cons latest undermining of soc. sec. / government

[dherd]

we've seen this act over and over and over again by cons. cut funding for
govt agencies then, when the agency is unable to do it's job people cannot
get the govt services they want - then blame it on "govt cannot do anything".

Social Security is facing dark times — not just figuratively, but as in the lights would go out.

That’s the warning from Social Security Administration (SSA) officials if an appropriations bill pushed by House Republicans takes effect.

“There would be up to two weeks of furloughs for all employees,” the agency said in information obtained by The Washington Post. “During this time, our offices would be closed to the public. Additionally, a full hiring freeze would cause service degradation and long wait times and delays. As a result, many Americans may wait longer to receive the benefits they have been planning to use during their retirement, and the most vulnerable of our citizens will have to wait even longer for disability claims decisions, causing more hardship and frustration for millions of families.”

It’s not like Social Security is operating in the flush now. Since 2010, its operating budget has shrunk 10 percent after inflation while the number of beneficiaries rose by 12 percent. President Obama has proposed an $11.1 billion administrative budget for fiscal year 2017, $522 million more than this year. House Republicans have proposed $772 million less than the president’s budget, according to SSA figures, while Senate Republicans would reduce agency spending by $582 million. The administrative budget is separate from the trust fund that pays benefits to recipients.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...furloughed-staff-under-gop-cuts-agency-warns/

 

[GeauxHerd]

we've seen this act over and over and over again by cons. cut funding for
govt agencies then, when the agency is unable to do it's job people cannot
get the govt services they want - then blame it on "govt cannot do anything".

Social Security is facing dark times — not just figuratively, but as in the lights would go out.

That’s the warning from Social Security Administration (SSA) officials if an appropriations bill pushed by House Republicans takes effect.

“There would be up to two weeks of furloughs for all employees,” the agency said in information obtained by The Washington Post. “During this time, our offices would be closed to the public. Additionally, a full hiring freeze would cause service degradation and long wait times and delays. As a result, many Americans may wait longer to receive the benefits they have been planning to use during their retirement, and the most vulnerable of our citizens will have to wait even longer for disability claims decisions, causing more hardship and frustration for millions of families.”

It’s not like Social Security is operating in the flush now. Since 2010, its operating budget has shrunk 10 percent after inflation while the number of beneficiaries rose by 12 percent. President Obama has proposed an $11.1 billion administrative budget for fiscal year 2017, $522 million more than this year. House Republicans have proposed $772 million less than the president’s budget, according to SSA figures, while Senate Republicans would reduce agency spending by $582 million. The administrative budget is separate from the trust fund that pays benefits to recipients.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...furloughed-staff-under-gop-cuts-agency-warns/

What is your proposal to bring SS budget more inline with SS receipts from payroll?

 

[i am herdman]

The old Social Security play by the Democrats.

Racism and Social Security argument have been around for decades.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Looks like Obummer is trying to put the $$$ back in that he drained to fund ACA initially.

 

[dherd]

The old Social Security play by the Democrats.

Racism and Social Security argument have been around for decades.

its been around for decades because republicans have wanted to eliminate
social security for decades. google 1932 social security debate in congress
and you will find the same false rhetoric was used then as today - the very same -
word for word.

remember herdman - no soc sec means herdman has to pony up a couple of dimes
per month for grandma and grandpa herdman and another 2g for grandpa and grandma
mrs herdman.

plus herdman & mrs herdman will be eating cat food in their old age.

and as bit a tight wad as you are - i know you're not wanting to go there.

 

[GeauxHerd]

its been around for decades because republicans have wanted to eliminate
social security for decades. google 1932 social security debate in congress
and you will find the same false rhetoric was used then as today - the very same -
word for word.

remember herdman - no soc sec means herdman has to pony up a couple of dimes
per month for grandma and grandpa herdman and another 2g for grandpa and grandma
mrs herdman.

plus herdman & mrs herdman will be eating cat food in their old age.

and as bit a tight wad as you are - i know you're not wanting to go there.

What is your plan for the government to stop relying on those that have providing for those that dont?

 

[dherd]

social security.

 

[GeauxHerd]

social security.

Nope. That requires taking money from more affluent to less affluent

 

[extragreen]

Nope. That requires taking money from more affluent to less affluent

How do you figure that?

 

[Rock98Dog]

Like this:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

 

[Rock98Dog]

What that's telling you is that you don't even get all your principal back, let alone any return, on that 40 years of investing. And that's for people earning an average salary. The only people who make out are those in below average income brackets, i.e. Wealth redistribution.

 

[extragreen]

Using current mortality rates, rich males are now expected to receive roughly $130,000 more in lifetime entitlement benefits, and rich females are now expected to receive roughly $30,000 more. Under the old mortality rates, rich males would fare pretty much the same as poor males, while rich females would receive about $130,000 less than poor females. Consequently, the overall entitlement system has gone from being pro-poor to pro-rich when measured in terms of absolute benefits received.

 

[dherd]

you're confusing "wealth redistibution" which by the way is a good thing
with insurance social security insurance. if you had a paycheck and you
looked at it you would see a deduction for SSI = social security insurance.

now, if you have an insurance policy and you only make one payment and
your house burns down - then the insurance company reimburses you for
your loss is that welfare? i bet you answer no.

at the same time if your house does not burn down does the insurance
company give you your premiums back - no. why not - why do your
right wing talking idiots not point out that you are not getting all your
fire insurance premiums back if you do not have a fire.

social security INSURANCE works the same way. you pay your premiums
in your employer matches what you pay and if you die your family receives
the INSURANCE benefits. same if you become disabled.

now, what you are apparently confused about is this fact. if you do not
pay in you do not receive benefits. not only that but your benefits are
relative to what you and your employer pay in. so, if you are high income
you pay in more your employer contributes more and YOUR BENEFITS
ARE GREATER than someone who works at minimum wage and may only
receive a few hundred dollars a month as opposed to a high earner who
may draw $2600 per month.

but i know all those right wing piss ants you listen to who are paid to lie to
you by rich fvcks who do not want to make the matching contribution to your
SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE ACCOUNT do not tell you that do they.
they want you to fvck yourself out of your own ignorance.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Using current mortality rates, rich males are now expected to receive roughly $130,000 more in lifetime entitlement benefits, and rich females are now expected to receive roughly $30,000 more. Under the old mortality rates, rich males would fare pretty much the same as poor males, while rich females would receive about $130,000 less than poor females. Consequently, the overall entitlement system has gone from being pro-poor to pro-rich when measured in terms of absolute benefits received.

I gave you a link, from CNN nonetheless, to support my account. Please provide the link that supports yours.

 

[extragreen]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...ers-show-rich-benefiting-far-social-security/

 

[Rock98Dog]

Dherd, let's look at two guys.

Guy one makes $40,000 a year. He and his employer pay 12.8% of that into SS every year. That's $5,120 a year. If that guy plans on retiring at age 66, he will be eligible for $1,330 a month in today's dollars based on the SSA calculator. That's $15,960 per year. So this guys requires 3.11 years of work to pay for one year of his SSI benefit.

Guy two makes more than the cap of $118,500. He and his employer pay 12.8% of the $118,500 into SS every year. If the guy plans on retiring at age 66, he will be eligible for $2,486 per month in today's dollars based on the SSA calculator. That's $29,832 per year. So this guy pays for a year of SSI benefit with only 1.97 years of work.

So, in simplest terms, if both guys worked 45 years before retiring, the low wage guy will burn up everything he paid to the system in less than 15 years. The high wage guy will take more than 22.5 years to get back everything he paid in. If you want to be exact, it's 14.44 years versus 22.88 years. This does not account for the vast difference in earnings potential on the amount paid in by each.

So the conclusion is, that while the higher income guy qualifies for a higher payment, it is no where near the differential relative to what was paid in. The high wage guy will have to live to be 90 to get back his cash while the lower wage guy breaks even at 80.

 

[Rock98Dog]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...ers-show-rich-benefiting-far-social-security/

That's not on topic, and has nothing to do with the structure of the system. Yeah, if I can live to be 120, I'll make out like a freakin bandit, no shite. If I die when I'm 61 and 11 months, I'm screwed and basically gave away a half million bucks for no reason.

No one knows how long they will be here, I'm sure John Saunders didn't plan at dropping at 61 like he just did and I know know plenty of really poor, really old people.

 

[extragreen]

That's not on topic, and has nothing to do with the structure of the system. Yeah, if I can live to be 120, I'll make out like a freakin bandit, no shite. If I die when I'm 61 and 11 months, I'm screwed and basically gave away a half million bucks for no reason.

No one knows how long they will be here, I'm sure John Saunders didn't plan at dropping at 61 like he just did and I know know plenty of really poor, really old people.

It doesn't matter if you consider it to be part of the structure or not, it's still a fact that the wealthy generally live longer which increases the amount of money they receive.

 

[raleighherdfan]

What democrats have wanted the public to ignore for generations............"the structure of the SS system".

 

[houston_herd_fan]

Here is one of the main reasons SS old age benefits is going to hit a wall.

In 1935 (when SS was enacted) life expectancy for me was 62.81 years and women 67.29 years. with a retirement age of 62 years payout was not for very long.

As of 2011 life expectancy for males is 76.3 years and females 81.1 year.

I took this info off a chart on infoplease.com and is for white males and females other races are grouped together and their numbers are lower.

Even if our government (both repubs and dems) had not stolen(excuse me "borrowed") all the money from the fund it would still be going bankrupt.

As of 2013 (according to stats on Wikipedia) the money coming in only exceeds the money going out by 20 billion dollars, after paying out (in the 4 individual separate funds) 1.24 trillion. Not much of fudge factor there 3 yers ago.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

Damn---those wealthy people that provide majority of the jobs. They should just give it all to entitled bunch that constantly complains, but too freaking lazy to get off their rump to make their lives better.

I'd bet that the weathy people give plenty to the real needy. How much you think those crackheads popping out 13 kids just to get more drug money give? They don't give, or even give a shit about their 13 children. Hell----They don't give a shit about themselves.

Liberals like Reid, Pelosi, Rangel, and the Clinton slime have used that bunch just to lined their own pockets after preaching take care of the poor.

Then you HAVE Obama trying to start racial tension on daily basis. He blames Whitey more than Fever does. He bought in, brought in corruot DOJ after one retired. Now he has her setting the tone in Baltimore. A pathetic area that has never thrived under liberal elected officials. Give me---give me---give me!