Say Anything Blog

Well put, Rob.  That would mean that they could not continue to rob our SS $.  (no pun intended).  The Democrats stole our SS money back in 1964.

Communism is evil

1937, I believe, Chief.

There is a kernel of truth to the idea that people have rejected it--there was strong public sentiment when the Democrats and AARP were talking about “risky markets” without noting that taxes are collected on economic activity reflected by those very markets.

So yes, when people lie about things, people make silly decisions.  “duh.”

How about I just keep my money?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

How about I just keep my money?

I’d be all for that.

When I look at my paycheck and see that more of my money goes to social security than I can afford to put in my own retirement accounts, I get pretty angry.

The way Social Security is being run now, I’ll never see anything from it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bike.  OK!  I’ll take 1937.  Even better.  If anyone else had suggested an idea like SS, they would be thrown in jail.  A ponzi scheme.

Communism is evil

Rob don’t forget that your employer is putting aside an equal amount of money for you.  For most workers they’d likely get that money in increased pay, with you I’m not so sure.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The problem isn’t the way it’s being “run,” but rather the way it’s designed.  It actually runs pretty efficiently--overhead of somewhere around 2%.

The problem is that it’s designed as a Ponzi scheme, and moreover one that tells recipients (current and future) that “the system” will take care of them when they need it.

Which is baloney, to put it mildly.  When we are too old to work, it will be our children, collectively speaking, who take care of us, no matter what retirement system we have.

When we hide this basic fact, what do you think it does to the birthrate?  Socialist Insecurity, by hiding the need for the next generation, sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

Good article discussing the successes of privatized SS in Chile: City-Journal: Cheers for Chile’s Chicago Boys

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

McCain voted to outlaw the diverting of Soc Sec funds to other means. Just FYI.

A few things:

The Social Security Act of 1935 established an, “Old-Age Reserve Account.” In 1939 the reserve account was changed to a formal, “Trust Fund.”

The reserve was required to be invested, except for what was needed for this years payments, in any security in which the United States government guaranteed the payment of the principal and interest, and authorized the treasury to issue special obligations directly to the account. 

This was a concern of Republicans at the time, “Does anybody believe that such a large sum of money accumulated for any purpose could be preserved intact?” asked Senator Daniel Hastings (R.-Del.). “Does anybody doubt that it would be subjected to all kinds of demands?”

In 1939 the growing reserve had become a political liability.  It drew the attention of advocates who made demands for expanded benefits and eligibility.  Legislation was enacted designed to draw down the reserve through increased eligibility and benefits.  It also change the reserve account to a formal trust fund. 

Chief and Bike:
There was no legislations in 1937 but there was an unsuccessful Supreme Court challenge to the program that determined the program was constitutional under the the general provision of the governments ability to tax.

It’s use in the budget is as follows, from the SSA History pages:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

The bonds owned by the trust fund are actual US Bonds that paid the trust fund $55.5 billion in 1999, about 6.9%.

The real problem began in the post war economic boom.  In order to buy votes politicians increased benefits, as happens in any social program or form of government—that is why socialism is extremely hard to maintain or reign in.  This happened in every even numbered year (election year) during the 1950’s.

These increases in benefits along with the governments deficit spending have run head first into demographics.

Interestingly the original plan was structured much more like a private annuity today as it provided something today’s plan doesn’t.  The original plan included a benefit paid to your estate equal to 3% of the total wages on which Social Security taxes were paid if you died before age 65.  If you were over 65 and had already retired and received retirement payments your estate received a lump sum equal to 3% of your total taxed wages minus the the total of payments received, if any.

In other words a return of your money!  Today your spouse, not your estate, receives a whopping $255.

This was changed in the 1939 expansion of the program mentioned above.  They replaced it with spousal and child monthly benefits, however as the SSA administrator said in a memo that year to his employees:

Despite the fact that larger benefits will be paid in the earlier years and new benefits are provided for the wives, widows, children, and parents of retired workers, the ultimate annual outlay will be less.

There are several reasons for this: first, the elimination of the lump-sum death payments, which would have in the future become very costly; second, the addition of survivors benefits, and wives benefits, do not represent as large an addition to the cost as might at first be supposed; many of the wives, widows, and parents will have built up right to “primary insurance benefits” themselves; they will not receive both benefits but the larger; the added cost is only the difference between the two benefits; third, the revision of the manner in which benefits are calculated through the use of an average wage and a new formula means that, while larger benefits will be paid to lower wage-earners, smaller benefits will be paid to higher wage-earners.(emphasis added)

They eliminated the lump sum knowing many spouses will have their own benefits anyway.  However by eliminating that lump sum they eliminated the potential build up and transfer of any wealth to future generations, preferring to pay low wage earners more today, thus perpetuating the welfare state.
DKK

LifeTrek, while certainly government shenanigans don’t help the situation, the ugly reality is that the insolvency of Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare doesn’t result from that, but from the basic, Ponzi structure of the programs.  You tell someone that they don’t need to have kids to take care of them as they age (or other social connections if they happen to be infertile), and then you act surprised that people actually acted on that information and didn’t have children or cultivate their social connections.

Recently many politicans want to use other people`s money. And I hope that SS accounts will private.