# Second year Without Increase In Social Security



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

WASHINGTON â As if voters don't have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.

It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.

"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

"It's not the congressional Democrats' fault, but that's the way politics works," Biggs said. "A lot of people will feel hostile about it."

The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.

The projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September. The timing couldn't be worse for Democrats as they approach an election in which they are in danger of losing their House majority, and possibly their Senate majority as well.

This past Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6 percent.

Democrats have been working hard to make Social Security an election-year issue, running political ads and holding press conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the national retirement program.

This week's announcement about Social Security benefits raises more immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home values still haven't recovered from the financial collapse: Many haven't had a raise since January 2009, and they won't be getting one until at least January 2012.


More here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101010/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_no_cola

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

Added to this will be the declining nature of Medicare Benefits along with increasing premiums of the same, the skyrocketing cost of day to day living...look like the democrats have yet another nail in their coffin, whether it really is the dems fault or, as thisarticle suggests, it isn't. People love to hold the current party responsible for failure.


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

What is it you are trying to say here, the the government should increase its welfare payments? After all, that's what social security really is, a form of welfare!

Forget about saying that you've paid into the system so you are entitled to a payment. Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in. You simply can not contain out of control spending by saying things like payments have to be increased.

Frankly, I expect the whole social security system to crash and burn by the time I am ready to collect, so if those people that didn't save for the future don't get a cost of living increase, I couldn't care less!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Wow, Michael, you're all heart.

Stop and think, people end up dependant on Social Security for a lot of reasons, it doesn't mean they never saved their money or were irresponsible.


----------



## jefferson (Nov 11, 2004)

Thanks to Obama care, we are dieing here. Medical costs up by thousands this year and our government says no inflation. I can't even begin to say (here on a family board) what I think of our government today.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

It's being noticed by all my relatives 70+.......


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

According to MIL, everytime SS increases so does her costs and taxes. So it doesn't really matter to her.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

SS is NOT welfare. SS is forced retirement payments. As in the gov forces you to pay into this so you can use it when you retire. Just like the HCB, they are forcing us to use their investment plan.

Time to let us decide for ourselves where our money needs to go.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I don't like Social Security and believe it should be phased out. I DON'T think those that are already dependent on it, because Uncle Sam told them a long time ago they could rely on it, should be made to suffer and lose it. I don't agree with the government NOT giving a cost of living increase either.


----------



## Topaz Farm (Jan 27, 2005)

Think Congress will give themselves a raise?


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

Topaz Farm said:


> Think Congress will give themselves a raise?


You betta they will! In a heartbeat. They're prolly already in the nonexistent budget.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Michael Kawalek said:


> What is it you are trying to say here, the the government should increase its welfare payments? After all, that's what social security really is, a form of welfare!
> 
> Forget about saying that you've paid into the system so you are entitled to a payment. Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in. You simply can not contain out of control spending by saying things like payments have to be increased.
> 
> Frankly, I expect the whole social security system to crash and burn by the time I am ready to collect, so if those people that didn't save for the future don't get a cost of living increase, I couldn't care less!


Nothing like kicking somebody when they're down.....or old. 

So what, should seniors all go back to work so they can afford to live?


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Eventually we (or a future generation) will see the welfare/warfare state end. It's unsustainable.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> So what, should seniors all go back to work so they can afford to live?


Actually retiring at 65 and never working again (unless you can't) is an unBiblical concept.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I DON'T think those that are already dependent on it, because Uncle Sam told them a long time ago they could rely on it


Funny; I have a booklet called "Plain Talk by Prudential on the New Social Security Law" which was disseminated in 1954. The booklet is written in a question-and-answer format. The final pages ask:



> 1. Will my Social Security benefits provide us with an adequate retirement income?
> 2. If I'm not here, will the benefits be sufficient to enable my wife to stay at home when my children need her most?
> 
> THE ANSWER TO BOTH THESE QUESTIONS, OF COURSE, IS NO! Social Security benefits provide a good base income, and the benefits over the years may be worth thousands of dollars to you or your family. But, the payments are hardly enough to provide a liveable income -- Social Security benefits alone were never intended to do so.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2010)

Michael Kawalek said:


> Forget about saying that you've paid into the system so you are entitled to a payment. Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in.


So, if you pay into a 401k, and your employer matches your contribution, then your returns average 8% annually, compounded, you don't believe thats more than you paid in. if it *IS* more than you paid in, then you clearly* DO* "actually get more out of the system then you paid in."


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The problem is how government skews the numbers to show there is no inflation. SS recipients will get no raise because government is making sure they don't. Most oldsters don't buy things like they did when they were young. Food, utilities, some clothes, and a car now and then is about it. Anyone who buys groceries knows food prices are skyrocketing and that is why government excludes food prices when figuring inflation. They also exclude fuel prices. Ipods and other electronic junk may get cheaper but that doesn't affect many oldsters. Our state sales taxes just went up. That is inflation too. Our economy is dying and the oldsters will die right along with everyone else.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Win07_351 said:


> Actually retiring at 65 and never working again (unless you can't) is an unBiblical concept.


That may be, but is it fair to the 70 and 80 year olds who've been retired for a number of years to suddenly demand they go back to work? How many would be physically able? How many would even be able to find work? I mean, Walmart can only use so many door-greeters. 

It might be a necessity for future generations, but to say it of those already out of the work force is, IMO, cold-hearted.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

well at least there still is SSI if the republicans and Tea party get their way they will put an end to it any way


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> That may be, but is it fair to the 70 and 80 year olds who've been retired for a number of years to suddenly demand they go back to work? How many would be physically able? How many would even be able to find work? I mean, Walmart can only use so many door-greeters.
> 
> It might be a necessity for future generations, but to say it of those already out of the work force is, IMO, cold-hearted.


Government could just force employers to offer oldsters our jobs back we had when we retired. Kick our replacements to the curb and see which group hollers the loudest.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

PyroDon said:


> well at least there still is SSI if the republicans and Tea party get their way they will put an end to it any way


It's my understanding the Tea party candidates, at least the ones I've heard talk about it, want to phase it out, not just stop it all together.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Topaz Farm said:


> Think Congress will give themselves a raise?


I think they already did . Also since implimentation of the SS COA formulary in the 1970s there is a Congressional resolution clause at their disposal if the usual formulary fails to take aspects affecting seniors into its auto calculations.

It will be intersting to see if Congress and Obama try to implement it before the election as a last ditch senior vote buy tactic. Even if they resolution a SS increase, seniors I know have no intention of giving the dems any support.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> That may be, but is it fair to the 70 and 80 year olds who've been retired for a number of years to suddenly demand they go back to work? How many would be physically able? How many would even be able to find work? I mean, Walmart can only use so many door-greeters.
> 
> It might be a necessity for future generations, but to say it of those already out of the work force is, IMO, cold-hearted.


I'm not trying to be contentious, but I think you're missing the real point of the post. Automatically retiring at 65 or another age to not work again (unless you were unable) would have still been an unBiblical concept long before any Social security system was in place.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> It's my understanding the Tea party candidates, at least the ones I've heard talk about it, want to phase it out, not just stop it all together.


You are correct. NO ONE is saying stop the SS checks for those now getting them. We've known this was coming for years. SS will be gradually cut. Most state pension funds are in the same condition and they are beginning to be cut also. It just is not sustainable to have massive increases in retirees in today's economic conditions. Those economic conditions will not improve noticeably for many years, if ever.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in."

Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it is OFTEN done. Plenty of people have been paying money into SS for decades and then die shortly after retiring without collecting much(if anything) of what they paid in.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Those of you against Social security....will you save enough to live on when you can no longer work? What about those that dont have farms, and gardens, and self reliant lives? That dont have 100 k jobs? My DH worked his butt off all his life, but raising 3 kids and getting laid off every winter, didn't give us the where with all to save much. He DID pay into SS and that and the 401 k might let us live. Hes 71 but still working 3 days a week, because the SS isn't enough to live comfortably on. There are many low income people, and now unemployed olders that really cannot survive without it...get the hell off your high horses....


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> Those of you against Social security....will you save enough to live on when you can no longer work? What about those that dont have farms, and gardens, and self reliant lives? That dont have 100 k jobs? My DH worked his butt off all his life, but raising 3 kids and getting laid off every winter, didn't give us the where with all to save much. He DID pay into SS and that and the 401 k might let us live. Hes 71 but still working 3 days a week, because the SS isn't enough to live comfortably on. There are many low income people, and now unemployed olders that really cannot survive without it...get the hell off your high horses....


 Very well said...

SS works and there is no reason it can't continue to work.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

PyroDon said:


> well at least there still is SSI if the republicans and Tea party get their way they will put an end to it any way


The Republican party has always hated the SSA, and the teahadists now ruling the Republican party hate the SSA more than the average Republican; they seem to thnik the sooner they can throw widows, orphans, the elderly, and the handicapped into the streets, the sooner America will become "free". Oddly though, many widows, elderly, and handicapped will rush out this November and vote for a Republican because a mean ol' Democrat didn't give them a raise on their SS check,,,, a check the Republicans are plotting to take from them entirely.


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

Poor decisions in life have a way of catching up with you.

I know several people on SS that struggle every month to make ends meet.

I know many others that get along fine. 
Some common attributes among them seem to be:

They live in the homes they paid for years ago.
They raised their kids to be self sufficient adults.
They have close family ties.
They spend much of their time helping someone else.
They try very hard not to burden others.
Most have been married to the same person their entire life.

It also seems that widowed woman get along much better than widowed men.
And that widowed men seem less likely to stay single after their wife passes.

Nothing scientific about the above list and I have no numbers to back any of it up, just my personal observations from working with the community.

I donât see how we can just end SS, but I think something has to happen. I feel for those that have to make ends meet without a cost increase, we are seeing more and more calls for our food pantry from the elderly these days. 

Seems I once read that the average person on SS drew out everything they had paid in within just the first few years? That is where inflation really makes the system unsustainable the way it stands today. Some of the folks on SS today spent much of their working careers at just a few dollars an hour, many not even that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

suzfromWi said:


> Those of you against Social security....will you save enough to live on when you can no longer work? What about those that dont have farms, and gardens, and self reliant lives? That dont have 100 k jobs? My DH worked his butt off all his life, but raising 3 kids and getting laid off every winter, didn't give us the where with all to save much. He DID pay into SS and that and the 401 k might let us live. Hes 71 but still working 3 days a week, because the SS isn't enough to live comfortably on. There are many low income people, and now unemployed olders that really cannot survive without it...get the hell off your high horses....


Suz, you are looking at it from a fairly recent position. We have come to expect to be able to live a lifestyle of our choosing until the day we die. but without producing anything to provide that lifestyle. We see it as a right. We have no such right. We only have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. Not many years ago many old people ended up living with their kids when they could no longer work. Society was better off for it. Think about the costs of maintaining a home compared to taking some of your retirement savings and building a new bedroom and bath on one of your kid's homes. You could then contribute time to the family unit by helping out around the house, doing some of the family shopping, babysitting, etc. Without the expense of keeping a separate home going, your retirement income would go much farther.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

[[[[[ they live in the homes they paid for years ago.
They raised their kids to be self sufficient adults.
They have close family ties.
They spend much of their time helping someone else.
They try very hard not to burden others.
Most have been married to the same person their entire life.]]
The above is true of us. We still expect to NOT have to live with our children. Not have to go on foodstamps, and not need help with our electric and heating bills....As I said, we should be able to be okay once he quits working. Right now hes hoping to recoup the losses on his 401K...Good luck with that! Kids today are probably paying in to a system that will not be there for them. Yet they have trouble saving because everything is so costly. My adult married daughters, [ that both work] Are not depending on SS to see them into their twilight years. They know it wont be there...With them working AND their husbands working, they are hoping to save enough and invest enough to get THEM through. Who knows what will happen to that dream with the way things are now?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Win07_351 said:


> Actually retiring at 65 and never working again (unless you can't) is an *unBiblical* concept.


So what if it is?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> So what if it is?


In the Middle east, there are religious folk who want to force the populous to live under "the law" as per the Koran, in America there are religious folk who want to force the populous to live under "the law" as per the Bible. The real problem, beyond the theocrats wanting Americans to be subject to "the Bible" is that there are so many versions of the Bible (A.K.A. 'The Word of God') that no two people can agree on what the Bible actually says.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Haggis said:


> In the Middle east, there are religious folk who want to force the populous to live under "the law" as per the Koran, in America there are religious folk who want to force the populous to live under "the law" as per the Bible. The real problem, beyond the theocrats wanting Americans to be subject to "the Bible" is that there are so many versions of the Bible (A.K.A. 'The Word of God') that no two people can agree on what the Bible actually says.


Frankly, I dont see what the BIble has to do with retiring at all....Of course it was written by men...
I think a person should work as long as they wish too, and as long as they are able. Too many folks die right after retiring...I havent slowed down one bit and dont want too....


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

suzfromWi said:


> Frankly, I dont see what the BIble has to do with retiring at all....Of course it was written by men...
> I think a person should work as long as they wish too, and as long as they are able. Too many folks die right after retiring...I havent slowed down one bit and dont want too....


Aye, the Bible has nothing to do with retiring, but if one were to hunt for a Biblical example, the character "Jesus" from the Bible was said to be a carpenter, though there be no mention of him actually so much a hitting a tap at anything in the three or so recorded years of his life, and then too, he was generally followed closely by a dozen unemployed or mostly unemployed n'er-do-wells, and sometimes followed by thousands of folk looking for a handout of some sort. Not much of an example of hard work that lot.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok I didn't have a 401K plan had Pension plan which I counted on for my Retirment.Bad thing is now I'm unable to work I find I can't count on Pension or SSI so what some say is I should just go die somewhere we don't give a crap.

big rockpile


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Haggis said:


> The Republican party has always hated the SSA, and the teahadists now ruling the Republican party hate the SSA more than the average Republican; they seem to thnik the sooner they can throw widows, orphans, the elderly, and the handicapped into the streets, the sooner America will become "free". Oddly though, many widows, elderly, and handicapped will rush out this November and vote for a Republican because a mean ol' Democrat didn't give them a raise on their SS check,,,, a check the Republicans are plotting to take from them entirely.


When have the republicans taken social security away? They have never even tried. the only ones who made sure that recipients got a decrease in their benefits are the democrats in this administration.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

This is not a political issue. SS _is_ unsustainable and should be phased out..slowly though. Purposely holding inflation down just until this decision is made just to affect cola is deceitful, dishonest and just plain horrible. The seniors will suffer greatly this fall when the recent extreme rise in commodities catches up and creates really high inflation in both food and energy.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

SS is going broke because the politicos on both sides of the aisle keep using the money for other things.

HOw often have those coffers been raided in the last 30 years?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2010)

Which is a good argument for a self directed program. For instance, if it was your retirement at stake, you probably wouldn't take your own money and loan it to a bunch of banks that had screwed up their business model, while lining their own pockets, would you? would you take out your retirement funds and sink it into a war? or studying the mating habits of humpback owls? Not likely.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

gideonprime said:


> SS is going broke because the politicos on both sides of the aisle keep using the money for other things.
> 
> HOw often have those coffers been raided in the last 30 years?


That is partially true.. but for the first time..we are paying out more than we are collecting....


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Aintlifegrand said:


> This is not a political issue. SS _is_ unsustainable and should be phased out..slowly though. Purposely holding inflation down just until this decision is made just to affect cola is deceitful, dishonest and just plain horrible. The seniors will suffer greatly this fall when the recent *extreme rise in commodities *catches up and creates really high inflation in both food and energy.


Speaking of the recent rise in commodities....Corn on the market has now been lock limit up twice in the past few days becasue it is trading too high too fast..do we even eat anything that doesn't involve corn either directly or indirectly these days?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Aintlifegrand said:


> That is partially true.. but for the first time..we are paying out more than we are collecting....


That's why we need death panels!

JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

You make a good point. Which is why we need imigrants cause withour birth rate in the shape it's in we are going to be hard pressed to get more workers paying in. Without imigrants we would start to shrink as a nation. Unless that trend has reversed which I don;t think it has.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

So what's with the cost of living formula? I don't think anyone denies that the cost of living has been rising steadily, so what's lacking in the Social Security COLA formula?


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Anyone winding up after an entire lifetime, depending on SS to take care of them has either had an incredibly bad run of luck, or an irresponsible life that didn't prepare for the future. You're either an "Ant" or a "Grasshopper"... you prepare or you don't. As usual, the Grasshoppers depend on the Ant's to take care of them. SS is like an animal that's being circled by a pride of lions... it gets nervous, and then squeals when the pride starts making it's attacks. SS is being bitten by the "pride" as in economic reality.

SS is a Ponzi scheme. If it were private, the people in charge would be in prison. If you believe in Ponzi scams, great... please send me a hundred dollars a week, for an investment plan I have going... for each 'member' you get to join, I'll give you a 10% commission, and your friend will get 10% of their friends, and you'll get 5%, etc. Get in early, and you get rich... get in late, you get bumpkus. Just like SS... first recipients got 100x what they put in, later recipients (20 year olds) will get the bumpkus. At some point, when the Ants are asked to pay 50%, 60%, 70% and on up, to pay for the welfare SS program, people will squeal. The SS scam will eventually fall apart. Anyone in their 20's that believes SS is real and will be there is delusional. I know quite a few delusionals... sad sad sad... but, then, the same folks are always up for a little "too good to be true" ponzi scheme. They get burnt over and over, and then over again.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Haggis said:


> Aye, the Bible has nothing to do with retiring, but if one were to hunt for a Biblical example, the character "Jesus" from the Bible was said to be a carpenter, though there be no mention of him actually so much a hitting a tap at anything in the three or so recorded years of his life, and then too, he was generally followed closely by a dozen unemployed or mostly unemployed n'er-do-wells, and sometimes followed by thousands of folk looking for a handout of some sort. Not much of an example of hard work that lot.


Your Biblical knowledge is lacking. Many of the Apostles were fishermen, Luke was a medical doctor, Paul was a tent maker and did work while traveling around. He also said a man who will not work should not eat. Sounds like he wouldn't like food stamps to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

texican said:


> SS is a Ponzi scheme. If it were private, the people in charge would be in prison.


It's not a Ponzi scheme at all. You pay premiums throughout your working life, then collect benefits after retirement. That is totally unlike a Ponzi scheme. It resembles private annuity funds, which are completely legal and sound investments.

It's true that if Social Security were a private insurance plan that the administrators would be in prison. The difference here is that congress has not declared bankruptcy and we have every reason to believe that they will make good on the debt.

Congress has decades to pay it back. Let's see what they do.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not a Ponzi scheme at all. You pay premiums throughout your working life, then collect benefits after retirement. That is totally unlike a Ponzi scheme. It resembles private annuity funds, which are completely legal and sound investments.
> 
> It's true that if Social Security were a private insurance plan that the administrators would be in prison. The difference here is that congress has not declared bankruptcy and we have every reason to believe that they will make good on the debt.
> 
> Congress has decades to pay it back. Let's see what they do.


It is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme. At least a Ponzi scheme PROMISES to pay you back. There is no such promise in the SS law. Government is not required by law to return a dime of your SS taxes to you.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> That's why we need death panels!
> 
> JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> You make a good point. Which is why we need imigrants cause withour birth rate in the shape it's in we are going to be hard pressed to get more workers paying in. Without imigrants we would start to shrink as a nation. Unless that trend has reversed which I don;t think it has.


Where are more immigrants going to work to pay in those SS taxes? It isn't like we have jobs begging for people to fill them. Besides, low paying jobs will not bail out SS. With low paying jobs, many people qualify for food stamps and other government programs funded by taxpayers. In the end, they consume more tax dollars than they contribute to the system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> It is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme. At least a Ponzi scheme PROMISES to pay you back. There is no such promise in the SS law. Government is not required by law to return a dime of your SS taxes to you.


No legal requirement, but they don't call it the third pillar of politics for nothing. There will always be a political price to pay for breaking a Social Security promise.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No legal requirement, but they don't call it the third pillar of politics for nothing. There will always be a political price to pay for breaking a Social Security promise.


So what? Maybe the party that does it loses control of congress for a cycle or two, but the other party would do something stupid sooner or later and the SS matter would be forgotten by then. People used that argument when Clinton started taxing SS benefits too, but no one cares about it now.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> So what if it is?


Well, because it explains quite a bit of part/all of the problems with the present system (as it is set up).

For a start...

There are much fewer older workers in the trades or businesses to train the younger workers through on the job training or apprenticeships . If you look in the job sections, many skilled type job openings require 3-5 years experience or more to get hired 

Forcing people to retire while they are still able to work takes away years of knowledge the older workers can share. Who is training the younger workers now? You don't come out of high school with 3-5 years job experience.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Haggis said:


> Aye, the Bible has nothing to do with retiring, but if one were to hunt for a Biblical example, the character "Jesus" from the Bible was said to be a carpenter, though there be no mention of him actually so much a hitting a tap at anything in the three or so recorded years of his life, and then too, he was generally followed closely by a dozen unemployed or mostly unemployed n'er-do-wells, and sometimes followed by thousands of folk looking for a handout of some sort. Not much of an example of hard work that lot.


I'm sure glad you weren't a Sunday school teacher.


----------



## tonasket (Oct 20, 2004)

"What is it you are trying to say here, the the government should increase its welfare payments? After all, that's what social security really is, a form of welfare!

Forget about saying that you've paid into the system so you are entitled to a payment. Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in. You simply can not contain out of control spending by saying things like payments have to be increased.

Frankly, I expect the whole social security system to crash and burn by the time I am ready to collect, so if those people that didn't save for the future don't get a cost of living increase, I couldn't care less! "



Michael: And what about those that die at 39 years old, having paid into it for 20 years? He certainly did not get more out of it than he put in, even w/the survivor benefits pd to me and our daughter. That's what happened to my first husband. Folks on SS certainly do deserve a raise, and much much more of one than our government eeks out to them. May God be with you if an unplanned disaster hits you personally. sometimes things just aren't planned out. I'll pray for you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tonasket said:


> And what about those that die at 39 years old, having paid into it for 20 years? He certainly did not get more out of it than he put in, even w/the survivor benefits pd to me and our daughter. That's what happened to my first husband.


That happens sometimes. I don't see the problem with that. Some get more than they paid in, some get less.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Michael Kawalek said:


> What is it you are trying to say here, the the government should increase its welfare payments? After all, that's what social security really is, a form of welfare!
> 
> Forget about saying that you've paid into the system so you are entitled to a payment. Social security is NOT like some kind of 401K program, and you can actually get more out of the system then you paid in. You simply can not contain out of control spending by saying things like payments have to be increased.
> 
> Frankly, I expect the whole social security system to crash and burn by the time I am ready to collect, so if those people that didn't save for the future don't get a cost of living increase, I couldn't care less!


Yes. I think that those of us who worked for a living should get an increase in social security payments. Personally I worked 50 years in the system, and I did not get a cost of living raise this year. Looks like I will not get one next year either. 

Welfare, call it what you like. It looks like I will have to dip into my savings so that the younger generation can enjoy the current benefit system. Makes me wonder how much the present working genreation has saved for their retirement.:run:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

edcopp said:


> Makes me wonder how much the present working genreation has saved for their retirement.:run:


Not many. Most are just getting by, and that's just going to get worse.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Not many. Most are just getting by, and that's just going to get worse.


Then the system will work itself out sooner or later. Why worry.:goodjob:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Nothing like kicking somebody when they're down.....or old.
> 
> So what, should seniors all go back to work so they can afford to live?


Social Security should never have been created, and people would not have learned to become dependent upon it. Sadly our Constitution was severely compromised back in 1934 and we are just now seeing the disastrous results of having done so. Then again in the sixties Social Security took on the job of providing "disability insurance" as well as old age benefits. Once again the federal government overstepped their boundaries as proscribed by the Constitution and sure enough, the result has been another disaster. Now we have embarked recently with Obamacare......... why do I have a feeling that we will suffer from that fiasco just like the rest of our "socialist" programs???
in answer to your question....... YES seniors will have to go back work to take care of themselves unless their children or local communities can afford to. The federal government certainly cannot afford it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Social Security should never have been created, and people would not have learned to become dependent upon it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The federal government certainly cannot afford it.


Social Security was originally setup as a self-sustaining program, totally funded by participants. The government had no problem affording Social Security when they raided it for over $2 trillion.

They borrowed that money in good faith. I don't find "we can't afford it" to be a compelling argument for not paying it back.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

OK, I have had about ENOUGH of this nonsense!!!!!!

Sure, retirement isn't Biblical. You want to know why? Because kids took CARE OF THEIR ELDERS. This isn't done anymore, granny and granpop are turned over to a home o left to fend for themselves. Respect Your Elders, is that biblical enough for you? In return, those elders would do what they could to help in the home. In fact, in the olden days, if a woman's husband died, HIS BROTHER MARRIED HER. Not exactly "doable" nowadays, is it? Get off the Biblical high horse, and trust me, I am a Bible thumping Christian that CRINGES when such things are bandied about. :grit:

Now, on to "real life." The real life when a few emergencies might have wiped out an entire life savings, as happened to my dad (who at 82 is still working a job three days a week) when his kidneys failed and he was "oh too rich" top qualify for assistance. Now I guess you are going to defend this with Obamacare, when it has been shown to DETRACT from the elderly it was claiming to help. I am sure those $250 bribe checks went reeeeeeealllllly far. And now, slashed benefits in both medical coverage, higher premiums and deductibles, higher cost of living.

I tell you, I would almost (almost) smirk if some of the high and mighty on here had catastrophes that wiped out their nest eggs as well, leaving them the poor older people, too old to work, and not a penny coming in.

Perhaps Obama has the right idea...death panels will surely wipe out these "drain on society" people who worked their ENTIRE lives to ensure that YOU belittlers would have a better future. Especially the vets who have died for your right to be so disrespectful and uncaring.

But oh hey, long as the young, able but unwilling to work welfare recipients are getting theirs, who cares about the elderly. But Welfare gets a cost of living.

Shame on all you high and mighty people, and it shocks me a bit since I have in th past agreed with several of you in other ways.

Thank God the death panels wll spare these elderly the indignity of being a drain on the system. Too bad death panels can't destroy welfare recipients as well.

And I am NOT sorry for this post.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Every year the SS sends me a statement telling me how much I will get from SS when I retire. I won't have any trouble making it on what they will pay me. Really should be able to put a little back every month.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> OK, I have had about ENOUGH of this nonsense!!!!!!
> 
> Sure, retirement isn't Biblical. You want to know why? Because kids took CARE OF THEIR ELDERS. This isn't done anymore, granny and granpop are turned over to a home o left to fend for themselves.


Generalizing just a little, aren't we?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Sorry, generalizing which? I spewed in a lo of directions. But the truth is the truth...extended families living under one roof/tent/whatever was the norm. Unless you mean my comment about fending for themselves in modern times, and sadly, that DOES seem to be the norm. How many people do you know (aside from yoursel taking care of your elderly friend) that are caring for an older family member in the home?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> Sorry, generalizing which? I spewed in a lo of directions. But the truth is the truth...extended families living under one roof/tent/whatever was the norm.


It's the norm in our house. I take care of an 85 year-old woman.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

And what happens to Medicare? How will seniors pay for Medicare if SS payments are cut off? Do we cut off Medicare to seniors as well? How will they afford their health care, their medications, health insurance?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Social Security was originally setup as a self-sustaining program, totally funded by participants. The government had no problem affording Social Security when they raided it for over $2 trillion.
> 
> They borrowed that money in good faith. I don't find "we can't afford it" to be a compelling argument for not paying it back.


Good faith my rear end. They used the money to buy votes by promising people free stuff. They knew they would likely be retired or out of office before the bill came due. Way back there, they grandfathered farmers in even though they had not contributed anything up to that point. Do you call that good faith? It was to get the farmer vote.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Good faith my rear end. They used the money to buy votes by promising people free stuff. They knew they would likely be retired or out of office before the bill came due. Way back there, they grandfathered farmers in even though they had not contributed anything up to that point. Do you call that good faith? It was to get the farmer vote.


Actually, this isn't the first time this issue has been dealt with. In the 1980s we had a Social Security reform bill that required any surpluses to be invested in government securities. But it was just smoke and mirrors. The Act was treated like an accounting gimmick, where the government just loaned money to itself and no government securities materialized.

It seems that there was no stopping them. Evidently the SS reform act was a scam designed to allow us to believe that our money was safe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's the norm in our house. I take care of an 85 year-old woman.


And her *income* and insurance is SS and Medicare.

You aren't supporting her


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Actually, this isn't the first time this issue has been dealt with. In the 1980s we had a Social Security reform bill that required any surpluses to be invested in government securities. But it was just smoke and mirrors. The Act was treated like an accounting gimmick, where the government just loaned money to itself and no government securities materialized.
> 
> It seems that there was no stopping them. Evidently the SS reform act was a scam designed to allow us to believe that our money was safe.


All government proposals are scams. We also had Hillary's " lock box " for Social Security funds. I guess she gave too many people keys to it because it is empty. I would prefer SS be done away with as it is and turned over to private firms to run. At least private firms can be audited and problems caught before they become disasters like we have now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> All government proposals are scams. We also had Hillary's " lock box " for Social Security funds. I guess she gave too many people keys to it because it is empty. I would prefer SS be done away with as it is and turned over to private firms to run. At least private firms can be audited and problems caught before they become disasters like we have now.


It was in 1983. Here is a link to the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...Amendments_and_the_Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Knowing what was in the Act, taking Social Security funds for general use was as clearly illegal as holding up liquor stores is. This was pension fund fraud, pure and simple.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> Sorry, generalizing which? I spewed in a lo of directions. But the truth is the truth...extended families living under one roof/tent/whatever was the norm. Unless you mean my comment about fending for themselves in modern times, and sadly, that DOES seem to be the norm. How many people do you know (aside from yoursel taking care of your elderly friend) that are caring for an older family member in the home?


I'm not presently taking care of them in the home, but it's not for the lack of trying. I've been trying to get my parents and my in-laws to move in with us. We have the room and the means to help them, but for now, they all prefer living on their own. They know the offer is there when they are ready.


----------



## tonasket (Oct 20, 2004)

Big Rockpile, no you shouldn't go off somewhere and die. Much to the dismay of many on here according to their words. Now I know why I don't post here, people are hateful and rude. 
And, Nevada, I was simply making a point, I'm so glad you didn't "have a problem with it", I did, my husband died.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

tonasket said:


> Big Rockpile, no you shouldn't go off somewhere and die. Much to the dismay of many on here according to their words. Now I know why I don't post here, people are hateful and rude.
> And, Nevada, I was simply making a point, I'm so glad you didn't "have a problem with it", I did, my husband died.


Hey I may lose everything but I an't going to lay down and die.Me and Tina has talked over if I lose what I'm getting.

Just found out we was losing some more income the other day just keep thinking ahead :run:


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Social Security should never have been created, and people would not have learned to become dependent upon it. Sadly our Constitution was severely compromised back in 1934 and we are just now seeing the disastrous results of having done so. Then again in the sixties Social Security took on the job of providing "disability insurance" as well as old age benefits. Once again the federal government overstepped their boundaries as proscribed by the Constitution and sure enough, the result has been another disaster. Now we have embarked recently with Obamacare......... why do I have a feeling that we will suffer from that fiasco just like the rest of our "socialist" programs???
> in answer to your question....... YES seniors will have to go back work to take care of themselves unless their children or local communities can afford to. The federal government certainly cannot afford it.


Maybe we could instigate the Poor house again.People that cannot afford to pay their bills or feed themselves could go to the poor house...


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Does this freeze also apply to SS disability payments?


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Does this freeze also apply to SS disability payments?


If it doesn't it should. I have always thought that anyone on SS disability should have to go through a continued disability test every two to three years. The tests should be done not by the disabled persons family doctor but by a specialist in that disability. Too many family doctors will just sign off on their patients claims. That's how we've ended up with a lot of people getting a check each month that could work at least part time. Even part time would mean they're putting some of their own efforts into making a living. Like regular SS, after a set amount of wages earned, the SS disability check would be reduced dollar for dollar.
Some people are disabled but over time they do get better Also, technology has made it better for people to work at jobs that aren't as hard on the body; why should they continue to get those hand outs if they are able to work? 
If someone can travel, butcher animals, plant gardens, can, hunt, fish, babysit or do online work; they really should be given the opportunity to work for their living. Maybe accommodations in the work place would be needed to be made but that's still cheaper than sending them a monthly check.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It was in 1983. Here is a link to the wiki.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...Amendments_and_the_Social_Security_Trust_Fund
> 
> Knowing what was in the Act, taking Social Security funds for general use was as clearly illegal as holding up liquor stores is. This was pension fund fraud, pure and simple.


No the fraud was setting up SS in the first place... there is no way .govt should ever be in the business of people's retirement plans or for that matter healthcare. Mandated anything just like this boondoggle healthcare plan creates an entitlement that is and always does become unsustainable. That is the real fraud...forcing one to pay for something that in all likelihood down the line some generation will not be able to collect because idiots just refuse to understand that govt. cannot take care of people...that all they are doing is kicking the can futher down the road...*at some point* the payback comes and it is always painful. _*Well, welcome to "some point".*_ We must learn this lesson once and for all... people must take care of themselves and each other...not govt.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

poppy said:


> All government proposals are scams. We also had Hillary's " lock box " for Social Security funds. I guess she gave too many people keys to it because it is empty. *I would prefer SS be done away with *as it is and turned over to private firms to run. *At least private firms can be audited and problems caught before they become disasters like we have now*.


Several TP candidates are proposing doing away with SS; we'll see in Nov.

Who would catch the bambuzaler that would surely try to rob and steal in your proposal of private firms? Perhaps the govt?  MORE govt???

Which dept. could do the audit, the same Office of Accounting that currently provides numbers many of us don't belief or trust? 

Perhaps we could let FraudOff out of prison and he could ponzi up another little scheme, but this time the non-rich olders get the shaft.


----------



## mountainwmn (Sep 11, 2009)

The freeze would also apply to those on SSD, and many people on that are re-evatuated every 3 years. And they are tested for a disability by special doctors that work for social security, not just their family Dr. Can someone please explain Death Panels to me? And what Obama has to do with it?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I'm not presently taking care of them in the home, but it's not for the lack of trying. I've been trying to get my parents and my in-laws to move in with us. We have the room and the means to help them, but for now, they all prefer living on their own. They know the offer is there when they are ready.


I know, in today's world, the elderly are stubborn and even if they have to choose between paying their electric or buying groceries, they insist on staying in their homes. That is another facet to this.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

mountainwmn said:


> The freeze would also apply to those on SSD, and many people on that are re-evatuated every 3 years. And they are tested for a disability by special doctors that work for social security, not just their family Dr. Can someone please explain Death Panels to me? And what Obama has to do with it?


Briefl, in places where this form of socialized medicine has occurred in the past, there is rationing of care. For instance, an 85 year old lady needing a hip replacement will be give a three year wait list so that a younger person can get a procedure first. There has already been talk about the little pill the elderly can take, rather than spending money on keeping them alive and healthy. Obesity is already on the table as disqualifying a person for "affordable health care." There have actually been a few threads about this, try a search with "death panels," it can be quite enlightening. There ae headlines at least monthly about this very thing in nations that currently use socialized medicine, and in fact even Canadians come over to get American care, yet our friends here seem to be getting the better part of the deal (thankfully, as I wouldn't want something bad to happen to my "friends") and won't acknowledge it is happening.

ETA this link from today, here in GC: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=369762


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Win07_351 said:


> Actually retiring at 65 and never working again (unless you can't) is an unBiblical concept.


Maybe. But if you're a homesteader or just own land and animals, you may be retired, but you ain't stopped working.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's the norm in our house. I take care of an 85 year-old woman.


How much of her SS do you get to use?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> No the fraud was setting up SS in the first place... there is no way .govt should ever be in the business of people's retirement plans or for that matter healthcare.


Maybe, maybe not. But in either case it's not fraud.



Aintlifegrand said:


> Mandated anything just like this boondoggle healthcare plan creates an entitlement that is and always does become unsustainable.


The fact that it's mandated does not necessarily mean that it's unsustainable. If the Social Security fund had not been raided then it would have been sustainable.

It seems that the real fraud here was in 1983, when Reagan promised us that he had made sure than the social security fund was safe. The fact is that he provided congress with a way to get away with it while making us believe that the money was safe.



Aintlifegrand said:


> That is the real fraud...forcing one to pay for something that in all likelihood down the line some generation will not be able to collect because idiots just refuse to understand that govt. cannot take care of people...that all they are doing is kicking the can futher down the road...*at some point* the payback comes and it is always painful. _*Well, welcome to "some point".*_ We must learn this lesson once and for all... people must take care of themselves and each other...not govt.


This is interesting, but false. We have reached the point where Social Security can't meet its obligations because the fund was raided, not because we've been "kicking the can further down the road" for a long time. It's not fair for congress to rob a program and then say "see, it doesn't work."

There is nothing wrong with the basic structure of Social Security, and it IS sustainable. It's congress that's broken, not Social Security.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jross said:


> How much of her SS do you get to use?


All of it, but we don't get far on her $300/month. LOL


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

sisterpine said:


> why should they continue to get those hand outs if they are able to work?


I know at least three people who are only working part time and remain on disability because their medication is so expensive, they would not be able to afford it if they were working full time and double overtime as well. So they stay on disability for the medical benefits. 

It would be a whole lot cheaper for everyone if SS just paid for the medications and let these people work full time. Less payments out and more taxes in. However, that logic doesn't fly for politicians

Mary


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Maybe, maybe not. But in either case it's not fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is broke.. and what is there is a pile of uncashable bonds ( essentially IOUs from ourselves)...more are collecting than are paying and it will only get worse with the economy further implodes. But you keep thinking the way you do... I hope that you have made other arrangements though for your sake.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> It is broke.. and what is there is a pile of uncashable bonds ( essentially IOUs from ourselves)...more are collecting than are paying and it will only get worse with the economy further implodes. But you keep thinking the way you do... I hope that you have made other arrangements though for your sake.


I also have retirement coming from an oil company. I'll do okay.

But about those bonds. Aren't they worth just as much as the bonds that China holds? They wouldn't make good on loans from China while refusing retirement fund debt, would they?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> They wouldn't make good on loans from China while refusing retirement fund debt, would they?


Why not? If they stiff China our government's source of borrowing stops dead in its tracks. They don't care about the people anymore because there is no SS surplus to borrow from. The SS recipients are now strictly a liability.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

And so we come full circle to the rationing of Medicare benefits and the death panels, the little pill, and so forth. When one stops thinking of people as PEOPLE, tragic things result.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Why not? If they stiff China our government's source of borrowing stops dead in its tracks. They don't care about the people anymore because there is no SS surplus to borrow from. The SS recipients are now strictly a liability.


And you expect me to give a care about paying back banks.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> And you expect me to give a care about paying back banks.



I don't care as long as you don't mind being a deadbeat. Because someone else does something wrong does not mean it is okay for you to do it. Being a liberal yourself, I would bet you thought all those taxpayer dollars going to grand government schemes to " help " people were a grand idea at the time. Some of that money was YOUR SS contributions going out the window. Happy now?


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

beccachow said:


> I know, in today's world, the elderly are stubborn and even if they have to choose between paying their electric or buying groceries, they insist on staying in their homes. That is another facet to this.



Same here, been trying to get my mom to live with me but she won't leave her farm. I expect she thinks I will move back in with her, but I can't as I have to remain employed. 

BTW -my dad paid into SS from age 17 until he died at age 71.5. He never collected ONE PENNY from SS. My mom collects on his account, but she will never live long enough to collect very much as she has diabetes, etc. and is in very poor health. I figure since my Dad didn't collect (he worked on the day he was told he needed to be hospitalized and died less than a month later in the VA hospital) that my mom deserves to collect what was rightfully his.

Not everyone retires at age 65-67 these days anyway and most work long past retirement age as they want something to do. I cannot retire until I am nearly 68, but actually I don't think I will ever really retire so I may never collect a dime of what I've paid in since age 17.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I don't care as long as you don't mind being a deadbeat. Because someone else does something wrong does not mean it is okay for you to do it. Being a liberal yourself, I would bet you thought all those taxpayer dollars going to grand government schemes to " help " people were a grand idea at the time. Some of that money was YOUR SS contributions going out the window. Happy now?


But borrowing money from a retirement fund is breaking a sacred trust, don't you think? China has time to earn it again, retired people don't.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beccachow said:


> I know, in today's world, the elderly are stubborn and even if they have to choose between paying their electric or buying groceries, they insist on staying in their homes. That is another facet to this.


Yep, my sister and I have to sneak around to help them with their bills. I live a 6 hour drive from them, my sister lives 5 minutes from them, so I send her money and she's found a way to put propane in their tank and help pay for their meds without them knowing she's doing it. I hate to be sneaky about things, but these are my parents and it's the only way we have found to help them and make sure they are taking their meds.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

sidepasser said:


> Same here, been trying to get my mom to live with me but she won't leave her farm. I expect she thinks I will move back in with her, but I can't as I have to remain employed.
> 
> BTW -my dad paid into SS from age 17 until he died at age 71.5. He never collected ONE PENNY from SS. My mom collects on his account, but she will never live long enough to collect very much as she has diabetes, etc. and is in very poor health. I figure since my Dad didn't collect (he worked on the day he was told he needed to be hospitalized and died less than a month later in the VA hospital) that my mom deserves to collect what was rightfully his.
> 
> Not everyone retires at age 65-67 these days anyway and most work long past retirement age as they want something to do. I cannot retire until I am nearly 68, but actually I don't think I will ever really retire so I may never collect a dime of what I've paid in since age 17.


 Right now everyone can begin collecting SS at age 62. You don't have to stop working to collect on your SS. Also all the while you're alive you are covered by SS for disability or when you're young if your parents die. Many of us will never collect a dime, that's how the system works just like every insurance.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Beeman said:


> Right now everyone can begin collecting SS at age 62. You don't have to stop working to collect on your SS. Also all the while you're alive you are covered by SS for disability or when you're young if your parents die. Many of us will never collect a dime, that's how the system works just like every insurance.


True, but this system is failing. Any other insurance company that operated like SS would have gone bankrupt long ago and the big shots would be in prison. That is the difference.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But borrowing money from a retirement fund is breaking a sacred trust, don't you think? China has time to earn it again, retired people don't.


How about the billions the healthcare bill syphons off of Medicare? Is that not a sacred trust too? Is putting the American people in debt so high they can never repay it breaking a sacred trust? A pile of money is a pile of money no matter who's it is or what it is for. It does not belong to the government.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I also have retirement coming from an oil company. I'll do okay.
> 
> But about those bonds. Aren't they worth just as much as the bonds that China holds? They wouldn't make good on loans from China while refusing retirement fund debt, would they?



No because China can actually cash them if they want.. we cannot. These "bonds" in the SS trust fund are non negotiable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> No because China can actually cash them if they want.. we cannot. These "bonds" in the SS trust fund are non negotiable.


It's true that the bonds can't be traded, since the bonds are an agreement strictly between the government and the Social Security fund. But they are nevertheless a legitimate debt and should have cash value.

If in fact Reagan led us to believe that the bonds were something different than he represented them to be, conservatives will have pulled-off theft in history, even bigger than TARP. You know that sooner or later someone will remember what Reagan told us about how safe the fund would be.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8[/ame]


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's true that the bonds can't be traded, since the bonds are an agreement strictly between the government and the Social Security fund. But they are nevertheless a legitimate debt and should have cash value.
> 
> If in fact Reagan led us to believe that the bonds were something different than he represented them to be, conservatives will have pulled-off theft in history, even bigger than TARP. You know that sooner or later someone will remember what Reagan told us about how safe the fund would be.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8


Please do not talk like the Government and Social Security are two different groups..and do not act like they are separate from you and I... They are one and the same and they are us. The bonds are IOUS to oursleves ..it is the same if I spend all my money and then write an IOU for 100.00 on a piece of paper and place that paper in my safe.. I cannot deposit it in my bank..I cannot spend it.. it has no cash vlaue and neither do these bonds ..the only way to replace it is for the taxpayers to pay to remove those bonds and put the money back in the box...but we cannot now because we are no longer collecting more than we are paying out...it is the opposite of what it was a few years ago...oops they thought they had more time..NO they did not...* the game is up*...they just haven't figured a way to tell the folks..at first they tried to fix it by raising the rates then by raising the age...but they were still greedy and kept taking and replacing with these IOU's...Now, they really cannot raise the rates anymore..people cannot afford the new tax hikes for the other debt much less this unfunded liability..and then there is medicare....and the loss of retirment plans recently so more people will think they can rely on SS to make up the loss...the math is rather haunting...don't look if you haven't the stomach for it.. but understand Payback is now and it will be painful...


and BTW..I could care less about Reagan or any of them....they all have used this "surplus" in this manner ...that is the problem with slush funds and sticky finger governments


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Please do not talk like the Government and Social Security are two different groups..and do not act like they are separate from you and I...


They aren't different groups, but their finances are separate. Those bonds have defined how much should be there, and I still expect congress to make good on the debt.



Aintlifegrand said:


> and BTW..I could care less about Reagan or any of them....they all have used this "surplus" in this manner ...that is the problem with slush funds and sticky finger governments


Funny thing about that. Back in the 1980s a lot of working people were becoming disillusioned with Social Security. Many were considering alternatives. It was Reagan who convinced us that he shored-up Social Security. He promised that the fund would never be raided again, and that we would all get what we expected when we retired.

After that, is it really fair to ask me to look the other way?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Nevada said:


> So what's with the cost of living formula? I don't think anyone denies that the cost of living has been rising steadily, so what's lacking in the Social Security COLA formula?


for one actual costs to those who ar on it. Most costs of anyone on SS is in fuel energy costs, and medical. Even though most get medicare, the 20% plus all the premiums eat up everything. Shoot, try buying needed drugs. Most SS recipients do not qualify for food stamps and a great number of elderly are still making house notes.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

texican said:


> Anyone winding up after an entire lifetime, depending on SS to take care of them has either had an incredibly bad run of luck, or an irresponsible life that didn't prepare for the future. You're either an "Ant" or a "Grasshopper"... you prepare or you don't. As usual, the Grasshoppers depend on the Ant's to take care of them. SS is like an animal that's being circled by a pride of lions... it gets nervous, and then squeals when the pride starts making it's attacks. SS is being bitten by the "pride" as in economic reality.


Well not necessarily either. You can get sick, and no matter how well you prepared you can end up with only ss to take care of you. 

I wound up terminated from a job after having a heart attack, lost my insurance, lost everything. My investments and savings just got nailed hard with medical costs since insurance refused to cover me (company insurance). Yeah i could have sued if i had been able to afford the attorneys. shrug. Kinda difficult to do when your trying to just survive the illness. 

But neither here nor there in my situation, i know they will take SS away from me in the next few years. Its inevitable they will deem my health to big a cost and say so sad too bad and i'm on my own. SOoooo I am working hard to build up something that will provide a income that i can do when that event happens.
Just because i am disabled doesn't mean i have stopped trying to get out of this.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

sisterpine said:


> If it doesn't it should. I have always thought that anyone on SS disability should have to go through a continued disability test every two to three years. The tests should be done not by the disabled persons family doctor but by a specialist in that disability. Too many family doctors will just sign off on their patients claims. That's how we've ended up with a lot of people getting a check each month that could work at least part time. Even part time would mean they're putting some of their own efforts into making a living. Like regular SS, after a set amount of wages earned, the SS disability check would be reduced dollar for dollar.
> Some people are disabled but over time they do get better Also, technology has made it better for people to work at jobs that aren't as hard on the body; why should they continue to get those hand outs if they are able to work?
> If someone can travel, butcher animals, plant gardens, can, hunt, fish, babysit or do online work; they really should be given the opportunity to work for their living. Maybe accommodations in the work place would be needed to be made but that's still cheaper than sending them a monthly check.


I am one of those folks. I have CHF. It has gotten worse with time. Not any real hope of it ever getting better i suppose. But I do live on a farm and i do live on what i get. 
I don't recieve welfare as they deem i am too rich to get it. 
I try to work outside, but its very difficult and depends on my good days. The bad ones i am worthless. 

I think the farm has kept me from getting worse or at least slowed it down. Could i work a ft job, maybe for a while but then it would take its toll on me and i would go down faster than before. I tried it. It wasn't good.

As far as getting reviewed, they do a review on me every 3 or 4 years, and MY cardiologist, not my family doctor, but my specialist has to update them on my condiition.

His diagnosis, is that i am doing good to maintain what i have in health.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

beccachow said:


> I know, in today's world, the elderly are stubborn and even if they have to choose between paying their electric or buying groceries, they insist on staying in their homes. That is another facet to this.


you gotta understand what living in your own home means. I was offered govt housing at one time when i lost everything and my ss didn't cover what i needed but i refused to move into a govt house and chose to live in a camper on a acre of land my mom owns. One of the many reasons is that i would have had to get rid of my pets of which i won't do no matter what. 

Other things includei hate being cramped up next to a bunch of people, and quite frankly moving from my own home to a slum is not a option. I would rather be homeless.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> They aren't different groups, but their finances are separate. Those bonds have defined how much should be there, and I still expect congress to make good on the debt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Who is asking you to look the other way????I am saying you will not get blood out of a turnip or the American Taxpayer. Even if their finances are separate _WE..YOU AND I_..pay the bills...Congress can make good on whatever they want...they have no money nor do they have the ability to raise anymore in this mess of an economy...have you looked at things lately? There isn't much longer befor the whole thing comes crashes down and you will be proven right ( so go ahead and celebrate for finally getting one right )... much less worrying about IOUS in the Social Security. or the mortgage fraud or the medicare abuse or the any of it..get a reality check.

When I was young during the 80's I really didn't pay attention to anything...I trusted Government to do their job while I was busy going about life and having fun... and for that failure on my part I have profusely apologized to my children...


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2010)

Nevada said:


> So what's with the cost of living formula? I don't think anyone denies that the cost of living has been rising steadily, so what's lacking in the Social Security COLA formula?


_The formula used to determine COLAs is somewhat complicated. The Social Security Administration bases the cost-of-living increase for the upcoming year on the inflation rate during the third quarter -- the months of July, August and September -- of the current year. There was a small increase in prices in 2010 over 2009, but the level is not yet back to that of 2008._ 

From here: http://thornberry.house.gov:80/news/email/show.aspx?ID=QN4UGU36BORWFW7OZT2CLOGE5Q



suzfromWi said:


> Maybe we could instigate the Poor house again.People that cannot afford to pay their bills or feed themselves could go to the poor house...


Not a bad idea... maybe.

Poor houses were run and financed by the state. Those who lived at them were _required_ to work if they were able. Jobs were found for them, even if it was just day labor.

The biggest potential problem with them is... they would be run by the state. :hrm:



barelahh said:


> for one actual costs to those who ar on it. Most costs of anyone on SS is in fuel energy costs, and medical. Even though most get medicare, the 20% plus all the premiums eat up everything. Shoot, try buying needed drugs. *Most SS recipients do not qualify for food stamps* and a great number of elderly are still making house notes.


True. For years, they could only get $5/mo in Texas (no clue about other states). Now they can get $10. The thing is, their medical expenses are NOT figured in determining whether they can get food stamps, and how much. 

I have known more hungry elderly than I can count.


----------

