If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Interest)   Social Security runs in the red for a second straight year, but no biggy - our government's obligations are 100% backed by government obligations, which are backed by government obligations backed by government obligations   (blogs.the-american-interest.com) divider line 198
    More: Fail, social security, Capitol Hill  
•       •       •

3336 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 10:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 11:58:50 AM  
Just gimme my big screen TV, my iPhone and some weed and I'll figure out this retirement thing later.
 
2012-10-04 11:58:57 AM  
If we don't give the military $2,100,000,000,000.00 more than they ask for, then this is going to turn into a problem.

No no no, that is part of what we get back from loopholes.
 
2012-10-04 11:59:46 AM  
I'm saving leaves up for my security.
 
2012-10-04 12:04:10 PM  
The difference between crime and war is the amount of people participating at once, uniforms, flags and the budget for armaments.

The people who wear the jackboots and carry tasers are keenly aware of that.

That is why when you get a few thousand people stomping around and complaining in unison, they start cracking skulls and burning the constitution.

Money is civil order. Money keeps people from TAKING what they want. Unless you have enough of it already to get away with it. Money is the ne plus ultra of crowd control devices.
 
2012-10-04 12:06:52 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Well then the SS funding shortfall gets pulled from the general fund. Not paying the obligations of the SS trust fund is akin to halting interest payments on the federal debt.

Regardless, the reason there's a funding shortfall now is that unemployment is so high and wages for those lucky enough to have jobs have been stagnant for 30 years. But you keeping harping on mythical problems and mythical solutions involving tax cuts for rich people, submitter - I'm certain one of them will sleep with you sometime this millennium.


Well the current solutions put in place have seemed to work...oh wait.
 
2012-10-04 12:07:33 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Vegan Meat Popsicle: bunner: Ah, ha ha. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

No.

If you weren't so dumb you'd realize there's nothing stopping you from converting your faith-money to some material thing. If you think it's such a bright idea to have precious metals and other resources, why not just go do that?

/ right... because it's actually a stupid idea and you know it.

I dunno... the money I spent on gold has yielded a 275% return.


... and my Money spent on Apple Computer in 2001 has resulted in a 7000% return ... :-D
 
2012-10-04 12:12:38 PM  
When was the cap last raised? And how much inflation has there been since then? (Note to teatards: We have inflation under Republican and well as Democratic presidents.)
 
2012-10-04 12:13:33 PM  

jaybeezey: Well the current solutions put in place have seemed to work...oh wait.


We've had an obstructionist senate and congress for over 8 years now.

How much work can get done when they're hopelessly deadlocked on how to regulate what people do in their farking bedroom?
 
2012-10-04 12:15:33 PM  

iheartscotch: I know you guys really don't like bush; but I like his idea for individual accounts; where you put your money and you have control over it after you are retired. If you have to pay into that account over a lifetime; you'd be set. And the government could still use that money for it's own purposes; as long as they paid 3% interest, and they guaranteed the account for the entire amount of money inside.

/ but something that simple and sane will never happen


I remember when he said that and I agreed back then and people flipped out because Bush said it.
 
2012-10-04 12:15:45 PM  

pciszek: When was the cap last raised? And how much inflation has there been since then? (Note to teatards: We have inflation under Republican and well as Democratic presidents.)


Not only that, but the entire basis for owning a home and opening a savings account in the last 100 years has been based on the fact that continued inflation is a GOOD thing. Not too much, and not too little, but 3-4% a year is what we've figured.
 
2012-10-04 12:16:44 PM  

dragonchild: It's planned to operate in the red. It's why they raised taxes on the Boomers in the first place; they knew this was gonna happen decades in advance.


Exactly. The issue was fixed in the 80's. But really, let's all invest in the stock market and real estate instead, those are safe and always go up.
 
2012-10-04 12:19:18 PM  

HeadLever: LemSkroob: Thanks Boomers, for not funding your own retirement.

They paid into the system and have accumulated about 2.5 Trillion into the 'Trust Fund'. The boomers did thier part. It was the goverment that spent all of the money and left the Trust Fund as a stack of IOUs.


So much this.....this needs to be shouted from the mountaintops!!!
 
2012-10-04 12:20:04 PM  

Lone Stranger: I'm saving leaves up for my security.


I got a rock.
 
2012-10-04 12:20:49 PM  
When Bush wanted to cut contributions by 2% it was a horrible idea that would starve old people. When Obama actually cut contributions by 2% it was good for the economy.


/facepalmpicard.jpg
 
2012-10-04 12:21:53 PM  

Ass Exploder: Does anyone seriously not understand that the federal government PRINTS MONEY and CANNOT POSSIBLY RUN OUT OF MONEY?

That there is not a limited supply of money in the world, it is printed and created out of nothing by the government?


The fed creates money, not the government. President Kennedy tried printing money and look where that got him.
 
2012-10-04 12:22:25 PM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Don't worry. Once 0bummer is out of office, we'll cut taxes and balance the budget then there will be higher employment, higher wages, which mean Social Security will be saved.


Saved by Dinosaur Jeebus, who also can't count or work a wallet.
 
2012-10-04 12:22:46 PM  

Ass Exploder: Does anyone seriously not understand that the federal government PRINTS MONEY and CANNOT POSSIBLY RUN OUT OF MONEY?

That there is not a limited supply of money in the world, it is printed and created out of nothing by the government?


There is nothing federal about the federal reserve that prints our money. It's a private company that prints and controls the US dollar. They basically sell the cash to the US government. Almost 75% of our national debt is owed to these robbers. The creation of the central bank known as the federal reserve has done nothing, but damage the value of the dollar and send us into ever spiraling debt. JFK tried to shut it down and have the government print the money themselves like how it use to be, but look what happened to him.
 
2012-10-04 12:24:01 PM  

Alonjar: iheartscotch: I know you guys really don't like bush; but I like his idea for individual accounts; where you put your money and you have control over it after you are retired. If you have to pay into that account over a lifetime; you'd be set. And the government could still use that money for it's own purposes; as long as they paid 3% interest, and they guaranteed the account for the entire amount of money inside.

/ but something that simple and sane will never happen

The problem is that you are relying on private equity investments by doing this. Imagine if you planned to retire in 2008... just when your investments lost 70% of their value.


This idea is almost on target. This is how I think it should work (lots of minor details to work out of course, exact percentages to be determined, but this gets the general idea across)...

The government should collect ~7% of all reported wages and ~3% of adjusted gross income (AGI) from everyone. All of the 7% and 1/6th of the 3% (0.5% of your taxable income) goes into an account with a balance you can actually check that is specific to you personally, but over which you have no direct control. Everyone gets paid the same amount of interest on this money each year. This money can not be used in any way by the government, nor can it be borrowed against by the government or yourself. It is not considered a personal or federal asset in any way. When you retire the government will distribute this money to you based on the total amount in the account and the kinds of actuarial tables they use now to estimate how long people will live and need to be paid. However, a flat amount per individual first goes to medical insurance. Also there would be a minimum amount people would get paid to ensure survival if they never worked enough to have a decent account balance. If you have money left over when you pass it is added first to your survivor (Widow typically). If you have no survivor it is added to the general fund....

The remaining 5/6ths of the 3% is put into a general fund that is invested in the same way. This fund is used for disability, survivor, and shortfalls in the retirement system. Shortfalls in the retirement system are basically when someone lives longer than expected and empties their account. They keep getting paid at their set rate anyway. Also it is for people with insufficient/no retirement savings in their main account as mentioned earlier.

What is great about a system like this is that really wealthy people often have little or no wages as they have all investment income. So they pay little or nothing into social security at all. That is a MASSIVE flaw in the current system. For instance, Mitt Romney's AGI was about 14 million last year I think. So he would pay 420,000 into the system, of which 70k would go towards his retirement and 350k would go to general fund. Right now, even if he was paid wages last year, he probably isn't putting more than 50k into the system. So this would help resolve this issue, while not being entirely unfair to these individuals, as even people with an AGI of 40k would also be putting in their 3%, and even more of their overall income because all their income is wages, not just some of it.

And, going back to the beginning a little.... The way annual interest would be determined on both funds is that the money would first be pooled. Then most of it would go into set kinds of "safe" almost entirely non-governmental investments... Probably about 70%, managed internally. The remaining 30% would be outsourced to various brokerage firms and banks for very small overall percentage fees. Top performers would get more the following year, and low-performers would get less. Thus providing incentive to get good returns. But the "Safe" investments would insure always positive performance, even in bad years.
 
2012-10-04 12:27:18 PM  

Pair-o-Dice: Lone Stranger: I'm saving leaves up for my security.

I got a rock.


i-love-cartoons.us
 
2012-10-04 12:34:43 PM  

SuperT: RumsfeldsReplacement: Don't worry. Once 0bummer is out of office, we'll cut taxes and balance the budget then there will be higher employment, higher wages, which mean Social Security will be saved.

He won't lower taxes! he's gonna lower rates! those are totes different words!


Congratulations, you've just proven yourself to be smarter than oBongo!
 
2012-10-04 12:34:48 PM  

MrPenny: gweilo8888:

Printing more money doesn't fix anything.

Hence, taxes to burn off the extra money.

Where Money Comes From.


I hope you don't think I'm going to watch that link. I'd rather dig my eyes and ears out with a rusty spork than listen to another of those godawful automatically-generated TTS videos for even one second.

And again, please tell me you're not dumb enough to think money ceases to exist when you pay it as taxes.
 
2012-10-04 12:37:47 PM  

AcneVulgaris: I dunno... the money I spent on gold has yielded a 275% return.


That's an investment you turned around purely on paper, you didn't buy a bunch of gold bars and drums of oil and stick them in a vault somewhere hoping to trade them for chickens because you thought your cash wasn't actually worth anything.

Investing in resources on the belief they'll rise in inherent value and treating them as tradeable assets are two different things. One makes sense, one is the fantasy realm of dumb people who think Ron Paul isn't totally nuts.

hasty ambush: [stuff]


All that sounds good enough in theory, but it still mostly eliminates the blanket guarantee we have now. I don't think Romney or anybody else would ever get it passed.
 
2012-10-04 12:38:24 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: iheartscotch: I know you guys really don't like bush; but I like his idea for individual accounts; where you put your money and you have control over it after you are retired. If you have to pay into that account over a lifetime; you'd be set. And the government could still use that money for it's own purposes; as long as they paid 3% interest, and they guaranteed the account for the entire amount of money inside.

/ but something that simple and sane will never happen

I remember when he said that and I agreed back then and people flipped out because Bush said it.


That; and I think old people thought it would effect them; when it obviously wouldn't. I think that was the beginning of the end; just because you don't like a president doesn't mean that they can't have a good idea.

Privatization isn't always bad; and I like the idea of having a bank account that you controlled that you had been putting money into for your entire life that politicians couldn't spend without strings attatched.

/ For all of his bumbling appearance; I liked W, and you have to remember who he was running against. Al gore would have written a very stern letter to the Taliban after 9/11 and he wouldn't have been able to invent global warming. John Kerry was the elitiest of elites; he has less humanity than Romney, and that is saying something.

// and before someone gets butt hurt; they both lost to bush. Say what you want; but they both lost to a guy that most libs on fark say had the intelligence of a chimp.
 
ows
2012-10-04 12:41:21 PM  
maybe if we could swing an interest only deal, and then take out a huge equity loan?
 
2012-10-04 12:43:16 PM  

gweilo8888: And again, please tell me you're not dumb enough to think money ceases to exist when you pay it as taxes.


When you consider that money is only good for remaining liquid and facilitating commerce and the fact that the government we pay it to is fourteen trillion in hock, it sort of does. : )
 
2012-10-04 12:48:04 PM  

SDRR: sodomizer: Social spending is now over half of our budget, and is the one area we've added and kept enlarging since the 1950s.

Does anyone actually think we'll ever be able to pay this off? I doubt it.

We're heading for default, at which point our currency will be worth a lot less, if not worthless.

So stock up on shotguns, beer, and blow while you can!


You forgot the future universal currency: "Toilet Paper".
 
2012-10-04 12:53:28 PM  

bunner: gweilo8888: And again, please tell me you're not dumb enough to think money ceases to exist when you pay it as taxes.

When you consider that money is only good for remaining liquid and facilitating commerce and the fact that the government we pay it to is fourteen sixteen trillion in hock, it sort of does. : )


/I see you have not consulted the debt clock for a few days :)
 
2012-10-04 12:54:44 PM  

Deep Contact: Ass Exploder: Does anyone seriously not understand that the federal government PRINTS MONEY and CANNOT POSSIBLY RUN OUT OF MONEY?

That there is not a limited supply of money in the world, it is printed and created out of nothing by the government?

The fed creates money, not the government. President Kennedy tried printing money and look where that got him.


Shot?
 
2012-10-04 12:54:51 PM  

burning_bridge: Well if your boy Bush hadn't raided the fund to hand out OUR money to his rich asshole friends we wouldn't need to worry about this crap now, would we???

Emphasis on OUR money there because it most definitely is. In case you weren't aware SS has a cap on how much it takes out from your wages, ie it's only based on the first $100k or so of your income. So the lion share of it is paid by the average American. And it was from this that we had a surplus and from that surplus we got the biggest hand-out in history to a group of people who paid relatively little into it. 

THERE'S YOUR DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, TEATARDS.


I don't understand why there is an income cap on SS tax $110,000. The cap should be at least at $174,000, the salary of congress.
 
2012-10-04 12:56:14 PM  

Beerguy: HeadLever: LemSkroob: Thanks Boomers, for not funding your own retirement.

They paid into the system and have accumulated about 2.5 Trillion into the 'Trust Fund'. The boomers did thier part. It was the goverment that spent all of the money and left the Trust Fund as a stack of IOUs.

So much this.....this needs to be shouted from the mountaintops!!!


That's why it's a goddamned Ponzi scheme. The Government HAS to spend it all by law! Read up on Social Security. They can't leave it in a stock pile somewhere... whatever surplus there is at the end of the fiscal year has to be spent on something else. It's the only work around available because it's unconstitutional to begin with (Government running as a business), but they wanted to implement it.

Wiki on SS Trust Fund

Other interesting reading can be had by looking up how Galveston, TX folks OPTED-OUT of Social Security (before the Gubmin's changed the law so no one else could do that) for a Privatized system.. THAT IS STILL WORKING
NY Times article about Galveston's Privatized SS Alternative
 
2012-10-04 01:00:53 PM  
Gosh, it's almost like the people who've been running things for decades have been wasting our time arguing about stupid shiat that doesn't matter instead of fixing actual problems.
 
2012-10-04 01:01:44 PM  
Reminds me of an economist joke from Poland:

Back during the Solidarity days,a man goes into the Bank of Gdansk to make a deposit. Since he has never kept money in a bank before, he is a little nervous.

"What happens if the Bank of Gdansk should fail?" he asks.

"Well, in that case your money would be insured by the Bank of Warsaw."

"But, what if the Bank of Warsaw fails?"

"Well, there'd be no problem, because the Bank of Warsaw is insured by the National Bank of Poland."

"And if the National Bank of Poland fails?"

"Then your money would be insured by the Bank of Moscow."

"And what if the Bank of Moscow fails?"

"Then your money would be insured by the Great Bank of the Soviet Union."

"And if that bank fails?"

"Well, in that case, you'd lose all your money. But, wouldn't it be worth it?"
 
2012-10-04 01:03:59 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: When Bush wanted to cut contributions by 2% it was a horrible idea that would starve old people. When Obama actually cut contributions by 2% it was good for the economy.


/facepalmpicard.jpg


Some people would be embarrassed by being constantly wrong. But not you, Mr. Real American Hero!

/PONZI SCHEME! HERPADERPA!
 
2012-10-04 01:07:54 PM  
Approves:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-04 01:09:56 PM  

gweilo8888: MrPenny: gweilo8888:

And again, please tell me you're not dumb enough to think money ceases to exist when you pay it as taxes.


Money ceases to exist all the time.

Didn't you see that episode of B.J. and the Bear?
 
2012-10-04 01:17:09 PM  

burning_bridge: Well if your boy Bush hadn't raided the fund to hand out OUR money to his rich asshole friends we wouldn't need to worry about this crap now, would we???

Emphasis on OUR money there because it most definitely is. In case you weren't aware SS has a cap on how much it takes out from your wages, ie it's only based on the first $100k or so of your income. So the lion share of it is paid by the average American. And it was from this that we had a surplus and from that surplus we got the biggest hand-out in history to a group of people who paid relatively little into it. 

THERE'S YOUR DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, TEATARDS.


Your retardism, it is full.
 
2012-10-04 01:19:48 PM  
Has anyone pointed out that we've temporarily cut the payroll tax that pays for Social Security the last couple years? You'd think that that might be having some sort of effect.
 
2012-10-04 01:40:26 PM  

HeadLever: thurstonxhowell: Fine, invest it in something, then.

Invest it where? Go on. I would like to know.


investment implies risk. but what it's invested in now (special US treasury bonds) are the safest investment in the world.

plus, it's $2,700,000,000,000. not a lot of markets out there that could handle $2.7T.
 
2012-10-04 01:41:21 PM  

Ass Exploder: Does anyone seriously not understand that the federal government PRINTS MONEY and CANNOT POSSIBLY RUN OUT OF MONEY?

That there is not a limited supply of money in the world, it is printed and created out of nothing by the government?


Not sure if this is brilliant sarcasm.

Can a guy named Ass Exploder really come up with such brilliant sarcasm?
 
2012-10-04 01:42:14 PM  

seanpg71: Has anyone pointed out that we've temporarily cut the payroll tax that pays for Social Security the last couple years? You'd think that that might be having some sort of effect.


I did but I was told I was wrong by some Obamapoligist. So who really knows, right?
 
2012-10-04 01:45:35 PM  

JackieRabbit: These taxes are invested by the SS Trust.


By which you mean "given to Congress to spend on whatever it wants." You should spell that part out.
 
2012-10-04 01:49:16 PM  

Pantubo: Ass Exploder: Does anyone seriously not understand that the federal government PRINTS MONEY and CANNOT POSSIBLY RUN OUT OF MONEY?

That there is not a limited supply of money in the world, it is printed and created out of nothing by the government?

Not sure if this is brilliant sarcasm.

Can a guy named Ass Exploder really come up with such brilliant sarcasm?


I'm thinking yes, sarcasm. I have to believe that he's got at least an elementary level education in economics. Plus, the caps kinda gives it away...I think.

But maybe I'm just being optimistic.
 
2012-10-04 01:50:26 PM  

dragonchild: SS is solvent as-is for another 40 years or so,


If by "solvent" you mean "bankrupt," you are entirely correct.

It went bankrupt last year, in fact.

Of course, when the Feds were swiping all the SS money over the last few decades, they did leave notes saying that they know exactly how much they swiped, and that someone will have to pay it back somehow. So your argument has that going for it.
 
2012-10-04 01:52:45 PM  
Why oh why didn't we listen to the inventor of the Internet?

/LOCKBOX!
//I'm being sarcastic, but on which side of the fence?
 
2012-10-04 01:58:07 PM  
cbswashington.files.wordpress.com
"Social security is good for the next 30 years"

wut?
 
2012-10-04 02:06:37 PM  
Subby is 30 years late with this discovery.

Acutaries have known about it for decades. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill worked out a solution in the early 80s, which is on track. There is a $2 trillion surplus to cover the negative years.
 
2012-10-04 02:10:23 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: AcneVulgaris: I dunno... the money I spent on gold has yielded a 275% return.

That's an investment you turned around purely on paper, you didn't buy a bunch of gold bars and drums of oil and stick them in a vault somewhere hoping to trade them for chickens because you thought your cash wasn't actually worth anything.


I don't know what drums of oil has to do with anything, but my krugerrands are in a safe deposit box at the bank. The place I bought them from a few years back was happy to give me cash for a few of them, when I wanted to buy a car.

I bought the gold simply because I thought I could sell it for more later. Surprise surprise, I could.

But don't let that stop you wanking off about armageddon fantasies.
 
2012-10-04 02:12:44 PM  

cleek: investment implies risk. but what it's invested in now (special US treasury bonds) are the safest investment in the world.


You realize that US Treasuries are actually Governmental IOUs, correct? To the government, these are liabilties, not assets.
 
2012-10-04 02:18:02 PM  

Pantubo: It went bankrupt last year, in fact.


[citation needed]*

*And by "citation" I mean the Social Security Trust Fund's Chapter 11 papers
 
2012-10-04 02:19:29 PM  

Pantubo: It went bankrupt last year, in fact.


Not really bankrupt. It is now just redeeming the treasuries that are in the 'lock box'. As a result, the general fund has to provide these funds. We are basically swapping governmenal debt for public debt. This process has nothing to do with bankruptcy.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report