order to save the nation. Neither one of these guys are Tea Party idiots although they certainly use the Tea Party to their advantage when ever possible. Then there are th usual Libertarian propeller heads that insist the Ayn Rand is God and all taxes are theft. Never mind the common good. I would note that Ayn Rand received social security and medicare. She filed under her married name on her husbands account. However, she always insisted she was just getting back what was stolen from her.

[RoyG]

Yes , I agree, I question the impact of this increased social spending on the economy.
But it still upsets me how much wrong ‘tea party’ information is floating around and taken as gospel.

WRT to Medicare, the major expense there is the catastrophic cases. I remember a statistic that the 10% worst cases suck up 60% of resources
So how did the catastrophic cases move from private insurance to medicare you ask? Good question….

Another thing, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are, no one in USA hires people over 55 to 60 years, esp. for new jobs.
The raising of SS age limit has now created an incredible surge of folks on disability, all waiting to be eligible for SS.
The purpose of SS, Unemployment and Medicare was to provide a safety net and soften the blows of American style slash and burn capitalism.
The safety net protects capitalism from revolution. You remove the safety net and capitalism itself will quickly go under threat.
The lower levels of America already seeth with unrest and an urge to burn it all down.
If the middle class joins them, there will be no protection from revolution.

People should be careful…..

Spoken like a true leftist. Why would capitalism collapse if social security collapses?

[pentaiah]

What happened was the baby boomer generation is arriving at retirement and they will live way longer than the WWII generation.

------------------------------------------

Pentaiah,

That is particularly execrable nonsense and one expects better from you.
Assigning all sorts of value judgments to a posters handle/name? What next, do we send spinster to an oldage home for unmarried women…

Theo
Please give rest to your thoughtless mind
about spinsters age as I am told she uses

SEPHORA COLLECTION
Age Defy Moisture Cream SPF 15

Any way you have formed a dynamic duo
Spinster is better off no?

[TSJones]

Yes , I agree, I question the impact of this increased social spending on the economy.
But it still upsets me how much wrong ‘tea party’ information is floating around and taken as gospel.

WRT to Medicare, the major expense there is the catastrophic cases. I remember a statistic that the 10% worst cases suck up 60% of resources
So how did the catastrophic cases move from private insurance to medicare you ask? Good question….

Another thing, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are, no one in USA hires people over 55 to 60 years, esp. for new jobs.
The raising of SS age limit has now created an incredible surge of folks on disability, all waiting to be eligible for SS.
The purpose of SS, Unemployment and Medicare was to provide a safety net and soften the blows of American style slash and burn capitalism.
The safety net protects capitalism from revolution. You remove the safety net and capitalism itself will quickly go under threat.
The lower levels of America already seeth with unrest and an urge to burn it all down.
If the middle class joins them, there will be no protection from revolution.

People should be careful…..

Spoken like a true leftist. Why would capitalism collapse if social security collapses?

The middle class are the harbringers of revolution. Robspierre, Lenin, Marx were all scions of the middle class. If things get too shitty the middleclass will instill virulent ideologies to bring down the corrupt system. The US so far has been the exception. One could hardly call Ben Franklin and George Washington who were successful business men "middle class". When the Declaration of Independence was signed Ben Franklin, the kndly old gentleman, ordered his son, the British Governor of New Jersey arrested. The Brits would have gladly hanged Franklin and Washington if they would have gotten the chance. But, unlike Lenin and Marx, Franklin and Washington were quite happy with Capitalism. They didn't like British Mercantilism and taxation without representation.

[Vayutuvan]

>> like homeless families living on the street. If you can afford an Internet connection, you won't qualify for SS. You may even be classified as rich and get an additional slew of taxes to "share the pain".

To file papers for SS, one requires an address. That is one of the stumbling blocks for homeless and there are several Nonprofits and pro-bono attorneys which help these unfortunates complete the paperwork.

[Neshant]

The SS ponzi scheme will collapse as all ponzi schemes do. It will be morphed into a charity scheme. By the very definition of charity, only a FEW people can ever be on charitable subsistence. Its won't be a scheme for anyone anywhere near lower middle class.

This podcast is worth listening to, more so in light of the economic crash that will wipe out a good portion of the western worlds wealth, sans banking crooks of course :

[Neshant]

Draining cash, Egypt on $30 billion search for aid
Coffers draining, Egypt knocks on world's door for loans, aid to tune of $30 billion

http://news.yahoo.com/draining-cash-egy ... 59453.html

[RoyG]

The middle class are the harbringers of revolution. Robspierre, Lenin, Marx were all scions of the middle class. If things get too shitty the middleclass will instill virulent ideologies to bring down the corrupt system. The US so far has been the exception. One could hardly call Ben Franklin and George Washington who were successful business men "middle class". When the Declaration of Independence was signed Ben Franklin, the kndly old gentleman, ordered his son, the British Governor of New Jersey arrested. The Brits would have gladly hanged Franklin and Washington if they would have gotten the chance. But, unlike Lenin and Marx, Franklin and Washington were quite happy with Capitalism. They didn't like British Mercantilism and taxation without representation.

So phasing out social security and thereby lowering taxes is corruption? Spare me the Lou Dobbs act. Everyone including the middle class is going to have to bite the bullet because of excessive public spending and borrowing, and taxation.

[TSJones]

The middle class are the harbringers of revolution. Robspierre, Lenin, Marx were all scions of the middle class. If things get too shitty the middleclass will instill virulent ideologies to bring down the corrupt system. The US so far has been the exception. One could hardly call Ben Franklin and George Washington who were successful business men "middle class". When the Declaration of Independence was signed Ben Franklin, the kndly old gentleman, ordered his son, the British Governor of New Jersey arrested. The Brits would have gladly hanged Franklin and Washington if they would have gotten the chance. But, unlike Lenin and Marx, Franklin and Washington were quite happy with Capitalism. They didn't like British Mercantilism and taxation without representation.

So phasing out social security and thereby lowering taxes is corruption? Spare me the Lou Dobbs act. Everyone including the middle class is going to have to bite the bullet because of excessive public spending and borrowing, and taxation.

Please spare me the Ayn Rand act. Social security has not caused any borrowing other than the government borrowing from *it*. And if you think pulling the rug out from under millions of elderly is any sense of fairness at all then you need to reassess what may happen to you when you retire.

[RoyG]

Please spare me the Ayn Rand act. Social security has not caused any borrowing other than the government borrowing from *it*. And if you think pulling the rug out from under millions of elderly is any sense of fairness at all then you need to reassess what may happen to you when you retire.

Fairness? My parents have practiced fiscal responsibility since they came to the US and saved up for retirement so that they won't have to rely on SS. Yet they have to pay into the program to subsidize people who didn't. With the dollar in a bubble and the economy in a general slow down increasing taxes and spreading the wealth isn't a solution.

Both Social Security (since 1935) and it sister program, Medicare (since 1965) have been insolvent for years, as is typical of a Ponzi scheme, and despite gargantuan increases in the tax rates they inflict and the number of people they force to pay into them via automatic paycheck deductions. FICA and Medicare tax rates, combined (and also for employers and employers, together), increased steadily from just 2.25% of pay between 1935 and 1953 to 4.50% by 1960, 6.90% by 1970, 8.10% by 1980, and 15.3% by 1990 (where it now stands). Meanwhile the income on which these higher tax rates apply has been repeatedly increased.

In a 1936 publicity pamphlet describing the program to Americans, the Social Security Administration pledged that after 1949 the combined payroll tax rate of 6% would apply only to a worker’s annual income up to $3,000 and “that is the most you will ever pay.” Yet that 6% rate was breached under JFK (1962) and today’s rate (15.3%) is more than double the 1949 promised rate. Worse, today’s high rate applies to as much as $106,800 of annual income, which is more than triple the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what $3,000 was worth in 1949 (i.e., $28,642). Thus instead of paying $1,718/year (6% on income as high as $28,642), we’re now forced to pay $16,340/year (15.3% on income as high as $106,800) – an increase of nearly ten-fold.

One might expect these massive new inflows to be more than enough for Washington to establish a “trust” fund, invest it productively, and pay higher benefits. Not so. In the 1960s Congress and Treasury began raiding the Social Security fund, to finance general outlays, while leaving behind an ever-rising pile of non-tradable Treasury bonds (now worth $2.6 trillion). Most inflows were spent immediately on current beneficiaries, a method basic to any Ponzi scheme, and U.S. politicians gave it the cute-sounding name PAYGO (“pay-as-you-go”). In a private pension plan or annuity the beneficiary receives returns based on what he contributes, plus real investment returns, and assets are held in a legally-segregated account which he owns. In contrast, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right,” so politicians now perennially exploit voters by scaring them about potential changes.

If a private fiduciary were to unilaterally alter the terms of your annuity or pension, against your own well-being, he’d be prosecuted, fined and/or jailed, and a civil action for restitution would be available, to retrieve your assets. In contrast, you can’t sue Social Security and you don’t own the assets it’s taking from you.

The Ponzi status of the scheme is also corroborated by its widening net of victims. In 1935 it applied only to workers in commerce and industry, but in 1939 it was first applied to seamen and bank employees, then in 1946 to railroad workers, in 1950 to regularly-employed farm workers, the self-employed, and federal employees lacking pensions, in 1951 to railroad workers, in 1954 to home workers plus state and local government employees, in 1956 to the military, firemen, and policemen, in 1965 to interns, self-employed doctors and tip recipients, in 1967 to clergy, and in 1983 to all federal civilian employees hired after that year, plus Congress, the President, Vice-President, federal judges, and workers at non-profit organizations.

A private Ponzi scheme that spread so widely would be detected, but when politicians did it they got elected.

Whereas in 1950 3.5 million Social Security beneficiaries got payments of $961 million, in 1970 26.2 million of them received $31.9 billion, in 1990 39.8 million of them got $247.8 billion, and in 2010 52.9 million received $676 billion. Whereas in 1950 total beneficiaries represented 19% of all Americans aged 60 years and older, in 1960 they represented 62% of that group and now, 95%. Real returns adjusted for what was paid in (payroll taxes) have trailed private sector returns, even though the paid-in sums have sky-rocketed.

Another obvious sign that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is the fact that the working age population (18-65 years old) is dwindling as a multiple of retirees collecting benefits. In 1935 there were 9.4 working-age Americans per retiree, but the ratio has since declined to 5.7 in 1960, 5.2 in 1985, and 4.8 in 2010. The Social Security Administration itself predicts the ratio will fall to 2.8 by 2035. Put another way, in 1935 each worker had to support 1/9th of a retiree, but by 2035 he’ll have to support roughly three times that load, or 1/3rd of a retiree.

Given in-built demographic trends, to preserve currently-promised benefits yet prevent Social Security and Medicare from becoming more insolvent, the payroll tax would have to be increased and eventually doubled from today’s rate to roughly 30%, by 2035. But we’ve already seen the terrible effects of a widening wedge between what employers pay and employees receive – from the 6% rate in 1949 to 15.3%. It has reduced motives to hire or work; a doubling of the payroll tax rate to 30% would kill such motives.

It’s misleading to blame Social Security’s ills on demographics. Yes, birth rates, immigration rates, and mortality rates have been declining in the U.S. in recent decades, so America’s population is aging. Our average lifespan is now 78 years old, up from 64 years in 1935. Yet Social Security has always used age 65 for eligibility; in the early years it paid almost no one, on average, but now pays retiree for an average of 13 long years (and rising). Faced with the same demographics, yet having no power to coerce clients, notice that private pension plans, annuity providers, or insurers haven’t gone bust. They’ve adjusted over time. At root Social Security is bust not because of demographics but because it’s a political Ponzi scheme. If it isn’t terminated, Washington will eventually also seek to raid our private pensions, 401(k) plans and IRAs.

The rare American politician today who is candid about Social Security’s fiscal ills and would like to cure them is understandably reluctant, because the experts give him only three basic alternatives, each of which assumes that Social Security is retained, and thus can only harm or annoy a large part of the electorate: 1) cut benefits, which harms or annoys the elderly, 2) raise the retirement age, which harms or bothers the soon-to retire middle-aged, and/or 3) raise payroll tax rates, which harms or annoys younger workers. To disaffect any of these groups – let alone all three, in a “comprehensive reform” – only dashes a candidate’s chances.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsals ... -scheme/2/

[svinayak]

Good Post

[Neshant]

ALL ABOARD !!

Like govt worker pensions, its a run away gravy train where those onboard will vigorously assert their right to expropriate the earnings of the rest to pay for it. The only fair way is to morph SS into a charity program and call it what it is - charity.

What the current retiring generation paid into SS was spent on them already through years of wracking up deficits. Even so, give them 25% of what they paid in and shut down this ponzi scheme. Trying to enroll more slaves into this ponzi scheme is just cruel. The younger & middle aged workers (if they are lucky to have a well paying job) are increasingly squeezed, taxed, outsourced, scammed by banking goons and robbed through money printing. They are already facing a tough future without being enrolled into the SS ponzi.

Charity is reserved only for the poorest of the poor who through circumstances in life (despite their best efforts) have not been able to save for their retirement. This does not include folks taking vacations, blowing the money on a big house & car, squandering every penny they have on stuff - and then claiming to be charity cases. Money paid into this program would be far less than the robbery from paychecks going on today as charitable cases would have to be few and far between - not every tom, dick & harry.

How is it fair to the person who saved & sacrificed that he should pay not only for banker bailouts & bonuses and lavish pension schemes of govt workers but also for those who were living life to the max without saving.

[TSJones]

People don't like paying taxes. I don't like it either. However, I also like the quality of life in my country. Generally, elderly people are doing OK, which they weren't back during the 1930's when the social secuitry act was passed. What we had back then was poor farms. Each county had one and they sucked. I don't want to go back to that. I want to live in a first world country not a third world country. So if those who don't want to pay social security need to tee it up via the political process and get an up or down vote. Instead, what is happening is those who don't want to pay or those who are rich and don't pay anyway because they have captial gains or dividends and make way over the social security cap taxable income are resorting to the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that social security has caused part of the federal deficit. It has not. It has loaned money to the general revenue fund for decades. The other Big Lie is that social security will go bust or bankrupt. It will not. It may only pay a 75% benefit eventually (if congress fails to act) but it will still pay out with CPI increases. So despite all the lies that are constantly repeated so that they can be accepted as truths, some of us see through the lies and will remain steadfast in the pusuit of a better life for all.

[RoyG]

People don't like paying taxes. I don't like it either. However, I also like the quality of life in my country. Generally, elderly people are doing OK, which they weren't back during the 1930's when the social secuitry act was passed. What we had back then was poor farms. Each county had one and they sucked. I don't want to go back to that. I want to live in a first world country not a third world country. So if those who don't want to pay social security need to tee it up via the political process and get an up or down vote. Instead, what is happening is those who don't want to pay or those who are rich and don't pay anyway because they have captial gains or dividends and make way over the social security cap taxable income are resorting to the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that social security has caused part of the federal deficit. It has not. It has loaned money to the general revenue fund for decades. The other Big Lie is that social security will go bust or bankrupt. It will not. It may only pay a 75% benefit eventually (if congress fails to act) but it will still pay out with CPI increases. So despite all the lies that are constantly repeated so that they can be accepted as truths, some of us see through the lies and will remain steadfast in the pusuit of a better life for all.

The quality of life is generally determined by anatomical and psychological health. Anatomical health is brought about by food and water security, shelter, lifestyle, and taking responsibility for ones health. Psychological health is brought about by the biggest social security net which is the family and how you think. Taking SS out of the equation will not be ruinous at all. It will force families to stick together and solve disputes amicably. My parents took care of me and I honor them. It is my duty to take care of them when they retire and ensure that their mental and physical health is well looked after through constant contact, exercise, grandchildren, etc. What do "poor farms" in the 1930's or first and third world have to do with the issue of SS benefits? I assure you, the anatomical quality of life has been getting better due to education, medical advances, and nutrition and not because of SS.

It seems like you haven't read anything in bold red in my earlier post. The reason why SS will go bust is because the taxation rate is already at unsustainable levels. You can't expect to keep or elevate the tax rate when unemployment is high and job growth is dismal when more individuals are retiring and living longer.

[Neshant]

It will not be possible to convince those who are receiving or on the verge of receiving SS that its a ponzi scheme. Neither is is possible to convince govt workers that their lavish pensions are out of wack with economic realities.

Even if they realise it, its not in their interests to admit to it.

Voting is also useless. Inevitably the 51% will vote themselves the earnings of the 49%. All those dependant on checks from the govt or scams of the federal reserve (e.g. bankers, financiers, accountants...etc) will obviously not want to see their checks and/or livelyhoods evaporate.

Those on the gravy train will always work to keep others off the train and make them push it.

However currently there are too many onboard and not enough pushing even as the train heads up hill. So its going to be interesting to see how this resolves itself. My intuition tells me that all these guys are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out none of what has been promised to them will (or even can) be paid. None except private "bailout" bankers who were first to the trough and cleaned it out.

[Neshant]

the bloat is expanding



----------

Internet Sales Tax Bill Moves Closer To Law, Still Must Pass House

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 61826.html

[Neshant]

[Neshant]

A misconception among people who deposit their money in banks is that it is safe.

Its not safe because everytime you put money into a bank, you are making a loan to the bank whether you know it or not. As with any loan, you money may or may not be repaid. The scam of paper money however forces people to deposit their earnings in banks to keep up with the rate of inflation (itself a bogus number).

[TSJones]

^^^^ And we assume that in order for you to advocate from an ethical viewpoint you do not use banks and only use cash or gold?

[Theo_Fidel]

Isn't cash issued by the federal reserve 'bank'? So cash is out as well...
Bitcoins maybe... ..

[subhamoy.das]

I used to see ads which said that SS cannot even provide for your funeral etc. But it will be paid out. I, for one, banking on it and its CPI inflated amount to come to my bank account in US which I can then transfer to India and have a good amount in hand. I continue to believe in SS.....

[Singha]

Hopefully it wont be cash vouchers that can be spent only on mainland usa goods and services lol

[RoyG]

I used to see ads which said that SS cannot even provide for your funeral etc. But it will be paid out. I, for one, banking on it and its CPI inflated amount to come to my bank account in US which I can then transfer to India and have a good amount in hand. I continue to believe in SS.....

Sure. Bank on it just like the QE program and the bailouts which were/are supposed to save us from economic decline. You have a huge economic slowdown, excessive gov spending, bloated public sector, and high unemployment and you think that keeping/raising the tax rate for a program like SS which has to shell out more cash to people who are living longer is sustainable?

Isn't cash issued by the federal reserve 'bank'? So cash is out as well...
Bitcoins maybe... ..

The issue is keeping interest rates at near 0 levels and fueling bubbles through reckless borrowing and spending. Cash isn't out yet but will take a catastrophic hit due to inflation. The next bubble is the bond market.

^^^^ And we assume that in order for you to advocate from an ethical viewpoint you do not use banks and only use cash or gold?

First, it was fairness, now it's ethics . What happened to ethics in Cyprus? Cash value is generally well reflected in the gold price and both can be used in short notice should the banking sector go through forced "restructuring" by the federal gov. It's all about preserving the wealth you have and retaining the option to use it.

[vic]

Everybody talks about SS, what about Global Giants who don't pay fair taxes?

[RoyG]

Everybody talks about SS, what about Global Giants who don't pay fair taxes?

Can you please provide me examples of the global giants and the tax regimes which are unfair?

[Neshant]

^^^^ And we assume that in order for you to advocate from an ethical viewpoint you do not use banks and only use cash or gold?

How about letting the market decide?

i.e let the people who do the work to earn the wealth decide on what they'd like to hold as money.

Banking crooks would not like privately issued competing currencies or for the medium of taxation to be in anything other than the fiat money they issue. The last thing they want is for people who earn the wealth to control it thereby cutting the banking "industry" out of the picture.

The livelihood of the entire banking & financing "industry" rests on control over fiat money and govt taxation. It's from that vantage point where the theft of earnings of the people can take place while bank losses & liabilities are offloaded on society. The scale of this theft is so enormous that most can't even begin to comprehend it.

[TSJones]

delete