Interesting points on Social Security...

from JoeUser Forums
Hate to have to forward people to another site, but I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking this content was mine.

Go visit InMyJammies blog and check the post there about Social Security and the promises that have been made and broken (and by whom).

It's an eye opener for sure....
politics
6,295 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
yup, the GOP wants to kill that system about as quickly as they can -- gee, for as broken as it is, I wonder why!?!?

The only truly legal pyramid scheme in the U.S.A., government mandated, government run, and broken like only the government could do it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I went and read it,  holy ----......
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

One point he missed.  Originally, the Social Security number was to be used for the Retirement fund only, and no one else could even ask for it under penalty of law.

Now, not only the government (IRS) has broken that law, but just about every business in operation has as well.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Social Security today is just fine. Last year it had a surplus of about $170 Billion. The problem is the large number of people that WILL retire called the Baby Boomers. When the number of workers to people receiving retirement is 3.5 to one like today the system is solvent. When the Baby Boomers retire that will drop to 2 people working for every person retired.

Thus the issue is dealing with the Baby Boomers not in changing the basic structure of the system. If it had not been for the unprecedented number of people born after WWII, there would not be a funding problem with the system.

To get added information about Social Security, including an analysis of the proposed changes made my President Bush, go to www.saveusanow.com.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
To get added information about Social Security, including an analysis of the proposed changes made my President Bush, go to www.saveusanow.com.


That link was a "shameless" plug for your Bush hating left wing book. And as we all know by now, more than likely not filled with straight fact. Just the skewed ones you love to use here.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
My Book contains factual information about the subject of this Blog just like the link in the Blog. The data about Social Security is not left wing but the facts surrounding this issue! You might learn something if you read the information about Social Security. I found the information in this Blog about Social Security informative.

By the way I agree we should NOT be taxing Social Security Benefits since that money was taxed when it was earned! Why has Bush and the GOP not suggested changing this part of the tax law? It would help a lot more people then ending the Federal Estate Tax.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clueless Old Liberal opened his yap and tossed out this false statement:
Social Security today is just fine.


That's one of the biggest whoppers you've ever told here you friggin' Democrat/Liberal blow-hard.

Social Security is so far from fine it's pathetic. If it was fine, then why has the retirement age been raised several times along the way? Why are benefits being reduced? And worse for you, why are far fewer people paying in per retiree than ever before?

Social Security worked fine in the past when people never got old enough to retire and most people paid in but never got even all of their own money back. Over time, we've gone from having 16 people paying in for one taking out, to about 3 paying in for one taking out, and the numbers are getting worse daily as boomers grow into retirement age.

Now people that have paid in clean out their own contributions in just a few short years, and then start picking clean the contributions of others who will eventually be wondering where their money went.

If you want to talk about something that works fine, then start talking about 401K plans for the general populace (excluding the poor folks that got ruined by Sprint, Enron, WorldCom, and a few other major catostrophic failures that were enabled by and during the Clinton administration). Private funds in IRAs, 401Ks and similar plans do work, and do work incredibly well. Those same type plans are what Congress has now, and what federal workers have. They *empower* participants to help themselves and while not *forcing* people to participate, they strongly encourage participation up to a maximum level by using tax incentives -- including deferred taxes on the income made today that is withdrawn in the future -- and matching funds from employers to get U.S. citizens to do something that they normally don't do -- save for their retirement.
As to your blatant attempts to advertise your worthless book, be glad that I'm not deleting that crap on the spot. You are not welcome to commercialize my space here at JU with your worthless drivel.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Clueless One said:
By the way I agree we should NOT be taxing Social Security Benefits since that money was taxed when it was earned!


How about this by the way for you -- then why in the hell do you and others want to continue "the death tax" (inheritance tax) and tax away money that was taxed several times along the way?!!? If you are so against double or triple taxation, then why do you tout rolling back the Bush tax cuts -- tax cuts that have helped fuel the economic engine in this country in the last several years, and which have helped keep us near record low unemployment rates!?

You are nothing but a worthless sack of excrement with your Democrat talking points and ideas that are aimed entirely at protecting your own assets and nothing else. Crawl back under your rock and use your stacks of unsold books to wipe your tail with. If you did, the books would probably be worth twice what they are today as the new excrement would certainly be more valuable than the printed excrement inside.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Trudy said:
I went and read it, holy ----......


Eye opening, isn't it? Honestly, I would have clipped it and used it with retribution, but I'm not 100% confident that the "facts" there are completely accurate. For the most part, I believe they are but I'm not interested in debating that part of the issue with people that would use that issue as hyperbole and distraction away from the bigger issue which is the broken retirement system that was given to us by the Democrats, and which even now remains broken because liberal spin gets people like the Clueless One all worked up over the idea that somehow their sacred cow will be touched in some way (even if it led to a much better system).
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry you are wrong. Social Security given the number of people retired compared with the number of people working and paying Social Security taxes is solvent today. If the number of people working compared with the number of people retired did not change as the Baby Boomers retired there would not be a funding issue. The proof is the fact that Social Security in 2005 collected $170 Billion MORE then the benefits paid out and administrative costs to administer the system. Per the Social Security system projections, as the number of people working compared with the number of people receiving retirement drops from 3.5 to 3.0 and then 2.0 the taxes collected by 2014 will not equal the retirement benefits BECAUSE there us such a large increase in the number of retired ( Baby Boomers).

This has NOTHING to with liberal or conservative. These are the facts that you too can see by looking at the Social Security data.

My point about taxing Social Security is that it was taxed TWO times before you receive the benefits. One time as taxable income for Federal Income tax and then the Social Security tax itself. Then if you income is above a certain level, up to 85% is taxed a third time when you receive the benefits. If Bush and The GOP wanted to do something that would help the majority and not just the special interest that support them, they would have retained the Estate Tax and eliminated the tax on Social Security benefits. However that is not how Bush and the GOP operate. They do not give a DAM about the average person just the Haves and Have mores just like Bush said on Oct 20, 2004 when campaigning for his second term.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
He makes a good Postrich.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy

Like to comment on the facts I presented?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Clueless One stated:
Social Security given the number of people retired compared with the number of people working and paying Social Security taxes is solvent today.


Nice selective choice of words. I'll concede that given the number of people ... TODAY ... that Social Security is solvent, but the problem for you -- created by the likes of "your generation" and by your own personal favorites like FDR, LBJ, Al Gore and others like them -- or more importantly, the problem for ME and my generation, and the generation of my children, and eventually their children, is that the system is not solvent long term. It is far from it, and that is the utter lie and fallacy that has occurred along the way because the whole pyramid is crashing down upon itself thanks to too many partiicipants living well beyond their expected life spans. For every second you stay around and waste precious resources (including the air you suck in keeping the precious few of your brain cells working spewing out the same old crap) you are in reality sucking up the resources of the next generation and of the generation after.

That is the problem, and was the problem all along. The system was designed to provide support to people that would never get it. It was an empty promise for all but a few, but because it sounded good, and because so many people had nothing, they paid into it in the hopes of someday seeing their contributions come back to them. Instead, we see the bar moving further and further out. Instead of people being able to retire at 55 or 60, or 62, or 65, we see the bar being raised to 67, then 72, and hell, eventually to 77 just so we can keep people ENSLAVED to social security.

Why this issue doesn't burn in the hearts of Blacks, a group that would typically become enraged at the thought of slavery, I don't understand as it surely should. Unfortunately, actually I probably do understand. It's because people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Congressman Rangell, Shiela Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney and others like them have sold out their race and their constituents in favor of campaign contributions and further enslavement of those that support them. They don't want to empower anyone because they'd lose their support and have no one available to vote for them, pay tribute to them or otherwise help enrich them.

As always, "the facts that [ The Clueless One ] presented" are worthless and baseless. They were selectively chosen to bolster the strawman and keep people from looking behind the curtain at the worthless blowhard wannabe wizard of Oz.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Like to comment on the facts I presented?

As soon as you get your head out of your ass so you can read with your eyes and not through your belly button.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr Guy and Terpfan

DROP DEAD. YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AND ONLY CARE ABOUT IGNORING WHAT IS GOING ON. Piss OFF. You are not worth the powder to blow you to hell!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
DROP DEAD. YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AND ONLY CARE ABOUT IGNORING WHAT IS GOING ON. Piss OFF. You are not worth the powder to blow you to hell!


Nice, threatening other forum/site members. I bet that goes well with the terms of service here now doesn't it? About as well as your cut and paste clippings of articles without links and attribution of where you stole the materials from, right?

You are the one ignoring what is going on. It is clearly documented above and YOU basically have admitted that YOU do not care as you get caught in lies and hypocritical points of view just to skew things to your side.

Above you admit that you don't think that things should be taxed multiple times, and yet YOU continue to push for rollbacks of the Bush tax cuts which would include continuing the onerous "death tax" (inheritance tax). You claim it would only benefit a few rich friends of Bush and the like, and yet again you have no problem at all double taxing, or even triple taxing those people because "they are rich" and deserve to be soaked. If the taxes are instead doubled up on people that receive social security it affects you and you have a cow about it and cry about the taxes unfairly impacting the little man.

You are keeping your blind eyes turned towards the problems of Social Security -- even as I clearly documented them above -- because they don't impact you, they really only impact the future and who cares at all about those people right? Oh wait, aren't you the village idiot that proclaims that deficit spending is spending away our future and is so evil that it must be fixed NOW, immediately, before even another dime is spent on anything in this country?

Heck, continuing that point, aren't you the double-talking sack of crap that cries that we haven't spent enough money to secure our borders, put out enough police and emergency services workers, enough teachers or other 'necessary' spending that YOU want and will support? That spending is ok except then you start screaming right away that it's deficit spending and that we have to pay as we go or we'll all surely die, right?!

Gene Abel != logic and sense. I'm sure that the people that NEVER elected you rejoice in that fact every day. The thought that they may have been stuck with you representing them (or failing to represent their interests) is a horrifying thought.


Let me make it clear for you again: social security is broken, damned near beyond repair. You don't care because it doesn't impact you, but it is broken. For you to say otherwise is a bald-faced lie.

Now, behave yourself and discuss things in a reasonable manner or find your worthless replies reported for the violations that they are.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

DROP DEAD. YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AND ONLY CARE ABOUT IGNORING WHAT IS GOING ON. Piss OFF. You are not worth the powder to blow you to hell!

DO you CARE about truth?  I can say the sky is blue.  At this POINT IN TIME it is.  But if you are going to bet me the sky is blue, I will say fine.  in 7 hours we will check.  And guess what?  You will be wrong.

But since your view is so myopic (being only able to see out of the belly button), show me who has said that SS is NOT VIABLE TODAY.  Show me.  Simple question.  NOW SHOW ME.

Or get the eff off my LZ.  You supply chain jerk monkey.