Big Dogs House

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Tags: bankrupt, health care, lies, Obama, social security

Protests Are Bothering Democrats

Aug 6, 2009 Political

The Democrats knew they would catch hell during this break and so far there have been quite a few encounters with constituents that have gotten loud. None of them have gotten out of control and there was no violence like there is when liberal goons are involved. These meetings included Democrats and Republicans who were present to express their dissatisfaction with the health care overhaul.

The Democrats in office, the DNC, and the media wing of their party have been portraying the protesters as right wing extremists who are hell bent on destroying Obama. No matter what the make up of the audience is, it will be labeled as a bunch of conservatives and members of the vast right wing conspiracy. Even though people at the meetings describe themselves as Democrats, they are still identified as conservatives and helps to brand them as supremacists.

Senator Boxer said that the groups are well dressed people as if ordinary citizens cannot dress nicely. Nancy Pelosi said that the protesters are carrying swastikas and other offensive items (I challenge her to find such a thing). This is a lie and is designed to make it look like the Republicans or the conservatives are the problem.

The groups are not the right wing, they are Americans from all backgrounds and ideologies who do not believe in what is happening. The Democrats want you to believe they are united and it is the right holding things up. Keep this in mind, they have enough votes to pass it without one Republican vote. The problem is many Democrats do not want to vote for it because they are worried about reelection. The Dems are blaming this on the right to take the focus off their own members who oppose it.

As for the unruly mobs that the Democrats want you to think are involved, look at any video and you see people who are angry and talking out of turn and over each other but there is no violence. The people are only expressing themselves and are really letting their representatives have it when they hear a lie, or as the White House calls it, something fishy.

Harry Reid is not happy at all and says these protesters are trying to sabotage the Democratic process:

The Senate’s most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party’s lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas—and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the democratic process. Breitbart

Isn’t it amazing how when Democrats are out protesting, damaging property and attacking people they are being patriotic because they are dissenting but when people (identified as Republicans by Dems) are peacefully protesting the government’s actions they are “sabotaging” the Democratic process?

It is further amazing that Harry Reid would call people expressing their Constitutional rights as saboteurs. Not only are these folks exercising their right to free speech, they are also exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Harry Reid thinks this is getting in the way of progress. You read that right, a US Senator thinks that people who exercise their Constitutional rights are saboteurs. Is it any wonder we hold these people in contempt?

Stop the ACLU has a video of some of these right wing radicals. It features a bunch of senior citizens at an AARP meeting. The AARP representative is trying to explain why government health care is so great and why the seniors should like it. When people start to express their dissatisfaction the person holding the meeting ends it and leaves. The seniors all said they were going to cancel their membership in AARP and I hope they do. The AARP is only out to make money. They do not care about seniors, they care about advancing liberal positions.

I urge all seniors who belong to the AARP to cancel your memberships and ask for a refund. Then consider joining organizations like the 60 Plus Association or the American Seniors Association. Both of them believe in limited government and ending oppressive taxes. They have your interests in mind.

Keep the heat on the members of Congress. Do not let them get away with the lies about the plan. They will say anything to get this passed so they can control your lives. Don’t let them get away with telling you how great they can do things. They can’t run a post office, they can’t run Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, all of which are out of money or will be soon.

If you like going to the Department of Motor vehicles then you will love government health care. But keep in mind, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free…

As for you seniors, keep giving them hell and then vote them out of office before they pass a health care bill that will kill you off.

Tags: constitution, Democrats, Harry Reid, health care, liberals, lies, medicare, Obama, social security