Obama '08?

Breaking news from BBC w/o detail:
State Dept spokesman PJ Crowley has resigned after criticizing U.S. treatment of Bradley Manning, the military service member accused of giving information to Wikileaks.

It seems PJ Crowley is one of the few who understands the US Constitution.

When a Social Security recipient is paid for little more than 5 years after he/she retires (e.g., 5.33 years after retiring at age 65), Social Security pays out to that recipient more than it took in from that recipient. Is that adequately compensated for by people who die or retire before age 65? I guess not!

year earned..... Annual salary..... SS deduction
..........0.......... $4,000.00.......... $424.00
..........1.......... $4,260.16.......... $451.58
..........2.......... $4,537.25.......... $480.95
..........3.......... $4,832.36.......... $512.23
..........4.......... $5,146.66.......... $545.55
..........5.......... $5,481.40.......... $581.03
..........6.......... $5,837.92.......... $618.82
..........7.......... $6,217.63.......... $659.07
..........8.......... $6,622.03.......... $701.93
..........9.......... $7,052.73.......... $747.59
..........10.......... $7,511.45.......... $796.21
..........11.......... $8,000.00.......... $848.00
..........12.......... $8,520.33.......... $903.15
..........13.......... $9,074.50.......... $961.90
..........14.......... $9,664.72.......... $1,024.46
..........15.......... $10,293.32.......... $1,091.09
..........16.......... $10,962.81.......... $1,162.06
..........17.......... $11,675.84.......... $1,237.64
..........18.......... $12,435.25.......... $1,318.14
..........19.......... $13,244.05.......... $1,403.87
..........20.......... $14,105.46.......... $1,495.18
..........21.......... $15,022.89.......... $1,592.43
..........22.......... $16,000.00.......... $1,696.00
..........23.......... $17,040.66.......... $1,806.31
..........24.......... $18,149.00.......... $1,923.79
..........25.......... $19,329.43.......... $2,048.92
..........26.......... $20,586.64.......... $2,182.18
..........27.......... $21,925.62.......... $2,324.12..........
..........28.......... $23,351.68.......... $2,475.28
..........29.......... $24,870.50.......... $2,636.27
..........30.......... $26,488.11.......... $2,807.74
..........31.......... $28,210.92.......... $2,990.36
..........32.......... $30,045.79.......... $3,184.85
..........33.......... $32,000.00.......... $3,392.00
..........34.......... $34,081.32.......... $3,612.62
..........35.......... $36,298.00.......... $3,847.59
..........36.......... $38,658.86.......... $4,097.84
..........37.......... $41,173.28.......... $4,364.37
..........38.......... $43,851.23.......... $4,648.23
..........39.......... $46,703.36.......... $4,950.56
..........40.......... $49,741.00.......... $5,272.55
..........41.......... $52,976.21.......... $5,615.48
..........42.......... $56,421.84.......... $5,980.72
..........43.......... $60,091.58.......... $6,369.71
..........44.......... $64,000.00.......... $6,784.00
TOTALS.............$986,493.79....... $104,568.34
SS deduct factor = 0.106
SS yearly pays = $19,608.00
Years SS pays = 5.33
interest factor/yr = 0.0000
annual raise factor = 1.06504109

Maximum income tax rates were decreased from 70% in 1981 to 35% in 2003, and remained at 35% 2003 - 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Federal Receipts during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from $0.517 to $2.568 trillion, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from $2.568 trillion to $2,165 trillion.

Federal Outlays during the period 1980 - 2010 increased from $0.591 to $3.721 trillion.

Federal Deficits during the period 1980 - 2000 decreased from -$0.0738 to +$0.236 trillion, and during the period 2000 - 2010 increased from +$0.236 trillion to -$1.556 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.908 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.602 trillion [REAGAN], average annual increase 1980 - 1988 = $0.2118 trillion
1992........$4.065 trillion [BUSH41], average annual increase 1988 - 1992 = $0.3658 trillion
2000.......$5.674 trillion [CLINTON], average annual increase 1992 - 2000 = $0.2011 trillion
2008.......$10.025 trillion [BUSH43], average annual increase 2000 - 2008 = $0.5439 trillion
2010.......$13.562 trillion [OBAMA], average annual increase 2008 - 2010 = $1.7685 trillion

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Civilian Non-institutional Population during the period 1980 - 2010 increased from 168 to 238 million.

Total US Civil Employment during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from 99.3 to 146 million, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from 146 to 139 million.

How did you arrive at 10.6% for all 44 years of your calculations? Your calculations are always bogus which doesn't even represent reality. No matter how often your figures are wrong, you insist in showing us imaginary numbers that just doesn't exist in the real world.

I have kept financial records since we were married in 1963. The total my wife and I paid into FICA was $132,413, but we have already collected over $355,000 in benefits plus Medicare (which has saved us a bundle in out of pocket costs). Just estimating the annual health insurance premiums since we both reached 65 would have been enormous without Medicare.

How often are you going to prove you are too ignorant to learn new tricks?

You still don't get it ican..

44 years ago the SS rate was 7%.
This is WRONG..



But since none of your numbers now seem to exceed the maximum contributions for those years, I guess we can go with your numbers a little bit.
Your total contributions clearly don't last you 30 years and clearly you don't have money left over if it had been invested at 3%.

For 44 years after 1990

1990 was only 21 years ago. Are you a prophet/soothsayer/gypsy card reader that you can predict what will happen in the next 19 years?

Tenure is not a solid wall without chinks. It means different things in different places.

In every human situation, emotions rule. If a principal or department chair decides the color of a teacher's eyes are wrong, that principal or chair can get them out.

I worked at a high school where the chairman of the English department was extremely insecure. There were two popular, intelligent, handsome young male teachers -- one a graduate of Harvard, the other a graduate of Tufts -- whose lives were made miserable by the chair.

Her behavior had a negative effect on the students as well. The kids recognized that her constant patrolling of their classrooms and her five scheduled evaluations (the standard is one or two) were harassment. They were upset. I subbed for the Harvard alum on the day he interviewed with another school. The students told me how upsetting it was to have that woman come into his classroom daily.

She drove him away. When he tendered his resignation, the entire English department was happy for him although they hated losing him.

parados, You are conceding an issue where there are none in reality. Tax rates are not flexible just because "they might be close."

A speculator! Iknow everything that is going to happen in the future except that which i do not know. So I guess that makes me an estimator.

Tax rates are whatever they are whenever they are!

Wait..

You are saying you only made $4000 in 1990?

The average salary in 1990 was over $20,000.

But I am really curious who had 6% increases in salary in the last 2 years when many people had cuts. And that doesn't begin to explain who has ever had 6% increases in salary EVERY year for 44 years.

And? So?

Parados, I was analyzing the current (since 1990) SS system to show that what it was receiving from salaried people would not be enough to pay for even 6 years of their retirement.

I used the payment I am receiving, assuming that SS was annually paying me the same or less than what younger retirees are getting from their deductions, to make it more evident that SS has to be subsidized by other government revenue, or by government deficit spending.

Finally, I wanted to show that the purchase with SS deductions of US Savings Bonds paying less than 4%, would be a better way to reduce federal spending, while providing for worker retirement than the current SS system.

My starting annual salary at age 21 was $4,000. My last annual salary at age 65 (in 1996) was $64,000. I guess most retired people earn less, but now receive more from SS than my annual SS retirement income of $19,608.

I somehow have the feeling that ican is surprised that people take out more from SS than they put in. It was that way from the beginning.

The SS administration says it is nonsense to say that it has no trust fund. It said that the trust fund consists of USA debt obligations, noting that the country has never defaulted in repaying its debts with interest. Assuming arguendo that there is no trust fund, current premiums would fund SS recipients getting at least 72 percent of what is due them.

CORRECTION
Parados, I was analyzing the current (since 1990) SS system to show that what it was receiving from salaried people would not be enough to pay for even 6 years of their retirement.

I used the payment I am receiving, assuming that SS was annually paying me the same or less than what younger retirees are getting PER DOLLAR from their deductions, to make it more evident that SS has to be subsidized by other government revenue, or by government deficit spending.

Finally, I wanted to show that the purchase with SS deductions of US Savings Bonds paying less than 4%, would be a better way to reduce federal spending, while providing for worker retirement than DOES the current SS system.

My starting annual salary at age 21 was $4,000. My last annual salary at age 65 (in 1996) was $64,000. I guess most retired people earn less, but now receive more from SS than my annual SS retirement income of $19,608.

Except you left out so much that your argument is meaningless.

You didn't calculate for the investment of SS trust fund in treasuries.
You assumed a salary that would not pay the benefits that you are currently getting.
You assumed that there have been no changes in the retirement system since you retired in spite of facts to the contrary.

Except you aren't showing that. You are showing the opposite with your argument in the first paragraph.

You guess? Surprise, your guesses don't match reality. SS payments are based on your maximum earnings, not on guesses.

For 44 years since 1990? That only proves you have no skill in math. None.