It is sad to see Schumer and Reid call privatization "the end of social security." That is not rational nor based on the facts, at least based on the existing proposal.
In that proposal, only a small percentage and then gradually up to 41% could go into a private investment account only taken out later when collecting social security. The account is guaranteed against loss.
But the main effect will allow for higher returns than the artificially low one that the government selfishly limits unrealistically and harmfully. And it will relieve the burden of social security and allow people to retire earlier - without a cost to the taxpayers.
It does not 'end' social security. It instead opens social security and provides a basis for people being able to retire early, while guaranteeing against loss. Read The Private Account.
Of course, new ideas and enhancements are welcome and should be brought forth, but our representatives should be educated (Educating Our Representatives) so that they can make good decisions.
These two representatives are sincere and ardent, but they need to be informed and learn to operate for the greater good. Read Rating The Politicians, which puts forth the standards and characteristics we should look for in our representatives.
To your rational consideration,
The Rational Non-Politician
(They could object because it takes money away from government "revenue", because the government has been taking the money and spending it as if it is theirs [though added to the Trust Fund]. But it takes a good long term unselfishness to accept doing it for the better good in the long run - and the representatives will just have to deal with the unavailability of those monies in the private account, for the short term. Read Social Security to see the idea of "pay as you go", which is what has put us into this dilemma.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Educate Reid, Schumer, Sanders, etc. Re: Social Security
We are in trouble when our congressman don't understand basic math and compound interest. They say "there is no social security problem" and it seems they believe it, so that conclusion must be a product of lack of understanding.
Einstein talked about the most powerful thing in the world being "compound interest". Basically, $1 invested now at 10% will result in $1.10 at the end of a year and $1.21 at the end of two years. To understand further read Compound Interest - An Essential Understanding.
The CBO says all of the social security trust fund will run out by 2037 and then we'll be short 25% on benefits to be paid out at the time. After 2037, there's no more left in the trust fund, so we have to fund the difference somehow. Doesn't that make sense? (Unless we want to not pay people what they are due.)
The CBO says that we would need to set aside $6.6 trillion dollars now if we were to cover that whole liability; if we wait til 2037, we would need $15 trillion (more than our current GDP and over seven times all of our current government revenues, including social security taxes and medicare taxes!)
Read Unfunded Liabilities to learn what is meant by all of these shortfalls in social security, plus medicare. Read also what our true public debt is.
Call the politicians and ask them to be educated in this and THEN to express their conclusion, based on understanding and actual facts.
The Rational Non-Politician
See Educating The Politicians, which is what we should require of the politicians before expressing their opinions and especially before they vote!
Also, if you would pass the message on to Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow - and I don't recall the others right now - others who have made comments about social security that show a lack of understanding.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, the government organization that calculates the effects of government programs, etc.
Einstein talked about the most powerful thing in the world being "compound interest". Basically, $1 invested now at 10% will result in $1.10 at the end of a year and $1.21 at the end of two years. To understand further read Compound Interest - An Essential Understanding.
The CBO says all of the social security trust fund will run out by 2037 and then we'll be short 25% on benefits to be paid out at the time. After 2037, there's no more left in the trust fund, so we have to fund the difference somehow. Doesn't that make sense? (Unless we want to not pay people what they are due.)
The CBO says that we would need to set aside $6.6 trillion dollars now if we were to cover that whole liability; if we wait til 2037, we would need $15 trillion (more than our current GDP and over seven times all of our current government revenues, including social security taxes and medicare taxes!)
Read Unfunded Liabilities to learn what is meant by all of these shortfalls in social security, plus medicare. Read also what our true public debt is.
Call the politicians and ask them to be educated in this and THEN to express their conclusion, based on understanding and actual facts.
The Rational Non-Politician
See Educating The Politicians, which is what we should require of the politicians before expressing their opinions and especially before they vote!
Also, if you would pass the message on to Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow - and I don't recall the others right now - others who have made comments about social security that show a lack of understanding.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, the government organization that calculates the effects of government programs, etc.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
HIDDEN EXTRA DEBT: $2.5 TRILLION
If a corporation promised a future retiree a pension, the corporation would have to record that amount as a liability and then note it down as an expense of doing business during the year the liability was incurred.
The US government does not do this basic required accounting.
So, we think the deficit is "only" $1.6 trillion this year, but it is actually MORE if we consider our unpaid future extra liabilities we incurred this year.
Congressmen, and maybe even the President, do not understand this. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have said "There is no problem with social security. We have a huge surplus" - But, with thinking and an analysis and understanding of the facts and factors involved, I declare those are "unknowledgeable" statements, completely incorrect and misunderstood. (I am not optimistic about our legislature adequately dealing with what is needed!!!!)
Medicare is behind $36.3 trillion, considering all that we've promised in the future (minus what will be paid).
Social Security is behind $7 trillion. (And those are the low estimates.)
I hope the congressmen, and perhaps the reader, reads, on the related site:
The Unfunded Liabilities Explanation (kind of an Accounting 101)
Social Security - What is the real liability?
Medicare - This is a bigger problem. Get the whole perspective.
The problem is solvable if we do the practice of "handling a problem while it is little so that it does not get big" - except it is already very, very big, but we can prevent being run over by a big freight train, if we anticipate - and use our reasoning power, with the facts and consulting the true experts.
Will we face the biggest problem of our era? Will Congressmen learn and then deal with it?
I certainly hope so!!!
The NonPolitician
As always, corrections, additions, and feedback are always welcome.
The US government does not do this basic required accounting.
So, we think the deficit is "only" $1.6 trillion this year, but it is actually MORE if we consider our unpaid future extra liabilities we incurred this year.
Congressmen, and maybe even the President, do not understand this. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have said "There is no problem with social security. We have a huge surplus" - But, with thinking and an analysis and understanding of the facts and factors involved, I declare those are "unknowledgeable" statements, completely incorrect and misunderstood. (I am not optimistic about our legislature adequately dealing with what is needed!!!!)
Medicare is behind $36.3 trillion, considering all that we've promised in the future (minus what will be paid).
Social Security is behind $7 trillion. (And those are the low estimates.)
I hope the congressmen, and perhaps the reader, reads, on the related site:
The Unfunded Liabilities Explanation (kind of an Accounting 101)
Social Security - What is the real liability?
Medicare - This is a bigger problem. Get the whole perspective.
The problem is solvable if we do the practice of "handling a problem while it is little so that it does not get big" - except it is already very, very big, but we can prevent being run over by a big freight train, if we anticipate - and use our reasoning power, with the facts and consulting the true experts.
Will we face the biggest problem of our era? Will Congressmen learn and then deal with it?
I certainly hope so!!!
The NonPolitician
As always, corrections, additions, and feedback are always welcome.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Mubarak Set Up Huge Foundation
Now is the time for Mubarak to prove that he truly does love Egypt - by setting up a huge foundation for the benefit of Egyptians.
If he is to prove himself and not be considered as a tyrant who exploited Egypt for his own wealth, he would keep a billion or so for himself and contribute the rest to a wonderful humanitarian helpful foundation for the Egyptians. $30 billion at least.
Sir, I challenge you to prove your love for Egypt.
This would be an incredible legacy that would make you one of the biggest patriots of all time.
What will you choose?
If he is to prove himself and not be considered as a tyrant who exploited Egypt for his own wealth, he would keep a billion or so for himself and contribute the rest to a wonderful humanitarian helpful foundation for the Egyptians. $30 billion at least.
Sir, I challenge you to prove your love for Egypt.
This would be an incredible legacy that would make you one of the biggest patriots of all time.
What will you choose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)