Obama Jobs Plan - "Screw Future Generations"

Michael Ellis

Watchdog
Original Sin Donor
Joined
January 6, 2011
Messages
66
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-obama-jobs-plan-screw-future-generations
Obama and his minions will tell you that Social Security is a fantastic program. It should not be touched. They declare that it is self funding. That is a bold faced lie. The Social Security Trust Fund has a $17.5 trillion unfunded liability. This is why:

“A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).

A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

Those who retired in decades past saw much bigger returns for their payroll tax investment. But clearly this situation is not sustainable. It’s like putting all your expenses on a credit card knowing full well you don’t have the means to pay it back.” – Bankrate.com

We have 10,000 people every day turning 65 years old for the next 19 years. These people will be taking $70,000 to $150,000, on average, more out of the Social Security Trust Fund than they put in. This worked just fine when there were 16 workers contributing for every 1 retiree in 1950. It doesn’t work so well when there is only 3 workers for every 1 retiree, as there is today.

undeniabletruth.gif


The twits that present themselves as journalists in the MSM have been foaming at the mouth over the description of Social Security as a ponzi scheme by Rick Perry. How could this man tell the truth about FDR’s beloved legacy? After trying to poke holes in Perry’s truthful assessment of this bankrupt program, the pundits declare it isn’t a ponzi scheme because Social Security isn’t voluntary, and a ponzi scheme is. These morons are right. Social Security is a ponzi scheme with a gun pointed at your head by Federal Government thugs. That is a much more accurate description.

The party that presents Social Security as a well run outstanding example of government at its finest has decided the best way to create jobs is to double down on you paying even less in payroll taxes than you did this year. We know for a fact the average person will get between 25% and 125% more than they paid into Social Security. The Obama plan last year and again this year is to drastically reduce the amount paid into the Trust fund, so you can have the privilege of consuming the same amount of food and energy at a much higher price. Brilliant plan! It is amazing how liberals and Keynesians can have such disregard and scorn for future generations who will be handed this bill with no means to pay.

The Republicans went along with the 2011 payroll tax cut of 2%. They will go along with the 3.1% payroll tax cut. You see, this is how politics works. Since the payroll tax was “temporarily” cut, whoever lets the payroll tax cut expire will be declared a tax hiker. Therefore, the “temporary” payroll tax cut will be extended indefinitely, further impoverishing future generations. Meanwhile, how many jobs did the first payroll tax cut create? How many will the extended and increased payroll tax cut create? None! Obama is using the George Bush tax rebate check method of destroying the country. Both decided to address a government spending problem by reducing revenues. This is par for the course and explains why the economy is teetering on the verge of collapse.

The Obama plan consists of $225 billion to screw future generations so we can spend today. It also includes $62 billion to pay people who aren’t employed for 99 more weeks, even though Federal Reserve studies have proven that extending unemployment keeps the unemployment rate 1% higher. Paying people for almost two years while they are not employed is somehow supposed to “create” jobs. Then we have the traditional $70 billion transfer from our Chinese lenders to Timmy Geithner and then into the pockets of state government union workers across the land. Obama needs those votes in 2012. Why should states be required to adapt their budgets to reality when their sugar daddy can keep supplying the candy?
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
66
If I've understood things correctly Social Security is funded through a flat social security tax (they get X % of the BNP). The money they get from this tax is the money they get, and the money they pay out is based on the ammount of pepole on social security, since the pepole on social security will share this money. For that reason you can double the ammount of pepole on social security and they'll cost just as much. What will instead happen is that pepole on social security will get half the payouts, all of a sudden. So this:

We know for a fact the average person will get between 25% and 125% more than they paid into Social Security.

...is false. Add enough pepole and they'll get payed less than they invested.

Social security has problems, but it's not that the costs will become unsustainable (because the payouts is a percentage of the BNP, and thus will never become more than you currently have to hand out). The problem is instead that if this development continues your pensioners will have to choose between heating and food, a choice social security was implemented to avoid, if I'm not mistaken.

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
Social Security is a problem because no-one planned for it DECADES ago.

All of the politicians - no matter which party ! are extremely short-sighted nowadays. They just simply don't care for the futuire : All they care for is bing elected the next time.

And with "short-sighted" I mean that no-one plans further than to the next election phase. No-one.

And because of that, politics is acting *exactly* like companies : Always (and too often solely) having the next short-term profits in sight ...

You know how this ended up. Just take a look as ancient civilizations that didn't know the word "Nachhaltigkeit" (dict.leo.org translates this as "sustainability") and which eroded woods just for melting ore and building ships. The ecology of these civilizations simply collapsed after too much exploitation of their environments. Always short-sighted.

Or ancient Greek harbours, for example : Some became blocked up with silt, because the woods were cut down for ship-building (and whatnot), and the no more existing woods simply weren't able to hold the ground together - which was washed into the rivers which became silted-up, then.

A similar thing is happening with the river Rhein (Rhine) here in Europe : If the government of Rotterdam, where the rivers lows into the sea, wasn't removing all of the silt all of the time, the important harbour of Rotterdam would simply be silted shut in a few years.

But : No-one of the countries surrounding the river seems to care for that. Rotterdam gets the costs, meanwhile the other countries still happily go on doing nothing against the reasons for the aggradation. "Out of eye, out of mind."

Its even worse : Federal states of Germany which are located closer to the end of the river Rhein have been protesting that they became flooded during the last greater Rhein flood - but the federal states which are located closer to the river's source have disagreed : They won't open up the river's old parts to let water in - the idea behind this is, the more wter is caught up early, the less will flood other parts of the country down the river.
And they have disagreed. It is as if they just didn't care about the other parts of the same country. All they care for is themselves.

Both economy and politics are short-sighted nowadays.
And this is exactly what will drive us into ruins.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,986
Location
Old Europe
If I've understood things correctly Social Security is funded through a flat social security tax (they get X % of the BNP). The money they get from this tax is the money they get, and the money they pay out is based on the ammount of pepole on social security, since the pepole on social security will share this money. For that reason you can double the ammount of pepole on social security and they'll cost just as much. What will instead happen is that pepole on social security will get half the payouts, all of a sudden. So this:



…is false. Add enough pepole and they'll get payed less than they invested.

Social security has problems, but it's not that the costs will become unsustainable (because the payouts is a percentage of the BNP, and thus will never become more than you currently have to hand out). The problem is instead that if this development continues your pensioners will have to choose between heating and food, a choice social security was implemented to avoid, if I'm not mistaken.

Übereil
You might wish to check your facts before claiming someone is errant, lest you besmirch the already shaky credibility of lefties around the world. Social security is a defined benefit program. They don't "split the pot" based on the number of people drawing on the program, so it's very easy to spend more money than is available. Taxes are usually 12.4% of pay (6.2% by worker, 6.2% by employer). Barack is giving away 2% right now as part of his stimulus and wants to continue that for next year, so right now we're only putting in 10.4% of payroll. Payout is a rather complicated formula, but usually the amount works out to something in the neighborhood of 33% of pay, and is completely independent of the number of recipients. So then, would you like me to do the math for you?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
You might wish to check your facts before claiming someone is errant, lest you besmirch the already shaky credibility of lefties around the world. Social security is a defined benefit program. They don't "split the pot" based on the number of people drawing on the program, so it's very easy to spend more money than is available.

I might have gotten the "split the pot" thing wrong, but that doesn't mean it's easy for social security to spend more money than is avaliable. Because there's this thing called the law that prohibits it to spend money that isn't in it's trust fund. And that money either comes from the tax or from investments made with surpurus money that came from this tax (again, by law).

So...

Payout is a rather complicated formula, but usually the amount works out to something in the neighborhood of 33% of pay, and is completely independent of the number of recipients. So then, would you like me to do the math for you?

Go ahead, how long until social security has to re-structure it's payout rates to accomondate for it's lack of funding?

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
I might have gotten the "split the pot" thing wrong, but that doesn't mean it's easy for social security to spend more money than is avaliable. Because there's this thing called the law that prohibits it to spend money that isn't in it's trust fund. And that money either comes from the tax or from investments made with surpurus money that came from this tax (again, by law).
I'll give you points for being stubborn. Unfortunately, you're completely wrong, but I can certainly appreciate a person that will frantically bail with his teaspoon as the Titanic takes on water. You seem to have forgotten our tremendous ability to spend money we don't have and get around any pesky rules that might keep us from doing so. Even if you actually believed what you've typed (and that would be so cute), you're forgetting that the trust fund is currently full of IOUs. Congress has pilfered money from the trust fund to finance their unending giveaways.
Go ahead, how long until social security has to re-structure it's payout rates to accomondate for it's lack of funding?
You really should look up the definition of defined benefit pensions. For someone wanting to hang his hopes on the protection of law, you're awful quick to break the law when it's inconvenient. They can't change payouts. They can't even retroactively change eligibility. The only change they can make is to raise the retirement age for people that aren't already in the system, aka future generations. All laws can be changed, but I guaran-fucking-tee you that no politician in office will EVER say they're going to directly reduce Grandma's check by retroactively modifying a defined benefit pension. EVER. Kinda brings us back to the thread title, doncha think?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
Since the premise of your post Michael is that: "Obama and his minions will tell you that Social Security is a fantastic program. It should not be touched..." would you care to provide a source where Obama actually said so?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Not terribly difficult, unless you're demanding word-for-word just to be obnoxious. How about the official White House website?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security
[Obama] believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
Or perhaps a Presidential Proclamation?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...lamation-75th-anniversary-social-security-act
My Administration is dedicated to safeguarding Social Security's promise of retirement with dignity and security.

On the 75th anniversary of the Social Security Act, let us ensure we continue to preserve this program's original purpose in the 21st century. Together, we can give our children and our grandchildren the same protections we have cherished for decades, and in doing so, lead our Nation to a brighter day.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
It's funny that the only part of Obama's program Republican's say they like is the cutting of SS taxes. But wait, they can't agree with Obama on ANYTHING. He's screwing future generations. Herp derp.

BTW, looting of the SS fund to pay for expenses is standard GOP practice. Hypocrisy anyone?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
I am not in obnoxious mood dte but you still have to provide source for "It should not be touched' bit.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
does it really matter?
no matter what goes on in the shell game
making things better//making things worse
the bottom line is with out a massive overhall to everything
status quo will keep being more insurmountable
pimps up and hos down
or as most of us know it the rich=richer
and the rest keep getting funneled to the leftoevers

by the way the only thing that screws future generations is playing politics (or debating it) when the world should be looking for solutions in sustainablity across all boards rather than listening to parrots on shoulders squaking "greed is good"

most things, hardly all, that change this dynamic come out of "lefty" field. its no coinsedence that "right" field is the worst position in baseball;)
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
1,386
Location
California
BTW, looting of the SS fund to pay for expenses is standard GOP practice. Hypocrisy anyone?
Care to document that, or are we going with "cuz Michael Moore told me so"?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
I am not in obnoxious mood dte but you still have to provide source for "It should not be touched' bit.
Let's take a look at the first quote I provided. If no current recipients have their benefits changed and future recipients don't have their benefits changed, that pretty well equals "no changes", doncha think? Would you agree that "not be touched" and "no changes" are roughly equivalent?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
I'll give you points for being stubborn. Unfortunately, you're completely wrong, but I can certainly appreciate a person that will frantically bail with his teaspoon as the Titanic takes on water. You seem to have forgotten our tremendous ability to spend money we don't have and get around any pesky rules that might keep us from doing so. Even if you actually believed what you've typed (and that would be so cute), you're forgetting that the trust fund is currently full of IOUs. Congress has pilfered money from the trust fund to finance their unending giveaways.

So Social Security is unsustainable because other programs takes money from it? If this will bust your budget, isn't the problem then the programs taking the money from Social Security?

You really should look up the definition of defined benefit pensions. For someone wanting to hang his hopes on the protection of law, you're awful quick to break the law when it's inconvenient. They can't change payouts. They can't even retroactively change eligibility.

So it can't raise revenue nor reduce costs? Sounds like a bit of a fork, to use chess terms.

Wasn't aware it wasn't allowed to change payouts, by the way. Only that it can't increase in cost (unless they change the law, but that goes for everything).

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
Let's take a look at the first quote I provided. If no current recipients have their benefits changed and future recipients don't have their benefits changed, that pretty well equals "no changes", doncha think? Would you agree that "not be touched" and "no changes" are roughly equivalent?

No, I wouldn't.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Would you agree that "not be touched" and "no changes" are roughly equivalent?

Benefits are not to be changed. Nothing about not touching how those benefits are secured.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
You should have stuck with Michael Moore. Let's take a look at paragraph 9.
Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.
That doesn't document in the slightest where the IOUs originated. It doesn't give an ounce of documentation for your claim that it's "standard GOP practice". No mention of when the IOUs were written and no mention of which party was in control of congress at the time. Other than those minor deficiencies, it's a great reference I guess.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,552
Location
Illinois, USA
Alrik Fassbauer
Social Security is a problem because no-one planned for it DECADES ago.

QUOTE from the link below:
"Let me begin by asking if you’ve heard the expression “starving the beast” and, if so, do you know what it means?

Well, “starving the beast” is a fiscal stratagem to create or increase existing budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government.

Republicans refer to big government as the beast but that’s only coded language for the social services that are funded by government via tax revenues, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare and public education. In the end the “beast” is really you, your parents, grandparents, kids and neighbors — definitely not the the uber wealthy; they don’t need the social services the rest of us need such as Social Security, Medicare, and other social welfare support services."

http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/04/27/starving-the-beast-2/


Also, check out, "Fast Facts" in the link below which details what we could have bought with the money spent for the Iraq war. Interesting, to say the least. ;)

http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/iraq-war-costs



dteowner, I hope you read this , too. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
12
Back
Top Bottom