WVBT Blog Landing Page
Home : Participate : Blogs :
 

gimini210's Blog

by gimini210 from Independence

Last Post 91 days, 13 hours Ago


Social Security,To Secure Or Leave Unsecure is The Question?
Dec 8, 2008 | 7:35 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

As I see it there is an advantage to securing social security even at this late date. We all stand a better chance with the stock market crashing of having at least a dime to each dollar we invested in it where as with the congress we have now we will owe about twenty dollars for every dollar we invested in it. Congress will borrow from it until the 6th generation from now will still be  bailing it out.

Personally I feel we are slowly being robbed by the very people elected to do what is "best" and in our "intrest" but have yet to do so. They have done what is "best" and in their "intrest" without a problem. Including insulting the people who elected them into office. We are stinky tourist according to Ried, and do not disagree with Pelosi or your head should be drilled.

So I guess we get four more years of higher taxes, fewer jobs, and more insults with a country that will owe more than the next three generations will be able to pay off. Way to go congress. Not to worry though, they have our social security to spend still. It is not secured because that was such a bad idea and they will protect it. Go it. Any one else believe that line? It is not secured because they can't spend it if it was. It was not the stock market they were worried about. No one said invest it in stock just secure it.

So how does it work with it unsecured? Oh yeah, they spend it and you get an IOU from congress. Now take that to the bank.

Nite all, merry Christmas, and God Bless.

20 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 20
Page 1 of 1
mpvan read my blog
Dec 8, 2008 | 10:12 AM

It has been unsecured for years. Jerry Heaster, of the KCSTAR, now retired, wrote about it weekly.

Social Security is funded just fine and SHOULD have a surpluss every year. The problem is that the surpluss is being robbed and replaced with worthless IOU's to fund or make look smaller the Federal Debt. The term "lock box" was real popular a few years back for politicians to keep their hands off the surplus.....but, they failed.

As with everything else, it's really printed money and the govt will bail it out, when it comes front and center as being a problem.

Don't hear much about gas prices, alternative fuel anymore do we. It has been replaced with the crisis of the day.........AIG bailout, Big Bad 3 bailout, mortgage bailout, public works initiative, unemployment.

When its time comes front and center, SS will be a hot topic and they will all ask, "how did this happen?" When they should have asked it 30-40 years sooner...........just like the auto industry!
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 10:29 AM

Here's an idea: DON'T PUT YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET if you're that worried.

Put a portion in. Or put none in. Invest in a fixed fund, such as an annuity.

The problem here is people have used the stock market as a savings account and failed to consider the risk.

Socialist Insecurity should be abolished.
open_eyed_liberal read my blog
Dec 8, 2008 | 10:35 AM

Gemini said:"No one said invest it in stock just secure it."

"The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds..."
source: WhiteHouse.gov
open_eyed_liberal read my blog
Dec 8, 2008 | 10:36 AM

"Socialist Insecurity should be abolished."

Along with capitalist greed, inequality and ownership of the government by the wealthy.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 11:03 AM

Sure OEL. And that will happen just after I open a Popsicle stand in hell.

You know you have to admire the Amish. If it wasn't for all the pacifism and lack of modern equipment (and religion), I'd join them.

They've successfully fought the government every inch of the way and won.

I salute them.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 12:01 PM

Wait a minute...

If I open a popsicle stand in hell... it just might work.

Think of the bailout money involved in that enterprise.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 1:04 PM

LOL, What I am saying is your Social Security is not secure no matter if it is in a "secure" fund or not. One way you stand a chance of at least a portion left and the other you can be bank on congress spending every dime plus gerations to come dimes.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 2:00 PM

My point exactly gimini.

There is no real safety anywhere on this planet. Risk varies of course, but all in all, doing ANYTHING, or even NOTHING is a risk.

So it boils down to who should take the risk. Should the government risk my money, or should I decide that?
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 4:10 PM

You should. God knows the congress can't find their own backsides much less be trusted with anyone's money.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 4:57 PM

I agree gimini, but the days of personal responsibility are over.
Liberalhippe read my blog
Dec 8, 2008 | 6:23 PM

God bless the congress men and women who voted aginst privitizing social security. The money tied up in bonds would now be worth about half and the other half would be in Fairbank, Donahue and Forsee's pockets.
flyover_mark read my blog
Dec 8, 2008 | 6:57 PM

God curse the congressmen and women that refused to allow taxpayers even the option of putting SOME of those taxes into a private fund, and out of the tax-and-spend Democrat's reach. You can't spend an IOU, LH.
Nobody EVER proposed forcing anyone to invest their SS in the market, only to offer them a choice to do so. Your liberals forbade EVERYONE that choice. Social security is a ponzi scheme, a bad idea, a bad investment, and most pepole would get out of it if they could. Even after 30% correction, the market ALWAYS out-performs Social Security in the long run.
So when is the next SS fix needed before it goes bankrupt again?
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Dec 8, 2008 | 8:26 PM

I think it would take money in Social Security in order to put it anyplace. So secured or spent by congress, it is gone either way. God bless no one for screwing the Americans over and over.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Dec 9, 2008 | 11:01 AM

Well said flyover! That sums it up!

The scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" (attributed to Ronald Reagan)
vision read my blog
Dec 10, 2008 | 12:59 AM

Ever wonder why Mexicans are walking around with smiles on their faces lately?
Feds Hide Social Security Deal With Mexico
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Monday, July 3, 2006
WASHINGTON -- "We might be on the cusp of giving billions of dollars worth of our senior's Social Security money to illegal Mexican workers, and it's getting almost no media attention whatsoever," warned Brad Phillips, a spokesman for TREA Senior Citizens League, one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups with 1.2 million members.
TREA Senior Citizens League filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in U.S. District Court Thursday morning - after what the group styled as "numerous refusals over three years by the U.S. Department of State and Social Security Administration to provide a draft of - or virtually any pertinent information regarding - the impact of the Totalization Agreement with Mexico on the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund."
The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature.
"President Bush has expressed his support for this Agreement, and we believe that regardless of the current immigration debate, his most likely window for signing it is immediately after the 2006 midterm elections when no one is looking," TREA spokesman Brad Phillips told NewsMax.
Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without congressional vote, either house would ha
vision read my blog
Dec 10, 2008 | 1:01 AM

Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without congressional vote, either house would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it.
"We are outraged that our government won't tell us how much they plan to take out of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the Totalization Agreement with Mexico, and we want to know what they're hiding," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League.
"Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't play by the rules and sacrifice through two World Wars so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally," McCutchen added.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/2/2
14834.shtml?s=lh
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mexico-socsec.htm
MEXICANS PROFIT FROM RENTING OUT THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TO ILLEGALS
“Gerardo Luviano is looking for somebody to rent his Social Security number. Mr. Luviano, 39, obtained legal residence in the United States almost 20 years ago. But these days, back in Mexico, teaching beekeeping at the local high school in this hot, dusty town in the southwestern part of the country, Mr. Luviano is not using his Social Security number. So he is looking for an illegal immigrant in the United States to use it for him - providing a little cash along the way. …
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/USandMexico-a
lt.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/USandMexico-pr.htm
vision read my blog
Dec 10, 2008 | 1:06 AM

You just thought that Mexicans were "cheap" labor. Well taking social security benefits, social program funding, grants and loans under "La Raza" with "rented" I.D.. They are very costly.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Dec 11, 2008 | 12:20 PM

This has been going on. Nothing has changed.
NervousWill read my blog view my photos
Dec 22, 2008 | 4:49 PM

It served a purpose, forcing people to prepare, at least in part, for their needs in retirement. Politicians have put caps on the contribtions individuls have to put in but none on the income levels of those who draw it.
It also provides the money to pay for medicare which provides doctors and hospitals to commit fraud on a regular business, (check last nights news from Kansas).
But it could have be so much improved if we would have permitted Bush to invest it in the stock market.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Dec 23, 2008 | 11:55 AM

Actually nothing would improve it as it is, and he wanted a secured fund not stockmarket fund. Secured means non-invested in futures that collaspe and no borrowing. Life is not secure. Anything can happen but we should be allowed to pick how it happens to our money.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




gimini210

I am a reformed democrat now republican and mother of 5, have 10 grandchildren and 2 greatgrand child. I have lived all over the US and love to sit on docks and fish. Waiting for the big one. I love my family and a good joke, reading and painting. My siblings all think I need to be taken care of as do my children and I'm the oldest so don't know why. I watch Fox 4 News because you are about the fairest all around on T.V.

Member Since: 6/28/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?