Hagel's Defense Cut Proposal

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

It was when there were 15 people paying in to every person taking out.

What is it now? Somewhere between 2-3 to 1. SS is not sustainable in its current form.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

You're right that it has been robbed for years. That money will never be replaced. SS does need to be reformed.

[bluehenbillk]

I'm all for shaving the Defense budget as well as all for shaving multiple departments budgets.

Foreign aid we offer other countries should get significantly dropped.

I'm all for a look out for #1 first mentality. Not ignoring the rest of the world or living in an isolationist bubble, especially since we live in a truly global economy, but having more of a domestic-based focus.

[houndawg]

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

You're right that it has been robbed for years. That money will never be replaced. SS does need to be reformed.

The only reform it needs is to make it unavailable to our so-called leaders.

[UNI88]

Can doesn't mean should. SS is self funded, you're missing the cause of the problem which is theft by politicians. If they'd keep their dick skinners out of it it would work just fine.

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

It was when there were 15 people paying in to every person taking out.

What is it now? Somewhere between 2-3 to 1. SS is not sustainable in its current form.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

[YoUDeeMan]

Can doesn't mean should. SS is self funded, you're missing the cause of the problem which is theft by politicians. If they'd keep their dick skinners out of it it would work just fine.

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

Don't bother trying to educate houndpauppy, he is stuck on stupid again.

[ASUG8]

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

I think the government intentionally mandated GMO's and HFCS additives in our food to increase obesity and truncate life expectancy and make SS closer to solvent.

right spandos?

[93henfan]

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

I think the government intentionally mandated GMO's and HFCS additives in our food to increase obesity and truncate life expectancy and make SS closer to solvent.

right spandos?

[houndawg]

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.



The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

Don't bother trying to educate houndpauppy, he is stuck on stupid again.

Yipyipyip houndawg! Yipyipyipyipstupid! Yipyipyip!

[houndawg]

Can doesn't mean should. SS is self funded, you're missing the cause of the problem which is theft by politicians. If they'd keep their dick skinners out of it it would work just fine.

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

Really? Feel free to share your sources.

So what is the number? And what would that number be if SS hadn't been robbed?

[houndawg]

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

You're right that it has been robbed for years. That money will never be replaced. SS does need to be reformed.

Well, see? There's your problem. Your solution is to treat the symptom.

[BDKJMU]

Can doesn't mean should. SS is self funded, you're missing the cause of the problem which is theft by politicians. If they'd keep their dick skinners out of it it would work just fine.

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work because it has been robbed blind. Replace the stolen money, stolen by those who don't participate, and it works fine.

The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

Exactly. No link, #s off the top of my head, feel free to correct if I am wrong:
-About 15 workers for every retiree back in the 30s when the full retirement age was 65 and avg life expectancy was 62.
-Less than 3 workers per retiree now, headed towards 2, with the full retirement age at 67 and life expectancy about 80 (looked up wiki US 79.8. US 35th of 193 countries listed, 33 countries over 80).
-1% matching (both employer & employee) payroll tax in the 30s. Raised 15 times to 6.2% matching (12.4% if self employed) on up to 117k of income.

Well, avg life expectancy has gone up about 18 years, while full retirement has gone up only 2 years. There's your problem in a nutshell that has led to the plummeting worker to retiree ratio and the increased taxes, and the prospect of the system (ie the Trust Fund- see below post) going broke (reaching zero).

[AZGrizFan]

And now that Obamacare is going to drive ANOTHER 10 million 62+'ers out of the work force the numbers are going to only get MORE skewed.

[BDKJMU]

I don't think SS is completely self funded. On average people have paid in a percentage of what they're taking out even after accounting for interest on the money paid in. The percentage might be high but it is not 100% thus the government and therefore the taxpayer is underwriting some of the costs. Retired people today are spending money that will be raised from taxes on income their grandkids haven't even earned yet.



The current model for SS was sustainable when the average life expectancy was 62 or something similar. Now that life expectancy is in the 70's SS needs to be reformed to be sustainable. Until then it's just a government sponsored ponzi scheme waiting to collapse when there aren't enough young people paying into the system.

Really? Feel free to share your sources.

So what is the number? And what would that number be if SS hadn't been robbed?

Where are you getting this SS has been robbed? The Social Security Trust Fund for decades took in more than it paid out. Therefore the Social Security Trust fund built up a surplus. A couple years in the early 80s it paid out more than it too in. After some reforms kicked it went back to taking in more than it paid out until 2010. Now the fund has been paying out more than it has been taking in. Once it reaches zero, which is projected to be in 2033, it can't by law run a deficit, and benefits will have to be cut (projections are about 25%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#History
The way things are going, the "Run Dry" date could be sooner.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/24/ ... d-outlook/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But Social Security will take care of itself even with no reforms, because by law, the Social Security Trust Fund can't run a deficit. Benefits will simply be cut so the trust fund doesn't run a deficit.

Pay higher FICA taxes now, or have a later retirement age, or have bennies cut. Either way, the trust fund can't run a deficit.

Medicare is a FAR BIGGER problem than FICA down the road..