Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on October 17, 2007, 07:01:47 PM
-
As one of the latest baby boomers, born in 1954, I have to wonder if I will see a return on my life long investment. While I'm not depending on it entirely for my retirement, it will make life easier. Many millions around my age probably feel the same way or will be even more dependent upon getting their social security check. If scocial security becomes unable to meet our needs just how great will social unrest become? Whaddya think?
-
a lot of us grey panthers have guns.
-
I don't expect to see a penny of it. <1957> very very near the tail end of the boomer gen.
-
The baby boomer generation is generally accepted as being born between 1946 and 1964. Just sayin'.
-
there was huge decline in births after 1957. the end was around 1960 inspite of what is generally accepted.
-
I have children and grandchildren and hoping before I die even greatgrandchildren. I would not be a sore burden upon future generations and I'm doing what I can to avoid that and would even go suffering quietly into the night if it meant their well being. Allowing a government to visit upon them pain and false promises in their declining years I may not suffer in silence.
-
Is this actually devolving to an argument on who qualifies for the nomenclature of "baby boomer?" :D
I'm not for taking bets on the demise of SSI. I'm for working to sustain it. Even though it's not quite enough to sustain me after I'm done working. Supple-mental dope sales and illegal gun sales should cover the rest.;)
-
what about the pre boomers and the post boomers?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what about the pre boomers and the post boomers?
Preboomers are taken care of. The work force is sufficient to pay make their retirement payments. When there are more claims than can be supported by the current work force we are in trouble and this will likely be the case in 10-15 years imo. The government will likely either default or inflate the dollar making the ss payments of less value. Either way, millions will be left wanting. Here's to hoping the younger generations learn not to trust socialism.
-
well, on these boards I'm most certainly one of the young'ns (1976) and I can say with out a doubt that I have zero confidence that I will receive any of my social security benefit.
I'm happy enough to pay into it as I see it as a means of giving back to the generations that came before me, but like I said, I know it won't be around by the time I come of age.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
well, on these boards I'm most certainly one of the young'ns (1976) and I can say with out a doubt that I have zero confidence that I will receive any of my social security benefit.
I'm happy enough to pay into it as I see it as a means of giving back to the generations that came before me, but like I said, I know it won't be around by the time I come of age.
Even with a top heavy society I think it could have been sufficient had it not had the "welfare" siphon so firmly implanted.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
As one of the latest baby boomers, born in 1954, I have to wonder if I will see a return on my life long investment. While I'm not depending on it entirely for my retirement, it will make life easier. Many millions around my age probably feel the same way or will be even more dependent upon getting their social security check. If scocial security becomes unable to meet our needs just how great will social unrest become? Whaddya think?
Geez Iron now you sound like a liberal.. you didn't make a life long "investment", you paid a tax.
I have always gotten a kick out of the folks that rationalize getting welfare in their old age by saying they "paid into it" for all those years :)
shamus
-
I never counted on SSI. it's a ponzi scheme and unsustainable. that was clearly evident to me even as a young man. after roe v wade was signed into law all those future contributors murdered in their mother's womb pretty much put the last few nails into the FDR ponzi scheme.
I suggest a look at aggressive play in the stock market.
-
Cost of living increase January 2008, $24.00 per month, puts the typical recipient at $1,079.00 per month, roughly $13,000.00 ($12,948.00) Per Year.
54 Million Current Recipients.
702 Billion Dollars Annually for Social Security, not including Medicaid/Medicare.
That is 1/3 our National Budget.
The First technical Baby Boomer just recently announced retirement, so these numbers will just go Up, more will Retire than Expire. Not cruel, just math.
Oddly enough, some of the income from Social Security is Taxed...wait..wasn't it taxed when it was earned to begin with? But I digress..
There isn't enough money to pay out all the upcoming retirees, unless you take it from someone Else, now they have to pay not only for themselves, but someone else. After a while this perpetually grows until there Is no more.
It's ok to take all the money from the "Rich" but when THEY stop producing, where's it going to come from? Trust me, after a while, they Will stop producing, at least Here. It runs contrary for an industrious person to continually feed someone else with no return.
People better start thinking about trying to Keep what they earn, or by golly, you are Going to have to rely on someone Else to take care of you, guess who it's going to be?
Guys, I know some of you wish for a Utopian socialist society, but This Nation is built on Freedom and Capitalism, the Professional Socialists couldn't make it work, what makes you think us novices can pull it off when we are Instinctively driven by Profits and Rewards for our efforts?
This SS system is going to collapse, as it should. Put your money in a savings account, don't rely on the Government to take care of you when you retire or ME to take care of you if you blow it.
Your "leaders" have you convinced that you are too stupid to take care of yourself, and you Reward them for the insult. At least us selfish Republicans have the decency not not only Expect you to take care of yourself, but the Confidence in you that you Can. I understand the whole concept of a Safety Net, but think about it, No Net, kinda makes you want to hang on with a bit more urgency, doesn't it?
Now, I have recently irritated some very close political friends of mine, who happen to be leftward of reality, and I proposed the following.
How about we try this out for size.
Knowing the vast wealth of the Liberal Left, such as Dean, Clinton, Gore, Kennedy and the like, and comparing their wealth against the Needy, we do this.
All Democrats simply form a collective. Pool your resources. Anyone registering Democrat can join the pool.
Now, all of you just feed and house each other, live in your utopia, and leave the rest of us alone. Your combined wealth alone will More than solve the problems that we continually are forced to argue over. Now, hear me out, you could DO more in that action than you could Ever accomplish by constantly arguing over who Should pay, I don't Want to pay, it's not my Kid,House,Problem.
You want the Utopian Society, then Create it by Action, quit trying to make ME do it, I don't Want to, You Do, so just Do it and you show me just how miserable I am for not helping, while you save humanity, whales, purple penguin or whatever fad of the week you guys come up with.
Of course, I got the usual arguments that I was callous, selfish, and unconcerned about the fate of mankind. I responded, Yes, I agree, and if I Won't do these things, You should feel even More superior because You Did. So get off me and mine, and go solve the concerns. It's not about Who solves it, after all, it's about Solving it, Right?? Why Talk about who Should pay when clearly you Want to pay, so Pay!
See, the reality is, that just might Solve the problem, but that's not exactly what they are hoping for. Those Issues are not worth the commitment to actually do something about it, the issues are there to assume control. The instant argument was That's not Fair, "I" have to shoulder the Burden myself. To which I argued, So? It's Your burden, You created the Crisis, I don't think there is one, why Should I contribute if I don't Care or See what your talking about? Heck, I need tires on my Van, cough it up already! Oh, Wait, Never mind, My Bad. My Van and I Already Bought The Tires!
So let's start whacking away at these Social Control programs, and get this nation back on track with some Reality behind it, or take me up on my idea and actually Do something about it. I've looked, you can start a local commune in your neighborhood easily.
So let's see who's made of what out there.
Scrap this garbage or Step up and put Your money where you want Me to.
:D hehe entertaining myself with a nearly tongue in cheek rant
-
>>Guys, I know some of you wish for a Utopian socialist society, but This Nation is built on Freedom and Capitalism<<
As much as some *want* to believe it, socialism, in no way, threatens capitalism ... or freedom. Both have existed in this country for some time. And many countries have mixed economies and their societies let capitalism do it's thing (within reason) and their citizens enjoy freedom.
The Republican platform may feel threatened, for some reason, over social programs to help citizens who suffer temporary (or in some cases permanent) setbacks and a social security net in a society that doesn't force industry to maintain a decent and moral retirement program for employees (I don't see industry stepping up to the plate) but the "Grand Old Party" has never offered anything in it's stead other than rolling back to a laissez-faire capitalism mindset, claiming that industry and business either never took advantage of the American worker or, again, for some reason, wouldn't again. And anyone who can open a history book can read how Hoover, in spite of making some exceptions to party platform, didn't ... no *couldn't* make "volunteerism" work and how Roosevelt's "New Deal" had more of a positive impact.
And it's not like the Republican party hasn't done it's best to torpedo medicare, social security and welfare since their inception, either. And one really wonders why the programs haven't been perfected and why there's a struggle to keep them working or to make them more efficient? Yet the same folks who complain that the burden of these programs on later generations is unfair to them don't seem concerned about the huge(r), inefficient waste of government funds on foreign policy and war that turned out to be not only a complete fiasco but increased the threat to succeeding generations national security.
Frankly, I don't see the hyperbole and rhetoric making a case for my concern reaching the level of fear and paranoia I see displayed.
Really.
But I'll keep reading and watching the offerings to see if anything with real meat on it is put on the plate. :)
Politics aside, though, I do miss flying with ya, ROC. :D
-
SSI despite constantly being raided to fund other govt programs, is a viable system. One of the most successful govt program. If every last penny including interest was put back in that was taken out, there wouldn't be this talk of it disappearing. There'd be a surplus. Those that would rather gamble their funds on the stock market are deluding themselves as that being safer or better than SSI. Not many know how to play the market that well.
-
The market's just another form of gambling. I'm sure the "high-rollers" would love to have money to play with from those who can't afford to lose it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have children and grandchildren and hoping before I die even greatgrandchildren. I would not be a sore burden upon future generations and I'm doing what I can to avoid that and would even go suffering quietly into the night if it meant their well being. Allowing a government to visit upon them pain and false promises in their declining years I may not suffer in silence.
Too late to be thinking about it now. The die is cast. 10,000 people will be added every day to the Social Security out basket and the greed of the boomers could very well strike flames of resentment in the younger folks who will have to pay more. The Boomers are going to demand their money because we're greedy mothers, on average. Just because you don't want to place a burden on your family doesn't mean everyone else isn't happy to do it.
Having been hoodwinked into needing two incomes for a family and spending more than is made can only be bad. The savings rate in the US is negative. How can the younger ones save in the future when they can't save now? The savings fairy?
The government is going to raise taxes, reduce or extend the time to start benefits and you'll still be digging a hole. It's going to a competition between corporations and people for the government handouts, and you aren't organized enough to lobby politicians, so the corporations are going to win.
The government prefers that you just go back to work, continuing to pay taxes, and work until you drop dead. But, they'll call it the "Older American Empowerment Act" or "The Free Market Retirement Security System" or some other such nonsense.
The other technique is to print some more money. Ouch. That will hurt. Foreign investment in US bonds has taken a sharp downturn lately and inflation is going to accelerate the pain.
Who said Freedom and Capitalism? You're living in a high school history book if you think todays economy is Capitalism or a free market.
Anyway, to be honest, I doubt the US will be in its current form in 2050 anyway.
Calling it America instead of its name, The United States of America, or the US is interesting. It dissolves the "United" part of the name and ignores the "States" part. Both of those words were there for a reason.
The US has no unifying culture or goals anymore. Disparate interests are what have torn all nations and cultures apart. Without some common traditions and goals, a society is destined to divide. Sometimes societies are reset under a different structure and sometimes they just break up into regions divided by something - religion, ethnicity, etc. Wars cannot be the only rallying point of a culture.
The genius of the founders, framers and writers of the Constitution was that they understood and predicted that disparate goals in the future would happen and that dividing the nation into regions with common interests and cultures was not to be feared. In fact, it didn't matter to them. Some even expected western areas to become a separate country.
What did matter was that the original states were united in the goal of limiting the power of the federal government. People could live in the societies they chose to create in states, and the needs and values of the people in smaller regions could be affected efficiently. The founders did not fight a war of independence just to hand it over to a handful of lawyers appointed for life, or temporary federal managers. The federal entity was to issue currency, make treaties, facilitate trade, deliver mail and provide for a united defense of the United States against foreign invasion. That's about it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what you did within the state you chose to live in.
That's why they offered up a mechanism to change the government and asked that future generations do just that, when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately, people today are comatose from nonsense manufactured by TV, Hollywood and Washington DC.
The US is middle aged and large, not just in girth. Scale does matter. Look at older societies and you'll see smaller sizes or more things in common among its members. The large older societies, China, India, Russia, etc. have gone through turmoil and/or divisions because large societies are dysfunctional without real common interests. Strong control over large groups of people and "directing" large societies by fear or force - monetary or by the barrel or a gun - is part of recurring history.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
well, on these boards I'm most certainly one of the young'ns (1976) and I can say with out a doubt that I have zero confidence that I will receive any of my social security benefit.
I'm happy enough to pay into it as I see it as a means of giving back to the generations that came before me, but like I said, I know it won't be around by the time I come of age.
We've basically been told it will run out before we retire. I think I have put in about 25k already, I consider it another tax, thnx Ronald Reagan
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
SSI despite constantly being raided to fund other govt programs, is a viable system. One of the most successful govt program. If every last penny including interest was put back in that was taken out, there wouldn't be this talk of it disappearing. There'd be a surplus. Those that would rather gamble their funds on the stock market are deluding themselves as that being safer or better than SSI. Not many know how to play the market that well.
It was never viable.
And socialism is the enemy of capitalism.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Too late to be thinking about it now. The die is cast. 10,000 people will be added every day to the Social Security out basket and the greed of the boomers could very well strike flames of resentment in the younger folks who will have to pay more. The Boomers are going to demand their money because we're greedy mothers, on average. Just because you don't want to place a burden on your family doesn't mean everyone else isn't happy to do it.
Having been hoodwinked into needing two incomes for a family and spending more than is made can only be bad. The savings rate in the US is negative. How can the younger ones save in the future when they can't save now? The savings fairy?
The government is going to raise taxes, reduce or extend the time to start benefits and you'll still be digging a hole. It's going to a competition between corporations and people for the government handouts, and you aren't organized enough to lobby politicians, so the corporations are going to win.
The government prefers that you just go back to work, continuing to pay taxes, and work until you drop dead. But, they'll call it the "Older American Empowerment Act" or "The Free Market Retirement Security System" or some other such nonsense.
The other technique is to print some more money. Ouch. That will hurt. Foreign investment in US bonds has taken a sharp downturn lately and inflation is going to accelerate the pain.
Who said Freedom and Capitalism? You're living in a high school history book if you think todays economy is Capitalism or a free market.
Anyway, to be honest, I doubt the US will be in its current form in 2050 anyway.
Calling it America instead of its name, The United States of America, or the US is interesting. It dissolves the "United" part of the name and ignores the "States" part. Both of those words were there for a reason.
The US has no unifying culture or goals anymore. Disparate interests are what have torn all nations and cultures apart. Without some common traditions and goals, a society is destined to divide. Sometimes societies are reset under a different structure and sometimes they just break up into regions divided by something - religion, ethnicity, etc. Wars cannot be the only rallying point of a culture.
The genius of the founders, framers and writers of the Constitution was that they understood and predicted that disparate goals in the future would happen and that dividing the nation into regions with common interests and cultures was not to be feared. In fact, it didn't matter to them. Some even expected western areas to become a separate country.
What did matter was that the original states were united in the goal of limiting the power of the federal government. People could live in the societies they chose to create in states, and the needs and values of the people in smaller regions could be affected efficiently. The founders did not fight a war of independence just to hand it over to a handful of lawyers appointed for life, or temporary federal managers. The federal entity was to issue currency, make treaties, facilitate trade, deliver mail and provide for a united defense of the United States against foreign invasion. That's about it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what you did within the state you chose to live in.
That's why they offered up a mechanism to change the government and asked that future generations do just that, when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately, people today are comatose from nonsense manufactured by TV, Hollywood and Washington DC.
The US is middle aged and large, not just in girth. Scale does matter. Look at older societies and you'll see smaller sizes or more things in common among its members. The large older societies, China, India, Russia, etc. have gone through turmoil and/or divisions because large societies are dysfunctional without real common interests. Strong control over large groups of people and "directing" large societies by fear or force - monetary or by the barrel or a gun - is part of recurring history.
Well said
-
The problem is anytime you do ANYTHING positive or negative to try and fix it the AARP gets on the tube and scares seniors into thinking that somone is taking away your social security.
-
I hope folks get their SS. I mean the way it is now with grandparents busy raising both their 25 yr old children, and their infants, its going to make it real hard when they also have to raise the great grand children.
-
yep.. I don't really count on SS or even need it but... I am going to take every penny I( can as soon as I can... to me... it is money they stole from me in the first place.
filth is correct.. there are so many of us grandparents raising kids and grandkids and such that we need the money.
it is funny that people who see old people as being the problem with ss all seem to think that a socialized medicine program will work. with the young and the productive paying for the old and reitired.
rolex... this may be the second time I have said this about one of your posts but your post was spot on.
lazs
-
I personally am not counting on SS either.
Not to hijack the thread, but....
how long can capitalism last as we know it?
-
what does capitalism have to do with ss.. ss is socialism.
The better question would be... how long can a capitalist society survive under more and more socialism?
socialized medicine and opening the floodgates of voting to illegals from 3rd world countries may be the end.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
I hope folks get their SS. I mean the way it is now with grandparents busy raising both their 25 yr old children, and their infants, its going to make it real hard when they also have to raise the great grand children.
^^ sad but very true in way too many cases these days
my SS is spelled "401k"
-
I hate SS. I love getting my little statement every year showing how much I've paid in. I'll never see a penny of it. I would have been better off if they would not have taken it form me and let me slap that into my 401k or my employee stock purchase plan.
Back in the beginning, if I recall correctly, SS was voluntary not required.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Geez Iron now you sound like a liberal.. you didn't make a life long "investment", you paid a tax.
I have always gotten a kick out of the folks that rationalize getting welfare in their old age by saying they "paid into it" for all those years :)
shamus
It was supposed to be for retirement and yes, I've paid into it many tens of thousands. Am I not entitled to reap some of the rewards of my labors? If not then why should I go on supporting a government incapable of managing my money properly?
Well said Rolex. I think you may be optimistic about 2050 though.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If not then why should I go on supporting a government incapable of managing my money properly?
Because if you don't they will take all your stuff and put you in jail :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Because if you don't they will take all your stuff and put you in jail :)
shamus
Not if I have no stuff and no place to live.
-
They'll just use a means test and cut off bennies to enough people that have some money or income so that they can pay the rest that saved nothing by themselves.
If you worked hard, saved money, have an IRA or some pension income you'll get zip from SS.
The people that spent every last time and have nothing will still get paid for their vote though.
-
I sure hope I don't have to rely on that program. I am sure they will continue to screw it up more, like keep raising the upper income limit for the tax. It is far from any sort of retirement program. They should rename to something like the GREAT AMERICAN WEALTH TRANSFER SCAM. I would opt out today if I was given a choice. You could take that extra payroll tax (double what is taken out since the employer pays half), and invest the proceeds and retire very wealthy.
Best time of year is when you get above the SS cap. It is like Christmas every month for the remaining half of the year.
-
yes.. they will not give me what they promised me because I have been smart and made plans for my own retirement.
I will be punished for saving and not being dependent.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will be punished for saving and not being dependent.
lazs
As well you should be!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
As one of the latest baby boomers, born in 1954, I have to wonder if I will see a return on my life long investment. While I'm not depending on it entirely for my retirement, it will make life easier. Many millions around my age probably feel the same way or will be even more dependent upon getting their social security check. If scocial security becomes unable to meet our needs just how great will social unrest become? Whaddya think?
INVESTMENT? Face it folks - Social Security is a welfare program, not an retirement account. At it's best benefit level, the check that social security is going to send you is going to be below the poverty level, so you better have something else in the works.
You and your employer have each been taxed 6.2% of your earnings for the old age / ssi benefit, and another 1.45% of your earnings for medicare since 1990 (when the rates were last raised). If you are self-employed, you get to pay both shares, which is 15.3% of your earnings.
For all this money you have been giving the government, you will get back a poverty level check each month (if you live long enough to claim it), and when you die, the government just keeps all the money you paid in. (Then they come by and hit you with an estate tax, but that is another story...)
If this were a "retirement account" offered by a private company - the owners of the company would have gone to jail for life.
Social Security should have been privatized long ago if it's purpose was to provide actual security in your old age. If you had taken all that money that was ripped from you and your employer and instead put it in US Savings Bonds (safe, eh? and the government pays you 90% of the average on 5-year t-bills as the interest rate), let it compound over your working life, then you would have big wad of tax-free cash at the end for you to retire on, plus you could pass it on to your children, fund your grandkids education, etc. etc. etc.
Republicans get criticized for "wanting to destroy social security" - yeah, you are damn right I do. The program is probably the biggest rip-off in american history. Why is it the government pays interest on t-bills they sell overseas, but don't want to pay the same interest to hard-working Americans here? Does that seem fair?
I'm not saying we should destroy the "social safety net" - we have a need to provide for people that simply can't provide for themselves due to disability. Fine - lets fund that HONESTLY as what it is - a welfare program. We have need to provide medical care to the POOR, fine - we can do that too.
A little less demagoguery from the politicians and this problem could have been solved a long time ago, and a lot of folks wouldn't be under the illusion that social security is going to keep them secure in their old age.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
I love the "socialism is da evile enemy of capitalism!" schtick. Especially when it involves federally supported social programs that were a direct result of a great depression that was a direct result of capitalism run amok.
Socialism and capitalism aren't "enemies" anymore than monarchies are "enemies" of parliments. Or one side of a scale is an "enemy" to the other. Honestly (and ignored vigorously in this thread), some things don't work right simply because there are people in power who feel threatened by them and work diligently to make sure they don't. (But ... but .... it's a "proven" that it "never could" work!) ;)
Just remember:
1: The economy is stonger and more beneficial to everyone than ever before!
2: Poor people are generational and strive hard to stay that way at your expense!
3: Anything, other than a war, supported by federal funds (especially if it involves education, health or housing for U.S. citizens) is ub dee debil.
:aok
(Shhhh ... I'm practicing hyperbole and rhetoric) ;)
-
the great depression was world wide and was a result of trade wars and high tariffs that shut down world trade.
-
Nope. Hoover instituted the tariffs after the depression started. Try again. :D