Letty wrote:George, Let's look at it this way. If your rich relative left you a big inheritance via a trust fund, and someone raided that fund without authorization, wouldn't you be a wee bit upset? The government has no business borrowing money from Social Security that they never intend to pay back. That money does NOT belong to the Federal Government.
Well if it was true that the government had borrowed money that it didn't intend to pay back, I might agree with you. Unfortunately for your point this is not the case. The entity that creates money by printing it or issuing bonds does not "borrow" in the sense that you are using here. All of the monies collected in payroll taxes since the inception of the program are credited to the account. All those that have been paid out as benefits have been debited. The remainder is still available for future benefits. No one hasto my knowledge ever suggested that any funds in the account would ever be witheld from benificiaries,
The problem is that Social Security was established with a 65 year eligibility age threshold at a time when the life expectency of Americans was about 66. Today the benefits threshold is about 66, but life expectency has increased to 78,5 years. Moreover the rate of population increase has slowed considerably so we now have fewer and fewer workers paying taxes to support more and ,more retirees for a longer and longer time. The account which had been growing is now depleting at an accelerating pace. THAT is the problem, and it is the ONLY problem.
The real value of a capitalist (ownership) society is that real values become apparent rather than stated ones. Less subterfuge. This is especially true in a society dominated by a religious canopy.
You may be right Dys, but my experience so far on this thread strongly suggests a lot of secular Democrats have a great deal of trouble understanding (or perhaps just accepting) the basic, readily verifiable facts of the matter.
georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:Seems to me that the government changes a lot of things, but in the end, it's still stealing! They drained the SS pot and they don't give a rats ass who suffers because of it. How many elderly people will end up sick and homeless because of their government who robbed them of their only means to survive? How many Billions of dollars will be spent by the time Bush's bogus attack on a country that was no threat, is over? That bastard is pushing more elderly people out on the streets every minute and people still vote for him. Go figure!
There is no pot and nothing was drained.
There is no right or entitlement to any fixed sum of money either expressed or implied in the laws governing Social Security. While you may want to believe that you and others who live here "own" something in a "pot" it is simply a verifiable legal fact that you don't.
What has been "stolen" from you? You will become eligible for social security under exactly the same terms as another in exactly in your situation who happens to live here. The only difference is that the American resident is still paying the payroll tax and you are not. Perhaps that person feels that you have stolen something from her. What is your answer to that?
Unemployment in this country is lower than in any of the other G-7 nations - and it is still decreasing.. There has been no reduction or cutback in Social Security benefits under President Bush, so I do not understand what you are talking about with the "... pushing more elderly people out ..." bit. Moreover the majority of Americans currently reaching retirement age have other sources of income besides Social Security.
President Bush is not a bastard as far as I know. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
My answer to that, is that since I only paid taxes for 24 years, I obviously will only be entitled to half of what I would recieve if I had worked there for 50 years, so it all comes out to the same damn thing.
georgeob1 wrote:Letty wrote:George, Let's look at it this way. If your rich relative left you a big inheritance via a trust fund, and someone raided that fund without authorization, wouldn't you be a wee bit upset? The government has no business borrowing money from Social Security that they never intend to pay back. That money does NOT belong to the Federal Government.
Well if it was true that the government had borrowed money that it didn't intend to pay back, I might agree with you. Unfortunately for your point this is not the case. The entity that creates money by printing it or issuing bonds does not "borrow" in the sense that you are using here. All of the monies collected in payroll taxes since the inception of the program are credited to the account. All those that have been paid out as benefits have been debited. The remainder is still available for future benefits. No one hasto my knowledge ever suggested that any funds in the account would ever be witheld from benificiaries,
The problem is that Social Security was established with a 65 year eligibility age threshold at a time when the life expectency of Americans was about 66. Today the benefits threshold is about 66, but life expectency has increased to 78,5 years. Moreover the rate of population increase has slowed considerably so we now have fewer and fewer workers paying taxes to support more and ,more retirees for a longer and longer time. The account which had been growing is now depleting at an accelerating pace. THAT is the problem, and it is the ONLY problem.
You keep telling yourself that george :wink:
georgeob1 wrote:You may be right Dys, but my experience so far on this thread strongly suggests a lot of secular Democrats have a great deal of trouble understanding (or perhaps just accepting) the basic, readily verifiable facts of the matter.
Gee george, when did I ever say I was a democrat?
You just keep on telling yourself this stuff and you be ok as long as you don't expect people to buy it.
Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
george said: President Bush is not a bastard as far as I know. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Well sure i do. He attacked a country that was no threat to his and thousands of innocent people have died needlessly because of it and continue to die every single day, so saying he's a bastard is much too kind of a word for him and the words that would describe him better are not allowed to be said here on A2K.
You may not think he's an evil bastard, but I can get half your country to stand behind me and say that he is.
Bear
What are you doing up? Don't think I've ever seen you at this hour.
plainoldme wrote:
How can a people without a habit of thrift save for their own retirement?
By developing a habit of thrift. It is human nature to respond to incentives, and privatizing Social Security creates a huge incentive to save
--------------
This is a person who doesn't live in the real world. No time now: will elaborate later.
Montana wrote:you make it sound so easy, but let me ask you if these changes you propose will effect you any? Will your generation have to wait until they're 70 freaking years old to retire? I didn't think so!
I hate to bring up an older point but the age for eligibility has already changed. Anyone born after 1960 can't claim full benefits until they reach age 67. (the scale can be found
here.)
Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
Why is it you get so offended so easily? If I was as easily offended as you were I would have left after the first week of being on this thread. Lighten up and don't be a fuddy duddy!
I have to agree with Plainoldme. Not quite that Georgeob doesn't live in the real world, because I know he does, but so do we with money struggles.
Reminds me of a phone call I got at work from a PR type woman at AG Edwards. I listened in the first place since I thought she might be asking me to show paintings there (which I wouldn't for reasons not relative to her, or her company) - I listened in order to be polite, as I own one of the key galleries in the upper state*. Not that I claim that, but people constantly tell us this. Okay, okay, I own it for about five more minutes, but as a business person, I am polite.
In any case, she wanted me to show up at their "opening" on the art walk night (1), and (2), wanted to handle our business investments, and personal investments.
I'd fix my falling down fence before I'd put a cent where her voice comes from, and I plan to... fix the fence, when I can.
Lectures on investing are like aggressive gongs from the tunnel visioned.
Plus, some of us who may not have money at present have watched the stock market over time.
I see potential for millions of people hurling tidbits of money with prompts from Merrill Lynch at the market and then watching it dive.
(I did.)
* I was being modest, the art travellers say we're the best between SF and Canada, but those are the ones who see the best of our exhibits in the best daylight, when they had a nice drive, and like their hotel. (Some of them are sophisticated re aesthetics and some are not at all) Er, this was not an ad, we don't sell online.
fishin' wrote:Montana wrote:you make it sound so easy, but let me ask you if these changes you propose will effect you any? Will your generation have to wait until they're 70 freaking years old to retire? I didn't think so!
I hate to bring up an older point but the age for eligibility has already changed. Anyone born after 1960 can't claim full benefits until they reach age 67. (the scale can be found
here.)
I am aware of that fishin and I wasn't happy when given that news either.
Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
Why is it you get so offended so easily? If I was as easily offended as you were I would have left after the first week of being on this thread. Lighten up and don't be a fuddy duddy!
It's not about me being offended easily and note that I am not the only one who won't go around in circles with you.
Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
Why is it you get so offended so easily? If I was as easily offended as you were I would have left after the first week of being on this thread. Lighten up and don't be a fuddy duddy!
It's not about me being offended easily and note that I am not the only one who won't go around in circles with you.
It doesn't surprise me that people don't want to hear from the opposition but only from the choir!
Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
Why is it you get so offended so easily? If I was as easily offended as you were I would have left after the first week of being on this thread. Lighten up and don't be a fuddy duddy!
It's not about me being offended easily and note that I am not the only one who won't go around in circles with you.
It doesn't surprise me that people don't want to hear from the opposition but only from the choir!
I've got more quotes within quotes than any of you.
NANA NANA NANA
Einherjar wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:Baldimo wrote:Montana wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Montana wrote:george
why do you keep mentioning me up in Canada? What difference does it make where I am?
Because it is related to the question of paying payroll taxes here.
And how is that related? No matter where I am now, it doesn't change the fact that I paid my taxes in the US for 24 years, so what are you saying? Are you discriminating against me because I moved to another country? If not, then I don't see your point!
How long do you expect to receive benefits? If you paid in to the system for 24 years how much do you think you paid in? Lets say you have paid in $10,000, if you get about $1,000 a month, then you didn't even pay into the system a full years worth of coverage. Your going to collect for more years then you put in on average; so tell me how this is fair?
Ha! You think after only 24 years of working that I'll be entitled to $1000 a month. I wish! I won't even get half of that, if anything at all.
By the way Baldimo, don't waste your breath addressing me anymore, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
Why is it you get so offended so easily? If I was as easily offended as you were I would have left after the first week of being on this thread. Lighten up and don't be a fuddy duddy!
It's not about me being offended easily and note that I am not the only one who won't go around in circles with you.
It doesn't surprise me that people don't want to hear from the opposition but only from the choir!
I've got more quotes within quotes than any of you.
NANA NANA NANA
Not any more!!!!!!!!!
How small do you think we can make the print inside the quotes?
