51
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:11 pm
@mysteryman,
If we give you your money back MM, what guarantee will you give us that you won't need money later and accept it?

Are you willing to commit suicide if you find yourself broke? After all, you want to take the chance so what happens if you lose?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:19 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
No, I don't consider those who accept "any" govt money a hypocrite if they oppose subsidized healthcare. I consider those who accept government subsidized health care while opposing government subsidized health care hypocrites.


So since I oppose govt subsidized health care, you would consider me a hypocrite?
After all, I have gotten medical care thru the VA for combat related wounds.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:24 pm
@parados,
Quote:
If we give you your money back MM, what guarantee will you give us that you won't need money later and accept it?


What guarantee will you give to those that pay into social security that they will get all the money back they have paid.
I have read estimates that it wont be long before the govt will only be able to pay 71 cents on the dollar for SS because the money wont be there.

So all those people that have paid in at that point will be screwed by the govt, even though the govt has taken their money.

Quote:
Are you willing to commit suicide if you find yourself broke? After all, you want to take the chance so what happens if you lose?


Hell, I'm broke now, so whats your point?
If I lose, I lose.
Nobody else will be affected by my choice.
parados
 
  7  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:29 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Hell, I'm broke now, so whats your point?
If I lose, I lose.
Nobody else will be affected by my choice.


Until you show up at an emergency room.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:41 pm
@parados,
And since I have always paid my own way, why do you think that will change?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 06:42 pm
@mysteryman,
be careful what you wish for, my friend...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:01 pm
@Foxfyre,
SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE CARTER CONSTITUTES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEFT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES
The Social Security trust fund, for which the feds are allegedly its trustee, was turned into a pyramid club by Carter. He transferred the contents of the fund to the general fund to be spent as the feds wanted, and thereafter deposited all payroll deductions into the general fund and had the treasury department write IOUs to the Social Security Trust fund for all such transfers. Had Carter not made these transfers, he would have had to cut federal spending and/or raise taxes which were then already 70% on taxable income for the highest tax bracket.

About a third of many people's retirement income comes from their checks from social security. Had they the opportunity over the 45 years until retirement to put all their employer's and their payroll deductions into US Treasury Bonds at 3% interest-- admittedly not the best investment available--their retirement income from that investment would now be almost what it is now from Social Security.

For example:
At 3% interest per year from Treasury Bonds, and annual social security payments of $10,000 for (65 " 20) = 45 years, the principal when 65 would be equal to $927,198.61.

At 3% interest per year from Treasury Bonds, If one lived to 100 or 35 more years until the principal was zero, one's annual income would be $15,335.21 per year.

But, at 6 % interest per year from AAA corporate bonds, the principal at 65 would be $2,127,435.14. If one lived to 100 or 35 more years until that principal was zero, one's annual income would be $19,091.30 per year.

Of course, the feds expect Americans will on the average die between 78 and 79 years old, so if you think you'll die about then, the actual payments should be much larger at both 3% and 6% interest..

Who stole and who is currently stealing from whom?

…….VALUE WHEN 65……..PAYMENT PER YEAR……..ANNUAL INTEREST RATE
…………………………….…………65 to 100 years old

$450,000.00 $12,857.14 0%
$564,810.75 $13,557.54 1%
$718,927.10 $14,380.13 2%
$927,198.61 $15,335.21 3%
$1,210,293.92 $16,432.55 4%
$1,597,001.56 $17,681.53 5%
$2,127,435.14 $19,091.30 6%
$2,857,493.11 $20,670.99 7%

Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:22 pm
We interrupt this lovefest for this rather interesting message. Takes a little while to watch the whole thing, but I think some might be intrigued:

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:48 pm
@ican711nm,
CORRECTION COMING

OF MY POST:

SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE CARTER CONSTITUTES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEFT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES

THE YEARLY PAYMENTS I CALCULATED ARE MUCH LARGER THAN I POSTED.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:48 pm
@mysteryman,
Great question, mm.

I do support providing full gov't sponsored medical care for combat related wounds (physical and emotional) to all those who have served in the armed forces. I thank you and all others who have served and don't deny the need to medically support the wounds incurred during service. OTOH, if you someday require medical assistance for a condition wholly unrelated to wounds incurred during service to our country then I think (unfortunately, and I wish it weren't so) that you're in the same financial pickle as the rest of us. So, no, I don't think of you, a veteran, a hypocrite for receiving medical care for combat related wounds.

We have to face facts. The financial and demographic realities have changed from what we hoped and promised in the past. I'm one of those 72 million boomers looking to retire in the next 13 years. I put myself in the same boat.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So all those people that have paid in at that point will be screwed by the govt, even though the govt has taken their money.


I don't know that "screwed" is the right word but, yes, we need to look at total reform of what the government is providing for health care to all those who are receiving such care. I don't endorse/embrace any plan that I've seen come out of Congress to date because they're still primarily looking at what's politically expedient. I had hope for the Senate Finance Committee plan but it seems to have gotten bogged down in politics as usual.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:02 pm
@JPB,
JPB, I agree; the government has not delineated what the new health plan will look like, how it'll affect different levels of income, how the government will subsidize premiums for the poor and middle class, how much it's going to cost, and what the net savings will be for the short term and long term of the "plan."

How are they going to control costs when they are going to be adding the uninsured into the program? We're missing too much detail to be comfortable with their plan as it has been explained so far.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:06 pm
@ican711nm,
CORRECTION

SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE CARTER PERPETRATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEFT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES
The Social Security trust fund, for which the feds are allegedly its trustee, was turned into a pyramid club by Carter. He transferred the contents of the fund to the general fund to be spent as the feds wanted, and thereafter deposited all payroll deductions into the general fund and had the treasury department write IOUs to the Social Security Trust fund for all such transfers. Had Carter not made these transfers, he would have had to cut federal spending and/or raise taxes which were then already 70% on taxable income for the highest tax bracket.

About a third of many people's retirement income comes from their checks from social security. Had they the opportunity over the 45 years until retirement to put all their employer's and their payroll deductions into US Treasury Bonds at 3% interest-- admittedly not the best investment available--their retirement income from that investment would now be almost TWICE what it is now from Social Security.

For example:
At 3% interest per year from Treasury Bonds, and annual social security payments of $10,000 for (65 " 20) = 45 years, the principal when 65 would be equal to $927,198.61.

Assume one lives until 100, 35 more years after 65. Then at 0% interest per year thereafter and after 35 equal annual income payments of $26,491.39, the balance would be zero.

But, at 6% interest per year from AAA corporate bonds, the principal at 65 would be $2,127,435.14. Then at 0% interest per year thereafter and after 35 equal annual income payments of $60,783.86 the balance would be zero.

Of course, the feds expect Americans will on the average die between 78 and 79 years old, so if you think you’ll die about then, the actual principal at age 65 at either 3% and 6% interest until age 65 would be the same, but the income payments would be much larger at 0% interest thereafter.

Who stole and who is currently stealing from whom?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:09 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

But, at 6% interest per year from AAA corporate bonds, the principal at 65 would be $2,127,435.14.


Lol. Where were you last year? Many 'AAA' corporate bonds turned out to be nothing but what we refer to as bull ****, and people lost considerable amounts of money.

How do you factor that into your model?

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:20 pm
@mysteryman,
Why do you think people go bankrupt because of medical conditions? Poor planning? 80% of those that do go bankrupt HAVE health insurance.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:26 pm
@parados,
??????

Where did you get that from anything I posted?
What does that have to do with anything I posted?

I have gone bankrupt due to medical bills, and I have never said it couldnt happen.
But I promised myself it would never happen again, and I make sure I always have a 6 month "safety net".
That is a savings account that has the equivalent of 6 months of my salary always available to me if I need it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:35 pm
@mysteryman,
I'm sorry to hear about that, and I really hope you understand that I and others are fighting to bring about a situation where you wouldn't have to go through a medical bankruptcy.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I understand that, and I am not asking for sympathy.
It happened because of circumstances that I wont go in to, but suffice it to say it was because of my first wifes medical problems.

I guess my big concern is where will it stop.
Will you next try to get reform of some kind for people that go bankrupt because they took out a mortgage they new they couldnt afford?
Or for those that bought a car they couldnt afford?

I guess I am wondering if the time will come when people are no longer responsible for their own lives and the decisions they make on their own.
I filed for bankruptcy because things got out of control, and yes I know that happens to even the best of people.
But if you make it so that there are no consequences to people for the decisions they make, what will stop people from going completely nuts with their own finances, knowing that the govt will bail them out.

Its not what you are doing now, its where will it end that concerns me.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:48 pm
@mysteryman,
An maybe you'll be lucky and not get a chronic or long term illness that will require more than 6 months worth of "safety net". But if you do, and you have taken all you money back from the government with a promise to not take any money from the government, what then?

You are gambling MM. The odds may be 8-1 in your favor, but how will you pay up if you lose? Or will you expect the government to help you out after you promised they wouldn't have to?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
You are gambling MM. The odds may be 8-1 in your favor, but how will you pay up if you lose? Or will you expect the government to help you out after you promised they wouldn't have to?


Yes, I am gambling, I acknowledge that.
BUT, you and everyone else are gambling also.
How do you know that the govt will pay your bills?
How do you know that the money will be there for you if you get a chronic or longterm illness.

I can put the money in a simple savings account in my bank and get a better return then the govt gets.
No matter what you do, its a gamble.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2018 at 02:24:19