We put government in charge of our retirement plan (Social Security) and they spent the surplus on other things. If a private company did that they would go to jail. The so called (Social Security Trust Fund" is full of IOUs...not money. If someone tells you Social Security is viable for 25 years they are miss-leading you. Yes, there are IOUs that on the surface seem to indicate the fund is in surplus.
One way to look at it is...to meet the obligation of paying the IOUs the government has to do the same thing they would have to do if the trust fund did not exist at all... a.. Raise Taxes b.. Borrow the money or c.. Reduce benefits The Trust Fund and Surplus are an illusion because they already spent the money In my opinion a private fund that you are in control of and the government cannot get their greedy hands on is much better. I would add that there should be a safety net for the few cases where it doesn't work out. It would be hard to pick any forty year period where you would get less from a safe investment in Mutual Funds than you get from Social Security. ----- Original Message ----- From: Quadius To: Danny Hearn Cc: quad-list Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] OMG I had not heard that. In fact, if you could I would appreciate if you could pass on to me where you heard that data. That is of course if you can remember. I know I can't always remember where I learned certain things. I do still contend that it has nothing to do with the budget. It is a system which is set up to be self-sustaining. Q On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Danny Hearn <[email protected]> wrote: Actually quadius, that used to be the projected theory ---- BUT AS OF JANUARY 2011 IT BEGAN GOING UNDER--- many years ahead of what had been figured. 2 years ago they thought it would not even hit the dead break even point until at least 2018---but thats all old news now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Quadius <[email protected]> To: quad-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 7:04:53 PM Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] OMG Actually cutting Social Security in order to a limited or control the deficit is a fallacy. Social Security has nothing to do with the death or deficit. It does need to be restructured if it's going to be completely solvent in 25 years, but even as it is right now it's going to return 70% for those people getting Social Security in 25 years. Things do need to be done to resolve this problem, but it is not imperative it be lumped in with deficit reduction. BTW, I watched the State of the Union, but my DVR didn't get all of the Republican response. In my opinion it was a pretty good speech, although it didn't have a lot of specifics. But hardly any of the State of the Union speeches do have a ton of concrete data. Q On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, bob quinn <[email protected]> wrote: Unfortunately, given the country's huge deficit (thank-you hedge-funders, corrupt mortgage brokers, and W's foray into Iraq), cuts in "entitlements" (I hate that inappropriate phrase), namely Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are inevitable ...especially, considering the increasing demands on them as the Baby-Boomer generation reach retirement age. It's incredibly unfair, but they are too big an expense to escape it. In that regard, I fear things are going to get worse for many before things get better. About the only thing you can take some consolation in is that I'm sure the tax cuts for the upper-most 2% will be eliminated before entitlements are attacked. At 08:04 AM 1/27/2011, [email protected] wrote: Anything is palatable if you place enough real whipped cream over it. That is today's politics. That being said... I enjoyed the speeches. I enjoy listening to a standing President who speaks English, and doesn't make up their own words. I felt as though I was at a pep rally and the speakers were hoping to motivate those who listened. I am much aware that the President is the person who signs the bills into law. Its those other people both men and women that represents their states that make up bill, argue their validity, and spend tons of money, trying to get others to agree with them and their policies. It bothers me when spending cuts are mentioned and the big two are always mentioned. Social Security and HealthCare. Keep in mind, those who are promoting spending cuts are wealthy enough NOT to be affected by those spending cuts. And yet they make the decisions for all of us. I want those people who represent us to have exposure to the very same benefits as we do. No more... No less. Granted, its only a dream and I can wish....... Best Wishes In a message dated 1/26/2011 9:58:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Well, Eric... So whatd'ya think? Good, Bad, Impartial? Left, Right, Centrist? Too much, too little, not enough? (almost an hour) Me... I'm primarily curious in knowing just how many folks really watched the whole thing, and/or the Republican rebuttal, and/or perhaps the Bachman/Tea Party response/rebuttal (if it was aired on your station). And, of those who watched, what did they hear in that which was said? I'm very often dismayed at how much arguing about politics happens when it's compared to how much people actually watch, and more importantly pay attention to all sides of an issue, when our officials are working in Congress or speaking to the media live (not edited soundbites for/from pundits). I'm glad at least two of us decided to hear what Mr. Prez had to say. Good Deal, my man! Best regards, Tod Santee Tucson, AZ On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Eric W Rudd <[email protected]> wrote: I am keeping an open mind...but thinking 'what the hell'...let's hear what u have to say mr president. Eric W Rudd [email protected]
