(09-21-2016 04:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm supposed to debate rationally that "Social Security is a racket"?

You missed the other point.

It is. I am not given a choice to participate or not and I die young or right after 65 like my Grandmother (God rest her soul) that money goes back into the system and thus my family loses out.

Or I could be trusted to manage my accounts. But big government doesn't like that.

There are survivors benefits in SS. Taking away SS is a terrible idea, as is privatizing SS. Imagine what would happen if Bush were successful at that in 2005. Two years later the markets crashed, which would have gutted the retirement savings of millions of seniors. As it is seniors are skipping medications, cutting pills in half, living in abusive retirement homes. It's unconscionable to me that someone would seriously want to inflict so much pain on so many vulnerable people, but I also know that this is all just theory to you and you probably believe deep down there wouldn't be any real misery to come of it. You're wrong, and it's preposterous.

How much money is in the SS account today? How is that invested? How long will it be able to pay out for those retiring today or over the next 10-20 years?

It's a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple.

From SS web site. It's all there if you care to look:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n...3p111.html

"As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years."

Wait. What?

20 years?!?

After the trillions and trillions of $$$ been invested in the ponzi scheme over the most prosperous time in the history of the world and it's broke in 20 freaking years? My 82 YO music teacher Mother is and was a FAR better steward of her monies over that same time and despite being very bright and great at what she did, she's certainly not one those "smart people" that you so desperately want to run your life.

AND after that theft of said trillions YOUR answer is to double down on the stupid and send them even MORE money?!? You can't even make this schit up.

Criminal.

(09-21-2016 05:00 PM)Max Power Wrote:  In this thread: rabid conservatives who want to throw millions of seniors out on the streets.

Only small minds think that.

The scare tactics are strong with you.

(09-21-2016 04:57 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  You missed the other point.

It is. I am not given a choice to participate or not and I die young or right after 65 like my Grandmother (God rest her soul) that money goes back into the system and thus my family loses out.

Or I could be trusted to manage my accounts. But big government doesn't like that.

There are survivors benefits in SS. Taking away SS is a terrible idea, as is privatizing SS. Imagine what would happen if Bush were successful at that in 2005. Two years later the markets crashed, which would have gutted the retirement savings of millions of seniors. As it is seniors are skipping medications, cutting pills in half, living in abusive retirement homes. It's unconscionable to me that someone would seriously want to inflict so much pain on so many vulnerable people, but I also know that this is all just theory to you and you probably believe deep down there wouldn't be any real misery to come of it. You're wrong, and it's preposterous.

How much money is in the SS account today? How is that invested? How long will it be able to pay out for those retiring today or over the next 10-20 years?

It's a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple.

From SS web site. It's all there if you care to look:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n...3p111.html

"As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years."

Imagine that, an insolvent government program trying to say it is solvent.

Oh how I wish I had my 6% to invest on my own instead of being thrown down the government toilet. Also, think of how many employers would give raises or hire more if they weren't paying the other half of SS. 6% is a big chunk of change for many businesses. Self employed folks like my dad would love to not pay the full 13% and instead put that into real savings.

My?

Remember it is not your money. The government was generous enough to allow you to hold it.

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

Good thing democrats had total control of congress for 2 years and were able to fix all of these things that 'Republicans' keep stopping them from fixing.

Oh wait.

(09-21-2016 10:32 AM)Max Power Wrote:  People who vote Republican are voting against their own interests, unless they're millionaires. Republicans consistently push to cut taxes for the rich and corporations and gut programs that help the poor and middle class or protect public health at the expense of corporate profits. Makes no sense to vote Republican unless, again, you're wealthy.

That's funny, Im middle class and got a tax under Bush and have never been helped by a federal program...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(09-21-2016 10:23 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This board should screen for crack befor allowing posting privileges.

Crack is Whack!!

Whitney Houston told me that!

(09-21-2016 06:49 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:32 AM)Max Power Wrote:  People who vote Republican are voting against their own interests, unless they're millionaires. Republicans consistently push to cut taxes for the rich and corporations and gut programs that help the poor and middle class or protect public health at the expense of corporate profits. Makes no sense to vote Republican unless, again, you're wealthy.

That's funny, Im middle class and got a tax under Bush and have never been helped by a federal program...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I voted for the GOP takeover in 2010 of NC. One of their first acts was to change the law preventing forced annexation thus protecting me from being forced to join the City of Wilmington

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

Would the people putting more money in get more benefits? If not I don't blame them for fighting it tooth and nail6

(09-21-2016 09:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

Would the people putting more money in get more benefits? If not I don't blame them for fighting it tooth and nail6

Do people putting more money into our treasury need to get more in benefits? That's not how it works.

The proposal just asks them to pay the same rate as middle class families. Hell, that just makes it a flat tax! Not even progressive. And it would make SS solvent for 70 years. But the GOP fights it because they're on the side of the rich, not seniors and the little guy.

(09-22-2016 03:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

Would the people putting more money in get more benefits? If not I don't blame them for fighting it tooth and nail6

Do people putting more money into our treasury need to get more in benefits? That's not how it works.

The proposal just asks them to pay the same rate as middle class families. Hell, that just makes it a flat tax! Not even progressive. And it would make SS solvent for 70 years. But the GOP fights it because they're on the side of the rich, not seniors and the little guy.

People putting their money into Social Security are not supposed to get the benefits they have been paying for? There is a reason there was a cap on social security, to not be unfair and make people pay too much more than they put in.

(09-22-2016 03:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

Would the people putting more money in get more benefits? If not I don't blame them for fighting it tooth and nail6

Do people putting more money into our treasury need to get more in benefits? That's not how it works.

The proposal just asks them to pay the same rate as middle class families. Hell, that just makes it a flat tax! Not even progressive. And it would make SS solvent for 70 years. But the GOP fights it because they're on the side of the rich, not seniors and the little guy.

And if middle class families were allowed to opt out and invest the money taken from them for SS they would be better off. Relying on politicians to safeguard your retirement is not what most would consider sound logic.

Is anyone else amazed by the fact that in just two short posts, Max was able to extend the solvency of social security first by 50, and then by 70 years? Incredible!

I wonder if he cares to show his work.

(09-22-2016 04:00 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Is anyone else amazed by the fact that in just two short posts, Max was able to extend the solvency of social security first by 50, and then by 70 years? Incredible!

I wonder if he cares to show his work.

it would take him about 3 pages #commoncore

(09-22-2016 03:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The proposal just asks them to pay the same rate as middle class families. Hell, that just makes it a flat tax! Not even progressive. And it would make SS solvent for 70 years. But the GOP fights it because they're on the side of the rich, not seniors and the little guy.

So why didn't Obama and the Democrats pass this in their first two years?

The fact is that the wealthy aren't w-2 employees meaning the statutory rate wouldn't apply anyway... and those who ARE w-2 employees and make more than the base won't ever see a dime of what they paid in. It's just a tax at that point.

Seniors don't need more money in SS as they're covered.

Why can't the government simply print more money like they did to cover TARP and the ACA? I'm not saying I'm in favor of that, I'm merely wondering why it's okay to bloat the deficit to pay for that, but not to pay for social security?

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

How about instead of raising taxes we find the funding for this somewhere else, like cutting out some of the frivolous crap we are paying for with the federal budget. Here's a couple places to start:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ment-waste

Quote:Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

Quote:Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Quote:Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

Quote:The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

Quote:The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.

Looky there....I found around $150 billion in funding in about five minutes. Imagine what a trained forensic auditor could find if given the time.

(09-22-2016 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

How about instead of raising taxes we find the funding for this somewhere else, like cutting out some of the frivolous crap we are paying for with the federal budget. Here's a couple places to start:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ment-waste

Quote:Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

Quote:Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Quote:Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

Quote:The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

Quote:The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.

Looky there....I found around $150 billion in funding in about five minutes. Imagine what a trained forensic auditor could find if given the time.

Federal employees flying coach....have you gone mad

(09-22-2016 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

How about instead of raising taxes we find the funding for this somewhere else, like cutting out some of the frivolous crap we are paying for with the federal budget. Here's a couple places to start:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ment-waste

Quote:Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

Quote:Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Quote:Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

Quote:The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

Quote:The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.

Looky there....I found around $150 billion in funding in about five minutes. Imagine what a trained forensic auditor could find if given the time.

If my wife handled the federal budget we'd be in the black in four years or less. Shitz, she'd be slashing so many useless programs that she'd be nominated for person of the year. Oh, and she's qualified with a masters in finance so she's capable.

(09-22-2016 05:38 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If we lifted the cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, it would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.

Guess which party opposes this tooth and nail? Go ahead, ******* guess. The GOP works against your interests, unless you're rich.

How about instead of raising taxes we find the funding for this somewhere else, like cutting out some of the frivolous crap we are paying for with the federal budget. Here's a couple places to start:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ment-waste

Quote:Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

Quote:Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Quote:Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

Quote:The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

Quote:The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.

Looky there....I found around $150 billion in funding in about five minutes. Imagine what a trained forensic auditor could find if given the time.

If my wife handled the federal budget we'd be in the black in four years or less. Shitz, she'd be slashing so many useless programs that she'd be nominated for person of the year. Oh, and she's qualified with a masters in finance so she's capable.

No offense to your lovely and I'm sure very competent wife, but a blind f#$%ing monkey could run that cesspool better and more efficiently that what's been going on there now for decades.

First point of order, get rid of the scam that is base-line budgeting.

They start at X, then simply add to it such % as all the entrenched politicians and nameless faceless bureaucrats deem "necessary", whether what they're doing makes ANY DAMN sense at all.

Complete review of every program, with measurables and previously stated goals they were to meet, and did they do so? If not? Why not? If the only (predictably) answer is- we aren't funded enough!

*POOF* Buh- bye. You gone.

Once we weed out the useless, redundant and well past their usefulness programs, time to start on thinning out what has simply become the largest social program in the world- the U.S. Federal government.
It's simply become a make-work jobs program, with a handful of useful things mistakenly getting done here and there.

Wealthiest zip codes in the ENTIRE COUNTRY reside around the DeeCee area, And- you may ask yourself, well, how did we get here?!?