When Government Owns You
Nov 10, 2010 Political
The Social Security Act brought a new era of Socialism to America by allowing the government to confiscate some of our money and then dole it out to us when we retire. The amount of benefits is more than some paid in and less than others did. Along the way, Social Security expanded to cover things that it was never intended to take care of. It is a terrible system that does not allow us to decide what to do with our money. When we die (especially if we die before we retire) our money is just part of the pot and goes to someone else. We cannot pass it on to our heirs.
Social Security is also broke. Instead of putting the money aside so it could be used for retirement, the government issued worthless pieces of paper for the money and then spent it. Since there is no money, the people who currently work are paying for those who currently draw Social Security.
Social Security ensures that the elderly are slaves to the government. They depend on a monthly income that is subject to the whims of the people in Congress. Benefits can be cut and seniors have no say. Politicians use Social Security as a weapon to threaten the elderly and gain compliance.
When government holds your sustenance in its hands you will do what it wants.
Obama’s deficit panel has a draft of its recommendations and one of those is to cut Social Security benefits. The elderly will take it on the chin because, through no fault of theirs, the government is broke. If these folks had been able to invest their own money they would be better off and not held hostage by a government that uses them as pawns. It won’t be long before they use means testing to decide if we get Social Security. You can pay in but if you are successful you won’t get anything back. You will be paying for someone else’s retirement. It really is Socialism Security.
Combine the cuts with Obamacare and its rationing of care and the elderly are truly screwed.
We are responsible for our own future and it is not up to government to take our money and then dole it out to us, if it deems us worthy, when we retire.
Another thing the panel recommends is to remove the deduction for home mortgage interest. If the elderly still make house payments they will be in a bad way.
And so much for not raising taxes on the middle class.
At least the younger people have time to recover. The elderly are not so fortunate.
Your government should fear you. It should work for you and it should not be your master.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: deficit panel, elderly, government intrusion, lies, mortgage interest, social security
Lesson: Don’t Depend On Government For Retirement
Oct 15, 2010 Political
Social Security was never supposed to be a complete retirement plan. It was a plan that provided insurance to those who retired so that they would have some income after their working years ended. There have been revisions along the years and they have expanded the scope of Social Security to something it was never intended to be. One of the provisions enacted was to index cost of living allowances (COLA) to inflation. When there is inflation the COLA goes up and when there is no inflation there is no COLA.
The government has announced that, for the second year in a row, there will be no COLA because there is supposedly no inflation. Prices are rising but there is not yet a measured inflation.
One would think that since there are rules in place that they would be followed. This is a pipe dream when it comes to Washington DC. Last year the politicians passed a law to give Social Security recipients a $250 check to make up for not getting a COLA. If the mechanism in place determined that there should be no COLA then why did they circumvent that mechanism and pay the money anyway?
When I originally wrote about this recent COLA news I indicated that it would not be long before Congress worked to send another check to people who did not get a COLA. Keep in mind that they did not get a COLA because of the law that Congress passed, but that makes no difference.
After all, it is an election year.
As I predicted, the Congress is working to pay another $250 to offset something to which Social Security recipients are not entitled (in accordance with the law).
Representative Earl Pomeroy (Democrat, North Dakota), who introduced the legislation, had this to say:
“Seniors who rely on their modest Social Security payments need these cost-of-living adjustments for their day-to-day survival,” Pomeroy said. “Passing this bill will ensure that the lack of cost-of-living adjustment will not jeopardize seniors’ ability to survive on their benefits.” My Way News
The message here is that Seniors are DEPENDENT on government. Seniors, according to Pomeroy, rely on the payments from government which means that they are at the mercy of the government when it comes to the amount of money they will receive. He also is saying that the laws the Congress passed dealing with COLA jeopardize senior’s ability to survive.
In other words, seniors depend on government to survive. This is not a place anyone should EVER desire to be.
By any measure, money paid to Social Security would have returned much better profits than government if invested in the market. The claim that seniors would have been wiped out is wrong. First of all, the most recent legislation would have exempted people over a certain age so they would have been unaffected. Those who are younger would have had plenty of time to recoup the loss. Second of all, if the money had been invested the return would have been higher so the amount lost would not have been as devastating.
In addition, had the system been set up that way decades ago, people would be much better off and not waiting for government to hand them a few more scraps. If those accounts belonged to the people (it IS their money) they would control it, it would not be taken by the government to spend on worthless endeavors and the money could be passed to heirs thus ensuring growth of wealth in this country.
But government can’t have people being wealthy and independent in their senior years.
How else will government control the people if they are not at its mercy?
[note]A person who makes $1000 a month for 40 years at the average of 6% would have $245,712 in 40 years and this assumes NO increase in salary and no change in the interest rate. A person making $5000 a month would have $1,228,558 using the same assumptions. Government does not give this kind of return on investment[/note]
The lesson is to save as much as you can. The old saying about paying yourself first is great advice. Decide how much you can save and then invest it in a vehicle that pays good interest. A balance between interest and risk is a good idea.
If people fail to save they will be at the mercy of government, which is just where they want you.
They need that to pander for votes.
And to control the population…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bankrupt, bondage, control, lies, social security
No SS COLA? Don’t Blame The Democrats
Oct 11, 2010 Political
In fact, don’t blame any politician.
The official announcement will soon be made that there will be no Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) for Social Security recipients next year. The announcement will come just before an election that is generally recognized as one that will be tough on Democrats and this announcement will not make the election any easier for them.
The lack of COLA next year marks the second year that there is no COLA and this year was the first. Why are the politicians picking on Social Security recipients? They aren’t. COLA is based on inflation and about 40 years ago Congress made Social Security increases (the COLAs) automatically index to inflation and automatically go into effect. Since there was no inflation the previous year there was no increase in 2010 and since there was no inflation this year there will be no increase for 2011. When inflation does arrive (and it will whether they intend for it to or not) Social Security recipients will get a COLA increase.
Of course, the fact that Democrats are not to blame does not mean the information should not be used against them for political gain. They are in charge and there will be no increase so beat them over the head with that information. Very few people will understand why there is no COLA and why they did not get the increase. Most people who receive Social Security feel entitled to the increases because they have always been there. They will associate the lack of increase with Democrat policies.
It is not like the Democrats don’t play politics with the issue. They sent out checks for $250 to each Social Security recipient this past year to make up for the fact that there was no COLA. There was no Cost of Living Allowance increase because there was no increase in the cost of living but Democrats ignored the law that governs COLA increases and paid recipients anyway. Not only did this cost us millions of dollars that we do not have but it also resulted in over 20 million dollars being sent to dead people and to those serving time in jail.
Government efficiency at its best.
Democrats played politics with Social Security because they know that seniors will be upset and vote against them (seniors are the most reliable voters). They will attempt to do the same this time around. Watch for some statement on the subject just prior to election day.
I personally feel that there should be no increase. The law provides increases when the cost of living goes up and is indexed to inflation. If inflation goes up the recipients get an increase and this has been happening for decades. The law also provides that if there is no inflation then there is no increase. Since we have been in a deflationary cycle, there should be NO increase.
What sense does it make to have a law if they are just going to ignore it?
This issue brings to light a much larger problem and that is letting the government run retirement in the first place.
People on Social Security are at the mercy of the politicians in DC. The government confiscates money in the name of Social Security and then spends that money on its pet projects. It leaves a worthless piece of paper (an IOU) for Social Security. This paper is worthless because the government does not have the money to pay back the debt. When Social Security takes in less than it needs and requires money to be paid on one of those IOUs the federal government must BORROW the money to make the payment. This is all because government looks at Social Security taxes as another pot of money to spend on its pet projects. If the money had been put away and dedicated for Social Security the system would be solvent and there would be no issue but we can never trust government to do this.
This is why each individual should be in charge of his own retirement. People should invest their own money in their own programs based upon what they think they will need for retirement. If you are in charge of your own money then YOU get to decide if you need an increase one year over the next. You get to invest and you are not limited to what some government bureaucrat says you deserve.
And you are not being paid with the money taken from today’s generation or money borrowed from the Chinese.
Social Security should never have been instituted. It is one more way for government to control a segment of the population and it is a Socialist scheme.
What we need is to be able to invest OUR money (it is OURS) and we need to be able to do so without government interference. If a system must be in place to assist those who do not have the ability to save for retirement or those who wish to abrogate that responsibility then it needs to be one that the people themselves control. People need to be able to say where their money gets invested and they need to maintain ownership of it so they can pass it to their heirs when they die. It is not right to work all your life and to pay into SS and then lose it all should you die before drawing any of the money. IT IS YOURS.
A market based system (much like the TSP retirement system federal workers enjoy) would allow people to control their money and they could pass it on when they die.
I know the arguments from the fear mongers who say that the market crash would have wiped out the savings of the elderly. The reforms proposed would not have applied to them and how much worse off could they have been?
The government has no money and it will not be long before something has to be done and no matter what it is it will only be a bandage.
Personal responsibility extends to planning for retirement.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: broken promises, cola, politicians, social security
What Social Security Trust Fund?
Aug 7, 2010 Political
Social Security is in the red this year meaning that it will pay out more than it takes in in payroll taxes. The system was already unsustainable but was expected to have money for at least a few more years. However, the economy has millions of people who are not working and when they are not working they are not paying into Social Security.
That, of course, is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that the federal government has spent all the Social Security money collected over the years. We have been told for years about the Social Security trust fund as if there is actually a fund with money in it. There is not but that myth continues as evidenced in this article:
The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said. The program has enough money in its trust fund to cover the annual deficit for two decades beyond that. Washington Times
This is an actuary perpetuating the myth. If the uninformed were to read that paragraph the assumption would be that there is a trust fund full of money that will fund SS for two decades.
In reality there is nothing more than a drawer with a bunch of IOUs. The federal government requires SS to send the money it collects (above what it needs to make payments) to the Treasury and in return the Treasury issues a Treasury Bond. It is basically a piece of paper like a bank deposit slip. It tells the Social Security Administration that it deposited a certain amount of money into the Treasury.
The problem is, once the money hits the Treasury it goes into the general fund and is spent by Congress. In other words, Congress is using Social Security money to pay for other things under the guise that it will pay the money later. The only fault in the plan is that the government does not have the money to pay back. We are trillions of dollars in debt and there is no way that we can afford to pay our bills without borrowing even more money. Social Security money has been spent and will not be replaced. We will either go deeper and deeper in debt borrowing money or burden people with tax increases to pay back what should have never been spent in the first place. Keep in mind, the special bonds purchased are supposed to be redeemed later but as the Office of Budget and Management states:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense…. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
[note]If the money had been put aside then there would be no need to raise taxes or anything else. If they tax us we will have paid for SS twice. Once when they took it from our paychecks and once when they collect taxes to pay the benefits.[/note]
If the money collected over the years had been invested in precious metals or placed in interest bearing accounts there would be no worry about the solvency of SS. We would have more than enough money to pay people and things would be good.
But the greedy politicians in DC could not keep their grubby little hands out of the till. They have committed malfeasance and bankrupted the socialized retirement system that was established long ago. SS should never have been created but if they had to do so then they should have ensured it would be protected from the greed and corruption that permeates our government.
Face it. If a private company did this with retirement funds the people responsible would be in jail and the dolts in Congress would be attacking them mercilessly. You can bet that no CEO would be able to get away with saying that he would simply borrow the money to fund the system.
And no company could remain in business being run by such people. This might explain why we are on our way to financial collapse.
The Treasury bonds Social Security holds in place of its money are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
Given how the OBM described the bonds (quoted above), that should comfort absolutely no one…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bankrupt, lies, social security, socialism, theft
Social Security Reaches The Tipping Point
Mar 25, 2010 Political
It was not expected to happen until no sooner than 2016 but Social Security will pay out more this year than it takes in.
This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The New York Times
Officials say that Social Security has 2.5 Trillion dollars in the “trust” fund so they can pay retirees (and the myriad of others who have become eligible over the years) for some years to come.
The problem is, there is no real trust fund. A trust fund would be a place where they put the money and can get to it when they need it. Instead, Social Security is forced to buy government bonds and the money it collects goes into the general fund where politicians, instead of saving it for Social Security (as it was intended) spend it on other things.
We have no money in the bank for when the government bonds are cashed. The government paper is not worth the ink that is on it because we have no money to honor the commitment.
We borrow a lot of money from other countries to pay our debt and the interest on the debt is astronomical.
There is no way that government will be able to honor the commitment it made because it did not keep our money safe like it was supposed to. If the money had been put away we would be in good shape.
So if they are going to be collecting money for the next four years to pay for health care what are the odds that they will spend it one something else and there will be no money when it comes time to deliver Christmas to all the serfs?
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bankrupt, health care, lies, Obama, social security