Sisyphus Stumbled

[Wry Catcher]

The need for SS and Medicare (or similar such services) has existed in modern society since the Industrial Revolution. SS is not the be all end all of retirement plans, individuals know they must have some other plans or will be destined to rely on their kids or live in poverty. Of course to set money aside and invest for the future requires a living wage.

Anyone who has traveled around the globe has seen the poor, the infirmed and the aged begging on the streets of urban cities; hordes of children living alone or in bands of disorganized crime, all amid pockets of wealth incarcerated in office towers and gated communities.

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the bankers, brokers, snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women pay in payroll taxes, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare. Once these programs (earned by the working men and women) have been eliminated they will be replaced with new markets, offering more insurance and investment products without the full force and credit guarantee of SS and Medicare, loaded with fine print to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Payroll taxes should go into a locked box and not be used by the Congress for any purpose other than to pay the earned benefits to those who contributed.

 

[Truthmatters]

but how would the sociopaths get to steal it from the people then?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why travel the world to see misery, poverty and destitution when all you have to do is visit Detroit or Newark

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why travel the world to see misery, poverty and destitution when all you have to do is visit Detroit or Newark

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your bigotry - both are your most salient characteristics.

Of course when you have nothing of substance to offer - which is always - you feel some need for attention and thus make a comment - which you will deny - which is essential an overt racist remark.

Respond to this if you dare:

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the bankers, brokers, snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women pay in payroll taxes, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare. Once these programs (earned by the working men and women) have been eliminated they will be replaced with new markets, offering more insurance and investment products without the full force and credit guarantee of SS and Medicare, loaded with fine print to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many.

 

[TNHarley]

What about the attack obama did on Medicare? Around 800 billion? Let me guess, that does not count?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The need for SS and Medicare (or similar such services) has existed in modern society since the Industrial Revolution. SS is not the be all end all of retirement plans, individuals know they must have some other plans or will be destined to rely on their kids or live in poverty. Of course to set money aside and invest for the future requires a living wage.

Anyone who has traveled around the globe has seen the poor, the infirmed and the aged begging on the streets of urban cities; hordes of children living alone or in bands of disorganized crime, all amid pockets of wealth incarcerated in office towers and gated communities.

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the bankers, brokers, snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women pay in payroll taxes, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare. Once these programs (earned by the working men and women) have been eliminated they will be replaced with new markets, offering more insurance and investment products without the full force and credit guarantee of SS and Medicare, loaded with fine print to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many.

The perceived need has existed.

One does not need Social Security.

I have shown you sheep over and over that if the employee and employer contributions for SS were kept out of the hands of our inept greedy corrupt politicians that people would be able to retire with significantly more money and leave a leagacy to future generations if they choose.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The attack on SS

reflects the simple reality that if Americans put 15% of their lifetime income in private accounts they would retire with $1.4 million rather than the dog food money they get from liberals now!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The attack on Medicare

reflects the simple reality that a soviet style liberal government monopoly is about 10% as efficient as capitalism. This is why China switched and its people are now getting rich as opposed to starving to death!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

What about the attack obama did on Medicare? Around 800 billion? Let me guess, that does not count?

Why do you continue to parrot dishonest propaganda? Do some homework whydon'tya.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The need for SS and Medicare (or similar such services) has existed in modern society since the Industrial Revolution. SS is not the be all end all of retirement plans, individuals know they must have some other plans or will be destined to rely on their kids or live in poverty. Of course to set money aside and invest for the future requires a living wage.

Anyone who has traveled around the globe has seen the poor, the infirmed and the aged begging on the streets of urban cities; hordes of children living alone or in bands of disorganized crime, all amid pockets of wealth incarcerated in office towers and gated communities.

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the bankers, brokers, snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women pay in payroll taxes, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare. Once these programs (earned by the working men and women) have been eliminated they will be replaced with new markets, offering more insurance and investment products without the full force and credit guarantee of SS and Medicare, loaded with fine print to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many.

The perceived need has existed.

One does not need Social Security.

I have shown you sheep over and over that if the employee and employer contributions for SS were kept out of the hands of our inept greedy corrupt politicians that people would be able to retire with significantly more money and leave a leagacy to future generations if they choose.

Show us again. The Baa's you hear aren't from sheep, they come from real people who have studied history and seen a bit of the world.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The need for SS and Medicare (or similar such services) has existed in modern society since the Industrial Revolution. SS is not the be all end all of retirement plans, individuals know they must have some other plans or will be destined to rely on their kids or live in poverty. Of course to set money aside and invest for the future requires a living wage.

Anyone who has traveled around the globe has seen the poor, the infirmed and the aged begging on the streets of urban cities; hordes of children living alone or in bands of disorganized crime, all amid pockets of wealth incarcerated in office towers and gated communities.

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the bankers, brokers, snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women pay in payroll taxes, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare. Once these programs (earned by the working men and women) have been eliminated they will be replaced with new markets, offering more insurance and investment products without the full force and credit guarantee of SS and Medicare, loaded with fine print to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many.

The perceived need has existed.

One does not need Social Security.

I have shown you sheep over and over that if the employee and employer contributions for SS were kept out of the hands of our inept greedy corrupt politicians that people would be able to retire with significantly more money and leave a leagacy to future generations if they choose.

Show us again. The Baa's you hear aren't from sheep, they come from real people who have studied history and seen a bit of the world.

Do the math yourself.

Figure out 15% of your lifetime salary and then use the average return of the stock market for that time period.

or look at this example again

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/238556-do-you-feel-we-should-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid-13.html#post5770422

 

[Wry Catcher]

The perceived need has existed.

One does not need Social Security.

I have shown you sheep over and over that if the employee and employer contributions for SS were kept out of the hands of our inept greedy corrupt politicians that people would be able to retire with significantly more money and leave a leagacy to future generations if they choose.

Show us again. The Baa's you hear aren't from sheep, they come from real people who have studied history and seen a bit of the world.

Do the math yourself.

Figure out 15% of your lifetime salary and then use the average return of the stock market for that time period.

or look at this example again

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/238556-do-you-feel-we-should-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid-13.html#post5770422

Your hypothetical 22 year old gets a job for 45k? Since the mean income in the US in 2005 was a bit less than 45k

see: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can infer that half of all Americans will make less than this person. We must also infer he is unmarried and has no children (any idea what the cost is to raise one child?) and has no college debt. He bought a home in 2005 which was one of the few to remain above water, will never experience a major accident or illness and was smart enough to save as you suggested, yet somehow invested with such wisdom that his retirement account thrived even as most others suffered devastating loses in the Great Recession (2007-2009).

So, even if someone actually existed who made all the right moves and was damn lucky it is foolish to assume this is the archetype of all 22 year olds in the 21st Century. Most 22 year olds, no matter how resourceful, can't graduate in four years; a four-year degree today leaves many graduates with a debt which will grow and grow unless paid off. And with the cost of medical insurance rising at double digits every year your fictional character may very well need to rely on SS and Medicare for s/he may one day have a surgery which when all is settled cost her/him half of everything s/he saved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Show us again. The Baa's you hear aren't from sheep, they come from real people who have studied history and seen a bit of the world.

Do the math yourself.

Figure out 15% of your lifetime salary and then use the average return of the stock market for that time period.

or look at this example again

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/238556-do-you-feel-we-should-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid-13.html#post5770422

Your hypothetical 22 year old gets a job for 45k? Since the mean income in the US in 2005 was a bit less than 45k

see: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can infer that half of all Americans will make less than this person. We must also infer he is unmarried and has no children (any idea what the cost is to raise one child?) and has no college debt. He bought a home in 2005 which was one of the few to remain above water, will never experience a major accident or illness and was smart enough to save as you suggested, yet somehow invested with such wisdom that his retirement account thrived even as most others suffered devastating loses in the Great Recession (2007-2009).

So, even if someone actually existed who made all the right moves and was damn lucky it is foolish to assume this is the archetype of all 22 year olds in the 21st Century. Most 22 year olds, no matter how resourceful, can't graduate in four years; a four-year degree today leaves many graduates with a debt which will grow and grow unless paid off. And with the cost of medical insurance rising at double digits every year your fictional character may very well need to rely on SS and Medicare for s/he may one day have a surgery which when all is settled cost her/him half of everything s/he saved.

Are you so fucking thick that you can't draw inferences from an example?

Would it be easier for you if I picked a different income for every 2 year period over a 45 year span even if all those incomes averages out to 45K a year? And it doesn't matter if someone makes less they would still have more money than they would if they contributed to SS.

Do it with your own income and I'll still be right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do the math yourself.

Figure out 15% of your lifetime salary and then use the average return of the stock market for that time period.

or look at this example again

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/238556-do-you-feel-we-should-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid-13.html#post5770422

Your hypothetical 22 year old gets a job for 45k? Since the mean income in the US in 2005 was a bit less than 45k

see: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can infer that half of all Americans will make less than this person. We must also infer he is unmarried and has no children (any idea what the cost is to raise one child?) and has no college debt. He bought a home in 2005 which was one of the few to remain above water, will never experience a major accident or illness and was smart enough to save as you suggested, yet somehow invested with such wisdom that his retirement account thrived even as most others suffered devastating loses in the Great Recession (2007-2009).

So, even if someone actually existed who made all the right moves and was damn lucky it is foolish to assume this is the archetype of all 22 year olds in the 21st Century. Most 22 year olds, no matter how resourceful, can't graduate in four years; a four-year degree today leaves many graduates with a debt which will grow and grow unless paid off. And with the cost of medical insurance rising at double digits every year your fictional character may very well need to rely on SS and Medicare for s/he may one day have a surgery which when all is settled cost her/him half of everything s/he saved.

Are you so fucking thick that you can't draw inferences from an example?

Would it be easier for you if I picked a different income for every 2 year period over a 45 year span even if all those incomes averages out to 45K a year? And it doesn't matter if someone makes less they would still have more money than they would if they contributed to SS.

Do it with your own income and I'll still be right.

I did draw inferences, not the ones you hoped. It's not the numbers you posted, I know and I suppose do too, hypothetical examples can be written to prove most anything. In real life the only sure thing is nothing is sure (and that includes SS and Medicare because they are and have been under attack since their inception).

Tell me how well off your 22 year old would be today if he had invested all of his savings with Bernie Madoff? Of course that would be a stupid thing to do, BUT many people did!

What if he had invested in Real Estate? What then?

 

[Truthmatters]

What about the attack obama did on Medicare? Around 800 billion? Let me guess, that does not count?

I thought you liked cutting out fraud?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your hypothetical 22 year old gets a job for 45k? Since the mean income in the US in 2005 was a bit less than 45k

see: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can infer that half of all Americans will make less than this person. We must also infer he is unmarried and has no children (any idea what the cost is to raise one child?) and has no college debt. He bought a home in 2005 which was one of the few to remain above water, will never experience a major accident or illness and was smart enough to save as you suggested, yet somehow invested with such wisdom that his retirement account thrived even as most others suffered devastating loses in the Great Recession (2007-2009).

So, even if someone actually existed who made all the right moves and was damn lucky it is foolish to assume this is the archetype of all 22 year olds in the 21st Century. Most 22 year olds, no matter how resourceful, can't graduate in four years; a four-year degree today leaves many graduates with a debt which will grow and grow unless paid off. And with the cost of medical insurance rising at double digits every year your fictional character may very well need to rely on SS and Medicare for s/he may one day have a surgery which when all is settled cost her/him half of everything s/he saved.

Are you so fucking thick that you can't draw inferences from an example?

Would it be easier for you if I picked a different income for every 2 year period over a 45 year span even if all those incomes averages out to 45K a year? And it doesn't matter if someone makes less they would still have more money than they would if they contributed to SS.

Do it with your own income and I'll still be right.

I did draw inferences, not the ones you hoped. It's not the numbers you posted, I know and I suppose do too, hypothetical examples can be written to prove most anything. In real life the only sure thing is nothing is sure (and that includes SS and Medicare because they are and have been under attack since their inception).

Tell me how well off your 22 year old would be today if he had invested all of his savings with Bernie Madoff? Of course that would be a stupid thing to do, BUT many people did!

What if he had invested in Real Estate? What then?

Why do you assume anyone would invest all their money in one thing?

Why do you assume that Bernie Madoff was interested in a few hundred dollars in deposits a month for 40 years or more? He wasn't.

Anyone can put their money in a balanced portfolio without the help of some stock broker, even you.

All you have to do is open up a mutual fund like this one. Which has returned almost 9% in the last 10 years and has a life time return of over 13%
https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details/results-graph.html?fundId=5&chart=growth

Then add more funds to diversify as your portfolio grows.

it ain't rocket science,

Hell if you want you can even copy Warren Buffett's portfolio.

Warren Buffett's Stock Portfolio

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't assume people would invest in only one thing, people do and did (as in my example).

I'm fine, I retired in 2005. I managed to pay off one son's student loans and give an equal amount to son #2 to buy his home and currently earn more in retirement than I did when I worked.

I have less trust in bankers & brokers than I do in government, for good reason.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't assume people would invest in only one thing, people do and did (as in my example).

I'm fine, I retired in 2005. I managed to pay off one son's student loans and give an equal amount to son #2 to buy his home and currently earn more in retirement than I did when I worked.

I have less trust in bankers & brokers than I do in government, for good reason.

People are responsible for themselves. Tell me why should I have my financial security sapped because some other people are idiots?

And I do not use brokers or bankers. I buy my funds myself and pay no commissions other than a very small transaction fee.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't assume people would invest in only one thing, people do and did (as in my example).

I'm fine, I retired in 2005. I managed to pay off one son's student loans and give an equal amount to son #2 to buy his home and currently earn more in retirement than I did when I worked.

I have less trust in bankers & brokers than I do in government, for good reason.

People are responsible for themselves. Tell me why should I have my financial security sapped because some other people are idiots?

And I do not use brokers or bankers. I buy my funds myself and pay no commissions other than a very small transaction fee.

Good for you. You are the exception to "No man is an Island". Real life is different; hard working people sometimes need a helping hand. I've never been opposed to offering a hand to those in need, even some whose hard luck was self imposed. Therein is the difference between you and me.