Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

...except that by the time I will be eligible... the gimme, gimme, gimme generation will empty the piggy bank. The disability fund will drain the SSA monetary stream, by all the piggy's that walk the streets today.

shipfitter Loc: Wisconsin, for now

Shhhhh , hes thinkin :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

shipfitter Loc: Wisconsin, for now

They aint figured that part out yet , you get back , what you put in . Plus Interest . But if one has no Savings account , its easy to see why . But to Them , Everything Is Free . Cuz Da GUBMENT , Says so .Right ???

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

...you don't believe any other part of the Government than the SS administration...that's kinda funny...in so many ways. It's called magical thinking: i.e. NOT LOGICAL.

Why Social Security is welfare
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, March 7, 2011;
In a recent column on the senior citizen lobby, I noted that Social Security is often
"middle-class welfare" that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an
e-mail, one snarled: "Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt, you idiot." Others were more dignified: "Let's refrain from insulting individuals who have worked all their lives and contributed to the system for 50-plus years by insinuating that [their] earned benefits are welfare." Some argued that Social Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn't affect our budgetary predicament. Wrong. As a rule, I don't use one column to comment on another. But I'm making an exception here because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of federal spending. Exempting them from cuts - as polls indicate many Americans prefer - would ordain massive deficits, huge tax increases or draconian reductions in other programs. That's a disastrous formula for the future.
We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.
Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.
The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just
developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear
as the number of retirees rises.
Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a
doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose,
but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v.
Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social
Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is
hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.
All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed
to favor low-wage earners - a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from
workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned"
benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and
journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding
they're on welfare.
A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the
Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already
exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the
needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social
Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's
happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser
extent, Medicaid.
It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread
hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or older had incomes
exceeding $75,000. No doubt people would be outraged. Having been misled, they'd feel cheated. They paid
their taxes, why can't they get all their promised benefits? But the alternative is much worse: imposing all the
burdens on younger taxpayers and cuts in other government programs. Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it
excludes older Americans.

shipfitter Loc: Wisconsin, for now

Put it to Bed .. Good lord :roll: :roll: :roll:

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I know you started out giving me crap but I'm beginning to think you will end up one of my favorite posters.

Davie

Amen

Davie

Amen

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Dummy Boy: Your a real stupid Shithead....Number 1. Social Security is the worst mandatory investment the Government forced us into! Its a shitty Investment return for most hardworking Americans! 2. Medicare is a mandatory situation for Americans over the age of 65! 3. Military Pensions are compensation for work rendered after a successful Military career...nothing here except the abuse of Social Security and medicaid qualify for bennies. Maybe I can now better understand your jealously?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I'd be pissed too. You'r definitely disabled.

shipfitter Loc: Wisconsin, for now

hmmm . and Lemme Guess . NO Disability check !!! ???

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

sounds like someone took 50% of your interlect. i would change my name if i was you...also yer diapers.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

cesspool Jones: I wonder if he has ever changed the bandages on his frontal lobotomy!

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

people like him tell me that the not-to-distant future of this country will turn dark before it gets back to reality. i'm ready to unload on people like him (her).

Al-ien

I still think there should be a written test before you can vote, like who is buried in Grant's tomb. I'll bet we would get rid of at least 75 percent of dead brained Libatard's.