There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Andylusion]

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

Then get a second job or improve your life! I'm sorry moaning and groaning about minimum is a waste! Work.. Imagine rather then complain!
This constant effort to remove stress. To make it easier. It is making us weaker!
Libraries have free internet access.
I am just sick of this older generation wanting to make things better for their children when if LIKE STING said..

What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common?
All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June.
“They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
But with this attitude.."we need to help by giving a fish just feeds them for a day... If you taught your son self-sufficiency you wouldn't be giving
these excuses and it is YOUR fault for not providing the experience as Sting, Gates, etc. are doing!
Don't give a hand out... give a hand UP!

Yep, those Gates kid's are really going to have to hustle to become self sufficient with only 10 million a piece.

My daughter in-law want's to work. She just can pay $13/hr for child care.

So what?

What business is it of your, how much the Gate kids have?

If you spent half as much of your energy finding something of value to do, as you wasting whining and bitching and moaning about the Gate kids, maybe you'd have something to live your daughter other forums post bitching about the gate kids.

How did Americans become such whiny wimpy people?

We had Americans crossing the west, fighting natives, dealing with illness, farming untamed ground with their bare hands, and they didn't bitch and moan about someone's kids somewhere. They were too busy building their own lives, and fighting their own battles.

Now we've become a bunch of whiners over the the hardship of child care, complaining about what the Gate kids have?

We had people cross the planet, fighting in trenches, dying in the thousands, to prevent tyranny across the world..... and now "wah wah.... child care! Obama Care! Food stamps! Gate kids! Wah wah !".... how did we end up such pathetic babies???

Flopper, what you need isn't a government program... you need father or a friend man enough to tell you to GROW UP. Just GROW UP. Quit your whining, and get your butt to work.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm all for privatizing SS if you can deposit enough funds in it. However, no risk in investing? I call that financial suicide.

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Social Security has always been put into the general fund. You are wrong.

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security. Have you missed the national debt, which is not much larger than the entire GDP of the country? Don't think the US government can't go bankrupt. You are greatly mistaken. Math is not subjugated to politics... no matter how much you wish it was. Just like Detroit can't possibly go bankrupt.... until it did.

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

 

[Judicial review]

So you determine that putting money in US treasuries is a risk?
Because that's where a privatized SS direct account COULD go given the choice.
As it is now the SS/Medicare payments GO directly into the General fund and is used by the government.
Proof?

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

• $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
• $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
• $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
• $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
• $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Social Security has always been put into the general fund. You are wrong.

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security. Have you missed the national debt, which is not much larger than the entire GDP of the country? Don't think the US government can't go bankrupt. You are greatly mistaken. Math is not subjugated to politics... no matter how much you wish it was. Just like Detroit can't possibly go bankrupt.... until it did.

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

Uh, no. Gingrich and Paul agreed it was put into the General fund in the 60's or 70's, can't remember which one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Andylusion]

Lol good god dude. Using median as your argument is worse than using mean. The extreme amount of high income, again, is going to skew the numbers.

And no shit we have full time jobs. Do you really think anyone making less than 10 an hour can live off of that even at 40 hours a week? Again, pay attention, that number is 16.5 million.

Yep, 500,000 jobs could be lost. So be it. It will lift 16 million people out of poverty and the economy will inevitably create more jobs because of the increase in economic demand.

I personally have made less than $10 an hour, and lived off that at 40 hours a week. And I have seen people with families, a wife that didn't work, and two kids to feed, live off less than $10 an hour.

You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice, not situational fact.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
What is so wrong about using coupons? Checking for sales? Buying USED clothes, furniture? Is that unAmerican?
These idiots that plea that old cliched song about families not able to live on less then $10/hour have obviously NEVER worked in a garden as
I did when I was younger and we co-oped with 4 other families gardens sharing FRESH fruit,vegetables,etc.!
I have to laugh when I see these football players pull sleds with weights to build muscles.
HELL , i was pulling a sled with rocks over our gardens to break up clods to ready for planting doing one better then these young studs... not only was I building muscles BUT DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!
This poor crap about living in poverty... my brother and 2 sisters evidently lived in poverty ... we didn't know it! My Mom didn't work my Dad worked
40 hours PLUS we gardened, gleaned corn (those don't know what "gleaning is..Look it up!).. and never missed a meal!
So I get really tired of hearing how these poor people are doing with their:

=== $ 5,666 in Earned Income Credit i.e. a check from Uncle Sam instead of paying they get a check!!!
=== $12,000 free housing , Section 8 will pay up to $1,000/month
=== $ 2,400 free food,
=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone plus
=== $ 5,000 a year in free health care from Medicaid.
So this is about $26,000 a year in FREE MONEY, free goods and free services... on top of the less then $10/hour!!!

The world has change a lot since you and I were kids.

Most poor families don't have gardens because they don't have yards. They live in subsided housing which is usually a small apartment in a complex with sidewalks and a parking lot for a yard. Poor people glean today but not in a corn field. You don't find those in Chicago, Detroit, or LA. Their gleaning is usually restricted to stealing from a supermarket or shopping in nearby garbage bins.

To expect poor people to survive as you did as a child many years ago is not realistic. When I grew up in the 1950's, you could raise a family on $2/hour. A $3 burger cost about 30 cents, a $3 box of Wheates which was twice the size cost about 35 cents, and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

So many things that would have been considered luxuries years ago, are necessities today. Cell phones are replacing land lines and are often cheaper, most schools require kids to do their homework on computers, TV's have become the cheapest form of entertainment, and with the rising cost of public transportation, a car has become a necessity. Years ago, there was always a neighbor or family member to take care of the kids but not today. If you have kids and work, then you're probably going to need childcare which is a big expensive. My son lives in Seattle where the average cost of childcare is $13 an hour. At a wage of $10/hr, his wife would loose money even neglecting the cost of, transportation, and other expenses.

Then get a second job or improve your life! I'm sorry moaning and groaning about minimum is a waste! Work.. Imagine rather then complain!
This constant effort to remove stress. To make it easier. It is making us weaker!
Libraries have free internet access.
I am just sick of this older generation wanting to make things better for their children when if LIKE STING said..

What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common?
All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June.
“They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
But with this attitude.."we need to help by giving a fish just feeds them for a day... If you taught your son self-sufficiency you wouldn't be giving
these excuses and it is YOUR fault for not providing the experience as Sting, Gates, etc. are doing!
Don't give a hand out... give a hand UP!

Christ why make people get a second job when you can just pay them a wage they can live off of? Why isn't that fair? Why isn't 40 hours enough? With the current inflation, people can't live off of that wage. It doesn't get more complicated than that.

Yes of course. They can just shake the magic money tree, and hand out the golden apples. You moron.

You haven't run so much as a lemonade stand have you?

You can't just "pay a living wage". Doesn't work that way.

In order to pay the employee more, you have to charge the customer more. If the customers refuse to pay the higher price, you go out of business and pay the employees ZERO.

Is ZERO a better wage?

The only other alternative is to replace the employees with machines. In which case they still earn ZERO.

Is that FAIR in your book? Because that is what you advocate.

 

[Judicial review]

Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate put SS in the general fund.

 

[kaz]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

 

[Andylusion]

I prefer the chilean model for SS. SS just needs to get out of the general fund and it will be fine.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Social Security has always been put into the general fund. You are wrong.

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security. Have you missed the national debt, which is not much larger than the entire GDP of the country? Don't think the US government can't go bankrupt. You are greatly mistaken. Math is not subjugated to politics... no matter how much you wish it was. Just like Detroit can't possibly go bankrupt.... until it did.

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

Uh, no. Gingrich and Paul agreed it was put into the General fund in the 60's or 70's, can't remember which one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What are you people smoking? It's written into the 1935 act. You can read it on the Social Security web site. It's been run the same way since it was created. Can't you people read???

Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

Section 201 Point (B)
Social Security History

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

What investments are guaranteed by the United States??? Huh?? Sparky? Any ideas what "obligations" are GUARANTEED by the United States? Enron Bonds? WorldCom Stock? Hostess loans? What do you think???

Let me give you a hint. They wrote it right into the text...

"The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act"

Second Liberty Bond Act? You mean...... US bonds?

So let's review.....

Social Security has been taking it's surplus money, and investing it into US Savings bonds since 1935.

Which does what? It gives the surplus money to the Federal Government politicians, in exchange for an IOU. What does the Federal Government do with that money?

And a million other lobbyists and pet projects, and welfare and other handouts.... and it's gone.

Your money is gone.

 

[Judicial review]

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security in Chile bears little resemble to the US system. It is a privatized system in which workers pay up to 20% of their contributions to middlemen. At retirement, workers pay 3% to 5% of their accumulated savings to financial advisers to mange their funds. By contrast, the U.S. system pays no commissions, and administrative costs are less than 2 percent of workers' contributions. In Chile, workers Social Security benefits are tied to market performance. In the US, Workers Social Security benefits are guaranteed to by the US government.

Workers in Chili can choose not to contribute to the system and about half do not.

Social Security has always been put into the general fund. You are wrong.

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security. Have you missed the national debt, which is not much larger than the entire GDP of the country? Don't think the US government can't go bankrupt. You are greatly mistaken. Math is not subjugated to politics... no matter how much you wish it was. Just like Detroit can't possibly go bankrupt.... until it did.

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

Uh, no. Gingrich and Paul agreed it was put into the General fund in the 60's or 70's, can't remember which one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What are you people smoking? It's written into the 1935 act. You can read it on the Social Security web site. It's been run the same way since it was created. Can't you people read???

Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

Section 201 Point (B)
Social Security History

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

What investments are guaranteed by the United States??? Huh?? Sparky? Any ideas what "obligations" are GUARANTEED by the United States? Enron Bonds? WorldCom Stock? Hostess loans? What do you think???

Let me give you a hint. They wrote it right into the text...

"The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act"

Second Liberty Bond Act? You mean...... US bonds?

So let's review.....

Social Security has been taking it's surplus money, and investing it into US Savings bonds since 1935.

Which does what? It gives the surplus money to the Federal Government politicians, in exchange for an IOU. What does the Federal Government do with that money?

And a million other lobbyists and pet projects, and welfare and other handouts.... and it's gone.

Your money is gone.

Never get your information on the IRS website. IRS 101.

 

[Andylusion]

Social Security has always been put into the general fund. You are wrong.

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security. Have you missed the national debt, which is not much larger than the entire GDP of the country? Don't think the US government can't go bankrupt. You are greatly mistaken. Math is not subjugated to politics... no matter how much you wish it was. Just like Detroit can't possibly go bankrupt.... until it did.

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

Uh, no. Gingrich and Paul agreed it was put into the General fund in the 60's or 70's, can't remember which one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What are you people smoking? It's written into the 1935 act. You can read it on the Social Security web site. It's been run the same way since it was created. Can't you people read???

Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

Section 201 Point (B)
Social Security History

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

What investments are guaranteed by the United States??? Huh?? Sparky? Any ideas what "obligations" are GUARANTEED by the United States? Enron Bonds? WorldCom Stock? Hostess loans? What do you think???

Let me give you a hint. They wrote it right into the text...

"The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act"

Second Liberty Bond Act? You mean...... US bonds?

So let's review.....

Social Security has been taking it's surplus money, and investing it into US Savings bonds since 1935.

Which does what? It gives the surplus money to the Federal Government politicians, in exchange for an IOU. What does the Federal Government do with that money?

And a million other lobbyists and pet projects, and welfare and other handouts.... and it's gone.

Your money is gone.

Never get your information on the IRS website. IRS 101.

That was the direct text from the 1935 bill. If that isn't evidence for you, then you have disqualified yourself from this conversation.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

 

[Judicial review]

Uh, no.

Uh.... yes.

Uh, no. Gingrich and Paul agreed it was put into the General fund in the 60's or 70's, can't remember which one. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What are you people smoking? It's written into the 1935 act. You can read it on the Social Security web site. It's been run the same way since it was created. Can't you people read???

Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

Section 201 Point (B)
Social Security History

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

What investments are guaranteed by the United States??? Huh?? Sparky? Any ideas what "obligations" are GUARANTEED by the United States? Enron Bonds? WorldCom Stock? Hostess loans? What do you think???

Let me give you a hint. They wrote it right into the text...

"The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act"

Second Liberty Bond Act? You mean...... US bonds?

So let's review.....

Social Security has been taking it's surplus money, and investing it into US Savings bonds since 1935.

Which does what? It gives the surplus money to the Federal Government politicians, in exchange for an IOU. What does the Federal Government do with that money?

And a million other lobbyists and pet projects, and welfare and other handouts.... and it's gone.

Your money is gone.

Never get your information on the IRS website. IRS 101.

That was the direct text from the 1935 bill. If that isn't evidence for you, then you have disqualified yourself from this conversation.

The bill was ammended by Lyndonn Johnson and the Dems in the mid 60's. Read up on it.

 

[kaz]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

Explain how if you "loan" yourself money and spend it, you have an asset. Social Security money goes into and comes out of the general fund. The government wrote IOUs to itself. To call that a "trust fund" is ridiculous.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

Explain how if you "loan" yourself money and spend it, you have an asset. Social Security money goes into and comes out of the general fund. The government wrote IOUs to itself. To call that a "trust fund" is ridiculous.

Exactly. It's a Ponzi scheme, as we all know. Legal technicalities are just that. Writing IOUs to yourself, and calling that an asset, is the domain of the leftists. Which I am not.

At least with a company that produces something, there is a tangible asset to be seized for the IOU. What exactly does government produce again? Oh... nothing. Right.

 

[kaz]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

Explain how if you "loan" yourself money and spend it, you have an asset. Social Security money goes into and comes out of the general fund. The government wrote IOUs to itself. To call that a "trust fund" is ridiculous.

Exactly. It's a Ponzi scheme, as we all know. Legal technicalities are just that. Writing IOUs to yourself, and calling that an asset, is the domain of the leftists. Which I am not.

At least with a company that produces something, there is a tangible asset to be seized for the IOU. What exactly does government produce again? Oh... nothing. Right.

Fair enough, but then what did you mean by the Federal government "guarantees" social security?

 

[healthmyths]

Investment Scams Introduction Investopedia

Investment Scams Different Types Of Scams Investopedia

Investment Scams Newsletters Investopedia

There's no risk at all if we repeal the SSA; let the buyer beware and the American people need to be prepared to step over the sleeping seniors on the sidewalks of American cities.

SS steals 15% of everyone's life time income which if invested privately would make an average American worth 1.4 million as compared to living on SS dog food money now if you live long enough to collect a penny.

THe risk is in letting liberal govt steal your money every paycheck.

And I've NOT proposed to do away with SS because it can be a FORCED savings program that is untouchable till retirement!
More importantly as I've stated it would still be a CHOICE!
A) If worker doesn't WANT to have a choice where the forced savings goes... FINE! Traditional SS for him!
B) But if a worker WANTS to choose where the forced savings will go ... IT DOESN"T HAVE TO BE in the stock market..FDIC savings is fine!

it is a choice. I really don't comprehend these liberals always shouting about "freedom" "FREEEDOM"... well folks here we have
FREEDOM of CHOICE as to where the forced savings would go!
FREEDOM to CHOOSE!!!

 

[healthmyths]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

Explain how if you "loan" yourself money and spend it, you have an asset. Social Security money goes into and comes out of the general fund. The government wrote IOUs to itself. To call that a "trust fund" is ridiculous.

nder the president’s budget request, total federal tax revenues in fiscal year 2015 are projected to be $3.3 trillion.
These revenues come from three major sources:
income taxes paid by individuals, accounting for 46 percent of all tax revenues;
payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers, accounting for 32 percent; and
corporate income taxes paid by businesses, making up 13 percent.
There are also a handful of other types of taxes like customs duties and excise taxes that make up much smaller portions of federal revenue. Customs duties are taxes on imports, paid by the importer, while excise taxes are taxes levied on specific goods, like gasoline.
This pie chart below shows how much each of these revenue sources is expected to bring in during fiscal year 2015.

46% or $1,518,000,000,000 ($1.518 trillion ) income Taxes paid by the 53% of Americans
32% or $1,056,000,000,000 ($1.056 trillion ) payroll taxes paid by all employees and matched by employers.. [SS/Medicare payments]
13% or $ 429,000,000,000 ($0.429 trillion ) corporate income taxes.
9% or $ 297,000,000,000 ($0.297 trillion ) gas taxes, duties, excise taxes..

Federal Revenue Where Does the Money Come From

 

[Flopper]

Those old TV shows were nothing like life in the 1950's. They were sanitized version of what we wished life was like. The 50's were not a ‘magical’ time – most times in our past were not.

too stupid as always!! Nobody said they represented what life was like in the 1950's, just what we should all aspire to. When my chemistry teacher passed a bad check he was instantly fired as a very bad example and role model. Today you can buy "Breaking Bad" dolls at "Toy' R US".

Is a liberal too stupid to know which is best?

The images of the 50's on TV, movies, books, advertisements was that of an idealized America. No one had sex, they just kiss and had babies. No one cursed. No one told smutty jokes. All normal women married, had 3 wonderful children, lived in a pretty little house, and the biggest problem the family ever faced was picking out Sis's prom dress. Crime never paid. Blacks all loved fried chicken and watermelon. No one was homosexual. The problem with this sanitized version of America is it made everyone an outside. The 60's was a violent reaction to the phony America of 50's.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, the US government guarantees Social Security

The US government doesn't "guarantee" Social Security. There is no trust fund. The US government spends it as it gets it. Your children will pay your benefits because you're a dead beat who didn't save for your own retirement. Nice going.

From a legal technicality angle, there is a trust fund. The fund has nothing but US savings bonds in it. Which of course, in reality, is nothing but IOUs, IOUs which we don't have the money to pay back. Eventual the system will crash. That can't be sustained.

Explain how if you "loan" yourself money and spend it, you have an asset. Social Security money goes into and comes out of the general fund. The government wrote IOUs to itself. To call that a "trust fund" is ridiculous.

Exactly. It's a Ponzi scheme, as we all know. Legal technicalities are just that. Writing IOUs to yourself, and calling that an asset, is the domain of the leftists. Which I am not.

At least with a company that produces something, there is a tangible asset to be seized for the IOU. What exactly does government produce again? Oh... nothing. Right.

Fair enough, but then what did you mean by the Federal government "guarantees" social security?

It's legal technicality. I wasn't the one making that claim. It was the poster before. It would be wrong for me to say they don't, when by legal definition they do, which is all my point was. Yes, from a legal technical standpoint they do guarantee them, but with nothing more than "we say it is".

Unfortunately, as with many leftards, they actually think that the US government is as solid and enduring as time. Which is ironic given our government already defaulted once.

 

[Andylusion]

Those old TV shows were nothing like life in the 1950's. They were sanitized version of what we wished life was like. The 50's were not a ‘magical’ time – most times in our past were not.

too stupid as always!! Nobody said they represented what life was like in the 1950's, just what we should all aspire to. When my chemistry teacher passed a bad check he was instantly fired as a very bad example and role model. Today you can buy "Breaking Bad" dolls at "Toy' R US".

Is a liberal too stupid to know which is best?

The images of the 50's on TV, movies, books, advertisements was that of an idealized America. No one had sex, they just kiss and had babies. No one cursed. No one told smutty jokes. All normal women married, had 3 wonderful children, lived in a pretty little house, and the biggest problem the family ever faced was picking out Sis's prom dress. Crime never paid. Blacks all loved fried chicken and watermelon. No one was homosexual. The problem with this sanitized version of America is it made everyone an outside. The 60's was a violent reaction to the phony America of 50's.

I think that's a retrospective view. I highly doubt the people in the 1950s, all thought that TV was how life really was.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with this sanitized version of America is it made everyone an outside.

too stupid! If they felt like outsiders they would not have watched the shows. Too stupid, it would be like saying that watching professional sports makes everyone feel like an outsider or non athlete!

America was a great country then because we all aspired to an ideal anda tried to reach it. Now blacks, and to a lessor extend whites, are taught that love, family, and success is white.