I don't like Social Security and Medicare, either. I don't like the government taking my money and saying they'll save it for me, and then giving it to other people, and then I don't get it back. But it's something I paid into, so I want my money back. It should all be optional, a choice, not FORCING workers to pay into it.

My point is, I don't call the government giving me my own money back an Entitlement. An Entitlement is the Government taking a hard-working person's money by FORCE and giving it to somebody who hasn't earned it, in the form of free healthcare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, Welfare, cell phones, etc.

Pretty logical common sense.

you get way more money from social security and medicare than you ever payed in... thats been covered already though. so one is not getting "their money back" are you going toadd up how much you payed in, and only accept that much when it comes time? refuse all payments after you got just what you payed in?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

When you say we get much more back than what we paid into Social Security, that isn't taking into account if we had invested the money we paid in all those decades ago, what it would be worth when we take it out. I think I heard once that it would be worth something like around $500,000, but I'm not positive.
Okay, I found it --

[allfinancialmatters.com]

I was right....

"The wages subject to social security withholding rose 4.84% per year (geometric average) while the maximum amount paid in rose 5.53% per year (due to the increase in the withholding percentage). Over a 30-year career, you would have paid in over $115,000 and your employer would have paid in another $115,000. Your total contributions would have been over $230,000.

Of course this only tells part of the story because had you not paid social security, the money could have been invested elsewhere. Over the last thirty years (through 2009), the total return for the S&P 500 Index has been over 11.24% per year (.89% per month). If we assume fees of .50% per year, that brings the average annual total return down to 10.69% per year (.85% per month)*. Based on that, the account could have been worth over $739,000 at the end of 2009 (including the employer match). At a 4% withdrawal rate, the account would kick off nearly $30,000 in income the first year ($2,500 per month)."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2011 02:54AM by KidRaw.

uh, thats not even close to what most people would be paying in, when I was making a little over a thousand a month, I was maybe putting in around $17 a month if I remember right, some one would have to be making a huuuuuuuuuuuuge amount of money to put in 115 k in 30 years...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Kidraw: That is quite a stretch. Using the stock market as a yardstick of yield rates is ludicrous because of the immense risk.

Curator - Age 65 minus 30 years, would be Age 35. By Age 35, most people are earning a regular salary, so even if a person earned half of what the article says, the amount accumulated by Age 65 would end up being more than one paid into Social Security (which your argument is that a person takes out more money than they put in).

banana who - A person could earn 10% a year by investing very conservatively, and I don't mean in 'the stock market' per se, but more in High Yield Income Funds for older folks and Dividend Funds, etc., and probably other vehicles, which I've heard mentioned on various money talk radio shows - Bob Brinker, Ric Edelman, Dave Ramsey, Ray Lucia, etc.

So even if a person only earns half as much as the article states, and makes only 10% on their investment per year, they would still would have more money at retirement than they are getting back through Social Security now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2011 02:32AM by KidRaw.

Meantime - History in the Making in that Today is Day 8 of our Constitutional Crisis. The Obama Administration is in Contempt of Court and Contempt of The Constitution. They have Violated the Constitution by Defying a Federal Judge's Ruling. This Administration has Failed to Comply with a Federal Court Ruling. Obamacare has been Voided. Obama, the Attorney General and Secretary of HHS has Violated the Constitution by ignoring the ruling and continuing to implement Obamacare.

most people in the united states make a fraction of what the article states kidraw, Around 50% of the countries population live on around $46,000-$52,000 a year or considerably less, that is not enough over 30 years, at the percentage taken out, to get anywhere near 115k put into the system

Your own link defeats your argument, it shows a person making more than double the national average, the average person will not get anywhere near that much money put into the system, yet receive similar benefits, That is socialism, point made. (and the vast majority of investments don't return anywhere NEAR 10%, safe or not.)

EVEN if $230,000 was put into the system by somebody with the average income, of course including what their job put in as well, that would mean they would use up all of it in 4-5 years if receiving enough back to even live on in most parts of the U.S. It is already common knowledge that far more money is leaving the system than is put in, your the only one ive ever known to argue otherwise,lol, that's why its running out of money, if people where just getting back what they put in, social security wouldn't be going broke...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> EVEN if $230,000 was put into the system by
> somebody with the average income, of course
> including what their job put in as well, that
> would mean they would use up all of it in 4-5
> years if receiving enough back to even live on in
> most parts of the U.S.

If you put $230,000 in safe investments when you retire, you could collect 10% per year, and you would have $23,000 per year to live on the rest of your life without touching the principal, which you could leave to your beneficiary. I swear one of those money guys said on the radio that you can expect 10% a year from safe investments when you are retired and living off your Retirement funds.

A lot of people say a lot of things on the radio, and other places, if you look at the average REAL earnings that most have made,not what some guy on the radio says, its rare to make more than 2-3% max per year on any even "safe" investment,5-6% on some moderately safe, but still potentially risky investments, 10% on a safe investment, Ive never heard anyone that wasnt trying to sell a book or something similar claim that,lol , however its still a moot point, as the vast majority of americans dont make anywhere near 100k a year, the only people who would see any real benefit from your theories if they are accurate, are people making far beyond the average income in the U.S., They might be better off investing it if careful, but most wouldn't be as they would receive more money over all from the government if they live for more than 5 years past their retirement.

By your numbers, the average american would then be making $11,500 a year even with that outrageous claim of 10% on safe investments... I could survive on that, ive survived on less, but I dont believe survival was the point.lol (my dad gets around $1700 total, after my moms cut of $900, yet he only made about 48k a year...$2,800 a month total, seems far better than the 10% return on investment you list above^, thats $33,600 a year, tax free, where as investments are heavily taxed... so just under 3 times the amount my dad would have made per year investing that money (assuming your numbers are correct) and getting back 10% a year... its fairly obvious that for the average person, social security gives you a much better return, although people in your income bracket and higher im sure would make much more money from investments, unless they where very unwise in their investments...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Here's an update on what's happening with the Repeal of the Unconstitutional Healthcare Bill --

Judge Vinson to Obama: Speed up the Appeal or Stop Implementing Obamacare

[blog.heritage.org]

"The Obama administration got a well-deserved rebuke today from Judge Roger Vinson in the Florida lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare (aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Judge Vinson issued a new order in response to a bizarre and obtuse “motion to clarify” that the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed on February 17.

Vinson’s original order on January 31 could not have been clearer: He declared the entire law unconstitutional and specifically said that, because he presumed that officials of the executive branch would adhere to the law as declared by a court, his declaratory judgment striking the law down was the functional equivalent of an injunction. Judge Vinson wrote then that he presumed that the executive branch would follow his order, which any lawyer (including a lawyer President) would know requires them to cease implementing Obamacare with respect to the 26 states that are plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business. That turned out to be a faulty presumption, indeed."

I love it - keep holding his feet to the fire, I say...

maybe O can invite Judge Roger Vinson to the white house for a beer, just like the prof & cop a while back...

LOL

Here's the latest news --

Because the Healthcare Bill wasn't read before it was voted on, it just now came to light that the Democrats had incorporated $105 Billion to Appropriate the Funds, which is undemocratic and unethical and a violation of our civil rights. They took an Authorization Bill and rather than go through the Appropriation Committee, they put the Appropriation in the Bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was not informed, which is a violation of ethics. It can be defunded if Congress Defunds it, but Obama would Veto it.

Heritage Expert Testifies at Hearing on Obamacare

[www.askheritage.org]

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR.
FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 5TH DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TO THE HEALTH SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & COMMERCE

MARCH 9, 2011

Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Although I am a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

My comments regard the creative use—and abuse—of the appropriations process within the health care legislation enacted into law during the last Congress. It is formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), but also known to many of us as Obamacare because of President Obama’s crucial role as the driving force.

Because the bill was so unwieldy and complicated, many are only now discovering many of its details and implications. You can hide a lot of needles inside a haystack that contains 2,700 pages.

The massive 2,700-page health care law is deliberately designed to make defunding and dismantlement difficult. Although original estimates reported that it created 159 new government agencies, the Congressional Research Service later concluded that the actual number of new agencies, boards, etc., “is currently unknowable,” because so many of them are empowered to spawn additional entities, just as weeds grow by sending out runners and seeds.

The complexity and confusion extends to the funding process created in that legislation.

The new law attempts to bypass the normal appropriations process, another feature that makes defunding more difficult. By making advance appropriations for tens of billions of dollars up to the year 2019, these provisions of Obamacare seek to remove spending decisions from the reach of the current Congress and from future Congresses and Presidents. Although Obamacare was not pitched to the public as a mandatory spending entitlement, the details of the legislation reveal an intent to block any future Congress from controlling Obamacare’s spending.

One largely unknown fact is that $6-billion or more was immediately appropriated in the new law and approximately $105-billion more was appropriated for FY2011 and beyond. That violates the typical Congressional process of appropriations. The normal process typically involves enacting authorization bills that authorize spending, and then follows those with separate legislation that actually appropriates the money. This enables those to be balanced with other spending decisions. The PPACA contained large authorizations for future appropriations as well as containing these actual appropriations. That made it quite different from most bills, even major legislation.

This funding also stayed below the radar screen because it was so often reported—inaccurately—that Congress had not passed any appropriations for the current fiscal year. Obviously, the last Congress chose to fund Obamacare even though they failed to pass any of the regular appropriations bills.

For those who support that new law, this may present no problem. But the process should nevertheless offend their sense of an open, well-publicized and orderly process. The funding of Obamacare is a major concern for those many Americans– including me–who consider the law unwise, unaffordable, and detrimental to affordable and quality health care.

To de-fund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order (House Rule XXI) as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs. This was most unfortunate.

To any who do not realize that over $105-billion has already been appropriated to fund Obamacare, I direct your attention to the February 10, 2011, revision of the Congressional Research Service’s paper, “Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” CRS number R41301. It documents the specific provisions that I’m discussing and the magnitude of those advance appropriations.

Speaking as a former Member of Congress who served 14 years on the House Appropriations Committee, and who chaired several of its subcommittees, I am not aware of any abuse of advance appropriations that even approaches the scale found in Obamacare. An advance appropriation, as defined and used by the Office of Management and Budget, is an appropriation made to become available one fiscal year or more beyond the fiscal year for which the appropriation act is passed. These are the exception and not the rule in the congressional appropriations process.

I am personally unaware of any occasion in which an advance appropriation has been made for more than one fiscal year in advance. But in Obamacare, passed during FY2010, we find advance appropriations are made for each and every year up to and including 2019. That is ten years of appropriations.

We know that some have suggested a biennial budget process, under which appropriations would be made for two years at a time. But nobody has proposed that any Congress should make spending decisions trying to bind a future Congresses a full decade in advance.

Making many years’ worth of advance spending decisions is an attempt to handcuff the current Congress and prevent it from determining current levels of spending. By going far beyond any precedent for making appropriations for future years, Obamacare is an outrageous effort by the former Congress to bind the current and future Congresses. This may not breach the constitutional limits of Congress, but it certainly breaches the sense of propriety. Spending decisions should be made by those who currently hold office, not by those who have resigned or been turned out by the voters.

The common approach that I have seen in your proposed legislation is simple and straightforward. It changes these advance appropriations so they do not occur unless a future Congress and President decide to spend that money. That approval is not automatic. This is a critical change from the default setting of Obamacare, which makes the spending automatic via advance appropriations.

I am glad that the committee is looking legislation to pull back the funds previously appropriated for Obamacare, but I must caution you that timing and leverage are important parts of your effort. If it takes years to halt the funding stream, then meantime billions of taxpayer dollars will already have flowed out of the Treasury. The underlying law will have sunk its roots deeper into the nation, making it more difficult to uproot. That is why I believe the appropriations process itself must also be used to extinguish these advance appropriations, since it provides proper legislative vehicles that are considered must-pass legislation.

Defunding is a routine policy tool for Congress. So is funding that is well below the amounts authorized.
As noted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Congress is not required to provide funds for every agency or purpose authorized by law.” Defunding is a legitimate use of the power of the purse that the Founding Fathers wisely granted to Congress. As James Madison said, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
The White House also routinely proposes zero funding for many federal programs. In his latest budget proposal, President Obama proposes what his budget office describes as 211 program terminations and reductions.
So when a repeal of legislation is blocked, defunding is the obvious and proper next approach. In the case of Obamacare, this is tricky because the law is designed to be difficult to uproot, just like a plant with an elaborate root system. Everyone who has a lawn and has pulled weeds knows this problem firsthand.
But defunding can be done and should be done, and internal Congressional protocols should not be used to block this. Undoing what was done last year is a proper pursuit. Dr. Ed Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation, often reminds us that in Washington there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats.

If we intend for a policy to bind future generations, we should follow the super-majority process that would enshrine it in our Constitution. But we should not accept that a simple act of Congress today should be elevated to handcuff a future Congress.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions."

The Atrocity continues --

Uncovered: New $2 Billion Bailout in Obamacare

[washingtonexaminer.com]

"Where is the money going? According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086. Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538. General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818. General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments. The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044. Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined. Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters."

Another Obamacare Scandal -

Congressional Report Details AARP’s Financial Gain From Health Care Law-House Committee on Ways & Means

[waysandmeans.house.gov]

"Ways and Means Committee Members today released “Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know,” a new report exposing the conflict between AARP’s drive for profits, the best interests of its members and the organization’s tax exempt status. The report, which is the culmination of more than a year-long investigation, concludes that AARP stands to make upwards of one billion dollars over the next ten years as a result of the new health care law through the sale of their endorsed-Medicare insurance products. The Members have now turned over their findings to the IRS to determine if AARP has abused its tax-exempt status, and whether or not that status should be revoked.

The AARP Foundation received government grants totaling over $97 million which comprised 81.9% of the Foundation’s total revenue in 2009."

Monster Bureaucracy -

6 Pages of Obamacare Equals 429 Pages of Regulations

[www.firstthings.com]

"Section 3022 of the law, which is about the Medicare shared savings program, take up just six pages in the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But HHS has turned that into 429 pages of New Regulations"

[www.usnews.com]

Score one for our side --

Appeals Court Strikes Health Insurance Requirement

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

***************

500 Billion New Reasons To Invalidate ObamaCare

[www.investors.com]

I was actually glad to hear about this. I didn't realize it wasn't yet at the Supreme Court level. We shall see if (when) it gets that far...