I. . . I just couldn't do it!!! :_(
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - SWEEPEAT!!!
I had in mind that I would vote for The Obamasiah! just to keep the
Devil in Pumps out of there. Then, come November, proudly vote for
McCain (of course) who should trounce The Hollow Man.
Then I walk in and see two tables - DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN
I then realized had to state, publicly, whom I was affiliated with.
I. . . I just *couldn't* go to the Democrat line.
I wanted to vote against Billary but I. . . I just couldn't say, by
the simple action of me checking in at that table, "LOOK AT ME, I'M A
DEMOCRAT!"
The shame would have been to great.
I would have felt dirty.
Stupid.
Naive.
Tainted.
So. . . I went to the Republican table and voted with my conscience -
Thompson.
:D
Dan C
wrote:
Well done. Thanks for the chuckle.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
who'sthat
Don't worry about it. You just confirmed what we already knew:
republicans are idiots.
Fred Burton
"who'sthat" <whosthat> wrote in message
news:dusqs31qbeapfvk9r...@4ax.com...
The real idiots are the Leftards.
There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total oxymoron.
Jim Tibbs
"who'sthat" <whosthat> wrote in message
news:dusqs31qbeapfvk9r...@4ax.com...
Does your pettiness make you proud?
PatsSox
"Fred Burton" <fbu...@biteme2.com> wrote in message
> The real idiots are the Leftards.
> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total oxymoron.
Would you be willing to give up all the things that those idiotic
leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
unemployment insurance, civil rights, student grants, OSHA, environmental
laws, wagelaws, workers comp, the Marshall plan, school lunch program,
women's rights, fair labor standards, child labor laws, the GI bill,
FDIC..... etc. etc?? Would you?
who'sthat
Randy
theBZA
Life must be so easy when you let Rush Limpballs do all the thinking for
you.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
who'sthat
Wasn't he the guy who got busted with Viagra on a weekend outing with
the boys to an romantic island?
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - SWEEPEAT!!!
> "Fred Burton" <fbur...@biteme2.com> wrote in message
Sure, you mention some of the good things to come out of the
leftosphere - what's the most recent "good" thing they have done?
Hmm? All you mention is ancient history.
The left and those who think like them reward and encourage shirking
one's responsibilities and it all
rolls downhill from there. Higher crime? Thank them. Welfare moms?
Thank them. Higher taxes? Thank them. Affirmative Action and all
that springs from it? Thank them. Clearly, liberalism has outlived
its usefulness.
And, remember this - if it were not for the military and police,
groups headed and composed mostly of conservative thinkers - nothing
else, and I mean NOTHING ELSE, would even matter. Because without
those two conservative entities all you value, have and hold dear
could and WOULD be taken from you in the blink of an eye.
And all the trial lawyers in the world couldn't stop it.
OceanView
news:6a4f916e-295d-4bb5...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
If you're a Republic and aren't embarassed by the last seven years, then
you have no shame.
mario in victoria
propaganda. And much of it shouldn't exist, probably.
<g>
mario in victoria
--
i've never met an intelligent right-winger, so we're even, fred
mario in victoria
That goes for Republicans too!
mario in victoria
--
<g>
J Buck
those idiotic leftards secured for you and yours? You know...social
security, unemployment insurance, civil rights, student grants, OSHA,
environmental laws, wagelaws, workers comp, the Marshall plan, school
lunch program, women's rights, fair labor standards, child labor laws,
Let's make the distinction between the Democratic party who was inolved
with those programs and the current edition.
S/B 954RR
"mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Emzj.75096$C61.50721@edtnps89...
Still, there has to be at least one Republic out there that has to be proud
of their last seven years.
Erasmus Brown
"who'sthat" <whosthat> wrote in message
news:dusqs31qbeapfvk9r...@4ax.com...
: SWEEPEAT!!!" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: >There I was at the moment of truth. . .
: >
: >I had in mind that I would vote for The Obamasiah! just to keep the
: >Devil in Pumps out of there. Then, come November, proudly vote for
: >McCain (of course) who should trounce The Hollow Man.
: >
: >Then I walk in and see two tables - DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN
: >
: >I then realized had to state, publicly, whom I was affiliated with.
: >
: >I. . . I just *couldn't* go to the Democrat line.
: >
: >I wanted to vote against Billary but I. . . I just couldn't say, by
: >the simple action of me checking in at that table, "LOOK AT ME, I'M A
: >DEMOCRAT!"
: >
: >The shame would have been to great.
: >
: >I would have felt dirty.
: >
: >Stupid.
: >
: >Naive.
: >
: >Tainted.
(Piggybacking)
As well you should, you festering boil. Not for voting Democrat, but for
being you.
Erasmus Brown
:
: "who'sthat" <whosthat> wrote in message
Define "leftist". Are you referring to Che Guevera? Or just anybody to the
left of Ronald Reagan?
The Hip Lord Teddy of RedSoxia
"PatsSox" <Pat...@ne.com> wrote in message
news:ULizj.5628$Ie2.3148@trndny09...
without reading ahead, he will say , yes, because i will keep my hard earned
money.
Of course, should he live in Florida and get wiped out by a hurricane he
will be first in line for the govt handout.
Let's see if he can state on thing that conservative movement has done that
has had an impact on the country...oh let me restate that, a positive
impact.
Teddy
The Hip Lord Teddy of RedSoxia
"S/B 954RR" <jtib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:636ou3F...@mid.individual.net...
Romanovia!!!!
Did you see what their best dodgeball player did?
Teddy
mario in victoria
Probably anyone left of Attila the Hun.
mario in victoria
--
some of my best huns are friends
john.va...@gmail.com
> Would you be willing to give up all the things that those idiotic
> leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
If you had the option to get out of social security and instead invest
that money on your own, would you? Let's do the math.
Let's say you're 25 years old, with plans to retire at 65. Let's say
that you make $50,000 a year every year (I know that's not realistic,
but I'm trying to make the math easy). FICA contributions by the
employee are 6.2% of gross compensation up to $102,000 of income, so
you'd pay $3,100 towards your social security. Let's see what happens
if you invest that $3,100 in social security versus another vehicle
(through a Roth IRA).
Social Security gives you a realized annual rate of return of about
1.2% (meaning that it gives you a return of about 1.2% over the rate
of inflation). If you take that $3,100 per year and invest it in
social security, beginning at age 25, you'll have a nest egg of about
$165,000 above the rate of inflation. Forty years of investment would
net you about $165,000 of realized income.
Now if you took that same money and invested it in other vehicles,
here's what you end up with:
- Mutual Fund (Van Kampen Comstock Fund): (average annual rate of
return above inflation - approximately 12% for the last 30 years) -
you'd end up with over $2.9 million in realized income.
- Long term government bond: (average annual rate of return above
inflation - approximately 2.0% since 1945) - you'd end up with
$198,000 in realized income.
- Long term corporate bond: (average annual rate of return above
inflation - approximately 2.4% since 1945) - you'd end up with
$217,000 in realized income.
- Even if you invested in a low-risk mutual fund that gave you an
annual rate of return above inflation of about 5%, you'd end up with
$415,000 in realized income.
I know there are health benefits that come with Social Security, but
man, if you even make a semi-decent decision regarding where you'd put
that FICA money, you'd end up in far, far better financial shape than
you would with Social Security (with plenty of money to cover the
health care costs as well).
So again....if you could opt out of Social Security, would you? If
not, why not?
John
Pearly Soames
>
> The real idiots are the Leftards.
>
> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total oxymoron.
>
Well that's because you define "Leftard" as anyone who disagrees with
you on anything.
--
"Black and white cat, black and white cake."
who'sthat
Is he on CNN too?
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:149d6bb8-aca4-4689...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________________
I'm not getting into a long drawn out debate about this...but...I think you
are being a bit simplistic about this John. SS is NOT just about
investment. It was also meant to help the weakest and yes...even the
dumbest among us. It's about the sick and elderly...those less
fortunate...it's about making sure everyone gets taken care of. That's what
a great, wealthy nation SHOULD do for it's people IMO.
There is a large segment of our population that is one tragic illness...one
accident...one bad break away from financial disaster. Not to mention
economic downturns that cost folks their jobs all the time...through no
fault of their own. Many corporations enhance their profits by eliminating
jobs with no concern about the lives destroyed in the process...for the
investments of their stockholders of course. Those folks often find
themselves too strapped to save at all, let alone invest in the market.
Do you really think every hard working person, living paycheck to paycheck,
would be better off investing that money himself? How many very good,
honest, even smart folks get bilked all the time by shady investors? Are
you also saying the almighty *Market* is an absolute sure thing?
We seem to be getting much better at creating a permanent underclass (gotta
have someone to wash those windows and toilets after all...unless you want
to keep looking the other way from the illegal immigrant issue). How do you
think THEIR portfolios will look at *retirement*?
I'm guessing you'll think that everyone should have a choice to opt out.
Who would do THAT? I'll tell you who. Those who can best afford it. The
upper class...the wealthy...yes...even much of the middle class who have
been most fortunate. In other words...those that are NOT hurt by paying a
share of this money. We don't live alone on this rock. Look at it
selfishly if you must...who wants to trip over starving and dying
bodies...some would be children and the elderly and even the mentally ill
and damaged...on your way to work or vacation? Never mind the pure
explosion of social unrest that would surely happen.
Dano
"Erasmus Brown" <ebr...@ffarms.com> wrote in message
news:47ce78df$0$15171$607e...@cv.net...
Nah. Fred's VERY fair. It only applies to those stupid enough to disagree
with him.
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Since you don't want to get into a long, drawn-out debate about this,
I won't. I think you make a few good points, Dano, but you make some
serious errors here as well. If you ever want to talk more about it,
great, but seeing as though you don't want to get too much into it,
I'm fine with letting you have the last word here.
John
Ray O'Hara
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11061-47C...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
true .FDR was way more liberal almost a socialist even than todays party.
and those founding fathers, what a pack of dirty libtards, did you know they
even let non landowners vote? or that you could be of any religion and they
let the press get away with whatever they wanted to say. BRING BACK KING
GEORGE
Ray O'Hara
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:149d6bb8-aca4-4689...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
John
lets say you invest it and some scoundral embezzles all the money, you'd be
the first pewrson screaming for relief.
PatsSox
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
If you had the option to get out of social security and instead invest
that money on your own, would you? Let's do the math.
Let's say you're 25 years old, with plans to retire at 65. Let's say
that you make $50,000 a year every year (I know that's not realistic,
but I'm trying to make the math easy). FICA contributions by the
employee are 6.2% of gross compensation up to $102,000 of income, so
you'd pay $3,100 towards your social security. Let's see what happens
if you invest that $3,100 in social security versus another vehicle
(through a Roth IRA).
That may be fine for folks who have some base of knowledge about
investing when they are 25.... but that's a very small pool of people. And
who, at the age of 25, even thinks about life at 65? And what would you
do with people who can't afford to invest and would take that money to pay
their mortgage or buy food? And your numbers may work for someone who
averages 50K a year for 40 years...... but what about all the people who
don't make that much money? Investing would have to be mandatory......
or you end up with a huge part of the population who reach retirement age
and find themselves penniless. Do we make investing a mandatory course of
study in order to ensure that people have some idea what the heck they are
doing with their money? And when that pool of SS money disappears from
the national coffers where is the government going to borrow from when they
need the money? Your pocket and mine..... that's where. No, I wouldn't
give up SS and invest the money myself. Frist, because I'm over 50 and
don't have much time to make money..... especially in this market....... and
second because I don't know a damn thing about investing! : ))
Gumby
john.va...@gmail.com
> lets say you invest it and some scoundral embezzles all the money, you'd be
> the first pewrson screaming for relief.
Actually, I wouldn't. I actually take responsibility for my actions.
If I screw it up, I screw it up. There are lots of really safe
investment vehicles - like an FDIC insured certificate of deposit (you
know what FDIC insured means, right? that your money is guaranteed to
be safe) - that give you twice the interest rate that Social Security
does.
But even if your view is right...all that means is that the government
feels responsible for making choices for people. That sounds a lot
less like freedom and a lot more like forms of government
that...well...aren't too good.
John
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7e21956-0778-4cb4...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
___________________________________________
Let me just put it this way...I'm not expert enough about economics or
investment strategies to get into the nuts and bolts of this stuff. I also
guess that I fall somewhere in amongst the majority of most folks when it
comes to this. I'm not the brightest, but far from the slowest when it
comes to investing. We have a 401K...it has done well at times...it has
performed pretty poorly at others. I take nothing for granted and am not
going to be counting on only SS in my declining years. Not everyone is in
that position.
All I'm saying here (that I feel is semi-important) is that this isn't
really an investment for retirement program to me. Perhaps we can find some
compromise that would encourage savings and investment along with SS...even
phasing out elements. I'm not an ideologue about all of this. These issues
are too important...along with health care reform (not simply health
insurance reform) and the runaway costs of prescription medicine...for
people to fight over in the purely partisan fashion I see.
I'm always happy to read your posts...whether I agree with you or
not...because they are thoughtful and knowledgeable.
who'sthat
wrote:
And what do you do with the uneducated factory worker from Alabama
with no high school education who makes minimum wage his entire career
and stops working at 65 with no retirement benefits. Where does he
life? How does he eat? How does he get medical care? It happens EVERY
DAY here and has been for decades. What would you do?
McDuck
wrote:
>On Mar 4, 4:00 pm, "PatsSox" <Pats...@ne.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you be willing to give up all the things that those idiotic
>> leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
>
>If you had the option to get out of social security and instead invest
>that money on your own, would you? Let's do the math.
>
Silly math. You got the problem wrong. Lets go back to 1938. The
Republicans, with their protective tariffs and unregulated banking
sector, lead the country into the worst recession in American history.
FRD took heroic steps to end the depression and has some success after
years of experimentation --- no one at the time had a good handle on
monetary policy --- this was pre-Keynes, remember. Still, a whole
generation was facing retirement with no savings, and, of course, no
safety net.
So, FDR offered the country this deal. You working people pay for
modest pensions for the generation now retiring and the next
generation will do the same for you when you retire. And the deal was
accepted and, until the Republicans got back in power, everyone
accepted the deal.
Now we have Bush (reagan, too, by the way) and others saying: "well,
if we had just let the Depression Generation starve and had invested
our money, we could have a bigger pension than we would get from
getting transfers from the current generation. True. As people say,
the rich get richer sitting on their behinds b/c of compound interest.
So, John, when you do your numbers, you are just accepting the
right-wing fiction that Social Security is an investment plan. It is
not and never was intended to be. It is a transfer plan, from the
working generation to the retired generation.
Lots of sensible criticisms one can make about Social Security, but
arguing whether or not it "beats the market" (in did royally in the
1940s-1970s) is just silly. It would be like someone arguing against
Tsunami relief because, if we just investment the money, we would have
a really big pot of money to help California when it falls off into
the ocean. Relief is about helping people currently in need. It is not
about investment options.
Caveat. There is one very small part of SS that is supposed to be
about investment. In 1984, the two parties made a deal to increase SS
taxes and put the revenue in a savings fund to ease the burden on the
working generation when the baby boom generation retired. Basically,
the fund was intended to fix the mismatch of this v. large retiring
generation and a relatively small working generation (for around
2020). The deal worked out badly, however, because the Republicans
took the money from that fund to finance tax cuts for the rich. Pretty
despicable IMHO, but them's the facts.
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
>
> If you had the option to get out of social security and instead invest
> that money on your own, would you? Let's do the math.
> Let's say you're 25 years old, with plans to retire at 65. Let's say
> that you make $50,000 a year every year (I know that's not realistic,
> but I'm trying to make the math easy). FICA contributions by the
> employee are 6.2% of gross compensation up to $102,000 of income, so
> you'd pay $3,100 towards your social security. Let's see what happens
> if you invest that $3,100 in social security versus another vehicle
> (through a Roth IRA).
>
> That may be fine for folks who have some base of knowledge about
> investing when they are 25.... but that's a very small pool of people. And
> who, at the age of 25, even thinks about life at 65?
The return on Social Security is so crappy that the following is
true. You could take everything you've earned in SS up to the age of
47 and literally throw it away, and then, starting at 47, invest the
$3,100 a year that I used in my example in a mutual fund like the one
I listed and end up at age 65 with the same amount of money sitting in
your nest egg as you would have if you did nothing but take your SS
from age 25. That's how downright awful the rate of return you get
with Social Security.
> And what would you
> do with people who can't afford to invest and would take that money to pay
> their mortgage or buy food? And your numbers may work for someone who
> averages 50K a year for 40 years...... but what about all the people who
> don't make that much money?
It's the same principle. They take 6.2% of your income to go towards
FICA, whether you make $12,000 a year or $100,000 a year. If you make
just $15,000 a year for 40 years, here's what you'd end up with in
terms of Social Security versus my mutual fund example:
- SS: $49,500 (roughly)
- Comstock Fund: $885,500 (roughly)
So yeah, the numbers work no matter what you make. Over a long period
of time, it's always a better financial move to invest rather than to
rely on Social Security.
> Investing would have to be mandatory......
No, you give people the option. If you *prefer* to stay in Social
Security, great. Then you get your measley 1.2% rate of return and
the health benefits that go with it. If you want to get out, you
retire with about 10 times that amount of money in the bank, which
should be plenty to afford whatever you need and then some.
> or you end up with a huge part of the population who reach retirement age
> and find themselves penniless. Do we make investing a mandatory course of
> study in order to ensure that people have some idea what the heck they are
> doing with their money? And when that pool of SS money disappears from
> the national coffers where is the government going to borrow from when they
> need the money? Your pocket and mine..... that's where.
Guess what? That's where they're getting it from right now. Your
FICA payments aren't going to you...they're going to *current
retirees*. That's because the system started off one generation
behind. When the system was put into place, they immediately started
giving benefits to retirees, but there was no money in some SS trust
fund...they had to generate it from somewhere, so they tapped those
that were working. And forever now, current workers are funding the
SS for current retirees...and that's why it's going to be a huge
problem...the number of retirees is going to grow and the number of
workers needed to support those retirees just isn't there. The system
was flawed from the beginning and the concern is that it will collapse
on itself.
> No, I wouldn't
> give up SS and invest the money myself. Frist, because I'm over 50 and
> don't have much time to make money..... especially in this market....... and
> second because I don't know a damn thing about investing! : ))
I don't know how much you make, but let's say you make $50,000. If
you have had a steady job and are at age 50, there's a pretty good
chance you're making more than this, but let's just go with this.
This means that you're putting in $3,100 a year in FICA. Over the
next 15 years, getting you to retirement at 65, here's what you'd end
up with:
- If you just left that $3,100 in SS for 15 years: just under $55,000
- If you took that $3,100 and invested it in a 5.0% bank CD: just
under $77,000
- If you took that $3,100 and invested it in a modest-risk mutual fund
(8% interest): just over $100,000
- If you took that $3,100 and invested it in a fund like the one I
mentioned (12% interest): just over $146,000
- Heck, even gold the past 10 years has gone from about $10 per gold
gram to over $31 per gold gram. That's an annual rate of return of
about 21%. You could take your $3,100 this year alone, buy gold, and
then sell it at age 65 and have a pretty decent shot at having about
$54,000 - that's just about the same as 15 years of having it in
Social Security.
I think it's clear that it's *still* worth it for you financially to
pull out of SS right now and invest it...you'd end up way, way better
off. Especially because I'm sure you've put in the 40 quarters needed
for health benefits anyway.
The problem is that you *don't have the choice*. It's a tax, pure and
simple. It's a redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. But let's
call it what it is - it has nothing to do with providing you with a
better situation for retirement, since there's no doubt that you could
be far, far better off doing something different with that money.
John
PS - I want to be REAL clear here. I am not a professional investor,
and I don't make a lot of money. The hypothetical $50,000 per year
salary I've talked about is much more than I make per year. But it
doesn't take a lot of intelligence or education to realize that even a
5% certificate of deposit is a better financial investment than a 1.2%
vehicle (Social Security). Even I can do the math on that one.
john.va...@gmail.com
<big snip because this is the important point>
> So, John, when you do your numbers, you are just accepting the
> right-wing fiction that Social Security is an investment plan. It is
> not and never was intended to be. It is a transfer plan, from the
> working generation to the retired generation.
Bingo. That's exactly what it is. It's the current working
generation doing something to help take care of the next generation.
Thank you for agreeing with that. It is a *tax* on your income, not
for you, but for current retirees.
Now, the question is this: why would current retirees need to be
taken care of? Put it this way: If I can invest my money even semi-
wisely, I won't need the next generation of workers to take care of
me, because I will have already provided that security for myself.
And I can do this relatively easily by: (1) working at a job, (2) not
spending foolishly, and (3) saving consistently even in a modest
investment vehicle. If I do those things, I should not need my kids
and grandkids paying my social security for me....I will have plenty
of money in the bank and enough to pay for long-term health insurance
as well.
If I don't make very much money, I don't have the ability to invest in
a Roth IRA or something like that *on top of* my Social Security
payments (which are automatically withdrawn from my income). So I'm
forced to rely on Social Security. But even if I make just $15,000 a
year, my SS payments will yield me, from the age of 20-65 (so 45 years
worth of working) a whopping $57,315 (at 1.2%). A modest investment
at 8% (which isn't really a good mutual fund, but still) with that
same money would yield nearly $419,000 over the same time span. We're
talking here about a person making just about at the poverty line
here, and in the end, he could *easily* end up with something close to
a half a million dollars if just given the chance. But he doesn't
have that chance and as a result, is forced to take Social Security,
which means that (a) he cannot take care of himself and thus (b) must
rely on the subsequent working generation to take care of him. Thus
this is a never-ending cycle. And since the proportion of retirees/
workers is tipping in the older direction, the system is collapsing on
itself unless something major is done.
John
PS - So I don't disagree with your point above...rather, I agree with
it fully.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Mar 5, 11:04 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> lets say you invest it and some scoundral embezzles all the money, you'd be
>> the first pewrson screaming for relief.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't. I actually take responsibility for my actions.
>If I screw it up, I screw it up. There are lots of really safe
>investment vehicles - like an FDIC insured certificate of deposit (you
>know what FDIC insured means, right? that your money is guaranteed to
>be safe) - that give you twice the interest rate that Social Security
>does.
I see. You like government programs (FDIC) from the Great Depression
days that prevent bank depositors from losing their savings to
irresponsible or unlucky banks but you don't like government programs
that prevent people with no assets from starving.
But, as I noted in my prior post, SS does NOT give you ANY interest
rate. It is not an investment program. It is a transfer program, from
one generation to the prior generation.
>
>But even if your view is right...all that means is that the government
>feels responsible for making choices for people. That sounds a lot
>less like freedom and a lot more like forms of government
>that...well...aren't too good.
>
Really? Think back to 1938. Your grandparents are totally broke after
the longest and hardest depression in American history. And now they
are too old to work. And here comes that big bad FDR government coming
in and making choices for them --- offering them a decent life in
retirement. But your freedom-loving grandparent rebel --- they want
the freedom to starve, etc. Really?
No, John. A government that ensures the basic economic needs of the
people increases choices. Money gives choices. If you have no money,
you really have very few choices in our society.
You start with a false premise --- that people have this pot of money
and can invest it wisely (in good private-sector funds or
government-guaranteed funds) , spend it on the high life, or invest it
foolishly (or become the victims private-sector theives). Well, the
"pot" you are thinking about is already committed. You can't invest
your pot of money (so to speak) and still pay the SS pensions of the
retiring generation, in accordance with the promise made in 1938. So,
when you talk about a pot of money to invest, you are first talking
about stiffing the generation that supported your grandparents.
McDuck
Your points are basically right, or at least I agree with them, but,
as I've indicated to John, I think they are beside the point. You are,
in effect, looking at what one might do if we were starting a
government-run pension program today. If THAT were the question, I
agree that just giving people IRS accounts would have many of the
problems you indicate. We know from our experience with IRAs that 90%
of the benefits of the tax deferral go to the top 2% of thepopulation,
because people with current pressing needs are not inclined to be
putting money away to address a problem that will only arise, if at
all, 50 years from now.
Anyway, one could discuss that issue, but it is not relevant
politically b/c we are not starting SS from scratch. It was started in
1938 when the working generation paid taxes to finance the pensions of
old people who mostly had no assets and otherwise were facing a
premature death or great hardship. So, if one wants to talk now about
"investing" for retirement, it has to be a discussion about (1)
welching on the 1938 promise or (2) investing funds in addition to
paying the SS tax to keep that promise.
McDuck
>Erasmus Brown wrote:
>> :
>> Define "leftist". Are you referring to Che Guevera? Or just anybody to the
>> left of Ronald Reagan?
>>
>>
>RR was not all that conservative and began politics as a Dem.
Reagan started his adult life as a moderate liberal. Then he got rich
and became very conservative. but it is very wrong to suggest he was
not conservative when he was president.
Keith Willoughby
> So again....if you could opt out of Social Security, would you? If
> not, why not?
Well, the question should be, where's all the extra "money" coming
from? If social security funds were invested in securities, will there
be enough real growth created to pay out those higher returns? Or will
it just create a glut of investment? There's no such thing as a free
lunch.
Of course, you're begging the question. The point of social security
is just that - security. It's to provide a guaranteed income. People
are perfectly able to save above and beyond that level for their
retirement, but any plan that involves risk (pretty much anything that
involves the stock market, for example) will fail to provide security.
PatsSox
and hope for good health!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/retiree_health_care
Paul Dalrymple
"Anyone who is not liberal at age 16 has no heart. Someone who is
not conservative by age 60 has no head."
(Sorry- I can't recall the name of the conservative who said it. :))
john.va...@gmail.com
You don't have to invest in the market. The government issues bonds
and such and a great many of these vehicles offers a far greater rate
of return than social security does. And many of these vehicles are
guaranteed by the federal government, so you're not putting your money
at risk.
John
john.va...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:32:44 -0800 (PST), john.vampate...@gmail.com
I don't disagree, McDuck. I totally understand that my social
security payments aren't for me, they're for current retirees. But
the system, by virtue of how they designed it in the first place,
makes it impossible to break out of, for the very reason you cite here
at the end. But the system is going to fail at some point, there's
very little doubt about that, unless a major overhaul or massive tax
increases, or reduction of benefits to retirees happens. It's an
unsupportable system.
I acually was very upset at the Bush administration when they
inherited major surpluses from Clinton, because I thought, now is the
chance to fix social security once and for all. The money is
available to honor the SS commitments made to retirees while allowing
people who wish to opt out to do so. If others want to stay in, then
they get the security of the government-backed system, and their money
that goes in really does go into an account for them - not for their
parents or grandparents.
But Bush bungled it (not surprisingly) and not only is SS a mess, but
now we have massive deficits.
John
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks, I appreciate that. And I don't see this as a Democrat/
Republican partisan thing. I firmly believe in honoring the
commitments to the people who have put years into the SS system -
after all, their money was taken from them and put into the system, so
they deserve to get it back when they retire. No "fix" of SS can
happen in a way that doesn't honor those promises. McDuck thinks I
disagree with him on this, but I don't. I agree fully and understand
how SS got here in the first place.
But if the question is: what offers the better chance at a better
retirement situation: SS or other investment options, the answer is
clear - other investment options by a mile. So why not work towards
figuring out how we can accomplish both: honor the commitments to SS
payees *and* help people transition into a situation with more
options? It seems to me that's pretty hard to argue with.
John
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b21b6be0-5468-4a36...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I don't disagree, McDuck. I totally understand that my social
security payments aren't for me, they're for current retirees. But
the system, by virtue of how they designed it in the first place,
makes it impossible to break out of, for the very reason you cite here
at the end. But the system is going to fail at some point, there's
very little doubt about that, unless a major overhaul or massive tax
increases, or reduction of benefits to retirees happens. It's an
unsupportable system.
I acually was very upset at the Bush administration when they
inherited major surpluses from Clinton, because I thought, now is the
chance to fix social security once and for all. The money is
available to honor the SS commitments made to retirees while allowing
people who wish to opt out to do so. If others want to stay in, then
they get the security of the government-backed system, and their money
that goes in really does go into an account for them - not for their
parents or grandparents.
But Bush bungled it (not surprisingly) and not only is SS a mess, but
now we have massive deficits.
__________________________________
But are those deficits more due to SS or to the deficit spending being done
to pay for a war that has little, if any support. That is the real problem.
SS is a slight problem by comparison it would seem to me. Can you explain
THAT?
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0dbfcfa3-c7b8-43ce...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
_______________
Oh...you mean those bonds that our good pals (and fine humanitarians) the
Chinese hold so many of?
What happens if they decide to cash in? Where does the value of the ever
dwindling American dollar go then?
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't know anything about the Chinese holding US Bonds, so I can't
answer that question. But what does that have to do with the fact
that the US government offers Bonds (and guarantees them) at a rate of
return that is much higher than what you get with social security?
John
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d3c4484-ff62-4fb2...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------
I wouldn't. But we have much more pressing monetary issues to worry about
it seems to me.
The $9,000,000,000,000.00+ (and rising) national debt should be far more
disturbing I would think.
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The federal deficit is due to a lot of factors...gross overspending in
a bunch of areas. I don't know the exact figures for all that stuff.
All I was saying is that we have the chance, with the surpluses, to
fix SS once and for all, but they didn't do it, and I'm still upset
about that.
John
john.va...@gmail.com
Look, we have a lot of problems right now...the national debt is just
one of them (but it's a big one, for sure). This is why the size of
government needs to shrink, not grow. Think about it...if you're
personally in debt, the only way to get out of it is to bring your
spending to levels lower than your income. Without inciting a
national revolt, it's hard to tax people trillions of extra dollars,
so it's critical that spending goes down at the federal level.
Doesn't that make sense?
John
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d585a063-ec41-44a9...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------
Well aside from the point, repeatedly made, that SS is NOT an investment
program...if we find ourselves hopelessly indebted to a hostile foreign
government, while starting fights we can't finish that threaten to bankrupt
our economy in the process, that doesn't seem to be a sound fiscal approach.
It won't much matter if we are left holding bonds to a country that is
essentially broke. Might as well stuff gold and silver in a mattress.
I'm exaggerating a bit for effect. I am concerned that we are so entangled
with the Chinese however. I guess Japan is much more heavily invested in
our country for example (think how much extra clink we would have rolling
around were we not providing for THEIR defense as well as our own...oh
well). It's funny how we couldn't possibly abide a man as evil as Saddam
oppressing HIS people, but have no problem being in bed with China, Russia,
and the Saudis among others. So much so that we have spent how much on this
war in Iraq?
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54660fee-203f-4466...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------
Sure. Who will do that? How would YOU try to bring about that balance? By
tax breaks for the wealthiest among us? The Republican candidate is still
talking about *winning* in Iraq. I thought THAT happened years ago. Now
we're just feeding defense contractors.
The plan seems to always be...cut taxes...smaller government. Yet they waste
more money on defense in a day than in a year for social ills. I'm just
proposing that you go after the biggest waste. It does you little good to
shut a few light bulbs off at home, if you leave your windows open at night
while cranking your furnace at 80 degrees.
who'sthat
wrote:
The Chinese bond holdings have been on every news cast and in every
paper and news magazine for years. You need to read more.
who'sthat
wrote:
What do you do with people who don't know how to invest or don't have
enough money to invest? What do you do with a single mom with 4 kids?
What does she do when she gets forced out of work with no benefits?
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc97955a-6227-4e56...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------
Did you check the link? Do you dispute those numbers?
19% for the interest on the 9 trillion alone. 30% for defense (offense
these days) spending.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Mar 5, 11:41 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>
>Thanks, I appreciate that. And I don't see this as a Democrat/
>Republican partisan thing. I firmly believe in honoring the
>commitments to the people who have put years into the SS system -
>after all, their money was taken from them and put into the system, so
>they deserve to get it back when they retire. No "fix" of SS can
>happen in a way that doesn't honor those promises. McDuck thinks I
>disagree with him on this, but I don't. I agree fully and understand
>how SS got here in the first place.
>
>But if the question is: what offers the better chance at a better
>retirement situation: SS or other investment options, the answer is
>clear - other investment options by a mile. So why not work towards
>figuring out how we can accomplish both: honor the commitments to SS
>payees *and* help people transition into a situation with more
>options? It seems to me that's pretty hard to argue with.
>
Not hard at all. You cannot use the SS money for two purposes. If you
have a $1, you cannot both buy a $1 loaf of bread and put $1 away for
a rainy day. Pick one.
If you pick "help people transition into a new situation with more
options" (which is code for a using some or all of the SS money for
private savings accounts), you can't use that money to keep the SS
commitment to the prior generation. Bush fooled a lot of people by
pretending it was possible to do both, but he didn't fool the
majority, which is why his plan was abandonned.
IF you say you want to honor the commitment to those who paid for the
prior generation's pensions, and I certainly take you at your word,
then that is the end of the matter. The SS money goes to pay the
promised pensions. Nothing about investing that money --- it goes for
the promised us. If you think that there is some surplus that can be
used to do both, you are misinformed.
Now, as I previously stated, you want to discuss some ADDITIONAL
investment program run by the government, fine. Just don't try to
divert SS money for that purpose. Because if you agree that all of the
current FICA tax is needed to pay the current promised benefits, there
is no extra money.
Right now, we have a system with full options, once SS is off the
table. IF you have extra money, you can save for retirement, to have
more than SS can provide, or you can spend now, to have a better
current life or a better life for your kids. All the choices you can
want, assuming you have some discretionary money.
Any government plan will change the choices, reducing them, perhaps,
for the well-to-do and expanding them for those less fortunate. THAT
is what government, at its best does --- corrects for the hardship
created by a market economy without seriously undermining the benefits
of the market mechanisms.
SS is downweighted --- that is, it is a better deal, in terms of size
of promised pension, for low-income than for those at the top income
level (which is still under $100,000, so we are not talking about
really rich people). A good "private" scheme run by the government
would do the same. But, of course, the Bush plan was the opposite. It
was upweighted to give increased benefits to those in higher tax
brackets (the normal result of tax deductions in a tax system with
graduated rates). Here I'm discussing the Bush plan without reference
to its false claim that you could spend the SS money to pay current
peosions and also use the SAME money to fund private investment funds.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Mar 5, 12:11 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
Sorry, John, but you still don't get it. No one can "opt out" if the
system is to work. The current earners have to pay the current
benefits to the retirees or the system fails. Are you saying you want
to opt out and have paired yourself with someone receiving SS benefits
who agrees not to get those benefits so that you can use the money for
your own private pension? well, if there is such a person, how come
you get to be paired --- why not me <g>.
And there was no flaw in the system as adopted in 1938. A funded
investment plan in 1938 would have left the Depression generation
destitute. Instead, those people were given enough resources to live
out their lives with the basic essentials.
Now, the possible bankruptcy of the current system is an entirely
different matter, unrelated to the possibility of having separate
accounts for those who do not want to support the retired generation.
The system is in trouble because the government spent the money that
was supposed to be saved from the higher taxes imposed beginning in
1984.
Well, bankruptcy is actually not correct. No chance of that. But there
is a chance that the federal government will not raise taxes enough
some years in the future to repay the SS trust fund for the money that
Bush borrowed to fund tax cuts for the rich. That would mean that SS
would pay lower benefits --- perhaps as much as 30% lower. But this is
NOT a ponzy scheme, where the later comers get nothing back because
the scheme collapses. A pay as you go system cannot go bankrupt. The
worst that can happen is that it will be unable to pay in full the
promised benefits.
The SS problem is far, far different from the Medicare or Medicaid
problem. V. different set of issues, and far more serious problems ---
and no possible solution that is not terrible unless medical costs are
contained somehow.
Also, the SS "mess" and the massive deficits are closely related.
There is no major SS problem w/o the deficits. The deficits mean that
the future generation, at the time they are being asked to pay SS
benefits for the boomers, are also having to pay much higher taxes to
pay off the debt. Well, no one thinks they will be able to pay off the
debt. More realistically, they will have to pay much higher taxes to
pay the interest on the debt. It is no pipe dream to expect that if
current trends continue, over half of all federal spending will be
interest on the debt.
john.va...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:42:03 -0800 (PST), john.vampate...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 5, 11:41 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >Thanks, I appreciate that. And I don't see this as a Democrat/
> >Republican partisan thing. I firmly believe in honoring the
> >commitments to the people who have put years into the SS system -
> >after all, their money was taken from them and put into the system, so
> >they deserve to get it back when they retire. No "fix" of SS can
> >happen in a way that doesn't honor those promises. McDuck thinks I
> >disagree with him on this, but I don't. I agree fully and understand
> >how SS got here in the first place.
>
> >But if the question is: what offers the better chance at a better
> >retirement situation: SS or other investment options, the answer is
> >clear - other investment options by a mile. So why not work towards
> >figuring out how we can accomplish both: honor the commitments to SS
> >payees *and* help people transition into a situation with more
> >options? It seems to me that's pretty hard to argue with.
>
> Not hard at all. You cannot use the SS money for two purposes. If you
> have a $1, you cannot both buy a $1 loaf of bread and put $1 away for
> a rainy day. Pick one.
My point was that, when Bush took office, there was lots of extra
money sitting in the coffers (or so Clinton told us, anyway) and Bush
made the choice to give it back in the form of tax cuts instead of
putting it towards the SS obligation. I think that, because that
money is now no longer available, you're right - you can't put the
same dollar to work in two different ways. By using the money that
was available but not earmarked for anything, you actually had (to use
your analogy) two dollars to work with. Use the one to honor SS
obligations, and use the other to help people transition to individual
investment choices.
John
> peosions and also use the SAME money to fund private investment funds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry...I didn't click the link. I'll check it out tomorrow. Thanks
for the heads-up.
John
john.va...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:28:08 -0800 (PST), john.vampate...@gmail.com
To paraphrase you from a different thread: You lied. I watched the
news last night and they said nothing about the Chinese bond
holdings.
So your statment, "The Chinese bond holdings havve been on every news
cast and in every paper and news magazine for years" is false.
Moreover, I am convinced that you knew it was false. Therefore, you
lied.
That will be my last post to you. Feel free to take the last shot.
John
McDuck
wrote:
>
>The return on Social Security is so crappy that the following is
>true. You could take everything you've earned in SS up to the age of
>47 and literally throw it away, and then, starting at 47, invest the
>$3,100 a year that I used in my example in a mutual fund like the one
>I listed and end up at age 65 with the same amount of money sitting in
>your nest egg as you would have if you did nothing but take your SS
>from age 25. That's how downright awful the rate of return you get
>with Social Security.
>
John, you STILL don't get it. There is NO return on SS. The program is
a transfer program.
In 1938-41, the government built the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia
river. Unless you were a salmon fisherman or whatever, you probably
would conclude it was a v. good use of government money (from an
investment perspective). Still, taxpayers got no personalized return
from it. If they had been free to avoid those taxes and invested them
in an IRA, they would have a nice pot of money. So, do you say that
the Grand Coulee Dam was a mistake? Perhaps, but only if the
investment was a bad one, not because you or your grandfather does not
have a fat IRA account.
What we got from SS was a country in which old people can live out
their retirement years in dignity, without serious poverty. We even
get to not have to take our parents into our home when they get old
unless they want to come and we want to have them. (I'm not sure of
the numbers, but something like 90% of old people lived with their
adult children in 1938 and now only 10% do). That is, old people now
have some degree of independence, which they v. much want and we
should want for them. THAT is the return you get on SS. You do not get
money in the bank, just as you do not get money in the bank from other
valuable government spending programs, like Grand Coulee Dam.
What you keep doing is to say as follows. Let's assume that SS is not
a transfer program and that the taxes paid could be used for whatever
I want. And lets suppose what I want is an investment fund. Then how
much money would I have after, say, 50 years. A lot. that is why
people with wealth get richer and richer. But what has any of that got
to do with SS because SS IS a transfer program. You cannot take that
money away and still have SS, just as you cannot take away the
government money spent on GCD and still have the dam.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Mar 5, 11:56 am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><big snip because this is the important point>
>
>> So, John, when you do your numbers, you are just accepting the
>> right-wing fiction that Social Security is an investment plan. It is
>> not and never was intended to be. It is a transfer plan, from the
>> working generation to the retired generation.
>
>Bingo. That's exactly what it is. It's the current working
>generation doing something to help take care of the next generation.
>Thank you for agreeing with that. It is a *tax* on your income, not
>for you, but for current retirees.
Okay, you now understand the starting point of your discussion was
silly. but I was not agreeing with you. I was saying you were wrong.
And, as shown below, you are still wrong.
>
>Now, the question is this: why would current retirees need to be
>taken care of?
Do you think all or most current retiress don't need their social
security check? Is that your theory? If so, you happen to be wrong.
Now some could get by okay without the SS check. We are a rich
country, partly, by the way b/c of SS, but that is a different matter.
So, in contrast to 1938, when most of those reaching retirement age
were broke, we have a not-insignificant percentage of the population
who are doing fine, and some spectacularly rich. Is your point that
you new feel okay breaking the SS promise and putting a means test on
SS? Or don't you understand what you are arguing about?
>Put it this way: If I can invest my money even semi-
>wisely, I won't need the next generation of workers to take care of
>me, because I will have already provided that security for myself.
>And I can do this relatively easily by: (1) working at a job, (2) not
>spending foolishly, and (3) saving consistently even in a modest
>investment vehicle. If I do those things, I should not need my kids
>and grandkids paying my social security for me....I will have plenty
>of money in the bank and enough to pay for long-term health insurance
>as well.
Right, that is possible. But what is this point relevant to? Are you
saying we should wind down SS by continuing to collect the tax but now
warning peoople that after some date in the future, no more SS checks
because we now expect people to save and invest? Fine, run that
proposal up the flag pole. But that plan gives you no SS tax money for
you to invest. You have to save in addition to paying SS. The only
diffeence is that you better do well in your savings plan b/c that is
all you will have at retirement.
Or are you saying tha you want to stiff the current retirees by taking
the tax money you are slated to pay into SS so that you can invest
that money for yourself? If that is your view, then don't pretend
otherwise.
In brief, SS has little or nothing to do with what you might do if you
had some additional money ("your" money now paying for current SS
benefits).
<snip of your off-topic discussion of what you would do with magic
money>
>
>John
>PS - So I don't disagree with your point above...rather, I agree with
>it fully.
McDuck
wrote:
>john.va...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> So again....if you could opt out of Social Security, would you? If
>> not, why not?
>
>Well, the question should be, where's all the extra "money" coming
>from? If social security funds were invested in securities, will there
>be enough real growth created to pay out those higher returns? Or will
>it just create a glut of investment? There's no such thing as a free
>lunch.
>
Not the question I'd ask. Okay, your first question is my question.
where does the extra money coming from.
If you can get an answer to that from John --- I haven't been able to
get an answer --- then you can discuss whether a funded SS plan should
make so-called conservative investments or investments in the stock
market. (Or, whether we take the forced savings funds and let private
individuals make their own investments). But you don't get to that
issue without finding the money to both pay current SS benefits (for
which ALL of the SS tax is needed) and also funding the investment
funds. THAT is John's error. Please don't encourage him to continue in
it <g>.
>Of course, you're begging the question. The point of social security
>is just that - security. It's to provide a guaranteed income. People
>are perfectly able to save above and beyond that level for their
>retirement, but any plan that involves risk (pretty much anything that
>involves the stock market, for example) will fail to provide security.
>
>
Well, I can agree in accepting "some" risk in a system. Hard to
envision a system with no risk. So, we have a continuum from no risk
to great risk, and we have a yield continuum that roughly corresponds
to the first (but by no means exactly). I think a system designed to
guarantee some minimum standard of living at retirement should be set
up with pretty low level of risk. If that is your point, I agree.
Still, this discussion is an aside to John's discussion b/c John
cannot account for the same dollar paying for current SS benefits and
also going into a fund to pay future benefits.
By the way, FDR rejected a means test for SS to reduce risk --- the
risk that future generations would not pay the promised pensions. Out
of consideration for you, I did not say "welch" on that promise <g>.
(Aside: where did that term come from anyway?)
McDuck
wrote:
>
>You don't have to invest in the market. The government issues bonds
>and such and a great many of these vehicles offers a far greater rate
>of return than social security does. And many of these vehicles are
>guaranteed by the federal government, so you're not putting your money
>at risk.
>
No, you STILL don't get it. SS is a transfer program. It does not pay
ANY rate of return to individuals.
The "return" on SS is the benefit to the society of having retirees
not living in poverty. It is comparable to the return on Grand Coulee
Dam --- having flood control and cheap power. Or Tsunami relief ---
having people we mostly don't know suffer less. You can like those
benefits or decry them, but it is silly to evaluate them by
calculating the personal rate of return on the money you'd have saved
in taxes if the government decided against those projects and instead
gave you a tax cut.
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb25e745-e8e1-4f9d...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------
Don't pay any attention to *that* one. He's as bad on the left as many are
on the right.
It IS a little hard to find much on the topic. I suspect it's the fault of
our pathetic media these days. They don't care to cover anything they can't
sex up and sensationalize. I think Clinton contributed to getting cozy with
the Chinese economically...I don't think this is a strictly partisan issue.
I also don't think it is really that bad on certain levels. The more our
interests become intertwined, the more there is for both sides to lose by
fighting. I just wish we could continue to try to find peaceful resolutions
to problems in all cases. It's in everyone's interest and keeping solvent
and strong makes us safer over the long haul. The fact that McCain is by
his own declaration, weak on the economy, while strong on the saber
rattling, is not encouraging.
McDuck
I've seen it attributed to Disraeli, but I'm not sure that is right.
Like Yogi Berra, old Ben said a lot of things he never said. Same with
Mark Twain. Actually, MT said a lot of things Disraeli said (like
"lies, damned lies, and statistics".)
If it was Disraeli, we have to understand more than I do about those
terms in the 19th century. I doubt that "conservative" in 19th
century UK meant spending w/o taxing or entering wars w/o a valid
reason. But it might have meant letting the poor suffer because
helping them would mess up market mechanisms.
john.va...@gmail.com
I feel like you're venting at me for some reason. Am I misreading
you? It seems like you assume that I favor a plan that simply cuts
taxes for the wealthy. Why would you assume that?
> The Republican candidate is still
> talking about *winning* in Iraq. I thought THAT happened years ago. Now
> we're just feeding defense contractors.
>
> The plan seems to always be...cut taxes...smaller government. Yet they waste
> more money on defense in a day than in a year for social ills. I'm just
> proposing that you go after the biggest waste. It does you little good to
> shut a few light bulbs off at home, if you leave your windows open at night
> while cranking your furnace at 80 degrees.
I don't think that spending money on defense is a waste. By
maintaining a vibrant, large, technologically-advanced armed forces,
(a) you're less likely to need to use it (you're safer if you're
stronger), (b) it keeps lots of people employed (both in the service
and in all the industries that are needed to support the military),
and (c) it creates all sorts of non-military technology that helps us
in every day life (lasers, the internet, etc.).
I mean, *some* military expenditures are a waste. But I think it's
more likely that the famous $600 toilet seats for the army are really
a slick budgeting tool for black ops. But I freely admit that I could
be wrong.
John
McDuck
wrote:
> Without inciting a
>national revolt, it's hard to tax people trillions of extra dollars,
>so it's critical that spending goes down at the federal level.
>Doesn't that make sense?
>
We are in a situation where government spending pretty much has to go
up. That means higher taxes, and the only real issue is who pays them.
We have an aging population, and old peoople are costly t the
government. Health care is going up, and the governemnt pays a good
part of health care. These are transfer payment. Of course, you could
eliminate the middle man and have people pay thier own costs, but, of
course, that is not realistic, since many do not have the money to do
so.
So, the issue is --- higher taxes and continued benefits, or lower
taxes and reduced benefits. You tell me which option is more or less
likely to produce some kind of revolt. Keep in mind that those paying
the higher taxes are rich, and those losing the benefits are less well
off and far, far more numerous.
Also, of course, we have the interest on the debt. At current trends,
that is going up no matter what is done, and it has to be paid for
with higher taxes. or benefit cuts.
Bush, in his budget proposal, did indicate that after he's out of
office, he is recommending huge cuts in benefits for poor people. But
will someone in office make that suggestion?
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2fc2f18-ec19-47b6...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
Except that you just said..."...you're less likely to need to use it (you're
safer if you're stronger)".
I think you have to agree we have been *using it*...a lot. For a long time
now. That costs a lot of money...resources...and lives. One of those at
least, should concern you...if not all.
McDuck
wrote:
There was a modest surplus when Clinton left office. It looked bigger
than it actually was b/c the CBO (as required by law) computes the
budget deficits or surpluses based on existing law, and some major
spending programs (farm subsidies, for example) were scheduled to end
early in the Bush years but everyone actually assumed (correctly) that
they would be extended. Still, there was a surplus. But, relative to
SS payouts, it was trivial. I don't know the exact numbers, but the
yield on that amount, invested in the stock market, would not have
paid SS benefits for a day.
You are raising, implicitly, a very different topic here, namely what
should the government have done with the extra taxes collected after
1984 to ease the problem of boomer retirement. If invested in the
market, it would have been a socialist paradise --- that is, the
government would have become a dominant stock owner. Or it could have
played it safe and invested in government securities. Actually, that
IS what it did, except that the government took the money raised by
selling itself the bonds and spent it on government projects of one
kind or another.
The point is that the government cannot buy its own bonds and have it
meaningful --- it is like you buying a car from money you borrowed
from your retirement fund. A change in internal accounting, but no
more.
Anyway, that fund from the extra SS taxes would have been fairly
large, but still the return on that money would be a relatively small
part of the total SS payments (never seen actual numbers --- but at
most it would fund the bulge in SS payments due to the size of the
boomer generation).
And remember, the SS surplus is needed to pay pensions for the boomers
when they retire. THAT was the point of trying to create th surplus.
It is not uncommitted money that also can be spent on private
pensions.
McDuck
wrote:
>
>The federal deficit is due to a lot of factors...gross overspending in
>a bunch of areas. I don't know the exact figures for all that stuff.
>All I was saying is that we have the chance, with the surpluses, to
>fix SS once and for all, but they didn't do it, and I'm still upset
>about that.
>
No they didn't. You should not be upset at not using the SS surpluses
to fix SS because that was not possible. SS is a transfer program, and
to fix it, you need the money when people retire, and you get it by
collecting taxes from people who are earning. Building up the
surpluses would reduce the debt, and that would reduce interest that
needed to by paid, and that would allow the next generation to pay the
SS benefits without a big tax increase. Now they have to pay for SS
and pay even higher amounts of interest b/c the government not only
spent the SS surplus but also went into debt to finance tax cuts for
the rich. That is, the tax cuts for the rich were so big they absorbed
not only the SS surplus but also put the government into serious debt
for the indefinite future.
I'm not sure what you mean by "gross overspending in a bunch of
areas." I'n not saying that everything the gov't does is worth while.
The contrary, actually. But the federal government has been shrinking,
not growing, as a percentage of the size of the economy. So spending
is hardly the cause of the deficits. It is the tax cuts.
True, we could cut even more and reduce the deficit. But we had a
really conservative Congress until the last election, and still have a
conservative hammer over new spending, and they did not find stuff
they wanted to cut. And the war in Iraq has run up spending (off
budget --- pretty funny concept, really.)
McDuck
wrote:
>
>I don't know anything about the Chinese holding US Bonds, so I can't
>answer that question. But what does that have to do with the fact
>that the US government offers Bonds (and guarantees them) at a rate of
>return that is much higher than what you get with social security?
>
SS does not have a rate of return. It is a spending program. Why is
that concept so hard for you? What is the rate of return on plowing
snow on the Interstate? Same rate as with SS --- zero.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Out
> of consideration for you, I did not say "welch" on that promise <g>.
> (Aside: where did that term come from anyway?)
Racist slur on the Welsh, similar origin to 'gyp'.
- Darkhawk, meh
--
Darkhawk - K. H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Come, take my body (Allelu--)
Come, take my soul (Take my soul--) "Dark Time"
Come, take me over, I want to be whole. October Project
Erasmus Brown
"Gumby" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47cec684$0$30716$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
: Erasmus Brown wrote:
: > "Fred Burton" <fbu...@biteme2.com> wrote in message
: > news:fqk9rg$1004$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
: > :
: > : "who'sthat" <whosthat> wrote in message
: > : news:dusqs31qbeapfvk9r...@4ax.com...
: > : > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:54:10 -0800 (PST), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate -
: > : > SWEEPEAT!!!" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : >>There I was at the moment of truth. . .
: > : >>
: > : >>I had in mind that I would vote for The Obamasiah! just to keep the
: > : >>Devil in Pumps out of there. Then, come November, proudly vote for
: > : >>McCain (of course) who should trounce The Hollow Man.
: > : >>
: > : >>Then I walk in and see two tables - DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN
: > : >>
: > : >>I then realized had to state, publicly, whom I was affiliated with.
: > : >>
: > : >>I. . . I just *couldn't* go to the Democrat line.
: > : >>
: > : >>I wanted to vote against Billary but I. . . I just couldn't say, by
: > : >>the simple action of me checking in at that table, "LOOK AT ME, I'M
A
: > : >>DEMOCRAT!"
: > : >>
: > : >>The shame would have been to great.
: > : >>
: > : >>I would have felt dirty.
: > : >>
: > : >>Stupid.
: > : >>
: > : >>Naive.
: > : >>
: > : >>Tainted.
: > : >>
: > : >>So. . . I went to the Republican table and voted with my
conscience -
: > : >>Thompson.
: > : >>
: > : >>:D
: > : >
: > : > Don't worry about it. You just confirmed what we already knew:
: > : > republicans are idiots.
: > :
: > : The real idiots are the Leftards.
: > :
: > : There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total
oxymoron.
: > :
: > Define "leftist". Are you referring to Che Guevera? Or just anybody to
: > left of Ronald Reagan?
: >
: >
: RR was not all that conservative and began politics as a Dem.
Not all that conservative? In which ways was he liberal?
Pepe Papon
<tom.ch...@charter.net> wrote:
>Fred Burton wrote:
>
>>
>> The real idiots are the Leftards.
>>
>> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total oxymoron.
>>
>
>Well that's because you define "Leftard" as anyone who disagrees with
>you on anything.
He also defines "stupid" the same way.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
McDuck
wrote:
>
><john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f2fc2f18-ec19-47b6...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I don't think that spending money on defense is a waste. By
>> maintaining a vibrant, large, technologically-advanced armed forces,
>> (a) you're less likely to need to use it (you're safer if you're
>> stronger), (b) it keeps lots of people employed (both in the service
>> and in all the industries that are needed to support the military),
>> and (c) it creates all sorts of non-military technology that helps us
>> in every day life (lasers, the internet, etc.).
>>
>> I mean, *some* military expenditures are a waste. But I think it's
>> more likely that the famous $600 toilet seats for the army are really
>> a slick budgeting tool for black ops. But I freely admit that I could
>> be wrong.
>>
>
>Except that you just said..."...you're less likely to need to use it (you're
>safer if you're stronger)".
>
>I think you have to agree we have been *using it*...a lot. For a long time
>now. That costs a lot of money...resources...and lives. One of those at
>least, should concern you...if not all.
A military machine that is really good does invite its use. With wise
leaders, we can overcome the temptation, just as with wise leaders we
can overcome the temptation to spend budget surpluses.
So, there is a mix (plus and minus), b/c I agree that a strong
military can allow a country to have influence without having to use
it. Indeed, Bush has weakened US power in the mid-east just by making
it clear that US power is so unlikely to be used outside of Iraq, due
to the problems arising from its use in Iraq.
That there are spillover benefits from military sending is certainly
true, but often at a low return per expenditure. No one thinks it was
worth while, economically, to send men to the moon just to get Tang
<g>. The Internet had military beginnings, but its development was a
lot more than just military. Anyway, if military spending is assumed
to be a waste, it cannot be justified in terms of its employment
effects. Lots of ways of spending money that would have greater
employment effects.
So, in the end, like any government expenditure, we need to defend
military spending on what it actually produces. The benefit can be big
(Revolutionary War, WW II) or negative (Vietnam, Iraq).
McDuck
(H. Nicoll)) wrote:
>McDuck <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Out
>> of consideration for you, I did not say "welch" on that promise <g>.
>> (Aside: where did that term come from anyway?)
>
>Racist slur on the Welsh, similar origin to 'gyp'.
>
> - Darkhawk, meh
Yes, that was my guess. But why? Were the Welsh reputed to be
particularly poor at, for example, paying their gambling debts?
john.va...@gmail.com
> <john.vampate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It does....immensely. Why might you have thought it didn't?
But in reality, we have far fewer military people engaged in warfare
at the present time than in many years in our nation's past.
John
john.va...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:35:31 -0800 (PST), john.vampate...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >The federal deficit is due to a lot of factors...gross overspending in
> >a bunch of areas. I don't know the exact figures for all that stuff.
> >All I was saying is that we have the chance, with the surpluses, to
> >fix SS once and for all, but they didn't do it, and I'm still upset
> >about that.
>
> No they didn't. You should not be upset at not using the SS surpluses
> to fix SS because that was not possible.
I never said we had Social Security surpluses. I said we had budget
surpluses.
> SS is a transfer program, and
> to fix it, you need the money when people retire, and you get it by
> collecting taxes from people who are earning. Building up the
> surpluses would reduce the debt, and that would reduce interest that
> needed to by paid, and that would allow the next generation to pay the
> SS benefits without a big tax increase. Now they have to pay for SS
> and pay even higher amounts of interest b/c the government not only
> spent the SS surplus but also went into debt to finance tax cuts for
> the rich. That is, the tax cuts for the rich were so big they absorbed
> not only the SS surplus but also put the government into serious debt
> for the indefinite future.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "gross overspending in a bunch of
> areas." I'n not saying that everything the gov't does is worth while.
> The contrary, actually. But the federal government has been shrinking,
> not growing, as a percentage of the size of the economy. So spending
> is hardly the cause of the deficits. It is the tax cuts.
>
> True, we could cut even more and reduce the deficit. But we had a
> really conservative Congress until the last election, and still have a
> conservative hammer over new spending, and they did not find stuff
> they wanted to cut. And the war in Iraq has run up spending (off
> budget --- pretty funny concept, really.)
This shows that in many ways Bush is hardly a conservative. His
spending has been very...well, let's just say that he hasn't exactly
actively tried to shrink the size of government.
John
Fred Burton
"PatsSox" <Pat...@ne.com> wrote in message
news:ULizj.5628$Ie2.3148@trndny09...
>> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total oxymoron.
>
>
> leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
> unemployment insurance, civil rights, student grants, OSHA, environmental
> laws, wagelaws, workers comp, the Marshall plan, school lunch program,
> women's rights, fair labor standards, child labor laws, the GI bill,
> FDIC..... etc. etc?? Would you?
>
None of those things were created by leftards. They were created by
Democrats
and Republicans at times when Democrats were actually truly pro-American,
pro-capitalist citizens of the US, not the brain-dead, clueless, and utterly
naive
leftist moonbats that have infected the Democrat Party like a disease, a
disease
that the US needs purged from its system if it wants to not just survive,
but prosper.
But so long as the US is poisoned by these moronic fools, it will have to
manage
to just crawl on its hands and knees in the much and mire. But that's
really all the
leftards want anyways, since it becomes just another excuse for them to take
more
power for the government ... which is their ultimate goal.
S/B 954RR
"The Hip Lord Teddy of RedSoxia" <teddyz...@SLAPPYMCBLUELIPS.verizon.net>
wrote in message news:L4vzj.3522$VS2.464@trndny05...
>
> "PatsSox" <Pat...@ne.com> wrote in message
> news:ULizj.5628$Ie2.3148@trndny09...
>>
>> "Fred Burton" <fbu...@biteme2.com> wrote in message
>>> The real idiots are the Leftards.
>>> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total
>>> oxymoron.
>>
>>
>> Would you be willing to give up all the things that those idiotic
>> leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
>> unemployment insurance, civil rights, student grants, OSHA, environmental
>> laws, wagelaws, workers comp, the Marshall plan, school lunch program,
>> women's rights, fair labor standards, child labor laws, the GI bill,
>> FDIC..... etc. etc?? Would you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> without reading ahead, he will say , yes, because i will keep my hard
> earned money.
> Of course, should he live in Florida and get wiped out by a hurricane he
> will be first in line for the govt handout.
>
> Let's see if he can state on thing that conservative movement has done
> that has had an impact on the country...oh let me restate that, a positive
> impact.
>
> Teddy
>
That one's easy, the death penalty...
--
Jim Tiberio
J Buck
watched the news last night and they said nothing about the Chinese bond
holdings.
So your statment, "The Chinese bond holdings havve been on every news
cast and in every paper and news magazine for years" is false.>
Keep in mind that the bozo you are replying to also said that every
newscast and article henceforth about the Patriots would mention the
taping incident from last September.
OceanView
>
> "S/B 954RR" <jtib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:636ou3F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> "mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0Emzj.75096$C61.50721@edtnps89...
>>> OceanView wrote:
>>>> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - SWEEPEAT!!!" <oneilsp...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> news:6a4f916e-295d-4bb5...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>>> om:
>>>>
>>>>> There I was at the moment of truth. . .
>>>>>
>>>>> I had in mind that I would vote for The Obamasiah! just to keep
>>>>> the Devil in Pumps out of there. Then, come November, proudly
>>>>> vote for McCain (of course) who should trounce The Hollow Man.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I walk in and see two tables - DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN
>>>>>
>>>>> I then realized had to state, publicly, whom I was affiliated
>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I. . . I just *couldn't* go to the Democrat line.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to vote against Billary but I. . . I just couldn't say,
>>>>> by the simple action of me checking in at that table, "LOOK AT ME,
>>>>> I'M A DEMOCRAT!"
>>>>>
>>>>> The shame would have been to great.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have felt dirty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Naive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tainted.
>>>>>
>>>>> So. . . I went to the Republican table and voted with my
>>>>> conscience - Thompson.
>>>>>
>>>>> :D
>>>>
>>>> If you're a Republic and aren't embarassed by the last seven years,
>>>> then you have no shame.
>>>
>>> That goes for Republicans too!
>>>
>>
>> Still, there has to be at least one Republic out there that has to be
>> proud of their last seven years.
>
> Romanovia!!!!
>
> Did you see what their best dodgeball player did?
>
> Teddy
>
>
Freetonia.
mario in victoria
I doubt anyone can say anything to correct you, change your mind, or
explain the historical facts. You said it very well. If I prayed at all,
I'd pray for you.
mario in victoria
--
speaking of closed minds. . .
mario in victoria
What effect has the death penalty had on the murder rate?
mario in victoria
--
and you could shoot all second offenders. . .
Dano
<john.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e509d081-ef09-4a30...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
_______________________________________
Well now. That's something I suppose. :/
It's NOT WW III eh? Now that's optimism.
In the context of our discussion, 3 trillion will buy a lot of health,
education and welfare, and fill many potholes and repair many bridges.
That, and a lot of American families might like to have their relatives
home.
Dano
I'd pray for him to STFU.
S/B 954RR
"mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RzKzj.80644$C61.60052@edtnps89...
The killers never killed again.
"..." meant I was just poking at Teddy but I do believe the death penalty
should be used. Plenty of folks have admitted their heinous crimes and to
me personally I see no reason why someone who admittedly and intentionally
took a life deserves to keep theirs. It's just my belief and I'm not
knocking anyone who feels their filthy existences have value, I just don't
think they do.
--
Jim Tiberio
Gumby
Pearly Soames
>
> But that's
> really all the
> leftards want anyways, since it becomes just another excuse for them to take
> more
> power for the government ... which is their ultimate goal.
>
They must have taken inspiration from the Bush administration, in that
case. I don't think that any unqualified Bush supporter should complain
about a big government.
--
"Black and white cat, black and white cake."
Pearly Soames
>
> I don't know anything about the Chinese holding US Bonds, so I can't
> answer that question. But what does that have to do with the fact
> that the US government offers Bonds (and guarantees them) at a rate of
> return that is much higher than what you get with social security?
>
It means that when the current US government wants to pay for a tax cut,
it offers good rates to investors in China. So US bonds are sort of
like social security in that future generations of US citizens will owe
money to the Chinese in order to make sure that those receiving the tax
cuts survive today.
Bob-Nob
> john.va...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You don't have to invest in the market. The government
>> issues bonds and such and a great many of these vehicles
>> offers a far greater rate of return than social security
>> does. And many of these vehicles are guaranteed by the
>> federal government, so you're not putting your money at
>> risk.
> No, you STILL don't get it. SS is a transfer program. It
> does not pay ANY rate of return to individuals.
If I understand your description of SS correctly, would this be a
fair description:
Assume we have six people: a seventy year old, a sixty year old,
a fifty year old, a forty year old, a thirty year old, and a
twenty year old. Start the five youngest with $20. Assume the
oldest has $0. Assume you need $10 in order to live comfortably.
Line them up in order of age. Now say "Social security time!"
At this point everyone passes $10 to the (older) person next to
them in line. If the person has no one to pass his money to, he
does nothing. Now multiply each group by several million (and/or
add people to represent ages in between as well as to add younger
people who will be joining the line beside the youngest member)
and you have (yes?) a decent (though very rough) representation
of what social security is. It's a means by which young people
pass money to old people with the understanding that by the time
they themselves get old, someone will have appeared to pass
money to them. Under such a scheme (once it's begun), for any
young person to opt out would mean screwing someone older than
them (since someone wouldn't get their $10. Is that the basic
gist of what you're saying? (Super rough, I know, but basically?)
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!
IF22: Cliff wins best film, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"Can't complain; had his chance, and in modern parlance, blew it."
theBZA
news:47cf41c3$0$25035$607e...@cv.net:
Well, to his credit, he didn't wear his religion on his sleeve like Bush
does.
--
Crippled but free
I was blind all the time
I was learning to see.
theBZA
news:47cf9108$0$30696$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
He was a republican when he was governor. He switched parties in 1962
and didn't become governor until 1967.
Phil
In actual fact, nobody seems to know what Bush's religion is. He had
been a member of the United Methodist Church for years, but since he
assumed the throne (sorry, I was going to say, "was elected" but caught
myself in time), he has refused to even speak to the leaders of that
church, and has not officially joined any other.
Which, in conjunction with the fact that he has pretty much given the
ultimate high profile to un-Christian acts, does raise a number of
questions about his religious beliefs. Apparently he's a church unto
himself, and has his own version of the scriptures.
theBZA
All true - but I was refering to Bush's propensity to claim he talks
directly to God and even takes orders from him ("He told me to invade
Iraq, so I invaded Iraq") whereas Reagan never (to the best of my
recollection) said things like that.
The really funny thing (not funny "haha" - more like funny in an it
makes you want to cry way) is that Bush once called the Constitution
"just a piece of paper" yet he doesn't seem to realize that the Bible is
"just a story."
Keith Willoughby
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:02:46 GMT, Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org>
> wrote:
>
> >john.va...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> So again....if you could opt out of Social Security, would you? If
> >> not, why not?
> >
> >Well, the question should be, where's all the extra "money" coming
> >from? If social security funds were invested in securities, will there
> >be enough real growth created to pay out those higher returns? Or will
> >it just create a glut of investment? There's no such thing as a free
> >lunch.
> >
>
> Not the question I'd ask. Okay, your first question is my question.
> where does the extra money coming from.
>
> If you can get an answer to that from John --- I haven't been able to
> get an answer --- then you can discuss whether a funded SS plan should
> make so-called conservative investments or investments in the stock
> market. (Or, whether we take the forced savings funds and let private
> individuals make their own investments). But you don't get to that
> issue without finding the money to both pay current SS benefits (for
> which ALL of the SS tax is needed) and also funding the investment
> funds. THAT is John's error. Please don't encourage him to continue in
> it <g>.
The reason I'm asking the question is that John appears to think
investment income is magic. You put money in one end, and get more
money out of the other end. In the real worl, you need real wealth
created to pay out. You can't just make every FICA payer in the
country wealthier overnight by putting their contributions into a
black-box invesmtent without expecting it to affect investment returns.
On the other hamd, you're quite right. I am muddying the waters. There
is no money to invest, because it's needed to pay this year's SS.
> >Of course, you're begging the question. The point of social security
> >is just that - security. It's to provide a guaranteed income. People
> >are perfectly able to save above and beyond that level for their
> >retirement, but any plan that involves risk (pretty much anything that
> >involves the stock market, for example) will fail to provide security.
> >
> >
> Well, I can agree in accepting "some" risk in a system. Hard to
> envision a system with no risk.
Sure. "risk-free" in this context is the risk that the US government
fails to pay out its liabilities. It's real, but remote.
> So, we have a continuum from no risk to great risk, and we have a
> yield continuum that roughly corresponds to the first (but by no
> means exactly). I think a system designed to guarantee some minimum
> standard of living at retirement should be set up with pretty low
> level of risk. If that is your point, I agree.
Yup. I mean that a retiree can know how much (within a reasonable
tolerance) they can expect to receive each month when they
retire. There shouldn't be any nasty surprises.
> Still, this discussion is an aside to John's discussion b/c John
> cannot account for the same dollar paying for current SS benefits
> and also going into a fund to pay future benefits.
>
> By the way, FDR rejected a means test for SS to reduce risk --- the
> risk that future generations would not pay the promised pensions. Out
> of consideration for you, I did not say "welch" on that promise <g>.
> (Aside: where did that term come from anyway?)
No idea, but I have no problems with the phrase. Just spell it "welch"
and not "welsh", and I'm good. :-)
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - SWEEPEAT!!!
> S/B 954RR wrote:
>
> > "The Hip Lord Teddy of RedSoxia"
> >news:L4vzj.3522$VS2.464@trndny05...
>
> >> "PatsSox" <Pats...@ne.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ULizj.5628$Ie2.3148@trndny09...
>
> >>> "Fred Burton" <fbur...@biteme2.com> wrote in message
> >>>> The real idiots are the Leftards.
> >>>> There is no such thing as an intelligent leftist. It's a total
> >>>> oxymoron.
>
> >>> Would you be willing to give up all the things that those idiotic
> >>> leftards secured for you and yours? You know...... social security,
> >>> unemployment insurance, civil rights, student grants, OSHA,
> >>> environmental
> >>> laws, wagelaws, workers comp, the Marshall plan, school lunch program,
> >>> women's rights, fair labor standards, child labor laws, the GI bill,
> >>> FDIC..... etc. etc?? Would you?
>
> >> without reading ahead, he will say , yes, because i will keep my hard
> >> earned money.
> >> Of course, should he live in Florida and get wiped out by a hurricane
> >> he will be first in line for the govt handout.
>
> >> Let's see if he can state on thing that conservative movement has done
> >> that has had an impact on the country...oh let me restate that, a
> >> positive impact.
>
> >> Teddy
>
> > That one's easy, the death penalty...
>
> Check the facts.
> What effect has the death penalty had on the murder rate?
>
It's because it's not instituted properly. And that's thanks to whom
- again, we're right back to the liberals and lawyers.