Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is how a supposed Doctoral candidate in physics responds to his betters when they point out his offensive and illegal beahavior.

"OohPooPahDoo "How about you suck my cock instead you twat bitch?"

Physics PhD? I think not. This moron sounds an awful lot like spiderman tuba or tuber or whatever he was. I guess the twit doesn't learn too well.

Not yet. In December. I'd like to break your quote in two and put my "not yet" response after the part of the quote I am responding to - but that would be quote altering and someone might complain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

WESTWALL-

The post which you quote here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...get-something-for-nothing-20.html#post4187832
is an example of quote editing. It was deliberate, malicious, and planned in advance.


THIS post is NOT an example of quote editing. The words which I quote you on are in the same order and the same punctuation is used. My only mistake was in failing to place ellipses "..." after your words, to indicate there was more to the quote - and I apologize for that, and that alone. With the ellipses, the reader would have known there was more to the quote, and by following the link that the message board automatically puts in the quote, they could have gone back and read the rest of your words. The link in the post can be used by any reader to verify the accuracy of a quotation - very easily - its just one click. Unfortunately most readers on this board are not really into verifying things - they read it, if they like it - they go for it, no need to look at the sources.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

I think the problem here is you confuse investment and theft. Did you used to do Madoff's books?

Do you have an actual answer to my question?

So what you are saying is Tea Party and Republican People who say if we don't do anything SS is going to fail. Are Fear Mongers? What about the Democrats? who have for years attacked anyone who even dared talk about SS, and put fear into the minds of millions of people who depend on SS, and refuse to even discuss taking steps to assure SS remains viable?

Idiot Fearmongers?

 

[editec]

. If all the money that is suppose to be in the SSI trust fund was actually there

,

it is there

and the Government had it invested in some no risk Vehicles.

You mean like Government bonds, reportedly the safest investment in the world?

The things you kids think you know about social security is basically nonsense.

No wonder the DUELOPOLY continues to appeal to some of you.

Get informed!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are talking about quantitative easing, which puts more money into circulation when the central bank buys assets to expand its balance sheets.

Call it whatever you like.

If I was calling it what I like it would be a lot less polite.

QW - to follow westwall's ridiculous standards, I have to include the above - even though I'm not really responding to it.

They are taxing on creditors and redistributing of that tax to debtors. It increases inflation and devalues the dollar. Which is why it is only used as a last resort, and why it is not being done right now. Current debt is not being monetized.

It is true that inflation decreases the value of a dollar - and it is true that this causes debts to be less of a liability and credits to be less of an asset - but you are neglecting three key facts
1) The interest rate that lenders charge already reflects the market expectation of inflation.
When the market expects higher inflation - interest rates will adjust upward accordingly, and vice versa.
2) A higher money supply doesn't necessarily cause inflation - and NOW is a very good example of that. If money is just sitting around and no one is spending it, you could have as much as you want of it - and you wouldn't get inflation.
3) A small amount of inflation is always better than deflation. If the burden of a debt to a debtor gets too large - the debtor can go under. We see that in the present day housing market. It also affects business - when a business is new, it will struggle to get any net positive cashflow, and much of its negative cashflow will be going into debt payment. If the prices that business can charge for their goods and services goes DOWN while their debt repayments remain the same, their cashflow can go negative really quick - then they have to lay off employees, downsize, or worse. On the other hand - a small amount of inflation means that over time, that business's sales will go up in nominal dollars while its debt repayments remain the same, so as the business gets older (or as it is tested more by the free market) - its net cashflow increases - meaning it can expand, pay down more of its debt, or retain larger cash reserves, all of which are healthy to a business.

That is because the Fed gets the money from th e Treasury.

Finally we agree on something.

Only because you edited my answer.

Sure. I guess the government could just print it at will and pay for shit that way - it wouldn't be worth much then, would it?

It is not worth much anyway, which is the point I am making.

QW - are you telling me U.S. money isn't worth much anymore? Because I've got to buy gas and food today, I was really hoping I could buy those things with the same money I used to get them last week.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what you are saying is Tea Party and Republican People who say if we don't do anything SS is going to fail. Are Fear Mongers?

The Tea Party does not want to "fix" Social Security, they want to abolish it. They maintain it is a present failure, even though it continues to function just fine and won't break down for 20 years or so. What kind of anything can you name that can continue to function without intervention for the next 20 years?

What about the Democrats? who have for years attacked anyone who even dared talk about SS, and put fear into the minds of millions of people who depend on SS, and refuse to even discuss taking steps to assure SS remains viable?

That's not even true. The Democrats simply reject proposals that would downsize or eliminate Social Security Insurance. Privatized SS accounts would decrease the funding to current beneficiaries, requiring higher taxes or debt to compensate, and wouldn't even do was social security does. The right wing appears incapable of distinguishing between retirement and disability insurance and retirement savings. A responsible person would have both of these, however, the former is more important than the latter, as it insures inflation adjusted income as long as the beneficiary lives. Savings, on the other hand, can be exhausted, either by the person living much longer than they expected - or by market forces that the retiree cannot control. Today's low interest rate environment is a good example of this - retirees cannot get get returns on their money market investments. Most any reasonable person, 20 years ago, wouldn't have expected they'd get barely more than 1% return on their cash retirement savings. That doesn't even keep place with the small amount of inflation we have, and a lot of retirees are having to dip into their principle to maintain their current standard of living.

 

[westwall]

This is how a supposed Doctoral candidate in physics responds to his betters when they point out his offensive and illegal beahavior.

"OohPooPahDoo "How about you suck my cock instead you twat bitch?"

Physics PhD? I think not. This moron sounds an awful lot like spiderman tuba or tuber or whatever he was. I guess the twit doesn't learn too well.

Not yet. In December. I'd like to break your quote in two and put my "not yet" response after the part of the quote I am responding to - but that would be quote altering and someone might complain.

Toober, just go away. You are an imbecile who has pretensions of great intellect. You havn't, you are boorish and pathetic. Go away and when you have grown up and developed some manners you can come back.

 

[westwall]

WESTWALL-

The post which you quote here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...get-something-for-nothing-20.html#post4187832
is an example of quote editing. It was deliberate, malicious, and planned in advance.


THIS post is NOT an example of quote editing. The words which I quote you on are in the same order and the same punctuation is used. My only mistake was in failing to place ellipses "..." after your words, to indicate there was more to the quote - and I apologize for that, and that alone. With the ellipses, the reader would have known there was more to the quote, and by following the link that the message board automatically puts in the quote, they could have gone back and read the rest of your words. The link in the post can be used by any reader to verify the accuracy of a quotation - very easily - its just one click. Unfortunately most readers on this board are not really into verifying things - they read it, if they like it - they go for it, no need to look at the sources.

Then why did you get bitch slapped, clown?