Obamacare just ruined my life

[Dot Com]

i say hang those sunzabitches who passed Obozocare into law in the first place then burn every page and copy of that law on their dead bodies.

too bad we lost our Republic when that ******* muslime mulatto was sworn in. ...

You are a perfect candidate for al queda. Such hatred for our great country, you have.

seriously, that kid is an asswipe.

 

[Snookie]

And you are a liar. I did not attempt to do anything of the kind. I'm using the terms as defined, as they were intended, and as they have been used throughout history. It is you who are trying to redefine SS into what? If not investment, what is it? You are a coward that hides behind the sheets. Come out and offer a differing opinion vs. attacking me personally for my use of the term "investment" to describe SS.

Here, read about the "rates of return" for SS tax vs. other investments from the SSA web site:

Internal Real Rates of Return

You'll note they stopped counting rates of return for folks earning more then 69k. This because those folks are getting screwed and they did not want to show that on the chart.

Where did I attack you personally?

"You are attempting to change the definition of the phrase ponzi scheme."

I'm doing nothing of the kind. Nor am I attempting to change the definition of investment, which is what I thought you said. I may have misread your intent. I take the accusation of intentional and egregious changes of terms as an affront, when in fact that is not the case. It is a ponzi by every measure except one. The government is above the law, thus it's not a ponzi because they say its not a ponzi.

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

 

[itfitzme]

Few people would classify legalized theft as an investment. An investment is generally considered to be voluntary.

in·vest·ment [ in véstmənt ]
use of money for future profit: the outlay of money, e.g. by depositing it in a bank or by buying stock in a company, with the object of making a profit.

money invested: an amount of money invested in something for the purpose of making a profit.

something in which money is invested: something, e.g. a company, endeavor, or property, that money is invested in with the goal of making a profit

If A is an investment broker.

However. . . .

B invests $100 with A expecting X return on the money.

But rather than growing the $100, A instead spends the money and takes money from C in order to pay B.

Can you say Bernie Madoff?

World English Dictionary
Ponzi scheme (ˈpɒnz&#618 — n
a fraudulent investment operation that pays quick returns to initial contributors using money from subsequent contributors rather than profit.

Now which of these two definitions looks more like Social Security?

Some people voluntarily write checks to the SSA, granted they would go to jail if they refuse.

While I agree investments are generally voluntary, there's no denying that there is a rate of return on SS deposits for some lucky few. Money goes into an account, money comes out. Some people loose more than they put in some get more than they put in. Most investments have a variable rate of return, many if not most can actually loose money. It's the same damn thing with SS. The only real difference is, in this case government mandates it by law, unless you get an exemption. Exemptions include priests, I believe one religion, and some federal union employees.

By design, it started out as a ponzi, and still is a ponzi. Each and every successive generation has had to pay twice as much as the previous generation by % of income. This pyramid proves without a shadow of doubt that it is a ponzi. The only final nail in the coffin is the last generation getting left holding the 50t + bag and nothing but IOUs in return.

It is well known that the only way to "save" this program is to cut the benefits, again, and/or increase the amount taken.

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

 

[RKMBrown]

Few people would classify legalized theft as an investment. An investment is generally considered to be voluntary.




If A is an investment broker.

However. . . .

B invests $100 with A expecting X return on the money.

But rather than growing the $100, A instead spends the money and takes money from C in order to pay B.

Can you say Bernie Madoff?



Now which of these two definitions looks more like Social Security?

Some people voluntarily write checks to the SSA, granted they would go to jail if they refuse.

While I agree investments are generally voluntary, there's no denying that there is a rate of return on SS deposits for some lucky few. Money goes into an account, money comes out. Some people loose more than they put in some get more than they put in. Most investments have a variable rate of return, many if not most can actually loose money. It's the same damn thing with SS. The only real difference is, in this case government mandates it by law, unless you get an exemption. Exemptions include priests, I believe one religion, and some federal union employees.

By design, it started out as a ponzi, and still is a ponzi. Each and every successive generation has had to pay twice as much as the previous generation by % of income. This pyramid proves without a shadow of doubt that it is a ponzi. The only final nail in the coffin is the last generation getting left holding the 50t + bag and nothing but IOUs in return.

It is well known that the only way to "save" this program is to cut the benefits, again, and/or increase the amount taken.

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

 

[RKMBrown]

Further the amount paid out should be reflected by the amount put in and not be artificially capped.

 

[itfitzme]

Some people voluntarily write checks to the SSA, granted they would go to jail if they refuse.

While I agree investments are generally voluntary, there's no denying that there is a rate of return on SS deposits for some lucky few. Money goes into an account, money comes out. Some people loose more than they put in some get more than they put in. Most investments have a variable rate of return, many if not most can actually loose money. It's the same damn thing with SS. The only real difference is, in this case government mandates it by law, unless you get an exemption. Exemptions include priests, I believe one religion, and some federal union employees.

By design, it started out as a ponzi, and still is a ponzi. Each and every successive generation has had to pay twice as much as the previous generation by % of income. This pyramid proves without a shadow of doubt that it is a ponzi. The only final nail in the coffin is the last generation getting left holding the 50t + bag and nothing but IOUs in return.

It is well known that the only way to "save" this program is to cut the benefits, again, and/or increase the amount taken.

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

So? Who told you that laws and taxes are suppose to be adjusted precisely to you personally? It would be nice, but it would also be ridiculously inefficient. We would end up paying many factors more to manage such a thing.

That you are suppose to like it isn't in the Constitution. That you don't like it doesn't make it a ponzi scheme.

And the fact of the matter is, the amount of tax that you pay has absolutely no medium or long term direct effect on your spending power. Your employer see it as taxes he has to pay, not you. If your taxes are decreased, prices rise and any income increase is delayed. Your employer sees your tax decrease as a raise for you.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what your tax levels is, unless you happen to be in that smaller group where it is lower than everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, what counts is the employment level and what those people are producing. The $ just counts it.

 

[itfitzme]

Further the amount paid out should be reflected by the amount put in and not be artificially capped.

No it shouldn't. That is just what you want it to be. Tuff shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Further the amount paid out should be reflected by the amount put in and not be artificially capped.

No it shouldn't. That is just what you want it to be. Tuff shit.

Choke on it.

 

[itfitzme]

Where did I attack you personally?

"You are attempting to change the definition of the phrase ponzi scheme."

I'm doing nothing of the kind. Nor am I attempting to change the definition of investment, which is what I thought you said. I may have misread your intent. I take the accusation of intentional and egregious changes of terms as an affront, when in fact that is not the case. It is a ponzi by every measure except one. The government is above the law, thus it's not a ponzi because they say its not a ponzi.

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

True, you don't have to. So you should stop. In fact, you should stop reading them as well.

It won't change the fact that SSI isn't a ponzi scheme or that you just make up shit based on "I don't like it."

All your saying is "I don't like you." So what? Your a self centered moron, why should anyone care if you like them? Frankly, I don't like you.

 

[itfitzme]

Further the amount paid out should be reflected by the amount put in and not be artificially capped.

No it shouldn't. That is just what you want it to be. Tuff shit.

Choke on it.

Tuff shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

So? Who told you that laws and taxes are suppose to be adjusted precisely to you personally? It would be nice, but it would also be ridiculously inefficient. We would end up paying many factors more to manage such a thing.

That you are suppose to like it isn't in the Constitution. That you don't like it doesn't make it a ponzi scheme.

And the fact of the matter is, the amount of tax that you pay has absolutely no medium or long term direct effect on your spending power. Your employer see it as taxes he has to pay, not you. If your taxes are decreased, prices rise and any income increase is delayed. Your employer sees your tax decrease as a raise for you.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what your tax levels is, unless you happen to be in that smaller group where it is lower than everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, what counts is the employment level and what those people are producing. The $ just counts it.

Wrong. The amount of money you get from SS is already adjusted based on the amount put in. I'm not talking about complicating it. I'm talking about removing the injustice of capping the adjustment to returns for earning 69k income vs cap for the amount put in which is currently set to cap at 113k. I find it disgusting that the middle class who make between 69 and 113k are being singled out for this injustice.

 

[itfitzme]

Where did I attack you personally?

"You are attempting to change the definition of the phrase ponzi scheme."

I'm doing nothing of the kind. Nor am I attempting to change the definition of investment, which is what I thought you said. I may have misread your intent. I take the accusation of intentional and egregious changes of terms as an affront, when in fact that is not the case. It is a ponzi by every measure except one. The government is above the law, thus it's not a ponzi because they say its not a ponzi.

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

"by every measure except one" By every measure but one, water kill you when you drink it. Sulfuric acid is a liquid.... water is a liquid. Sulfuric acid is a solvent... Water is a solvent. By every measure but one, water is poisonous. Oh, except that one measure that it isn't.

By every measure but one, you are a chimpanzee. You have arms and legs. A chimpanzee has arms and legs. So by every measure but one, you belong in the zoo.

By definition, a ponzi scheme is fraudulent. "by every measure except one" Yeah, by the only one that counts. SSI is not fraudulent. It is not illegal. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a mandated social insurance program.

 

[Snookie]

Some people voluntarily write checks to the SSA, granted they would go to jail if they refuse.

While I agree investments are generally voluntary, there's no denying that there is a rate of return on SS deposits for some lucky few. Money goes into an account, money comes out. Some people loose more than they put in some get more than they put in. Most investments have a variable rate of return, many if not most can actually loose money. It's the same damn thing with SS. The only real difference is, in this case government mandates it by law, unless you get an exemption. Exemptions include priests, I believe one religion, and some federal union employees.

By design, it started out as a ponzi, and still is a ponzi. Each and every successive generation has had to pay twice as much as the previous generation by % of income. This pyramid proves without a shadow of doubt that it is a ponzi. The only final nail in the coffin is the last generation getting left holding the 50t + bag and nothing but IOUs in return.

It is well known that the only way to "save" this program is to cut the benefits, again, and/or increase the amount taken.

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

We don't need to raise ss tax. SS jusyt has to collect the two trillion owed it by the general fund who pillaged it. Cash in those iou's.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it shouldn't. That is just what you want it to be. Tuff shit.

Choke on it.

Tuff shit.

Choke on it again.

 

[Snookie]

"You are attempting to change the definition of the phrase ponzi scheme."

I'm doing nothing of the kind. Nor am I attempting to change the definition of investment, which is what I thought you said. I may have misread your intent. I take the accusation of intentional and egregious changes of terms as an affront, when in fact that is not the case. It is a ponzi by every measure except one. The government is above the law, thus it's not a ponzi because they say its not a ponzi.

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

"by every measure except one" By every measure but one, water kill you when you drink it. Sulfuric acid is a liquid.... water is a liquid. Sulfuric acid is a solvent... Water is a solvent. By every measure but one, water is poisonous. Oh, except that one measure that it isn't.

By definition, a ponzi scheme is fraudulent. "by every measure except one" Yeah, by the only one that counts. SSI is not fraudulent. It is not illegal. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a mandated social insurance program.

I think we should get paid for educating children here.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's what I've been saying, just raise the tax.

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

We don't need to raise ss tax. SS jusyt has to collect the two trillion owed it by the general fund who pillaged it. Cash in those iou's.

I believe the two trillion is the IOUs. The issue is when those IOUs are gone, the unfunded promises will require additional taxes or loans.

 

[itfitzme]

I'd be ok with raising the tax if we make it retroactive to the people collecting. Why should prior generations keep getting SS for a discount rate and subsequent generations get punished with the higher rate? This is my point regarding the pyramid/ponzi nature of the program. Each prior generation has been all to willing to let the next generation pay double for the same payout.

At best you could argue that subsequent generations live longer so they should pay more. But the problem I see with that argument is that we don't all live the same number of years. For example, blacks are known to live a less number of average years. As another example, men... As still another example, people with known end of life events, even, are still mandated to pay the tax even through it is known that they will not live to collect.

So? Who told you that laws and taxes are suppose to be adjusted precisely to you personally? It would be nice, but it would also be ridiculously inefficient. We would end up paying many factors more to manage such a thing.

That you are suppose to like it isn't in the Constitution. That you don't like it doesn't make it a ponzi scheme.

And the fact of the matter is, the amount of tax that you pay has absolutely no medium or long term direct effect on your spending power. Your employer see it as taxes he has to pay, not you. If your taxes are decreased, prices rise and any income increase is delayed. Your employer sees your tax decrease as a raise for you.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what your tax levels is, unless you happen to be in that smaller group where it is lower than everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, what counts is the employment level and what those people are producing. The $ just counts it.

Wrong. The amount of money you get from SS is already adjusted based on the amount put in. I'm not talking about complicating it. I'm talking about removing the injustice of capping the adjustment to returns for earning 69k income vs cap for the amount put in which is currently set to cap at 113k. I find it disgusting that the middle class who make between 69 and 113k are being singled out for this injustice.

" The amount of money you get from SS is already adjusted based on the amount put in. ".

I never said it wasn't. You cannot read. You make up shit to argue about.

It isn't an injustice. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an injustice. SSI does what it can with the money that it collects. It cannot pay out more than it collected and maintains a trust fund to manage things over the long term.

In my opinion, SSI should be reduced for every dollar you collect from other personal retirement funds, like a 401K.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

"by every measure except one" By every measure but one, water kill you when you drink it. Sulfuric acid is a liquid.... water is a liquid. Sulfuric acid is a solvent... Water is a solvent. By every measure but one, water is poisonous. Oh, except that one measure that it isn't.

By definition, a ponzi scheme is fraudulent. "by every measure except one" Yeah, by the only one that counts. SSI is not fraudulent. It is not illegal. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a mandated social insurance program.

I think we should get paid for educating children here.

The only way your getting a dime from me is through a proxy such as the government that threatens to put me and my children in the street if I don't pay up.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't have to even respond to your posts. Even a retarded RWer can tell that you are full of bs. I swear, you kids on the internet posing, is so obvious.

"by every measure except one" By every measure but one, water kill you when you drink it. Sulfuric acid is a liquid.... water is a liquid. Sulfuric acid is a solvent... Water is a solvent. By every measure but one, water is poisonous. Oh, except that one measure that it isn't.

By definition, a ponzi scheme is fraudulent. "by every measure except one" Yeah, by the only one that counts. SSI is not fraudulent. It is not illegal. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a mandated social insurance program.

I think we should get paid for educating children here.

Yes, I should get paid for educating you. Unfortunately, your perfomance on learning is below par.

Your performance on jerking off your own feelings is very high though, you get an "A" for being a jerk off.

 

[RKMBrown]

So? Who told you that laws and taxes are suppose to be adjusted precisely to you personally? It would be nice, but it would also be ridiculously inefficient. We would end up paying many factors more to manage such a thing.

That you are suppose to like it isn't in the Constitution. That you don't like it doesn't make it a ponzi scheme.

And the fact of the matter is, the amount of tax that you pay has absolutely no medium or long term direct effect on your spending power. Your employer see it as taxes he has to pay, not you. If your taxes are decreased, prices rise and any income increase is delayed. Your employer sees your tax decrease as a raise for you.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what your tax levels is, unless you happen to be in that smaller group where it is lower than everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, what counts is the employment level and what those people are producing. The $ just counts it.

Wrong. The amount of money you get from SS is already adjusted based on the amount put in. I'm not talking about complicating it. I'm talking about removing the injustice of capping the adjustment to returns for earning 69k income vs cap for the amount put in which is currently set to cap at 113k. I find it disgusting that the middle class who make between 69 and 113k are being singled out for this injustice.

" The amount of money you get from SS is already adjusted based on the amount put in. ".

I never said it wasn't. You cannot read. You make up shit to argue about.

It isn't an injustice. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an injustice. SSI does what it can with the money that it collects. It cannot pay out more than it collected and maintains a trust fund to manage things over the long term.

In my opinion, SSI should be reduced for every dollar you collect from other personal retirement funds, like a 401K.

You said "Who told you that laws and taxes are suppose to be adjusted precisely to you personally? It would be nice, but it would also be ridiculously inefficient. We would end up paying many factors more to manage such a thing." In response I explained that this is already the case. Then you cry you never said it wasn't. Are you retarded? Never mind that is clear from your declaration that you don't deserve SS checks if you have a 401k plan. My god what the hell is wrong with you retarded 7-Eleven clerks.