Republicans push to stop Social Security. [URL]

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-social-
security>

<http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>

What did you expect from the Republicans?

[duke]

Here. NO cuts to benefits.

Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social Security.
Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a broad-ranging series of
hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to benefits, mostly engineered through
changes in the cost of living adjustment formulas, with some means testing
thrown in for good measure.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Patrick]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fake news

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:9pa05cd7vhodki9ma...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>><http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-socia
>>l- security>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>
>>
>> What did you expect from the Republicans?
>
> Here. NO cuts to benefits.

Bull Shit.

>
> Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social
> Security. Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a
> broad-ranging series of hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to
> benefits, mostly engineered through changes in the cost of living
> adjustment formulas, with some means testing thrown in for good
> measure.

Which all add up to the destruction of the Social Security system.
Retirees already live hand to mouth. These Republican changes should
destroy what little is left of their lives. But there's no impact on
the rich, not even a raise in their Social Security taxes. Go figure.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easynews.com:

> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:9pa05cd7vhodki9ma...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-so
>>>> cia l- security>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>
>>>>
>>>> What did you expect from the Republicans?
>>>
>>> Here. NO cuts to benefits.
>> Bull Shit.
>>>
>>> Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social
>>> Security. Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a
>>> broad-ranging series of hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to
>>> benefits, mostly engineered through changes in the cost of living
>>> adjustment formulas, with some means testing thrown in for good
>>> measure.
>>
>> Which all add up to the destruction of the Social Security system.
>> Retirees already live hand to mouth. These Republican changes should
>> destroy what little is left of their lives. But there's no impact on
>> the rich, not even a raise in their Social Security taxes. Go
>> figure.
>

> What are the social security taxes of the rich?

Nothing above about $50,000.00 a year is the current limit. If you make
twice that, you only pay the SS tax on the first half.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.com:

> Thanks for the info, WTS. Is that fair?

Depends on if you're rich or poor. Doubling the limit to $100,000.00 per
year would keep SS solvent for several more decades, removing any limit
would keep SS solvent for the rest of the century. But, if Congress keep
"borrowing" from the SS trust fund, who knows.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews.com:

> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.co

> Then it would seem to me like a better plan if the limit were higher.

_If_ you can get the Republicans to go against the upper level income
people.

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:50:45 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden

Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:9pa05cd7vhodki9ma...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>><http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-socia
>>>l- security>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>
>>>
>>> What did you expect from the Republicans?
>>
>> Here. NO cuts to benefits.
>Bull Shit.

You should have spent some time evaluating the other news on changes to SS.

>> Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social
>> Security. Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a
>> broad-ranging series of hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to
>> benefits, mostly engineered through changes in the cost of living
>> adjustment formulas, with some means testing thrown in for good
>> measure.
>
>Which all add up to the destruction of the Social Security system.
>Retirees already live hand to mouth. These Republican changes should
>destroy what little is left of their lives. But there's no impact on
>the rich, not even a raise in their Social Security taxes. Go figure.

But will carefully brought in over a long time and a little at a time.

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden

One people, one tax for all. Sounds fair to me.

[jane.playne]

.

You lack the knowledge on this topic and you need a lot more education
of the topic for this conversation. Since you lack the knowledge, you
are simply parroting falsehoods stated by others.

Let me prove my point by illustrating one of your parroted falsehoods:

You stated, "But, if Congress keep "borrowing" from the SS trust fund..."

The outflow of benefits EXCEEDED the inflow of FICA payments in 2010 and
there is no "extra" cash available for congress to "borrow".[1] The SS
administration is currently using the SS Trust Funds to pay SS benefits
AND money is being transferred from the General Fund TO the SS Trust
Fund ... NOT the other direction.

The fact that Social Security is in trouble is old news. Back in 1998
Congress wanted to "Save Social Security First".[2][3]

In Clinton's State of the Union Address, Clinton stated that SS was in
trouble, it would be unable to pay "promised" benefits in 2032, and it
needed to be saved.[4][5]

Democrats did nothing back then. Since Republicans were in control, a
partisan hack could have blamed the republicans, BUT the democrats did
NOTHING later when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White
House.

It is now 17 years later and nothing has been done.
1. SS collections are currently insufficient to pay scheduled benefits;
2. The SS Trust Fund will be *depleted* in 2034;
3. In 2034 SS will be able pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits;
4. There will be only 2 worker for each retiree.


Republicans are not "pushing to *STOP* Social Security" as YOU
dishonestly claimed in your subject line; one republican is offering
solutions to SAVE a horribly mismanaged Government owned and managed
insurance program.



Citations:

1. 2016 Social Security Trustee Report.
2. Congressional Record, Page 22092, Mr. Wynn: "The fact of the matter
is we should save Social Security first."

3. Congressional Record, Page 22093, Mr Pallone: "That is why we have to
vote down this Republican bill and save Social Security first."

4. "But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover
monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social
Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have
been promised." - Pres Clinton 1999

5. "So first, and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st
century. - Pres Clinton 1999

[Patrick]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>increased accordingly.

I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1575059788503444542.4774...@news.easynews.com:

> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews.c

>>> om:
>>>
>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews
>>>>> .co m:
>>>>>

>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easyn

> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
> increased accordingly.

It certainly should be, I can't see any reason it shouldn't be
proportional to what you paid in.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:03v35ctb50v16epth...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews.
>>>> com:
>>>>
>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynew

A good way to prevent inflation by holding down spending and encourging
people to save more

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:436577259503464383.35388...@news.easynews.com:

> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>>>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews
>>>>> .com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easyne

> That would be much better, I agree.

It probably would, but it's tricky to prevent a sales tax from affecting
the poor much more than the wealthy.

[duke]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>increased accordingly.

The higher income people are already footing the social programs.

[Patrick]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:55:02 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,

It affects everyone equally.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:i7j55c9g887439ufj...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:55:02 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:436577259503464383.35388...@news.easynews.com
>>:
>>
>>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of
>>>>>> Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easyne

>>>>>>> ws .com:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easy

>>>>>>>>> ne ws.co m:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.786568sam.m.tedesco-gmail.com@news.e

So, if you buy a car, and you only make $20,000.00 a year, it affects
you the same as a person making $100,000.00 a year that buys the same
car? For example, if the tax is 10%, and the car cost $30,000.00 (for
example only), they each pay $3,000.00 of tax. Which of the two can
absorb the tax easier??? This is not to mention that the higher income
person pays cash, so no interest payments, which the lower income person
pays a large tax (to him) plus the interest on the loan to buy the car.
_Any_ tax can be tricky in one form or another. In this case, the
straight sales tax can be heavier on the low income than the high
income.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Make it a sales tax on NEW ITEMS ONLY.... That way items are taxed
once. And older items have more value so they will be used up rather
than discarded. It would be what the Libs call a GREEN TAX that helps
create less trash and at the same time it helps the poor that will use
the older untaxed items.



--
That's Karma

[First-Post]

The left will have none of that.
For one thing, it makes sense.
And the other is, it doesn't give the government any more control over
people so the left will have no use for it.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote in
news:WwA4A.90025$dL2....@fx12.iad:

> On 12/14/2016 09:14 PM, Patrick wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>>>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews
>>>>> .com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easyne

Good point, but fine tuning _any_ tax system is a major task. There're
just too many interest groups, or loopholes in the very best of systems.
Someone always pays more in either percentage, or total amount, than
someone else. It's just the nature of the way things are.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

A hidden tax that can be abused by government.

--
That's Karma

[Patrick]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:30:45 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:i7j55c9g887439ufj...@4ax.com:
>

>>>>> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone
>>>>> pays 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax.
>>>>> No IRS.
>>>>
>>>> That would be much better, I agree.
>>>
>>>It probably would, but it's tricky to prevent a sales tax from
>>>affecting the poor much more than the wealthy.
>>
>> It affects everyone equally.
>
>So, if you buy a car, and you only make $20,000.00 a year, it affects
>you the same as a person making $100,000.00 a year that buys the same
>car?

Why would they buy the same car?

> For example, if the tax is 10%, and the car cost $30,000.00 (for
>example only), they each pay $3,000.00 of tax. Which of the two can
>absorb the tax easier???

Duhhhhhhhhh.
Why would the rich guy buy the same car?
Where did the poor guy get the money to pay $ 30,000 ?

> This is not to mention that the higher income
>person pays cash, so no interest payments, which the lower income person
>pays a large tax (to him) plus the interest on the loan to buy the car.

We were discussing tax. Not interest.
If you need to argue about everything, then do it by yourself.

>_Any_ tax can be tricky in one form or another. In this case, the
>straight sales tax can be heavier on the low income than the high
>income.

It just seems that way.
Tell the poor punk to get a better job.

[Patrick]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:44:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,

Are you advocating to take all the money away from the rich guy?
That way, things will be the same?
Your mom needs a retro-active abortion on you.

[tesla sTinker]

and unlike you bogus novus ordo phony catholics who are not anything but
antichrist that go against the true catholic's and His Church of My Lord,
us true Catholics do know where they go.


http://www.truecarpentry.org/webfolders/web7/catechismSC/Ten%20Commandments/10th%20com/Tenth.htm

[Jan Tagmier]

I'm on the left, and I think it will work fine. Screw what the far
left wants, they are nuts anyway..

[Jan Tagmier]

Congress has repeatedly taken funds OUT of social security
to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars and spent it on everything BUT
the people that paid it in.

Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
which is why it is now figured IN the budget.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:

> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
>> wrote:
>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.c

>>> om:
>>>
>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easynew

Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
history or the facts.

[duke]

>Who else?

Not the low income recipients.

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:30:32 -0800, tesla sTinker
<truecath...@truecarpentry.org> wrote:

>and unlike you bogus novus ordo phony catholics who are not anything but
>antichrist that go against the true catholic's and His Church of My Lord,
>us true Catholics do know where they go.

We Catholics fund the many charities with our donations. One of the largest if
not THE largest personally funded charities is Catholic charities.

It would be wonderful if you became a Roman Catholic and started your donations.

>http://www.truecarpentry.org/webfolders/web7/catechismSC/Ten%20Commandments/10th%20com/Tenth.htm

[duke]

Yep. We, "the deplorables", are trying to save Social Security, thanks to
President-to-be Trump. God only knows that 'ratbama didn't do anything to solve
the problem.

[duke]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden
Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:
>
>> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*

>> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
>> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.
>
>Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
>history or the facts.

Yep, like you.

[duke]

We Republicans are "Right".

[Patrick]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:03:10 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>>>>> increased accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
>>>> 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.
>>>
>>> That would be much better, I agree.
>>
>> It probably would, but it's tricky to prevent a sales tax from affecting
>> the poor much more than the wealthy.
>

>I guess the solution for that would be not to tax necessities.

Therein lies the problem.
Someone ALWAYS wants to add shit to the simplistic solution.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhh.
That isn't fair to those of us who love Peanut Brittle......

[Patrick]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,

Lyndon Johnson was the first president to borrow from the Social
Security Trust Fund. He needed to pay for the Vietnam War.

not a single dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was saved
or invested in anything. It was all spent, and, once money is spent,
there is nothing left to invest.

[jane.playne]

.

Yes and no.


The "yes" side of the issue:

Congress did, in fact, spend the money in the Social Security Trust
Fund. I believe the amount spent is up to $2.6 trillion.

Obama even substantiated the opinion that the Social Security Trust Fund
is empty by saying that the seniors might not get their SS checks if
the budget isn't passed.

Mr. Obama: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if
we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the
money in the coffers to do it."[1] ... so much for the "FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES".

"Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only
in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets
that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are
claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by
raising taxes or borrowing." President Bill Clinton in his Analytical
Perspectives section of the 2000 budget. [2]

**

The "no" side of the issue:

Every dollar that congress takes out of the SSTF is replaced with a US
Treasury Bond.

The government has continually taken the position that the SSTF contains
US Treasury Bonds that are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the
United States. They claim that the government "investing" in the SSTF
is no different as an individual giving cash to the government in
exchange for US Treasury bonds.

**

I do not want to get into a pissing contest about whether or not the
SSTF is real or bogus because the discussion is a waste of time and the
situation is grave enough even if we admit that the SSTF is real.

As of 2010, the FICA collections have been insufficient to pay SS
scheduled benefits. As of 2010, the SS Administration has been
submitting SSTF bonds to the US Treasury in exchange for cash to meet
the scheduled benefit payments.[3]

In 2023 the DI (Disability Insurance) Trust Fund will be depleted.[4]

In 2035, the SS Administration will have only ONE LAST US Treasury bond
and that LAST bond will be given to the Treasury in exchange for cash
... THE SSTF WILL BE DEPLETED on that day.[5]

In 2035, OASI income (FICA collections) would be sufficient to pay ONLY
77 percent of OASI scheduled benefits.[6]



Citations:
1.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/obama-cannot-guarantee-social-security-checks/?lumiereId=50107806&videoId=675ba481-8bdf-11e2-9400-029118418759&cbsId=7373061&site=cbsnews

2. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2000-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2000-PER.pdf

3. " Social Security’s cost is projected to exceed its
non-interest income throughout the projection period, as it has since
2010" https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf

4. "... the [Disability Insurance] trust fund reserves become depleted
in the third quarter of 2023. At the time reserves become depleted,
continuing income to the DI Trust Fund would be sufficient to pay 89
percent of scheduled DI benefits. The DI Trust Fund does not satisfy the
test of short-range financial adequacy" -
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf

5. "The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in
2035" 2016 Social Security Trustee Report -
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf

6. "...at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent
of OASI scheduled benefits." 2016 Social Security Trustee Report -
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/tr2016.pdf

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Bread, beer, air and water, need not be taxed.



--
That's Karma

[Jan Tagmier]

Even as the nation is going to hell and God is turning it over to
the dark powers of this world, I can still see this for the humor is
contains, as God alone knows there is little truth in it..

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:rso75ctcls68jo0cu...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
Golden
> Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:
>>
>>> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
>
>>> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
>>> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.
>>
>>Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
>>history or the facts.
>

> Yep, like me.
>
> The pukester, KKKatholiKKK Fool.
>
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of ignorance."
> Pope Idiot XIII
> *****

Get the _FACTS_:

<http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T051-S003-don-t-fall-for-
these-common-social-security-myths/index.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/j3f4hgt>

<https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7scu27>

<http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-
myths-about-social-security.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hw4tuh6>

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote in
news:AfU4A.192687$Uz2.1...@fx29.iad:

What about your Dilantin?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Sorry I'm not as familiar with psych meds as you apparently are so I
don't know what Dilantin is but I'm guessing you're intimately familiar
with what ever Dilantin is.

--
That's Karma

[jane.playne]

On 12/16/2016 12:05 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!* wrote:
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:rso75ctcls68jo0cu...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
> Golden
>> Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:
>>>
>>>> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
>>
>>>> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
>>>> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.
>>>
>>> Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
>>> history or the facts.
>>
>> Yep, like me.
>>
>> The pukester, KKKatholiKKK Fool.
>>
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of ignorance."
>> Pope Idiot XIII
>> *****
>
> Get the _FACTS_:

.

Do you read your citations, or do you just post them based on the headline?

>
> <http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T051-S003-don-t-fall-for-
> these-common-social-security-myths/index.html>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/j3f4hgt>
>

.

Read Myth#6: "Raising the Bar on Earnings Subject to Payroll Taxes Would
Fix the System's Shortfall"

From YOUR citation: "Some policymakers maintain that raising or
eliminating the cap on payroll taxes would generate enough money to get
the system back on track.

Not so, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a
bipartisan policy group. Although removing the cap would significantly
improve Social Security's finances, it wouldn't cover the shortfall"





> <https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/h7scu27>
>
.

Irrelevant myths about the original implementation of SS.

> <http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-
> myths-about-social-security.html>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/hw4tuh6>
>

.

Myth 3: Social Security is going broke.

Response from YOUR citation: The latest projection has the combined
Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits
running out of cash reserves by 2034. ... Social Security will be able
to pay out 79 percent of promised benefits"

I don't know what YOUR definition of "broke" means, but an inability to
pay financial obligations sounds like "broke" to me. Try and tell your
bank that from this day forward, you are only going to pay them 79% of
your mortgage obligation. Let me know what they say!!!

BTW: The 2016 Trustee Report says the number is 77%.

"The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2035,

[Patrick]

And certainly not Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum.
Or wait.... Coffee.... likes my coffee.
Or... we have to think about Jeanne.
She likes COOOO-KEEEEs....

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Are you also a vegan.... so we can't tax vegetables.

Allergic to milk and have to drink soy pretend milk....?

All kinds of problems. Then the only way is a flat 10% tax no
deductions, and apply it to every living soul.


--
That's Karma

[jane.playne]

.

A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
currently have.

If you recall from 1986, that is EXACTLY what everyone wanted. After
the proposal, those on the left were upset about the effect of the loss
of mortgage deduction on the lower income. SO, ... they put the
mortgage interest deduction back in ... but NOT for the rich people.

THEN there came the problem of the deductions ... what about the poor
wage earner who makes ends meet by buying a duplex and renting out the
other side??? SO, they came up with the concept of "earned" income vs
"passive" income. I have both an EARNED dollar and a PASSIVE dollar in
my wallet and I can not fine a single person who can identify one from
another. THEN they allowed PASSIVE deductions against EARNED INCOME,
BUT ... only for people who make below $100,000. There was a phase in
range of $100k to $150k. If you earned $100,000 or more, you could
only deduct a portion of your passive dollars against your EARNED
dollars. By $150K, you weren't allowed to deduct ANY of your PASSIVE
dollars against your EARNED dollars.

THEN there was the issue of charitable deductions, so they put those
back in too.


And on, and on, and on ...

The 10% flat rate was no longer enough and even 10% would hurt the
lowest income group SO our 10% flat tax rate became a three tiered
progressive system (with those at the bottom have a tax rate of 0% AND
also a NEGATIVE tax rate due to money FROM the government)

The NO DEDUCTION SYSTEM came with all kinds of reinstated deductions.


SO, my suggestion is to stop touting a FLAT TAX; The system we have
today it is what we got after the LAST time we asked for a FLAT TAX.

[First-Post]

A flat federal sales tax is not the same as a flat income tax.
But the problem with the tax you're referring to was the same as it
has been.
It's kinda hard to try to lower taxes without reducing bloated
expenditures.
Plus it is virtually impossible to impose any tax on those on the
bottom of the economic ladder without doing more damage to them than
the middle and upper classes.

My take on it would be to increase the limit for which no tax is paid.
For example have a flat 10% no deduction tax for income exceeding
$25.000 per year for individuals. Make it $35 or $40 thousand for a
couple and increase that by up to $10,000 for each child or other
dependant.
Then there would be no need to discuss how to give the poor less of a
burden.

But in order for such a plan to be successful, a lot of wasteful
government spending would have to be eliminated.
Stop giving stupid assed grants to every jerk that comes along and
says they have some important research or project that they need
millions from the government to perform.
Eliminate the assistants to assistants to assistants in piss ant do
nothing offices if not eliminate the do nothing bureaucratic offices
altogether.
The list goes on but you understand the idea.

The only reason that we are taxed to the degree that we are is because
we have allowed the government to be nothing but a huge spend thrift
for so many decades.
The politicians have always done a good job to get the public to agree
to spend a shitload of money while never reminding them that they, the
public, are going to be the ones footing the bill.

For any sort of flat tax or fair tax to actually stand up to time, the
federal government will have to go back to what it was originally
meant to do which is primarily maintain the interstate highways, the
national airways and railroads(infrastructure) and defend the nation.

Right now there are just too many hogs in the pen to think about
cutting back on the feed.

[duke]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:08:15 -0600, Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> The left will have none of that.
>>>> For one thing, it makes sense.
>>>> And the other is, it doesn't give the government any more control over
>>>> people so the left will have no use for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm on the left, and I think it will work fine. Screw what the far
>>> left wants, they are nuts anyway..

>> We Republicans are "Right".

> Even as the nation is going to hell and God is turning it over to
> the dark powers of this world, I can still see this for the humor is
>contains, as God alone knows there is little truth in it..

We have survived the last 7.5 years of darkness.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 12/16/2016 11:33 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>
> A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
> currently have.

Where did you get 10%? After the 1986 Act, we had 4 brackets ranging
from 15% to 28% (and only a few deductions). Before the Act, we had 15
brackets ranging from 10% to 50% (and many more deductions). Moreover,
the 1986 Act treated capital gains the same as earned income.

All the stuff you (rightly) complain about below were add-ons over the
years that undid the 1986 Act, making our current system look more like
what came before 1986. But, that shouldn't be a criticism of going back
to what we had in 1986. It should be a criticism of all the add-ons
since then.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:17:32 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2016 11:33 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>> A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
>>> currently have.
>>
>> Where did you get 10%? After the 1986 Act, we had 4 brackets ranging
>> from 15% to 28% (and only a few deductions). Before the Act, we had 15
>> brackets ranging from 10% to 50% (and many more deductions). Moreover,
>> the 1986 Act treated capital gains the same as earned income.
>>
>> All the stuff you (rightly) complain about below were add-ons over the
>> years that undid the 1986 Act, making our current system look more like
>> what came before 1986. But, that shouldn't be a criticism of going back
>> to what we had in 1986. It should be a criticism of all the add-ons since then.
>

>Thanks Josh. I appreciate your input here, for you're one of the very few
>who always have something intelligent and informative to share with us.

You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/17/2016 01:17 PM, Ted wrote:
> Thanks Josh. I appreciate your input here, for you're one of the very few
> who always have something intelligent and informative to share with us.

HELLO...... we're all sitting here. Telling us he's the smart one is a
bit of a hurtful thing don't you think?

I need a crying blanket and some Warm Cocoa.



--
That's Karma

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:43:02 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently
>intelligent to recognize its truth.

Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough.
But, since you already claim that you are a troll, why should we
believe anything you say?

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:50:18 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote:

>Heheh. You made a valid point. But I happen to appreciate your input too.

Of course you do.

[duke]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:10:58 -0500, "jane.playne" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/16/2016 12:05 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!* wrote:
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:rso75ctcls68jo0cu...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>> Golden
>>> Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
>>>
>>>>> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
>>>>> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
>>>> history or the facts.
>>>
>>> Yep, like me.
>>>
>>> The pukester, KKKatholiKKK Fool.
>>>
>>> *****
>>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of ignorance."
>>> Pope Idiot XIII
>>> *****
>>
>> Get the _FACTS_:
>.
>
>Do you read your citations, or do you just post them based on the headline?

"It" likes to change the wording of what others say.

the dukester, American-American

*****

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

> "This troll is one of the
>dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
>idiots one can come across."

I rest my case.

[Jan Tagmier]

On 12/18/2016 9:10 AM, Ted wrote:

> 1. I didn't write that.
>
> 2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>
> Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.
>

It's a sign of programming..loss of control of their emotions..pre
programmed.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:10:16 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>1. I didn't write that.
>
>2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>
>Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.

I didn't claim it said liar.
I merely copied what was at the bottom of your own post.
Look back.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:50:14 -0600, Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com>
wrote:

God what a husband I'd make! Yes, I should get married!
So much to do! like sneaking into Mr Jones' house late at night
and cover his golf clubs with 1920 Norwegian books . . .
And when the milkman comes leave him a note in the bottle
Penguin dust, bring me penguin dust, I want penguin dust."
(Gregory Corso, "Marriage," 1958)

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:03:45 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I see.

Of course you do.....

"Still through the hawthorn blows the cold wind:
Says suum, mun, ha, no, nonny.
Dolphin my boy, my boy, sessa! let him trot by."
(Edgar in William Shakespeare's King Lear, Act 3, Scene 4)

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>You copied it in answer to my assertion that I'm not a liar. From our
>preceding discussion:
>
>You: You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?
>
>Me: My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently

>intelligent to recognize its truth.
>

>You: Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough. But, since you already claim

>that you are a troll, why should we believe anything you say?
>

>Me: Because "troll" isn't synonymous with "liar", as "Patrick" is with
>"asshole". See? :)


You aren't smart enough to understand.
You said so yourself.

[Jan Tagmier]

Moron..

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:01:32 -0600, Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com>

It was gibberish, the same as your "programming" answer.

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:19:35 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>You're dodging and lying, Patrick. I hadn't expected that, but can
>understand it. Because it means you're just another worthless little cretin
>here.
>
Didn't you once claim you weren't smart enough?
I am merely dragging out your own convictions.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 12/18/2016 10:50 AM, Ted wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:10:16 +0000 (UTC), Ted
>> <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Ted
>>>> <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "This troll is one of the
>>>>> dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
>>>>> idiots one can come across."
>>>>
>>>> I rest my case.
>>>
>>> 1. I didn't write that.
>>>
>>> 2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>>>
>>> Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.
>>
>>
>> I didn't claim it said liar.
>> I merely copied what was at the bottom of your own post.
>> Look back.
>

> You copied it in answer to my assertion that I'm not a liar. From our
> preceding discussion:
>

> You: You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?
>
> Me: My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently

> intelligent to recognize its truth.
>

> You: Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough. But, since you already claim

> that you are a troll, why should we believe anything you say?
>

> Me: Because "troll" isn't synonymous with "liar", as "Patrick" is with
> "asshole". See? :)

Perfect!

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:25:34 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>I admit I'm stupid. So?

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:25:34 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>LOL. Thank you, ma'am. :)

Be careful what you call: "ma'am."

[Patrick]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>Have some respect, Patrick. Marie is a lady.

You don't know her.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> Have some respect, Patrick. Marie is a lady.
>

SO which toilet do they use?

--
That's Karma