Social Security - Cost of living

Re: Social Security-Cost of living

Government caused the current recession, egged on by liberals and other racists, not bankers.

What planet do you live on???

Bush, his wars, his tax breaks for the wealthy, his lack of regulations for big businesses have created the 2008 recession. . .and Obama has given it his best to pull this country out of it. . .

He has done a pretty good job, actually, until the stupid tea party who don't understand a damn thing, but are being used by the GOP and their big business sponsors, came in. . .and now, because of the continued Bush tax cuts forced on Obama, and because of the deep insecurity and deep anxiety created by the talking mouths on Fox News, and the broken government led by the tea pary. . .we are facing a double dip recession!

It's obvious that even big business knows that cutting spending without raising revenue will NOT help resolve the deficit. . .but will on the contrary increase unemployment by decreasing the demand!

Obviously, you don't understand any of that!
So many people don't, but open their mouth to spew propaganda!
 
Werbung:
Written three years ago, when the situation came to a head.

An accurate, and damning, timeline.

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression. to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".

In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books so that the company officials could collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk. If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and there are no bills pending to do so.
 
Yawn. What else is new. You forgot to go into detail about how Wall Street companies introduced derivatives to hide the high risk mortgages, and then resold them way overpriced to unsuspecting buyers. These companies ignored the problem and created the meltdown. Sure, FM & FM lit the fuse, but Wall Street connected the fuse to the barrel of gunpowder.
 
You're kidding, right? The Republicans don't give a damn about the seniors, except as a pool of voters, and even then, they just get the dumbest, less educated among seniors to believe propaganda and lies, and manifeste by holding clever signs like "keep the government out of my medicare!"


I really am starting to feel sorry for you! You seem so out of touch with any kind of reality!

WRONG Youre the one so out of touch with reality.

 
Re: Social Security-Cost of living

You are so silly! Government is not funding social security. . .we are, we have been with our contribution, and our employers have been with their contributions.

The only thing that made it "bad" is that our government (much before Obama, by the way) decided to "borrow" the social security funds.


Get a life!

Well, if that were actually the case, how about you just ask for a bit more of your money back then?
 
Social Security is supposed to have cost of living adjustments once a year. There has not been a change payments in over two years. The first year, the powers that be, stated that there was no rise in the cost of living (using their "formula"). This last year, there was no increase because, "government cannot afford it."
There use of the "formula", ignores the fact that gasoline prices skyrocketed, the cost of my electricity bill is up over 50%, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, food prices, etc. etc. have all increased.
Who makes the determination that social security payments are not going to increase? Not the Democrats...they are in favor of such C.O.L increases.
That leaves the Republicans. I have voted for Republicans upon occasion, usually because of their pro-second amendment stand. However, I will never vote for a Republican ever again, for the rest of my life. And I encourage other seniors to do the same. They are really good at coming up with "formulas".

If there is no money, there is no money.
 
Re: Social Security-Cost of living

You got my support! I don't even understand how "average" people in America can believe that any Republican policy can benefit them or the country! Even when they are not in the White House they manage to screw up our economy!

Looks what's happening now! EVERY economist knows that cutting spending, without raising revenue will only handicap the job market even more! EVERY economist knows that spending cuts on the poor and middle class will lead to less demand, therefore less production, therefore less jobs!

And yet. . .they are so proud of their achievement that leads straight to another recession!

Yea...every economist that believes in "trickle up"...ie not every economist. Middle class and poor people create demand when they have an income...that income comes from a job...therefore a job needs to be created before they have income...and poor people don't create jobs.
 
Re: Social Security-Cost of living

Yea...every economist that believes in "trickle up"...ie not every economist. Middle class and poor people create demand when they have an income...that income comes from a job...therefore a job needs to be created before they have income...and poor people don't create jobs.

As we have seen over the last 10 years, JOBS ARE NOT CREATED UNLESS THERE IS A DEMAND!!!!

In fact, if your theory (and the GOP's theory) was correct, why didn't Bush's era bring great wealth for everyone? Why did the economy tank in 2008? And why is it tanking again today, and for the last 6 months, since the "precious Bush tax cuts" have been extended? Why haven't any jobs been created, in fact, why have jobs creation DECREASED since December?

And why is Wall Street so worried? Because they KNOW that this "spending cuts only" will lead to LESS demand, and therefore LESS job creations!

Even Reagan's economists stated that to stimulate the economy, or at least to not HURT the economy even further, an increase in revenue would have been much more advantageous than a decrease in spending. . .

And, let me remind you, that the Democrats were proposing BOTH solutions. . . not just one!

No, once again, this new recession sits squarely in the GOP's court!
 
If there is no money, there is no money.
That is simply not true. There is 2.4 Trillion dollars in the SS trust fund, only they are in the form of IOUs -- Treasury Bonds. For the past several decades, the government took any excess savings from the SS and spent it. The government simply won't put it back into SS where they stole our money, but would rather have wage earners cough up more or suffer the consequences.

I have no idea why seniors don't scream at the government for that. They really should.
 
Re: Social Security-Cost of living

As we have seen over the last 10 years, JOBS ARE NOT CREATED UNLESS THERE IS A DEMAND!!!!

And demand will not be created unless people have income...aka a job. So..which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In fact, if your theory (and the GOP's theory) was correct, why didn't Bush's era bring great wealth for everyone? Why did the economy tank in 2008? And why is it tanking again today, and for the last 6 months, since the "precious Bush tax cuts" have been extended? Why haven't any jobs been created, in fact, why have jobs creation DECREASED since December?

No is saying that tax cuts = job creation and that is it...is has to be accompanied with other things, like reducing/eliminating burdensome regulations etc.

And why is Wall Street so worried? Because they KNOW that this "spending cuts only" will lead to LESS demand, and therefore LESS job creations!

If spending equates to growth...where is the growth? We certainly are not having any problem spending at record levels?

Traders are worried because it is becoming very clear that the government can do nothing to get us out of this...except make it tough for business to get us out of this.

Even Reagan's economists stated that to stimulate the economy, or at least to not HURT the economy even further, an increase in revenue would have been much more advantageous than a decrease in spending. . .

And, let me remind you, that the Democrats were proposing BOTH solutions. . . not just one!

So your idea to stimulate the economy due to a lack of demand (your words here) is to take more money out of the economy?

And let me remind you that NO plan out there has come close to meeting what the rating agencies have said was needed to keep the AAA rating?

No, once again, this new recession sits squarely in the GOP's court!

I don't think that argument is going to get much traction in 2012.
 
That is simply not true. There is 2.4 Trillion dollars in the SS trust fund, only they are in the form of IOUs -- Treasury Bonds. For the past several decades, the government took any excess savings from the SS and spent it. The government simply won't put it back into SS where they stole our money, but would rather have wage earners cough up more or suffer the consequences.

I have no idea why seniors don't scream at the government for that. They really should.

So you are going to admit now that the President simply lied to the American people when he said he couldn't promise that Social Security could be paid if the government shut down...because you can't have it both ways?

If you want to tap the trust fund, by all means do so...just recognize that itf fixes nothing and we just run out of money faster....

Essentially, give people a raise today, and screw over everyone else down the road...or attempt to ensure the program can last a bit longer for everyone.
 
So you are going to admit now that the President simply lied to the American people when he said he couldn't promise that Social Security could be paid if the government shut down...because you can't have it both ways?

If you want to tap the trust fund, by all means do so...just recognize that itf fixes nothing and we just run out of money faster....

Essentially, give people a raise today, and screw over everyone else down the road...or attempt to ensure the program can last a bit longer for everyone.
I misunderstood what you meant by,
"If there is no money, there is no money."
It is true that the government ran out of money. I was addressing the attitude of the government toward the SS fund, which in principle has scads of money, but in practice is tied up in debt. I'm glad you understand that. Most people have not been aware of that for decades.
 
I misunderstood what you meant by,
"If there is no money, there is no money."
It is true that the government ran out of money. I was addressing the attitude of the government toward the SS fund, which in principle has scads of money, but in practice is tied up in debt. I'm glad you understand that. Most people have not been aware of that for decades.

Well the trust fund definitely exists...I don't think anyone can deny that. It is IOU's, but as I understand it Treasury is required by law to pay those (regardless of debt issues) if they are asked for.

The issue just becomes that Social Security will then ultimately (in theory) bankrupt itself more quickly...I am pretty sure the Trustees stated that this year SS is paying out more than it is taking in and by 2042 (I think) the trust will be exhausted.
 
Well the trust fund definitely exists...I don't think anyone can deny that. It is IOU's, but as I understand it Treasury is required by law to pay those (regardless of debt issues) if they are asked for.

The issue just becomes that Social Security will then ultimately (in theory) bankrupt itself more quickly...I am pretty sure the Trustees stated that this year SS is paying out more than it is taking in and by 2042 (I think) the trust will be exhausted.

2042 is still over 30 years away. There is plenty of time to see ahead, and to do reform that will not affect people who are retired today, and not even people who will retire within the next 20 years.

Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about cuts in social security today, when the whole economy is in such a dramatic downturn, rather than to wait a few years (even 2 or 3 years) when we may be experiencing an upward turn in the economy.

The only reason there is a push to do it now is that stupid "all or nothing" attitude of politiciens who just want to hit Obama and make him fail by any means possible.
 
Werbung:
Well the trust fund definitely exists...I don't think anyone can deny that. It is IOU's, but as I understand it Treasury is required by law to pay those (regardless of debt issues) if they are asked for.

The issue just becomes that Social Security will then ultimately (in theory) bankrupt itself more quickly...I am pretty sure the Trustees stated that this year SS is paying out more than it is taking in and by 2042 (I think) the trust will be exhausted.
I and my wife are retired and depending on SS. What I want is for the government to quit skimming off the excess and spending it. They can do that now without touching the Treasury bonds. But no. They depend on the SS payments I made over the last decades to help fund the government.

I spent a day creating a spreadsheet calculation that computed how much I put in over my lifetime and the resulting compound interest and was surprised to learn that at nominal interest rates the money I put in pays for what I'm getting till I'm 90. But my money doesn't exist anymore because the government spent it and I'm now living off of what current wage earners are putting in through FICA. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to them.

I don't think anyone from either party is ever going to ask the Treasury for my money back, and that pisses me off.
 
Back
Top