Author Topic: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"  (Read 1222 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Bachus discusses Social Security, health care
Robert Sutton / Tuscaloosa News Buy photo


By Tommy Stevenson Associate Editor
Published: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.

TUSCALOOSA | “Social Security could face default within two years,” U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus predicted here Tuesday. “The situation is much worse than people realize, especially because of the problems brought on by the recession, near depression.

Congressman Spencer Bachus, who represents Alabama's 6th Congressional District, visited the Tuscaloosa News on Tuesday morning for an editorial board meeting. Bachus answered questions from associate editor Tommy Stevenson and executive editor Doug Ray

“That’s not been on the board — people don’t seem to know that,” Bachus, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, said in a wide-ranging interview with the Tuscaloosa News Editorial Board. “What this recession has done to Social Security is pretty alarming.

“We’ve known for 15 years that we were going to have to make adjustment to Social Security, but we still through that was seven or eight years down the road,” he said. “But if things don’t improve very quickly, we’re going to be dealing with that problem before we know it.”

The solvency of Social Security, which provides pensions for people over 65, has not played a major role in the current debate over health care in Congress and Bachus, a Vestavia Hills Republican who represents part of Tuscaloosa County, said it will not likely be addressed in any health care bill the House eventually passes, although if a Social Security bail out is needed, it will invariably impact government health care programs.

In the debate over health care, Bachus said that he could support a bill that includes privately-administered health “co-ops,” along with the elimination of fraud and waste in existing government programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

The creation of health care “co-ops,” or non-profit health cooperatives run by members, is an idea that has gained momentum as Democrats and President Barack Obama seems to have moved away from the idea of a “government option,” which would be a government-run alternative to private health care now offered by for-profit insurance companies.

“I can not vote for a bill that has the government intruding into the private sector, subsidizing health care and eventually putting the insurance companies out of business,” he said.

As for the looming Social Security crisis, Bachus said options are just now beginning to be discussed.

“We could raise the retirement age, or in the worst case, cut back on some benefits,” he said. “But that is something we are just now beginning to get a handle on.”


Bachus visited The News the morning after a standing-room-only crowd of 2,000 people attended a health care public forum he hosted in Birmingham Monday night.

Unlike some town hall meetings that have turned chaotic across the county as members of Congress have returned to their districts during the August congressional recess, Bachus said there was “only a little friction” between opponents of various health care proposals advanced by the Democratic majority in Congress and those who support those proposals.

“I think everyone was for the most part civil and we had a lot of people just agree to disagree,” he said. “But you can tell that health care is an issue that has energized the country, because I have never had a town meeting with 2,000 people. And we even had to turn away a lot of people because of fire department regulations.”

Reach Tommy Stevenson at tommy.stevenson@tuscaloosanews.com or 205-722-0194.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______________ 

This is the next crisis.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 06:34:07 AM »
goodness gracious I wouldnt be suprised if ppl really do revolt if they are told they wont get any of their money back...

Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 06:36:14 AM »
The thought of all the money paid in by my parents, possibly never to be repaid is fucking sickening...

Why didn't they set social security up in a way where you could only take back out what you put in?  ???

Hell, my grandparents couldn't possibly have taken back out all they put in....  :-X :-X :-X
S

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 06:39:49 AM »
The thought of all the money paid in by my parents, possibly never to be repaid is fucking sickening...

Why didn't they set social security up in a way where you could only take back out what you put in?  ???

Hell, my grandparents couldn't possibly have taken back out all they put in....  :-X :-X :-X

Because SS is a Madoff scheme almost down to the exact detail. 


Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 06:40:42 AM »
Because SS is a Madoff scheme almost down to the exact detail. 



I don't want to give anymore money to these corrupt bastards.  :(
S

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 06:42:13 AM »
The thought of all the money paid in by my parents, possibly never to be repaid is fucking sickening...

Why didn't they set social security up in a way where you could only take back out what you put in?  ???

Hell, my grandparents couldn't possibly have taken back out all they put in....  :-X :-X :-X
feel the same way, on my end im still pretty young so ehh it still pisses me the fuk off but my parents i mean gezzzzz

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 06:45:44 AM »
I don't want to give anymore money to these corrupt bastards.  :(

Think about it, SS is the ultimate ponzi scheme.

The first people who pay in nothing but take out a lot get the biggest reward.  It will last so long as new suckers keep entering the program.  The day that the population of new payers decreases, GAME OVER there is no money left to pay out since the current people are being paid with current people payinginto the system, not the money they themselves put in. 

   

Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 06:48:36 AM »
Think about it, SS is the ultimate ponzi scheme.

The first people who pay in nothing but take out a lot get the biggest reward.  It will last so long as new suckers keep entering the program.  The day that the population of new payers decreases, GAME OVER there is no money left to pay out since the current people are being paid with current people payinginto the system, not the money they themselves put in. 

   

You're absolutely right...  :-X
S

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 06:53:04 AM »
Next to Madoff, Social Security and Medicare Are Real Ponzi Schemes
Link to this page

<a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Next+to+Madoff,+Social+Security+and+Medicare+Are+Real+Ponzi+Schemes-a01611779449">Next to Madoff, Social Security and Medicare Are Real Ponzi Schemes</a>

Bernard Madoff, who stands accused of bilking sophisticated investors out of $50 billion, is reported to have told two of his executives that his business was "a giant Ponzi schemeA fraudulent investment plan in which the investments of later investors are used to pay earlier investors, giving the appearance that the investments of the initial participants dramatically increase in value in a short amount of time.

Perpetrators of Ponzi schemes lead clients to believe their money is invested and that their profits are the fruits of the money manager's savvy. But in fact, the "profits" are merely revenue provided by the next group of dupes. Eventually, when no more new dupes can be found, the scheme crashes.

Political leaders say Madoff's alleged frimes show what's wrong with the country. President-elect Obama said the "massive fraud that was made possible in part because the regulators who were assigned to oversee Wall Street dropped the ball." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added, "Regulators have been asleep at the wheel."

Politicians go on and on about Wall Street "greed" and "irresponsibility."

But Madoff's scam (SCSI Configured AutoMatically) A subset of Plug and Play that allows SCSI IDs to be changed by software rather than by flipping switches or changing jumpers. Both the SCSI host adapter and peripheral must support SCAM. See SCSI.  was small compared to Ponzi schemes the government itself runs: Social Security and Medicare.

By now we all know the government does not invest our payroll taxes Payroll Tax

Tax an employer withholds and/or pays on behalf of their employees based on the wage or salary of the employee. In most countries, including the U.S., both state and federal authorities collect some form of payroll tax.  and pay our benefits with the profits our money earns. In the beginning, writes economic historian Charlotte Twight in Dependent on D.C., Americans were told Social Security was an insurance program. But the government was unable to sustain that bald lie.

In reality, our money, rather than being invested and kept in an actual "trust fund," is immediately given to current retirees in Social Security benefits or to their healthcare providers in Medicare benefits. The government's promise to pay for your retirement pension and medical care is just a promise. And a lie.

In theory, the promise could be kept by raising taxes on future workers, but there won't be enough of them. Changing demographics The attributes of people in a particular geographic area. Used for marketing purposes, population, ethnic origins, religion, spoken language, income and age range are examples of demographic data.  are destroying the programs. A large working class can support a relatively small retired class, especially when life expectancy Life Expectancy

1. The age until which a person is expected to live.

2. The remaining number of years an individual is expected to live, based on IRS issued life expectancy tables.  is 61 years and benefits don't begin until 65. That's how things were in the early years of Social Security. But when life expectancy grows to 80 and a large generational group - the baby boomers See generation X.  - retires expecting to be supported by a far smaller working class, that's trouble.

$40 Trillion Unfunded Liability

Ten years after Social Security passed in 1935, there were almost 42 workers for each retiree. Five years later, the ratio slipped to about 17 to 1. Now it's about 3.4 to 1. Thirty years from now, the ratio is projected to be 2 to 1.

Think of the burden on those two to three workers who'll have to support one retiree for 15 to 20 years.

The money just won't be there. In the next 75 years Social Security and Medicare will have a combined unfunded liability of $40.3 trillion. Social Security's problems get most of the attention, but Medicare will be the killer. At present it accounts for all but $4.3 trillion of the unfunded liability, and as we aging boomers keep demanding new, improved and more expensive medical care, the deficit will only get worse

Soon government will have to say what Madoff said: Sorry! The money's gone.

The government has no legal obligation to make good on its promises. Twice the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no contractual rights A contractual right is a claim, on other persons, that is acknowledged and perhaps reciprocated among the principals associated with that claim. Specialized contractual rights exist as part of a "contract" or agreement between persons to whom these rights belong.  regarding Social Security benefits. In 1960 (Flemming v. Nestor Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), is a Supreme Court Case in which the Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act. In this Section, Congress reserved to itself the power to amend and revise the schedule of benefits. ), the court said: "To engraft en·graft 
tr.v. en·graft·ed, en·graft·ing, en·grafts

1. To graft (a scion) onto or into another plant.

2. To plant firmly; establish.  upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to everchanging conditions which it demands."

Get that? You have no "accrued property rights" under Social Security. It's a welfare program that exists at the politicians' pleasure.

The government will either stiff us outright or, more likely, cowardly politicians will pretend to honor their promises by printing so much extra money to write the checks that the dollar will be worth pennies.

If Bernie Madoff tried to foist foist 
tr.v. foist·ed, foist·ing, foists

1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy: "I can usually tell whether a poet . . .  Social Security and Medicare on us, he'd be arrested, prosecuted and thrown hi the hoosegow hoose·gow 
n. Slang
A jail.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Spanish juzgado, tribunal, courtroom, from past participle of juzgar, to judge, from Latin i .

There's one thing I can say on behalf of Madoff: He never forced anyone to participate in his scheme. That's more than I can say for the government. Through taxation and inflation, it forces us to pay for all its schemes.

© 2009 Human Events Publishing, Inc. Provided by ProQuest LLC (Logical Link Control) See "LANs" under data link protocol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LLC - Logical Link Control . All Rights Reserved. 


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 07:03:35 AM »
hahahahaa.


Some birdbrained congressman tells you what you want to hear about SS

It must be the truth.

Why there's a 40 zillion dollar unfunded liability.

hahahahaha

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2009, 07:07:12 AM »
hahahahaa.


Some birdbrained congressman tells you what you want to hear about SS

It must be the truth.

Why there's a 40 zillion dollar unfunded liability.

hahahahaha

Decker - you asked for this:


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2009, 07:10:05 AM »
Decker - you asked for this:


And you asked for this:

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee08-pr.htm

You won't read it b/c the conclusions don't fit your libertarian prejudice.  SS is just fine.

So you make shit up.

If you do not acknowledge the facts in the annual report, then what do you base your doomsday rhetoric on?

You make shit up.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2009, 07:13:44 AM »
And you asked for this:

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee08-pr.htm

You won't read it b/c the conclusions don't fit your libertarian prejudice.  SS is just fine.

So you make shit up.

If you do not acknowledge the facts in the annual report, then what do you base your doomsday rhetoric on?

You make shit up.

Enron's annual report showed that they were fine too. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2009, 09:28:31 AM »
Enron's annual report showed that they were fine too. 
Are you averring that the SSA is creating false trust reports?

Man, you will go to no end to cling to your libertarian anti-gov. fantasies.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2009, 09:31:50 AM »
Are you averring that the SSA is creating false trust reports?

Man, you will go to no end to cling to your libertarian anti-gov. fantasies.

Bernie Madoff gave the investors reports too. 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2009, 10:03:35 AM »
I kind of like what Celente said about Ponzi schemes.
He said they should rename it, because Ponzi was a piker next to Madoff, lol.

I've long felt neither 'Social Security' nor 'Social insurance' (as it's called up here in Canada) will be around by the time i'm old enough to collect it. infact, I've been saying that since 1990. that's why I've always gone the entrepreneurial route setting up my own private pensions and residual income vehicles for years. The Canadian Actors union runs a private pension plan, but I'm not too confident it isn't affected by cyclical factors in the industry. Thats too much of a gamble for me. Being broke is one thing when you're young & able bodied. Being broke when you're old and don't have kids, ...is not something I want to experience in any way shape or form.

Social Security was fine until GWB decided to use it as his own personal piggy bank to fund his war efforts.  >:(
w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2009, 10:05:33 AM »
I kind of like what Celente said about Ponzi schemes.
He said they should rename it, because Ponzi was a piker next to Madoff, lol.
I've long felt neither 'Social Security' nor 'Social insurance' (as it's called up here in Canada) will be around by the time i'm old enough to collect it. infact, I've been saying that since 1990. that's why I've always gone the entrepreneurial route setting up my own private pensions and residual income vehicles for years.

Social Security was fine until GWB decided to use it as his own personal piggy bank to fund his war efforts.  >:(

OMG - JAG and I agree on something! 

That is exactly why I went in my own set up. 

Cheers Jag! 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2009, 10:22:21 AM »
SSA is not a Ponzi Scheme.

The trust fund holds T-bills. 

Those T-bills must be repaid b/c each one is supported by "the full faith and credit of the US government" meaning that the US gov. must satisfy that obligation...only the dissolution of the government would invalidate those instruments.

SS is just fine.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2009, 10:23:56 AM »
SSA is not a Ponzi Scheme.

The trust fund holds T-bills. 

Those T-bills must be repaid b/c each one is supported by "the full faith and credit of the US government" meaning that the US gov. must satisfy that obligation...only the dissolution of the government would invalidate those instruments.

SS is just fine.

And what is that Decker?????   

The ability to tax the shit out of people is the "full faith and credit" you speak of.  Get real bro. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2009, 10:24:39 AM »
Bernie Madoff gave the investors reports too. 
Yes and Bernie Madoff gained billions personally from that crime.

Who's benefiting from the alleged nefarious activity of a bunch of poindexter actuaries at SSA?

I think you should rethink this line of argumentation.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2009, 10:25:16 AM »
And what is that Decker?????   

The ability to tax the shit out of people is the "full faith and credit" you speak of.  Get real bro. 
I am real and you will pay your taxes.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2009, 10:26:51 AM »
I am real and you will pay your taxes.

And I also can set up a SEP plan and arrange my situaition to my advantage, which I already do. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2009, 10:31:28 AM »
And I also can set up a SEP plan and arrange my situaition to my advantage, which I already do. 
Why go with a SEP?

Why not go with a 401k?  It's got higher admin costs but you can put away more (If you make a lot of income).

I'm in the retirement plan business.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2009, 10:33:20 AM »
OMG - JAG and I agree on something! 

That is exactly why I went in my own set up. 

Cheers Jag! 

It's pretty messed up the way they have it though, where employers take deductions from your cheque.
I can't tell you how many horror stories abound with employees who have had money deducted from their cheques for years, ...and when they lose their jobs from their employers going under, ...they apply for unemployment, only to discover that those deductions had never made it to the government, and they are denied.

Up here, you can submit certain forms to your employer, which can limit the amount as well as scope of deductions they can take from your cheques. Unless it was a temporary job to make quick cash, I've always been employed as a consultant of some sort. In a nutshell, they were hiring my corporation which in turn provided them with my services. My cheques came payable to: My Corporation FSO me. THis way, no deductions came off. I got my gross wages in full. I could pay myself a small salary... if I chose to (payable by my corp), ...could even borrow money from my corp, ...even receive gifts and all sorts of perks & benefits from the corp... but my corp had a much lower tax rate than me as an individual.  And then there are the write-offs. If someone structures themselves properly... they can be legally bulletproof, whether it be against a litigious public, or a greedy tax man.

I've seen some people who are almost sick with disgust at the thousands of dollars they have wasted over the years by not being in MLM. They had no idea of all the tax benefits, deductions & write offs they could have been taking advantage of over the years. Many of the little things that really add up in a big way can be written off against taxes if structured properly.

Being in the film industry & MLM, ...everything was a business expense... from clothes, cars, gas, hairdressing appts, manicures, facials, cable, DVD rentals, movies, dinners out, vacations, classes. When you're an actor, ...pretty much everything can be considered research, continuous education or trade tools etc.,   :)
w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Congressman - "Social Security could be in default in 2 years"
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2009, 10:33:25 AM »
Why go with a SEP?

Why not go with a 401k?  It's got higher admin costs but you can put away more (If you make a lot of income).

I'm in the retirement plan business.

I am self employed and can put away almost 40% tax free.