• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Our Government's Financial Woes

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Is anyone else here following the news concerning the possibility of Social Security checks not going out next month with rapt, almost morbid, fascination?

Why is our government willing to hurt those who can least afford it when the politicians and bureaucrats are drawing salaries many times higher than they should be?

Quite frankly, at my age, just about the only option I would have if the government fails in its obligations is to take my wife back to her native country and stay there. At least there, with my education, I am almost guaranteed a job teaching English. Here, the most I could hope for would be a greeter at Wal Mart.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
If the government gets shutdown, they still get paid, that's the real shame. I do feel sorry about those who rely on social security for their basic needs. Unfortunately they want to let partisan politics get in the way of preserving our nation's immediate financial security.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
I feel sorry for those dependent on the SS check, but I will never support forced charity at the point of a gun. These programs like social security and medicare go against my values of very limited government. I hate these programs where if i don't support the program by being forced to pay the tax they send me to jail. Even though people are dependent on these forced charity programs I would love to see welfare, Social security and medicare stopped, a number of corrupt and unconstitutional agency's removed as well.

The Libertarian Party platform says the following about health care:

"We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines." As for the debt ceiling I side with Ron Paul and people need to wake up to the misguided nonsense both the D and R are putting out,


"What nobody wants to admit is this: even if the federal government has only $1.5 trillion remaining to spend in 2011 after interest payments, this is PLENTY to fund the constitutional functions of government. After all, the entire federal budget in 1990 was about $1 trillion. Does anyone seriously believe the federal government was too small or too frugal just 20 years ago? Hardly. So why have we allowed the federal budget to quadruple during those 20 years?

The truth is, in spite of how cataclysmic some might say it would be if we did not pass a new debt ceiling, it is hardly the catastrophe that has been advertised. The debt ceiling is a self-imposed limit on borrowing. The signal congress sends to worldwide markets by raising the debt ceiling is simple: business as usual will continue in Washington; no real spending cuts will be made; and fiscal austerity will remain a pipe dream.

When our creditors finally wise up and cut us off, we will be forced to face economic realities whether we want to or not. It would be easier to deal with the tough choices we face now, on our own terms, rather than wait until we are at the mercy of foreign creditors. However, leaders in Washington have no political will to admit that we cannot afford to continue spending without any meaningful limit. They prefer maintaining the illusion and putting off reality for another day.

———-Ron Paul"
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I feel sorry for those dependent on the SS check, but I will never support forced charity at the point of a gun. These programs like social security and medicare go against my values of very limited government. I hate these programs where if i don't support the program by being forced to pay the tax they send me to jail. Even though people are dependent on these forced charity programs I would love to see welfare, Social security and medicare stopped, a number of corrupt and unconstitutional agency's removed as well.

Charity, my great grandmother's rosy red @$$!! Most of us have paid into that system since the time we first went to work. If it weren't for the corrupt politicians, and that is from both major parties, who raided the Social Security Trust Fund to finance their idiotic schemes, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I am all in favor of voting every single incumbent out of office, from the POTUS right on down, and putting a whole new bunch in office. Preferably a bunch from neither major party. The only way that I could see returning any one of them to office would be if they had the integrity to reduce their own pay and to refuse their pay until this mess is cleaned up.

Damn right, I'm an angry, worried old man. I'm beginning to see why Phillip Nolan said what he did.
 

Lokster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
127
Location
Unincorporated Jefferson County
It's a pity that generations older than mine allowed it to happen in the first place and believed that they could rely on it when the time came. I've been paying in as well, though not nearly as long as some, but I'm smart enough to realize that I shouldn't expect to survive on what others have stolen from me. The sooner we default the less painful it will be.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Social Security is not one of the charity programs. It has dedicated funds taken out of everyones payroll checks. It would be a gross violation of the SS program and people's money to not issue SS checks if not outright illegal. I'd like to see SS phased out or at least made optional and not have monies other than payroll deductions go into SS checks, but it would be morally bankrupt and probably illegal to not send out the SS payments to people. The president is lying (again, yea big suprise :rolleyes:) or threatening with possibly illegal action.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Is anyone else here following the news concerning the possibility of Social Security checks not going out next month with rapt, almost morbid, fascination?

Its a scare tactic. Nothing more. Don't worry about your checks.

The only problem is paying on the national debt. The government has revenues coming in. The only reason it is a problem is because they don't want to cut spending enough elsewhere to 1) make the payments on the debt, and 2) end the need to borrow--create more national debt.

Think about it. They want to increase their ability to borrow so they can keep spending beyond their means. That's really all it means. And, increase their ability to borrow to spend beyond their means by a lot.

While substantial, the interest payments on the national debt are not unpayable.

Think about it. They could have had the debate about cutting spending and reducing borrowing whenever. Anytime. But, instead they keep piling on debt and wait until the former bankster Tim Geithner says it must be addressed. Which is all anybody's been telling them for decades. But, the sleight of hand is which "it" must be addressed. Borrowing, spending? Neither. The "it" they selected as their bogey-man was payments on the national debt and the US credit rating and (gasp) the consequences of not being able to borrow to spend beyond their means (Oh! noz!.)

Its a high-stakes game politically because the people are paying attention. Cut here and die. Raise taxes there and die. Since it is high-stakes, brinksmanship is being played--hard. They're going to take it right to the brink because neither side wants to be the one that cut or raised taxes--either one hurts somebody who will vote accordingly.

They won't let a default occur--too many banksters want their pound of flesh. They'll play brinksmanship right up to the very last possible moment, then they'll raise the debt limit, and likely raise taxes, with a few token spending cuts.

Whichever way it goes, they won't be cutting out social security checks. Its a scare tactic. One of the things usually done is to threaten to cut services people actually want to scare them into going along with whatever non-solution the politicians really want, rather than cut back on all the nonsense expenses. But, that's all it is. A scare tactic.

They could just tell each government agency to immediately find 5% (or some realistic number) to stop spending NOW, and suddenly we'd have enough money to service the debt. And, maybe even stop borrowing billions at a time. Think about it. The debt ceiling going up over and over means the government has been spending beyond its means non-stop since... Not just spending every dime they take in. But, borrowing to spend more than they take in.

If you want to know more about this, hunt up and follow libertarian blogs. Include a blog called Economic Policy Journal in the mix.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
It's a pity that generations older than mine allowed it to happen in the first place and believed that they could rely on it when the time came. I've been paying in as well, though not nearly as long as some, but I'm smart enough to realize that I shouldn't expect to survive on what others have stolen from me. The sooner we default the less painful it will be.

I gave up a few years ago thinking I would ever see the SS money stolen from my paycheck every week.

I also dislike the idea of myself living on money stolen from other peoples' paychecks.

Now, I assume I will work into my dotage. Fortunately I have a white collar job and this seems feasible, plus the idea of retirement never appealed to me. Plus, I like my job. So, it looks like I'll have a decent shot at making my actions match my principles and rhetoric.

I say either phase SS out, or let it crash and burn. Its a giant Ponzi scheme. Pay the early investers with the money coming in from later investers. Until it pyramids out of control and crashes because you can't get enough new money coming in to pay the investers already in. Preferrably phase it out. The faster the better.

We all know there was never a trust fund. The surplus for any given quarter went into the general fund and was spent, while an IOU was put into the so-called, non-existent trust fund. Not a dime was invested anywhere to earn interest, something we could have done if allowed to keep our own money.

I sorta feel sorry for folks who have to rely on SS. Not because of straitened circumstances, but because of what the government did to them. I see proud older Americans turned into dependents because the government stole from them money they could have invested themselves. I see proud older Americans who were lied to and accepted that lie--its your money, you'll get it back.

Take that lie out of the equation and see how many people go along with SS. Really explain to people how they will become feeble dependents on the fedgov, their economic situation depending in part--large or small--on lying, cheating politicians who do nothing but crash the economy, politicians who are almost to a man in it only for themselves. Really explain that and see how may people go along with SS.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I see the disingenuous scare tactics from President Obama are working.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, we will simply be forced to operate under a "balanced budget." Except in time of grave national emergency (the last such emergency I can think of was WWII, which ended 66 years ago), operating under a balanced budget should be the norm! The numbers have been crunched. Using solely the revenues that actually come in, the debt will be serviced, the military will be completely funded, and all checks can be sent out (will the Obama administration do this, or will they try to foment unrest?), with money left over to fund other "essential services." We will essentially experience a "government shutdown." We've been through such before.

IMO, if the Dems won't go along with drastic cuts in spending with no increase in taxation, the GOP should let the August 2nd deadline come and go. The feds being forced to live within their means would be a good thing.

Oh, and no one has "paid into" Social Security. The programs has never been one in which folks were storing up money for their own retirement. Money paid in has always gone to fund current retirements in the hope that future money would fund the retirements of those currently funding the retirements of others. We see now what a foolish system this was. "Enforced charity" is a bit strong, but apt.

Bottom line, folks saying that failing to raise the debt limit will cause default are full of solid waste. All that will happen is that the Obama administration will pick and choose what they fund and that those decisions will be based solely on how they believe that such decisions can be made in a way that best benefits their political ends.

On edit: I added the word not to make the post make sense. Please note that this post was quoted before I made the correction. Fortunately, PFW read what I meant and not what I wrote.
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
I find it humorous that the republicans, in the sane breath, say they want lower taxes and won't raise the debt ceiling, all the while knowing that $0.40 of every dollar in the current budget is borrowed.

Yes, right now, our government spends nearly twice the revenue it takes. We have gone from balanced to profligate since 2001.

Medicare, social security, military, and discretionary each account for about 20% ($600-700 billion each).
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I see the disingenuous scare tactics from President Obama are working.

If the debt ceiling is raised, we will simply be forced to operate under a "balanced budget." Except in time of grave national emergency (the last such emergency I can think of was WWII, which ended 66 years ago), operating under a balanced budget should be the norm! The numbers have been crunched. Using solely the revenues that actually come in, the debt will be serviced, the military will be completely funded, and all checks can be sent out (will the Obama administration do this, or will they try to foment unrest?), with money left over to fund other "essential services." We will essentially experience a "government shutdown." We've been through such before.

IMO, if the Dems won't go along with drastic cuts in spending with no increase in taxation, the GOP should let the August 2nd deadline come and go. The feds being forced to live within their means would be a good thing.

Oh, and no one has "paid into" Social Security. The programs has never been one in which folks were storing up money for their own retirement. Money paid in has always gone to fund current retirements in the hope that future money would fund the retirements of those currently funding the retirements of others. We see now what a foolish system this was. "Enforced charity" is a bit strong, but apt.

Bottom line, folks saying that failing to raise the debt limit will cause default are full of solid waste. All that will happen is that the Obama administration will pick and choose what they fund and that those decisions will be based solely on how they believe that such decisions can be made in a way that best benefits their political ends.

+1

Don't worry about your SS check SFC.

I wonder if the architects of the SS ponzi scheme considered the possibility of people having much greater life expectancy 50 years after the creation of SS, or that birth rates would decline.

It should be pretty obvious that when the average family has 2.3 kids, those 2.3 kids are going to have too foot the bill for sustaining their parents from 65+ to maybe 90+. It's impossible to expect the system to remain solvent with those numbers.

SFC if you have the option to return to the wife's native country, I'm not sure why you're still here. My plan is to return to my wife's country and retire. I'll sell beers out of a cooler to gringos on the beach, and drink all the profits.

I have no illusions that I'll be receiving any sort of pension from the gov't. If I do it will be hardly enough to live on.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, our government can and, more importantly should, operate within the revenues it takes in. If it does, revenues will increase. When the government stops competing with the private sector for money to borrow, more money will be available for wealth-generating-activities (business), as opposed to wealth-consuming-activities (government), at lower rates, productivity will increase, wealth will increase, the tax base will increase, and, in direct result, revenues will increase.

Step one is to chop the hell out of spending. When that is agreed to, a very small, very temporary increase in the debt ceiling will allow transition to the mandate of a balanced budget, which is step three. In any event, no action should be taken the pushes the tough decisions past the 2012 elections. Before the election, every member of Congress should be put on the record on a Balanced Budget Amendment. There must be an up-or-down vote on sending that amendment to the States. This issue should be front and center when we go to the polls next year.

I hope the Republicans have the guts to stick to their principles this time. It sounds like the Freshmen are dragging the leadership in the right direction.
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
+1

Don't worry about your SS check SFC.

I wonder if the architects of the SS ponzi scheme considered the possibility of people having much greater life expectancy 50 years after the creation of SS, or that birth rates would decline.

It should be pretty obvious that when the average family has 2.3 kids, those 2.3 kids are going to have too foot the bill for sustaining their parents from 65+ to maybe 90+. It's impossible to expect the system to remain solvent with those numbers.

SFC if you have the option to return to the wife's native country, I'm not sure why you're still here. My plan is to return to my wife's country and retire. I'll sell beers out of a cooler to gringos on the beach, and drink all the profits.

I have no illusions that I'll be receiving any sort of pension from the gov't. If I do it will be hardly enough to live on.

There have been close to 55 Million abortions in this country, most would be paying into SS if they were alive.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
+1

Don't worry about your SS check SFC.

I wonder if the architects of the SS ponzi scheme considered the possibility of people having much greater life expectancy 50 years after the creation of SS, or that birth rates would decline.

It should be pretty obvious that when the average family has 2.3 kids, those 2.3 kids are going to have too foot the bill for sustaining their parents from 65+ to maybe 90+. It's impossible to expect the system to remain solvent with those numbers.

SFC if you have the option to return to the wife's native country, I'm not sure why you're still here. My plan is to return to my wife's country and retire. I'll sell beers out of a cooler to gringos on the beach, and drink all the profits.

I have no illusions that I'll be receiving any sort of pension from the gov't. If I do it will be hardly enough to live on.

I hope you are right about the checks.

I'll give you one good reason that neither my wife nor I really want to go to her native country to live out our lives: My wife is Chinese. We want to visit, see our children and grandchild there, plus see her other friends and relatives, but we do not want to go there permanently. She is working very hard to become an American citizen and I would like for her to have that.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
One thing, and one thing only will stop SS checks: The administration using those checks in retaliation for the debt limit not being extended. Only a few months ago did SS payments exceed FICA receipts, so they're both still quite close. The checks could continue easily, funded solely by FICA receipts, either with tiny supplemental funding from withheld taxes or at a near 100% proration rate.

I fully expect the administration to play politics with those checks.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I hope you are right about the checks.

I'll give you one good reason that neither my wife nor I really want to go to her native country to live out our lives: My wife is Chinese. We want to visit, see our children and grandchild there, plus see her other friends and relatives, but we do not want to go there permanently. She is working very hard to become an American citizen and I would like for her to have that.

Zhen de ma? My ex girlfriend was zhong guo ren. Where is your wife from?

QinDao would probably be the only place I'd consider living over there for any extended period of time. Maybe Hangzhou but it's a little too hot there. Maybe that's why she's my ex girlfriend......

At least for now you could live like a king over there though; until our dollars are worthless anyway.

Tell your wife ni hao for me.:D
 
Last edited:

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
Charity, my great grandmother's rosy red @$$!! Most of us have paid into that system since the time we first went to work. If it weren't for the corrupt politicians, and that is from both major parties, who raided the Social Security Trust Fund to finance their idiotic schemes, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I am all in favor of voting every single incumbent out of office, from the POTUS right on down, and putting a whole new bunch in office. Preferably a bunch from neither major party. The only way that I could see returning any one of them to office would be if they had the integrity to reduce their own pay and to refuse their pay until this mess is cleaned up.

Damn right, I'm an angry, worried old man. I'm beginning to see why Phillip Nolan said what he did.

EYE hit the nail on the head. As for it not forced charity, if you don't pay the tax they can send you to jail. They use force with the threat of having a gun pointed at you and jail time.

I see the disingenuous scare tactics from President Obama are working.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, we will simply be forced to operate under a "balanced budget." Except in time of grave national emergency (the last such emergency I can think of was WWII, which ended 66 years ago), operating under a balanced budget should be the norm! The numbers have been crunched. Using solely the revenues that actually come in, the debt will be serviced, the military will be completely funded, and all checks can be sent out (will the Obama administration do this, or will they try to foment unrest?), with money left over to fund other "essential services." We will essentially experience a "government shutdown." We've been through such before.

IMO, if the Dems won't go along with drastic cuts in spending with no increase in taxation, the GOP should let the August 2nd deadline come and go. The feds being forced to live within their means would be a good thing.

Oh, and no one has "paid into" Social Security. The programs has never been one in which folks were storing up money for their own retirement. Money paid in has always gone to fund current retirements in the hope that future money would fund the retirements of those currently funding the retirements of others. We see now what a foolish system this was. "Enforced charity" is a bit strong, but apt.

Bottom line, folks saying that failing to raise the debt limit will cause default are full of solid waste. All that will happen is that the Obama administration will pick and choose what they fund and that those decisions will be based solely on how they believe that such decisions can be made in a way that best benefits their political ends.

On edit: I added the word not to make the post make sense. Please note that this post was quoted before I made the correction. Fortunately, PFW read what I meant and not what I wrote.
 
Last edited:

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I hope you are right about the checks.

I'll give you one good reason that neither my wife nor I really want to go to her native country to live out our lives: My wife is Chinese. We want to visit, see our children and grandchild there, plus see her other friends and relatives, but we do not want to go there permanently. She is working very hard to become an American citizen and I would like for her to have that.

Roger That, one of the last places I'd want to live in is China. Only because of the total government control. At least they seem to have adopted a free market economy from what I've heard.

I assumed you were talking about The Philippines or something like that. Hong Kong is nice too, just expensive.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
EYE hit the nail on the head. As for it not forced charity, if you don't pay the tax they can send you to jail. They use force with the threat of having a gun pointed at you and jail time.

Sort of. You can go your entire life without paying it actually. Just go on welfare, or work for cash. They don't take it by gun point, they can only take it when you're following the rules.
 
Top