Republican leaders hate workers

[ricksfolly]

Treasury bonds are NOT IOU's

Take it up with Just Facts. I'm just the messenger...

ricksfolly

 

[Conservative]

Social Security isn't broke, in fact in 1983 Ronald Reagan (probably your hero) extended it because of the babyboomers. See Social Security Greenspan Commision

Here are remarks by the then President:

That Ronald Reagan was one hell of a socialist! :lamo

Absolutely unbelieveable! You don't have a clue. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I can see you are going to be a huge success in life.

 

[Conservative]

Take it up with Just Facts. I'm just the messenger...

ricksfolly

Rick, you are absolutely correct, he has no clue.

 

[pbrauer]

Rick, you are absolutely correct, he has no clue.

I don't have a clue?


Trust Fund FAQs

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

How do you like your crow served?

 

[Conservative]

I don't have a clue?


Trust Fund FAQs


How do you like your crow served?

The issue was the stealing of SS funds and replacing them with IOU's. The fact remains that SS is underfunded and that is due to the govt. spending the surplus for years and years on other programs. I was never talking about how SS funds were invested but instead how they were stolen. It is a giant ponzi scheme where today's workers are now paying for yesterday's retirees instead of yesterday's retirees "contributions" were set aside, invested, and paid out in benefits.

You really need to wake up to what is going on with your SS "contributions."

 

[Conservative]

That's just plain stupid. The fact is that the super rich are getting richer and the middle class is slowly getting wiped out. Tax policy favors the very rich, don't you know?

Sorry I missed this gem, tell me how the rich getting richer had any affect on th Middle Class? I can easily see why you aren't ever going to be one of those rich people that you seem to hate. You don't understand our economy at all because it isn't a zero sum game where someone gets rich at the expense of someone else. There is enough room in our economy for even you to join in the success but not with the attitude you have.

 

[pbrauer]

The issue was the stealing of SS funds and replacing them with IOU's. The fact remains that SS is underfunded and that is due to the govt. spending the surplus for years and years on other programs. I was never talking about how SS funds were invested but instead how they were stolen.

Do you have a problem reading... "By law, income to the trust funds must be invested..." Please explain how these funds were stolen, if they by law they must be invested. :screwySean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh really have you bamboozled.

It is a giant ponzi scheme where today's workers are now paying for yesterday's retirees instead of yesterday's retirees "contributions" were set aside, invested, and paid out in benefits.

As I've said before, Social Security is NOT an investment plan, it's INSURANCE.

 

[pbrauer]

Sorry I missed this gem, tell me how the rich getting richer had any affect on th Middle Class? I can easily see why you aren't ever going to be one of those rich people that you seem to hate. You don't understand our economy at all because it isn't a zero sum game where someone gets rich at the expense of someone else. There is enough room in our economy for even you to join in the success but not with the attitude you have.

Do you realize the Super Rich don't earn wages, they earn through investments. They pay capitals gains at the rate of 15%. Warren Buffet has said that he pays income tax at a lower rate than he secretary. He has also said there is a class war going on and his side is winning.

 

[Conservative]

Do you have a problem reading... "By law, income to the trust funds must be invested..." Please explain how these funds were stolen, if they by law they must be invested. :screwySean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh really have you bamboozled.



As I've said before, Social Security is NOT an investment plan, it's INSURANCE.

Are you normally this bullheaded, each year SS collects "contributions" and pays out benefits. All the contributions are invested into mostly Treasury bonds and if there is a surplus each year that surplus is on budget and has been used to fund everything other than what it was intended, SS for future recipients. That surplus should have gone back into that so called "lock box" and used for future recipients but it wasn't, instead the money was spent and replaced with an IOU. That is how it was stolen. I really am getting tired of doing the job your teachers should have done but obviously failed.

SS is indeed supposed to be insurance but instead is sole retirement for far too many. The fact is taking all that money that you give to the govt. and putting it in a simple CD or safe IRA would generate a lot more money than your "insurance" will generate when you retire and it is all yours to do with as you see fit or your family's should anything happen to you. No private insurance plan operates like SS. You would be better off with an annuity.

Now let's see, there was the issue of the trillion dollar deficits that you screwed up, Medicare which you don't understand, Trickle down economics that you totally butchered with your signature line, and I am sure a few other issues probably tax revenue being an expense, and now SS that you don't fully understand. If I were you I would drop out of sight for a while and do some real research instead of posting and showing your ignorance.

 

[Conservative]

Do you realize the Super Rich don't earn wages, they earn through investments. They pay capitals gains at the rate of 15%. Warren Buffet has said that he pays income tax at a lower rate than he secretary. He has also said there is a class war going on and his side is winning.

Why do you care what someone else makes? How are they hurting you? You obviously don't understand our economy at all but your class envy and jealousy is showing. It isn't a pretty sight. That class war is a waste of productive energy. My question is why you aren't trying to be that rich person that you seem to hate. Just think how much good you could do for others with all that money you would have? Warren Buffet gives away most of his money thus pays on what he keeps. I guess charitable giving by the rich is another issue you don't understand.

 

[randel]

Are you normally this bullheaded, each year SS collects "contributions" and pays out benefits. All the contributions are invested into mostly Treasury bonds and if there is a surplus each year that surplus is on budget and has been used to fund everything other than what it was intended, SS for future recipients. That surplus should have gone back into that so called "lock box" and used for future recipients but it wasn't, instead the money was spent and replaced with an IOU. That is how it was stolen. I really am getting tired of doing the job your teachers should have done but obviously failed.

SS is indeed supposed to be insurance but instead is sole retirement for far too many. The fact is taking all that money that you give to the govt. and putting it in a simple CD or safe IRA would generate a lot more money than your "insurance" will generate when you retire and it is all yours to do with as you see fit or your family's should anything happen to you. No private insurance plan operates like SS. You would be better off with an annuity.

Now let's see, there was the issue of the trillion dollar deficits that you screwed up, Medicare which you don't understand, Trickle down economics that you totally butchered with your signature line, and I am sure a few other issues probably tax revenue being an expense, and now SS that you don't fully understand. If I were you I would drop out of sight for a while and do some real research instead of posting and showing your ignorance.

you talking to yourself? if you are, i totally agree....honestly, is there really any reason to be this nasty to those whose opinions differ from yours?

 

[pbrauer]

Why do you care what someone else makes? How are they hurting you? You obviously don't understand our economy at all but your class envy and jealousy is showing. It isn't a pretty sight. That class war is a waste of productive energy. My question is why you aren't trying to be that rich person that you seem to hate.[/B] Just think how much good you could do for others with all that money you would have? Warren Buffet gives away most of his money thus pays on what he keeps. I guess charitable giving by the rich is another issue you don't understand.

Typical response from a conservative. Accuse the liberal of being stupid and having class envy and hating the rich. :cuckoo:

 

[pbrauer]

Are you normally this bullheaded, each year SS collects "contributions" and pays out benefits. All the contributions are invested into mostly Treasury bonds and if there is a surplus each year that surplus is on budget and has been used to fund everything other than what it was intended, SS for future recipients. That surplus should have gone back into that so called "lock box" and used for future recipients but it wasn't, instead the money was spent and replaced with an IOU. That is how it was stolen. I really am getting tired of doing the job your teachers should have done but obviously failed.

LOL, what is "that so called "lock box"" Do you mean the government should put all this money is the collective mattress, or what? Piggy bank?

 

[Vader]

Yeah, an AFL CIO blog. That's unbiased. He didn't trash 'em. He said their unions were special interest groups. Fair statement, don't you think?

As to this....



Talk to the Democratic Congress. Theyu could do that in a heartbeat. ;-)

Yeah ... what he's mad about is that Republicans have ZERO control over the unions. Republicans dislike anything they cannot control.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Yes, I understand that there is no such thing as personal responsibility in your world. When SS was first created it was never intended for a payout as the life expectency then was 62 and payout was 65. It was intended to be a SUPPLEMENT to retirement income that people saved themselves. A lot of people now let the things they want get in the way of things they need thus run a deficit and require SS to fund their entire retirement income. That is something you simply do not understand.




Apparently so, I was taught to be responsible for my own finances and to take care of my family. I worked hard and no one gave me a dime. I grew up in a very poor household but learned hard work, dedication, and responsibility for my actions. My Dad had a 8th grade education and owned his own business. I learned a lot from my dad. Too bad others didn't take advantage of the opportunities they had as well. Seems like a hard concept for people like you today.

You say that there is no such thing as personal responsibility in my world. The good ole "personal responsibility" is a sound bite regurgitated from Gingrich's republican Contract On America.

You are just plain anti-social, imo. Personally I feel that I do have a personal responsibility to the human race. I believe in the virtue of humanism and the connection with my brothers and sisters to help make a better and peaceful world.eace

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Yeah ... what he's mad about is that Republicans have ZERO control over the unions. Republicans dislike anything they cannot control.

Republicans love paying low wages and believe in huge profits. That's why they outsource their businesses to foreign nations while wrapping themselves in the American flag.

 

[RightinNYC]

Your problem is that you don't know what Social Security is. It's not an investment plan, it's an INSURANCE plan.

"Insurance" as the term is commonly used describes a program where individuals make small contributions over a long period to provide a payout in the case of a potential event. A program whereby every individual is required to pay 12.4% of their income over their entire working career in exchange for a theoretical promise to receive monthly benefit payments from retirement until death is less like an insurance program and more like a retirement program.

Don't you realize that a lot of people live from week to week.

Don't you realize that many of those people wouldn't be living week to week if they were able to keep that extra 12.4% from their paycheck?

You're using the fact that SS takes a substantial part of workers' paychecks away to justify the SS program. Do you see how circular that is?

Treasury bonds are NOT IOU's

So when the government starts drawing down on that "trust balance" (as it will do this year), where will that money come from?

You are just plain anti-social, imo. Personally I feel that I do have a personal responsibility to the human race. I believe in the virtue of humanism and the connection with my brothers and sisters to help make a better and peaceful world.eace

It's easy to believe in the "virtue of humanism" and the "connection with your brothers and sisters" when it's being paid for by someone else.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

"Insurance" as the term is commonly used describes a program where individuals make small contributions over a long period to provide a payout in the case of a potential event. A program whereby every individual is required to pay 12.4% of their income over their entire working career in exchange for a theoretical promise to receive monthly benefit payments from retirement until death is less like an insurance program and more like a retirement program.



Don't you realize that many of those people wouldn't be living week to week if they were able to keep that extra 12.4% from their paycheck?

You're using the fact that SS takes a substantial part of workers' paychecks away to justify the SS program. Do you see how circular that is?



So when the government starts drawing down on that "trust balance" (as it will do this year), where will that money come from?



It's easy to believe in the "virtue of humanism" and the "connection with your brothers and sisters" when it's being paid for by someone else.

No, it is not being paid by someone else, in my case, nor is it paid by someone else by most SS recipients. There should not be a cut off rate for SS funds. This would make the rich pay their fair share since the funds have been stolen and used in the general fund.

It is not a theoretical promise. It is a promise backed by law which has never been enforced. The government has a legal obligation to return these borrowed funds to the SS fund.

If workers did not have to pay SS taxes then this extra money would be gobbled up by thew oligarchy in the form of inflation. They allow people to have enough income in order to keep them from rebelling.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, it is not being paid by someone else, in my case, nor is it paid by someone else by most SS recipients.

I'm referring to the general social welfare benefits our society provides, which are almost entirely paid for by high earners. Moreover, SS will be modified to become more redistributive long before I see a penny of it.

There should not be a cut off rate for SS funds. This would make the rich pay their fair share since the funds have been stolen and used in the general fund.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - how is the cap on SS tax related to anyone's "fair share"? If the cap were raised, the extra money being taken it would be used in the form of increased benefits for those people paying more money in. The cap on earnings has little to no effect on the programs overall sustainability, so long as it's not modified to become more redistributive.

It is not a theoretical promise. It is a promise backed by law which has never been enforced. The government has a legal obligation to return these borrowed funds to the SS fund.

The government is only required to do whatever it says its required to do. Congress could vote to stop SS payments tomorrow and nobody would have a right to complain one bit. When you pay into SS, you do not own anything, nor do you have a vested interest - you merely have credits in a governmental program that can be modified or abolished at any time.

If workers did not have to pay SS taxes then this extra money would be gobbled up by thew oligarchy in the form of inflation. They allow people to have enough income in order to keep them from rebelling.

Where are you getting this from? It sounds like you're just throwing out conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[Conservative]

Typical response from a conservative. Accuse the liberal of being stupid and having class envy and hating the rich. :cuckoo:

Accusing? LOL, yep, that is a conservative, pointing out facts, logic, and common sense while using your own words against you. Do you even read what you post and recognize what how those words are heard by others. Absolutely no response to the facts posted. Why do you care what someone else makes and how is what someone else makes hurting you?

 

[Redress]

Accusing? LOL, yep, that is a conservative, pointing out facts, logic, and common sense while using your own words against you. Do you even read what you post and recognize what how those words are heard by others. Absolutely no response to the facts posted. Why do you care what someone else makes and how is what someone else makes hurting you?

The irony meter is pegged.

 

[Conservative]

You say that there is no such thing as personal responsibility in my world. The good ole "personal responsibility" is a sound bite regurgitated from Gingrich's republican Contract On America.

You are just plain anti-social, imo. Personally I feel that I do have a personal responsibility to the human race. I believe in the virtue of humanism and the connection with my brothers and sisters to help make a better and peaceful world.eace

Great, then become rich and give your money away to help those people you deem needing that help instead of sending it to D.C. and having them waste it. There are those in this world that need help but the fact is when rich income goes up so does their charitable giving something you and others don't seem to understand.

 

[liblady]

Didn't say that at all and I believe you are smart enough to understand that. Read the post I was responding to. Seems we have a poster here who believes it is only rich Republicans in Congress. I have no problem with anyone rich, including you. The problem is too many rich people have theirs and want to keep others dependent. I have yet to see a govt. social program make any recipient rich, only dependent. The question is why do you care what someone else makes since obviously I don't nor does any other conservative?

no one believes only rich republicans are in congress.....there are rich dems as well. how does Head Start keep people dependent? how does feeding children keep people dependent? how does attempting to make sure children don't live on the street keeping anyone dependent? how does paying a fair wage keep people dependent? how does ensuring basic healthcare keep people dependent? how does subsidizing child care keep people dependent? how does providing grants and loans for college keep people dependent? how does providing job training keep people dependent?

 

[Conservative]

no one believes only rich republicans are in congress.....there are rich dems as well. how does Head Start keep people dependent? how does feeding children keep people dependent? how does attempting to make sure children don't live on the street keeping anyone dependent? how does paying a fair wage keep people dependent? how does ensuring basic healthcare keep people dependent? how does subsidizing child care keep people dependent? how does providing grants and loans for college keep people dependent? how does providing job training keep people dependent?

I posted the information on the top 10 richest Congressional leaders and 8 of them are Democrats which flies in the face of liberal rhetoric about those "rich Republicans"

No one has ever said that social spending wasn't necessary but the issue is who is the best to administer the programs. There is so much duplication in efforts that double the money going to many social programs. Why does anyone support sending money to D.C. for social programs instead of doing it locally in the communities? Spending in the name of compassion somehow never gets compassionate results because of the bureaucratic expenses associated with the so called benefits.

Stop thinking with your heart and instead use your brain. All your post is emotional rhetoric and ignores actual results. Local and state governments have the responsibility for their communities, not the Federal Govt. and that is the issue here. What does a bureaucrat in D.C. know about a problem in Idaho or any other state? We are getting so far away from the original intent of our Founders that it is scary. You put entirely too much faith in the Federal Govt. solving social problems. Please name for me any Federally sponsored social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, do what it was supposed to do and actually solved a social problem? All programs put a bandaid on the problem and are filled with waste, fraud, and abuse that is never addressed. Because they appear to go to compassionate programs they are never questioned by good people like you.

It is all about getting results not just stating rhetoric. Good intentions have to lead to good results and that isn't happening in this country.

 

[liblady]

I'm referring to the general social welfare benefits our society provides, which are almost entirely paid for by high earners. Moreover, SS will be modified to become more redistributive long before I see a penny of it.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here - how is the cap on SS tax related to anyone's "fair share"? If the cap were raised, the extra money being taken it would be used in the form of increased benefits for those people paying more money in. The cap on earnings has little to no effect on the programs overall sustainability, so long as it's not modified to become more redistributive.



The government is only required to do whatever it says its required to do. Congress could vote to stop SS payments tomorrow and nobody would have a right to complain one bit. When you pay into SS, you do not own anything, nor do you have a vested interest - you merely have credits in a governmental program that can be modified or abolished at any time.



Where are you getting this from? It sounds like you're just throwing out conspiracy theory nonsense.

if the cap were raised ss could be much more sustainable. in fact, it could eliminate the shortfall.