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

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've done that OOpydOO..

Sure you have. I guess you have trouble retaining your own ideas.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

SSI is broke, for those of us that work and pay taxes our monthly payments are going into it and directly back out of it into someones pocket, because politicians have for many years stole from the system, so in essence...I am paying into something that wont even be there for me when the time comes. It's theft by government, nothing less.

SSI is charity from government. Its paid for by general fund revenues, not FICA. You are confusing it with Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) - which is really two programs, Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Social Securty Disability (SSDI). SSI - Supplementary Security Income - is for people who are not eligible for OASDI. It is administered by social security, but the money comes from the general fund and the benefits are less than for OASDI.

Your OASI will be there when you retire so long as there is a U.S. economy. Its funded from current tax payers - do you think there will be no one working and paying taxes when you retire?

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee OOpydOO, I thought just a post or two ago -- you were DEMANDING that 70 yr olds perform their DUTY to society that they continue to work and contribute!

Then your thought is wrong, I've never made such a demand.

That's not correct OOpydOO -- Perhaps you are close to filing for mental disability?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4163249-post113.html

Here's what you said:::::

People are living longer - should we not also expect to work longer? Its unreasonable to think that if medical science can extend my life from 60 to 80 years and also make me able to work to an older age - I should get to have 20 extra years of retirement and zero extra years of actually producing goods and services in the economy? That would seem an unreasonable expectation to ask of the economy, I think.

Asking for 20 more of work and invoking the "fairness" to the economy is NOT asking seniors to continue to serve society? Play fair or be consistent. Your choice..

DEMAND that former heart surgeons with unsteady hands take that greeters job at WALMART!

A surgeon who can no longer perform surgery due to physical disability can claim Social Security Disability.

Now that's wonderful ain't it? EVERYONE'S got a potential out to your solution of raising retirement age. Of course they have to individually BEG and PLEA their cases to an inefficient and arbitrary bureaucracy. EXACTLY the kind of enslavement that lefties are fond of. Can't wait to see the claim load at the DI office for all those shaky hands.
It's RIDICULOUS to force folks to work longer than they feel capable.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gee OOpydOO, I thought just a post or two ago -- you were DEMANDING that 70 yr olds perform their DUTY to society that they continue to work and contribute!

Then your thought is wrong, I've never made such a demand.

That's not correct OOpydOO -- Perhaps you are close to filing for mental disability?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4163249-post113.html

Here's what you said:::::



Asking for 20 more of work and invoking the "fairness" to the economy is NOT asking seniors to continue to serve society? Play fair or be consistent. Your choice..

I didn't ask you for 20 more years of work or invoke "fairness". Nor did I demand anyone do any work. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

Now that's wonderful ain't it? EVERYONE'S got a potential out to your solution of raising retirement age.

Only disabled people.

Of course they have to individually BEG and PLEA their cases to an inefficient and arbitrary bureaucracy.

They could buy private disability insurance instead - and then have to take their insurer to court because their insurer doesn't feel like paying. Life's a pain in the ass, fucking deal with it you whining pussy.

 

[flacaltenn]

See OOpydOO -- this is why the political left is getting spanked right now. It's your assumption that increasing the amount of tax money available will make Congress more fiscally responsible and go to debt reduction.. They saw a pile of tax reciepts and continued to spend them. Doing NOTHING to actually reduce future SS liabilities.

There is nothing we can do to reduce future retirement liabilities. Not unless you want to start stockpiling food, clothing, and all the shit that people in retirement need. With the exception of a house - most everything a retiree needs in retirement has to be produced by the economy during his retirement.

This one doesn't deserve a calorie of effort to respond.. You obviously are acting dense or are ACTUALLY too dense to know the diff between "reduce future liabilities to Soc Sec" and a coat or loaf of bread.. (ass --- hole in the ground??) (doughnut -- doorknob)? Never mind me.. I was entertaining myself..

I THOUGHT i was communicating with an actual educated person..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

See OOpydOO -- this is why the political left is getting spanked right now. It's your assumption that increasing the amount of tax money available will make Congress more fiscally responsible and go to debt reduction.. They saw a pile of tax reciepts and continued to spend them. Doing NOTHING to actually reduce future SS liabilities.

There is nothing we can do to reduce future retirement liabilities. Not unless you want to start stockpiling food, clothing, and all the shit that people in retirement need. With the exception of a house - most everything a retiree needs in retirement has to be produced by the economy during his retirement.

This one doesn't deserve a calorie of effort to respond.. You obviously are acting dense or are ACTUALLY too dense to know the diff between "reduce future liabilities to Soc Sec" and a coat or loaf of bread.. (ass --- hole in the ground??) (doughnut -- doorknob)? Never mind me.. I was entertaining myself..

I THOUGHT i was communicating with an actual educated person..

Well? How can we reduce the amount the economy has to produce for the retirees of the future - other than producing what they need now and storing it? Got any ideas?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong. Prices would go up on everything that the retirees purchased. You clearly don't understand supply + demand. Supply is limited (among other things) by the number of available workers - demand is limited (among other things) by the supply and velocity of money - when the amount of money remains the same but the number of workers goes down - or vice versa - PRICES GO UP. If there are more people retiring than entering the workforce, the supply of available workers goes down while incomes remain nearly the same (presuming the retirees planned properly) - prices will go up.





Money is just a system for the exchange of goods and services in the economy, its presence doesn't change the fact that if there are X people and Y workers, each worker will, on average, have to produce X/Y the amount needed for one person.

Increased demand can only be met by increased supply until that supply is exhausted. There is a physical limit to the amount of goods and services our economy can produce. Once that limit is met, increased demand will necessarily lead to increased prices.
It occurs around 4% unemployment. Unemployment can't really drop much lower than that because there are always people between jobs and there are always people who are simply incapable of holding down steady work. Once you hit that limit, increased demand means increased prices.




It has nothing to do with whether or not our economy is subsistence. All economies have a maximum amount of goods and services they can produce. The maximum can increase or decrease over time - with changes in the labor supply and the supply of raw materials and efficiency increases - but at any given point in time, an economy can only produce so much. When demand exceeds supply in a maxed out economy, inflation is the inevitable result.



Or - to put it more simply - the workers have to make everything that the workers and the non-workers need. Its really just that simple, I can't believe you don't get it.

And what you don't get asswipe is that with the production methods and technology of today that 1 man can easily produce exponentially more than he could have years ago. No one is sitting around making one shirt at a time by hand anymore. It's easier now than ever before to produce goods but you seem to still think that everything is made by hand one item at a time YOU FUCKING MORON

Doesn't change the fact that if there are 3 people and 1 is retired the 2 will have to make enough for 3, does it?

It's not a burden as you say it is. In fact it's a boon for the economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is nothing we can do to reduce future retirement liabilities. Not unless you want to start stockpiling food, clothing, and all the shit that people in retirement need. With the exception of a house - most everything a retiree needs in retirement has to be produced by the economy during his retirement.

This one doesn't deserve a calorie of effort to respond.. You obviously are acting dense or are ACTUALLY too dense to know the diff between "reduce future liabilities to Soc Sec" and a coat or loaf of bread.. (ass --- hole in the ground??) (doughnut -- doorknob)? Never mind me.. I was entertaining myself..

I THOUGHT i was communicating with an actual educated person..

Well? How can we reduce the amount the economy has to produce for the retirees of the future - other than producing what they need now and storing it? Got any ideas?

I need a referree here.. Are there any other posters that thought when I said we needed to reduce "future liabilities to Soc Sec" that I was talking about goods like clothing and food??

Look fool -- You started this thread by asking WHAT SHOULD HAPPENED to the Soc Sec "investments".. The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program. I'm not talking about dentures and Depends.

I'm talking about taking in the $60Bill to $100Bill that was STOLEN in excess FICA every year and putting it to use so that REAL CASH would be available in the future. I've given at least 3 ways that COULD have happened. But it didn't.. If you don't understand the premise of your own thread -- perhaps it's time for YOU to claim disability..

I'm now convinced that's there's NO F-ing way you EVER understood the plan to offer voluntary SS savings accounts. Because you NEVER comprehended the true meaning of using those surpluses to the advantage of future recipients. Rather than just Stealing them and coming back to future taxpayers for MORE taxes..

In fact -- I dont think there's much chance that you understand the economic diff between opening a "savings account" with those FICA excesses and slipping an IOU into the SS file cabinet.

Not interested in this thread anymore.. Sorry bud..

 

[westwall]

I see you that you did offer something as a potential solution, higher taxes and higher retirement age. Again. I say "again" because that has been done before and it still hasn't worked.

Really? It stopped working? Maybe you can tell me when they stopped paying Social Security benefits, I wasn't aware that had happened.

Maybe you should ponder the fact that people living longer necessarily implies an adjustment in retirement age and/or FICA tax levels - its simple logic.

Not allowing people to keep their own money.

We already tried not having a government backed pension system - it resulted in hundreds of thousands of old people who didn't have money to eat on that the government had to feed anyway.

And again, raising the retirement age is racist,

No it isn't. Please stop pulling the race card. Blacks don't live as long because they can't get access to health care as good as whites because they tend to have less money to pay for it - and since you're a rightie, you should be fine with that.

Really? Where exactly were they starving? I see nothing in the historical record that shows folks starving. How on earth did they survive for all those hundreds of years when there was no government system? Did some space alien come down and feed them? Or maybe the histories are wrong and people just died after they were 25 or so.

 

[westwall]

SSI is broke, for those of us that work and pay taxes our monthly payments are going into it and directly back out of it into someones pocket, because politicians have for many years stole from the system, so in essence...I am paying into something that wont even be there for me when the time comes. It's theft by government, nothing less.

SSI is charity from government. Its paid for by general fund revenues, not FICA. You are confusing it with Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) - which is really two programs, Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Social Securty Disability (SSDI). SSI - Supplementary Security Income - is for people who are not eligible for OASDI. It is administered by social security, but the money comes from the general fund and the benefits are less than for OASDI.

Your OASI will be there when you retire so long as there is a U.S. economy. Its funded from current tax payers - do you think there will be no one working and paying taxes when you retire?

Charity? Are you nuts? Charity is something that is given willingly. Social Security funds are forcibly taken from the citizens of this country and then given to people the government deems needy (whether they are or not).

 

[The T]

SSI is broke, for those of us that work and pay taxes our monthly payments are going into it and directly back out of it into someones pocket, because politicians have for many years stole from the system, so in essence...I am paying into something that wont even be there for me when the time comes. It's theft by government, nothing less.

SSI is charity from government. Its paid for by general fund revenues, not FICA. You are confusing it with Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) - which is really two programs, Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Social Securty Disability (SSDI). SSI - Supplementary Security Income - is for people who are not eligible for OASDI. It is administered by social security, but the money comes from the general fund and the benefits are less than for OASDI.

Your OASI will be there when you retire so long as there is a U.S. economy. Its funded from current tax payers - do you think there will be no one working and paying taxes when you retire?

Charity? Are you nuts? Charity is something that is given willingly. Social Security funds are forcibly taken from the citizens of this country and then given to people the government deems needy (whether they are or not).

Indeed. It isn't the role of Government/Bureaucrats to be the conscience of the citizens by force.

 

[westwall]

This one doesn't deserve a calorie of effort to respond.. You obviously are acting dense or are ACTUALLY too dense to know the diff between "reduce future liabilities to Soc Sec" and a coat or loaf of bread.. (ass --- hole in the ground??) (doughnut -- doorknob)? Never mind me.. I was entertaining myself..

I THOUGHT i was communicating with an actual educated person..

Well? How can we reduce the amount the economy has to produce for the retirees of the future - other than producing what they need now and storing it? Got any ideas?

I need a referree here.. Are there any other posters that thought when I said we needed to reduce "future liabilities to Soc Sec" that I was talking about goods like clothing and food??

Look fool -- You started this thread by asking WHAT SHOULD HAPPENED to the Soc Sec "investments".. The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program. I'm not talking about dentures and Depends.

I'm talking about taking in the $60Bill to $100Bill that was STOLEN in excess FICA every year and putting it to use so that REAL CASH would be available in the future. I've given at least 3 ways that COULD have happened. But it didn't.. If you don't understand the premise of your own thread -- perhaps it's time for YOU to claim disability..

I'm now convinced that's there's NO F-ing way you EVER understood the plan to offer voluntary SS savings accounts. Because you NEVER comprehended the true meaning of using those surpluses to the advantage of future recipients. Rather than just Stealing them and coming back to future taxpayers for MORE taxes..

In fact -- I dont think there's much chance that you understand the economic diff between opening a "savings account" with those FICA excesses and slipping an IOU into the SS file cabinet.

Not interested in this thread anymore.. Sorry bud..

No you don't need a ref, poopy just needs to get a brain. He is a socialist and can't think like a normal person. He's a drone.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanks WestWall:

No you don't need a ref, poopy just needs to get a brain. He is a socialist and can't think like a normal person. He's a drone.

For awhile there I was feeling a little light headed and disoriented. I'm not used to deep immersion in lefty fantasyland. Believe the gauges. Suck some oxygen. Everythings OK now...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And what you don't get asswipe is that with the production methods and technology of today that 1 man can easily produce exponentially more than he could have years ago. No one is sitting around making one shirt at a time by hand anymore. It's easier now than ever before to produce goods but you seem to still think that everything is made by hand one item at a time YOU FUCKING MORON

Doesn't change the fact that if there are 3 people and 1 is retired the 2 will have to make enough for 3, does it?

It's not a burden as you say it is. In fact it's a boon for the economy.

If there are 3 people and 1 is retired then 2 will have to make enough for 3, right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program.

How? Where does the liability go?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Really? Where exactly were they starving? I see nothing in the historical record that shows folks starving. How on earth did they survive for all those hundreds of years when there was no government system? Did some space alien come down and feed them? Or maybe the histories are wrong and people just died after they were 25 or so.

They survived fine until a GREAT DEPRESSION hit and wrecked the economy. Maybe you look that up in your historical record moron.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't change the fact that if there are 3 people and 1 is retired the 2 will have to make enough for 3, does it?

It's not a burden as you say it is. In fact it's a boon for the economy.

If there are 3 people and 1 is retired then 2 will have to make enough for 3, right?

I am retired, no one supports me. I have never filed to recieve my SS benefits and never will. Imagine how grand it would be if everyone was allowed to set up their own retirement programs. Think of all the thousands of SS employees that wouldn't need to be. Think of all the tax money that wouldn't need to be pissed away in a beaureucratic mess. Most of all just think.

 

[westwall]

Really? Where exactly were they starving? I see nothing in the historical record that shows folks starving. How on earth did they survive for all those hundreds of years when there was no government system? Did some space alien come down and feed them? Or maybe the histories are wrong and people just died after they were 25 or so.

They survived fine until a GREAT DEPRESSION hit and wrecked the economy. Maybe you look that up in your historical record moron.

Really? Who starved in the Great Depression? The churches did just fine feeding the people who needed help. LBJ began his war on poverty 50 years ago. His administration and those that followed have spent at least 5 trillion dollars on the "war". Guess what the poverty rate is nearly the SAME as it was back then....real successful wasn't it?

Once again, think...or at least learn how to.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Doesn't change the fact that if there are 3 people and 1 is retired the 2 will have to make enough for 3, does it?

It's not a burden as you say it is. In fact it's a boon for the economy.

If there are 3 people and 1 is retired then 2 will have to make enough for 3, right?

Yes but it is not a burden on the economy.

Tell me are there more people buying cars than actually make cars? The answer is yes, of course.

Is that good or bad for car manufacturers? The answer is yes, it is good.

If car manufacturers are doing well, is it good or bad for their employees? The answer is yes, it is good.

If manufacturers and employees are doing well, is it a burden on the economy? The answer is no.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I am retired, no one supports me.

Really? You have all the goods and services you need for the rest of your life? No one has to actually produce those? Wow.

I have never filed to recieve my SS benefits and never will.

Awesome. Your utter stupidity at not claiming your own money will lower the burden of SS on the rest of us, thanks!

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone was allowed to set up their own retirement programs.

THEY ARE.