Skip to comments.You think she has had ENOUGH?????
Posted on 04/28/2014 8:42:13 AM PDT by drypowder
You think she has had ENOUGH?????
So true ..
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured ...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
Think she has had ENOUGH from Congress? We all have!
This lady could not have said it any better.
Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is! "Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetent bastards" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech.
That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch. P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!! I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years It's my money-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks .
EVERYONE!! If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says, please PASS IT ON!!!!
POliticians know about ‘tits’ and the sucking thereof. That’s for sure.
Still a good read, even if posted before. She really ought to revise it since #4 about the change of the retirement age goes back to the Reagan administration. Saying “recently” on that change seems a stretch, IMO.
PATTY MYERS in Montana knows very little about SS and how it works. Her ignorance is mind-boggling.
I’m not sure that a lifelong expectation of receiving benefits from a welfare program makes it anything other than a welfare program.
No, it never was. The only thing that ever changed was Federal accounting.
And interest bearing account? What's that mean?
The Reagan/Democrats SS reform deal raised FICA taxes to create an operational surplus so they could spend that $$$, of course the government gave themselves IOUs to cover it.
If the government raises taxes then they will spend it.
Its that simple.
I always ask this first too.
She says what I think.
But, back in 1964 Social security was so solvent it would NEVER need government subsidies!
“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government.
Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”
AND HERE is where your money went! Read and weep!
I only disagree with her on one point.
I think, the Social Security Ponzi scheme would make Madoff BLUSH, not be proud.
Even a pond-scum dirtbag like Madoff has SOME standards.
Im not sure that a lifelong expectation of receiving benefits from a welfare program makes it anything other than a welfare program.
Social Security is not a welfare program.
For up to the first $100K a every person in America makes , 14% of their income is skimmed right off the top to be put into the Social Security program.
That a person has provided 14% of their income to the Government for their entire working life for a program that promises to provide a retirement income for them and is a realistic expectation that they should receive a return on their “investment”
Several years ago AARP magazine had an article on how the Social Security program was NOT a Ponzi scheme. It went into detail on how a Ponzi scheme worked and showed how they all collapsed. Because Social Security has not collapsed it is not a Ponzi Scheme.
Several pages later there was an article by Jane Bryant Quinn on Social Security and how it worked. Her definition of it’s workings was just like a Ponzi Scheme although she did not say it.
She is on the right track. As I always say these (Simpson, bureaucrats, Congress, judges...) are the smart ones. Remember, they are the ones that got us in this mess. Meanwhile, us dumb ones are to blame by the elite class.
Someone takes that 16% of your pay (don’t forget employer share) for 4 decades, you damn right that person should expect benefits at the end.
Otherwise stop pulling it from their check.
Its only welfare when it is paid out to illegals, and others who never had their paychecks plundered for it.
Very well written and all of it right on. You bet I’ll pass it on.
“That a person has provided 14% of their income to the Government for their entire working life for a program that promises to provide a retirement income for them and is a realistic expectation that they should receive a return on their investment”
Amen. A person investing this stream of cash, in conservative investments across four and a half decades, should expect about 3 to 4 times the amount of social security payouts.
An investment manager who returned the annuity SS does would be arrested as a thief and would have some explaining to do.
It sucks that they squandered your money, and it also sucks that they are giving my money to you. Sorry, but that's the truth.
And I'm not greedy for stating it. You got screweed, now I'm getting screwed.
Not asking for others to be confiscated. What part of it don’t you get that around 15% of her pay was stolen for 45 years, against her will, with the promise it would be paid back to her at a certain age?
We are talking about the money that was stolen from her.
aarp? They have a magazine? Dedicated to all things socialist? Obiecare, guncontrol. But you can get your car towed. Or was that AAA.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
The SS wage cap goes up almost every year. Currently, it is $117,000. In 2007 it was $97,500. There is no wage cap for Medicare taxes, which are 1.45% each for employer and employee. The total payroll tax is 15.3%.
The tax rate for OASDI (SS and DI) is 6.2% each for the employer and employee or 12.4%. Social Security Tax Rates
That a person has provided 14% of their income to the Government for their entire working life for a program that promises to provide a retirement income for them and is a realistic expectation that they should receive a return on their investment
SS is an insurance program, not a pension plan. The money you contribute does not belong to you once deposited into the SSTF. See SCOTUS case Flemming v. Nestor.
You could pay into SS for 50 years, drop dead a day before being scheduled to receive benefits, and all you would get is a small burial allowance. Your contributions are not part of your estate.
Current SS recipients will get far more out of SS than they contributed into it. In the case of Medicare, the average recipient gets three times more in benefits than they contributed.
Except that the money to fund it has been taken from every hard working American at the point of a gun with a threat of imprisonment for non-payment.
It’s not a welfare program. I don’t care for Social Security, but it isn’t a handout. People contribute for their benefits, and the payouts aren’t (to my knowledge) means tested. Welfare is something that is given to you because you’re supposedly too poor to survive without it.
Again, I think Social Security is a grand Ponzi scheme, but I think we should try to honor the promises that were made while we at least change Social Security into a voluntary program. If it was, I’d still opt out at my age (which is not young).
Who promised to pay it back? If you die before being eligible for benefits, you get nothing back except a small burial allowance. SS is not a pension fund. It is insurance. Your contributions belong to the federal government not you or your estate.
Social Security is a wealth redistribution plan. Although everyone pays in at a flat rate up to the income limit, the benefits are paid out on a progressive basis. A lower earner gets more credit for the dollars they pay in than the last dollar paid in by a high earner.
“What part of it dont you get that around 15% of her pay was stolen for 45 years, against her will, with the promise it would be paid back to her at a certain age? We are talking about the money that was stolen from her.
Who promised to pay it back? If you die before being eligible for benefits, you get nothing back except a small burial allowance. SS is not a pension fund. It is insurance. Your contributions belong to the federal government not you or your estate.”
Yeah, great program that SS. What a steaming pile.....
Social Security is broke. This lady is a victim and that’s unfortunate. But confiscating the earnings of future generations to pay for the unfunded, but promised, benefits of past generations doesn’t solve the problem; it merely compounds it and passes the buck.
They can hold people in contempt of Congress, something I am studying is Contempt of the Constitution, which is tantamount to a treason charge, without the nuances of BS that the lawyers and judges hide behind...
Way cool stuff.
to steal a phrase from John Lennon... "Just imagine all the" politicians sitting in jail today.
Kinda like the way taxes are pulled from our paychecks to pay the salaries of employees of defense contractors. You create nothing. Economically defense spending is a big suck on an economy. It is taxes, strip mined from paychecks, and spent on things we must have. Say for example, a helicopter.
But needed though it is, economically it is a loss. That is why every society, everywhere calls wars “expensive” and not “economic engines”.
Case study number 1, the USSR. They built so much military equipment that the world is still flooded with it. And they went bankrupt. You don’t base economies on activities that are 100% tax subsidized.
The salaries at the helo plant might as well be welfare too. Sure, they work and roll out a new machine for the government.
But the fact remains, defense spending is a tax supported cost.
Of course, it would be insane to not incur that cost because it’s a basic requirement of society. Some would argue that elderly surviving after a long working life is also a societal function.
The only moral course is to end SS immediately. Fully honor the obligations to the people in the system. It isn’t very conservative to steal around 15% of someones pay for their entire adult life with the promise you’ll pay it back at the end, and the renege on the agreement. Everyone not closing in on retirement age should be free people today to save for their own future with full personal control over their own investments. At most id -maybe- support a mandated minimum percentage that must be saved and invested.
But its childish to say angrily stamp your feet and be angry that your taxes might be sent to someone as an SS payment.
Most Americans have saved very little for their retirement.
There is no agreement to pay it back at the end. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Ponzi schemes fail because you run out of victims willing to give your their money. Social Security hasn't failed (yet) because the victims don't have to be willing to give you their money - they are forced to give it at gun point.
Yet another pet name for the president.
Not only did she pay into it for 50 years, but she also had no choice at all! In other words, she might have voted against Social Security her entire life and maybe even wanted to opt out of it, but she couldn’t. Why should she and others, like the military, who have earned or paid into their benefits be at the top of the list when it comes time to cut government? That’s what I want to know. Of ALL the crap that’s currently getting paid out, why are the elderly on Social Security and military retirees first on the chopping block? Oh, I know. They tend to be conservative!
“Current SS recipients will get far more out of SS than they contributed into it”
Bought the government propaganda did ya? If you are talking totaling their contributions, you are of course correct. And everyone with a mutual fund or an IRA for 4 decades also gets more out of it than they put into it.
But do some math. Take that 15% stream of payments, stretch it out over 45 years, and compound interest from even a very conservative investment strategy, and it’s clear they are not getting more than they contributed. They are actually having more than 2/3 of their expected return stolen.
And as someone else pointed out, if they drop dead the day before, ALL of it is stolen.
Great post! ... But, like so many of us, she gets it wrong at the end. Social Security IS an ‘entitlement’.
From the website, “Far from being ‘worthless IOUs,’ the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government.”
I feel so much better.
“Most Americans have saved very little for their retirement.”
The math is still the math. If an investment advisor said I will take 15% of your lifetime earnings, and invest it in any sane manner for 45 years,,,”but remember, this is only a cornerstone of your retirement”; you could conclude you were dealing with a fraudulent operation.
That’s should easily provide a strong, personally owned, retirement. Of course, in America you have to do that twice for at least 30%. Only half of which will likely ever see.
You’re right, nobody was told that their SS payments will result in payments at a certain age/
Where do you come up with this nonsense?
SS is not a mutual fund or a pension plan. Your contributions do not belong to you (See Nestor vs Flemming.) There is no agreement to pay the money back to you, either the contributions or any investment income.
Yes, it is a bad deal for many, but nothing has been stolen since your contributions (insurance payments) don't belong to you. If you think it is a pension plan and that there was some agreement between the USG and you to pay the money back, then you are living in a fantasy world.
And for today's recipients, they are getting far more back than they paid into the system. That won't be the case for future generations. SS is a pay as you go system, i.e., today's workers pay for today's retirees. SS has been running a deficit since 2010 and will continue to do so until the SSTF is exhausted and benefits will have to be cut by about 20%.
Source: CBO Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline 26 Jan 2011. Note: See Primary Surplus line (which is negative, indicating a deficit)
Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBOs deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBOs figures predict that the payroll tax holiday will cost the governments general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the tax holiday and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.
Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last as long predicted become a drag on the governments overall finances.
And SS DI Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2016 or two years from now. From the annual Trustees Report:
"Social Securitys Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the Trustees long-range test of close actuarial balance nor their short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds. DI Trust Fund reserves expressed as a percent of annual cost (the trust fund ratio) declined to 85 percent at the beginning of 2013, and the Trustees project trust fund depletion in 2016, the same year projected in the last Trustees Report. DI cost has exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the trust fund ratio has declined since peaking in 2003. While legislation is needed to address all of Social Securitys financial imbalances, the need has become most urgent with respect to the programs DI component. Lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries three years from now."
I think you’re right that Social Security needs to be eliminated, but certainly you must have some sympathy for those who dependent on it but are now too old to work? In the real world, Social Security existed (exists), people have paid into it for decades, and some of those people are now thoroughly dependent on those payments. No way could I cut them off even if I personally needed to continue paying taxes to support them. It’s the morally right thing to do.
At the same time, I think we should learn from this. I think most of us conservatives are aware that these government programs need to be reformed or eliminated. In the case of Social Security, it must change into a voluntary program as a minimum. Those who are already retired or are near retirement should have the option to stay in. Those who want to opt out, should.
Government could also offer lump sum payouts to current (or near term) recipients for a short time. These payouts could be equal to total contributions paid—maybe even with a few percent interest—so long as the recipient could then be permanently taken off the books.
I consider myself a true moderate, maybe even a traditional liberal. I want to try and roll our big government back without destroying the country in the process. I don’t want chaos. I want smaller government, and I’d be satisfied so long as we’re moving in that direction. Cutting Social Security outright would be a disaster for many millions of people. It’s too far integrated into our society, so it needs to be cut out carefully like a surgeon working on a tumor. I could sleep well at night if the program was reformed so that future generations might be free of it, even if that means I have to currently tolerate some of it.
It was an advertizing flyer individualized for the recipient.
Who said that? Not I.
Exactly. We just dropped 5 billion on Ukraine maidan movements. 6 Billion in Afghanistan. a few billion in Egypt and Libya. We are even giving Egypt a billion to buy two German subs so they can torpedo Israeli forces,, who we ALSO subsidize. This putting us in the historically amazing position of funding BOTH sides of a giant war.
We pay Pakistan billion though they protected Osama and refuse to let us move supplies to Afghanistan. Instead, the biggest overland route is through Russia. We even pay North Korea enormous sums of money including a Nuclear project. We do this so they don’t act belligerent. Of course, they learned that acting belligerent makes Uncle Sugar come running with cash.
All that is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of billions we sent to bail out Euro bankers who bought GS fraudulent paper.
For Gods sake, we even actually spend money to teach Africans how to wash their penises.
But we freak out and suddenly become conservative at the idea of honoring pensions that our citizens paid decades of payments towards.
Of course SS is a fraud. But id rather my taxes go towards closing down that fraud and ensuring retirees aren’t suddenly left destitute than to some dune coon plotting his next jihad. But that’s just me.
“There is no agreement to pay it back at the end. “
kabar: “Most Americans have saved very little for their retirement.”
And why should they when they’ve been promised Social Security? Even worse, if they DO have savings, those savings will have to be liquidated first while the person who has nothing will get a free ride from government.
Government is the problem. It’s providing the absolute worse incentives to the population at large. Responsible people are punished. Irresponsibility is rewarded! We must change it, but how to do so?
That’s why I’ve posted I think we need to carefully roll back government, including Social Security.