Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ajtj99 who wrote (254159)	6/14/2010 8:58:33 PM
From: marcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Dean Baker on Social Security: Saturday, 12 June 2010 14:53 I often think it's too bad that Social Security isn't a private company. If it were, it could sue Marketplace Radio for libel for this sort of reporting. Does Marketplace's host have any idea what she is talking about when she says: "Social Security is in such a sorry state"? According to the Congressional Budget Office the program can pay all benefits for the next 34 years with no changes whatsoever and even after that can pay more than 75 percent of benefits indefinitely. The program is in much better shape in this respect that it was in the 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s. So what on earth is this person talking about? Can Marketplace Radio pay all its expenses for the next 34 years? Marketplace's expert then tells us that Social Security will probably be means-tested. This idea is extremely unpopular among both the public and policy experts, so it would be interesting to know the basis for this assessment. She also recommends raising the retirement age, apparently unaware of the fact that the retirement age has already been raised to 67. She also is apparently unaware of the fact that the vast majority of the huge baby boom cohort has almost nothing saved for retirement and therefore will be almost entirely dependent on Social Security. cepr.net

To: ajtj99 who wrote (254159)	6/14/2010 9:17:03 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 306849

Few people understand the original actuarial intent of these acts, and they wonder why the system is bankrupt === so are you in favor of the gov't cutting me a check for the actual dollars I've paid in(adjusted for inflation of course). With an average treasury rate of 8%....

To: ajtj99 who wrote (254159)	6/15/2010 3:11:26 AM
From: NOW	Respond to of 306849

the original intent being: "to get rid of older workers so they could get on with the process of dying." As you said... Once everyone is clear about that, I am sure they will gladly agree to draconian cuts in SS

To: ajtj99 who wrote (254159)	6/15/2010 6:08:36 AM
From: DebtBomb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

It's bankrupt because it's a ponzi scheme. First one out wins! The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92 It can keep on working as long as there's more new investors continually contributing than those receiving benefits. Since we went from about 3 million births per year in 1957 to only about one million new births in 1973....it's a busted ponzi scheme with more money going out than coming in. You are right that life expectancy has increased about 20 years....but people are working longer also....into their 70's and paying more money into social security. These funds have also been raided by the gov't.. No matter how you look at is....it is @#$%ed.