Once Again... I'd Like To Mention The Math... Take The Number 2010, And Subtract 65...

[WillyT]

and you get 1945... the year the Baby Boomer's came into being.

And they are all starting... STARTING... to get their Social Security, and Medicare benefits.

Coincidence ???

I think not.

:shrug:

[Uben]

1. I can do the math........

.....it's figuring out your point that's giving me trouble. Care to elaborate?

[WillyT]

4. Well... One Theory Has It That They Have Already Spent The Soc Sec Fund...

and this bulge of recipients, just starting, may cause them to have to pay it back, or at least expose the theft.

And they don't want to have to do that.

The full faith and credit of the United States does not extend to those who have to pay out of their paychecks, just the bankers/lenders.

If it's true they've spent it, then I (and many of us), as a lender, want the United States to own up to its full faith and credit to those of us that "lent" them OUR money.

:shrug:

[leveymg]

6. If it comes to that, nationalize the banks and multinationals. Seize their assets

here and abroad. We have military bases in 140 countries. Use them for some good purpose, already.

Well, maybe some of the 140. Don't bomb the Caribbean - we'll need someplace nice to get away from this hell hole.

[Uben]

8. I see...

Being a boomer myself, I am concerned with the program's health. I doubted I would ever see a dime of SS. I figured they'd steal it somehow, so I never counted on it. I'd just like to get back what I put in over the years. I'm a good 10 yrs away from SS right now, and I figure they'll raise the eligibility age before then. The program just isn't solid enough for me to count on anything from it.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. This is the end of the entirely predictable screw job that started with the '83

"reform" that jacked up FICA rates.

Hey Boomers, when do we get back our left wing radical angry?

[Sherman A1]

11. Precisely

I remember it very well.

[MineralMan]

3. Hmm. I was born in 1945. I started getting Social Security

at age 62 - almost four years ago. Now, I'm not actually a Baby Boomer. That starts with people born in 1946, but many Boomers have already begun collecting SS.

I'm not really sure what your point might be here, so maybe you could explain a little better.

[WillyT]

7. Well Let Me Ask You Question...

and yeah, I know many people who just stated collecting their benefits. I know some who are taking them early, because they cannot afford to wait until they turn 65, or, 66, or 67... or whatever the FULL benefits merry-go-round ends up being.

And I know that my mom (82 this weekend, and survivor of the Depression, wife of a WWII veteran), and many of her contemporaries, have not seen a COLA raise in the last couple of years. Curiously, the price of everything else, unlike here benefits, have NOT stayed flat.

So if 80+ year olds are getting screwed now... what do you predict the future will be for the rest of us?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

16. Until an actual bill is available, I don't have any predictions.

I don't make predictions based on blog articles about things that haven't been established. I'll have to get back to you later.

[DURHAM D]

5. So are you saying the Boomers just needed to fund the Greatest Generation

benefits and after that to each its own.

[WillyT]

9. No... I'm Saying The The Theft Was Hidden... Hideable, Until The Boomers...

started to retire... THEN it became an "emergency".

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

10. Most of the Boomers will be grandfathered in. It'e the Xers that are going to get screwed.

Ironically a lot of the folks that are anti-SS are RW Liberturdian Gen-Xers that hate Boomers and are anti-SS because they don't want Boomers to have SS.

[WillyT]

12. I Don't Blame ANY Generation... This Is What Used To Be Called, The "Social Contract"...

and ANYBODY who reneges on it is MY enemy.

Raise the cap, tax the rich more...

I really do not care, but HONOR THE COMMITMENT!

:shrug:

[sad sally]

15. The cat is out of the bag. As this article states, "without MAJOR political pressure"

our government will not/does not have to honor its debt to Social Security. The President and Congress are well aware of the scam they've pulled on Americans - are we going to let them get away with it without a fight? I sure hope not.

http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#oba?du

The reason I don’t believe the government will honor its debt to Social Security without major political pressure is that it does not legally have to repay the money. The government certainly has a moral obligation to do so, but, because of a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it has an out. In the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. This ruling was based on Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act which specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this ACT is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Based on this strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Many people argue that the government could not default on its debt to Social Security because of the effect such action would have on financial markets and the nation’s public image. If the government held the same kind of real bonds that are traded on world markets, this would be true. Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money. These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void. Since these IOUs are not traded, such action would have little effect on financial markets, and foreign governments would probably consider such action as an internal matter between the American government and its citizens.

[arcane1]

13. I read once that SS runs a surplus that's always spent paying interest on the debt

not sure if that's true or not :shrug:

[jwirr]

14. Agreed.