it's never been about efficiency.......

[baddog25]

republicans have wanted to do away with SS and medicare/medicade (the 3rd rail) since i can remember problem is they are very popular. everyone knows you don't mess with the 3rd rail if you want to ever win another election. so ever since i can remember when the GOP was in power they spent like drunken sailors driving up the debt. then when Dems came to power they screamed bloody murder about the debt hoping Dems would make cuts to the 3rd rail. the problem is these agencies are too efficient.
from the 2010 book:

over a 10 year period the CEO's of the 10 biggest for profit health care providers raked in 690 mill. divide by 10 twice and you get just shy of 7 mill per year, per CEO. keep in mind that doesn't include bonuses, stock options, etc..... nor does it include other top exec's the person that oversees the healthcare needs of some 144 million people through medicare/medicaid made $174,000.00 per year. overhead in the private sector is just shy of if not over 20%. overhead for medicare?medicade? between 2% and 3% like i said its too efficient.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You are of the belief social security is "too efficient"? May I ask what other retirement vehicles you are using?

 

[baddog25]

you may not. is there waste in SS? I know not. the example I gave was health care. if there is waste in SS, by all means streamline it but do it with precision not the katamine kids chainsaw. I have 2 personal retirement funds. one of which i am drawing from along with SS. and yes, I'm 350 yrs. old.

 

[BioHawk]

You are of the belief social security is "too efficient"? May I ask what other retirement vehicles you are using?

That's not what he said.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

you may not. is there waste in SS? I know not. the example I gave was health care. if there is waste in SS, by all means streamline it but do it with precision not the katamine kids chainsaw. I have 2 personal retirement funds. one of which i am drawing from along with SS.

You ever want to make yourself sick, look at what you would actually have if you could have invested your money in something as safe as gold or silver instead of giving the government a free loan of your social security dollars for them to give you a fraction of your potential back.



The entire premise of Social Security is the government knows how to plan for your retirement better than you do, even after they take a cut. How that doesn't piss more people.off is beyond me.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

That's not what he said.

Alright, it's a slow morning, how did you read this?

"so ever since i can remember when the GOP was in power they spent like drunken sailors driving up the debt. then when Dems came to power they screamed bloody murder about the debt hoping Dems would make cuts to the 3rd rail. the problem is these agencies are too efficient.

 

[BioHawk]

Alright, it's a slow morning, how did you read this?

"so ever since i can remember when the GOP was in power they spent like drunken sailors driving up the debt. then when Dems came to power they screamed bloody murder about the debt hoping Dems would make cuts to the 3rd rail. the problem is these agencies are too efficient.

The programs don't get cut because they do their jobs so well. Being too efficient isn't a bad thing here.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

The programs don't get cut because they do their jobs so well. Being too efficient isn't a bad thing here.

And again I will say there is nothing about the social security system that is "too efficient".

 

[Joes Place]

The entire premise of Social Security is the government knows how to plan for your retirement better than you do

Nope

The entire premise of SS is to provide a guaranteed retirement benefit, irrespective of what the "markets" do.

 

[3boysmom]

You ever want to make yourself sick, look at what you would actually have if you could have invested your money in something as safe as gold or silver instead of giving the government a free loan of your social security dollars for them to give you a fraction of your potential back.



The entire premise of Social Security is the government knows how to plan for your retirement better than you do, even after they take a cut. How that doesn't piss more people.off is beyond me.

Unfortunately there are too many Americans who won’t/can’t save on their own so if the government didn’t take it and hold it they’d have zero at retirement. Which would result in the rest of us paying. It would be great for everyone to be able to invest their social security dollars but we all know that wouldn’t happen. So we’re stuck with the system we have.

 

[Joes Place]

the problem is these agencies are too efficient.

there is nothing about the social security system that is "too efficient".

Wifey inserting in the new plug during one of these posts?

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Unfortunately there are too many Americans who won’t/can’t save on their own so if the government didn’t take it and hold it they’d have zero at retirement. Which would result in the rest of us paying. It would be great for everyone to be able to invest their social security dollars but we all know that wouldn’t happen. So we’re stuck with the system we have.

No child left behind was a shitty idea also. Same concept.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Wifey inserting in the new plug during one of these posts?

Hey Joe, again, guys who are tall, don't mind you calling them tiny, guys who are strong, laugh off being called weak, guys who get laid, see through what you are doing and realize how thirsty/sexually aggravated you are.

 

[3boysmom]

No child left behind was a shitty idea also. Same concept.

Do you disagree that if 50% of Americans get to retirement age with no savings that it will result in greater costs for all of us?

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Do you disagree that if 50% of Americans get to retirement age with no savings that it will result in greater costs for all of us?

I don't disagree with that.
I disagree that that we would see those numbers. I'm even OK with a forced saving system, but that doesn't mean the government gets to give itself a free loan and ahitty returns as part of it.

 

[Joes Place]

Hey Joe, again, guys who are getting pegged by their Dom wives, don't mind you calling them Gimps

Figured.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Figured.

Sorry life went that way for you man, it really could have been different if you didn't feel the need to make up for every insecurity every time you entered a room.

Be well dude, better luck next time.

 

[sober_teacher]

The entire premise of Social Security is the government knows how to plan for your retirement better than you do, even after they take a cut. How that doesn't piss more people.off is beyond me.

No, thee point was to create a safety net in case of another stock marke-like crash / run on banks situation where millions of people lost most of their savings.

At its core, it’s meant to be an “in case of emergency break glass” type thing.

 

[Joes Place]

No, thee point was to create a safety net in case of another stock marke-like crash / run on banks situation where millions of people lost most of their savings.

At its core, it’s meant to be an “in case of emergency break glass” type thing.

He might understand it better if we explain that it's kinda like the "Safe Word" he uses when getting pegged by his wife...

#Context

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

No, thee point was to create a safety net in case of another stock marke-like crash / run on banks situation where millions of people lost most of their savings.

At its core, it’s meant to be an “in case of emergency break glass” type thing.

And some how became a "we cannot live without it" thing.

I know.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Do you disagree that if 50% of Americans get to retirement age with no savings that it will result in greater costs for all of us?

I don't disagree with that.
I disagree that that we would see those numbers. I'm even OK with a forced saving system, but that doesn't mean the government gets to give itself a free loan and ahitty returns as part of it.

My opinion, but I think the percentage of people getting to retirement age with no substantive savings would be higher - maybe a LOT higher - than 50%. Americans, as a whole, spend above their means. They don't save - especially for something 40 years (then 30, then 20, then 10...) down the road. They buy a bigger home, they buy a fancier car, they go on another trip, they get a bigger TV, then get the newest iPhone, etc, etc, etc. If that SS money was added to their paycheck, they'd spend it, and more.

"More than half of non-retired US adults (53%) overall said they expect they will need to use Social Security to pay for necessary expenses, according to a new survey from Bankrate. Among those 60 and older — i.e., closest to retiring — 69% said they will be reliant on Social Security benefits, with 47% saying they expect to be “very reliant.”"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/business/social-security-benefits/index.html

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

My opinion, but I think the percentage of people getting to retirement age with no substantive savings would be higher - maybe a LOT higher - than 50%. Americans, as a whole, spend above their means. They don't save - especially for something 40 years (then 30, then 20, then 10...) down the road. They buy a bigger home, they buy a fancier car, they go on another trip, they get a bigger TV, then get the newest iPhone, etc, etc, etc. If that SS money was added to their paycheck, they'd spend it, and more.

"More than half of non-retired US adults (53%) overall said they expect they will need to use Social Security to pay for necessary expenses, according to a new survey from Bankrate. Among those 60 and older — i.e., closest to retiring — 69% said they will be reliant on Social Security benefits, with 47% saying they expect to be “very reliant.”"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/business/social-security-benefits/index.html

We have a system where SS is viewed as a retirement vehicle not a safety net, that is how you end up with 47% very reliant on it.


I'm not against a built in savings system, I just laugh at the idea the government gets a free loan and only has to return a portion of what could have been, and somehow that's like the thing that we cannot go without.



If someone tried selling Social security to the tax payers in 2025 they would get laughed out of the room. But like all things in government, somehow it's now in the mandatory bucket.

Yes, I know SS isn't going away, yes, I know if it fid it would mess up a lot of people.


We the people became dependent on government, that's not good.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Trump has played golf 13 of his first 48 days in office.

Costing us tax payers $18 million.

That's government waste.

 

[sober_teacher]

And some how became a "we cannot live without it" thing.

I know.

I admittedly don’t love the way it’s evolved but I still think the idea is sound.

 

[gohawks50]

No child left behind was a shitty idea also. Same concept.

Not even close

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Not even close

Go on....

 

[RileyHawk]

• The government does use Social Security surpluses for other spending by issuing Treasury bonds.
• It’s not technically a loan, but a required investment in government debt.
• Future benefits depend on the government’s ability to repay these bonds through tax revenues or borrowing.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I admittedly don’t love the way it’s evolved but I still think the idea is sound.

It's a great idea if it were "we force you to put money in YOUR account" the problem is 'don't mind us using it while you don't need it".

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

• The government does use Social Security surpluses for other spending by issuing Treasury bonds.
• It’s not technically a loan, but a required investment in government debt.
• Future benefits depend on the government’s ability to repay these bonds through tax revenues or borrowing.

I don't think calling it a "required investment" is going to sell at this point.


It's losing it's ass and we all know it. It isn't sustainable and "requirements" of the government needing more can kiss my ass.

 

[Joes Place]

"More than half of non-retired US adults (53%) overall said they expect they will need to use Social Security to pay for necessary expenses, according to a new survey from Bankrate. Among those 60 and older — i.e., closest to retiring — 69% said they will be reliant on Social Security benefits, with 47% saying they expect to be “very reliant.”"

There was an article posted on the Boards years ago from a financial planner, who had lots of middle-class/upper middle class folks who all assumed they had saved enough and they didn't need SS. He ran them through their numbers, and nearly all of them DID need it.

Just because people *think* they are ok w/o it, doesn't mean they are.

 

[RileyHawk]

I don't think calling it a "required investment" is going to sell at this point.


It's losing it's ass and we all know it. It isn't sustainable and "requirements" of the government needing more can kiss my ass.

All that needs to be done is to eliminate the withholding rate cap. Even without that the benefits will pay out at 77%.

You sure are ignorant on a lot of subjects.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Nope

The entire premise of SS is to provide a guaranteed retirement benefit, irrespective of what the "markets" do.

And anyone with half a brain knows SS should only be part of your retirement plan. When I retire somewhere between 62-65 I will have:

Me
- SS
- 401K
- USAF Pension
- VA Disability
- Roth IRA
- Traditional IRA

Mrs. Alaska
- SS
- Traditional IRA

Combined, we should be gtg unless the stock market and government both fail.

 

[Nole-4-Life]

Unfortunately there are too many Americans who won’t/can’t save on their own so if the government didn’t take it and hold it they’d have zero at retirement. Which would result in the rest of us paying. It would be great for everyone to be able to invest their social security dollars but we all know that wouldn’t happen. So we’re stuck with the system we have.

That's a damn good point.

 

[sober_teacher]

It's a great idea if it were "we force you to put money in YOUR account" the problem is 'don't mind us using it while you don't need it".

Except we still get that money when we’re eligible.

 

[abby97]

republicans have wanted to do away with SS and medicare/medicade (the 3rd rail) since i can remember problem is they are very popular. everyone knows you don't mess with the 3rd rail if you want to ever win another election. so ever since i can remember when the GOP was in power they spent like drunken sailors driving up the debt. then when Dems came to power they screamed bloody murder about the debt hoping Dems would make cuts to the 3rd rail. the problem is these agencies are too efficient.
from the 2010 book:

over a 10 year period the CEO's of the 10 biggest for profit health care providers raked in 690 mill. divide by 10 twice and you get just shy of 7 mill per year, per CEO. keep in mind that doesn't include bonuses, stock options, etc..... nor does it include other top exec's the person that oversees the healthcare needs of some 144 million people through medicare/medicaid made $174,000.00 per year. overhead in the private sector is just shy of if not over 20%. overhead for medicare?medicade? between 2% and 3% like i said its too efficient.

Interesting fiction, have you ever written a best seller?

 

[gohawks50]

Go on....

You made the comparison tell me how SS and NCLB are similar?

 

[baddog25]

somehow my post got hijacked. it became a debate about social security and while there is certainly ample reason to debate that. my premise was that not all gov't agencies are wasteful or fraudulent. believe it or not some of them actual serve the average people and not the millionares/billionaires. but maybe I'm a dreamer?