Free Ebook.


« Star Money Articles and Carnivals for the Week of July 19 | Main | FMF on Facebook »

July 23, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't count on it when I do various calculations, but the fact is that I'm in my mid-30's and I expect that it's going to be around in some way or another, barring some sort of government revolution or upheaval. People who have been in the workforce for 10 years or more have probably paid a substantial amount into the system, and I just don't see any politician ever saying 'Oh, well, sorry about that, you will get none of that back.' I expect what we'll get is a pittance, but it will still be at least something.

Considering FMF is not counting on any social security, I am definitely not counting on any since I am at least 15 years younger! I just wish they would allow us to stop contributing, but I know that isn't going to happen since we are supporting the people who are currently receiving it (or will be soon).

I don't expect any SS and am trying to saving accordingly. However that being said it is hard to say what will happen in the next 30 years and what it will look like then. I'm hoping for some changes to the system such as removing the income limit for contributions, means testing on the back-end, and for it to be called what it really is and that's a tax so people stop expecting it to be there.

Of course it would be very nice to take that money and invest it myself as Rob mentioned. I mean 6.2% (or 12.4% w/employer match) can go a long ways in securing my retirement.

I agree with PMT. I've been in the work force nearly 25 years now and when I consider how much of my income and employers' money has gone into this program, I wish I'd had the ability to take that cash and invest it as I deemed best, opting out of this whole Ponzi scheme.

Wasn't this even suggested in the Clinton years? But I'm sure the government doesn't feel it can trust individuals to save this money wisely.

I anticipate small return on my money for this program. I was even self-employed for years, meaning I carried the full weight of those contributions.

Although I think I'll get some small stipend at the end, it will hardly be enough to live on. It was a good idea at the time the program was initiated, but has since been interpreted as a full pension for all retirees. I know many who simply assume SS is their retirement fund and I anticipate their getting a nasty surprise when it comes their time to collect the checks.

I'm not planning on receiving anything from Social Security either, but if I do get something, that would be great. Given our country's bleak budget picture, there are going to have to put changes in a number of places, of which social security will be one. I can't imagine that Social Security will continue in its present form, but I also can't see that it will be abolished. I think it will be modified so that the retirement aged is rasied for people under a certain age. However, given that, from what I've read, the main problem budget problem is not with Social Security, but with Medicare. Will we be able to fix that without riots?

@Leigh I don't think Clinton ever talked about privatizing SS but Bush certainly did and tax payers, congress people and senators got all up in arms and it was pretty much dead before it even started. We're stuck in the past on this issue and are not forward looking...sad but true. People want to hear save SS, not have personal responsibility and secure your own future.

@Brian S. Did you know that the original retirement age for SS was chosen because life expectancy at that time was not such that people were expected to live much longer than 65? Hmmmm now we're planning retirements well into the 90s guess that kinda strains the ability of SS to be paid out.

I see another round of stretching the 'retirement' age above current levels while increasing payroll deductions. The biggest money saver for Social Security will be a means testing to eliminate payments to those folks receiving too much retirement income. Another serving of income redistribution, anyone?


The American people need to fight vigorously for every benefit to which they are legitimately entitled.

This thinking of "Oh, I don't expect to receive anything" could become policy in the blink of an eye, given the attitude that so many people seem to hold.

Look! You paid for it, all your life, through the teeth, and it is therefore your ENTITLEMENT.

I don't expect to get anything for SS but my mom does and given that she has not saved much and her pension is not indexed the inflation, as she gets older SS will be more and more of her income.

Not including it in my calcs. I can even forget about it and get surprised to remember: "oh yeah, maybe there will even be some social security. huh."

F Morana - Unfortunately, that attitude is part of the reason that SS is going down. The rest of the world's ability to produce, and demand for wages and quality of life, is going up, and that will have some effect on the US, at least in the 100-year short-term. Putting undue pressure on politicians to support this has led to mandates we can't possibly fund.

FMF readers will recognize that dependence on Christ isn't about everything *except* money. We aren't promised tomorrow, much less an "entitlement".

This is why we should all be highly concerned about the rate of increase of our national debt and the fact that we haven't balanced our budget since 2000. Yet in spite of all this, new unfunded programs, we cannot afford, have been passed in the areas of Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, Prescription Drug Plans, Extension of Healthcare benefits, Unemployment Benefit Extensions, and many others.
The readers of this blog are generally all believers of living within their means, and yet our government continues to print new money all the time. All of this new printed money is sold as US Treasury Bonds for which our government pays interest. Experts say that within 5-6 years that interest will be the largest item in the federal budget, surpassing the defense budget for the first time.
How much longer before something breaks? That is the big question.

We all know what would happen to us if we could no longer meet our financial obligations, and it's a terrifying thought for most of us.

We now have a disfunctional government where the two main parties are diametrically opposed over what should be done and we can see no solution in sight.
One side want more stimulus money spent to create jobs and help those in the most dire need - the other side want austerity programs and huge entitlement cuts. We are at an impasse and our only solution as individuals is to look after #1 and hope for the best.
Unfortunately there isn't a country in the whole world that you can currently point to and say, "That's the way we should be going, what they're doing is working."

I am a long way off from retirement but I have always looked at Social Security as being the icing on the cake at the point I retire. I remain optimistic that it will be around in some form or the other at that time but I will treat it just as supplemental income. My assumption is that I will probably gift the equivalent of my SS to my kids each year. I would much rather see them benefit from the money while I am alive vs. after I am long gone.

I'm not planning on Social Security, and I can't think of anyone my age (late 30s) who is. Most of my friends of a similar age decided back in high school (or earlier) that Social Security would either be insolvent, or only available as a stop gap for the poorest people by the time we retire.

While part of me is annoyed about paying into a system for which I am not likely to receive a direct personal benefit, for the most part it doesn't bug me. For starters, Social Security provided money that allowed my grandmother to live in her own home until she died. Secondly, it currently provides a supplemental income to my parents which enables them to cover their bills, stay in their own home, and still have some money left over for non-essential expenses (and not have to move in with me!).

I could never come up with the same money to replace this out of my own pocket. If I’ve done the math correctly, in general it would take at least 3 years of my contributions to cover the yearly income of one person - so working 45 years provides the income for 15 years for just one person. Grandma lived passed 80, and I hope my parents collect more than 15 years of SS as well. Given that, it's hard for me to argue that I won't see a benefit from Social Security. It benefits me now through care of people I love.

Aside from that, I also tend to regard it as a mandated 6% charitable donation to support the poor, disabled, and elderly :-> Hard to argue about helping them, even though I know some people scam the system and get money out without deserving or needing it. I know there will be changes to raise the retirement age and implement means testing in the future, and that seems appropriate to me.

My parents receive $3k/month from SS and $2K/month from investment income and this is quite enough for them. No, I don't think SS is in great shape for the next generation, but I don't see why this stat is that scary. I find it hard to believe they will stop paying those already retired or reduce benefits by anymore than their inflation calculations may effectively do over time.

No, it's going to be much easier for them to just continue to increase the retirement age for those far from it and raise (hide) taxes to cover it when that time comes (which is about here). I have no doubt a 20 year old may be 60 years from retirement, but so be it.

Another factor is that the first of the Baby Boomers reach 65 in 2011 which means that the population bulge that they caused has to start passing through the SS pipeline. Since life expectancy keeps increasing, as it has for centuries, it's obvious that changes are needed in the age limits for beneficiaries. It takes more backbone than our politicians have to do this since their horizon only stretches as far as their next election.

On a purely historical note, one of the best functioning political systems in the world is the one that Singapore instituted in 1959 when they received their independance from Britain. Admittedly they are a very tiny country of 5 million people and had the opportunity to form their own system in 1959 after years of British rule, followed by Japanese occupation during WWII. They basically have one political party called the People's Action Party, Lee Kuan Yew was the prime minister from 1959 to 1990 and ran the country as a benevolent dictator, with very strict rules and policies. Today it has a growing economy, a very low unemployment rate, and the greatest proportion of millionaire households in the world and is one of the four "Asian Tigers" which are Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. They also have the best airline I have ever flown on and the most beautiful airport, complete with a beautiful indoor orchid garden and huge Koi pond.

"Experts say that within 5-6 years that interest will be the largest item in the federal budget, surpassing the defense budget for the first time."

Old Limey, can you give us a reference for this statement? What experts are making this prediction? Given that in fiscal year 2009, defense spending was 23 percent of federal spending and net interest was 5 percent, it is very unlikely that interest could overtake defense as the largest budget item in only 5-6 years.

I also don't expect much, if anything. The problem was in the way that these systems were implemented. Instead of the money being invested in the markets, it is operated instead as a legalized ponzi scheme: Current investors pay out to previous investors.

It is all good and well to talk about your "entitlement", but unfortunately, your money is already long gone and spent. The only way you'll ever get anything is if people are still willing to take a chunk out of their paychecks to support retired workers in the future.

I plan like I'm not going to get it, but I will show up to rallies in the meantime when they try to do away with it.

I do think the age needs to move up though. I also think it shouldn't be anyone's main source of income.

1) That's a depressing income.
2) It is intended to supplement, not provide.

I am certainly not counting on social security at all. I find it interesting how anyone in their late 30's (my age group) or younger can rationalize doing so. Plan to make it on your own.

Social security is not the issue. Healthcare is a much bigger one. I'd tradeoff subsistence healthcare for free or near free at age 55 for no social security at 67-70 etc. It is a problem because older unemployed people can't retire because they have no good insurance. They have to pay through the nose for a policy and that puts too much strain on anyones nest egg.

@Jlh
The prominent expert that I heard make the statement about the interest on the national debt surpassing the defense budget in 5-6 years was Niall Ferguson.
Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

He is a very frequent guest on two programs I watch which are Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN on Sunday mornings, and Charlie Rose interviews on several PBS stations. Niall Ferguson has also been interviewed recently on MarketWatch's Tech Ticker program. He is not a commentator that tries to put the positive spin on economic data that the general public like to hear. Being a professor and not having to run for elected office or win popularity contests he speaks his mind and states his predictions as he sees them. There are those that call him the Professor of Doom.

Another economist that publishes a free weekly newsletter containing reports from well known experts such a Niall Ferguson and many others is John Mauldin's "Outside the Box" letter. Recent letters have talked about the "Debt Supercycle" and the "End Game" and are extremely sobering. They discuss facts and data that people that have a vested interest in being cheerleaders in encouraging the public to keep putting their money into the stockmarket don't want them to hear, but instead want to live in a dream world where the big investment banks become wealthier and wealthier.

Another piece of news that I just read on my home page when I logged on was that the White House is now predicting a budget deficit of $1.47 Trillion. Ferguson's comments were predicated on a rapidly rising National Debt and also on the expectation that interest rates on US Treasuries are not going to always be at today's unprecedented low levels. Just take $1.47 Trillion and extrapolate it for 5-6 years and who knows what the deficit will be, while hopefully the defense budget should shrink as the two wars finally end - we hope.

Deficits on the rise!
2007 $0.162 Trillion
2008 $0.455 Trillion
2009 $1.400 Trillion
2100 $1.470 Trillion estimated

That "Social Security was the major source of income (providing at least 50 percent of total income) for 53 percent of aged beneficiary couples and 73 percent of aged non married beneficiaries"is not really surprising at all to me. According to The Pension Right Center website http://www.pensionrights.org/policy/stats/stats_sources.html The average monthly Social Security benefit paid to retired workers in 2010 is $1,168.60, or $14,023.20 a year. To earn that much in income from income investments at todays interests rates would require a very sizable nest egg. ( You'll need a $1,087,070 income- producing investment portfolio, to receive an income of $14,023 per year at a yield of 1.29% ) That is way more moolah than most current retires have managed to save up over their working lives. So since most people earn much less than this in investment income per month by definition, SS would then make up a significant percentage portion of their monthly income.

@crashdamage1957
My wife and I both took SS at age 62, her income was far lower than mine and together we receive $2,085/mo from SS.
I am currently earning an average of 4.563% tax deferred interest from CD investments and an average 4.844% tax exempt income from muni bond investments. In our case $2,085/month would require that we own $516,515 of muni bonds in our Trust account. Alternatively we would need $548,323 of CDs in our IRA accounts to generate the same income as SS. You are thus quite correct that SS is a significant benefit.
What makes it even a much greater benefit than my calculations show is that I bought our CDs and Muni bonds in October 2008 when CDs could be obtained with interest rates as high as 5.5%. In order to stay within FDIC limits at each institution we had to buy them at quite a few different banks so they are not all at the highest interest rate.

Likewise muni bonds have appreciated about 27.5% since October 2008 so it is now impossible to find high yielding ones, like the ones I own, selling at par value or below, and if you plan on holding them to maturity you will only receive par value. If I bought the bonds that I own at today's prices then I would be facing a large capital loss when they matured. Thus you are correct in using a low interest rate for return because that's what new offerings of CDs and Muni Bonds are paying.

Bottom line - SS benefits are quite significant to most current retirees.

Now consider employees that retired in 1992 like we did. At that time many companies also provided pensions. In fact my compant discontinued pensions shortly after I retired.
In our case our pensions amount to 158% of our SS income, so the combination of SS + Pensions, alone provides a very comfortable retirement for a great many people our age. Our son has a good job but NO pension so he is going to have a difficult time when it's time for him to retire, fortunately he has parents that will ultimately leave him quite a bit of money. It appears to me that each successive generation is going to have a tougher time in retirement than the generation before them. That's not the way economic progress is meant to work.

Even before I became aware of the debate about SS's future, I planned my retirement without it. I see no reason to change now.

What's the worst that can happen? I retire and find out I saved way to much? That I'll be forced to leave something to my kids?

I believe that those born between 1970 & 1990 will really get screwed when it comes to Social Security because of the voting demographics at the time this group wants to retire. I am in this group, as I am born in 1973.

I happened to be lucky enough to move outside the US in 2006 in a very well paying job. As such, I don't contribute to Social Security while working overseas and I don't get credit for money earned during this time as well. On another note, I'm not eligible for 401K and opening an IRA doesn't help me as my overseas taxes are much higher than my US taxes so I don't owe Uncle Sam anything at the end of the year anyway... Just have to save the good old fashioned way.

-Mike


The older generations have been getting a great deal as they are getting back more than they put in. However, with future generations, that is not the case as fewer people (per beneficiary) are contributing to SS. Returns from SS are false as they are not really based on a typical ROI. Once again, we see a situation where future generations are paying for the past and present.

Despite people thinking SS is a great program, it really isn't as it is not sustainable in the long run without taking advantage of others (in this case, our future generations).

JimL has it in a nutshell. When FDR started SS 75 years ago, in 1935 the payroll tax was 2% of the first $3000 or a total of $60/year. In 1960 it was 6%, today it's 12.4%, and it needs to be at 18% to continue funding current benefits.
SS is a Pay As You Go (PAYGO) system, not a savings or investment system.
In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree.
Today there are 3 workers for every retiree - how about ten years from now with people living longer and families getting smaller?
The first of the baby boomers start retiring at 65 next year.
Get the Picture! It's unsustainable. In order to keep up the benefits as we go forward it has no choice other than becoming just another government program that runs at a huge deficit.

America is living far beyond its means, and the sub prime loans that brought about the current recession and mess that we're in is a typical example of it. Yesterday GM announced that it was restarting providing sub-prime loans to car buyers.
What will it take to end this madness? People and the government have to start living within their means.
If you cannot afford something then you shouldn't be able to buy it and credit should only be given to people that have proven that they can manage their debts - but of course that's not going to happen.

Let me give you another example.
My ex-son-in-law's mother has never worked a day in her life. Her husband started a small company after WWII, it grew into a large company, and he is now an ultra wealthy retiree living in Las Vegas. His wife gets a SS check every month that is half of what he gets. She likes to say that this check is her gambling money for her daily visits to the casino. Of course there's nothing illegal about it, it's just the way the system was designed.

I think I've mentioned this before - SS was not planned with the idea it would be self supporting. I listened to a man on the radio being interviewed. He was one of FDR's team that thought up SS. They never figured it would support itself. They figured that eventually it would have to come out of General Revenue. However, our dear leaders decided to do more and more things with the SS money and also got so into debt that it is fairly improbable they will be able to fix it.

Another however, though, is that one of the biggest blocks of voters are the senior citizens and our representatives do not want to blow their votes away. I guess we are stuck in the middle.

And, I am in the 50% or so with SS. My SS is $1163 a month and my 2 small pensions are $1320. Since I am receiving my late husband's pension, I am trying for all I'm worth to save it. I know prices will not be going down over my lifetime. (And I am 73 at this time.)

What helped me the most was that my husband and I each took a smaller pension in order to leave it to the surviving spouse. And, luckily for me, when I turned in the info about the death of my husband, my personal pension went back up to what it would have been. It was only about $40 a month, but over the rest of my life it could be a substantial sum. Since all this spending started with no way to pay it, I am reconsidering my plan to live to 123. In 50 years there may be no money available for anyone.

Sure. Why not? I do expect SS to be there when I retire in 20 years or so, and I expect it to keep on being there until I die. SS is the third rail in politics, and it's difficult to figure out a reform that would "work"--ie save significant money and also take care of the old and infirm.

Since most people rely on it during retirement, if you eliminated social security you'd end up with impoverished seniors that you'd still have to take care of via welfare or something similar. So you wouldn't save much, actually.

Same thing if they changed SS to make it payout only to those who really needed it. You wouldn't save much money in the end since most people have not saved enough or anything for their old age.

I consider SS, like one poster above said, to be a minimal type of forced charity to support the old, sick, widowed, and orphaned. Eliminate social security and you'd still have to support these people--you can't have old people and orphans starving to death in the USA, you know. As it is, they can afford to buy cat food etc and keep themselves more or less at some minimal level until they die even if they didn't have the foresight to save even a cent. Not awesome, but a safety net that I think every society has to have. Not sure how we'd do without it, actually.

Same with medicare. If you eliminate this huge and expensive program, the hospitals and all the rest of us would still be paying because we don't like leaving people to die on the street when they're sick.

The war bills, however, are an optional expense IMO and apparently we aren't even making the middle east more stable and safe for our needed oil supply. Stop the wars and that will help balance the budget far more than if we eliminated social security.

I'm very disappointed in the way our US government is handling SS and Medicare. Instead of focusing on these problems, they keep introducing new expensive program that will cost us even more money :(

Our problems are so broad, almost every government program/expenditure needs to be cut. We also need to change the way people think. Americans now rely on the government instead of looking out for their own long term. The average American feels that they are owed a nice new car, a big house, a nice vacation,etc., but then relies on Social Security to play a major role in retirement, when they should be saving more themselves.

I don't know about all of you, but I am getting tired of hearing people say that "the government spend more money on this program or that program". When it comes down to it, the government is really us (our tax dollars). It is the same as saying "My neighbors should be paying more money into this particular government program so that I can get more money".

The day has come where we are need to say that it is time to tighten our budgets and make sacrifices across the board. Let's stop making our future generations pay for everything.

I hope I'm not too late to put this comment in. I had an idea that might not be feasible, but might be sensible.

Since polticians fight so much over which program to cancel or lessen or whatever, how about we put them all on the table and cut everyone 10% or so. That way no one in Congress could complain that their programs would be left out and every single American would have to, in some way, tighten their belt. Could we all take a 10% cut in SS, Medicare, welfare, war dept., etc.?


Penn and Teller have a show on Showtime called Bullsh*t about "Multi-Level Marketers" and had some interesting comments on Social Security about how it's a pyramid scheme which is destined to fail. I've always maxed out on 401k savings and don't include it in any of my retirement plans. Until politicians are in Social Security instead the golden parachute they designed for themselves maybe they'd care more about it.

and one more point to consider; this nugget from www.ssa.gov History of Social Insurance in America :

In January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

(too paraphrase the late Garret Morris 'Chico Esquelas ' SNL character. " Social Security was very good to Ida May Fuller!"

I know, when SS was first envisioned, 62 was the retirement age as the average life span was 65, but it just figures that the first recipient lived to be 100, doesn't it?

what a bunch of clueless and gutless as well as heartless people what a freaking disgrace very few people get out of SS what they paid into it. SS is a megar income and if stinken employers in this country wheren't so freaking greedy and the industies so greedy maybe poor people could save money to retire and not live in the forced poverty and oppression SS puts them in. There is no buy power in our nation and most crap you buy is just that crap, garbage that fills our dumps contaiminated water, air, soil. what needs to happen in America all those who judge the disabled and edlers need to be put in their shoes see how you like it then and if you think your income should be lowered or cut out totally get a taste of your own medicines you wish to pour down the throats of others. People pay their own SS its Called a FICA Tax better known as the same thing as a insurance plan, your money is to be invested but the sad fact is our government steels that money acts like its theirs or as some of you say as tax payers its your money, No its the tax payers that paid the money they aren't getting your money they are getting their own freaking money they paid into their own damn self. It you yahoos want to moan and grown about anything it should be how poorly that money has been used for other uses besides the SS programs it was designed and intended and how poorly its been invested causing those who come time to collect to live in poverty and oppression, yes correct it was not designed to be a full retirement check, but thats when jobs where not so damned greedy and cheap and offered retirement to their long labored faithful employees no days your lucky if you get full time work or a job last 5 yrs before the lay you off, fire you for a lame reason or shift to other locations or even go under. Don't sit there at your computers blaming workers who worked all their lives or those who became disabled often at the fault of a 3rd party that your freaking corrupt freaking government, state, or businesses or all 3 combined cheated that disabled person to not be held accountable for the ill and evil as well as demonic acts/actions in the name of profits and greed for themselves. Bottom Line had SS been better invested such as are private insurance funds which pay far better when you become disabled or reach retirement both segments of society would live far better than poverty and oppression. But FICA must be paid like taxes you have no choice in the matter and over the years the raises in FICA did no meet the cost of living or medical because our leadership was to busy lying to the public and playing politics with your lives and money. The losses should be taken from theirs and their lobbist pocket, estates and what ever it takes to be sure people who paid their FICA get their benefits, and that the at least are just above the federal poverty levels not well below. And thats a bunch of pure bull they did not project you to live past 65 people lived to be 80, 90 and even past 100 yrs old very few people died sooner ask your grand parents and great grand parents how old their parents and brothers and sisters lived to be. Wars jobs that where high hazards took lives before their time not natural illness or age, toxic waste began the taking of more lives and crippling at sooner ages and caused SSI to be formed which that money does not come from FICA birth defects and many illnesses are from toxic waste and their by products give the devil his due because he has sure escaped you and gotten away with out paying his due to you because of corrupt politics its as simple as that. Many workers long ago had leadership said look cost of living and medical is going to be this high, being few jobs offer steady full time work or retirements and buying power is low we are going to need to raise your FICA to keep you from living in poverty or oppression when you retire or become disabled. Then there is the little known fact of a matter of law SSA or any Gov or State agency has the right to sue for damages of any at fault 3rd party for damages its rarely done and when it is the state or gov just makes the victim a victim all over by suing for themselves using the victim but gaining nothing for the victim. There is a lot more to the SSA and Gov than meets the eye or the lame rumors people, media, and interenet spread.

The comments about debt they are pretty correct credit cards and politics dont work, our leadership can not even balance a freaking budget which nearly all high school drops, mentally ill or mentally handicap folks can at least balance a budget yet our leadership can't. The so called War on terror like the drug war both bad jokes, the war on terror that money would have been far less needed to be spent on tightened security and boarders and the flow of international traffic into the US. Which in turn would have reduced at least the flow of drug traffic as well killing two birds with one stone. The middle east is no more stable than it was before the war started iol prices reflected at the pumps are just outragous and non of this took place until after the sold nearly every American family a gas hog SUV and Oil Barrens gained control of the White House and with all the high tech toys Bin Laden is still at large and a band of 10 or 20 thousand terrorist still keep the US and Its Military force living in fear of more attacks and are yet to be totally defeated making our military look like a weak joke. While we give free trade even US Grants to China and former USSR for products that are pure junk and they both profit handsomly and use that profit to built up their military might China with 12 million strong total armed forces, USSR with 220 million strong along with their 8 other allies eact 8 to 10 million strong, while we have 2 1/2 million half or more scattered about the world our allies 5 we can really trust none having more than 5 million or so strong, so do the Math each US Military person to engage the USSR alone would have to take out over 1000 troops each alone, its never going to happen. Then whats left Nukes Hitler and the Nazis win the 2nd WW years after the fact from the Mexican Stand off they created by giving the knowledge of nukes to both their enemies who also are enemies. When the nukes get set off we all loose only the select get to hit the bunkers or even space and a chance to live on. At least nations had Bomb Shelters during the 2nd WW and even kids did drills in schools to prepare for such a bad event now days they dont even bother there is no safety net in this critical time for you the tax payer would paid for and built the safety nets for the select few. When are you going to wake up and figure out your being used as nothing more than expendable slaves to benefit a select few. Check the public records on US Grants going overseas its billions in just a few pages with 100's of pages to go before the total is even close to being actual we maybe giving away trillions to other nations to fix things such as roads which we can't afford to fix here go figure. When you want to know whats wrong wih America look at leadership and if you want the damages paid for there is who should pay those who caused all this damage to our once great Nation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Disclaimer


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. Per FTC guidelines, this website may be compensated by companies mentioned through advertising, affiliate programs or otherwise. All posts are © 2005-2012, Free Money Finance.

Stats