Terrorizing.. The Old Folks

[B. Kidd]

Should the GOP ever attempt to privatize Social Security in our lifetime, they will be out of office the next term. This has nothing to do with its good or bad, it has to do with messing with the seniors' monies.

An attempt at privatization will most likely involve semi-privatization. Could result in a plan where those under age 55 are given a choice between choosing a privatized or traditional plan and those over 55 are stuck with the traditional plan. This way, the GOP stays intact, and seniors' monies remain intact.

Wasn't that part of Bush's plan in 2005 that went no where? I think it is similar to all the yelling about pro-life and traditional marriage in the elections, but the legislators won't go much farther than shouting.

It was part of Bush's plan. I wouldn't rule out another attempt at similar, especially in this economic climate, which was not the climate in 2005.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Thanks folks, I'm learning some stuff on this thread today..

You just never know where a threads going to go...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Yes, I've seen those ads too. They're ridiculous, but really no different than the ones Republicans are running "terrorizing" seniors over the Medicare cuts in ObamaCare.

Do Democrats even know what's in the Obamacare plan, as I recall they didn't even read it before voting on it, they just were paid off..

The health care bill is available on line. It's 1550 pages long. I have posted links to it many times. Which part is it you don't like?

The point is our Representatives, Senators and President should read legislation before passing it.. Not just say arrogantly, "This is how Democrats do it"

 

[DiveCon]

RCP has Murkowski +10 and increasing the lead. However, having lived in Alaska for a number of years as a young man, I am not convinced on Alaskans' spelling competency. We will see.

you read that wrong
there is no RCP ave for that race

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Alaska Senate - Miller vs. McAdams vs. Murkowski

 

[HUGGY]

It's almost comical but these adds by the Democrats terrorizing the old folks by the Democrat regime are something else..

Sheez.. if they weren't already terrorized enough by Obamacare now Democrats want to make it look like those mean old Republicans are going to take away Social Security, make them work until their 100 and make them eat dog food..

Demoncrats are playing all their scariest Halloween cards...

They get their ideas by reading browsing USMB and using rdean / MarcATL posts...

.. ooooh scary... privatizing Social Security... all of it?

Christ Lumpy!! If Bush had gotten his way the resources of SSA would be half wiped out or worse with the last reccesion tumble. I love ya like a brother man but you really gotta do your homework.

 

[Lumpy 1]

They get their ideas by reading browsing USMB and using rdean / MarcATL posts...

.. ooooh scary... privatizing Social Security... all of it?

Christ Lumpy!! If Bush had gotten his way the resources of SSA would be half wiped out or worse with the last reccesion tumble. I love ya like a brother man but you really gotta do your homework.

Yup.. I do have some homework to do in regards to Social Security, heck I'm almost there.

My original post had to do with these Goofy Democrat campaign adds mostly.

Perhaps this sounds dumb but how do you wipe out a bunch of IOU's that you can't pay anyway?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RCP has Murkowski +10 and increasing the lead. However, having lived in Alaska for a number of years as a young man, I am not convinced on Alaskans' spelling competency. We will see.

you read that wrong
there is no RCP ave for that race

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Alaska Senate - Miller vs. McAdams vs. Murkowski

Are you unable to read, divedweeb? The latest RCP posting is +10. I said nothing about averaging. There can't be because there is only the latest poll, which shows Murkowski pulling away.

Never, ever let your emotions get in your way, or you end up looking foolish, like you did here.

 

[DiveCon]

RCP has Murkowski +10 and increasing the lead. However, having lived in Alaska for a number of years as a young man, I am not convinced on Alaskans' spelling competency. We will see.

you read that wrong
there is no RCP ave for that race

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Alaska Senate - Miller vs. McAdams vs. Murkowski

Are you unable to read, divedweeb? The latest RCP posting is +10. I said nothing about averaging. There can't be because there is only the latest poll, which shows Murkowski pulling away.

Never, ever let your emotions get in your way, or you end up looking foolish, like you did here.

you just prove once again you are a ******* idiot
hang on

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys and ghouls, use divedweeb's link RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Alaska Senate - Miller vs. McAdams vs. Murkowski, which is the one I relied on, and give him a good hug, nice pat on the head, and send him off for cookes and milk.

Good night all.

 

[DiveCon]

do you see any RCP poll?
nope, cause they dont DO poll
what they do is collect polls from the pollsters
what they usually do is average the polls they collect
however, they didnt for that one


here is one where they DID

 

[DiveCon]

Guys and ghouls, use divedweeb's link RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Alaska Senate - Miller vs. McAdams vs. Murkowski, which is the one I relied on, and give him a good hug, nice pat on the head, and send him off for cookes and milk.

Good night all.

you are proven to be a ******* MORON

 

[DiveCon]

could jokey prove himself anymore stupid than that last series of posts?

 

[Lumpy 1]

It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

(1) The government may issue debt by selling treasuries, which would further raise the deficit. This scenario would likely increase the tax burden on future generations, as annual interest payments on the national debt would increase. If government revenues do not increase sufficiently either through taxes of economic growth, the government would be forced to cut spending on other programs (such as Defense, Education, Research) or else default on all or part of the debt.

(2) The government may raise taxes. If taxes are raised across the board, ironically, by reducing take home pay for workers, the government could make it harder for the younger, working generations to invest and save for retirement. However, if taxes are raised only on those whose earlier tax cuts were partially offset by these excess FICA contributions, namely those taxpayers whose marginal rates were reduced from 74% to as little as 28% during the Reagan Administration, the younger, working generations will not lose any ability to save or invest.

(3) The government may monetize trust fund obligations by transferring the treasuries held by the Trust Fund onto the Federal Reserve balance sheet. In such a transaction, the bonds would become "assets" on the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed would create money "out of thin air" to purchase the bonds from the government. Under such a scenario, the bonds are converted into cash, which would then be used by the government to cover social security payments. This scenario would likely lead to increased inflation, as it would inflate the money supply without directly increasing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HUGGY]

.. ooooh scary... privatizing Social Security... all of it?

Christ Lumpy!! If Bush had gotten his way the resources of SSA would be half wiped out or worse with the last reccesion tumble. I love ya like a brother man but you really gotta do your homework.

Yup.. I do have some homework to do in regards to Social Security, heck I'm almost there.

My original post had to do with these Goofy Democrat campaign adds mostly.

Perhaps this sounds dumb but how do you wipe out a bunch of IOU's that you can't pay anyway?

What you do by privatization and undercutting the value of the collateral of the loan against the collateral(IE Loans)is just what happened to the mortgage crisis. Ronald Reagan was the frirst president to get his stupid greedy mitts on SS funds. Once a program of feeding at the trough gets started it's hard to stop it. The only way to keep any kind of "standard" that will assure that at least what is there, whether it is a saved account or a debt owed to it, is to not tie it to market fluctuations.

 

[HUGGY]

It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

(1) The government may issue debt by selling treasuries, which would further raise the deficit. This scenario would likely increase the tax burden on future generations, as annual interest payments on the national debt would increase. If government revenues do not increase sufficiently either through taxes of economic growth, the government would be forced to cut spending on other programs (such as Defense, Education, Research) or else default on all or part of the debt.

(2) The government may raise taxes. If taxes are raised across the board, ironically, by reducing take home pay for workers, the government could make it harder for the younger, working generations to invest and save for retirement. However, if taxes are raised only on those whose earlier tax cuts were partially offset by these excess FICA contributions, namely those taxpayers whose marginal rates were reduced from 74% to as little as 28% during the Reagan Administration, the younger, working generations will not lose any ability to save or invest.

(3) The government may monetize trust fund obligations by transferring the treasuries held by the Trust Fund onto the Federal Reserve balance sheet. In such a transaction, the bonds would become "assets" on the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed would create money "out of thin air" to purchase the bonds from the government. Under such a scenario, the bonds are converted into cash, which would then be used by the government to cover social security payments. This scenario would likely lead to increased inflation, as it would inflate the money supply without directly increasing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good research. I think you understand the essentials. Knowing that why would you want to turn the whole proccess into a casino bet?

 

[Big Black Dog]

It's almost comical but these adds by the Democrats terrorizing the old folks by the Democrat regime are something else..

Sheez.. if they weren't already terrorized enough by Obamacare now Democrats want to make it look like those mean old Republicans are going to take away Social Security, make them work until their 100 and make them eat dog food..

Demoncrats are playing all their scariest Halloween cards...

Dog food isn't so bad. Get receipe, put it in a pan, heat it up. Looks just like beef stew and if you're drunk it tastes like it too.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

(1) The government may issue debt by selling treasuries, which would further raise the deficit. This scenario would likely increase the tax burden on future generations, as annual interest payments on the national debt would increase. If government revenues do not increase sufficiently either through taxes of economic growth, the government would be forced to cut spending on other programs (such as Defense, Education, Research) or else default on all or part of the debt.

(2) The government may raise taxes. If taxes are raised across the board, ironically, by reducing take home pay for workers, the government could make it harder for the younger, working generations to invest and save for retirement. However, if taxes are raised only on those whose earlier tax cuts were partially offset by these excess FICA contributions, namely those taxpayers whose marginal rates were reduced from 74% to as little as 28% during the Reagan Administration, the younger, working generations will not lose any ability to save or invest.

(3) The government may monetize trust fund obligations by transferring the treasuries held by the Trust Fund onto the Federal Reserve balance sheet. In such a transaction, the bonds would become "assets" on the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed would create money "out of thin air" to purchase the bonds from the government. Under such a scenario, the bonds are converted into cash, which would then be used by the government to cover social security payments. This scenario would likely lead to increased inflation, as it would inflate the money supply without directly increasing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good research. I think you understand the essentials. Knowing that why would you want to turn the whole proccess into a casino bet?

Casino vs Government .. ah .. I need more research I guess because I'm not seeing much difference.. I'm losing on both..

If I had a 401 type plan instead of SS and invested in government securities/bonds, I don't see a difference really. In good times.. if I invested in medium risk funds I'd make more than government bonds easily...It is my money supposedly and if I didn't make it.. croaked... it would go to my heirs..

Honestly.. I don't trust government with most things...bad track record..

 

[Dr.House]

could jokey prove himself anymore stupid than that last series of posts?

No...

He's venturing into rdean stupidity levels now... Must be because of the upcoming elections which he predicted his Democratics would easily keep control of the House...

 

[Lumpy 1]

could jokey prove himself anymore stupid than that last series of posts?

No...

He's venturing into rdean stupidity levels now... Must be because of the upcoming elections which he predicted his Democratics would easily keep control of the House...

.. Funny though.. I wouldn't put him in the optimist column...

 

[HUGGY]

It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

(1) The government may issue debt by selling treasuries, which would further raise the deficit. This scenario would likely increase the tax burden on future generations, as annual interest payments on the national debt would increase. If government revenues do not increase sufficiently either through taxes of economic growth, the government would be forced to cut spending on other programs (such as Defense, Education, Research) or else default on all or part of the debt.

(2) The government may raise taxes. If taxes are raised across the board, ironically, by reducing take home pay for workers, the government could make it harder for the younger, working generations to invest and save for retirement. However, if taxes are raised only on those whose earlier tax cuts were partially offset by these excess FICA contributions, namely those taxpayers whose marginal rates were reduced from 74% to as little as 28% during the Reagan Administration, the younger, working generations will not lose any ability to save or invest.

(3) The government may monetize trust fund obligations by transferring the treasuries held by the Trust Fund onto the Federal Reserve balance sheet. In such a transaction, the bonds would become "assets" on the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed would create money "out of thin air" to purchase the bonds from the government. Under such a scenario, the bonds are converted into cash, which would then be used by the government to cover social security payments. This scenario would likely lead to increased inflation, as it would inflate the money supply without directly increasing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good research. I think you understand the essentials. Knowing that why would you want to turn the whole proccess into a casino bet?

Casino vs Government .. ah .. I need more research I guess because I'm not seeing much difference.. I'm losing on both..

If I had a 401 type plan instead of SS and invested in government securities/bonds, I don't see a difference really. In good times.. if I invested in medium risk funds I'd make more than government bonds easily...It is my money supposedly and if I didn't make it.. croaked... it would go to my heirs..

Honestly.. I don't trust government with most things...bad track record..

Nothing is stopping you from making personal investments. BUT as we have seen in the last three years they can and DO fail. The SS is supposed to be a fail safe backstop. It would be foolish to remove that gaurantee. Every portfolio should have diversification. If you can afford to take risk you should invest what you can easily afford to lose in higher risk/higher potential gain sectors of the market. If you lose sight of the fact that most of the people that have put money through their employer into the system cannot afford any risk then you are doing them and the country a disservice.