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

[alan1]

Then why did you bring it up?

As long as you keep putting them in mine, yes.

I merely asked you a question based upon your logic,

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

I missed the part where I suggested children should be forced to work - maybe you can highlight that one for me.

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your fundamental premise is WRONG. You assume that government SHOULD be responsible for taking of people. You imply that government is smarter then anyone else and should be entrusted with their hard earned cash. I submit that you are wrong and that government has proven itself incapable of doing the job you wish it to do.

I merely asked what instrument the trust funds could have been invested in that would not place a burden on the U.S. economy when those instruments are redeemed. Its a simple question that relied on nothing that you have mentioned. If you've got no answer, which you obviously don't, that's fine, just say so.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I merely asked you a question based upon your logic,

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

I missed the part where I suggested children should be forced to work - maybe you can highlight that one for me.

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

 

[alan1]

I didn't start this thread to answer YOUR questions shit for brains.

I'll take that as an admission that you can longer form a valid defense for your position and thus have to resort to tossing schoolyard style insults.
Whatever makes you feel better :shrug:

I didn't take a position, I asked a simple ******* question, of which you are completely incapable of answering - so why not try another thread?

Your subsequent posts after the OP certainly appeared to me as if you were taking a position, especially when one takes the context of all your posts in this thread into consideration.
Look, if you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, I'm not going to get butt-hurt about it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll take that as an admission that you can longer form a valid defense for your position and thus have to resort to tossing schoolyard style insults.
Whatever makes you feel better :shrug:

I didn't take a position, I asked a simple ******* question, of which you are completely incapable of answering - so why not try another thread?

Your subsequent posts after the OP certainly appeared to me as if you were taking a position, especially when one takes the context of all your posts in this thread into consideration.
Look, if you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, I'm not going to get butt-hurt about it.

Hey - lets over analyze people's thoughts instead of answering their SIMPLE questions.

You have no answer. Because you have no clue. And you refuse to answer my 2nd question about whether children should be forced to have sex.

 

[alan1]

I missed the part where I suggested children should be forced to work - maybe you can highlight that one for me.

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

No.
No.
No.

But then, I never tried to lay out an argument that 1 out of 3 people not having sex is a problem, nor that 1 out of 3 fat people not eating puppies is a problem, nor that 1 out 3 people not sucking cock is a problem.

Again, with the aggressive behavior from you. Try not to take yourself so seriously.

 

[alan1]

I didn't take a position, I asked a simple ******* question, of which you are completely incapable of answering - so why not try another thread?

Your subsequent posts after the OP certainly appeared to me as if you were taking a position, especially when one takes the context of all your posts in this thread into consideration.
Look, if you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, I'm not going to get butt-hurt about it.

Hey - lets over analyze people's thoughts instead of answering their SIMPLE questions.

You have no answer. Because you have no clue. And you refuse to answer my 2nd question about whether children should be forced to have sex.

I refused nothing. I simply took a few minutes to think before I wrote my response.
Please see above post to alleviate your concerns.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

No.
No.
No.

Awesome. Now let's continue. Please bear in mind these are just questions.

Should we release all death row inmates from prison?
Should we drop nuclear bombs on all major cities, including in the U.S.?
Should we release an anthrax plague on the world?

Nothing you've said suggests I should ask these, but I'm just asking them to be sure.

But then, I never tried to lay out an argument that 1 out of 3 people not having sex is a problem, nor that 1 out of 3 fat people not eating puppies is a problem, nor that 1 out 3 people not sucking cock is a problem.

Great. I never said 1 out of 3 people not working is a "problem", I merely pointed out the obvious economic consequences - if 2 people work and 1 person does not, and everyone is to have what they need - won't those 2 people have to make enough for 1.5 each?

Are you saying that's not true?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your subsequent posts after the OP certainly appeared to me as if you were taking a position, especially when one takes the context of all your posts in this thread into consideration.
Look, if you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, I'm not going to get butt-hurt about it.

Hey - lets over analyze people's thoughts instead of answering their SIMPLE questions.

You have no answer. Because you have no clue. And you refuse to answer my 2nd question about whether children should be forced to have sex.

I refused nothing. I simply took a few minutes to think before I wrote my response.
Please see above post to alleviate your concerns.

So how would you have invested SS Trust Funds in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?

 

[westwall]

One of the best scenarios is to have more people buying goods and services than are producing those goods and services. Then you will have surplus profits that can be used to expand other markets for other goods and services.

If there are 2 workers to 1 retiree then those 2 workers have to make enough for 3. Doesn't matter if the 1 retiree is selling his stock shares to the 2 workers and then buying their products and services with the money - or whether the workers are taxed by government to fund the retiree - they still have to make enough for 3 instead of 2.


Its simple math. Can you understand it? Just try.

How about this even simpler method. One worker works and takes care of his family and puts money aside for later. He gets old. He retires. He uses the money he banked and invested to support himself and his family in perpetuity. The only person not getting it is you. You still rely on the slave mentality that says you have to get your sustenance from the "Massa" whoever that may be.

Throw off your shackles and think like a citizen and not a slave.

 

[westwall]

I missed the part where I suggested children should be forced to work - maybe you can highlight that one for me.

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

Wow, when you get ***** slapped and made to look like a fool you really show your true colors don't you?

PhD in physics? I think not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You didn't suggest it. I merely asked the question.
You seem very aggressive towards me. I'm unsure why that is.

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

Wow, when you get ***** slapped and made to look like a fool you really show your true colors don't you?

PhD in physics? I think not.

Not yet. In December.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How about this even simpler method. One worker works and takes care of his family and puts money aside for later. He gets old. He retires. He uses the money he banked and invested to support himself and his family in perpetuity. .

How does he use the money? Does he eat it? Does he cloth himself with it? Or does he have to convince an actor in the economy to produce something for him in exchange for it? How has the fact that if 2 people are working out of 3, 2 people still have to produce what 3 need? If the non-working retiree has a higher income than the workers and can thus afford to spend more money, all it means is the 2 that are working will get less than 2/3 of what they produce - and vice versa.

 

[flacaltenn]

OOpydOO:

Here's how gullible and brainwashed you are.. Tell me if I misrepresent any of your position on the "trust fund"..

In 1997, the govt STOLE $58Bill in excess FICA tax payments. Put it in the General Fund and counted it ON-BOOK as an asset. They placed a "note" in the Trust Fund promising to pay any deficits with FUTURE DEBT..

So when 2010 rolls around, and SS runs up a $40Bill deficit and the Treasury coughs up $40Bill in NEW DEBT backed by the issuance of T-Bonds that taxpayers are liable for. This FINALLY shows as a Debt entry in the General Ledger.

So you believe that the $58Bill of REAL CASH taken from the pockets of the taxpayers in 1997 is FULLY PAID by the issuance of not ONE --- But TWO debt instruments!!!! One the worthless IOU in the Trust Fund, and the other the ACTUAL T-Bond just issued.

TWO debt instruments issued versus $58Bill in REAL POCKETBOOK CASH --- you believe this is "an investment"???????????????????????????

Check the mirror kiddo -- you ARE a PT Barnum sucker....

 

[flacaltenn]

,,,,,and speaking of getting "something for nothing" -- where do you get the concept of a "good investment" being entirely risk free as you imply in this OP?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OOpydOO:

Here's how gullible and brainwashed you are.. Tell me if I misrepresent any of your position on the "trust fund"..

In 1997, the govt STOLE $58Bill in excess FICA tax payments. Put it in the General Fund and counted it ON-BOOK as an asset. They placed a "note" in the Trust Fund promising to pay any deficits with FUTURE DEBT..

So when 2010 rolls around, and SS runs up a $40Bill deficit and the Treasury coughs up $40Bill in NEW DEBT backed by the issuance of T-Bonds that taxpayers are liable for. This FINALLY shows as a Debt entry in the General Ledger.

So you believe that the $58Bill of REAL CASH taken from the pockets of the taxpayers in 1997 is FULLY PAID by the issuance of not ONE --- But TWO debt instruments!!!! One the worthless IOU in the Trust Fund, and the other the ACTUAL T-Bond just issued.

TWO debt instruments issued versus $58Bill in REAL POCKETBOOK CASH --- you believe this is "an investment"???????????????????????????

Check the mirror kiddo -- you ARE a PT Barnum sucker....

Excess FICA funds go to retire old debt. Insufficient FICA funds are paid for by issuing new debt. That's the way it goes. When you've got a better way let us know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

,,,,,and speaking of getting "something for nothing" -- where do you get the concept of a "good investment" being entirely risk free as you imply in this OP?

You have misinterpreted me. I made no such implication.

 

[alan1]

Hey - lets over analyze people's thoughts instead of answering their SIMPLE questions.

You have no answer. Because you have no clue. And you refuse to answer my 2nd question about whether children should be forced to have sex.

I refused nothing. I simply took a few minutes to think before I wrote my response.
Please see above post to alleviate your concerns.

So how would you have invested SS Trust Funds in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?

Let the people keep their own money.

See, you are of the false premise that SS should be given to (taken by) the government.
I thought SkullPilot already explained the weakness of that line of reasoning.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I refused nothing. I simply took a few minutes to think before I wrote my response.
Please see above post to alleviate your concerns.

So how would you have invested SS Trust Funds in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?

Let the people keep their own money.

See, you are of the false premise that SS should be given to (taken by) the government.
I thought SkullPilot already explained the weakness of that line of reasoning.

How would you fund payments to current beneficiaries?

 

[alan1]

The answer is no.

Now I've got some questions for you. You didn't suggest any of them, I'm just asking them.

Should children be forced to have sex?

Should puppies be forced to be eaten by fat people?

Should you be forced to suck a big cock?


These are all valid questions - I'm not trying to imply anything about you or what you've said - I'm just asking, that you please answer them. Like you - I'm trying to up the level of debate on this board by asking the tough questions.

No.
No.
No.

Awesome. Now let's continue. Please bear in mind these are just questions.

Should we release all death row inmates from prison?
Should we drop nuclear bombs on all major cities, including in the U.S.?
Should we release an anthrax plague on the world?

Nothing you've said suggests I should ask these, but I'm just asking them to be sure.

But then, I never tried to lay out an argument that 1 out of 3 people not having sex is a problem, nor that 1 out of 3 fat people not eating puppies is a problem, nor that 1 out 3 people not sucking cock is a problem.

Great. I never said 1 out of 3 people not working is a "problem", I merely pointed out the obvious economic consequences - if 2 people work and 1 person does not, and everyone is to have what they need - won't those 2 people have to make enough for 1.5 each?

Are you saying that's not true?

OK, I'll admit, you wore me down with your consistent nonsensical questions.
Feel better now?