"Time's Up - The Pain Must Begin Now"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

In 2010, Social Security (OASDI) unofficially went bankrupt.  For the first time since the enactment of the SS amendments of 1983, annual outlays for the program exceeded receipts (excluding interest credited to the trust funds).  The deficit has grown every year since 2010 and is now up to 8% annually and is projected to be 31% in 2026 and 44% by '46.  The chart below highlights the OASDI annual surplus growth (blue columns) and total surplus (red line).  This chart includes interest payments to the trust funds and thus looks a little better than the unvarnished reality.

For a little perspective, the program pays more than 60 million beneficiaries (almost 1 in 5 Americans), OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance) represents 25% of all annual federal spending, and for more than half of these beneficiaries these benefits represent their sole or primary source of income.

The good news is since SS's inception in 1935, the program collected $2.9 trillion more than it paid out.  The bad news is that the $2.9 trillion has already been spent.  But by law, Social Security is allowed to pretend that the "trust fund" money is still there and continue paying out full benefits until that fictitious $2.9 trillion is burned through.  To do this, the Treasury will issue another $2.9 trillion over the next 13 years to be sold as marketable debt so it may again be spent (just moving the liability from one side of the ledger, the Intergovernmental, to the other, public marketable).  However, according to the CBO, Social Security will have burnt through the pretend trust fund money (that wasn't there to begin with) by 2029.

Below, the annual OASDI surplus (in red) peaking in 2007, matched against the annual growth of the 25-64yr/old (in blue) and 65+yr/old (grey) populations.  The impact of the collapse of the growth among the working age population and swelling elderly population is plain to see.  And it will get far worse before it eventually gets better. 

From 2017 through 2029, the present 170 million person 25-64yr/old population will grow by just 5 million.  The current 51 million person 65+yr/old population will grow by 22 million.  And it won't get much better after that as the older population keeps swelling with boomers living progressively longer.

Beginning in 2030 benefits will have to be paired up with tax collections according to current law.  By present calculations, this means an initial 29% reduction in benefits.  The reductions will only become larger from there.  The average benefit check in 2016 is $1341/mo, or $16,000/yr.  A 29% reduction on the average payment will be <-$390/mo> and the reductions will keep growing for the rest of our lives.  For couples, this means their initial combined benefit will be $22.850 instead of $32.000.

Americans turning 67 in 2030 will be told that after being mandated to pay their full share of SS taxation throughout their working lifetime, they will not see anything near their full benefits in their latter years.  However, those in retirement now and those retiring between now and 2029 are being paid in full despite the shortfall in revenue.  They will be paid in full until this arbitrary "trust fund" is theoretically drained.

I have no intention of funding, in full, current retirees benefits with my tax dollars only to know I will hit the finish line with a 30%+ reduction that will only worsen over time.  My goal is to pay it forward to my kids and then do my best to never to be a burden to them.  The SS (OASDI) benefits must be cut now to be in line with revenues.  Raise taxes, lower benefits...your choice.  But I'm not about to make the old whole so I can then subsequently see my generation go bankrupt in my latter years.


1- There was a trust fund, but Executive and Congressional tinkering along the way has seen that is has been entirely spent (artificially and temporarily boosting the economy along the way).  It's gone and issuing more debt in it's place is just asinine.


2- With immediate effect, benefits must be cut or taxes raised...you choose.  We can't pretend any longer and attempt to push the consequences out another generation.

Times up. The pain must begin now and must be shared equally by all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dutti's picture

Most people have been trained to rely on the Government. Life will be difficult for those folks.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris, non-Amerikansky of Ukrainian descent is know bankruptcy status of SSA in 2010. Is marvel astonishment that average Amerikansky is not realize depletion of fund to eventual insolvency is flashpoint when income of fund premium (tax?) is < outlay of benefit. Forward Soviet!

… but what is Boris knowing!?

cossack55's picture

I choose the 1789 France option

peddling-fiction's picture

The problem with that option, is that it was not the people that chose.

The inciters of the French Revolution were members of secret societies that used the excuse to not only benefit from chaos, but also to murder lots of innocent people, just for the fun of it.

cossack55's picture

Kind of like the Clintion-Bush-Obama cabal, yes?

Here2Go's picture
Here2Go (not verified) cossack55 Jul 31, 2016 7:45 PM

3rd rail of politics...


LOL ~ HRC can commit treason, murder people, commit fraud, whatever... But try touching this & see what happens! Go ahead, I dare ya!

peddling-fiction's picture

Looks like Erdogan is purging his 5th column of secret society conspirators in Turkey, like Franco did in Spain.

MisterMousePotato's picture

Clearly, there are some problems with the Social Security program that need to be addressed. At worse, it would entail benefits being reduced as the article suggests, but I really don't see that. Maybe, possibly, linking them to income in retirement? Given demographics and human nature, I can see that being politically saleable. Maybe benefits for everyone will have to be reduced? Well, haven't they already through fake inflation statistics and COL adjustments?

And yet, somehow, life goes on, and the problems and solutions, at worst, simply are not the end of the world.

Yet ... that's not what we're being told, at least in conclusion. Instead, we are being led to believe that the money is going to going to run out and nothing will be left for anyone under 50 (?) 40 (?) 30 (?). Whatever.

I see person after person after person in this forum saying stuff like, "I'm 35 [(or whatever)], and I know I'll never see a dime." Stuff like that. But that really isn't the case, and yet many younger people really seem to think that.

It's puzzling, and I have a theory ... this is all being done to eliminate political support for the program, and thereby facilitate the last, and greatest banker theft. All you gotta do is convince everyone under x that they will receive no benefits, et voila.

For personal reasons, I studied very carefully my lifetime contributions verrsus the benefits I might reasonably anticipate receiving. I'm pretty typical (probably slightly lower income than most), and I can state unequivocally that even if my benefits were cut in half, or possibly by three-quarters, it would still be one of the greatest investments ever. And, I have very carefully arranged my life so that my family could survive even if benefits were reduced by half, or even more, to say nothing of the paltry reduction mentioned in the article.

Ever been to Vegas or Atlantic City during the week?

BeanusCountus's picture

Here's what they aren't mentioning. Every year these excess disbursements occur it get's added to the that year's annual reported deficit. So every politician that makes the budget for the year has a bigger deficit to begin with BEFORE doing the typical overspending that gets them votes. The projected date of 2030 for the 30% cut is one thing, but we are going to see the political ramifications way before that. There is almost $3 TRILLION that will hit reported annual deficits in 14 years. Small amouts in next 4 years or so, but then becomes a fucking train wreck. Can you imagine they balance the rest of the budget (which they will never do) and STILL have to report a $500 Billion deficit? Its coming. Politicians of the past accomplished their objective. It wouldn't happen until they were elected and long gone. We should go get them out of retirement and hang them from the highest tree.

And you see no fraud in this? Good for you, planning for half. Probably about right. But misleading everyone to justify a 6.2% levy on your income for an estimated benefit that will never be delivered (knowingly, I might add) is criminal in my book.

MisterMousePotato's picture

Following our comments here, there are a whole bunch more below, any of which provide the answer. Take the money we're wasting on foriegn wars, giving to Israel, squandering on banksters and the myriad of other stupid shit (i.e., rapugees), and instead use it to fund Social Security.

That's why TPTB want to kill political support for SS. The money is there, but it has to be taken from THEIR honeypot. Pretty sure if a straight up vote were taken: Invade the Crimea or make sure we can eat when we're 70, even the dullest amongst us will make the right choice, which is  why we're never given such choices electorically. Current election is the closest to it I've seen in many decades. Heretofore, it's all been about who's more against flag burning or Murphy 'Potatoe' Brown.

The money is there. Just being stolen. In order that it might keep being stolen (instead of funding Social Security), the electorate has to be propagandized into dropping support for the program.


Moe Howard's picture

It's easy to see exactly what you have paid in on the SSA website. I am about 1 year away from drawing out - I did the math, and it wiill take about a decade to "get back" the money I paid in. Yet even that isn't the whole story, as inflation isn't figured into the contributions. Fact is, if it were adjusted for inflation, it's the worst "investment" program ever.

nmewn's picture

Yeah, it's a shame (or is that sham?...lol) that another great "socialistic experiment" sold to the people as a benefit to them is discovered to be nothing more than another tool for general revenue extraction.

In common parlance...just another tax...and I do hope you get all of yours back but I didn't know this...

"To do this, the Treasury will issue another $2.9 trillion over the next 13 years to be sold as marketable debt so it may again be spent (just moving the liability from one side of the ledger, the Intergovernmental, to the other, public marketable)."

...this must be something new they've come up with to kick the can further down the road and we can only assume that "a market" will exist for a bond issued against something known to be insolvent. 

In all my years of commenting my one driving force has been to alert the people that...yes, indeed...they are in fact, lying to you most of the time and in order to interact with them/it you have to start from that point, that premise (the fact that most of what they say is a lie) in order to figure out what is not a lie.

It really is much easier ;-)

MalteseFalcon's picture


1- There was a trust fund, but Executive and Congressional tinkering along the way has seen that is has been entirely spent (artificially and temporarily boosting the economy along the way).  It's gone and issuing more debt in it's place is just asinine.

LOL.  Yeah, no more debt will be issued.  America's political class will simply grab the "third rail" and hold it.  LOL.  Whatever, buddy. And Obama-care never happened.  And Bush's expansion of medicare didn't happen.  And Obama phones don't exist.  And there is no corporate welfare.  Wht start with Social Security.  Trying to protect your own government handout? 


2- With immediate effect, benefits must be cut or taxes raised...you choose.  We can't pretend any longer and attempt to push the consequences out another generation.

There will be a combination of printing, an increase in the payroll tax and, most importantly, an increase in the amount of wage income in the economy (h/t President Trump).

Times up. The pain must begin now and must be shared equally by all.

Time isn't up.  Social security is predominantly a pay-as-you-go-system, so "time" is never up.  The "trust fund argument" is so much garbage.  The pain will be borne by those best able to bear it - the young.  That's the whole point of the system.

MalteseFalcon's picture

"Fact is, if it were adjusted for inflation, it's the worst "investment" program ever."

You haven't considered diversification.

What happens in a world where the stock market crashes to its "real" value, there is no interest income and your private pension defaults?

(Not that these events are correlated nor there is any liklihood of any of them happening. <wink>)

There's still social security.

Social security is an insurance program.

AGuy's picture

"I see person after person after person in this forum saying stuff like, "I'm 35 [(or whatever)], and I know I'll never see a dime." Stuff like that."

I am much older than 35, yet I know there will be no SS or any entitlements. My friends father use to work for SSA (now retired), and he told me the cut off date for receiving SS is 1960. If you where born after 1959, you will not see a dime.

Here is how I expect SS to evolve:

1. in 2017 the Payroll tax witll rise by 2% (or they willl announce an increase that takes affect at a later date) and a wage cage will increase to cover the budget deficit.

2. In 2017-2019 SSA will begin announcing changes to the ages people can filing for SS. The minimum SS age (62) will increase to 64 or 65, Full benefits 69-70  and max benefits at 72 years. However these ages will experience creep as the SSA raises the age so effect than anyone under 57 today never reaches retirement age for SS. Further Payroll taxes hike will be enabled to try to keep the system afloat.

3. SS and Fed will not lower benefits for existing or soon to be retirees since they are still one of the largest voter block groups. Old people vote, and vote often. The gov't will sooner or later resume QE and print money to close the Deficit gap, thus causing the value of the dollar to depreciate.

"I can state unequivocally that even if my benefits were cut in half, or possibly by three-quarters, it would still be one of the greatest investments ever."

You are forgetting that the Dollar is depreciating in value. Since 2000 the US dollar has lost about 26%, and >96% since 1913. Your Budget estimates you have will be grossly wrong, by the time you reach retirement age.

"we are being led to believe that the money is going to going to run out and nothing will be left for anyone under 50 (?) 40 (?) 30 (?)"

The US is dead broke, It has a Federal Debt of over $19T, and going up by at the very minimum of $600B per year. By the time the next presidential election arrives in 2020, the debt will be about $25T (+/- $1 Trillion). About 4 million Americans filleng for SS & medicare every year, so the financial problems will continue to worsen.

SS isn't the worst of the deficit. Currently Medicare runs about $450B yearly deficit which is going to increase as more boomers start collecting medicare Benefits. The medicare portion of the Payroll tax is only 2.9%, but really needs to be about 8% to 10% to balance its budget.

MisterMousePotato's picture

Without question, the federal government will make changes to the Social Security program - it simply has to - and the changes will likely be along the lines of what you describe; namely, increases in taxes and changes in the retirement age (both EEA [now 62] and FRA [now 67]). Given your restraint and the care obviously put into your comment, I hate to appear churlish, but I have to say, again, that you, like many others, overstate the severity of the likely fixes.

The Social Security website contains a dozen or two proposals to change (fix) Social Security. Some, I was surprised to see, actually would increase benefits by changing, for example, the way COLAs are calculated; viz., by using a more realistic measure of inflation. (Fat chance of that.)

But looking at the bad news, the worst of the proposals are simply not the sort of thing to lead a person to conclude "I will not see a dime."

The worst of them appears to be a proposal raising the EEA starting in 2017 from age 62 at a rate of 1 month every 2 years and the same for the FRA starting in 2023. Curiously, I could not find information on what age they would be raised to, but I do not from that assume that they will be raised continuously for centuries until Social Security benefits are not paid unless and until one turns 200 years old.

Nor could I find information on whom the changes would apply to. The last time such a change was implimented (1983), it affected only people age 45 and younger. This, of course, was deliberate so that one planning on retiring in the near future would not be surprised. I would expect something similar now, but, well, who knows?

But let's assume the worst. It means, starting next year those who are (roughly speaking) 60 or 61 will not be able to collect Social Security when they turn 62, but will instead have to wait one more month (62 years and one month). Two years later, those who are 58 or 59 will have to wait until they are 62 and two months. Seven years from now, those who are 56 or 57 will have to wait until they are 62 and three months old. Etc.

I will acknowledge that these are real changes, with real consequences. My wife, for instance, will have to wait until she is 62 and a half, or thereabouts - another six months. Obviously, I cannot know what her, my, or our financial situation will be a decade hence, so this could be a Big Fucking Deal or merely one of life's little disappointments/annoyances/aggravations/irritations. Okay, this isn't what she (and I, too, for that matter) was promised or led to believe, but ... she lives with me, so this should be small potatos. (No pun intended.) I would also point out that, somewhat perversely, this will result in slightly higher (5/9ths of 1% per month, IIRC) monthly benefits by taking EEA later while FRA stays the same.

I'm pretty sure that a bunch of ZeroHedgers just pulled out their slide rules, calculators, abacuses, etc., to prove that this is too little, too late to put Social Security back on a solid actuarial footing. And, I'm pretty sure they'd be right.

But ...

There are proposals to increase taxes, too. Well, fuck me. Increase taxes? Are you kidding? They NEVER increase taxes!

Every fucking year, my property taxes go up. Every fucking year, every fucking tax goes up. Speeding tickets and the cost of water. You name it; if it's government, it goes up. Pisses me the fuck off, but what're you gonna do about it? Would be nice if enough people woke up and said, "Fuck, No!" But I have spent enough time in the last forty years studying the American voting public to know that that is not going to happen. In my lifetime, anyway.

Are you aware that just about half the country wants to elect as president someone who they know is dishonest and untrustworthy? Someone with egregious character flaws. Someone who has committed multiple felonies and breaches of national security, and the only reason (the only Official Reason, that is) that she is not being prosecuted and sent to jail is that she is too mentally incompetent to stand trial. And this is only scratching the surface, the material the mainstream media deemed insufficiently damning to disqualify her. Do even some desultory research, and Holy Cow! She might actually be Satan.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Social Security taxes will be going up. It'll be sold as a tax on the rich, and maybe it actually will be. Will the public buy it? Not wishing to repeat myself, may I remind you of who half the country thinks is the best person for President? Actually, I have to admit that I'd be pretty fucking enthusiastic about taxing, oh, say, Jamie Dimon 150% of his income and property to save Social Security, and I wouldn't even care if they squandered the money on Midnight Basketball Courts instead.

Again, I see the guys with the green eye shades saying that, even combined with increases in the EEA and FRA, the added taxes will not put Social Security on a sound actuarial basis. Again, probably true.

But it will buy some additional time. At least long enough for them and theirs to leave office, retire, grow old, and die. How long'll that be? Who knows. Last time, it worked for three decades. No reason to think it won't this time, too, especially with some of the other games they play. Maybe ebola will pop up again. Or bird flu. Or something that reduces the boomer population by half. Thirty years is a long fucking time. Thirty years ago, well, let's just say that there have been some BIG FUCKING CHANGES. For instance, thirty years ago, people did not talk about homo marriage like it was the most normal thing in the world. (In fact, Dan Rowan and Dick Martin actually ridiculed homo marriage on prime time television in a skit with Nipsy Russell and I can't remember who - I was just a kid). Thirty years ago, Muslims were a people I read about in English literature, Kipling, Churchhill, et al. Now, our children are being taught that America was founded and built by Muslims. Personally, too, biiiiiiiiiig changes.

Thirty years is a long time. Anything could happen. Most of the naysaying about Social Security is based on normalcy bias.

Having said all that, the worst - really the worst - that might happen is that Social Security might become means tested. And, yes, that sucks, just like my wife having to work another year or half a year longer sucks.

But I can also make an argument that Social Security would thus be more like an insurance policy than a retirement plan. The money will be there, but only if you need it. The only way to win is to be poor when you stop working, sorta like the only way to win on a life insurance policy is to die young. Lots of people here at The Hedge have life insurance. The only way that's a good investment is to suffer an untimely death. Ditto health insurance and car insurance. All of them. But everyone buys them, often voluntarily.

Somewhere on this thread, someone sneered: "My wife and I receive $45,000 a year from Social Security. We use it for pin money [(whatever that is)] at the local casino." I have no idea if he's serious, or if he's just saying that to piss off some young punk. But ... have you ever been to Vegas or Atlantic City mid week? It is possible that Social Security funds could be allocated in a manner that serves society's interests in a more 'meaningful' (?) way. For that matter, means testing it might lead to a need for less taxes to fund the program. What the fuck do I know about it? I'm just making this up as I go along.

One thing is for sure, though: Someday, we boomers will start dying, and things will go back to normal. I know it seems like it's going to take forever, but it's only a matter of a couple/few more decades. Before you throw a party, though, just remember for whom the bell tolls.

Lets Buy The Dip's picture

this guy thinks hillary will get in, and BREXIT will erupt like a teenager watching nude sites. LoL

read his predictions. => BREXIT will be the next big mess. A good write up here about how to MAKE OFF like a bandit when it hits. Read this ==> http://bit.ly/2aJnc1q

how dumb does the govt think we are. They are stealing from us, while they do nothing, and claim to be aweesome. Hillary is just scum, she is a white collar criminal. But eveyrone on this site already knows that, its how can we profit from that, which is the important questoin eveyrone should ask. 

SoDamnMad's picture

Kind of what Erdogen did in Turkey.  Just look to the past to see what the future will bring. Who knew he was such a historical scholar?

ebworthen's picture


$11+ Trillion for the banks/corporations/insurers but they won't give me back my money stolen from every pay check?

Fuck that.

Yes_Questions's picture



I've concluded my pay check is not mine to spend.  ALL OF IT Is allocared to someone's or something's debt.  

MalteseFalcon's picture

Look at your pay stub. 

See the net amount at the bottom. 

That's yours. 

Check your bank balance. 

You'll see it increased by that exact amount.

mkkby's picture

Article is bullshit.  They'll increase the max taxable earnings and kick the can for another 20 years. 

This has been going on for decades.  Ho hum.  Nothing to see here.  Of course, they'll run the printers for a few more minutes each year.  In case you haven't noticed, dot gov hasn't had a balanced budget since the viet nam war.  I'm still waiting for the hyperinflation predicted here over and over again.

algol_dog's picture

Are you kidding me with this article. If CB's can buy bonds, drop helicopter money, and buy ETF's what the fuck is so difficult in sending fresh printed checks to SSI Beneficiary's.

Problem solved ....


s2man's picture

Exactly.  SSI will paid.  But, the tiny dollars won't buy anything.

MalteseFalcon's picture

There is an inflation adjustment. 

It's called COLA. 

The formula needs to be adjusted back to the previous iteration.


SS will be the least of your worries then.

Unknown User's picture

Can't because Communism is only good for the banksters, for there rest it's dog-eat-dog Capitalism.

James's picture

They don't mail checks anymore. It's nothing more than a entry on a computer to create the funds and then direct deposit into your bank.

Do you realize that it would cost 35-40 million alone per month in printing,paper stock for checks,ink,postage, and the envelope?

It just seems to me everybody is oblivious to the reality. WE, AS A COUNTRY, ARE BROKE!

10,000 boomers alone are retiring EVERYDAY. That's PLUS the ones already retired.

Any more printing is going to debase further the dollar that has been debased 98% already since its inception in 1913.

In 1913 a silver dollar was worth a dollar. Today,even w/manipulation, it is worth $20.00. Whats that tell you?

My perception of why the outright fraud happening at all levels is happening is WE ARE BROKE. It's an act of desperation.

When the Police take more assets from the public then the criminals steal from the public in a year you might conclude WE ARE BROKE!


MalteseFalcon's picture

If we are broke, why do government employees keep showing up to work and why do they live better than those in the private sector?

If the disability fund was BK this year, why do checks keep going out?

How does the US continue funding weapon systems and war?

How do banks keep getting bailed out?

I don't think your definition of the word "broke" means anything in the real world.

DeadFred's picture

Nothing here that a little Ebola won't fix

Troy Ounce's picture



Or plain stupidity. The most uncurable and lethal of them all.

NoDebt's picture

"With immediate effect, benefits must be cut or taxes raised...you choose.  We can't pretend any longer and attempt to push the consequences out another generation."

You may not like the idea of generating more debt to pay these unpayable obligations but that's exactly what's going to happen.  Raising taxes.... maybe.  Cutting benefits.... absolutely laughable.


Dutti's picture

So called Social Security is just another tax - and it's gone!

Both Hillary and Trump will continue to payout the benefits. Hillary will also raise taxes and the economy will continue to languish. Trump is comfortable to take on more debt, cut taxes and make other nations participate in the pain. Trump's plan reminds me of what Reagan did in the 80s and makes a lot more sense. Of course, the purchasing power of the US$ will erode as a consequence.

adanata's picture


What a load of crap. Good news; we collected $2.9 trillion.. bad news; opps, it was "spent"... by whom? Oh, the warmongering criminal congress critters et al. Now we must all "share the pain".... ? Seriously? Let's begin by bringing home the troops and not funding the MIC shall we? Let's stop throwing TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars into political and multinational coffers. How about that you fu**ing morons. Just adding up government boondoggles; multibillion dollar planes that don't fly, crony contracts buying nothing for something, and you could fund SocSec for a hundred years. Stop allowing the global central banking system to launch wars of conquest on our dime. Stop them from debasing our currency and get back to honest money.... Spit.

mary mary's picture

"I have no intention of funding, in full, current retirees benefits with my tax dollars only to know I will hit the finish line with a 30%+ reduction that will only worsen over time."

What, exactly, then, does the author intend to do?

cossack55's picture

Perhaps his "suicide contingency" in his life insurance policy has elapsed.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Solution is intervention. For example, Boris' fat nephew who is enmesh with couch, he is eating problem. Family is not gather around and PROVIDE more food for nephew, but is perform familial duty to DENY more food, until nephew is roll off couch and get own food, or embrace death. This is love of family in pure form!

So in real term, Amerikansky that is want to save system, must is first STARVE system. Quit job or work for dollar in cash and when declare income and calculate tax, first deduct value of labor (hint: increase of income from labor minus value of labor = $0) until politician is no more spend sacred monies of tax payer.

… but what is Boris know, fat nephew is remain stuck to couch...

MalteseFalcon's picture

methinks Boris has never had a personal confrontation with the American state.

Boris, is like USSR.

sTls7's picture

Boris Bad enof and Natasha,   where are You??? 

skinwalker's picture

Don't forget Ivanna Kutcherkockof.

AGuy's picture

"fat nephew is remain stuck to couch"

Send Fat nephew out to a movie (you pay the ticket). While Fat nephew out watching movie, remove couch from home. Tell nephew that you discovered couch has bed bug infestation.  Ask Nephew to find friend with a couch he can stay until you find new couch. Later, replace couch with chairs.

"Amerikansky that is want to save system, must is first STARVE system"

No need for american people to act to starve system. Fed-sky's making jobs vanish with endliess wave of taxation and regulation. Soon very few american workers have jobs anyway. All that is needed is another good recesssion to get the party started.


NoDebt's picture

"What, exactly, then, does the author intend to do?"

I'm guessing he's going to keep writing articles about it to earn money until he's old and gray.  Then he'll collect Social Security.


Ham-bone's picture

Too funny - this author runs a not for profit blog and accepts no payment for his articles.  As for SS, this author is pretty sure he'll get little to none or it will buy next to nothing.  This author intends to enjoy everyday as if it was his last until it truly is.


MalteseFalcon's picture

I made a plan to not completely enjoy every day.

I went to work and saved money, because I knew the odds of any given day being my last were quite low.

I knew the odds were I'd live past my useful working life.

Now here I am.

I have savings to live on.

And social security, which I paid into.

Now I completely enjoy every day.

And I know that the odds are still not likely that today is my last day.

So I live on and on and collect and collect.

Should I collect?  After all I have savings.

How much have I saved?

None of your g-ddamned business.

Now get out there and work, because even if this is your last day, I want that payroll tax.

adanata's picture


There is so much BS flying around it's difficult to know where to start without the use of dozens of charts and graphs. Cut to the chase, the U.S. is a monetary sovereign. We could have paid for everything even without personal income tax. Social Security hasn't 'failed' or gone 'bankrupt', it's being deliberately scuttled. The Sheeple are being lied to and led around by mountains of propaganda; especially economic propaganda, while the noose is being tightened around everyone's collective neck. The criminal Fed is driving older people into poverty and desperation quite deliberately by imposing zero interest rates which are destroying savings, retirement programs and pension funds. Moreover, they are being herded into the 'stock market' desperate for any kind of yield, so the 'insiders' are selling to 'mom and pop'; then, when they take down the market, they confiscate whatever 'mom and pop' invested. The whole thing is a set-up. They want you, I assume you're a young person, to be pissed off; "hey, I'm paying for some oldster's retirement but I ain't gettin' any for me"... yep. There ya go. DISTRACTION... get angry at the victim; people who were forced by law to put money into a 'government' retirement system.... and now that 'government' is viciously and mercilessly pulling the plug. Do you have any idea how many good honorable, disabled, ill and elderly people are going to suffer and die unnecessarily because of this... all because of the global central banks? Aim yourself at the right target.

MalteseFalcon's picture

You're making way too much sense.

mary mary's picture

Yes.  I think the "SS is broke" scam is actually the "let TPTB privatize SS" scam.  TPTB will never stop withdrawing SS from paychecks, but will trick Millenials into letting TPTB put the withdrawn funds into the stock market.  Then, those funds will be "managed" by Zionist Bankers' Children, who will skim off fat "management fees" but underperform the SP500.  PLUS, TPTB will then crash the stockmarket, leaving Millenials with ZERO DOLLARS in their "privatized SS funds".

Every time I read "SS is broke", I think, "written by another Zionist Bankers' Child, or someone hungry enough to do that Child's dirty work for him.