Posted on 06/15/2012 9:53:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
People really don’t get it. The debt is so huge that the only solution to it is to not pay vast sums of money to people to whom it is owed. Ultimately that is what will happen, voluntarily or not, be it through default or monetization of the debt.
Which is why this thing will end in war.
No
Government has allowed this to happen to retain their jobs and lifestyles, and moving money from those who paid in, to those who never paid in.
Someone’s lifestyle is going to be reduced, it just seems like the aged will suffer.
It’s a rhetorical question, right?
I know there are many freepers who have paid into the system for years, and who recognize how utterly hopeless the financial mess is -- and yet they still say "I expect to get what I have coming to me!!"
I see massive default and I see a world war of monumental proportions. What I do NOT see is a bunch of freepers (or anybody) receiving social security checks 15 years from now. It just ain't happening. The math says "No".
No.
—Someone’s lifestyle is going to be reduced, it just seems like the aged will suffer.—
Everyone will suffer. Everyone. The aged (I’m 58 and getting there) are not my concern. We’ve lived a longer life already than most men. I’m willing to die today.
Philippians 1:21
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
This guy blathers-on about the “Bush tax cuts”.
The Bush tax cuts expired.
They’re the Obama tax cuts now.
No.
Next question.
These articles that fret over how we can or can’t fix this kinda crack me up.
Imagine two men training to jump the grand canyon. One trains by sitting in front of the TV stuffing himself with beer and hot dogs while he watches football. The other takes steroids and works out vigorously on the gym and track and even has a professional trainer.
So, which one will successfully make the jump? Answer? Neither. It’s hopeless if they are depending solely on their human strength.
Likewise with this issue. We are at the point where we have spent our way into such oblivion that severe austerity or printing like Zimbabwe and spending like a drunken sailor will have the same result: collapse and world war.
Get used to it.
The smart people are using whatever they have to buy or make a parachute so it won’t hurt so much when they hit the bottom of the canyon.
No.
That doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
Done properly, it may be possible to gracefully phase it out.
Start raising the retirement age, no other changes for people over 60-or-so, and gradually phase it out over about 40 years.
The new rule would be for every year you are under 60 years old now, your FICA tax is reduced by 2.5%, and your expected Social Security payout is reduced by 2.5%. Deficiences financed by redeeming the Trust Fund bonds (ha! I kill myself!)
I'm not sure how well that plan would work out with the actual demographics, but it might work.
Let’s start with a reform of the public employee retirement systems at all levels of government. Why are these people retiring after 20 years of being overpaid and underworked with 80% of their salaries. Let’s start there.
The amount owed is about 20 times the total money supply.
Imagine someone oweing you $1000 and you know he’ll only ever make $50 in the rest of his life...
you’re not getting it.
You’d spend your brain computing cycles in a much better way answering the question - “how am I going to ride this out to the other side?”
Can we prevent a fiscal collapse by reforming entitlements?
That is the first question we need to ask. I am not sure of the answer. We may be so far gone with what we currently owe that even by reforming entitlements to lessen or stop the amount we borrow, fiscal collapse may be inevitable.
Can we reform entitlements?
This is the next question. As pointed out, even conservative folks here balk at reforming certain entitlements. I see a lot of people worried about the fiscal situation, but not a lot of folks, particularly in Congress, worried enough to do what has to be done to implement true reform.
Therefore, despite the answers to the first two questions, they are probably rendered moot by the answer to the last.
$500 billion - almost 1/2 of the annual deficit - could be elimintated by eliminating welfare.
A 40-year old on welfare should be cut off before an 80-year old on social security sees their meager check reduced.
We should stop giving Federal grants - billions - to Solyndra’s etc.
Here’s the bottom line. Since social security is a separate payroll deduction and the stated purpose of that deduction is to fund social security, then social security and the rest of Federal spending are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
People need to understand that they’re saps if they’re ok with cutting social security before everything else has been cut to the bone first.
Wake up, your Congressman is laughing behind your back.
For the first $108,000 (not sure if it’s the current number) of your W-2 wages - every year - over 12% of that has been getting paid into the social security trust fund.
Think about that - 12% of your gross pay.
12%, dedicated to you receiving social security when you retire - not for any other purpose.
Yet YOUR Congressman has been taking the surplus for the past half century and spending it on junk, spreading it around, to get people to vote for him. Whether it’s building projects, roads or welfare, whatever, he’s been spending the surplus and laughing at the rube taxpayers.
Now that the annual surplus is disappearing.................
Instead of keeping the social security benefit payments going according to the deal THEY made, they’re planning on cutting the payments. And they’ll keep the withholdings coming out of paychecks - and undoubtedly INCREASE them !
Absolutely correct. And not a "little" war either - the kind of war that shakes the entire world and kills tens of millions.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528809
For those who remember the old Soviet Union, it was a grim place — at least for average citizens. But not so for those in government. Contrary to the official ideals of equality and a classless society that the ruling communist regime espoused, the USSR created a privileged class of party members inside government — the nomenklatura.
This semipermanent bureaucracy earned higher incomes, got better health care, ate better food and had greater job security than average Russians, the much-despised proletarians. Today, our bloated federal government seems, in significant ways, to be creating this same dynamic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.