This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Calls For An End To America's Welfare State, Choice To Opt Out Of Social Security
In addition to calling for the abolishing of America's insolvent "welfare state" regime (and not to mention the Fed), Ron Paul floats the idea of allowing Americans to opt out of payroll tax in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits. As the SSA will be pretty much insolvent in a few years, and not provide any benefit to anyone soon thereafter, this seems like a reasonable trade off.
By Ron Paul
Reject the Welfare/Warfare State
Last
week’s midterm elections have been characterized as a victory for
grassroots Americans who are fed up with Washington and the political
status quo. In particular, the elections are
being touted as a clear indicator that voters demand reductions in
federal spending, deficits, and debt.
If the new Congress hopes to live up to the expectations of Tea Party voters, however, it faces some daunting choices. For
all the talk about pork and waste, the truth is that Congress cannot
fix the budget and get our national debt under control by trimming fat
and eliminating earmarks for “Bridges to Nowhere.”
Real
reductions in federal spending can be achieved only by getting to the
meat of the federal budget, meaning expenditures in all areas.
The
annual budget soon will be $5 trillion unless Congress takes serious
steps to reduce spending for entitlements, military, and debt service.
Yet how many Tea Party candidates who campaigned on a platform of
spending cuts talked about Social Security, Medicare, foreign wars, or
bond debt?
With regard to entitlements, the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report tells it all. It
paints a stark picture of two entitlement programs that cannot be
sustained under even the rosiest scenarios of economic growth. No one, regardless of political stripe, can deny the fundamental problem of unfunded future liabilities in both programs.
We should understand that Social Security was intended primarily to prevent old widows from becoming destitute. Life expectancy in 1935 was only about 65, when there were several workers for each Social Security recipient. The
program was never intended to be a general transfer payment from young
workers to older retirees, regardless of those retirees’ financial need. Yet today Social Security faces an unfunded liability of approximately $18 trillion.
First,
Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to
Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to
claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate
unconstitutional spending - including unnecessary
overseas commitments - and use the saved funds to help transition to a
Social Security system that is completely voluntary. At
some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out
of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security
benefits.
Medicare similarly faces a shortfall of $30.8 trillion in unfunded future benefits. The Part D prescription drug benefit accounts for approximately $15.5 trillion, or half of the unfunded Medicare liability. Congress should immediately repeal the disastrous drug benefit passed in 2003 by President Bush and a Republican Congress.
Fiscal conservatives should not be afraid to attack entitlements philosophically. We
should reject the phony narrative that entitlement programs are
inherently noble or required by “progressive” western values. Why
exactly should Americans be required, by force of taxation, to fund
retirement or medical care for senior citizens, especially senior
citizens who are comfortable financially? And if
taxpayers provide retirement and health care benefits to some older
Americans who are less well off, can’t we just call it welfare instead
of maintaining the charade about “insurance” and “trust funds”?
Military
spending and interest on the national debt similarly represent large
federal expenditures that Congress must address by rethinking our
foreign policy and exercising far greater oversight over the Federal
Reserve and the Treasury department.
I have for a long time criticized our interventionist foreign policy and the Fed, and I will continue to do so. It’s
time for Congress to face the fundamental problems that affect Social
Security and Medicare, and show the courage necessary to make real
changes to both programs by rejecting the welfare/warfare state.
»
- 17829 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
He's like the kid who has some incredulous story that seemingly only he can understand. After a few days of, "You believe me, though, don'cha, Betty? You believe me. Right?" It gets kind of old.
My best advice to Dr. Paul would be to trust the people who know already. We're getting the word out; the believers are giving mouth-to-mouth. Just relax.
Ask a question and wait for the answer. As more of us get educated, the more we will collectively wait for the answer. And when that answer is not satisfactory...well, we'll see.
In the meantime, Dr. Paul, have trust in the people who trust in you. Hold their feet to the fire but take a lesson from Grayson: give them enough rope to hang themselves. We'll all get it- eventually.
My problem with listening to Ron Paul is that it all sounds so sane and ordinary. There's nothing wacky about it. Gives him a disadvantage in political theater. Oh how I miss the antics of George W. Now, that was entertainment!
It sounds sane and ordinary to you, Mr. Zerohedge Reader...
What I mean is that he feels he has to roll over every nuance and ramification of a question before he can release the ques-
Sorry, your time has expired....
Grayson was all like, "So, what happened to the half-trillion dollars, Mr. Chairman?"
Dead air. "Yammina-yammina..."
"Yeah. I thought so."
Political theatre is what is going to win this game. Believe.
If memory serves me, SS was intended to provide only 1/3 of one's retirement income. The individual was to provide the other 2/3. But, we got lazy and opted to give government the financial responsibility for our futures. How foolish we were, and are.
Bottom-line, give us back the money, lower our taxes, and we'll take care of ourselves and our elderly family members.
Alternatively call it something, do not make it an entitlement and make it a graduated welfare tax that does not have a cap. Tax every single dollar of income with no cap.
It would be a sort of payback for screwing the value-adding working man.
how the heck could someone junk that comment? sheesh....
It's the commies. They believe that all men are bad and stupid except those in government who are excruciatingly intelligent, squeaky clean and work their fingers to the bone just to help the poor and disadvantaged.
How is it that people are too dumb to fend for themselves, yet so intelligent that
they can vote for the right person to fend for everyone else?
It doesn't seem like a very good deal for those of us who have paid into SS our whole lives and have never collected a dime out of it yet.
Don't worry, the country is going to collapse before you get the chance anyway.
Somebody has to get screwed for government bad decisions. Too bad it may be the boomer generation. Don't forget - SS payments are taxable too.
You will still get yours. It will be funded by decreasing overseas military expenditures. This was a campaign platform for RP back in 08.
Think of it as a Stupidity tax, as in: "How stupid do you have to be to believe that Govt can fix problems?"
Tell that shit to the lowest 20%-oh wait, they voted for the Tea Party.
I like Paul, I really do, but he's also a tool.
Care to back that up? Ron Paul is the furthest thing from a tool imaginable, and your slander is not appreciated.
Meet Mr. Paul's handler, Peter Thiel. Mr. Thiel is a known Bilderberger.
http://www.nndb.com/people/030/000124655/
Paul is an total NWO stooge. That's why he (and his even worse son) never mention 911 being an inside job. He's the white version of Obama, a dirty little NWO creep selling his own brand of false hope and baloney change for suckers who don't bother to look beyond the PR press releases writen by his London pals at the Tavistock Institute. One of the Pauls may well be our president in 2012 if the NWO wants the USA to turn into a 3,000 mile Yugoslavia.
If you Paulistas out there think I'm bonkers try to get either of the Pauls to explain why he does not denounce Peter Thiel or any of his Bilderberger scum bucket pals.
If you're as confused by Atilla's post, this may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Claims_of_political_conspiracy
So Atilla is advancing the "guilt by association" argument which I typically adhere to as well. Usually you can tell what a guy is all about based on the company he keeps (Bush II, Obama, etc.).
Yet I still find myself agreeing with much of Dr.Paul's opinions.
Atilla: Can you suggest someone else we should consider and why?
Seriously, how do people throw opinions like this out there without any backup?
Dr. Paul is what we need more of:
http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
Which major themes in this document do you disagree with?
And change cannot happen in a vaccuum. Maybe you don't agree with all he says or his particular approach but there are limitations and boundaries to the change game in D.C. I'm tired of these "bunker types" junking everyone that doesn't call for immediate armed revolution/anarchy. There is such a thing as gradual change. Let's be intelligent about this otherwise we will get nowhere.
Intelligence? Is that located somewhere with "Congressional Courage?"
Tell that shit to the lowest 20%-oh wait, they voted for the Tea Party.
Where is your documentation?
If you really believe this, then you are the tool.
Dr. Paul has a difficult time discussing the primary issues of SS, the military, and the Fed because most folks who interview him are stupid as hell on the issues and are driven by the meme of the day. The topics are complex to address from a flat-footed position. As has been pointed out above, we on ZH are for the most part already ahead of the curve and what he says makes sense. For those who are infantile (not fully matured) in the economics and the politics, Dr. Paul seems disjointed and his presentation unflattering. Those familiar with his speech listen intently for every nuance and kernel of new pronouncements.
Is today a holiday, stock index futures have no volume or movement today.
British retail sales @ 1800.
Australian Business Confidence at 1830.
Waiting for the ASPX open; waiting for midnight.
:D
Most Americans never got the chance to vote for or against Social Security to begin with. Realistically it is taxation without representation because we were born with that fiscal obligation. We should be permitted to opt out of any federal social safety net program.
Wow. You may have a Constitutional class-action idea, there, redpill.
Guess you don't understand how a Republic works! Social Security is NOT constitutional though.
Damn you Ida May Fuller, you started all of this....
On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay
She loved to Ponzi.
LOL!
Oh, by all means, do commit the Tea Party to abolishing Social Security.
That will be the last we hear from the Tea Party.
Your commie lifestyle is going down the tubes (thanks to reality rather than politics) and here you are bashing the very people from whom you will soon be begging a crust of bread. My advice -- lose the attitude before you put out your filthy hand.
All 'Progressives,' after all, know that ordinary men and women are dumb as dirt
and gullible as all get out. So the claim that people who don't boast Ivy League degrees -- or who don't write for a newspaper that prints all the news that it sees fit -- can get on well in life without government-appointed guardian angels to protect them is, to these 'Progressives,' a real howler -- a knee-slapper so utterly ludicrous that, to take it seriously, is to reveal yourself to be downright inhumane and, even worse, likely a Republican.
At this point, I would just like them to give me the money that I put into the system ... and then never to have to deal with it again ... but alas, that is not an option.
You are correct, the best you can hope for is that a politician puts his arm over you shoulder and says the following...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg
RP's pretty cool for a ding-bat.
Instead of talking about the "unfunded liabilities" maybe he should talk about the fully-funded theft of America's SS contributions, by him and his peeps. Or the fact that if the US government had to borrow money at interest rates befitting their circumstances (spending $1.80 for every dollar they collect), SS would be self sustaining.
No it's easier to pretend your a conscientious objector, to this whole fiat system.
But hey, remember the way RP vehemently opposed Bernanke's reconfirmation?
Me neither.
You do better then, dipshit.
I wrote both my Senators to dump Bernanke...
http://acrossthestreetnet.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/hey-bernanke-supporters-who%E2%80%99s-your-daddy-part-1/
Meanwhile, your god went on MSNBC as a kind of casual observer ("I think he will" (be reconfirmed)).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35057334#35057334
Way to go, champ!
And here he is, explaing why he's not going to push "audit the fed" to Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubWrKGrqWLk
"I know where there gonna come down on it...I think there's less than a one percent chance he would support this...I believe it'd be a veto on this."
He's just another walking, talking joke.
You wrote a letter? Wow, you are better than Ron Paul. Screw his lifetime of working against big government -- you wrote A LETTER!
Which is still more than St. Ron did...I'd have been glad to go on TV and ramble aimlessly too, but no one asked me.
Working? Really?
Sorry but I measure "work" in tangibles. You Paultards have gotten the same results you would have with Ayn Rand's ghost serving in congress.
Good "work"
Please provide details regarding the effectiveness of the letter you sent to your Senator. I assume there's some sort of action pending.
"Action pending"?
You Paultards really don't understand how the world works at all do you?
Let me spell it out for you. The future of this country is not some philosophical debate. There are fleeting moments when you can actually move reality toward a more desirable outcome, if you're not too stupid, lazy-minded, cowardly or indifferent.
So what happened was all you lazy, "laissez faire" fairies did what you do best - not a fucking thing, and Bernanke got reconfirmed.
I documented my interaction with my Senators, you're welcome to go read it.
Arlen Specter, who ultimately opposed Bernanke (thanks, buddy) was voted out in the primary. Robert Casey approved Bernanke, and I will make it my business to make sure he is removed from office in 2012.
How's that for "action pending," cheese dick?
So why don't you tell me about your actions? And no, jacking-off to "End the Fed" doesn't count as action to me.
I shook my fist and yelled at Arlen Specter's limo in Kittanning last year. That was a fun day. You can see some of it on youtube. I'm the tea bagger in the Ron Paul T-shirt.
I can respect your position, Mark, but you'll have to admit that Dr. Paul is the closest ally we have. All the rest are bought and paid for. At least Dr. Paul is working for free, and in principle. No way he can just lay all the cards on the table. He'd be hooted out of DC with a crown of tin-foil.
Ron, I love ya man, and I dig the problem.
I might even be willing to go along with your idea, IF, YOU, and every Congress person that has served long enough to get lifetime full pay, and full health benefits agree to DROP all of them, and YOU walk away from D.C ,without one dime other than your paycheck.
No Slush Funds,not a dime do you get to keep............PERIOD.
When you, and your buddies start being CITIZENS like the rest of us,and get treated the same,we'll talk.
Until then Fuck you.
For all our lives, D.C. members have robbed me, and everyone in the USA,on this site that has held a job, for their entire working life.
OUR money has been forcibly taken, we want what WE paid in back.
Issue the checks..................
You, on the other hand, will have to live off your personal savings,since YOU are not IN the SS system, do not deserve ONE damned dime of our money when you check out of the Insane Asylum.
Lifes not fair, and before you and your cronies expect US to accept the theft of our PAID in monies,( no Entitlement shit, that's a Cop out word) you must set the example and do the same.
Otherwise, no dice, no deal....................do otherwise, and you ALL have hell to pay.
Fair Enough???....hope so, because I will not accept your screwing,not one more dime.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561
Nice, thanks for the post.
I'm write there with ya, Dos.
I learned something important today (from the junks):
While ALL Paultards are Gold bugs, not all Gold bugs are Paultards.
Dr. Paul is not doing what you want, in exactly the way you want it, within the time frame you prescribe -- so, he's a dud. Right? Who in the putrid city of Washington IS doing what you want to your exact liking?
It NEEDS to be done, but realistically, it WON'T be done. This is why I'm convinced that eventual, total collapse is inevitable. Prepare accordingly!
Why would I opt out. At 55 now those ssa Fuckers owe me 200k
I will get it one way or another
Hence the option, rather than simple default, which is what you are going to get if we continue the status quo.
Talk about old people starving in the streets!
max,
bro, my point exactly.
Some things are worth dying over, this is one of them.
You flat out cannot STEAL the hard earned dollars SEIZED from the American workers,and tell them to walk away with a bloody asshole, and a pocket full of IOU's.
IF it were just SS, he was addressing, that is one thing.
Think of how much Income Tax you have had confiscated also.
Most intelligent folks worked, paid, saved, and figured the SS system would make up approx 20-25% of their retirement funds.......not a 100%.
Most did not do that, you cannot STEAL what they were forced to pay,not when the Gv't has been, is the biggest thief in the country, and has been.
You want to start a Civil War, do it.
great comedy, i can't want till Ron Paul comes to my local laugh factory.
How kind of you to laugh while you promote looting the life savings of the elderly. I'm sure they will appreciate that.
Since this is supposed to be a free country I would like to take this opportunity to say.... Fuck involuntary taxes.
No SS. No Medicare/Medicaid. No IRS. No property tax.
I don't want a damn thing from government, except to be left the hell alone. They want to tax, then tax consumption so I can opt out.
I've had it. It's time for rebellion. Fuck DC & Wall St, let them burn, and hang the crooks. It's time we had a free country again, a place where you can do whatever you want unless you are hurting or impinging on someone else; fuck the police/nanny state.
I agree with most of your argument. However don't most religions have some sort of "involuntary tax"? This prevents hoarding of wealth since "it's not my stuff; it's God's stuff and I've only been trusted with it."
I think most people in this country and the world agree on at least the idea of some sort of "involuntary tax". Quantity and Quality are subject to debate.
Lets be a hunter-gatherer like Crabcake. Got news for you bud -- the oligarchs to a tee all say the same thing: "Get rid of government".
Guess what happens then? Competition becomes like making the NY Yankees. Except you don't earn $250million like A-Rod. You get 25K here and there to make the big leagues. Otherwise you starve. The Austrian Goldbugs are nothing but the same capital machine that threatens you today.
Lets be a hunter-gatherer like Crabcake. Got news for you bud -- the oligarchs to a tee all say the same thing: "Get rid of government".
Of course they do. Because getting rid of government means freedom and that's a good thing. The oligarchs always promise good things and then scam you on the deal. But that doesn't mean that you should give up on freedom and peace and fair play does it? It simply means that you should stop looking to an all powerful government to look after your affairs rather than taking care of them yourself.
Fuck central government completely. It's an engine for theft and corruption and that will never change. Distributed self government by affinity and consensus - it is the future. What, you say you fear crime, what will we do without police and mama state to protect us? Protect yourselves, be free, it can't possibly be any worse or any scarier than you or your son, brother, husband crawling through shellfire in a motherfucking jungle or desert halfway around the world to protect the interests of parasitical oligarchs generation after brainwashed generation. Fucking break the chains in our time goddamnit. Ohh, I'm ranting...crabcake makes me do that LoL :-)
I wholeheartedly agree....But ahhhh...where is my check?
What, opt out, and walk away with nothing?
I concur with poster Doszap. Additionally, i will wait by the front door for the mailman to drop off a check (refund) for the last 25 years i worked. Yes, in this scenario i would want a refund. Every penny paid into FICA by myself and by my former employers, on my behalf.
Then i will opt-out and walk away.
Probably shouldn't hold my breath eh?
Didn't think so.
As I have said before, I have no issues with SS...and a voluntary system is fine, as long as it is run correctly. That is more or less the type of system China has - although it is not voluntary in all areas of the country....it is run by the provinces (and even some cities) using government guidelines. If we do not go to a flat tax, (and a VAT tax) then an interest-bearing trust for each individual who uses the system would need be tax free. The real problem with SS is it is used as a funding source for hundreds of things never intended to be funded by it. But, you can probably forget any of this happenning, very few politicians want to take on the AARP and other groups.
At least Dr. Paul has the guts to discuss ideas like this in public. YES, where do I sign to opt-out? I don't expect SS to take care of me at all when I retire decades from now. This failure of the SS system is already well documented, I would rather put the money in Au.
It's not that I'm against a social safety net (for people that deserve it) or against taking care of old/poor. In fact I annually donate not-so-insignficant sums of my income to genuine establishments such as the Chicago Food Depository (and I have the receipts to prove it). But I am against anymore giant "trusts" or "funds" that politicians can control. They have proven they are incapable of managing this much power. So while SS was a good idea on paper, looking back it has been a mess and I would like to see it phased out.
I agree and would add.....
Whether someones IRA is a Roth or traditional. I am convinced the Government will get their hands on that money. 20+ years from now, assuming we actually don't have anymore lost decades, that will be one huge pile of money. Banks and politicians love large piles of money that they cant turn into transfer payments.
Who honestly thinks a Roth will not end up being taxed in the future? Seriously? If you do, you are a fool.
Goodrich:
When you speak of adding money to "fix" the trust fund, what you are really doing is simply adding to the authorization the trust fund has to withdraw from the Treasury, without an appropriation.
There is an actual account where the SS "credits" are stored, called "Fund Balance with the Treasury." (FBWT).
All that means is that beneficiaries can be paid without an annual appropriation fron Congress, as long as the FBWT shows a "positive balance."
The trust fund is credits, numbers. The actual payroll dollars are in the Treasury, not the trust fund.
The Treasury has several funds, such as trust funds, revolving funds, special funds, and the general fund.
The trust fiund is not a store of wealth. It makes it no easier to pay benefits than it would to pay for battleships. Both are paid from revenues and debt. The only difference with a trust fund us that an appropriation is not needed.
I can supply links to back this up from reputable government sources, if anyone is interested.
Personally, I am not against Social Security.
But, as much as people depend on it for retirement, you would think the government would take its obligations more seriously.
Who gave the Treasury the authority to borrow from the trust funds? It wasn't the Congress or the taxpayers. It is simply 2 government agencies taking action, such that a liability is issued to the Treasury and an asset is issued to the trust fund.
In reconciliation, it becomes a wash.
Which means the government has borrowed with its left hand to pay with its right hand.
The only liability recognized by the government is the current yerar's payments.
The government ranks liabilities into 4 classes.
In the first class, the highest liability, would be interest on the public debt.
In the 4th and lowest class is SS and Medicare benefits beyond the current year.
Don Levit
Don, the trust fund receives SS taxes and pays out benefits. The Greenspan/Clinton fix raised SS taxes to create a "surplus" of taxes over benefits. Prior to that time, if SS taxes in any given fiscal year exceeded benefits paid, the excess was just added to the general revenue. The Greenspan/Clinton "fix" required that the funds be placed into a "lock box" and loaned to the government in return for non-marketable securities. You are correct, this is just the left hand loaning to the right, but there are a couple of important real distinctions. First, the Government's obligation to repay the securities, with interest, is now evidenced by an instrument and is not merely an obligation of a prior government adminstration. This MAY make it more difficult for the government to default (even though, as you say, the instrument is fourth in priority, it is higher than budgeted obligations). Second, the obligation can more easily "present valued", which is where the $44 trillion and other wild-assed numbers come from. Nobody present-values our future defense costs because they are ostensibly "unknown". At least the portion of future SS benefits to be financed with the "lock box" non-marketable securities will take priority over future budget items, including defense.
I think SS and Medicare programs were a mistake, but a mistake that is not easily undone. The bottom line is that I will NOT support any phase-out of those programs unless I get back my 15 percent - with interest - that I've paid in over the years. I don't care if the gov has to print the money to do it. Anything else is theft.
"expectations of Tea Party voters"
I've been to a few Tea Party meetings and not once did they suggest the elimination of SS. Reduce the Military, kill the big banks and close our borders to competition so our kids can have jobs...that were the main themes...
"I've been to a few Tea Party meetings and not once did they suggest the elimination of SS"
Yes, that is because being a libertarian and being part of the Tea Party are mutually exclusive. This letter did a pretty good job of laying out a couple fundamental differences. He walked you to the water and thought you might have a drink. In other words, as Gonzalo Lira might say, this is a "slippery" piece of writing, but in a good way.
Good for Ron Paul.
Manitou:
I can appreciate your fristration, but the payments into SS and Medicare are taxes, not premiums for an insurance plan.
The Supreme Ct. has ruled at least twice that taxes cannot be tied to personal property.
I have the links, if you are interested. You paid in for the general welfare, just like all other taxes are used.
You simply cannot tie a specific tax ton a specific program.
When SS was passed, the advisory council for SS wanted the payroll dollars to go directly to SS.
It was deemed unconstitutional to do so, and thus the payroll dollars went directly to the Treasury, like income taxes, etc. and SS received only "credit," numbers.
I have reputable third party sources, including the Social Security Administration, to back this up, if anyone is interested.
Don Levit
Thanks Don. I'm interested in learning more so please post addiitional links you may find useful.
Don,
I don't give a shit what the fine print says or the minutia of how it was implemented. I don't care that it was implemented as a "pay as you go" system. All the implementation details in the world doesn't excuse that fact that 15 percent of my salary has been taxed with a rightful expectation of receiving benefits at retirement. I have planned to receive those benefits as part of my overall retirement plan. You can screw small numbers of people in that manner, but not a whole country. This is why I do believe that SS and Medicare were collosal mistakes. There is simply no viable exit plan that does not include printing money to pay people off. I'm all for abolishing those programs, but I DO expect to get paid off. I think a yearly 15 percent tax credit would do just fine.
Don and you are both correct. It was set up as a tax system, sold as insurance, but in reality it was a Ponzi scheme.
So now what do we do? Left alone, the system will pay out only 70% of promised benefits. That's still better than nothing. It is just less of a return than was promised. That leaves a few solutions:
a) stop the Ponzi scheme by slowing transforming the system into a fully funded pension. This would require generations of time because otherwise it requires today's workers to fund today's retirees AND thier own retirement at the same time, which would be mathematically impossible.
b) continue the Ponzi scheme by raising contributions and lowering benefits. Several studies suggest that with some significant but not impossible tweaks the system is entirely sustainable at 100% of promised benefits by lifting the income cap on contributions and delaying full benefits to 70.
c) do nothing until the system defaults.
I think "C" will be the path we take. First, Congress won't do anything until there is a crisis, which means a default. So yak and complain all you want, I'm just a realist. Second, "c" is in one sense a fair result. Each year's budget represents the choices of each year's Congress and President. Since it is a Ponzi scheme that everybody understands or should understand, your elected representatives are accepting a future default will occur. If not, they would be doing something about it. So when that default arrives, that year's Congress can decide what to do about it. Maybe they will cut the defense budget, raises taxes, place tarrifs on Chinese imports --- who knows? Maybe they will even let the system default.
I hope it's retroactive!!
Sarah Palin agrees with Ron Paul and Zerohedge. Great minds converging.
Sarah Palin has a great mind? Funny I never noticed.
She is constantly philosiphizing in our snow swept igloo...in fact, I have learned more about Russia from her than In years of high-level academic study.
Ron Paul, Gordon T. Long, etc etc
"Innovate or die"
Translation: Serve the capital machine, the financial aristocracy must endure.
Wow, Ron Paul really is a fundamentalist. And, do fundamentalisms go hand in hand with freedom? I guess not...
That would depend upon the fundamentals in question, would it not? Ron is all about freedom. You, on the other hand...
ron paul is no different than the career criminals currently working in DC
And you dropped by to make a broad, unsupportable statement because...?
Because it's true, or don't you watch videos of Granddpa Simpson in action?
(I posted two earlier)
What does Grandpa Simpson have to do with anything?
"....We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."
~Grandpa Simpson, Ron Paul (same difference)
Is that really what you hear when you listen to Ron Paul? How bizarre. But don't you see that confessing as much makes you the laughing stock rather than him?
It's a shame, really.
Abandonship:
Here are a few links of the many I have available:
From a paper entitled "nSustainability - Which Concept is Which?"
Page 130 "Cash income from earmarked sources goes into the general fund of the Treasury, increasing the amount in the general fund. The income is then credited to the trust fund and invested in special-issue securities. The actual cash receipts are expended from the general fund for whatever purpose arises.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HealthCareFinancing Review/downloads/05-06Winpg127.pdf.
From a paper entitled "Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the Federal Budget,"
"These interest credits (of excess revenues)increase trust fund income exactly as much as they increase credits in the Treasury's general fund. So, from the standpoint of the federal budget, these interest credits are a wash. Of course, in the future, money to honor the interest credits must still be raised through taxes, spending cuts, or borrowing from the public (Just like battleships are paid for. The trust find makes it no easier to pay benefits than either special funds, revolving funds, or the general fund of the Treasury. Benefits are paid from revenues and debt.
www.treas.gov/offices/economic-policy/reports/budget_trust_fund_perspectives_2008.pdf.
Don Levit
much appreciated.
You know, Tyler, it's real nice that you and your under-35 compadres make enough in salary(ies) to be able to "opt-out" of Social Security. For many female workers, we have been working and paying taxes since the 1970's, we have never received equal pay nor have many with children had help from deadbeat fathers. There has never been any money to save for some of us. No more "war on the poor". Grow at least a tiny social conscience and maybe you'll become a human being again. I do agree to a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, though. This is a private bank cabal; hell there isn't any game which isn't rigged.
Top 2 reasons women are paid less:
1) They aren't as demanding when negotiating salaries.
2) They take more leaves of absense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the...
If women were regularly paid less for equal productivity men everywhere would have one hell of a time trying to get a job. I personally would never employ a man if I could get a woman for 75% of the price. Better to look at too.
That is bullshit...they are paid less because companies can pay them less, no matter what hired crap is on Wikipedia.
Women don't get paid as much as men because they get pregnant and raise children.
Thus they seek jobs with low obsolescence rates, and when they do take jobs that are comparible to men, they get paid less because they generally have less time in the work force due to taking time off to raise the kids.
Controlling for these factors shows no appreciable difference in the pay of men and women.
If what you are saying was true, some enterprising entrepreneur would open up a company and hire nothing but women so he could under-cut the market.
Of course, what you are saying isn't true. It's left-wing propaganda.
No more "war on the poor"
For the love of God wake up! SS is part of the war on the poor.
Manitou:
I am sure that millions of Americans feel as you do.
A couple of Supreme Ct. cases are not working in your (our) favor.
Here is one.
Supreme Ct. of the U.S. Nos. 724, 797, 1936.
Carmichael v Southern Coal & Coke Company
http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme3.html
"The taxation of employees is not a prerequisite to the enjoyment of Social Security benefits. We find nothing in the language of the statute or its application to suggest that the tax on employees is so essential to the operation of the statute. But if the tax be good, and the purpose specified be one which would sustain a subsequent amd separate approproiation from the General Funds of the Treasury, neither is made invaled by being bound to the other in the same act of legislkation." "A tax is not an assessment of benefits. It is a means of distributing the burden of the cost of government."
Don Levit
http://blacklistednews.com/John-Boehner-Says-In-Order-To-Pay-For-The-War...
Fucking Boehner says we must raise social security retirement age to 70 to help pay for the fucking wars. The election is a few days old and already these republcrats are starting to piss me off royally.
Couldn't we just end the wars and leave the retirement age alone? I though that's why Obama was put in office (end the war).
Its called stealing from the middle class and destroying the baby boomers. Right now I see old men working at the store bagging groceries and taking orders from teen aged girls.
No welfare, like SS = dead bodies.
But I guess that's okay with a lot of the people who read / post on this site.
I think most people who read/post on this site realize there are going to be dead bodies, one way or another.
No welfare, like SS = dead bodies.
But I guess that's okay with a lot of the people who read / post on this site.
Socialists have killed far more people than free men. But I guess that's OK with people who think they know how to run people's lives better than the people do themselves.
Notice you got junked for that comment...there is a core group here who cannot stand to be challenged on their basic concepts. They Junk me all the time because they cannot seem to withstand any challenges of their core mantra. Of course, I like to tickle the beast from time-to-time.....and yeah, I am a fucking jerk with very few redeeming qualities whatsoever, and have no fucking idea what I am talking about most of the time, but that puts me right in the median here, I guess.
Notice you got junked for that comment...there is a core group here who cannot stand to be challenged on their basic concepts.
How do you so casually and yet expertly discern the life experiences of people whom you have never met? It's a good trick, if you can actually do it. Let's have some fun. You describe the course of my political thoughts and actions over the past forty years and I'll tell you if you're right.
Ready?
Set.
Go!
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living in abroad would not spend their payments here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7626
Fearmonger Glenn Beck said today on Fox that the world financial system could collapse in 15 days. Oh my....
The government never fear mongers. Iraqi WMD and swine flu are real, dammit.
Well....not sure about swine flu...but swine are damn sure real, and most of them hang out inside the Beltway. The most dangerous WMD in the world is cocksure pseudo intellectuals who are convinced they have all the answers.
Yeh when you go visit Washington DC and you see that tall Washington monument and you realize that it represents a large long penis, you realize the old saying bigger is better, is a fact of life.
Yeah, and it is hard not to have unfortunate visions of it being jammed up your ass.....a little POMO grease, and maybe some QE2 Spanish-Fly....take it brother!
Well...HPD, don't know about you, but that certainly scares the shit out of me...that kind of doomesday scenario coming from the Final Authority...what do we do now?
Who knows. All things are on the table at this point. I don't think anyone really understand what our world would be like in such conditions. For the longest time, those who are considered crazy, have been pleading for people to start growing their own and becoming self reliant. Men have lived and died saying such things and nothing never happened. It looks like that in this generation we will see things that no one has ever seen.
You right. We may see Sarah Palin as President. Wait...did I just say that? NAAAAAAWWW!
High Plains Drifter.
Excellent posting.
Just to add a couple of other statements in this famous case.
"Each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation."
In the Dissenting Opinion, Justice Black stated: "These are nice words but they simply tell the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their own and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving then something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases. This reveals a complete misunderstanding of the purpose Congress had in passing that law. It was then generally agreed, as it is today, that it is not desirable that aged people think of the Government as giving them something for nothinbg. Senator George, the chairman of the financre committee when the Social Securirty Act was passed stated "It comports better than any substitute with the American concept that free men want to earn their security and not ask for doles - that what is due as a matter of earned right is far better than gratuity."
I cannot believe that any privare insurance company in America would be permitted to repudiate its matured contracts with its policyholders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the good faith of the company."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page =us/363/603.html.
Don Levit
Private insurance companies do it all the time..matter of fact, it is their business model. They do it via "unconscionable contracts" that in many cases would not stand the rigors of a legal examination by a neutral party, they can do this because the vast majority of their policyholders cannot afford legal representation - they just go away or die. Social Security is for the most part, loss calculated from the same actuarial math that all insurers use...which by the way, was more or less the same theoretical basis AIG used to insure CDO's. They calculated a bell-curve database using basterdized Black-Scholes formula to figure out that the American house market would never crash all at once. A private insurer - although using the same calculation basis - would never make that mistake.....To a health insurer, it is to their advantage for the policy holder to die of what they have before it seeks medical treatment, for a life insurer, they sell off their risk anyway, so do not care, for SS, it is obviously to the system's advantage if people die of before they collect.
With Obama care, we now will have death panels. The goal of course is to get rid of old people.
That is essentially how the British system works...and it is very controversial...but it still exists. It is very easy for a lot of these fools to say do away with Medicare, do away with Social Security, but you still have to deal with people who get old and have no reliable means of support. What are you going to do: mandate that they have kids, and mandate that those kids are smart enough and connected enough and ambitious enough to be able to support them? Mandate that kids must kill their parents when they get too old to deal with life? Or, better yet, let the government do it. Well, once you cross that rubicon then you are very close to dealing with all other sorts of issues...kids with Downs Sysndrom, paraplegics, Jews, blacks....where do you stop? Watch now, some of these Hitler fools will just junk me here, because they do not have the guts or the answers to answer back with a reasonable way to deal with this.
Before the welfare state, the old and/or infirm would be supported by:
In most parts of the world, families live together with 3 generations in a family dwelling. The oldest generation provide baby-sitting and education services for the youngest generation, while the middle generation ekes out an existence for all 3 generations by working.
The problem, in the welfare state, is that everyone pines for a life style of the rich and famous in their retirement -- whether they have worked, saved or maintained family and friendship support networks, or not.
The government pays a subsistence -- and can ill afford it after also paying for the demanded wars and committees regulating everything -- while pensioners clamour for pension raises and more free services!
Ron Paul is the only voice in DC fighting for the taxpayer. All you Philistines that talk rubbish about Ron Paul are the tools. No wonder we have the government we have today after reading all the comments that ridicule Ron Paul. I honestly didn't think I would find this kind of ignorance on Zh.
So, everyone who does not agree with you is ignorant?
Someone told me one time that in this day and age, it is a good thing not to trust anyone. I don't trust Ron Paul. He seems to be a nice man but at the same time he does things that I don't agree with. When a cow with a bell on its neck walks off of a cliff, is it necessary for the other cows to follow her? This is called the herd instinct. We have too many who make decisions based upon what they hope and not what they know. I know about Ron Paul. I grew up in Houston, right near his district. As congressman goes, he is about the best. But saying that , just who here really knows this man other than what we read in the papers ,or on line. Nobody does. It may come as a surprise to you that he does not write any of his books. Lew Rockwell writes those books for him.
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2008/01/lew-rockwell-was-ron-pauls-...
But we shall see now who he really is, now that he will be in the limelight, after about 20 years in office. We shall see what he is really made of. Last week I happened to listen to Glenn Beck while I was in my car. This was right after the election. He said that the Republican party has two years to get it right or they will dissolve as a political party. He may be right. What I am telling you is that imho, the Republicans have 6 months. In Septemeber, 2009, over one million people showed up for the march on Washington. This was not carried on any MSM outlet. Nobody ever really knew about it unless you read the blogs and saw the pictures for yourself.
http://whatbubbaknows.net/blog1.php/2009/09/14/the-patriot-tsunami
One man had a sign. It said. This time we bring signs. Next time we bring guns. That about says it all. They have 6 months. That includes Ron Paul.
Your commentary that Paul writes none of his books is NOT supported by your first link.
It states that Rockwell was Paul's CAMPAIGN ghostwriter. That's a huge difference.
Damn, ever since Sunday, the anti-Paul trolls have really come out of the woodwork.
Danny Casolaro should have written about the Kochtopus-had he been allowed to live.
P.S. This link we have in common points to a blog/site by Eric Dondero-fired by Paul, and a Giuliana lapdog.
Possibly, some say probably the writer of the newsletters that Paul suffered.
Oh, I know, you're from Houston.
no, just unreasonable ignorants.
You vote for your boy, and I will continue to not vote for mine.
how about you vote for my boy too and not throw away your vote.
Sorry dude...have never voted, and probably never will. Unless, somebody comes down - some high powered shark with a fistfull of answers - and that is not, alas, Ron Paul.
So since I am not a RonPaulanista...I get junked. How fucking ignorant can you get?
simmer down na. Someone probably junked you because you don't vote and you obviously have a political opinion yet don't excercise your right to vote.
You would have to agree it's a bit contrarian don't you think?
Not voting is just as important as voting. And, I have no political opinion at all. In order to spew out my opinions, I have to be totally non-political. I may dislike certain people who are of a particular political stripe, but it has nothing really to do with their political affiliation, only what they do and say. And, I am the first to admit that all opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and mine are no more important or right than anyone elses. But like the right to vote or not vote, I can express them as I see fit, or not express them as I see fit. Does that make sense?
I'm a pastor so in one year I will be eligable to opt out of social security. I rub this fact in all your faces :) Where should I invest my extra $250-350 a month?
I also hope that we will at some point look into the severe hypocrisy of government. The demand of fair wages and pollution controls destroys our manufactering sector due to the fact that we allow countries like China, who don't have these same regulations, to sell their goods at will within the United States. I think prosperity would have to start by addressing this major issue. Tariffs or removing regulations? Your pick.
I appreciate the community here at zerohedge. It has challenged my thinking in many areas, but I can't help but be concerned for my family in the face of all that is occuring. At this point in time we are throwing 66% of our income into savings and we have no debt. We paid off the last of our debt August 1st so we are just now getting our feet wet with some major savings. Investments will begin in two months and with all the uncertainty it is definately going to be a challenge deciding where to put my money. I don't trust anything right now. How you investors who do this for a living do it I really don't know. It must be so frustrating for so many of you.
Ron Paul is RIGHT. End the welfare state.
With so many people layed off and earning less, less taxes are flowing in and our social programs are broke. Social security moved into negative cashflow years earlier than we thought it would. Unemployment costs are way up. We're at war all over the globe. Lot's of money flowing out. Very little flowing in. Not a good situation.
What our recent healthcare reform was really about is sneaking in a massive tax increase without calling it a tax increase. Why, we're going to right the wrongs of healthcare! We're going to bring healthcare to those poor bastards that already get free healthcare just by walking into the emergency room at any hospital in the nation. No. It's a new tax that's needed to fund the current social programs. Trust me, the quality of what we, the unwashed masses will recieve will truly suck. I can already hear the politicians running on promises to make it better. Eventually they'll sucker us into even higher taxes. Gotta love the welfare state.
Most American suck at investing and will never have enough money to retire. As a means to replace the pensions of days long gone, retirement savings accounts truly suck. It is a great way for a small group of Wallstreeters to relieve those "little people" of their money though.
Therefore, Washington is already planning to take over their retirement accounts, dump their funds into the current welfare programs and promise them many happy returns later. Yup, gotta love the welfare state.
Every institution that invests in the stock market and is counting on a rising market for a better tomorrow is building on sand. Our entire nation is built on the stock market and, let's face it, it's a total sham. It has to be propped up and manipulated by the Fed just to keep life as we know it going. Hell, even our own government has to be propped up by the Fed just to keep it going. You sure hafta love that welfare state.
Let's take this to its logical end. Suppose we all pay 100% of our wages to the government and count on the government for everything. From healthcare to food to what to think. You name it! A 100% welfare state. We all will be working for the government for the welfare of every citizen. They'll take over our savings accounts, perhaps our homes (we were counting on them for retirement money after all). Gee. Isn't that called communism?
And consider this. The welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism to control you! I'm going to tax your money and give it back to you as a benefit if you vote for me and dance my dance! Dance you fool! Dance! It's so much fun. The fools have no dignity - or brains!
So here's the naked truth.
1. The welfare state is the road to communism.
2. Welfare is a dog chain used to control the unwashed masses.
So dance you stupid peasant!
Hahahahahahahaaaaa!!!
Hey...I do wash up, more or less, every Saturday.