Shopsmith Forums

garys wrote:The beaurocrats at Social Security have a bad case of cranial-rectalitis and there is no cure in sight for them.
Expect one stupid move after another from them.

Bureaucrats -SNAFU

garys wrote:The beaurocrats at Social Security have a bad case of cranial-rectalitis and there is no cure in sight for them.
Expect one stupid move after another from them.

Sadly, they are not an anomaly!

Somewhere the public servant mantra became self preservation.

For all its inefficiencies and bumbles, I prefer that they maintain some security to logging in. I do not qualify for Social Security. I put away 7% for 35 years into CSRS, an unmatched fund, no contributions by anyone other than federal employees. So, I get a check out of that. If I do qualify for SS, then they deduct my SS amount from my CSRS retirement check. On, they are not finished yet. They also reduce my SS payment by 2/3. So, the 30 quarters I have paid in is for those who worked and get whatever they get.

I don't want someone who did not pay into it, come from another country without paying, scammers and other unworthies to be able to log in and make false claims and effectively steal. I want the Social Security to be paid to those who earned it honestly. So, any security they put in place is acceptable to me.

Steve, the old swampgator

swampgator wrote:For all its inefficiencies and bumbles, I prefer that they maintain some security to logging in. I do not qualify for Social Security. I put away 7% for 35 years into CSRS, an unmatched fund, no contributions by anyone other than federal employees. So, I get a check out of that. If I do qualify for SS, then they deduct my SS amount from my CSRS retirement check. On, they are not finished yet. They also reduce my SS payment by 2/3. So, the 30 quarters I have paid in is for those who worked and get whatever they get.

I don't want someone who did not pay into it, come from another country without paying, scammers and other unworthies to be able to log in and make false claims and effectively steal. I want the Social Security to be paid to those who earned it honestly. So, any security they put in place is acceptable to me.

Steve, the old swampgator

No question that security is desirable, but to arbitrarily start a method for attaining greater security with no regard for whether those legitimate folks are able to use that procedure is what is 'unsatisfactory'.

OK cell phones that are 'textable' are a decent method for those who have cell phones.(OOOOOO guess what, not every 'senior citizen' even knows what 'texting' is!). Gee I wonder if an alternative is 'needed'.

I consider all this an example of not looking beyond the nearest rock for a 'method'.

To have instituted this from afar with no understanding that what has resulted was inevitable, is IMHO unconscionable.(aka irresponsible, stupid, ignorant, . . . .).

All too often now days. Glad those folks are not designing buildings etc.

Social Sercurity would have plenty of money if Congress hadn't gotten their hands on the money.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Social Sercurity would have plenty of money if Congress hadn't gotten their hands on the money.

Probably true but then "we the people" continued to put people in office who continued the practice.

Are you (all of you) properly prepared to vote? Do you understand all of the issues and do you know anything about those who are seeking election?

Until some fantastic new technology comes along, internet security will always be a pain in the butt. I don't like the hoops my credit union makes me go through. But, I love the fact they kept someone from trying to steal my money yesterday.

I doubt there's a solution that everyone will like but is also secure.

dusty wrote:

Ed in Tampa wrote:Social Sercurity would have plenty of money if Congress hadn't gotten their hands on the money.

Probably true but then "we the people" continued to put people in office who continued the practice.

Are you (all of you) properly prepared to vote? Do you understand all of the issues and do you know anything about those who are seeking election?

I think so and it won't be for crooked Hillary, who should be in jail many times over.

swampgator wrote:For all its inefficiencies and bumbles, I prefer that they maintain some security to logging in. I do not qualify for Social Security. I put away 7% for 35 years into CSRS, an unmatched fund, no contributions by anyone other than federal employees. So, I get a check out of that. If I do qualify for SS, then they deduct my SS amount from my CSRS retirement check. On, they are not finished yet. They also reduce my SS payment by 2/3. So, the 30 quarters I have paid in is for those who worked and get whatever they get.

I don't want someone who did not pay into it, come from another country without paying, scammers and other unworthies to be able to log in and make false claims and effectively steal. I want the Social Security to be paid to those who earned it honestly. So, any security they put in place is acceptable to me.

Steve, the old swampgator

Hi Steve,

I have to take issue with your statement. Just a nit. My wife is 35 years retired CSRS. I am retired USAF and civil service under FERS.

Under CSRS the employee was required to pay 7%, no more or no less. Yes, technically there was no matching fund but it doesn't matter. When your contribution money runs out the government will continue to pay you your retirement for the rest of your life. So matching funds are there after the fact.

Under FERS the government matches 5% as long as you put in 5%. You can put in more but under CSRS 7% was the max. Yes under CSRS you did not pay into Social Security so you are not eligible. If you get the 40 quarters for SS then you are eligible. They will not deduct/off set your CSRS but SS will only be 40%. CSRS was such a great deal for the retiree they had to do away with it. This is direct from my local ,now retired, government retiree expert. I just got off the phone with her.

After 35 years my wife's retirement check is almost as much as when she was working.

John, I have been reading in NARFE magazine the same information, but when I went to retirement classes and called OPM, that is the way that I understood it. I am not willing to risk it as I get only 55% of my working check. Not bad, but not like your wife, bless her. But, we are doing well, we don't spend much and live within our means and some folks think we are rich. If only they had to eat all the beans we have to eat.

Thanks for clarifying. I must be one of those lucky ones.

Steve, the old swampgator