| Author | Message | ||
     Gregtonn |
Ducxl, Like I said..."those who are smart enough to manage their own SS account"...apparently you aren't one of them. Hell stuffing your money under your mattress is smarter than letting politicians have it. G | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Greg (Ducxl), no one is requiring anyone to put their money in "Wall Street". CDs are an option. Government bonds are an option. REITs are an option. Hell, you could buy precious metals if you want to. It's your money. Do you really want to leave it at the hands of those most likely to squander it? (Message edited by ft bstrd on January 19, 2012) | ||
| Hootowl |
"There ought to be a law against "borrowing" from OUR SS pool" There is no SS pool. SS is funded from the general fund. That's why it's a hand to mouth program. It was never envisioned to be the monstrosity it is today. At its inception, the eligibility age was the average life expectancy. No one though that many people would be collecting benefits at any one time, so they figured they could pay for it with petty cash. SS should be indexed for life expectancy, and the withholding reduced to what it was at its inception. | ||
| Moxnix |
Geithner is tapping into Fed retirement funds to keep the big Washington ruse afloat. Good luck. | ||
| Ducxl |
I believe in SS.But just like Timmy has found a way to hijack the Federal workers pension,fund SS has been hijacked by legislators seeking new creative ways to separate us from our money. The problem is crooked politicians.I. have a swell IRA .the UPS and downs of my IRA can make my IRA too uncertain.it could eventually be wiped out through risky actions or loopholes used by "Wall st". SS could work if it was out of reach of politicians. I also do not trust Romney on healthcare.he was for it before he was against it.Now he wants us to believe he'll repeal Obamacare? I like my current arrangement regarding healthcare thank you.I do not want to pay for yours. I'll be voting the Republican primary for certain.But not for Romney. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem is crooked politicians.I. have a swell IRA .the UPS and downs of my IRA can make my IRA too uncertain.it could eventually be wiped out through risky actions or loopholes used by "Wall st". The risk you take with your IRA is up to you, not anyone on Wallstreet. We as a nation have to get back to personal responsibility. | ||
| Jimidan |
Gregtonn: "I agree with the first part. As to the second part; Privatization has always been proposed as an option. That means those who are smart enough to manage their own SS account get to keep it and pass it on to their heirs it the event of their death. That is why so many politicians hate it; They dont't get to keep all your SS money when you die. Yes I know the "lock box" is empty. That's another reason they hate the idea of privatization, they would have to admit they already spent it." Well, are you smart enough to manage your own SS account? I am not and I dare say the vast majority of Americans don't have a clue on how to play the stock market, investments and make a profit. Not only that, but most folks don't have the discipline to manage a simple savings account at their credit union, much less an stock account that they will not draw from for 40 years down the road. If you are a hard working guy with a high school education, the rich Mac Daddies on Wall Street and their brokers are gonna take your money like a carnival barker. Then what are you going to do when you get too old or too sick to work with no money put back? The government is going to have to carry you without ANY of your own money helping to pay your bills. As far as the lock box being "empty", Social Security will be solvent until 2037 if everything remains just as it is. FB, current rates for CD's is 1%. The "hands" that are most likely to "squander" your savings are your own, unless you are one of the few who can manage investments profitably. There is a reason why Edward Jones and other firms are out there for more wealthy folks since they can't manager their money either, and they are much better prepared than your average Joe. | ||
| Jimidan |
HOotowl: ""There ought to be a law against "borrowing" from OUR SS pool" There is no SS pool. SS is funded from the general fund. That's why it's a hand to mouth program. It was never envisioned to be the monstrosity it is today. At its inception, the eligibility age was the average life expectancy. No one though that many people would be collecting benefits at any one time, so they figured they could pay for it with petty cash. SS should be indexed for life expectancy, and the withholding reduced to what it was at its inception." "There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. 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." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself." This SS Administration site debunks some of the myths that are on the net: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html | ||
| Sifo |
Jimidan, Why do you think that firms like Edward Jones are just for the wealthy? There are many firms that will help you with a minimum investment. Ask me how I know! | ||
| Jimidan |
Sifo: "Why do you think that firms like Edward Jones are just for the wealthy? There are many firms that will help you with a minimum investment. Ask me how I know!" Yes there are because we use Edward Jones to manage my father-in-law's money since he has Alzheimer's, but it started out at over a million (it is much less now since care for them at $12,000 a month for a few years has eaten about half of it up)...but they charge fees for their services which SS does not. These fees and commissions become a higher percentage of the total earnings as managed mutual funds take about 1.25% to 1.5% of the fund money each year as expenses to pay the fancy management team, pay the cost of all that trading in the fund, and pay the cost of marketing the fund. Sometimes this includes money they spend in marketing deals with Edward Jones. The fact is that if we weren't managing my father-in-law's estate (he inherited the $1 million from his brother after they were down to less than $10,000 in savings and their house) as guardians, we wouldn't be with Edward Jones at all, since we have very little savings and not much left over to invest after our farm mortgage payment comes out of our retirement benefits. I think that we are pretty typical of most working stiffs after retirement. If a health calamity hits us like it did with my in-laws, we would be totally screwed like most Americans without Social Security. | ||
| Hootowl |
Calling it a trust fund doesn't mean it is a trust fund. If it were actually a trust, there would be piles of cash in it, and that cash would not be spendable except to pay out benefits. The claim that it will be solvent until 2037 belies that fact that there is no money in the "trust fund" and that we're paying hand to mouth. 2037 is when the takers outstrip the givers. Funds taken by SS are not invested for me, they are immediately paid out in benefits. If SS were privatized, I would have an investment portfolio, and a way to track my SS fund. Right now, all I have is a promise that my children will pay for my benefits. The 'debunking" they do on the SS site is akin to the CEO of Enron ensuring his shareholders that the company is doing great, and to keep buying stock. | ||
| Sifo |
Jimidan, You sound kind of unhappy with EJ. It's a free market. Find another adviser that has a management structure that suits you better. Hootowl, 2037 is when the takers outstrip the givers. I hate to say it, but you couldn't be more wrong. We've already hit the point of paying out faster than we take it in. 2037 is when it's projected to be completely broke. I'm not even sure that's the current broke date anymore. 25 years to going broke and some people call this a successful government program! I wonder what failure looks like? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy /25social.html | ||
| Jimidan |
Kenm123+: "Jimidan have you read the Federalist papers your view of the Constitution will narrow considerably when you do. Our Gov is out of control. When realize what the left has told you is incorrect." Kenm123+, let me return to this a moment since I missed a major point when I answered to first part but not your last statement. I am retired and I probably watch, read and research politics 6 hours a day...you could say that I am a political junkie. I start every morning at 6:00 AM with Morning Joe and watch it all. I am NOT just reading and watching the lefty pundits in formulating my positions, but rather Republicans talking about Republicans. It is way too easy for those on here who disagree with my comments to try to pigeon hole me as a Socialist troll, or fascist, communist, neo-marxist, lefty sheep, naive, Soviet style New Democrat Party member, asleep in class, typical leftist Alynskyism, dishonest personal attack to deflect debate from actual issues, where the leftist almost ALWAYS is found either lying or holding the bankrupt (literally) position, the most ignorant thing I've ever seen on this board, "Democrat"  , you're way out of line, you need to retract and apologize to folks here, despicable!, you are confused, YOU must not be paying attention, put the coolaid glass down...its making you look well not very smart, distractors and deceivers, deeply intellectually dishonest leftists, miserable race-baiting liars,useless, I mean, useful idiots, an unwitting victim of their propaganda, a little girl, shameful, nonsense, smoking too much dope, Racists, mind closed, stupidest and most condescending, mono maniac types, Commies., Commies., Commies., Commies., Commie racists., racial communist revolutionaries, transparent, drivel, and Commie, Commie, Commie. I am reading and watching Republicans like George Will, who has written much about "The Republican Party Has Become Too Southern", David Frum: When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david -frum-2011-11/ Joe Scarborough: ‘My Republican Party has lost their way’ Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/joe-scarborough- my-republican-party-has-lost-their-way/#ixzz1jvZza l4u Krauthammer: Romney Simply Doesn’t Have Capacity To Explain Conservative Ideas Krauthammer: ‘Ridiculous’ GOP Congress And ‘Embarrassing’ Candidates Are Handing Obama A Victory Charles Krauthammer: ‘The Republicans Have Been Entirely Outplayed’ On Payroll Tax Cut Charles Krauthammer To Bill O’Reilly: Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Victim Of His Own Creative Intelligence’ Andrew Sullivan Defends His Newsweek Pro-Obama Piece To Anderson Cooper http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-sullivan-defends -his-newsweek-pro-obama-piece-to-anderson-cooper/ Shep Smith: Why Would Obama Agree To Temporary Debt Deal When GOP Will Just Move The Goalposts? And the Republican candidates own campaign commercials have been very telling and many, many more conservative sources. | ||
| Jimidan |
Sifo: "I hate to say it, but you couldn't be more wrong. We've already hit the point of paying out faster than we take it in. 2037 is when it's projected to be completely broke." Straight from the source: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html I am sure that if the Dems can regain the house that we can make some further progress with the jobs issue since the Republicans under Boehner has a dismal record on job creation bills. The economy of the US is strong: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/treasurie s-drop-after-u-s-jobless-claims-decline-more-than- expected.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-usa-e conomy-output-idUSTRE80H15L20120118 http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-repor ts/daily-global-commentary/2012/01/18/ http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2012-01/fx-very-s trong-claims-solid-spanish-auction-all-good-for-ri sk.aspx?storyid=115239 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361721/am ericans-more-upbeat-about-economy-are-they-right/ With increase employment comes increased SS funds, so it ain't as bad as some would have you to believe...like those who want to paint/make the economy sound as bad as possible for political gain in 2012. BTW, we are very happy with EJ, as they are making this money last as long as possible, which still might not be long enough. Alzheimer's doesn't kill you quickly. | ||
| Oldog |
Jimmi Whats to prove? 911 happened, this was a provokcation katrina happened, this was a reason to go into debit for aid to those in need sadam refused inspections and in general fought the UN at every turn. another provocation, did you sleep thru the bush admin? do you not follow current events or study history? calling the potus out on his record is not racist, supporting Romney is not racist stating facts is not racist. I dont make this up.... HOWEVER I HAVE OBSERVED this is typical "liberal" ,left leaning behaviour shout down and ridecule any thing you dont have an sound argument against... | ||
| Sifo |
Jimidan, so the "source" says it will go broke in 2036. | ||
| Sifo |
I am sure that if the Dems can regain the house that we can make some further progress with the jobs issue since the Republicans under Boehner has a dismal record on job creation bills. How in the world is this Boehner's record? Funny trying to claim that you aren't a devout leftist. Everything you have said in this thread points to a different conclusion though. | ||
| Rwven |
I am sure that if the Dems can regain the house that we can make some further progress with the jobs issue since the Republicans under Boehner has a dismal record on job creation bills. There are over 2 dozen jobs bills languishing on the Senate floor that the Boehner led House has sent up to the Senate. | ||
| Hootowl |
The House under Republican control has sent 25 jobs bills to the Senate, none of which have been brought up by the democratic leadership in the Senate. http://www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Do cumentID=271224 And yet they blame the Republicans and accuse them of doing nothing in hopes of making Obama look bad. 25 bills is not nothing. If they're crap, vote them down. They won't even do that. I guess they're too busy not passing a budget. Nice try. | ||
| Jimidan |
Sifo: "How in the world is this Boehner's record? Funny trying to claim that you aren't a devout leftist. Everything you have said in this thread points to a different conclusion though." I am a progressive based on all available information that I have assimilated...I never said that I was not. I merely said that I read and watch a variety of sources and people to make that determination. There are plenty of established Republicans that I agree with wholeheartedly on the direction of this country and the state of the Republican Party...I probably agree with Ron Paul on 50% of things he says, except when he steps WAYYY out there and starts talking about abolishing regulatory agencies. Is that still "funny"? I try to be funny sometimes.  Because the Congress (not the President shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. | ||
| Sifo |
So how is it Boehner's record? | ||
| Jimidan |
Old dog: Jimmi Whats to prove? 911 happened, this was a provokcation katrina happened, this was a reason to go into debit for aid to those in need sadam refused inspections and in general fought the UN at every turn. another provocation, did you sleep thru the bush admin? do you not follow current events or study history? calling the potus out on his record is not racist, supporting Romney is not racist stating facts is not racist. I dont make this up.... HOWEVER I HAVE OBSERVED this is typical "liberal" ,left leaning behaviour shout down and ridecule any thing you dont have an sound argument against..." Nobody doubts 911 happened. However, there is ample evidence that your version of what happened in Iraq is incorrect. I was "awake" for the whole thing. Here is one of them that is well documented from Wikapedia: During the regime of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built. After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[3] During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".[18] Where's your story's documentation? olddog cont: "calling the potus out on his record is not racist, supporting Romney is not racist stating facts is not racist." I agree, never said it was. I have been very specific on what I considered racists language...you need not try to put words in my mouth...they are right there where I wrote them. Please try to keep up  . I have sourced my facts which is a lot more than you have...which have just been old wives tales and opinions. This isn't a college debate, but we still should use some basic evidentiary rules. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Jimdan you didnt answer the question you just created a Progressive BS cloud. Have you read the Federalist papers and do you Understand what the founders intended. Another question You can actually listen Mika ? Progressivism is just another cancer eating away at our freedoms. Progressives are present in both parties a major problem for out country We do not want our so called betters building a ruling class. Read Milton and you will understand none of your progressive ideas are worth giving up our freedoms for. | ||
| Hootowl |
Wikipedia? Seriously? Lots of opinion there. 1. The Gulf War did not end. There was a ceasefire. There was no second Gulf War as the bonehead who wrote that wiki piece states. SH repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire, and hostilities were resumed. 2. UN resolutions already passed authorized the use of force. 3. France had economic ties to Iraq, and was assuring SH that the US would never invade because they would veto any UN resolution that authorized an actual invasion. The UN was rigged against us. 4. SH played peek-a-boo with UN weapons inspectors for over 12 years, all the while taking pot shots at our aircraft enforcing UN restrictions placed on his fixed wing aircraft. These were in place to keep him from bombing his own citizens. You may have been awake, but you sure as heck weren't paying attention. | ||
| Jimidan |
What about the "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate" on Boehner's web site: What does John Boehner mean by job bills? Does he mean "tax cuts for the "job creators" bill? Does he mean Deregulation to help corporations? I saw a list of the republican job bills 2 week ago and most of it were tax cuts and deregulation, that want to eliminate or drastically reduce the EPA's ability to do it's job. A law that lets Shell break the law isn't a jobs bill.(H.R. 2250) A law that lets Boeing break the law isn't a jobs bill.(H.R. 2587) A law that lets companies dump coal ash into rivers isn't a jobs bill.(H.R. 2273) Allowing companies to ignore the Clean Air act isn't a jobs bill (H.R. 910) If they had some jobs bills that weren't just allowing companies to pollute more and break the law, then I'll happily support them. Now try Googling "senate republicans filibuster jobs bills". When they demand 60 votes and there are only 51 Democrats in the Senate? THAT is why any substantive legislation to promote jobs are stuck! It's political games.... Republican controlled house passes "jobs bills" that aren't to make themselves look good and then the Senate Republicans filibuster to make the Democrat controlled Senate look bad. Pay attention and see through the BS. They should flush the bills down the toilet, as they will not create jobs. See: Senate Votes for Obama Jobs Bill, but GOP Filibusters It: http://www.thenation.com/blog/163926/senate-votes- obama-jobs-bill-gop-filibusters-it | ||
| Jimidan |
Hootowl: "Wikipedia? Seriously? Lots of opinion there." Seriously. Do you see all of those little numbers at the end of sentences? They are called footnotes. Ever heard of them? That contains the source of that statement. Notice that there aren't any footnotes that source Wikapedia in a Wikapedia doc. Where are YOUR sources...seriously? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Well, are you smart enough to manage your own SS account? I am not and I dare say the vast majority of Americans don't have a clue on how to play the stock market, investments and make a profit. Simply untrue. So the vast majority of Americans aren't smart enough to look after their own money but they are smart enough to elect people who are? See the conflict here? If your income today was $32,000 (income of the 50% percentile) and it grew by 3% per year (to keep up with inflation, most peoples grows at a faster rate than this), your income in 50 years of working would be $140,000. Let's pick the midpoint income between the two and assume your income was on average $86,000 for that 50 year period. Each of us pay 6.2% of our income and our employer contributes 6.2% into the social security "lock box". That's $10,664 contributed per year. The historical CD rates:  The rates are WAY above the current rates of .60%. Let's assume the average is 3%. Investing $10,644 each year for 50 years would provide a total value of $1,202,866. At 3%, that would yield $36,086/year or about $3,000/month. Some years would be higher. Others would be lower. Average would be 3%. If the account holder penetrated the principal and assuming they lived 25 years, $69,078 in income per year could be generated receiving JUST a 3% rate of return. FB, current rates for CD's is 1%. The "hands" that are most likely to "squander" your savings are your own, unless you are one of the few who can manage investments profitably. There is a reason why Edward Jones and other firms are out there for more wealthy folks since they can't manager their money either, and they are much better prepared than your average Joe. There are any number of competent investment outlets that even the least able of Americans could utilize successfully. Ever heard of these folks? The Mutual Fund Store | ||
| Hootowl |
Condescension aside, yes, I have heard of footnotes. I also know that Wikipedia ruthlessly deletes anything that doesn't conform to the page owner's agenda. And it is obvious from the information they choose to post on that page what their agenda is. More telling is what they choose not to post. FYI if you use wikipedia as a source for a college paper your professor will fail you. You mentioned college debates recently. At least I'm not citing a known flawed source. | ||
| Sifo |
Jimidan is kind of entertaining. It's worth the view into a progressive's mind. Not much of a conversationalist though. When faced with a serious question he either ignores, quotes a bunch of semi-related text that still doesn't support his view, or simply pivots into new topics. Great tactic to keep the "conversation" moving forward and never lets himself get pinned down by truth. Not worth my time if he wont answer questions though. Not even something simple like "How is it Boehner's record?". God forbid he addresses the Clinton recession. Or anything else. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The frustrating part is that people like us keep piercing their well crafted parallel reality. |
