Even Canadian Comedians Know Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme

Listen, I have been pissed ever since the Democrats killed an attempt to reform Social Security under the Bush administration. They managed to scare all the blue hair AARP members into pressuring congress to drop the issue, much to the detriment of future generations. Because of AARP's lobbying against Social Security reform and for the monstrosity called Obamacare I will never be a member. 10 years ago it was proposed to allow younger folks to invest in alternate investment options and to take that amount from the garnishment currently being taken by the federal government to pay for this Ponzi scheme. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CHANGE FOR CURRENT BENEFICIARIES. The Dems of course ran out their attack ads of senior citizens eating cat food and the reform effort died.

10 years later and the reality that the system is going bankrupt, by some accounts faster then first projected, and we are fighting the same battle. This battle has been fought my entire life always with the same tactics and the same predictable outcome. The outcome is mainly preordained because of one reason. Senior citizens are a reliable voting block and as such politicians will ignore reality to garner their vote.


Americans can either continue to bury their head in the sand with fingers firmly jammed into their ears making "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" sounds or they can face the cold hard truth and bite the bullet and advocate for the changes necessary that will at least give them a chance to have some other sort retirement income not backed by the "good faith and credit" of a now bankrupt federal government.

Well, This Is Going To Piss Off The "Greatest Generation" Crowd

Well the Democrats have a plan on what they want to do to address the budget mess in Washington. Unfortunately, it is forcing the supposed "Greatest Generation" to make a choice.

They can either continue to enjoy their monthly government checks, which came about because of reforms enacted by FDR and later Democrats in the form of their Social Security checks and Medicare, or they can squander away all of their sacrifice in WWII by relegating the United States to a third world status as far as military might is concerned, thereby quite possibly enabling yet another world war. You see, in the history of mankind the one constant has always been the presence of a super power, and without that presence we devolve into chaos. For reference see: Decline of Roman Empire and the Dark Ages.

The blueprint would take nearly $900 billion from the Pentagon over the next decade — the same amount recommended by Obama’s fiscal commission. It would slice more than $350 billion from domestic programs. And it would produce interest savings of nearly $600 billion attributable to reduced borrowing.

Only about $80 billion would be cut from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs, and nothing from Social Security. But even without touching those programs, the plan would stabilize borrowing by 2014 and begin pushing the national debt down as a share of the economy.

That is the Democrats' big plan. Cut the defense budget ten times more then Medicare. Of course, once the defense department is gone the rest of us won't have to worry about Medicare because I am sure whichever benevolent dictator takes over will take care of us just fine.

You see, for me that is exactly what the matter boils down to. Which path is it that our senior citizens are willing to take America down. Continue to enjoy the government largess, regardless of how short-lived it may be, or once again have to make a sacrifice, which, in reality, in all of the plans proposed by Republicans is really no sacrifice at all. Seniors are being scared by the liberals painting pictures of them eating cat food and being wheeled off cliffs because of Republican budget plans, when in fact they all state that no changes will occur for those currently receiving benefits. In other words, it is my generation which will have to make the sacrifice, which to me wouldn't have been much of a sacrifice if the damn Dems hadn't opposed every reform effort directed at Social Security that would have allowed for some private, personal investment options rather then the crappy return the government gives for the deduction from my paycheck.

So what is it, seniors? Do you sit by on your little Rascal and watch a country that your generation fought and died for and sacrificed so much for in the 40's become merely a puppet on the world stage, or will you shut the hell up and quit being cowed into a corner by the boogeymen created by the liberals? Right now your legacy is one of bringing freedom to the world, but how much longer before you become vilified and cited as the cause of causing a once great nation to descend into the dustbin of history well before its time?

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for the WWII generation, and it is time for you to enjoy your benefits, but please, PLEASE, step out of the way and let my generation address the problems and develop solutions which will work for us just as you devised solutions for your generation. Time marches on, and the only constant is change. All I am asking is look at the details, and when the plan says no changes for you, shut up! We should not have to sacrifice the security of this nation just to ensure the continuation of programs for your generation. If it were up to me I would already be sunsetting Medicare completely. I would keep it in place for seniors or those, say, 50 years old and up. For those younger, it is time to come up with a completely new method and I don't mean one reliant on the government, either. As far as Social Security, same thing. If somebody wants to stay invested in the Ponzi scheme, fine, let them, but as for me, I would like to take my chances with some private investment choices that will provide a far greater return on my investment and wouldn't be tied to the stability of the government, used as a weapon by elected politicians every election cycle. I have heard the damn issue brought up every time there is a national election since I am old enough to remember, and nothing has ever been done.

Well, seniors, the ball is in your court. With any luck, your benefits won't run out before the country dissolves if you support the Democrat plan.

Obama Hates Old People: No Social Security COLA for 2010

Just imagine if this happened during a Republican administration. We'd see horror stories about seasoned citizens being tossed out in the street and being forced to eat dog food.

But hey, Democrats are in charge, so let the seniors take it out on them.

Of course the statute of limitations on blaming everything on Bush probably hasn't expired yet, so I'm sure the Dems will be creative.

There will be no cost of living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975, the government announced Thursday.

Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments do not go down, even when prices drop.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is pursuing a different way to boost recipients' income. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. The payments would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.

Wow, a whole $250? Thanks, President Obama!

Great News for Seniors: No COLA in Your Social Security Check This Year

You think the elderly are pissed off about ObamaCare and being herded into a government-run health-care plan? Well, if you think they're annoyed now, wait until they find out there won't be any cost of living adjustment in their Social Security checks.

Those mobs are really going to be raucous now.

Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

"I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."

Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.

First Boomer Retires, Economic Ruin Awaits

She's the first of 80 million. On the upside, we've got until 2041 for the full devastation to kick in, because you damn well know nobody's going to do a thing about Social Security.

The baby boomers' stampede for Social Security benefits has begun.

The nation's first baby boomer, a retired teacher from New Jersey, applied for Social Security benefits Monday, signaling the start of an expected avalanche of applications from the post World War II war generation.

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue called it "America's silver tsunami."

Kathleen Casey-Kirschling applied for benefits over the Internet at an event hosted by Astrue. Casey-Kirschling was born one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946, making her the first baby boomer — a generation of nearly 80 million born from 1946 to 1964, Astrue said.

"She's leading the way for her generation," Astrue told reporters.

Casey-Kirschling will be eligible for benefits after she turns 62 next year. She said she taught seventh graders for 14 years at a school near Camden, N.J., before retiring and volunteering for the Red Cross in Gulf Coast areas hit by Hurricane Katrina.

She and her husband have since moved to the eastern shore of Maryland near the Chesapeake Bay.

"I think I'm just lucky to be at the top of the boom," she said.

An estimated 10,000 people a day will become eligible for Social Security benefits over the next two decades, Astrue said. The Social Security trust fund, if left alone, is projected to go broke in 2041.

But Astrue said he is optimistic that Congress will address the issue, perhaps after the 2008 presidential election. President Bush had proposed changes in Social Security to create private accounts, but the proposal went nowhere in Congress.

Last week, Bush's budget director called the growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a "fiscal train wreck." The three entitlement programs make up nearly half of all federal spending, a share that is expected to grow.

The only hope is enough people realized you can't exist on Social Security benefits alone and have been wise enough to take care of themselves.

Those of you who've been employed 20+ years, I hope you take a good look at those annual statements you receive so you have an idea the paltry amount you'll be getting every month.

Bleak Future for Social Security

This should not be a new issue to anybody, but the White House has released a report which predicts a grim future for Social Security.

Bush Administration Says Social Security Fix Lies in Cutting Benefits or Raising Taxes

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Monday the only way to permanently fix Social Security is through some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases.

That was one of the key findings in a new paper on Social Security released by the Treasury Department in an effort to achieve common ground on the politically explosive issue.

"Social Security can be made permanently solvent only by reducing the present value of scheduled benefits and/or increasing the present value of scheduled tax increases," the paper said. The Treasury paper said that while other changes to the giant benefit program might be desirable "only these changes can restore solvency permanently."

The bottom line is this, Social Security is a benefits funding mechanism that works as long as you have an ever increasing volume of contributors. The fly in the ointment is that the Baby Boomers are retiring now. That causes a double-whammy, in that people retiring go from paying in to taking money out.

Purely and simply, there is not enough money in the fund to pay all the earned benefits that retiring Boomers are eligible for and will likely live long enough to demand. So it is going broke, and quickly, too.

So the options are few. First, you can raise taxes to pay for the benefits, but the taxes in FICA and Medicare are already 15.30% when you combine the employee and employers portions. I don't think there is much more room left for more increases.

Here's what I think you will see:

1. Pushing back of the retirement age. People are living longer. Therefore they would take more money out of the system if the retirement age is not pushed back. That also gives you the double benefit of having people paying in longer and taking out for less time. They simply have got to have fewer people retire and more people pay in.

2. "Means testing". that is a fancy way of saying, if you happen to have any other assets, you will receive a greatly reduced benefit out of Social Security. this reduces the amount of many getting aid out in benefits.

3. Increasing incentives for private savings. I can see additional easing of tax laws for any private savings plans, so that future wage earners save more privately for their own retirements.

Bottom line is, some people have taken out a lot more than they ever paid in to the system. My own father has been receiving checks since he retired in the mid-80's, so he has received out of the system much more than he ever paid in.

Since there are no interest earnings in this system (the money you pay in goes out the next day in somebody else's benefits check), for the whole thing to balance some folks have to pay in a lot and take out very little.