Originally posted by KingDavid403That's rich. You claim bs without any counterpoints to support your position... and then say one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard, insofar as where our tax money goes. As a matter of fact, when I lived in the Midwest, most of the people clearing the streets of snow were volunteers. But seriously... our tax money goes a little farther than a couple of salt trucks and delapidated schools. We've got 45 milliion on food stamps; almost 20% of the population is living in official poverty and on the government dole; 21 million or so are collecting unemployment; we are showering bankrupt "green energy" companies with hundreds of billions in completely wasted taxpayer money; we spent well over a trillion dollars in quantitative easing (aka "stimulus" ) with nothing to show for it but a sluggish, dying economy. And now, like the mindless drones we are, we're eagerly getting in line to borrow another trillion from China to pay for death panels, diminished quality of healthcare, higher insurance rates, and full-government, beaurocratic control over 1/6th of our economy. That's just for starters on where our tax dollars are going these days.
The whole article is all bull and lies and his figures are complete nonsense. Do some fact checking with any search engine and you'll clearly see.
We pay taxes to have our roads blowed during winter and to keep our schools up to date...
Now let's not "play obstructionist political games" and hurry up and let the Liberals raise the debt ceiling to 20 trillion, so we can finish the job once and for all. Laissez les bons temps rouler!
If I'm running the Conservative & Tea Parties, I say abstain from every vote you come across for the next 4 years. Let the Liberals OWN what they do to this country. Do what Sun Tzu suggested. Take the path of least resistance.
Originally posted by sumydidLOL You need help just like the rest of the far right wingnuts. The only ignorant fools are the ones who listen to and believe the far right lies. And I'm not saying the left or middle doesn't lie some either. But this far right movement is completely wacked and full of nothing but HATE for their fellow man.
That's rich. You claim bs without any counterpoints to support your position... and then say one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard, insofar as where our tax money goes. As a matter of fact, when I lived in the Midwest, most of the people clearing the streets of snow were volunteers. But seriously... our tax money goes a little farther than a cou do to this country. Do what Sun Tzu suggested. Take the path of least resistance.
The far right leaders are all rich and they want to be even richer and have total power over the people. And to make a long story shorter they want to turn America into another China for the middle and working and poorer classes of america. And they suck in the supposed Christians all by their so called right to life stance and that if you're not a tea party freak you're really not a christian and you're lazy. And they pit us against each other by spreading nothing but hate, false witness, and lies from the pits of hell. And by trying to scare everyone we're falling off the cliff into hell.lol And their the ones that are DESTROYING America because their not getting their way. I could go on and on for hours but I'm not going to waste my breath. As Jesus said seek the truth and you shall find. So I suggest to start truely seeking the honest to God truth. It's all there. And quit watching Fox News.
"God did not give us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind."
And if you read my post further down I did post some of my counter points.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by KingDavid403Uh, guess what there, momo...social security is welfare.
Social Security is NOT welfare. It is a retirement plan that every worker pays into their whole working life with money taken out of every check they've ever gotten and will ever get. And It's been in place for around 80 years. And it's had a hugh surplus every year until 2 years ago when the goverment had to start paying back their IOUs from money t ...[text shortened]... e comments on the article and you can see most agree with the just of what I'm saying.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by KingDavid403...the trillions the government owes the fund.".
That's nothing but bull. How do you have a ponzi scheme that has a surplus of trillions 78 out of 80 years. And there's still 2.2 trillion left in the social security fund plus the trillions the goverment owes the fund. lol That's a funny sounding ponzi scheme to I. And the money comming into the fund every year still covers 90% of whats paid out. And it will get back to 100% in a decade or two with some minor changes.
Do you ever listen to yourself? Welfare recipient?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen social security was created it used actuarial tables as a baseline. Social Security was never indexed to the actuarial tables. I am quite certain that FDR did not intend for people to sit idle for a third of their productive lives. If he did, he would have set the age for benefit eligibility at 46.
There's some decent points there but a lot of it is misleading. It doesn't make much sense to compare the percentage of people receiving federal benefits now (in an economy still recovering from sharp recession caused by a banking crisis) to what it was in 1995. Of course, the number of those receiving benefits increase in a struggling economy; they are 9% in ten years under Obama's long term budget projections, that's not enough in my view.
The New Deal was created to assist people through the Great Depression. Today, it's a massive giveaway to the children of the Greatest Generation - the Most Entitled Generation. Artificially offering people in their 60s (who, by the way, are far healthier than at their age than their grandparents were) a way out of the workforce does not create jobs. Incentivizing small business owners creates jobs. And I know I don't need to go through the ratios with you, because you know them: 12:1 then, 2:1 now. We're paying six times as much in real dollars for that program alone than people were when it was created. You want to talk about fairness, well...that's a good place to start.
Then, let's talk about Medicare. Let's face it - the wrinkles appear, the joints start to creak, and you wake up one day and realize you've got more days behind you than in front of you. So every time you catch a cold, your doctor orders up $5K of tests, because she doesn't want to get sued.
The surest way to destroy the Republican Party is to recommend the right course of action for the country. Bring on the death panels, hospices, and rationed care. Expect one hell of a lot more from people in taking responsibility for their own health. After all, since this is a government right, my Party should have some say in how that benefit gets administered.
You love government programs, so I want to give you what you want. I want to create the biggest government agency in the history of mankind.
Here's what I say - I say we establish an Eating and Exercise Enforcement Agency. The EEEA will be staffed by volunteers, to minimize the cost of the program. See, I want to do what's right for the country.
The mission of the EEEA is this: To promote the general welfare through aggressive enforcement of mandatory exercise and healthy eating programs. Because good health in this country is paramount, and a huge portion of our national budget is dedicated to payouts to "seniors", insofar as the economy is a national security issue, good health is now a national security issue.
EEEA Enforcement Agents (EEEAEA) will be tasked, chartered, and charged with ensuring good health and food choices at every meal, and with enforcing mandatory exercise policies.
Because it is not possible to monitor every meal in every home in America, EEEA Agents will have the authority to enter the homes of any and all Americans between reasonable breakfast and dinner times (6 AM - 8 PM). They will have the duty of confiscating, immediately and on site, any and all food products deemed unhealthy. Warrantless, unannounced entries shall be authorized, because a family can prepare a nontypical healthy meal if they are aware that the EEEA will inspect on a given time and date.
EEEA Agents shall, at all times and at their sole discretion, require on the spot exercise of any individual or group that the Agent deems in any way unhealthy. To ensure compliance with the Policy, and for self protection and preservation, Agents shall at a minimum be equipped with nonlethal means of coercion (pepper spray, mace, taser, or billy club are all recommended options).
After all - nothing comes for free. Ok, you voted yourselves the money - the what. We get to decide the how.
The Truth about Social Security
Right-Wing politicians and pundits who advocate destroying Social Security have two rationales: 1) As part of their antipathy to "big government," they do not believe that the federal government should provide retirement benefits to the elderly or support for disabled people, widows and orphans. 2) They would like to see their friends on Wall Street make billions by administring retirement accounts if Social Security is ended.
Unfortunately, in their battle for the hearts and minds of Americans, Right Wingers have been shameless about distorting the truth about Social Security. Some of their lies are listed below, along with the true facts.
LIE: Social Security is going bankrupt
TRUTH: Social Security is NOT going bankrupt. In fact, Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years. From that point forward, it will be able to provide 75-80 percent of all benefits.
LIE: Social Security is contributing to the federal deficit
TRUTH: Not just a lie, but impossible! By law, Social Security is funded by the payroll tax and has not contributed one penny to the federal deficit. With a separate funding source and separate fiscal system, it is completely detached from the federal operating budget.
The federal deficit was caused primarily by three things: 1)unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest, 3) a toothless financial regulatory system that let Wall Street and banks destroy our economy, losing millions of jobs and the income tax revenues that went with them.
LIE: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer
TRUTH: Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly --since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than two years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
LIE: Benefit cuts are the only sure way to "fix" Social Security
TRUTH: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their full share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
LIE: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
TRUTH: The Social Security Trust Fund is NOT fullof IOUs, it is full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only Treasury Bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market -- which would have been disasterous -- but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
LIE: Illegal Immigrants are collecting Social Security
TRUTH: Neither immigrants -- legal or illegal -- nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system.
16 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672We get to decide the how. lol Who's the we?? All the members in your clan? Or is it the MINORITY tea party freaks that LOST the election to President Obama. LOL You're nothing but a punk and a fool just like the rest of the tea party freaks. But anytime you or your tea party freak friends feel froggy you can leap your A$$'s right over to my house and try and do some of your enforcment of your EEEA. I'll be more than happy to introduce you to my litte friends.
When social security was created it used actuarial tables as a baseline. Social Security was never indexed to the actuarial tables. I am quite certain that FDR did not intend for people to sit idle for a third of their productive lives. If he did, he would have set the age for benefit eligibility at 46.
The New Deal was created to assist people for free. Ok, you voted yourselves the money - the what. We get to decide the how.
16 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KingDavid403http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-debt-fallout-how-social-security-went-cash-negative-earlier-than-expected/2011/10/27/gIQACm1QTM_story.html
Nothing but more right wing lies. Dude.
http://berkeleygraypanthers.mysite.com/Truth_SS.html
And another,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/pensions
I can go on and on if you wish. But I won't. Goggle "truth about social security"
This is this from the washington post. I did look up your site and it contradicted itself. Take a look at T bills. That is nothing but debt.
The poor economy and baby boomer generation brought the ponzi scheme closer to an end. This isn't lies my friend. The excess money collected for social security has been spent long ago. It made one hell of a good excuse to tax the hell out of people so that it could be used for other things. Now that so many folks are without work and drawing money from various social programs, there is not enough ss tax coming into the treasury to maintain current level payments going out.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by joe beyserYour posts are a Ponzi scheme.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-debt-fallout-how-social-security-went-cash-negative-earlier-than-expected/2011/10/27/gIQACm1QTM_story.html
This is this from the washington post. I did look up your site and it contradicted itself. Take a look at T bills. That is nothing but debt.
The poor economy and baby boomer generation brought ...[text shortened]... ere is not enough ss tax coming into the treasury to maintain current level payments going out.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIt doesn't make much sense to encourage people who are not doing hard physical labour to retire at 65. People who do perform hard physical labour should be able to retire early, but in the end either raising the retirement age (with obviously also implementing a minimum income) or means-testing retirees will boil down to the same thing.
There's some decent points there but a lot of it is misleading. It doesn't make much sense to compare the percentage of people receiving federal benefits now (in an economy still recovering from sharp recession caused by a banking crisis) to what it was in 1995. Of course, the number of those receiving benefits increase in a struggling economy; they are ...[text shortened]... 9% in ten years under Obama's long term budget projections, that's not enough in my view.
16 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserYou're just another fool who believes lies. Or you want others to believe lies. Either way you're nothing but a fool.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-debt-fallout-how-social-security-went-cash-negative-earlier-than-expected/2011/10/27/gIQACm1QTM_story.html
This is this from the washington post. I did look up your site and it contradicted itself. Take a look at T bills. That is nothing but debt.
The poor economy and baby boomer generation brought ere is not enough ss tax coming into the treasury to maintain current level payments going out.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/pensions
Originally posted by sasquatch672Most of this is hysterical, shrieking raving nonsense not worth responding to. As to your claims regarding Social Security they
When social security was created it used actuarial tables as a baseline. Social Security was never indexed to the actuarial tables. I am quite certain that FDR did not intend for people to sit idle for a third of their productive lives. If he did, he would have set the age for benefit eligibility at 46.
The New Deal was created to assist people for free. Ok, you voted yourselves the money - the what. We get to decide the how.
are largely bunk:
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).
Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.
As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
FDR was interested in alleviating the problem of elderly poverty and didn't care about the things you care about.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI fail to see how raising the retirement age = means testing retirees.
It doesn't make much sense to encourage people who are not doing hard physical labour to retire at 65. People who do perform hard physical labour should be able to retire early, but in the end either raising the retirement age (with obviously also implementing a minimum income) or means-testing retirees will boil down to the same thing.