Reader’s Digest
In the recent edition of Reader’s Digest, there’s a section on surviving the economic crisis. One of the bullet points addresses the “gloom and doom” warnings on evaporating Social Security funds. Despite the coming shortfall, which both parties warn about, Reader’s Digest states, “Even in bleak economic scenarios, Social Security will probably pay you 65 to 80 percent of your currently promised benefits.” Talk about low expectations. Since when is getting back only 65% to 80% of your hard earned investment something to cheer about?
Their next solutions were even more telling. “And with some fairly modest changes- like raising the retirement age or increasing payroll taxes for anyone earning more than $250,000 annually- the system can be shored up for decades to come.” In other words, save the system by punishing the taxpayers.
Absent from their proposed solutions is an admonition to cut out of control government spending. Instead of raising retirement ages or increasing taxes on higher income workers, perhaps the government should drastically cut all the pork barrel spending. Perhaps it should cut excess spending, balance its budget, and start paying down national debt. Solutions like those offered by Reader’s Digest enable government profligacy and punish hard working Americans. Government spending, borrowing, and printing are leading to huge shortfalls in key programs.
On the other side of the coin, many conservatives claim that cutting taxes will solve most, if not all, of our economic ills. Tax cuts are great, but only if they are accompanied by spending cuts. The Bush Administration cut taxes, but it doubled the national debt, because the tax cuts were offset by huge increases in government spending.
Eric said:
“Despite the coming shortfall, which both parties warn about, Reader’s Digest states, “Even in bleak economic scenarios, Social Security will probably pay you 65 to 80 percent of your currently promised benefits.” Talk about low expectations. Since when is getting back only 65% to 80% of your hard earned investment something to cheer about?”
As long as it sounds like something an “expert” would say, the average individual would think they were “lucky” to have only lost that much. Most people are incredibly ignorant of the true nature of these massive schemes into which they are forced to pay into, and sadly even stake much of their financial futures in the hope for the payoff later.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
marymackenzie said:
I’m going to get my SS when i turn 62 in November. Before they raise the age limit, those bastards! I’m ready to march on Washington DC. Tell me when we’re goin’!
April 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Kristina Horvath said:
Currently in Europe, most country has a negative or zero percent population growth every year. Although we are still a young country, currently the population is made up of around 60% who pay taxes and 40% who live off of the govt. This stat, by the next election, is expected to flip to 40% paying taxes and 60% living off the govt.
If the trend proves correct, it would be unlikely that SS will be around for my generation (y gen) or the generations after me. But no one wants to be the one to come out and tell Americans, sorry you paid all this $$ into SS, but you get a big fat nothing!!! If the funds were to go into an individual acct with my name on it, and could only be withdrawn with my consent — I would give the system more credit.
MaryMackenzie- Congrats on retirement!!! Hope you enjoy all your time.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Cherie Overbaugh said:
Reader’s Digest is in bed with Obama Administration. I saw it coming during the months ahead of the last election. Articles very PRO Liberal and praising Obama…and very negative toward McCain. Each month it had articles about the candidates. I didn’t like seeing that but I now see their TRUE COLORS.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Cherie Overbaugh said:
Re: Mary..by all means take your social security when you turn 62..
It used to take 17 years to use up what you contributed…but they have the formula figured out that many will not live to see those 17 years (my husband was one of them) and you take less each month but with cost-of-living each year it is best to take it at 62.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Mark Veil said:
I agree that Obama’s agenda is to siphon off billions from the American taxpayer and send it to the third world. He is going to turn the U.S. into an empovershed Cuba.
There is another interesting attack on American freedom, also very connected and important and I urge you to look into this now and take it very seriously.
Americans are being singled out and tortured domestically through gang stalking, having their premises illegally entered, their property vandalized, their private information accessed. They are then subjected to torture by the use of “DEWS” –advanced technological weapons that operate over a distance. This is real. I thought it was completely incredible when I first discovered it.
You can read about it under “covert harrassment” on the internet. Some of it will seem very extreme and unbelievable, like science fiction. However, if you don’t believe it and take action now, you will find out that it is true and too late to do anything.
Of course, “harrassment” is the wrong term. Rape of mind and body, vicious torture leading to extreme illness and murder would be more accurate.
Thanks for any help with this and good luck!
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 am