Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Social Security >

Social Security

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Social Security

Old 08-22-2011, 05:44 PM
  #1  
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 526
Default Social Security

Of all the people complaining here there must be one that can tell me just how the mess we are in can be fixed. The Republicans wanted to replace Social Security with investing in the stock market. I know a lot of old people that would be in deep crap right now if they got away with that. Most people lost their ass with 401k's, what would the old people do? I remember when the Republicans robbed the Savings & Loans in the 80's with deregulation. I will admit I voted Republican for years, even though I am registered independent. This last round of robbing the country was enough for me. I may never vote again.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old 08-22-2011, 06:24 PM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,750
Default

Deregulation began in 1980. Congress in 1980:
Senate


Democratic: 58
Republican: 42

House of Representatives

Reagan wasn't sworn in until January 1981.

It's a bit more complicated than "republicans robbed the Savings & Loans." Maybe you should buy a clue.
ipscshooter is offline  
Old 08-22-2011, 06:28 PM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,721
Default

Originally Posted by Gunplummer View Post
Of all the people complaining here there must be one that can tell me just how the mess we are in can be fixed. The Republicans wanted to replace Social Security with investing in the stock market. I know a lot of old people that would be in deep crap right now if they got away with that. Most people lost their ass with 401k's, what would the old people do? I remember when the Republicans robbed the Savings & Loans in the 80's with deregulation. I will admit I voted Republican for years, even though I am registered independent. This last round of robbing the country was enough for me. I may never vote again.
Get your facts straight first. The republican plan was never investing in the stock market ( unfortunately). It should have been. It was all about diverting the money to your very own personal account with your name on it instead of it being nothing more than general tax revenue. Not sure what you're talking about most people loosing their ass. I've certainly haven't lost my ass. It goes up and down and so far it's over 10% in the last five years. Savings and loans deregulated caused the problems? They were state regulated and I know for sure the state I lived in was never ever controlled by republicans.

So like I said, get your facts straight first.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 08-22-2011, 06:37 PM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,332
Default

It is entirely possible the government has made promises that they cannot keep. When Social Security was established in 1936, most people died before they were old enough to begin collecting their social security pension. The ratio of retired old folks to working young folks was entirely different -- not just because old folks died young, but families were bigger than. My father's family had 8 children. My dad had 4 children. One of his brother had 7 children. Another of his brothers had 7 children, one of his sisters had 8 children. You get the picture. When you live longer and you only have 2 children, the ratio changes. Not only does the ratio change . . . you have to pay out for a much longer period of time.

Thus . . . no one stole the social security funds. The promise was based on different demographics, different mathematics that no longer prevail.

What is the solution? I don't know. I just don't believe that the system is going to remain as it has been.

Basically Social Security and medicare and medicaid are pyramid schemes. They work so long as there are a whole bunch of people at the base of the pyramid paying in a little bit and a very few people at the peak of the pyramid receiving benefits. When that changes, it doesn't work. Basically in a steady state you end up paying your own way -- there is no magic bullet to provide abundance and plenty that isn't coming out of your own pocket.

Now these comments are sideways of your original post, but they are not irrelevant. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are in trouble -- not because of the failure of our politicians -- but because of mathematics and demographics.

The Chinese historical system of social security was elder worship. The young supported the old in their old age out of their own earnings. This was a reason for having many children -- more kids to support you in your old age. In some of these cultures the welfare of the parents is in the hands of the oldest son.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 08-22-2011, 07:21 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,734
Default

So lets dissect this little tirade for a minute, if it takes that long.

Of all the people complaining here there must be one that can tell me just how the mess we are in can be fixed. The Republicans wanted to replace Social Security with investing in the stock market.
The Republican plan, as FM said, never was going to invest in the stock market. It was going to make people invest in private savings accounts, think your local bank.

I know a lot of old people that would be in deep crap right now if they got away with that. Most people lost their ass with 401k's, what would the old people do?
There was an age limitation in place that the MSM NEVER told anyone about. Anyone over the age of, I think 55, was going to continue to pay into the standard SS program and then draw on that program. Those younger than 55 would have split their investments between SS, and their own private accounts.

I remember when the Republicans robbed the Savings & Loans in the 80's with deregulation.
Again your memory is faulty as has been pointed out in previous posts.

I will admit I voted Republican for years, even though I am registered independent. This last round of robbing the country was enough for me. I may never vote again.
This last round of robbery has, again, been committed by the Dems.
sconnyhunter is offline  
Old 08-22-2011, 09:18 PM
  #6  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by Gunplummer View Post
.... This last round of robbing the country was enough for me. I may never vote again.
based on the amount of disinformation you hocked up,
if you never voted again, you'd be doing your country a service.
bergall is offline  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:51 AM
  #7  
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 526
Default

I have my facts straight. I was in the Army in the early 80's and know who the Commander in Chief was. I also know about the state run Savings & Loans. I was lucky and this state was covered by Federal Insurance. Some of the states in the mid west had no such law and those people lost it all. It is easy to make the "facts" say what you want, but try to tell some one that nonsense that was there. Ever hear of ENRON? Right up the road from me. I absolutely saw and heard President Bush on the television state that he wanted to get rid of Social Security and have people invest in the stock market. I am not saying the Democrats are blameless, but it is time people realize what thieves the Republicans are. Fix our country? I think they fixed it enough. Lower the tax rate for the wealthy? Give tax breaks to companies that move off shore? How can a country have a multi-front war going for eight years and be losing their manufacturing base? If we got into a good sized war we would be screwed. I am all for getting rid of the two parties, but the alternative parties are just plain nuts. What it boils down to, after years of abuse from both parties, is that the Democrats want to take your money and give it away and the Republicans want to take your money and keep it. Yeah, the Republicans are innocent. Of the Lindberg kidnapping. Maybe.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old 08-23-2011, 05:27 AM
  #8  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,332
Default

Gunplummer:

Before casting your accusations about the Republicans in the last round of robbing, you better look at the following video link. It takes about 4 minutes to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

The Reader's Digest version of this is that Republicans again and again tried to address dangers they perceived in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending programs supported by the federal government -- beginning in 2001, again in 2003, again in 2005 -- and again and again Democrats blocked these efforts. Bush and the Bush administration (Treasury Secretary Snow) tried to take action and to warn Congress for them to take action. Allan Greenspan tried to warn Congress to take action. Legislation was presented but it was shot down by Democrats in the Senate Finance committee. Senator McCain tried to get Congress to take action to reduce exposure to the risks inherent in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Prominent Democrats -- Barney Frank and Charles Shumaker -- took firm stands against any changes to these programs. These programs had been coopted by Democrats to support "sub-prime mortgages" for the underprivelged. The idea was, even poor people -- who did not meet th long standing criteria for being credit worthy, meaning they looked like bad risks to actually pay back the money lent to them -- ought to buy homes.

Guess what, Gunplummer, the recent round of "robbing" as you call it is about 100% about the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, and that is like about 80% Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae problems. Problems that WOULD have been avoided had anyone with half a brain among the liberals had listened to any one of the multiple admonitions to take action that are ennumerated above. But for Democrats and Liberals quixotic untried social engineering programs take priority over practical reality.

And for another thing . . . my recollection of the 1980s financial melt down you refer to is that FDIC insured accounts were protected up to $100,000 of deposits in a single account. If you weren't putting your money in an FDIC insured account it was because you were too friggin greedy. Sure, I heard of folks who got wiped out. They are the ones who put their money in high interest bearing accounts NOT PROTECTED BY FDIC insurance. Guess what, the banks that had FDIC insurance didn't pay as high interest rates. Please tell me anyone who had money in an FDIC protected account who got wiped out. Also provide a reason one would NOT be in an FDIC protected account other than wanting to get higher interest rates. I mean, c'mon! Isn't the individual responsible for their own risks? I knew when I was 20 years old the difference between FDIC protected accounts and non-FDIC protected accounts.

I suppose you are one of these guys who gets an adjustable interest loan for your house and then blames the system when the adjustable interest rate goes up! Heads you win, tails the system is Lucifer? Is that how it works? Note to everyone: if you can't take the risk, don't get in a flexible interest rate mortgage. I have NEVER contemplated getting a flexible interest rate mortgage and NEVER will contemplate that. Likewise, I would never contemplate getting an equity loan to piss the money away on anything. I suppose there are rare circumstances where an equity loan makes sense -- remodeling that pays $1.50 of increased home value for every $1 invested -- but precious few.

You are responsible for yourself. Take care of your own business. Caveat Emptor. If you got taken down in the 1980s, it was your own fault, not the system's fault. Put your money in FDIC insured accounts. This was established in the 1930s to protect small depositors. If you are a giant depositor, different problems, but you aren't exactly bringing your complaint as if you were a $1,00,000+ depositor. Even there, the folks who got skinned were the greedy ones.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 08-23-2011, 05:27 AM
  #9  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,381
Default

i know people who lost their butts when uninsured savings and loans went bust. Also know two guys who lost their rears when the OK City Penn Square bank went bust. Both had deposits of about $600,000 over the FDIC insured limit. Sometimes the fed pays for losses over the insured limit; but in this case they did not. One of those guys sucked up his loss and went on. The other one raged at the federal gov't for years until his health went to crap.
falcon is offline  
Old 08-23-2011, 05:31 AM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 264
Default

hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...s_of_the_1980s


The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken “off-budget.”[citation needed] Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget.[citation needed] It is a political way of using a cash budget instead of the more appropriate accrual budget (for all the budgets in the U.S. government), and a way of disguising total debt.[59] This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993.[47] This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. In other words, Congress borrowed the surpluses from the Social Security system; the Treasury securities held by the S.S. Trust fund are U.S. government "I.O.U.s". Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller.[citation needed] There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.

enefits

The largest component of OASDI is the payment of retirement benefits. Throughout a worker's career, the Social Security Administration keeps track of his or her earnings. The amount of the monthly benefit to which the worker is entitled depends upon that earnings record and upon the age at which the retiree chooses to begin receiving benefits. For the entire history of Social Security, benefits have been paid almost entirely by using revenue from payroll taxes. This is why Social Security is referred to as a pay-as-you-go system. Around 2017, payroll tax revenue is projected to be insufficient to cover Social Security benefits[citation needed] and the system will begin to withdraw money from the Social Security Trust Fund. The existence and economic significance of the Social Security Trust Fund is a subject of considerable dispute because its assets are special Treasury bonds; i.e. the money in the trust fund has been lent back to the federal government to pay for other expenses.
Venator2 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.