Peak Oil News and Message Boards

As PrestonSturges said "Every cabinet level agency has federal agents with arrest authority" and that means bullets too. Conspiracy theory's are a waste of our time and this sites image. There are plenty of real problems brewing that deserve attention like oil depletion rates.

steam_cannon wrote:As PrestonSturges said "Every cabinet level agency has federal agents with arrest authority" and that means bullets too. Conspiracy theory's are a waste of our time and this sites image. There are plenty of real problems brewing that deserve attention like oil depletion rates.

Yeah, agree with steamy, this has already been debunked; the purchase is related to target practice.

Besides if it was for death panels and such, they'd need a heluva lot more bullets unless they expect the thinner elderly to stand close to each other to save Uncle Sam a buck fifty.

Who are they planning to shoot?

Ha! Made you look!

Remember that phrase: "It's not outlandish to suggest ... "

I don't think we've seen the last of groups, governments or otherwise, preparing for 'civil unrest.' Remember when it was government policy to NOT tell the citisens something because it might cause a panic?

PrestonSturges wrote:Every cabinet level agency has federal agents with arrest authority. Ever hear of Postal Inspectors? Same thing.

I wonder if this is a good example, given how many regular workers have gone postal!

steam_cannon wrote: There are plenty of real problems brewing that deserve attention like oil depletion rates.

And I look forward to seeing more topics on Peak Oil posted.

basil_hayden wrote: this has already been debunked

There were no bullets? I missed that.

mattduke wrote:Who are they planning to shoot?

It's part of a new benefits package for the government workers-free bullets for going postal IF you fill out the appropriate paperwork and don't use UPS or Fed-Ex to send it in!

Good news. Obama's latest budget request drops his request for SS cuts. The Obama plan to reduce SS COLAs is gone!

Hoooooooo-RAY!

Obama drops his SS cut plan

Plantagenet wrote:Good news. Obama's latest budget request drops his request for SS cuts. The Obama plan to reduce SS COLAs is gone!

Hoooooooo-RAY!

Obama drops his SS cut plan

I wonder if he will do the same for military retirements?

COLA's have not kept up with inflation for many years so its not like he is giving seniors some big grand gift.

You are exactly right. And the whole inflation rate number is completely out of whack---it doesn't even include energy costs, for example. But at least Obama has pulled back from his proposal to cut SS COLAs even more.

I just applied for my Social Security. The site was encouraging people to delay collecting, pointing out how much more you could collect by delaying your start, so I ran the numbers.

They estimated my payout at 62 will be $1,600 per month. If I wait until I am 70, the payout would be $2,800 per month ($1,200 per month more).

So if I start at 62, I will have received $153,600 by the time I reach 70 in 8 years. If you divide the $1,200 (extra money if I had waited) into $153,600 (the amount I have gotten back since age 62) you come up with 128 months to break even. That means I will have to live to 80 years and nine months to break even by waiting. After that, I would lose $1,200 per month compared to taking the age 70 option.

Other considerations;

My paternal grandfather died at 46 from a heart attack, my father died at 54 from cancer, my mother died at 74 from a multitude of medical issues.

62 = 2016 (Earliest I can apply)
70 = 2024 (latest I can apply)
80 = 2034 (Break even between early and late collection)

So, for me getting my SS back at 62, rather than waiting until 70 seems a no brainer. Besides I have very little confidence the present system will even be around in 2034.

I just applied also as I will be 65 in 2weeks and will retire JAN. 15.

As I understand it, the system is set up so that, on average, you will get the same total benefit no matter when you start. On average being the operative words here.

Afte looking at the various options and schemes and reading a few opinions, this bit made up my mind. My kids can inherit my 401k but not my SS. So to maximize the benefit to them, at no injury to myself, it makes sense to take the SS money earlier.

careinke wrote:I just applied for my Social Security. The site was encouraging people to delay collecting, pointing out how much more you could collect by delaying your start, so I ran the numbers.

They estimated my payout at 62 will be $1,600 per month. If I wait until I am 70, the payout would be $2,800 per month ($1,200 per month more).

...

That means I will have to live to 80 years and nine months to break even by waiting. After that, I would lose $1,200 per month compared to taking the age 70 option.

...

So, for me getting my SS back at 62, rather than waiting until 70 seems a no brainer. Besides I have very little confidence the present system will even be around in 2034.

Good points. In theory, it should be actuarilly neutral for the population (as a whole), but individuals have very different health and financial situations -- and demographic factors change, of course. Actually, it's nice to have the choice.

What I find bizarre is that in recent decades, how they calculated how much more you got varied quite a bit and seemed pretty random to me. For example, my father, born in 1925 would have only gotten 2.5% more per year if he'd waited, but no the standard bump is (last time I checked) a much more reasonable 8.5%.

(When I do the math for your numbers (2800 final and 1600 initial), I get a rate between 7% and 7.5% (1.07**8) is roughly 1.72 (source, Calc in scientific mode), and your ratio of 2800 to 1600 is 1.75). Looking at the SS website, it looks like they say what the percentages are, which vary by year, but not why.

I generally don't like how complex and variable they make the rules over time, but that's what you get when you have lawmakers meddling in programs frequently, to buy votes.

Do people know about the changes to social security just signed into law by Obama? These laws can reduce SS benefits for couples, widow, and divorced people big time.

In some cases you've got a six month window to file under the old system, assuming you'll reach full retirement age by May 2016 when these benefit cuts go into effect.

social-security-changes-will-hit-couples-divorced-women-hard-2015-11-06

12-secrets-maximizing-social-security-benefits-new-rules

the-state-of-file-and-suspend-where-the-new-social-security-rules-leave-seniors


Obama just cut SS benefits for married couples and others---you can file under the old system up until May 2016.

Plantagenet wrote:Do people know about the changes to social security just signed into law by Obama? These laws can reduce SS benefits for couples, widow, and divorced people big time.

In some cases you've got a six month window to file under the old system, assuming you'll reach full retirement age by May 2016 when these benefit cuts go into effect.

social-security-changes-will-hit-couples-divorced-women-hard-2015-11-06

12-secrets-maximizing-social-security-benefits-new-rules

the-state-of-file-and-suspend-where-the-new-social-security-rules-leave-seniors


Obama just cut SS benefits for married couples and others---you can file under the old system up until May 2016.

I'm no fan of Obama generally, but I read the news on this item. They closed a loophole letting couples maximize SS benefits by treating the husband and wife very differently.

Boo hoo. Whatever we do, let's have the GOP and their fans claim this is Obamas' fault by claiming that closing the "file and suspend" specific loophole is "cutting benefits for married couples and others".

Your credibility score on Obama bashing posts just went down in my estimation.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

Boo hoo. Whatever we do, let's.....claim this is Obamas' fault ......

Your credibility score on Obama bashing posts just went down in my estimation.

So a benefit that has been part of the SS program for 70+ years is suddenly a "loophole"? Why weren't these benefits a loophole for the prior 70 years that people automatically got their SS checks with these benefits?

Why not face facts----SS benefits were just cut for married couples, divorced people etc.

AND who do you think signed the law reducing SS benefits for married couples, divorced people, etc.?

I hate to break it to you, but it was Obama who signed these SS cuts into law.

Cheers!

The US should ditch social security and switch to an Australian-style "superannuation" scheme

australian-retirement-system-superannuation-would-benefit-usa

In the Australian scheme, taxes go into an INVESTMENT account instead of to the federal government. A person builds up an account that they own---not something controlled by the government. And the amount that people receive in retirement FAR exceeds the measly payouts from the US social security system.

But of course the Ds won't go for it-----

Plant - Might have been a great plan many decades ago. But couldn't work now: all the SS monies collected from workers now go directly to recipients today. So there's nothing left over to put into a plan you described. BTW the Rockman gets his first SS check next month. Thank you, suckers! LOL.

Any proposed changes to senior entitlements has the Democrats running commercials of granny being pushed off a cliff. Like this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

ROCKMAN wrote:Plant - Might have been a great plan many decades ago. But couldn't work now: all the SS monies collected from workers now go directly to recipients today. So there's nothing left over to put into a plan you described. BTW the Rockman gets his first SS check next month. Thank you, suckers! LOL.

Its even worse than that---current SS taxes aren't enough to pay SS benefits to all the boomers, so the SS program now has to raid the general fund for money to pay you and other SS beneficiaries, since the 2.6 TRILLION dollar SS trust fund has turned out to be another D fantasy.

Cheers!

Our financial advisor told my Wife to take SS ASAP, before they diminish it.

Sounds like wise advice.

Newfie wrote:Our financial advisor told my Wife to take SS ASAP, before they diminish it.

Sounds like wise advice.

I have to agree. Unless you are in excellent health and have a family history averaging longevity past eighty you should get it sooner rather then later. The person that waits until full retirement age has to make it to age 77 to get even and only then is rewarded for waiting.
After 77 I'm not going to care how much the nursing home gets for my care from my check and how much they get from medicare.