Bernanke – My Goal is to Wreck Social Security

[StreetScooby 5]

Interesting article regarding social security.
Bernanke – My Goal is to Wreck Social Security

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 2]

A side note re: the "journalism" of the article and the site that published it - I read the article. Analysis aside, the article's title is a cheap shot, because Bernanke never said "My goal is to wreck Social Security", or anything close to expressing a goal or having an actual intent to wreck SS - no matter how much one might disagree with his formula. This sort of "manufactured quote" is very unprofessional, and really cheapens the piece, and diminishes the author's credibility, right out of the gate.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Analysis aside, the article's title is a cheap shot, because Bernanke never said "My goal is to wreck Social Security", or anything close to expressing a goal or having an actual intent to wreck SS - no matter how much one might disagree with his formula. This sort of "manufactured quote" is very unprofessional, and really cheapens the piece, and diminishes the author's credibility, right out of the gate.

I think that's a fair statement.

We are all engines of karma

[beowulf 1]

I agree it's a poor choice for a title. But the rest shows who the biggest losers are with the Zero Interest Rates Policy.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

But the rest shows who the biggest losers are with the Zero Interest Rates Policy.

Yep. The chickens are coming home to roost, big time, and it's going to be ugly.

We are all engines of karma

[DougH 270]

Benefits should be slashed heavily for all but the poorest beneficiaries. Medicare too.

It was their elected officials that dicked around with social security for decades. They should pay the price.

Social security and medicare are ponzi schemes dreamed up by politicians to buy votes, whose true costs are going to be borne on the backs of our current generations.

No different from municipalities, cities, and states that signed in to pension and medical obligations that aren't sustainable in the long run. They all need to be dissolved because the original agreements were not negotiated in good faith.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

I know this is hard for some liberals to understand but some people actually have retirement income they don't get from the government. It comes from IRA's 401K's, private investments they made during their lifetime, and pensions.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

I know this is hard for some liberals to understand but some people actually have retirement income they don't get from the government. It comes from IRA's 401K's, private investments they made during their lifetime, and pensions.

I understand just fine. I responded to the poster that stated that a 33% cut to SS would still make their retirement "enjoyable" It would have a major impact on a large portion of the elderly and put more of them into poverty than ever before, You disagree?

[lawrocket 3]

People are going to get screwed. It's that simple. The question becomes where we draw the line of who will get screwed and who won't get screwed.

Do we draw the line and say, "those people who are 65 or older now will see a decrease in their payments by 1/3 effective immediately?" Or do we say "those who ar 60 or younger will have half of their benefits slashed when they retire?" Or do we say, "anyone under the age of fifty won't have social security because it will be wrapped up by 2027 and only paying off those who were part of it before?"

Someone will get it. Who is it going to be, by how much and when? Those are the questions to be resolved. The pyramid is doomed to collapse. Same with Medicare and all other schemes that depend on exponential growth of people paying in to support the growth of people receiving benefits. As Kallend has mentioned in the past, the return on investment for Social Security has been glorious. Like that of Madoff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

I know this is hard for some liberals to understand but some people actually have retirement income they don't get from the government. It comes from IRA's 401K's, private investments they made during their lifetime, and pensions.

I understand just fine. I responded to the poster that stated that a 33% cut to SS would still make their retirement "enjoyable" It would have a major impact on a large portion of the elderly and put more of them into poverty than ever before, You disagree?

I think you need to re-read what you said and what Iago was saying. I'll copy and paste it if you still need help. I'm on my Iphone and if I make a mistake, Kelpdiver will be all over me.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

***Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

I know this is hard for some liberals to understand but some people actually have retirement income they don't get from the government. It comes from IRA's 401K's, private investments they made during their lifetime, and pensions.

I understand just fine. I responded to the poster that stated that a 33% cut to SS would still make their retirement "enjoyable" It would have a major impact on a large portion of the elderly and put more of them into poverty than ever before, You disagree?

I think you need to re-read what you said and what Iago was saying. I'll copy and paste it if you still need help. I'm on my Iphone and if I make a mistake, Kelpdiver will be all over me.

Quote

The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

I was referring to the above quote. I understand that there are many retiree's doing just fine. On the other hand, many are not. The ones that do survive on only their SS, and do not own a home, would be greatly affected.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

People are going to get screwed. It's that simple. The question becomes where we draw the line of who will get screwed and who won't get screwed.

Do we draw the line and say, "those people who are 65 or older now will see a decrease in their payments by 1/3 effective immediately?" Or do we say "those who ar 60 or younger will have half of their benefits slashed when they retire?" Or do we say, "anyone under the age of fifty won't have social security because it will be wrapped up by 2027 and only paying off those who were part of it before?"

Someone will get it. Who is it going to be, by how much and when? Those are the questions to be resolved. The pyramid is doomed to collapse. Same with Medicare and all other schemes that depend on exponential growth of people paying in to support the growth of people receiving benefits. As Kallend has mentioned in the past, the return on investment for Social Security has been glorious. Like that of Madoff.

I think there are a couple of other likely options; Means-testing and increasing the employee contribution cap.

If you were to combine cuts to SS and replace MC with a voucher system in the future, this country would look very different.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

***Another assumption of the article is that a benefit cut would immediately translate to a reduction in economic spending. Retirees are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country so I would call BS. The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

The elderly are going to be "Enjoying" their retirement on $800 a month? Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2011/08/30/retirees-increasingly-depending-on-social-security

I know this is hard for some liberals to understand but some people actually have retirement income they don't get from the government. It comes from IRA's 401K's, private investments they made during their lifetime, and pensions.

I understand just fine. I responded to the poster that stated that a 33% cut to SS would still make their retirement "enjoyable" It would have a major impact on a large portion of the elderly and put more of them into poverty than ever before, You disagree?

I think you need to re-read what you said and what Iago was saying. I'll copy and paste it if you still need help. I'm on my Iphone and if I make a mistake, Kelpdiver will be all over me.

Quote

The old folks aren't going to stop enjoying their retirement just because SS cuts their monthly checks from $1200 to $800.

I was referring to the above quote. I understand that there are many retiree's doing just fine. On the other hand, many are not. The ones that do survive on only their SS, and do not own a home, would be greatly affected.

And again (the part you want to ignore) retirees are the wealthiest segment of our population.

Hence, the concept of 'means testing.'

You can write all the personal checks you like to the retired millionaires out in California that will be standing on the street corner protesting when this happens.

I'll leave mine in my sock drawer, thank you.

Yup, that's the part I was referring to. He also said they would have a hard time "enjoying" their retirement on $800 per month. Clearly indicating he thought that's all they would have to live on.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

Just to be straight here, I don't like the idea at all.

What's the other option? Sucking up more than the 15% of your paycheck it does now? Eliminating the $110k cap and taxing all incomes to the tune of another $290+ Billion a year?

Are you making the claim that you pay 15% of your income to the SS tax?

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/...mum-taxable-earnings

Quote

I'm going to be one of the people that have paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars and won't qualify for full benefits (or possibly any benefits) under a 'means testing' payout. I'm certainly not talking out of my butt when I say it has to go 'means tested' because it's my money that's going to be transferred to someone else and not the other way around.

How do you know? I'm guessing with your time in the sport, you're fairly young. I have known many that have become disabled (or have died) and end up on SSI, with a couple of young kids, it could add up to hundreds of thousands in benefits.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

And again (the part you want to ignore) retirees are the wealthiest segment of our population.

I give up on providing links and showing you that many seniors are far from wealthy. Ever consider that there may be a difference between a senior and a retiree?

I have yet to see a (serious) Republican politician make the claim that SS can be tweaked due to seniors being so wealthy and them not needing it.

Ever wonder why they offer 'senior discounts" everywhere?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1

[jclalor 12]

SSI is paid regardless of a private policy, SSI is also paid to surviving children regardless of assets.

I'm still curious how anyone can pay over 15% of their income in SS tax.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

And again (the part you want to ignore) retirees are the wealthiest segment of our population.

I give up on providing links and showing you that many seniors are far from wealthy. Ever consider that there may be a difference between a senior and a retiree?

I have yet to see a (serious) Republican politician make the claim that SS can be tweaked due to seniors being so wealthy and them not needing it.

Ever wonder why they offer 'senior discounts" everywhere?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1

Nobody is saying that ALL Seniors are wealthy. However, they do constitute the wealthiest segment of our society. You really need to stop defaulting to the most extreme examples when trying to make a point.

The unfortunate reality is that SS must be means-tested. It's not fair but it's what must be done.

Senior Discounts are nothing more than a marketing strategy. My company offers them. We also offer discounts for veterans, families of veterans and discounts if you know someone who's a veteran. We also offer discounts to various clubs and organizations. Ever read the fine print on restaurant advertising that offers discounts to seniors? It specifies the discounts are only good on certain days at certain times. These are the least busy times at the restaurants and they are trying to generate some business. Same with movie theaters etc. It's all about marketing.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

That article proves my point. The 'old folks' are the wealthiest segment of the population in this country.

From the article:

Quote

Wealth inequality is increasing within all age groups. Among the younger-age households, those living in debt have grown the fastest while the share of households with net worth of at least $250,000 edged up slightly to 2%. Among the older-age households, the share of households worth at least $250,000 rose to 20% from 8% in 1984; those living in debt were largely unchanged at 8%.

I think you also missed the main point of the article. it's not that the elderly are doing so wonderful, it's that the young are doing the worst they have done in 25 years.

Perhaps your definition of being wealthy and my definition differ a bit. 80% or 4/5 seniors have less than $250,00 in assets (way less in most cases).

Having the majority of the wealth, and being wealthy are not the same

• Quote

[jclalor 12]

Quote

The entire amount that is paid in SS tax is budgeted by my employer as part of my salary. That amounts to 15% of my gross earned income up to 110k (between SS and Medicare).

[jclalor 12]

Quote

I'm done here. Time for Netflix documentaries.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think there are a couple of other likely options; Means-testing and increasing the employee contribution cap.

Both of which mean scrwing somebody. In the first case, someone getting a lesser return than another. In the next case, people paying more so that others may receive it.

Winners and losers. Top/bottom. Pitcher/catcher...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I think there are a couple of other likely options; Means-testing and increasing the employee contribution cap.

Both of which mean scrwing somebody. In the first case, someone getting a lesser return than another. In the next case, people paying more so that others may receive it.

Winners and losers. Top/bottom. Pitcher/catcher...

The big winners were the folks who collected on day one without having contributed a dime. We've been playing catch-up and losing ground ever since. The issue is people think of it as being some sort of magic bank account. It never has been.

Me. I'm at the exact opposite end from the winners. I've contributed my entire working life and I am in serious doubt I'll ever collect a dime.

Does that mean I want to do away with it now and cut my loses? No. I don't think we can cut it off cold turkey. It needs reform, and yes there will be winners and losers, but I'll still consider myself a winner if I collect anything.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I said the older people in this country are the wealthiest segment of our population and they are. You're own citation proves it.

you greatly misinterpret the facts of this article. Wealth is more than just net assets - cash flow (iow, income flow) is a key component. And GM - 80% of the population having assets of 250k or less is hardly an outlier - in fact the wealthy are the outliers here. 250k over 20 years plus Social Security means an annual income of 30 or 40k.

250k + a pension + SS would be a much better story. And if you look at the median example, they're not suffering. But 50% are below the median.

---
As for the original story - ignoring the political rhetoric, it missed the significance of low interest rates. No, the SS 'trust fund' isn't earning as much as it did before 2008, but the Feds also aren't paying as much to service the trillions of debt. In Sept 1981 30 year bonds sold at 15.19%. In Sept 2011 they were being replaced with ones at 2.9%.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Does that mean I want to do away with it now and cut my loses? No. I don't think we can cut it off cold turkey. It needs reform, and yes there will be winners and losers, but I'll still consider myself a winner if I collect anything.

Get a new scorecard.