Hi old timers, I was just thinking:

I do not really believe the government will do away with Social Security but if
they do,we're in duck soup-at least I am.

For the last two years, I have been living below poverty level. Lost my job and more importantly, lost my husband.

I'm trying to keep my head above water but, who knows?.

It is scary and depressing. Never thought life would throw this at us.
Social Security is all I have. If it disappears, I will give whatever I have to my kids, sell my house and give serious consideration to jumping off a tall bridge.

I'm not kidding. What will pay the bills, what will pay the house taxes or the other 'must pay' bills we all have?

I do not shop for anything except food and that has been cut to a bare minimum. No snacks, no junk food. Sometimes I want some chips or a whoopee pie. No Go.

After working since I was 16( eons ago), this is the worst financial situation in which I have ever found myself.

I wish I could find a group of "we're in the same boaters" with whom I could chat. No-one else I know seems to be willing to discuss how bad it is. Maybe I am just an old lady who can't cope.

Am I by myself in my worry?

The trust fund is currently underfunded by about 3%.

It has significant assets and will not have a funding problem until about 2035.

The funding problem will be solved, IMHO, with an increase in revenue on the one hand (probably lifting the cap on maximum contributions) and delaying benefits on the other (slowly moving the year of retirement from 62 to 63 on the other.

Problems with Medicare and Medicaid are a much more significant problem and are clearly unsustainable. This is why the President was so anxious to get some reform started because even greater reform will be needed to save Medicare.

There are no assets in the trust fund.

Its good enough for the Saudis and the Chinese.

The bonds in the trust fund are "assets" as far as social security is concerned, but they are *liabilities* as far as the U.S. Treasury is concerned, meaning that when you consider the U.S. Government in total, the assets and liabilities cancel each other out and the government has, in actuality, nothing.

When other people own those bonds, like the PRC, or private citizens, then they truly are assets, because they do not also own the corresponding liabilities.

Consider this: If you write an IOU from your left pocket to your right pocket for $100, then it is completely true (assuming that you are 100% good for the money) that your right pocket has a $100 assets. However, now your left pocket has a $100 liability, which you cannot ignore, since you are 100% good for the money. So in the end you, as a person with both left and right pockets, actually have nothing.

My point is that if they were real assets and not accounting assets, then they would be able to convert them into cash without needing to raise additional revenue.

Those T-bills represent funds that were squandered by conservative Congress after conservative Congress trying to mask the disaster that giving the rich and corporate a free ride caused the treasury.

Foreign holders of T-bills will be paid. Domestic holders, especially the powerless baby boomers who were robbed for the last 30 years, might not.

This is the LAST administration to think of "doing away with" Social Security. That's ridiculous. If you want to be afraid, consider a return of a Republican majority and President. They tried to get rid of Social Security, through privatization, once before--and they still believe in it.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it kind of sounds like Fox News scare tactics. I can assure you this administration believes strongly in the nation's safety net for seniors.

Have you read anything about President Obama's Fiscal Commission and the deficit hawks he selected to run it? Pretty much everyone with the exception of Jan Schakowsky and Javier Becerra are licking their chops to cut Social Security. This is extremely disconcerting. These recommendations will be voted on by a lame duck Congress.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=456

not us. I could be wrong but that's the way I interpreted this.

an old lady. I cope but don't like it. It certainly is not what I envisioned about "golden years." I hate that term. I hope you are in good health because if you are not things will become worse. Gee, aren't I helpful! It would be great if there were an Old Ladies Club here for us. We must talk to Skinner.

There's a thread on here about town hall meetings coming to a town near you. Go to one if you can and voice your concerns about SS. From what I understand It's funded mostly by the right winger types such as Pete Peterson. Lets give them a little grief and attend.

what we need to do is get together and start a really frickin cool business and have a great time in our golden years... :pals:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8618729

.......

And if you can't go there maybe someone in our DU group will go for you! This is only in some cities around the country. It is time to push for the "rich" to pay what they did when Eisenhower was our President!

..................

Ike Wanted to Spread Wealth, Too
November 3, 2008 · By Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati

http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/863

The wealthy of the Eisenhower years paid a hefty share of their income in taxes.

The then-president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike's words back in 1960 created ... They paid, after loopholes, 51.2 percent of that in tax

then they're good enough to take you in.

A "but I don't want to be a burden" type argument doesn't work in this sort of life-or-death scenario. Turn it around and imagine if one of your kids jumped to their death because they were destitute and didn't want to ask you if they could move in with you.

I hope I don't sound unsympathetic. I really just want to emphasize how horrible it would feel to have a loved one do that instead of asking for a place to live.