BMX Bandit said:

---

The pigs are gloating

Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to raise Social Security retirement age to 70 fails by a vote of 3-93.

Sen. Schumer: "Came close. Came close." pic.twitter.com/QnEkVMR9NO

— Jeremy Art (@cspanJeremy) December 21, 2024

---

Proving that Schumer is a scum bag POS.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Just glad I don't need it. Scheduled to fail close to when I qualify.

---

Either I need it or not, I've paid into it for more 42 years. Give me my money back!!

If my SS taxes were put into index fund.. I think I would've come ahead.

---

If my mandated social security and pension payments were invested in an s&p index fund it would be worth more than 4 million by now, at 2.5 interest that would give an income of $125,000. My pension and SS (when I claim it) will be about 3/4 of that.

We must take care of our "public servsnts," a special class. Why are my SS payments a/k/a "government benefits" taxed at 85 percent and not treated as a Roth? Why are some payments reduced if a person's earnings from a job exceed a certain amount. BTW the excess earnings are subject to SS tax; is that not good for the system?

Amen brother.

Y'all can thank Democrat Senator and VP Al Gore for the accounting gimmick "lock box".

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Social Security is such a scam. I'm 35 and I would give up everything I've put in there if I could opt out and never have to pay into it again. Screw FDR.

---

I'm 50 and would do the same. It is a Ponzi scheme that needs to completely eliminated. Today!

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

Had to give this post another blue star! Should be POTY

lb3 said:

---

Hint: It's already insolvent. It has been paying out more than it brings in for years. There is no lock box and not trust fund.

---

Covid wasn't as effective as the Fed planned/hoped.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I'd rather not spend on either and let those taxpayers keep their own money to do with as they wish.

Social Security will be my beer money at best.

No Spin Ag said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

Good point.

If we're to go that route, I'd add Space exploration, be it by NASA or government contracts, that needs to be cut off until all our people's needs are taken care of.

---

For you always have the poor with you….

Can't hold back on doing actual great things until everybody is taken care of. What are great things is another debate.

(Now quit trying to take care of problems of other countries who hate us and I'm with you)

Sooper Jeenyus said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Hint: It's already insolvent. It has been paying out more than it brings in for years. There is no lock box and not trust fund.

---

Covid wasn't as effective as the Fed planned/hoped.

---

I remember commenting at the time, it was a Chinese bug to kill off a bunch of their old folks.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I understand the sentiment... but the problem with that is it becomes the baseline for every year after that. 200 billion in foreign aid is a 1 time expenditure. 200 Billion added to SS is forever.

Agreed. Not to mention, you can't take care of those who won't care for themselves (meaning it's a fool's errand).

100% agree on domestic spending before foreign charity. No idea how "Nationalism" became a derogatory. Politicians are quite literally elected solely to benefit their constituency.

HarleySpoon said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What sucks for me is that it's gonna go insolvent right about the time I get eligible...

---

Explain to me like I am a t-sip, what exactly is going to go insolvent?

- going to go insolvent like defense spending and welfare?

- simply going to start consuming more tax dollars than it is taking in and going to have to start consuming some of the previous surplus funds that are sitting in Fort Knox or federal debt instruments held by the treasury (lol)?

- going to have to go back to just funding the simple retirement funds it was originally intended to provide and kill all the "add on programs" that have been tacked on in the last forty years? Prescription benefits for example.

My guess is that when a politician or federal bureaucrat says "it's going to go insolvent"…what they mean is "oh crap, we are going to have to start funding the previous surpluses we consumed with other spending on other things by issuing more debt….or maybe by saying 'insolvent'…that will make it easier to raise taxes and/or extend the retirement age once again so that once again we can declare it 'solvent' and start tacking other spending government benefits on to the program without having to say they will need to raise taxes to pay for those new benefits."

---

I posted this after you asked but it does a great job explaining it...

Quote:

---

The real problem starts only a decade or so from now, when Social Security begins to take in less cash than it spends.

How can I say that, given Social Security's $2.3 trillion (and growing) trust fund? It's because the fund owns nothing but Treasury securities. Normally, of course, Treasury securities are the safest thing you can hold in a retirement account. But Social Security's Treasurys won't help cover the program's cash shortfall because Social Security is part of the federal government. Having one arm of the government (Social Security) own IOUs from another arm (the Treasury) doesn't help the government as a whole cover its bills.

Here's why the trust fund has no financial value. Say that Social Security calls the Treasury sometime in 2017 and says it needs to cash in $20 billion of securities to cover benefit checks. The only way for the Treasury to get that money is for the rest of the government to spend $20 billion less than it otherwise would (fat chance!), collect more in taxes (ditto), or borrow $20 billion more (which is what would happen). The spend-less, collect-more, and borrow-more options are exactly what they would be if there were no trust fund. Thus, the trust fund doesn't make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security's cash shortfalls than if there were no trust fund.

---

I don't disagree with any if the sentiment here but I paid in for 50 years and began drawing SS back in February which makes the 2nd Wednesday of each month a happy day.

Complete lie. If only it was a locked trust fund the government couldn't raid like its personal piggy bank then not only might it be solvent but able to have excess to reinvest to increase itself and thus increase payments.

But that would be helping the people and not the politician class

Exactly my point….net, net it's just government taxing and government spending…..there is no insolvency any more than with any of the other branches of government spending. It's just a political term to call for more taxes or means testing.

HarleySpoon said:

---

Exactly my point….net, net it's just government taxing and government spending…..there is no insolvency any more than with any of the other branches of government spending. It's just a political term to call for more taxes or means testing.

---

True. It's just an accounting trick at the moment...

No Spin Ag said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

Good point.

If we're to go that route, I'd add Space exploration, be it by NASA or government contracts, that needs to be cut off until all our people's needs are taken care of.

---

Imagine how impregnable a $200B border wall could be

torrid said:

---

Social Security will be my beer money at best.

---

Same. Not counting on it at all. Just beer money.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Complete lie. If only it was a locked trust fund the government couldn't raid like its personal piggy bank then not only might it be solvent but able to have excess to reinvest to increase itself and thus increase payments.

But that would be helping the people and not the politician class

---

Are you saying it's NOT in a lockbox?

lb3 said:

---

Hint: It's already insolvent. It has been paying out more than it brings in for years. There is no lock box and not trust fund.

---

What part of the gov't is not insolvent?

Tom Fox said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I'd rather not spend on either and let those taxpayers keep their own money to do with as they wish.

---

The real answer is a system like the one Australia has where your employer mandated retirement contributions (around 10% of your salary) are put into a Superannuation account that is held in your name and you have some latitude in the investments in that account.

If that all goes to naught and you've got nothing left in your Super account, then there is a public safety net "old age" pension.

In our American system, it's just tax the makers and give to the takers.

I first broke the code on this 20 years ago when I was working "On the Lot" at the House of Mouse and my IBM field service tech guy told me that he turned 65 and was now drawing Social Security to the tune of $1,976/month.

What I figured out at the time was that it takes to SS contributions of 2 high wager earners like me to support his Silent Generation draw from SS. Never mind that it would take the contributions of about 7 low wage earners like some of my minimum wage siblings to support that one guy.

The current SS system is simply not sustainable.

Never mind the fraud associated with disability payments, surviving spouse benefits, etc.

I knew two people in Los Angeles who were dating but told me they couldn't get married because they would lose the payment from their ex-spouse's disability check. So they just lived together, each of them living off the alimony check from their ex-spouse's disability. That seemed like a totally random scenario for both of them to be in. I don't know if there's an app where you can meet other disability grifters.

Anyway, I know somebody who has never held a job and is still surviving off her spouse's SS check and she was only 47 y/o when her spouse passed. It's been 15 years and she won't get a job because she'll lose her government check.

We need to encourage more people to work but also keep more of what they make.

Phatbob said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I understand the sentiment... but the problem with that is it becomes the baseline for every year after that. 200 billion in foreign aid is a 1 time expenditure. 200 Billion added to SS is forever.

---

Foreign aid is a one time expenditure - until the next time Zelesnskyy comes to visit Congress

I take your point though about the recurring cost related to SS.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I'd rather not spend on either and let those taxpayers keep their own money to do with as they wish.

---

The real answer is a system like the one Australia has where your employer mandated retirement contributions (around 10% of your salary) are put into a Superannuation account that is held in your name and you have some latitude in the investments in that account.

If that all goes to naught and you've got nothing left in your Super account, then there is a public safety net "old age" pension.

In our American system, it's just tax the makers and give to the takers.

I first broke the code on this 20 years ago when I was working "On the Lot" at the House of Mouse and my IBM field service tech guy told me that he turned 65 and was now drawing Social Security to the tune of $1,976/month.

What I figured out at the time was that it takes to SS contributions of 2 high wager earners like me to support his Silent Generation draw from SS. Never mind that it would take the contributions of about 7 low wage earners like some of my minimum wage siblings to support that one guy.

The current SS system is simply not sustainable.

Never mind the fraud associated with disability payments, surviving spouse benefits, etc.

I knew two people in Los Angeles who were dating but told me they couldn't get married because they would lose the payment from their ex-spouse's disability check. So they just lived together, each of them living off the alimony check from their ex-spouse's disability. That seemed like a totally random scenario for both of them to be in. I don't know if there's an app where you can meet other disability grifters.

Anyway, I know somebody who has never held a job and is still surviving off her spouse's SS check and she was only 47 y/o when her spouse passed. It's been 15 years and she won't get a job because she'll lose her government check.

We need to encourage more people to work but also keep more of what they make.

---

Imagine what your private Social Security account would look like if you had been allowed to divert the money the government "saved" for you to a no load mutual fund just invested in an S&P Index Fund?

Ag with kids said:

---

What sucks for me is that it's gonna go insolvent right about the time I get eligible...

For decades I knew this was coming so my retirement plans assume I will get ZERO from SS.

Because my guess is that the solution will end up being means testing. And people who have been hitting the max contribution will just be assumed to not need it since they make a lot of money. So, they'll just make us ineligible and give our money to people who paid in less.

But, I'm still going to set up an account when SS can get deposited. If I'm wrong and they don't **** me out of all my money, I'm going to check the account every January and whatever is in it is my hookers and blow money for the year.

---

Same here, I'll be 67.

Sadly even the "conservatives" on this board will throw a hissy fit if any touches their SS. Nothing will ever be done about it. Despite the fact we haven't touched the retirement age in 40 years

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Sadly even the "conservatives" on this board will throw a hissy fit if any touches their SS. Nothing will ever be done about it. Despite the fact we haven't touched the retirement age in 40 years

---

I wouldn't. I don't care about it.

The only way out is to phase it out over time and age groups.

But that would be too logical.

We fixed it with greater tax rates and increased age at eligibility. Your turn.

This was the Social Security Fairness Act. It means that millions of Americans who paid into social security for decades will receive their full benefit rather than having the government basically embezzle half of it.

Before this bill passed, police, fire, teachers paid into social security for the required amount of time, but received half their benefit bc they received a pension. Now they will receive the full amount.

Where this really affects people is when the pensioner passes away and their spouse gets half the pension, their social security is cut in half. You literally have people being punished for working.

I agree with virtually everything said, but I sense the sentiment is not in agreement with mine.

I certainly hope you're not upset because I'm finally going to receive the full benefit I contributed in to for several years working in industry before leaving to teach engineering. Finally I won't have to complain about the 40% that I was going to continue have stolen from my investment each month in retirement.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I'd rather not spend on either and let those taxpayers keep their own money to do with as they wish.

---

The real answer is a system like the one Australia has where your employer mandated retirement contributions (around 10% of your salary) are put into a Superannuation account that is held in your name and you have some latitude in the investments in that account.

If that all goes to naught and you've got nothing left in your Super account, then there is a public safety net "old age" pension.

In our American system, it's just tax the makers and give to the takers.

I first broke the code on this 20 years ago when I was working "On the Lot" at the House of Mouse and my IBM field service tech guy told me that he turned 65 and was now drawing Social Security to the tune of $1,976/month.

What I figured out at the time was that it takes to SS contributions of 2 high wager earners like me to support his Silent Generation draw from SS. Never mind that it would take the contributions of about 7 low wage earners like some of my minimum wage siblings to support that one guy.

The current SS system is simply not sustainable.

Never mind the fraud associated with disability payments, surviving spouse benefits, etc.

I knew two people in Los Angeles who were dating but told me they couldn't get married because they would lose the payment from their ex-spouse's disability check. So they just lived together, each of them living off the alimony check from their ex-spouse's disability. That seemed like a totally random scenario for both of them to be in. I don't know if there's an app where you can meet other disability grifters.

Anyway, I know somebody who has never held a job and is still surviving off her spouse's SS check and she was only 47 y/o when her spouse passed. It's been 15 years and she won't get a job because she'll lose her government check.

We need to encourage more people to work but also keep more of what they make.

---

I am the employer and I would rather people just save for themselves rather than force me as the employer to do that for them. Or me as the tax payer to provide for their "social security." None of it is in the constitution and is one step closer to full-on socialism.

And when they don't, they starve. This is not complicated. Humans lived this way for almost our entire existence.

This nanny state BS needs to stop ASAP.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

I don't expect to see a nickel. And I hate all this waste. But I agree with every word of this.