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

[Wry Catcher]

[...]

You don't get every penny back form Social Security. So that is irrelevant.

You would be right if I had died two years ago. But I didn't. And if my progenitors life spans are any indication I will be around for at least another seven years. And I live in a large retirement community where there are a lot of mid-80s and a fair amount of 90s are present.

It is a regressive tax, according to my calculator. If you can't figure that out, then you are just a product of public schools.

Catholic school. And it's not a tax. Again, you don't get your money back from a tax.

Again... I grasp that *YOU* specifically, are getting your money back, and to hell with everyone else. I get that.

The facts are, most of us will not get our money back. Just a fact. The math shows this very clearly. Further... the system is going broke, so either taxes will be raised, or benefits will go down, or both. Regardless of exactly what the outcome is, the net result will be that the math will get worse.

Again, you don't care because you got your money, so why would you give a crap about the rest of us who are screwed? I know I understand.

Doesn't change the fact the rest of us don't want Social Security.

Cool, you don't want social security, you demean liberals, the poor and Democrats. So be happy, move, go somewhere where you can count your money, not pay taxes and live with other unsocialized persons

 

[bendog]

[...]

You don't get every penny back form Social Security. So that is irrelevant.

You would be right if I had died two years ago. But I didn't. And if my progenitors life spans are any indication I will be around for at least another seven years. And I live in a large retirement community where there are a lot of mid-80s and a fair amount of 90s are present.

It is a regressive tax, according to my calculator. If you can't figure that out, then you are just a product of public schools.

Catholic school. And it's not a tax. Again, you don't get your money back from a tax.

Again... I grasp that *YOU* specifically, are getting your money back, and to hell with everyone else. I get that.

The facts are, most of us will not get our money back. Just a fact. The math shows this very clearly. Further... the system is going broke, so either taxes will be raised, or benefits will go down, or both. Regardless of exactly what the outcome is, the net result will be that the math will get worse.

Again, you don't care because you got your money, so why would you give a crap about the rest of us who are screwed? I know I understand.

Doesn't change the fact the rest of us don't want Social Security.

Cool, you don't want social security, you demean liberals, the poor and Democrats. So be happy, move, go somewhere where you can count your money, not pay taxes and live with other unsocialized persons

but he's got Jesus. (-:

 

[MikeK]

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.

Every word of the above is true and well-remembered.

As one outstanding example, there was a time not so long ago when gardens were commonplace. Today a garden is for many an unattainable and enviable luxury.

I can recall the time when a home telephone was a luxury, a car was an extreme luxury, television didn't exist, and population density was less than half of today's. The ultimate effect of those four factors was considerably more human interaction. Neighbors actually were what the word implies.

I was born in a six-family tenement where we lived until my father's locksmith business picked up. One occupant of that three-story house was an old couple who the rest of us were genuinely concerned about and looked out for. I remember often running to the store for them, as did most of the young kids who lived there.

That house was loaded with kids, everybody knew everybody and some of those families were very close. In much of today's "neighbor" relationships there is isolation and latent hostility. Most "neighbor" relationships are personally distant, superficial, shallow, pretentious and, in many examples, competitive in terms of material success.

The bottom line is contemporary Americans really don't need each other in the "neighborly" sense anymore. We have become a nation of familiar strangers.

 

[Flopper]

Oh my god dude you are so thick. I don't know how else to explain this shit to you. Your facts in the second article are only people making 7.25 an hour. I am talking about any wages below 10 an hour. Your BLS graph does not say how many people make less than 10 an hour. It refers to WAGE AMOUNT AVERAGES. The averages are going to be high if the top wages in this country are so large. That SKEWS THE MATH. It says nothing about the number of people making these wages. That doesn't account for poor people in general. Your point is ******* moot if the issue is about raising the federal wage to 10 an hour. THAT MEANS ANYONE WHO MAKES WAGES BELOW 10 AN HOUR WOULD SEE THEIR WAGES GO UP. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN 3 MILLION PEOE. God how are you this thick? Think like a grown up will you?

What are "PEOE"????

Also WHERE ARE YOUR statistics other then "how many make less then $10 per hour"... YOU TELL ME how many that is because I've not found that data. I'd be very very interested to see your source because MY sources are the Bureau of Labor and their research states:
THE BARE MINIMUM AVERAGE wage per hour is $13.98 in the leisure and hospitality!
So WHERE do you get your $10/hour figure when the LOWEST AVERAGE is $13.98??
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector seasonally adjusted
View attachment 33019

I already gave you the goddamn link before. Look. 16.5 million people make under 10.10 an hour.

"Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase."

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

How do you not understand averages? This is basic math. Because wages get so high for the top earners, that will skew the average. That doesn't mean a lot of people make 13 an hour.

I do understand "averages" For example your IQ is obviously 95 and mine is 125 which means the average for the two of us is 110.
So because YOU are confused with "averages" Let's use MEDIAN... meaning.. the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that "median" weekly earnings of the nation's 104.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $786 in the fourth quarter of 2013. This would equate to $19.65 an hour for a 40-hour work week. "Median" means 50% earned more and 50% earned less. And below is what the BLS reports for the number of people and the hours they're working:

104,552,000 (35 hours or more)
6,206,000 (1 to 34 hours) for economic reasons, want full-time work
20,164,000 (1 to 34 hours) for non-economic reasons, only want part-time work
130,922,000 Total
Confusion over Median Hourly Wages The Economic Populist

Also the SAME LINK YOU GAVE me also SAID...
View attachment 33032
Of course YOU don't care one whit about those 16 to 25 year olds, unskilled, entry level, hamburger flipping jobs that will be lost do you!

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.

You're no going to live on $10/hr if you have to pay for childcare to work.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Every word of the above is true and well-remembered.

As one outstanding example, there was a time not so long ago when gardens were commonplace. Today a garden is for many an unattainable and enviable luxury.

I can recall the time when a home telephone was a luxury, a car was an extreme luxury, television didn't exist, and population density was less than half of today's. The ultimate effect of those four factors was considerably more human interaction. Neighbors actually were what the word implies.

I was born in a six-family tenement where we lived until my father's locksmith business picked up. One occupant of that three-story house was an old couple who the rest of us were genuinely concerned about and looked out for. I remember often running to the store for them, as did most of the young kids who lived there.

That house was loaded with kids, everybody knew everybody and some of those families were very close. In much of today's "neighbor" relationships there is isolation and latent hostility. Most "neighbor" relationships are personally distant, superficial, shallow, pretentious and, in many examples, competitive in terms of material success.

The bottom line is contemporary Americans really don't need each other in the "neighborly" sense anymore. We have become a nation of familiar strangers.

THANK YOU! You neatly summed it up!
We had neighbors and we were neighbors helping neighbors out.
Today we look to our government to be our neighbor..i.e. Hillary's "it takes a village"... made up of cubicle dwellers in D.C. telling people how
they should live in Mexia Tx, Mt. Vernon, IA, Albany NY,etc.etc.etc....

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Now that you're familiar with the various kinds of online investment scams, we hope you'll be prepared for anything the fraudsters throw at you. We'll be happy if this tutorial saves one person from being scammed out of their hard-earned money.

To recap:

• Many scams on the 'Net aren't new at all. They're just variations on classic Ponzi schemes, pump and dump scams, and offshore investing scams.
• Bulletin boards are especially dangerous because you don't know the identity of who is posting. Take all posts with a grain of salt.
• Newsletters are often written by paid promoters. Always be skeptical: if things sound too good to be true, they probably are.
• Spam isn't even worth the second it takes to hit delete.
• If you encounter a scam, contact the SEC.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Every word of the above is true and well-remembered.

As one outstanding example, there was a time not so long ago when gardens were commonplace. Today a garden is for many an unattainable and enviable luxury.

I can recall the time when a home telephone was a luxury, a car was an extreme luxury, television didn't exist, and population density was less than half of today's. The ultimate effect of those four factors was considerably more human interaction. Neighbors actually were what the word implies.

I was born in a six-family tenement where we lived until my father's locksmith business picked up. One occupant of that three-story house was an old couple who the rest of us were genuinely concerned about and looked out for. I remember often running to the store for them, as did most of the young kids who lived there.

That house was loaded with kids, everybody knew everybody and some of those families were very close. In much of today's "neighbor" relationships there is isolation and latent hostility. Most "neighbor" relationships are personally distant, superficial, shallow, pretentious and, in many examples, competitive in terms of material success.

The bottom line is contemporary Americans really don't need each other in the "neighborly" sense anymore. We have become a nation of familiar strangers.

Yep, neighbors are not neighborly at least not in the sense they were when we were kids. My mom worked to put food on the table and pay the rent. The lady next door took care of me, my brother, and sister for years so my mother could work. We never paid her any money. My mom would share our dinner with her in the evening and would take her to the grocery store on Saturday. Those days are gone and not coming back.

However, there was a lot of bad stuff too; polio, bomb shelters, snowy black and white TV, hot sweaty nights without air conditioning, black lynchings, women's pay about half that of men, back alley abortions, telephone party lines, lack of safety features in cars and 4 times the fatality rate, most cancers meant death, segregation and Jim Crow laws, measles, diphtheria, small pox, the bald eagle on the edge of extinction, smog, etc... Those days are gone and not coming back, thankfully.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Every word of the above is true and well-remembered.

As one outstanding example, there was a time not so long ago when gardens were commonplace. Today a garden is for many an unattainable and enviable luxury.

I can recall the time when a home telephone was a luxury, a car was an extreme luxury, television didn't exist, and population density was less than half of today's. The ultimate effect of those four factors was considerably more human interaction. Neighbors actually were what the word implies.

I was born in a six-family tenement where we lived until my father's locksmith business picked up. One occupant of that three-story house was an old couple who the rest of us were genuinely concerned about and looked out for. I remember often running to the store for them, as did most of the young kids who lived there.

That house was loaded with kids, everybody knew everybody and some of those families were very close. In much of today's "neighbor" relationships there is isolation and latent hostility. Most "neighbor" relationships are personally distant, superficial, shallow, pretentious and, in many examples, competitive in terms of material success.

The bottom line is contemporary Americans really don't need each other in the "neighborly" sense anymore. We have become a nation of familiar strangers.

Yep, neighbors are not neighborly at least not in the sense they were when we were kids. My mom worked to put food on the table and pay the rent. The lady next door took care of me, my brother, and sister for years so my mother could work. We never paid her any money. My mom would share our dinner with her in the evening and would take her to the grocery store on Saturday. Those days are gone and not coming back.

However, there was a lot of bad stuff too; polio, bomb shelters, snowy black and white TV, hot sweaty nights without air conditioning, black lynchings, women's pay about half that of men, back alley abortions, telephone party lines, lack of safety features in cars and 4 times the fatality rate, most cancers meant death, segregation and Jim Crow laws, measles, diphtheria, small pox, the bald eagle on the edge of extinction, smog, etc... Those days are gone and not coming back, thankfully.

yep 1950's were great indeed. There was a very positive culture and everyone was making huge economic progress. To see what we've lost all you have to do is watch some of the old TV shows from the era, like Route 66 and Donna Reed. I had a chemistry teacher who passed some bad checks. He was fired and never heard from again. He was a bad example. Today "Toys are Us" sells Breaking Bad dolls!! Talk about seeing the world in a grain of sand. Talk about why our jails are full!

 

[Flopper]

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.

Every word of the above is true and well-remembered.

As one outstanding example, there was a time not so long ago when gardens were commonplace. Today a garden is for many an unattainable and enviable luxury.

I can recall the time when a home telephone was a luxury, a car was an extreme luxury, television didn't exist, and population density was less than half of today's. The ultimate effect of those four factors was considerably more human interaction. Neighbors actually were what the word implies.

I was born in a six-family tenement where we lived until my father's locksmith business picked up. One occupant of that three-story house was an old couple who the rest of us were genuinely concerned about and looked out for. I remember often running to the store for them, as did most of the young kids who lived there.

That house was loaded with kids, everybody knew everybody and some of those families were very close. In much of today's "neighbor" relationships there is isolation and latent hostility. Most "neighbor" relationships are personally distant, superficial, shallow, pretentious and, in many examples, competitive in terms of material success.

The bottom line is contemporary Americans really don't need each other in the "neighborly" sense anymore. We have become a nation of familiar strangers.

Yep, neighbors are not neighborly at least not in the sense they were when we were kids. My mom worked to put food on the table and pay the rent. The lady next door took care of me, my brother, and sister for years so my mother could work. We never paid her any money. My mom would share our dinner with her in the evening and would take her to the grocery store on Saturday. Those days are gone and not coming back.

However, there was a lot of bad stuff too; polio, bomb shelters, snowy black and white TV, hot sweaty nights without air conditioning, black lynchings, women's pay about half that of men, back alley abortions, telephone party lines, lack of safety features in cars and 4 times the fatality rate, most cancers meant death, segregation and Jim Crow laws, measles, diphtheria, small pox, the bald eagle on the edge of extinction, smog, etc... Those days are gone and not coming back, thankfully.

yep 1950's were great indeed. There was a very positive culture and everyone was making huge economic progress. To see what we've lost all you have to do is watch some of the old TV shows from the era, like Route 66 and Donna Reed. I had a chemistry teacher who passed some bad checks. He was fired and never heard from again. He was a bad example. Today "Toys are Us" sells Breaking Bad dolls!! Talk about seeing the world in a grain of sand. Talk about why our jails are full!

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

SS is lawful; the links posted above are about fraud, a crime. Are you really as dumb as I believe you to be, or are your posts nothing more than a rant framed in hyperbole?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think both, dumb and full of bull shit - seems to be the 'ebola' of the right wing fringe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Whatever type of conservative you claim to be, you are an embarrassment to the the conservatives of average or better intelligence. You may be Stephanie, using a man's name, you are that stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

SS is lawful; the links posted above are about fraud, a crime. Are you really as dumb as I believe you to be, or are your posts nothing more than a rant framed in hyperbole?

Where is it written that fraud can't be legal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

Whatever type of conservative you claim to be, you are an embarrassment to the the conservatives of average or better intelligence. You may be Stephanie, using a man's name, you are that stupid.

dear, if you find something stupid please say exactly what it is or admit as a typical liberal that you lack the IQ to defend what you say or to even know that a defense is necessary!!

 

[Andylusion]

Again... I grasp that *YOU* specifically, are getting your money back, and to hell with everyone else. I get that.

I didn't say that. You did. All I said is my own situation, which is in no way unique or unusual, is living proof that your thesis is demonstrably wrong.

The facts are, most of us will not get our money back. Just a fact. The math shows this very clearly.

What facts and whose math? Rush Limbaugh's?

Further... the system is going broke, so either taxes will be raised, or benefits will go down, or both. Regardless of exactly what the outcome is, the net result will be that the math will get worse.

With zero adjustments the System will continue functioning status-quo until 2037. But a few minor adjustments, such as increasing eligibility age in proportion with actuarial life expectancy projections, eliminating the existing contribution cut-off period, and applying a means test to disqualify from payment those whose earnings exceed a certain level (multi-millions)*, will ensure the System will function indefinitely.

(* This is not my idea. It has been proposed by Warren Buffet.)

Again, you don't care because you got your money, so why would you give a crap about the rest of us who are screwed? I know I understand.

Again, I didn't say that. You did -- because you have nothing more substantive to say. And please be advised I have children and grandchildren whose futures I am concerned with, and my concerns with the System are every bit as critical as yours, if not moreso.

Doesn't change the fact the rest of us don't want Social Security.

Speak for yourself.

Doesn't matter if you didn't say it directly. The fact is, your comments, are in effect that you don't care if the rest of the country burns, as long as you get what you want.

Again... this is how social security works. You tax the people who are working *ME* and those like me, to pay for you. Screw the working people, you want your entitlements.

Doesn't matter if you didn't type that out directly, that is in fact what you said. When Social Security goes broke, which it is in fact doing... who do you think they are going to steal money from, to keep your butt paid? Me... and those like me. The working people. We're screwed, and you don't care.

I posted the information, and citation, showing that people of today, are not getting their money back from Social Security.

You can either accept that, or remain ignorant. But blaming Rush Limbaugh, which I didn't cite, is just a deflection on your part. You sound like Atlas Shrugged.

Warren Buffets plan is reasonable and sensible, if you think Wealthy people are going to accept the idea of paying tons of money in, and getting nothing back.

Answer.... they won't. All socialist and leftist governments across the world have tried and tried, to come up with some plan to get rich people to pay a bunch in taxes, and get nothing back. It never works.

Venezuela, millions of the wealthy have left the country, rather than work for the benefit of government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/americas/07venez.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Government takeovers of private businesses are increasing. One prominent financial analyst recently had just two words of advice for investors here: “Run away.”

Many middle-class and wealthy Venezuelans have done exactly that, creating a slow-burning exodus of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers

Your system doesn't work. The French have tried to stick it to the wealthy, and it back fired...

France s Reckoning Rich Young Flee Welfare State - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

France's day of reckoning has arrived: Its wealthy, best and brightest are saying goodbye to a nation they believe doesn't want them to succeed or become affluent.

"It's the rich, the entrepreneurs, and the young who say, 'If I can, I will leave. If I speak a foreign language, I will leave. If I can go and create something somewhere else, I will leave,'" she explained.

How many times do you people on the left have to try your "just increase taxes on the rich, and cut benefits to the rich" mantra that has never worked, before you figure out, it's a fail?

This is not a dictatorship. You can't just raise taxes, and cut benefits to a specific group of people, and expect them to not fight back. They will either lobby non-stop until taxes or cut, or benefits increased, or they will eventually leave. France thought the rich couldn't possible leave. They were wrong. Venezuela though their rich couldn't possibly leave. They were wrong. Cuba was wrong. Jamaica was wrong. East Berlin was wrong. The Soviets were wrong.

YOU are wrong. Buffet is wrong. You system doesn't work. Period. Socialism always fails. It's just a matter of time. Now or later, Social Security will fail. Judgement day is getting closer.

 

[Andylusion]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

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.

 

[Judicial review]

The idiot who created this thread is healthmyths, a callous conservative, self appointed know-it-all whose knowledge of history is piss-poor. Sadly, he's not alone, other callous conservative with myopia agree with him/her, as well as the greedy and willfully ignorant.

See:

1915-1934 State Old Age Assistance Programs ElderWeb

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

SS is lawful; the links posted above are about fraud, a crime. Are you really as dumb as I believe you to be, or are your posts nothing more than a rant framed in hyperbole?

Well the government can make anything it does legal while preventing a private citizen from doing exactly the same thing.

If i ran a company retirement plan like SS is run you can bet your ass I'd be arrested.