STOCK MARKET....Brinker did not talk about the stock market today. He only mentioned it in passing to an elderly caller who needed to re-balance his portfolio by moving money from stocks to bonds. Brinker pointed out that this was a good time because the market had rallied.
Honey EC: Several times today, Brinker mentioned that the March issue of Marketimer had just been published. I've noticed that he usually avoids making any comments about the stock market near the publish date even when there are no changes to his stock market advice -- like this month.
INVESTING IN JAPANESE MARKETS: Caller Rick from Chicago asked about investing in EWJ and DXJ. He wanted to know if Brinker would recommend investing in them in hopes that there would be no Black Swan events, such as Godzilla or tsunamis, hitting Japan. Honey EC: I laughed out loud at the caller's bit of Black Swan drama.
INFLATION PREDICTION.....Brinker said: "On the subject of inflation, I can say this. I would say that it's a reasonable guess that inflation will average 2 to 3% going forward. I can't take it out ten years. That's too long."
SEQUESTER....Brinker said: "The spending cut process is something that will be unwinding, unless there's a change going forward. President Barack Obama has instructed federal agencies to implement across the board spending cuts.....The mandatory cuts to spending that result from the failure to reach a long-term deficit reduction program in Washington....That's what really matters. But without getting into entitlements, that's not going to happen.
MEDICARE OFF THE TABLE = NO PROGRESS ON DEFICIT PROBLEM....Brinker continued: "Medicare is off the table on this deal so there will not be cuts in Medicare entitlements. And therefore, there will be no major progress on the long-term deficit problem. In the interim, there will be slashes to spending in the military sector and also on social programs and education."
STAN DRUCKENMILLER'S SENIORS STEALING FROM CHILDREN....Brinker said: "Stan Druckenmiller is a very famous name in the canyons of Wall Street. And he pointed out this week that the increased cost of Medicare and other programs along with the unfunded liabilities which are estimated over 200 trillion dollars on a long-term basis. He claims that these programs will bankrupt the young people in the United States, and that they pose a much greater danger to the countries' future than the national debt and the annual deficits that are the focus of the current attention, especially with reference to the sequester."
Brinker read this quote by Druckenmiller: “While everybody is focusing on the here and now, there’s a much, much bigger storm that’s about to hit. I am not against seniors. What I am against is current seniors stealing from future seniors.” Here's a link to the Bloomberg write-up that Brinker was talking about.
CHILDREN DON'T VOTE OR LOBBY SO SENIORS RIP THEM OFF....Brinker continued: "So what Druckenmiller is saying is that the seniors today who get $3 back for every dollar they pay in over their lifetime in the program.....are stealing from....today's young people. Now the reason I found this fascinating is this comes against a backdrop where we've recently learned that studies show that for every dollar that the United States spends on its children, it spends about $7 on its senior population. We all know that people under 18 are not allowed to vote.....The seniors have extraordinary lobby power and they also have voting power.....Really a fascinating situation when you look at it."
Honey EC: Later on after the first caller brought up the fact that Druckenmiller was a hedge-fund manager so was being hypocritical, Brinker defended him by saying he was a "former" hedge-fund manager. Speaking of Druckenmiller once again, Brinker said: "I think that the comments stand on their own. Are today's seniors stealing from future seniors by taking 3 to 1 -- for example -- $3 to every one dollar premium paid in on the Medicare system?"
The following hour, in announcement fashion, Brinker said that he wanted to make it clear that he did not agree with Druckenmiller's claim that seniors were stealing from future seniors. It was clear to me that he had received calls from some outraged seniors.SEQUESTER NUMBERS....Brinker continued: "Remember relative to the numbers that I just spoke of, the sequester amount through September 30th, this fiscal year, are relatively small. The Congressional Budget Office recommends that they be viewed as $44 billion, not $85 billion....About half of the number that is getting the publicity."
BEN BERNANKE'S SPEECH (LINK): WHEN INTEREST RATES NORMALIZE.....Brinker talked about Bernanke's speech and then said: "If over the next several years we see interest rates get to normalized levels, the Treasury could be paying an average of 5.7% on the national debt, which is considerable at $16.5 trillion and growing.....That would be a big deal because if we see a normalization of rates over a period of time, you are going to see the Treasury having to pay out to all types of U.S. government bond holders hundreds of billions of dollars additionally every year, which would be added to the deficit, because of interest rates. Not because we were able to build anything, or buy anything or to change anything.....And I think this was a roundabout way for the Fed Chair to address this. I think he was saying we better get our house in order from a fiscal perspective, because when rates normalize down the road, we are going to face an enormous additional annual expense to taxpayers....And we won't get anything for it."
MEDICAL BILLS: BRINKER HIGHLY RECOMMENDED Steve Brill's Time Magazine article about health care. Look for Steve Brill to make an appearance on Moneytalk soon. Read the article here: Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
CARRIED-INTEREST LOOPHOLE....Brinker said: "For years, I have spoken out on the carried interest loophole. It is amazing to me that it has survived as long as it has....Frankly, it is a disgrace, probably the most overt example of bad policy." New York Times Article about why carried interest is not fair."
BRINKER'S HUMOROUS SARCASM - SEQUESTER MEANS DYSFUNCTIONAL IN LATIN....Brinker said: "It turns out that the word sequester or so it is said -- I haven't looked it up even though I did study Latin as a secondary school student. I have to be honest with you, I'm not familiar with the word in the Latin vocabulary. But it was said this week that the word sequester is Latin for dysfunction. If it turns out to be true, that certainly would make sense because I have never seen the likes of what we have at the federal level making policy in Washington These people, frankly, to put a smiley face on it, they should be ashamed of themselves."
NEXT CRISIS DU JOUR.....Brinker said: "The next crisis moment, and we have these crisis du jour is the way it works with a dysfunctional government, will be the March 27th crisis which has to do with the so-called Continuing-Resolution to fund government spending....Congress is scheduled to go on Easter recess several days prior to March 27th."
DON'T BE MISLED ABOUT BRINKER'S YEAR-2000 SELL SIGNAL... Honey here: In the latest Marketimer, Brinker writes about his "historic stock market sell signal in January, 2000." The market then declined 49%. Brinker continues: "Marketimer reinvested all of our model portfolio cash reserves on our March 11, 2003 buy signal...." Now for the rest of the story: Firstly, Brinker does not mention that his 2000 sell signal was for only 65%. Second, he does not mention that he repeatedly advised subscribers to sink up to half of those 65% cash reserves into QQQ (in October 2000), and QQQ lost almost 70% of value. So all those cash reserves could have been as little as 30 - 35%....
REMEMBER THE 2008-2009 BEAR MARKET THAT BRINKER MISSED...Honey here: While Brinker bragged about making an "historic sell signal" in 2000, he neglected to mention that there was a worse bear market five years LATER that he rode down fully invested. And shockingly, he gave subscribers buy-signals all the way to the bottom.
Brinker's third-hour guest was Jeff Connaughton: The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins
Jeffchristie's Moneytalk Final Exam Question:
Today Bob Brinker said the word sequester meant dysfunctional in a language he studied in secondary school. That language is:
A) Swahili.
B) Greek.
C) Latin.
D) Klingon.
Answer
San Francisco, Ca. KSFO 560: 1-4pm (KSFO archives Moneytalk Free on Demand for seven days after broadcast. You can download and listen on the go.)
San Francisco, Ca. KSFO 560: 1-4pm (KSFO archives Moneytalk Free on Demand for seven days after broadcast. You can download and listen on the go.)
42 comments:
Republican Mitt Romney, in his first television interview since he lost November's presidential election, said a failure to connect with minority voters doomed his bid for the White House.
"We weren't effective in taking my message primarily to minority voters—to Hispanic-Americans, to African-Americans, other minorities," Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, told Fox News in an interview that aired Sunday. "That was a real weakness."
rasputin (again): So I start looking for the Steven Brill article Brinker referenced. It's in Time magazine and runs 26,000 words. I'm forgetting if Brinker liked the article. I think he did. It looks like Brill is focusing on "rate setting" among doctors and hospitals. Essentially, it's wage and price controls. Just what we need - more government involvement. When did government intrusion result in any decline in prices? Sounds like a backdoor effort leading to a single-payer (.gov) system. Are hospitals raking in profits? The answer is "No!" Reimbusement for doctors and hospitals is largely dictated by insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid anyway.
Hi Ras,
Yes, Bob Brinker liked the Steven Brill article so much he said he was going to try to get him on the show.
Brinker usually likes government intervention in almost everything -- oh, except when they go after his "high-earner" income.
The following hour, in announcement fashion, Brinker said that he wanted to make it clear that he did not agree with Druckenmiller's claim that seniors were stealing from future seniors. It was clear to me that he had received calls from some outraged seniors.
Well all Social Security and Medicare amount to is legalized slavery (same with public education and public pensions). People should, at a minimum, accept eh fact they are enslaving future generations.
tfb
I just found this blog. I listened to money talk today and found Bob Brinker to be extremely misleading. I was googling to see if he was a liberal. He kept saying the budget has stayed the same since 2009. I think that was because of the stimulus that got added to the baseline that year. He would not answer the question about an automatic increase each year with the budget. I got so sick of his slanting of the info. that I turned the radio off before the guest speaker. Just my 2 cents.
"Well all Social Security and Medicare amount to is legalized slavery (same with public education and public pensions). People should, at a minimum, accept eh fact they are enslaving future generations." tfb
Social Security and public education are "enslaving" future generations?
Gimme a break! How silly can you be?
Old Taxpayer
I heard him say on a program a few months ago that he was a "registered independent".
MikeE
Bob Brinker told his guest that no one in Washington has addressed the problem that we face with Medicare. Sorry Bob but your statement is just NOT TRUE. The Paul Ryan budget did contain a plan to reform Medicare. Here is proof that it did.
Chris Matthews Favorite Campaign Ad Paul Ryan Murdering Granny
Bob, you showed Moneytalk listeners that you are just another LOW INFORMATION VOTER. Stick to finance Bob and leave politics to the professionals.
To Old Taxpayer:
Social Security enslaves the younger generation by requiring mandatory contributions, which go right out the door to pay for current recipients. And Congress can change the rules of the game if they so choose: The "promise" of a future benefit is not a contract between the gov't and the citizen. Monthly investments of what now goes to the gov't for Soc Security would benefit the individual more, by creating wealth.
Public school systems in many major cities are run for the benefit of the unionized teachers and staff. These beneficiaries fight against voucher programs because they would undercut their monopolies. Families who would like to send their children elsewhere, using a voucher cannot. The student has to stay on the public school "plantation."
And taxpayers are obligated to support this system, like it or not.
tfb posted the notion of these two programs enslaving young people, and he can speak for himself, but I wanted to weigh in with my thoughts on it.
-- Frankj
FrankJ,
Did you read my last email last night?
Frankj,
Tx for you comments but I'm not still not convinced.
You are saying that you don't like what taxes, including FICA, are going for and that's fine. You may be right...or not.
But by that logic, ALL future taxes you disagree with must be considered a form of "enslavement".
That's fine too but it's a fringe position I would expect from Rand Paul or his equally nutty daddy.
I guess you can always "Go Galt" but I'm not sure how that works.
Old Taxpayer
HB: Yes, and I sent you the correct file this morning.
(For Inquiring Minds, I was only able to listen to the first part of the 3rd hour interview, and did not have time for a write up, so offered to send Miss HB my raw notes on it. But I mistakenly attached last week's write up.)
-- Frankj
MikeE, you are right that Bob Brinker said he is a registered independent. His favorite politician seems to be New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has praise him on numerous occasions. Here is what he said right here on Moneytalk back on 21 September 2008:
"....I recommended to John McCain right here on Mneytalk that he select Michael Bloomberg...On day one, Michael Bloomberg could be president of the United States. It's a no-brainer. I gave the advice prior to the convention. John McCain completely ignored it. So I'm not happy...."
As to whether you consider Brinker to be a liberal or a conservative, that would depend on where you see Mr. Bloomberg on that spectrum.
Honey's Moneytalk Summary
FrankJ said: "Social Security enslaves the younger generation by requiring mandatory contributions, which go right out the door to pay for current recipients."
I agree, but what is being overlooked is that the older generation was also enslaved.
Indeed, the minute that FDR got the Social Security Act started, EVERYONE was enslaved.
It was never a choice, except for politicians and many government employees -- who are more equal "pigs" than the average worker.
has anyone ever called or emailed his help desk?
I have never received more than a 1 word response from his desk clerk taking markettimer subscriptions......asking for a more detailed response.......all i received was continued silence.
I was told bob does not respond to emails, as staff members do so, and never satifactorily explained his recent portfolio changes, which to this long time subscriber is problematic.
Old Taxpayer:
You said the following in response to my post:
"You are saying that you don't like what taxes, including FICA, are going for and that's fine. You may be right...or not."
I think there is a better way, especially for the generation of young people, now coming up.
"But by that logic, ALL future taxes you disagree with must be considered a form of "enslavement".
If I lived in a city with a dysfunctional school district and I had to send my children to public schools because I did not have the means to send them to private school, and the education establishment had seen to it that a voucher system never got off the ground, then yes, I might very well feel enslaved and resent it every time I paid my property taxes. As would most thinking people, in my opinion.
Maybe the word "enslaved" was too much for you. Here are some alternatives: yoked, harnessed, indentured.
"That's fine too but it's a fringe position I would expect from Rand Paul or his equally nutty daddy."
So, mine is a "fringe" position, according to you -- and to discredit it, you connect me with two people you don't approve of. I don't think that works here, we were talking about SocSec and public schools.
Both have been discussed in the media extensively and the ideas mentioned here, are anything but fringe.
-- Frankj
My friend, Boca Pete posted this on Silicon Investor. He has given me permission to copy his best Brinker-writings here:
"It shocked me today when, during the first hour of today's Moneytalk Program, Brinker raised the question "are today's seniors 'stealing from today's younger people by getting "x" times Medicare Benefits more than they paid into the system before reaching Medicare eligibility?"!
THE ANSWER IN MY OPINION IS EMPHATICALLY "NO!"
- Seniors did not write the Medicare Law and the Tax Provisions supporting its' funding, GOVERNMENT DID!
- Seniors had no say in the DECISIONS not to adequately fund the medicare program over its existence, GOVERNMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING IT and ADJUSTING SUCH FUNDING TO CHANGING REALITIES (ie. people living longer, medical advances that extend life, ....)
- Seniors had no say in the DECISIONS to NOT ADEQUATELY FUND THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT and TO PRINT MONEY and DEBT TO MAKE UP FOR THE OVERSPENDING DIFFERENCE which led to INFLATION of MEDICAL COSTS.
- Seniors had no say in the GOVERNMENT DECISION TO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CONTROLS AGAINST and TO NOT ADEQUATELY ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST MEDICARE FRAUD that adds to increased costs.
And there are many more such reasons Seniors "are not steeling" from younger people.
TO RAISE SUCH AN ABSURD QUESTION IS A TYPICALLY DIVISIVE TACTIC of those of the LIBERAL "PROGRESSIVE" persuasion who some might see as continually obstructing comfronting the entitlement problem and coming up with a reasonable solution to it implemented over time to minimize the pain. I would have thought that Brinker had more sense than to have such a discussion that impliedly smears seniors on his program.
PATHETIC in my opinion!
P
"anonymous" wrote: "has anyone ever called or emailed his help desk?
I have never received more than a 1 word response from his desk clerk taking markettimer subscriptions......asking for a more detailed response.......all i received was continued silence.
I was told bob does not respond to emails, as staff members do so, and never satifactorily explained his recent portfolio changes, which to this long time subscriber is problematic."
Hiya,
Someone emailed me recently who had a similar experience trying to contact Bob Brinker.
I'll tell you the same thing I told him. Bob Brinker does not have to make himself available to subscribers. He is just too big to fail. :)
He has always cared very little for his subscribers, and in the past when he posted on message board "anonymously" expressed great contempt for them. They are just a slight cut above his "freeloading" audience, in his opinion.
However, I'd be curious to see I could answer the question you wanted to ask him. If you will post it, I will give it a try.
Thanks for the summary Honeybee. I often wonder how you can stomach listening to him week after week. I sure can't.
One correction. You wrote "Honey here: While Brinker bragged about making an "historic sell signal" in 2000, he neglected to mention that there was a worse bear market five years LATER that he rode down fully invested. And shockingly, he gave subscribers buy-signals all the way to the bottom.
That is not true. He gave buy signals near the top down to mid 800s but completely missed the 700s and 600s! See my just updated graphic Bob Brinker Buy Levels
Once the market made a "devilish low" at $666, he was more bearish there than at the very top as he removed the dollar cost average advice from his MT! When the market rose, he said to buy on a test of the low that never came. I don't think he got bullish with a new buy until the market rose from 666 to 1031 where he finally said again it was attractive for purchase... (I may have missed a few minor points but I'm pretty sure I recorded the important parts correctly when I made that graphic.)
BTW, congratulations on being added to the "Recommended Web Sites" list at my Brinker Fan Club Blog. Bob Brinker Jr. used to make a big stink out of this sort of recognition in emails to me. We sure know they still value links to this day.... :)
Keep up the good work!
The classic liberal(our Founding fathers were Classical Liberals, as am I) definition of slavery is:
When a man does not own the just fruits of labors he is enslaved.
Social Security, Medicare, Public School force a person to give a portion of their wages that benefit others to their own detriment.
There is no promise to pay social security, Medicare, and you do not directly benefit from the education of other's children. Pensions that are paid out of general reserves on a pay as you go are another form of enslavement where current generations obligate future generations to pay for things they did not benefit from.
On the other hand parks, sewer systems, water systems etc are things that span generations and therefore can be paid rightfully with bond issues that match their expected life.
And Frank essentially had my view correct.
regards...
tfb
Kirk wrote: "That is not true. He gave buy signals near the top down to mid 800s but completely missed the 700s and 600s!
LOL! What was I thinking? Of course, you are right. Bob Brinker finally capitulated in the March 2009 issue of Marketimer and said that he would be looking for the bottom. The bottom arrived about a week later.
It was really hilarious, but also tragic for anyone who actually believe that he was calling bottoms each time he issued a buy signal as the market kept DIVING.
Honey,
I really appreciate your comments on the Beehive Buzz.
Thank you very much for all your hard work.
Joy K
Well I am happy we have Social Security, Medicare and public schools.
Many old people on Social Security can't even make ends meet as it is. Can you imagine how many truly poor old people we would have if it were not for Social Security?
I read somewhere that the Congress STOLE every last dime that was in the Social Security fund and spent it on other things. $3 Trillion. Maybe it would help if they just put back that money that they stole.
Same thing goes for Medicare. We can't just let our poor old people die in the streets because they can't afford health insurance. We are the ONLY country in the civilized world who doesn't provide universal coverage for every citizen. If other countries can afford it, we can too.
Everybody here is talking about vouchers as a cureall. Well what happens when everybody just uses their vouchers to go to the good schools, doctors etc?
I am not in favor of war or armies so why should I have to pay for them? Same with roads, make them all toll roads with very high fees so you only pay if you drive.
And people with septic tanks and wells, shouldn't have to pay for sewers or water lines.
This is a society not a pick and choose cafeteria.
Go Galt or get out I say.
Talking about this being a good time for older folks to rebalance stocks into bonds, what no load, no transaction fee bond funds similar to Vanguard's VBISX and VIPSX are out there? I'm just trying to avoid the transaction fee of the Vanguard funds that's charged by my non Vanguard financial institution.
I read somewhere that the Congress STOLE every last dime that was in the Social Security fund and spent it on other things. $3 Trillion. Maybe it would help if they just put back that money that they stole.
There never was any safeguard or lock box or any other mechanism to keep social security funds separate from general revenue and being spent. It was not stolen, it is there in the form of IOUs. But why should your grandchildren be forced to pay back an IOU when you are the one who benefited from the so called stealing you identified?
To act as if you are somehow owed something by a future generation is ridiculous. Your generation spent the money on things other than social security. Essentially each dollar of social security tax collected was spent on candy and now that you at the candy you want your dollar back plus interest – how childish is that? And in order to get your dollar back plus interest you are willing to sell you grandchildren into slavery – nice job there.
And what is wrong with old people not being able to make ends meet? Of what particular value are they to society? Once you go from being a producer to a taker you are a drain on society – simple as that. And who says we cannot let old people die on the street? Why not? You have no right to be a burden to your fellow man. If you did not provide for yourself in your old age then that is your tough luck. Explain to me exactly what makes you or me or anyone so special we have an implicit right to be a burden to future generations? It is immoral. On the other hand terminating yourself so you do not burden others is honorable and should be commended.
tfb
"And what is wrong with old people not being able to make ends meet? Of what particular value are they to society? Once you go from being a producer to a taker you are a drain on society – simple as that. And who says we cannot let old people die on the street? Why not? "You have no right to be a burden to your fellow man. If you did not provide for yourself in your old age then that is your tough luck. Explain to me exactly what makes you or me or anyone so special we have an implicit right to be a burden to future generations? It is immoral. On the other hand terminating yourself so you do not burden others is honorable and should be commended."
Well tfb, I just hope you're older than most folks. Just being around you would be considered burdensome by many people I bet.
FICA
Break out the champagne! Dow hits new all-time high! I heard somone say once that "You can not afford to be out of this market for even a minute!".
The market seems to love "sequester". Why? Maybe because it's the only way we'll probably ever see true spending cuts. In any case, no need to analyze the cause. Just enjoy the results!
Liem said:
"Everybody here is talking about vouchers as a cureall. Well what happens when everybody just uses their vouchers to go to the good schools, doctors etc?"
Vouchers aren't a cure all, they are an alternative way for a family to spend that portion of its taxes that goes into the maw of the public school system.
You asked "what happens when EVERYBODY uses their vouchers to go to the good schools...?" Well then, at that point we declare the voucher program a success!
I think what you meant was, what happens when some kids go to voucher schools and others are "left behind?"
When public school administrators see those dollars leaving their system, they should figure out what they need to do to get those customers back, and keep the ones who haven't left yet.
Those who don't want any voucher- based choice are really advocating for shared misery by all, in a system overseen and forced upon them by the state.
-- Frankj
Liem:
You can educate yourself further about Soc Security at this very factual website.
The so-called lockbox is explained, and other aspects of SocSec. I agree with you, it would be nice if Congress could give the money back but it is not there to give back. Any backfilling will take place reduced spending or from the sale of Treasury bonds to meet obligations ... oh wait, they'll have to be repaid by working stiffs, including the younger generation.
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp
-- Frankj
To all,
My point is has been and remains, it is important to accept reality. SS and Medicare are pay as you go plans and the surplus they once enjoyed is no more and all we have are IOUs to be paid by the current and future generations. That you paid in and in theory should have earned a return on your contributions is not relevant, except to make you feel better when you enslave your children and grandchildren in order to pay you the benefits you may feel entitled to.
It is a harsh reality, but it is reality none the less. Do I wish it were this way, no I do not. But it is, what it is. Every SS check comes out of the pocket of those currently working.
It is a sad but ugly truth.
tfb
Frank, that was a great link.
A few areas really leapt out at me:
└ Government Promise
* At the outset of the Social Security program, the federal government published an informational pamphlet that stated the following about Social Security taxes:
And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.[48]
* Accounting for inflation, this promise equates to a maximum tax collection of $1,741 per person.[49]
* For 2013, the maximum payroll tax collection per person is $14,099 or eight times the promised maximum.[50]
* This figure does not include other taxes that are now used to fund Social Security, such as the tax on Social Security benefits (detailed here).
So it shows you how good any promise made to you by the Government is.
tfb (end part 1)
part 2
1) a person who earns $15,000/year will pay $86,000 in payroll taxes (employer and employee combined) over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $10,128 or 11.8% of his lifetime payroll taxes.
2) a person who earns $50,000/year will pay $285,000 in payroll taxes over 44 years of work. When she retires, her annual benefit will be $21,324 or 7.5% of her lifetime payroll taxes.
3) a person who earns $110,000/year will pay $627,000 in payroll taxes over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $31,260/year or 5.0% of his lifetime payroll taxes.[56]
* For workers who earned average wages and retired at the age of 65 in 1980, it took 2.8 years of receiving old-age benefits to recover the value of their payroll taxes (including interest). For workers who retired in 2003, it will take 17.4 years. For workers who will retire in 2020, it will take 21.6 years.[57] This assumes Social Security will have enough money to pay scheduled benefits for this entire period, which it is not projected to have.[58]
This shows how Social Security has always screwed over those who are productive in favor of those who are not. In the end it is simply another welfare program designed to redistribute wealth.
* Perception about Social Security benefits:
I am entitled to the money. It's my money. I've saved it.[190] [191]
* All taxes that have been paid into the Social Security system since its inception have already been (1) spent to pay for benefits, (2) spent to fund the administrative overhead of the program, or (3) loaned to the federal government.[192] [193] [194] [195]
* The website of United States Social Security Administration states:
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.… Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. ... Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn.…[196]
* In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.[197]
So much for people's sens eof entitlement.
* The assets of the Social Security program include all of the money it has loaned to the federal government.[211] [212] Even if this money is repaid with interest, it is projected that the Social Security Trust Fund will become exhausted in 2033,[213] and the program will have deficits every year thereafter into the foreseeable future.[214]
Wow - so even if every dime of Social Security contributions plus interest are accounted for it is still not able to pay the benefits. Think about that one for a bit.
* As of December 31, 2011, the U.S. government owes $2,679 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund. This equates to $8,565 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States or $22,572 per household.
...
* At the close of the federal government's 2011 fiscal year, the federal government had $60.9 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded Social Security/Medicare obligations. This equates to $195,140 for every person living in the U.S. or $513,380 per household
So nice, we put the chains of indenture on our children and grandchildren. Hence the slavery comment.
Thanks for the link FramkJ.
tfb
"This shows how Social Security has always screwed over those who are productive in favor of those who are not. In the end it is simply another welfare program designed to redistribute wealth.'
Just like progressive income tax which should be back where they were when Ike was president.
Top rate was 98% and the 1950s were just fine. Tax those rich folks again until they sqeal.
And one of my favorite facts from the website on Soc Security:
"In 1999, Republican Congressman Wally Herger sponsored a "lockbox" bill in the House of Representatives. This law would have restricted Congress from using money borrowed from the Social Security program to spend on other government programs. It passed the House by a vote of 416 to 12.[248]
* Senate rules allow for a "filibuster," in which certain votes can be blocked unless 60 of the Senate's 100 members agree to let it take place.[249] [250] In the Senate, Republicans attempted to bring this bill up for a vote, and it was blocked by a filibuster conducted by Democrats. All 55 Republicans voted to allow the bill to move forward. All but one of 45 Democrats voted to block the bill, and one Democrat did not vote.[251]"
Herger was from No. California. This fact is a good one to remember whenever a Democrat politician accuses the Republicans of wanting to destroy Social Security.
-- Frankj
Does anyone here watch Nightly Business Report? Tom Hudson was just dumped! CNBC apparently bought the program, kept Suzie Garob (who wouldn't?), but dumped Tom Hudson.
Apparently ratings were declining, but I don't think it was Hudson's fault. Anyway, I think that was a mistake, and I don't care much for
Tom's replacement. Any thoughts?
I'd like to make a comment about the current, very interesting discussion about Social Security.
Just because I allow all viewpoints here, does not mean that I agree with them all.
Dan - when did Kangas leave the show? Guess that was the time I last watched NBR. Didn't even know it was still on...
I miss W$W with Louis Rukeyser. Really enjoyed that show. Sorry to hear Marty Zweig just passed..
Old "Timer"
Old Timer,
Paul Kangas retired at the end of 2009. He made a guest appearance on the show in December of last year, when he once again was able to bid us "the best of good buys".
He was replaced by Tom Hudson, who held that spot until the first of this month when he bid us and Susie a classy farewell with no apparent hard feelings.
Lous Rukeyser was always entertaining, as were his guests, among them the always frowning, always worried Marty Zweig. Sorry to see them both go, but I guess nothing lasts forever.
- Dan G
"I'd like to make a comment about the current, very interesting discussion about Social Security...Just because I allow all viewpoints here, does not mean that I agree with them all."
Please tell us what you think about Social Security and Medicare HB?
???
Brinker talked about school choice recently, as it related to the high school he attended. He wanted to attend an exclusive private school run by the Christian Brothers. His parents didn't have the means to pay the tuition. Vouchers weren't an option back then but Bob got a 50% scholarship when he won a spelling bee. That left the remaining 50%. Bob said his aunt had set up a trust fund for the education of young sprouts in the Brinker family. Bob credited the education he received at this high school as a significant contributor to his success later in life. While Brinker didn't discuss vouchers, I am sure he would have welcomed one if his aunt didn't have the trust fund.
Here is a picture of that high school back in the days when Bob attended it.
Could Bob Brinker be one of the young sprouts we see in this picture?
Cumberland
Hi Dan.
I wrote about Tom's exit from NBR and posted his last words in this article: Tom Hudson Farewell Message NBR
I also posted the reason why also:
The format will remain the same. Tyler Mathisen of CNBC will anchor with Susie Gharib, the current co-anchor, who is under contract through 2013. The co-anchor Tom Hudson and the remaining staff of 18 will leave.
PBS withdrew its financial support of “Nightly Business Report” in 2011 and stopped distributing it. American Public Television now distributes the show to 180 stations and will continue to do so.
Ratings have drifted lower and the show’s sole financial underwriter, Franklin Templeton Investments, withdrew in August, leading to layoffs and the closing of the Chicago bureau.
I'm not sure why PBS withdrew support... maybe NBR was too "neutral" in how they presented the news and PBS only supports radical lefties with their donated funds.
"maybe NBR was too "neutral" in how they presented the news and PBS only supports radical lefties with their donated funds."
Well, you may be on to something there, Kirk!
Susie is great, but I don't care much for the new guy. He seems to be P.O.'d all the time! Tom had a pleasant attitude and was always smiling. Obviously he had to go!
Post a Comment