Flaherty said old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits worth up to a total of Can$15,000 and now paid out at age 65 would be offered only at age 67, starting in 2023. . . .
Believe it or not, there was a time when, if you turned 65 and retired, you could expect to live in reasonable comfort. Social Security covered a portion of your expenses; your savings account yielded a modest amount of interest, and, if you had made investments, stock dividends provided a safety cushion. Not so anymore.
“More Elderly Find They Cannot Afford Not to Work” was a January 21 headline of an article in The Wall Street Journal, noting at one point that an 87-year-old woman who had retired in 2003 was now earning $7.25 an hour, four hours a week, collecting tickets at a movie theatre in my former New Jersey hometown. I had lived there for 62 years.
Thanks to ever-rising property taxes, I sold my home before prices plunged in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. I parked the money in an annuity.
I am fortunate that there is no age limit on the ability to write for a living. The writing trade has always been a tough one. The former market for magazine articles is a shrinking pool paying little for one’s labors. Self-published books, particularly fiction, have flooded the marketplace and mainstream publishers rely on older, established authors with a following. As often as not, bestselling non-fiction is written by people who anchor television news or have some other form of celebrity.
As the Wall Street Journal article noted, “In 1981, Social Security paid 52% of the average worker’s pre-retirement earnings, according to the Social Security Administration.” I turn 75 this year and my Social Security is little more than “grocery money.” Interest on my savings account is a joke.
For too many of my fellow senior citizens, not working is not a choice The Wall Street Journal notes that “The unemployment level among Americans 75 and older—measuring the number of people seeking work—is relatively low but twice what it was five years ago. The rate was 5.6% last year…compared with 2.5% in 2006.”
When I was born in 1937 it was in the depths of the Great Depression. I have lived long enough to be swept up along with everyone else in the Great Depression 2.0.
Naively, I and many others of my generation thought the years of economic growth that began in the 1950s would go on forever. We survived a number of investment “bubbles” and predictable, but short-lived recessions, but this one is different. It has been exacerbated by an ever-growing federal government, job-killing “environmental” regulations, and burdened by “entitlement” programs whose cost understandably keep increasing along with the nation’s growing population of older Americans.
“”Federal spending on Social Security and Medicare is rising,” said the Journal article. “both in total dollars and percentage of the budget. Social Security made up 20% of the federal budget in the 2010 fiscal year, up from 13% in 1962. Combined spending on Social Security and Medicare represents 9% of GDP and is projected to grow to 12% in 2035.”
The nation’s debt now equals its Gross Domestic Product. The U.S. is broke and so are Europe’s nations with the exception of Germany. That is simply not sustainable—something the Congressional “super committee” discovered when it punted on any solution to the nation’s fiscal woes.
Part of the problem is the nation’s aging population.
Raising any of the ages of eligibility would cause some people to work longer, thereby increasing the size of the workforce and the economy. Although the magnitude of those effects is difficult to predict, CBO estimates that:
Raising Social Security’s early eligibility age to 64 or the full retirement age to 70 would, in the long term, boost the size of the workforce and the economy by slightly more than 1 percent.
Raising Medicare’s eligibility age to 67 would also boost the size of the workforce and the economy, but by a much smaller amount.
Daniel Borenstein has a great article here that should be clear to everyone. He explains how the severe problems are being hidden.
The return rates also affect assessments of the current health of the pension systems. If they’re counting on greater investment returns, the pension systems don’t need as many assets now. Using a 7.75 percent investment forecast, CalPERS, as of June 30, had only about 74 percent of the funds it should have had, Nation calculated. But assuming a 6.2 percent annual return means the system had only 58 percent of funds it should have had.
Here’s another way of thinking about it: Assuming future annual returns of 7.75 percent, the three pension systems combined were short $143 billion, or $11,703 for each California household. At a more realistic 6.2 percent investment assumption, they’re short $291 billion, or $23,852 per household. Thus, the higher assumptions hide the magnitude of the problem.
We can insist on properly funding the systems now. Or we can keep hoping we’ll win this risky gamble on the markets — and we’ll keep piling up more debt when we lose. . . .
Portugal has raided €5.6bn (£4.8bn) of pension fund assets in a controversial scramble to meet its deficit targets.
Portugal said it had informed the EU and IMF and assured them it would be a “one-off”. However the 2010 budget was met by shifting three pension plans from Portugal Telecom on to the public social security system. The liabilities don’t count, yet.
source : www.telegraph.co.uk
This thought has been brought up in the halls of congress on more than one occasion.
In November of 2008 the Carolina Journal Online carried a piece titled: Dems “Target Private Retirement Accounts” where “leaders” in the U.S. House discussed confiscating 401(k)s, and IRAs and turning them into a GRA (Government Retirement Account).
I suppose that after looting the Social Security Trust Fund and after guaranteeing 14 trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars to the people who blew up the economy, Congress is now brazen enough to think that it can steal 6 trillion more.
This time by confiscation.
According to the article: “Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.”
Source : www.financialsense.com
On August 5th 2010 Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM] during the most corrupt congress to ever convene in Washington DC sponsored a bill that would do just this very thing TAKE OVER YOUR 401k, as they have now done in Portugal.
S. 3760: Automatic IRA Act of 2010
111th Congress: 2009-2010
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand personal savings and retirement savings coverage by allowing employees not covered by qualified retirement plans to save for retirement through automatic IRAs, and for other purposes.
Moving up the time line….. Bob Chapman on May 23rd 2001 starts out his video interview below discussing QE3.
Well here is the headline for you exactly 6 months later.
Click to read full article
Bottom line here is a dire warning. Your retirement accounts are NOT SAFE in this rigged stoick market where everything is proped up just long enough to finish looting the middle class of any and all retirement funds it has. Agenda 21 comes to mind. If you do not know what Agenda 21 is I suggest you read the linked pdf provided ON THE UNs VERY OWN WEBSITE. It should scare the ever loving shit out of you! If it does not your more than likely an absolute idiot or complicit in the rolling out of the agenda itself.
My advice: You would do better banking with the Sealy Posture-Pedic Savings and Loan. And convert your 401k and any subsequent saving into Ammunition, Guns, Store-able Food, Silver and of course Gold. And I would do so in that order.
This is one side effect of so many people dropping out of the labor force. Anyone have an idea how high Social Security taxes have to be if there are only 1.75 private sector full-time workers paying taxes for every person getting benefits? The problem is that a lot more people are going to be retiring soon. This also provides some background for Obama’s chosen method of cutting taxes. From CNSnews.com:
There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.
That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government. . . .
With all of the damage the democrats have done to our nation, one wonders how they can continue to fool their constituents into believing they are the party that represents the poor and disadvantaged.
One need only look at the nation’s inner cities to see that billions of dollars have been diverted by corrupt politicians to their special interest friends else there would be fewer housing, employment and social issues in these areas.
One need only to listen or watch as the current democrat administration abandons one minority class (Blacks) only to exploit another (Hispanic) for their self-serving advantage.
And on the subject of our social security, it might be helpful to know that it was the democrats that:
It was liberal democrat Lyndon Johnson and a democrat House and Senate who moved social security funds from their so-called designated “lockbox” or “trust” status and made them available to the general fund where they could be spent promoting the ideology of liberalism.
It was the democrats who demolished the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholdings.
It was democrat Al Gore’s tie-breaking vote that allowed the government to tax Social Security annuities.
And it was democrat Jimmy Carter and his fellow travelers who extended Social Security to immigrants who never paid into the system as citizens.
So how can the democrat party continue to demonize the republican party on fiscal issues … especially social security?
With no moral underpinning or core values, the democrats remain unembarrassed and unlikely to take action when they discover criminal activity and breaches of moral turpitude among their brethren. In thee days of moral equivalency, political correctness and non-judgementalism, the democrats have little or no shame – and certainly no reservations about restricting our freedoms and raising our taxes.
One need only look at the corrupt and significantly delayed prosecutions of wayward democrats in the House ethics committee to understand that they are unlikely to do anything decent for their country. How else can you explain their actions in dealing with a racist attempting to use the governments power to help her husband’s financial affairs and a tax cheats slap-on-the-hand censure?
Bottom line …
As with all politicians who will say or do anything to gain or maintain power, the democrats cannot be trusted with governing our nation. They must be removed, along with their progressive RINO (Republican In Name Only) counterparts and replaced with constitutional conservatives.
This is no longer a fight for your political party, it is a struggle for the safety, security and continued freedom of America.
Talk about grim tidings on the debt ceiling. According to the Washington Post: “Yesterday a worried Treasury Secretary . . . sent a letter to (the) House Speaker . . . listing the consequences if the debt bill was not sent to the President immediately. Social Security checks totaling $8 billion already in the mail would not be cashed and other checks for civil service retirement, veterans payments and government operating costs would not be honored as of today, he said.”
That ominous news isn’t from today, but from April 3, 1979. The Treasury Secretary was Carter appointee Werner Michael Blumenthal and the House Speaker was Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. The struggle at the time was whether to raise the temporary debt ceiling to a then astounding $830 billion. The current contest is over raising it to $16.7 trillion, or more than 20 times what it was only 32 years ago.
Barack H. (as in hissy) Obama was using the old Democratic playbook on fear-mongering when he told CBS News he can’t guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3. It was a strategy favored by Democrat Jimmy Carter, whose own failed presidency is looking better every day when compared to the ongoing disaster that is Obama.
Five months after Blumenthal’s threat, Carter’s next treasury secretary showed up asking Congress to work on that debt ceiling again. The Washington Post reported he told the House Ways & Means Committee:
“The Treasury was required to suspend the sale of United States savings bonds, and people who depend upon Social Security checks and other government payments suddenly realized that the Treasury simply cannot pay the government’s bills unless it is authorized to borrow the funds needed to finance the spending programs previously enacted by Congress.”
As long as “people who depend upon Social Security checks and other government payments” got the message, liberals could count on Congress – in the face of a potential voter backlash – to keep to its big spending, big taxing ways. Democrats knew a winning strategy when they saw one.
In May, 1980, it was time to remind folks of what would happen if Congress wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling again. The Washington Post was there with a story on it:
“The debt ceiling expires Sunday. Although Congress has gone through similar exercises before without the government grinding to a halt, House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill. Jr. (D-Mass.) warned that banks could stop cashing Social Security checks next week if Congress does not extend the ceiling to continue the government’s borrowing authority in the meantime.”
Fifteen years later, another Democrat was in the White House. Bill Clinton was stupid enough to give phone sex a bad name, but he knew when it was time to start frightening seniors. An article in the July 25, 1995 Washington Post noted:
“Last week, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin wrote (House Speaker Newt) Gingrich that a debt ceiling crisis could interrupt government operations, delay payments to Social Security beneficiaries, disrupt Treasury’s borrowing operations and ‘generate uncertainty in the domestic and international securities markets.’”
We’ve been through all this before. Today’s liberals just aren’t much on originality.
As August 2 draws ever closer, President Obama has resorted to even larger and more despicable lies. Now he is threatening seniors that social security checks may not go out if the debt ceiling is not increased by August 2.
As reported by financial wizard Greg Hunter in part, that is simply not true:
The gloves came off in the fight over raising the debt ceiling yesterday. On CBS News, the President basically threatened to cut off Social Security checks by August 3rd if a deal was not reached. Mr. Obama said to veteran newsman Scott Pelly, “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
What? So, the President admitted there is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund? Why in heck didn’t Mr. Pelly call the President on this???!!! Is it because Pelly is afraid he will never get another Presidential interview? I don’t know if the President really believes this, but it looks like a political scare tactic to me.
What I do know is the President’s statement is simply not true! According to Social Security, the Trust Fund holds something called “special issues.” Here’s what the government’s own website says, “Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.
Did you get that? What Social Security holds is the same as “holding cash!” Threatening to cut off funds to seniors and the disabled is more political theater than budgetary fact. It is also a clear sign the budget ceiling fight has turned ugly.
I think making political threats like this is a big mistake by the President. This could harm the idea of “full faith and credit” of the U.S. even if a deal is reached in time to make the August 2nd deadline. Hardline politics on both sides could make consumers of our debt run like hell. The President should be reassuring Treasury holders.
Instead, the President is not just scaring seniors, but also buyers of our debt. Why would anyone want to go through this kind of drama every year? Wouldn’t you be looking for fixed income investments someplace else? That’s what the biggest bond fund in the world (PIMCO) is doing. Also, every time the debt ceiling is raised (and there will be more in the future), this further devalues the dollar. In short, I think U.S. debt is already damaged goods. Treasury buyers might impose a real debt ceiling and stop buying altogether. Some countries have recently done just that.”
Rather than wasting time with silly fear mongering, Obama and the Democrats need to be working with Republicans to cut $4 trillion in spending—without raising taxes!
You think federal government ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare are in trouble now? Just you wait! Mark my words.
To all of you out there who are banking on getting nice checks every month from Washington DC or having your health care paid for in your old age, I have one suggestion for you. Start making alternate plans now.
And if, unfortunately, you are currently receiving such a benefit? For you I have a warning. Start kissing up to your children. Because you might need them sooner than you think to help you make ends meet. And if you did not take your own retirement planning seriously you may be moving in with one of them in the near future.
Right now every American worker has their paychecks garnished. This garnishment is going to pay for the benefits of senior citizens in America who are certain they are entitled to that money because one, they paid into the system and two, politicians have promised it to them.
But the problem is the same for seniors, those near retirement and foolish politicians who keep making promises of future retirement benefits. This problem is how to convince workers, generally younger Americans, to keep paying into a system that is quickly headed towards insolvency and which they will not themselves ever hope to benefit from.
The scam was simple in that if you paid into Social Security and Medicare when you were in your 20’s you would have checks sent your way in your 60’s. Now however it is not looking like if you are in your 20’s that you will ever see a dime of what you pay in.
In 2009, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees pegged the arrival of insolvency for Social Security in the year 2037[1]. As a 39 year old, hard working American myself that would have me at just hitting the age of 65 when this happens. Think I will see anything in my pocket with this prediction? I certainly do not count on it. All my money which government took from my paychecks, essentially at the point of a gun, will be spent and long gone to have helped some current retiree buy a nice condo in Florida and trinkets for their grandchildren.
It gets worse. In 2010 Social Security officially began paying out more in benefits than it brought in [2]. Just an FYI, back in 2005 it was predicted that this ominous benchmark was not supposed to be reached until 2017 [3]. In a mere five years that point of revenues falling behind expenditures moved up a horrifying six years.
See a pattern here? If you do not, let me help you out and clean the fog off your rose-colored glasses. The government keeps telling us that everything is ok when it comes to Social Security. But every prediction they make about how much is left in the coffers and how much time we have until all Hell breaks loose keeps getting accelerated. The point at which old people will start marching in the streets and hitting police officers with their canes comes closer and closer to the present all the time.
These politicians stand at the podium and tell us one thing.
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
