Al Bundy;658941 wrote:I'm not a boomer, but I know several boomers (mostly my parents and older relatives) who are in their late 50's and early 60's and have planned on having SS as a large part of their retirement. I don't think you can take that away from them at this point. I think you can phase things over time and make adjustments for people my age (mid 30s).

A fair point, but it doesn't detract from the point that they are still engaging in generational theft. Its like they admitted they screwed up by not fixing the situation, yet still rely on younger generations to pay for their screw up.

I don't get it. I really don't. If you nail down a boomer (like my father) and explain to them logically what they are doing to younger people they might eventually understand (and I think my dad finally has - someone is paying for his unfunded pension and it isn't him), but something happened in their growing up that led to this short-sightedness.

HitsRus;658790 wrote:Link?No, No No. That is tooo funny.

The solitary word in the bottom left of all your posts says it all.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11012700.pdf

The numbers don't lie.

HitsRus;658802 wrote:It is a pay as you go system not a ponzi scheme. It only becomes a ponzi scheme if you don't pay off those that put money in expecting a return . Like anything you invest in, there is no guarantee of rate of return (unless you put your money into a CD backed by the U.S.Government.)

A CD? Really? They are called treasury securities.

Do you know even know what a Ponzi scheme is? No, you don't. You don't have a clue.

sleeper;659001 wrote:A CD? Really? They are called treasury securities.

Do you know even know what a Ponzi scheme is? No, you don't. You don't have a clue.

CD's are backed by the Fed. It's FDIC.

Al Bundy;659103 wrote:CD's are backed by the Fed. It's FDIC.

That is correct, well to a certain point. As of now there are limits to the dollar amount, but if nothing else the last few years have shown that the government has no problem breaking promises/laws. Just hope for the best. Ask the General Motors bondholders.

I for one will never invest in a Roth 401(k).....I don't care that they "promise" me 30 years from now that my distributions will be tax-free. Horse-manure. They can change the rules when and how they wish.

Al Bundy;659103 wrote:CD's are backed by the Fed. It's FDIC.

No shit. Up to a certain point. The guy is pretending he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't. I'm not sure what's worse, being ignorant to shit on a subject, or being ignorant to shit and opening your mouth.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Sorry, Sleeping Beauty. I know it's hard to read the numbers for you, they are sooooo big.
The TOTAL debt of the Federal Government is $ 14 Trillion. We do not add $1 trillion every month and a half.
Gosh. I hope you didn't get a degree from tOSU....I'd be so embarrassed.



sleeper wrote:
"The guy is pretending he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't. I'm not sure what's worse, being ignorant to shit on a subject, or being ignorant to shit and opening your mouth.
"

I agree 100%.

HitsRus;659254 wrote:The TOTAL debt of the Federal Government is $ 14 Trillion. We do not add $1 trillion every month and a half.
Gosh. I hope you didn't get a degree from tOSU....I'd be so embarrassed.

SMH. You're dumb as shit. The tables show how much debt is issued, and how much debt is redeemed on a daily, monthly, and fiscal basis. Currently, as of this fiscal year, we've issued 22 TRILLION in new debt securities to pay off 21 trillion in debt obligations. This is unsustainable. Learn to read a chart dipshit.

Stick to flippin' burgers.

Manhattan Buckeye;658870 wrote:"You sounded "entitled" when you talked about a benefit reduction being unfair.."

I don't sound like anything, I'm speaking the truth. There is nothing opinionated or even political about it. Reducing benefits is prima facie unfair and it is tantamount to generational theft. That is exactly what it is. Telling your children they need to pay more and accept less is no different than you walking into your child's bedroom and stealing from their piggy bank.

Why don't boomers (liberal and conservative alike) not get this? It isn't political, it is basic math and economics. Do you or don't you care that you are taking from your children?

The same thing happenned in the 80's when they changed the "rules". It's about being realistic with keeping the system operating. the system is what it is...the actuarial numbers are what they are.

And like I've said, learn what a liability is. The CURRENT debt is only 14 trillion, the actual debt is somewhere near 70.7 TRILLION. I don't expect you to understand any of this, just please don't vote. Ever.

Hits & Sleeper - Here is an interesting website that I visit every now and then just to see how fast we are sucking: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Whichever method of debt you are calculating, I'm sure you will find it on this link. They are staggering figures to say the least.

The interesting line item in that chart, BG, is the Federal Pensions line.

Why is it we rarely hear about that little "entitlement" to the tune of nearly $200 Billion and growing? Why is it public employee retirement programs are seemingly off the table, but for those of us who've been forced to participate in Social Security the past 4 decades; well, we need to sacrifice for the greater good...right?

After all, all of those bureaucrats, federal employees, and career politicians deserve their pensions. Those of us who have "contributed" $250,000 or more in Social Security taxes by federal mandate over the decades- well - sorry about your luck.

BGFalcons82;659394 wrote:Hits & Sleeper - Here is an interesting website that I visit every now and then just to see how fast we are sucking: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Whichever method of debt you are calculating, I'm sure you will find it on this link. They are staggering figures to say the least.

I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but they do illustrate the correct picture. This is something Hits doesn't get, and he seemingly never will.

sleeper;659456 wrote:I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but they do illustrate the correct picture. This is something Hits doesn't get, and he seemingly never will.

Peace Sleeper.

believer;657485 wrote:Exactly. Every generation sacrifices in one manner or another. The 20 and 30-somethings think their situation is somehow unique or particularly more egregious than any previous generation has ever faced before. There aren't many folks out there who endured the Great Depression and World War II. But if you ever have an opportunity, ask them if the 20 or 30-somethings of today have it particularly bad.

On one hand, you're right. Every generation goes through sacrifice in the younger decades. In that way, we are the same.

The difference comes when one generation finally gets the "SOL" slip when they want their money back. Your generation, like every, has sacrificed to this point. However, up until now, each generation has received some kind of return on their sacrifice. Eventually, a generation is going to sacrifice early AND be screwed later. I understand that you wouldn't want that to be you. We don't want it to be us, either.

HitsRus;657798 wrote:That is probably an understatement. But it doesn't mean that it's hopeless either....only that there is work to be done. I have to admit that I resent Gen "Y' calling me the problem. The Pres. and his minions were swept into power with huge support from the "Y''s. That he is spending away your future is not my generation's fault.

Gen Y has effected roughly 2 years with their dunce-like discernment, but this problem started, and grew too large, long before Gen Y had any civic ability.

believer;657892 wrote:I'll borrow from HitsRus ...

I'm pulling this sentence fragment completely out of context, but I think it's actually pretty telling of the perspective.

Because there is no money currently in this trust hole, the money that Gen X and Gen Y are putting in will be used by the generation that is coming of age to use it. The problem is, once those generations who are funding the system (as it exsts now) come of age to use it, their money won't be there, and they'll just be up a shit creek.

Here's how it feels. "When I was young, those ahead of me took my money. Now, I get to take yours. Doesn't look like there will be any once you get to where I am? Oh well. Sorry about that, but I'm still going to get what I can out of this whole mess. Hope you figure something out by the time you have to."

believer;657892 wrote:It's time to pull yourselves away from the video game mentality and ultra-materialism you've been enjoying and focus on the real world. I have a hunch you'll do just fine.

Who is this directed toward?

BGFalcons82;658025 wrote:Hhmm....Ever hear of Quantitative Easing 1? Then QE2? QE3 is in the works. What are the ramifications of those? It's a high stakes game of chicken with tax-cheat Geithner, Bernacke the buffoon, and idiot-boy Obama. They are playing toss across with nitro-glycerin and they think they are the smartest men ever created.

I'm not picking on you, as I agree we have to get this disaster under control. But you raised 3 ways to fix the problem and we are following the most dangerous one. May God save us from ourselves.

You'll hear no argument from me. Scary, isn't it?

believer;658046 wrote:Yes we are and it's a very slippery political, social, and economic slope. And the clowns leading the charge don't have a stellar track record.

May God save us from ourselves, indeed, because when the Feds try to do it, things usually get worse.

Which is why ... at the very least, the Feds should NOT be the ones handling Social Security ... and ideally, it shouldn't exist/should be done away with. Can't be done overnight, I know. Probably can't ever be done (only because no generation, as a whole, is going to ACTUALLY sacrifice enough ... Boomers, X, Y, or beyond). However, it isn't necessary, and shouldn't be seen that way. Talk about a defeatist, doom & gloom mentality.

dwccrew;658063 wrote:I'm not concerned at all with people that aren't financially savvy enough or disciplined enough to save for retirement. Let them suffer then if they don't want to save.

This. No statement so succinct in this topic has encapsulated my feeling on this topic.

dwccrew;658063 wrote:The clowns leading the charge are Boomers. I don't blame the entire Boomer generation, but they are the ones in charge right now and while they may not be totally responsible for the SS mess, they are responsible for leading us further and further down a horrible path, economically speaking.

We are facing a future economic meltdown if we continue spending at the rates we have been, led by Boomers, would you agree? I'm with MB on this one. If I never have to pay into SS again, I'll glaly forfeit anything I have already paid into it. Let the Boomers collect what they are owed and then end it. Raise the maximum contribution amounts for IRA's and 401k's and draztically reduce entitlement spending.

Agreed. Take what I've put in thus far, and consider it lost. However, since I'd like to be in control of my OWN retirement from day 1, why not let me?

dwccrew;658063 wrote:Personally, I don't plan on collecting squat from SS. I am setting myself up through investing in my 401k, IRA and buying real estate and renting property out. I graduated college debt free (thanks to being in the military for 6 years) and have a good job. I own 8 properties and am closing on my 9th tomorrow morning. I have debt on only 1 property. I have been blessed with parents that instilled and taught me fiscal responsibility. They are from the Boomer generation, which is why I can't blame an entire generation on our current economic woes.

That being said, I also feel that there are many in my generation (I was born in 1982) that just want to throw in the towel and place blame somewhere. It is a collection of several of the previous generations that have contributed to this problem (and even a part of my generation). People my age need to realize that they need to get involved instead of bitching constantly. I've done my share of bitching, but I also am doing something about it by saving and investing in my own future. I'll be fine if I continue to do what I am doing and others need to realize they would be too if they save a little.

At my age, 28, I still have friends that don't vote, don't pay attention to anything in the news and devote a lot of their time to video games. IMO, they have no right to bitch about anything as they aren't attempting to fix any problems. They just want to place blame elsewhere and don't care to get involved and help change the future or their own future. They expect it to be done for them.

It will take all living generations coming together to fix this problem. Everyone will have to sacrifice to right the ship.

Well said, across the board. You and I are about the same age, and I do credit a couple of Boomers for instilling a "You-get-what-you-earn" mentality into me. When I was laid off and unemployed for 13 months, I too 4 months of unemployment, because by month five, I was making too much for myself to collect. I didn't want to be on anyone else's tab, so I got myself off it as quickly as I could. I could have made more if I'd stayed on it, but taking a financial sacrifice in order to be one less parasite on the country's budget (insignificant as it might seem) was A-okay to me. What's more, I paid off about $5000 worth of extra debt in that time, and I never missed a bill payment. My credit score was HIGHER after 13 months unemployed.

There are the entitled in the Boomer generation ... those who feel that just because they've put in the same sacrifice everyone does, they should be able to suck the tit before and beyond their need to do so. There are the entitled in the X and Y generations ... those who feel that everyone else should take a hit so that they don't have to sacrifice so much.

But there are good, hard-working, financially responsible citizens who refuse handouts in every generation as well. THOSE are the people who should be the thinktank of how to fix this mess ...

... not the majority of the ones currently in office, who continue to perpetuate the problem.

BGFalcons82;658815 wrote:I know you don't like calling it a Ponzi scheme, but based on the recent data, the "trust fund" (I love typing that name...it makes me chuckle) will indeed expire, it's only a matter of time. Therefore, since it is slated to be unfunded soon, that qualifies it as a Ponzi scheme. One difference is that we see it coming, whereas those involved in a Ponzi have no clue what's about to hit them.

Technically, yes, when someone down the line (regardless of how far or any timeframe) has to foot the bill, it is a ponzi scheme. Because of the hands that have been in the trusts, it operates exactly like a ponzi scheme today.

HitsRus;659274 wrote:The same thing happenned in the 80's when they changed the "rules". It's about being realistic with keeping the system operating. the system is what it is...the actuarial numbers are what they are.

And the problem is, eventually, the numbers won't be able to support the system. It's a giant game of hot potato.

O-Trap;659513 wrote:Here's how it feels. "When I was young, those ahead of me took my money. Now, I get to take yours. Doesn't look like there will be any once you get to where I am? Oh well. Sorry about that, but I'm still going to get what I can out of this whole mess. Hope you figure something out by the time you have to."

If you take a composite or a summary of all my posts on this topic you'll see two main points:

1. I was forced by federal mandate to participate in the "ponzi scheme." Yet there's a social contract here. The Feds have told me, "You will participate whether you like it or not, but in exchange when you reach 66 years old, you will receive a monthly check from us in X amount." To that I respond with, "Well I don't like this little experiment with socialism you've thrust upon me, but since you've confiscated nearly a quarter of a million dollars from me over the past 4 decades, I'll certainly hold you to that agreement." I wonder what that $250,000 would be if it had collected interest and had been adjusted for inflation over those 40 years? But I digress.

2. Nowhere in any of my rants did I specifically indicate that I think this is fair to the Gen Y and X-er's. I agree it sucks. I have only pointed out that America has faced tougher challenges and I'm fully confident that once the Gen X and Y-ers stop their whining ("Oh whoa is we"), I'm fully confident that all of us will find a way to equitably fix this mess.

Whereby Sleeper and DDCrew are right regarding us boomers, they fail to understand that the problem of an "overpopulation bubble" (boomers) was well known....as far back as the late 50's. The only president that made an effort to adequately fund the "bubble", was Ronald Reagan, who raised social security taxes about 35%. Damn that no good liberal....with those unprecedented tax hikes!!

So....in hindsight it is easy to pin blame on us boomers....but the blame game can easily be placed on the pre boomer generation as well.

So the social security fund is bankrupt...or will be in the future. Nothing new....we have lived in a paper dollar world since 1971. We have unfunded liabilities exceeding 60 trillion dollars. Nobody really gives a shit...not today...nor 35 years ago or so.

"1. I was forced by federal mandate to participate in the "ponzi scheme."

Yet you had voting power, something younger people didn't have.

"I have only pointed out that America has faced tougher challenges "

And my point is, to the extent we disagree, is that this argument is irrelevant. Shit happens. We had 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the gulf oil spill, etc. All generations have challenges, but this one is unique in that it is purely domestic, a government enforced ponzi scheme where older generations are screwing over younger generations.

I can't say it any better than O-Trap did: "However, up until now, each generation has received some kind of return on their sacrifice. Eventually, a generation is going to sacrifice early AND be screwed later. I understand that you wouldn't want that to be you. We don't want it to be us, either"

This is 1,000,000% correct. If you want yours, you are screwing your children and grandchildren. It isn't political, it is simply the way it is.

Here's how it feels. "When I was young, those ahead of me took my money. Now, I get to take yours. Doesn't look like there will be any once you get to where I am? Oh well. Sorry about that, but I'm still going to get what I can out of this whole mess. Hope you figure something out by the time you have to."

+1

Manhattan Buckeye;659579 wrote:Shit happens.

Yes it does. And this too shall pass.

Footwedge;659563 wrote:We have unfunded liabilities exceeding 60 trillion dollars. Nobody really gives a shit...not today...nor 35 years ago or so.

...nor 35 years from now.

believer;659535 wrote:If you take a composite or a summary of all my posts on this topic you'll see two main points:

1. I was forced by federal mandate to participate in the "ponzi scheme." Yet there's a social contract here. The Feds have told me, "You will participate whether you like it or not, but in exchange when you reach 66 years old, you will receive a monthly check from us in X amount." To that I respond with, "Well I don't like this little experiment with socialism you've thrust upon me, but since you've confiscated nearly a quarter of a million dollars from me over the past 4 decades, I'll certainly hold you to that agreement." I wonder what that $250,000 would be if it had collected interest and had been adjusted for inflation over those 40 years? But I digress.

Oh, I don't disagree with anything here. But the fact remains that very soon, a generation will come along where that social contract won't be fulfilled. Where the generation will say the same, "Well, I don't like this little experiment with socialism you've thrust upon me, but since you've confiscated nearly a quarter million dollars from me over the past four decades, I'll certainly hold you to that agreement," and the governing bodies will reply with, "Sorry, but there's no money left to give you, but you saw this coming, and you should have prepared for us to break that little agreement."

If YOU were to get that kind of reply when you turned 66, how would you feel? Moreover, if you DID see it coming, and during that time, you saw generations before you saying, "Hey, could I live without it? Sure, but I'm going to take it anyway, because that was the agreement," wouldn't you still feel dicked? I'm not saying that you'd cry for a handout. I'm not saying you wouldn't suck it up and prepare for not getting it. I know I'm not asking for a handout, nor am I expecting it to be around when I need it. I'm preparing like it won't.

But just because I am not asking any Boomer to give it up doesn't mean I think that someone is kind of a jerk for having the mentality that they're going to take what they can, next generation be damned.

believer;659535 wrote:2. Nowhere in any of my rants did I specifically indicate that I think this is fair to the Gen Y and X-er's. I agree it sucks. I have only pointed out that America has faced tougher challenges and I'm fully confident that once the Gen X and Y-ers stop their whining ("Oh whoa is we"), I'm fully confident that all of us will find a way to equitably fix this mess.

Gen X-ers and Gen Y-ers, as you've said, aren't all that different. I'm willing to bet they're not whining any more or less than prior generations.

In terms of "us" coming up with an equitable fix, based on recent history, I'm not so confident. Most of what I'VE seen of our country has been that they legislatively have taken us from a bad financial situation to a worse one.

...nor 35 years from now.

Do you not understand we will be bankrupt in 35 years or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

Footwedge;659563 wrote:Whereby Sleeper and DDCrew are right regarding us boomers, they fail to understand that the problem of an "overpopulation bubble" (boomers) was well known....as far back as the late 50's. The only president that made an effort to adequately fund the "bubble", was Ronald Reagan, who raised social security taxes about 35%. Damn that no good liberal....with those unprecedented tax hikes!!

So....in hindsight it is easy to pin blame on us boomers....but the blame game can easily be placed on the pre boomer generation as well.

So the social security fund is bankrupt...or will be in the future. Nothing new....we have lived in a paper dollar world since 1971. We have unfunded liabilities exceeding 60 trillion dollars. Nobody really gives a shit...not today...nor 35 years ago or so.

No, I DO understand exactly what you are saying about an "overpopulation bubble". And if you read my entire posts, I place blame on every generation since SS was enacted, not just the Boomers. My beef with Boomers right now is that they are the ones with most of the power right now and they continue to spend, spend, spend.

I get that the Boomer generation is the largest ever in American history, but I'm not sure they saw this happening in the 50's as you state. How could they predict in the 1950's, when members of the Boomer generation were not even born yet, the generation would be overpopulated? They couldn't predict lower birth rates in the future, especially since the birth rates had increased from one generation to the next. At least I wouldn't think that they could.

sleeper;659723 wrote:Do you not understand we will be bankrupt in 35 years or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

One could argue we already are and have been. Our wonderful DC leadership simply pulls out little tricks like raising the debt ceiling to keep it from being so obvious. It's all relative.

dwccrew;660196 wrote:I place blame on every generation since SS was enacted, not just the Boomers. My beef with Boomers right now is that they are the ones with most of the power right now and they continue to spend, spend, spend.

And I have a hunch that when they pass the political torch on to the long suffering Gen X and Y-ers the spending will continue.