150 Million wage earners

[amdx]

And 70 Million checks sent out monthly to pay entitlements.
*Anybody see a problem?
Mikek

*Note; There is no lock box full of your deductions.
Your generation spent the money, not your kids.

 

[amdx]

Quite a large percentage was in fact spent on kids and doing other
things to secure their future and create a nation where they would
have a future. You're a simple-minded troll, probably bitter because
you don't get anything.

If you consider putting the kids deep in debt and driving the country
towards second class status as part of "securing their future" I think
your mistaken.
It's clear to me the the government has allowed payers versus takers
to become lopsided regarding the percentage of the population getting
taxpayer paid benefits.
Yea, your right, I don't get a monthly government check. Something
wrong with that ?
Bitter, no, motivated by the stupidity, yes.

Funny, I added the *note, just to make it clear that the money was
not there, but had to be borrowed, for the 70 million checks, and it got
all the feedback.

My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of the other
posts said it was 132 million to 70 million.
There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that
70 million.
We're having fun now!
Mikek

 

[Charlie E.]

Somebody does that? My town mostly invests in potholes, panhandlers,
and funding agencies to drive businesses away.

John

My town invests in big infrastructure projects, where they put out an
RFQ containing every bell, whistle, and wish list item that they can
think of, and then, after all the bids are way over their budget, pick
a winner and then see what they can get for the money that they
have...

or, at least, THINK they have!

Charlie

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 14, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:37 am, Fred Bloggs <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, amdx <[email protected]> wrote:

My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of the other
posts said it was 132 million to 70 million.
There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that
70 million.
We're having fun now!
Mikek

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
These people are getting hardly any money at all, it barely qualifies
as survival income.

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

Your attack on this system is typical of the vicious rightwing, you
don't have much to say about fat cats, liars, and thieves, ripping the
government for trillions, but go after the near helpless.

You're missing the math of it. Most recipients are getting far more
out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more. If you do a time-
integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true.
Medicare is worse.

It's not close to sustainable. Benefits will be cut, period, by
China, if not by us. We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when--
that's pure theater.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions']
are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis,
United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans. They're just pointing out reality.

Where is the time integral of the interest earned on their 40 year
contributions???

That's all been spent, too. The government doesn't *earn* interest, it
*pays* interest.

If individuals had been allowed to invest some of the mandatory SS
deductions privately, things would be a little better. The Dems are
dead-set against that. They want all the money, and they want it now.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The SS Trust *earns* interest on its holdings-

Wrong! Those who haven't been born yet are the ones to pay that interest. The
government *earns* nothing. It *steals* what it needs. When it takes too
much, the victim simply refused to replace what was stolen.

that's the way it's
supposed to work, the excess isn't supposed to just sit there..

No, it's not. The government *CANNOT* earn anything. If it could, we'd be a
communist country.

 

[[email protected]]

Ronald Reagan was a shithead for raiding the social security fund.
Once Reagan broke it, everyone else was forced to do the same. Of
course Bill Clinton managed things well enough that raiding social
security was not needed by the end of his second term. Al Gore wanted
the lock box, but George W Bush was selected, and the rest is history.

You're such a simple dolt.

 

[amdx]

Sure the fed was doing the same thing back then , but we didn't have a
14 trillion debt then either. The times are changing. What worked then
doesn't work now because we are broke and can't spend our way out.
Time to throw away the credit cards.

-Bill

Are you willing to reduce your check 3% if every other govenment
check is also reduced?
Mikek

 

[amdx]

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

Hmm.. that's about $14,000, but if your married then your over $25,000.
Hopefully by that age you own your home or have assets to cover housing
costs. At retirement expenses should be less. Unless your a wine drinker


Helpless is -often- a mindset that starts at about 20 yrs old.
The mindset is not living on less than your income.

You're missing the math of it. Most recipients are getting far more
out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more. If you do a time-
integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true.
Medicare is worse.

But, I'm entitled! (tongue in cheek)

It's not close to sustainable. Benefits will be cut, period, by
China, if not by us. We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when--
that's pure theater.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions']
are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis,
United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans. They're just pointing out reality.

 

[amdx]

On Jul 14, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:37 am, Fred Bloggs<[email protected]>
wrote:

On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, amdx<[email protected]> wrote:

My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of the other
posts said it was 132 million to 70 million.
There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that
70 million.
We're having fun now!
Mikek

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
These people are getting hardly any money at all, it barely qualifies
as survival income.

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

Your attack on this system is typical of the vicious rightwing, you
don't have much to say about fat cats, liars, and thieves, ripping the
government for trillions, but go after the near helpless.

You're missing the math of it. Most recipients are getting far more
out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more. If you do a time-
integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true.
Medicare is worse.

It's not close to sustainable. Benefits will be cut, period, by
China, if not by us. We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when--
that's pure theater.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions']
are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis,
United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans. They're just pointing out reality.

Where is the time integral of the interest earned on their 40 year
contributions???

That's all been spent, too. The government doesn't *earn* interest, it
*pays* interest.

If individuals had been allowed to invest some of the mandatory SS
deductions privately, things would be a little better. The Dems are
dead-set against that. They want all the money, and they want it now.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The SS Trust *earns* interest on its holdings- that's the way it's
supposed to work, the excess isn't supposed to just sit there..

Oh good, where is it?
Mikek

 

[amdx]

Of course. I already had my check reduced 6% because we didn't get the
usual 3% raise last year, or the year before.

Nice try, that was not a reduction. You didn't get a raise because
as calculated a cost of living increase was not warranted.


But I think Obama is a

jerk for suggesting SS checks might not go out next month considering
government tax revenue is still coming in at 2 trillion per year. And,
the SS income from FICA (payroll tax) is not very far in the red, and
only last year and this year had a small shortage. He makes it sound
like all the SS payments come from borrowed money.

Yes, rather than starving the 50 million SS recipients buy cutting
them off completely, he might think about cutting 3% from each check. Ya
he's a jerk for suggesting he might not be able to send any checks out.

"Time to eat our peas" is what he said.

-Bill

So, I'll ask again, Are you willing to reduce your check 3% if every
other government check is also reduced?
Mikek
BTW, I've had to live on 25% less for the last three years because of
this poor economy.

 

[[email protected]]

Amen. What we're seeing these days is the thin end of the ultimate
correction. We either reduce our numbers or it will be done for us.

Chicken-littles have been saying that for centuries.

 

[[email protected]]

Why? Because your buddy Mark Levin said SS was actually a tax and not
a contribution. Seems the supreme court ruled in 1937 that non-
voluntary contributions are actually a tax without earmarks. Pretty
much the same today with Obama care requiring purchase of health
insurance, which will ultimately become a tax.

I'm not sure if it's possible to earmark federal taxes for some single
purpose? The states do it with property tax going to the schools, why
not the feds?

Gas tax?

BTW, the 405 freeway is being closed for the 53 hours this weekend
from West LA to the SF Valley. 30 mile traffic jams are expected. They
call it "Carmageddon"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ses-sales-for-gridlock-survival-services.html

We even heard about that on the news. Good place for it.

 

[josephkk]

And when the SS law was enatced in 1935, the US population was just
127 million. Look at now. And look at every other overpopulated
country in the world. Overpopulation means poverty and bankruptcy.

Really now. Check this and see if you still want to say that:

http://urbancongress.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/worldpopulationdensitybycountry.png

)

 

[josephkk]

On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, amdx <[email protected]> wrote:

   My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of theother
posts said it was 132 million to 70 million.
  There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that
70 million.
       We're having fun now!
           Mikek

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
These people are getting hardly any money at all, it barely qualifies
as survival income.

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

Your attack on this system is typical of the vicious rightwing, you
don't have much to say about fat cats, liars, and thieves, ripping the
government for trillions, but go after the near helpless.

You're missing the math of it.  Most recipients are getting far more
out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more.  If you do a time-
integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true.
Medicare is worse.

It's not close to sustainable.  Benefits will be cut, period, by
China, if not by us.  We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when--
that's pure theater.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions']
are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis,
United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans.  They're just pointing out reality.

Where is the time integral of the interest earned on their 40 year
contributions??? The big bad USA should have enough intellectual
capital to figure out a way to make it sustainable.

Here, Fred, is just how much went into the "trust fund" by year. Notice
how much it is compared to receipts and payments. That is the amount that
would be "earning interest". Calculate just how much that would help pay
your benefits someday.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

See also:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)>

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Jul 14, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:37 am, Fred Bloggs <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, amdx <[email protected]> wrote:

My main point was the ratio of givers to takers. One of the other
posts said it was 132 million to 70 million.
There are also all the state taxpayer money recipients to add to that
70 million.
We're having fun now!
Mikek

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
These people are getting hardly any money at all, it barely qualifies
as survival income.

I could easily live on that and save money each year.

Your attack on this system is typical of the vicious rightwing, you
don't have much to say about fat cats, liars, and thieves, ripping the
government for trillions, but go after the near helpless.

You're missing the math of it. Most recipients are getting far more
out than they ever put in, commonly 3x and more. If you do a time-
integral of contributions you'll quickly see that that's true.
Medicare is worse.

It's not close to sustainable. Benefits will be cut, period, by
China, if not by us. We simply don't have the money.

And it's nothing to do with who robbed what imaginary fund when--
that's pure theater.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm
"The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee 'contributions']
are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way." --Helvering v. Davis,
United States Supreme Court, 1936

You speak of mean Republicans. They're just pointing out reality.

Where is the time integral of the interest earned on their 40 year
contributions???

That's all been spent, too. The government doesn't *earn* interest, it
*pays* interest.

If individuals had been allowed to invest some of the mandatory SS
deductions privately, things would be a little better. The Dems are
dead-set against that. They want all the money, and they want it now.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The SS Trust *earns* interest on its holdings- that's the way it's
supposed to work, the excess isn't supposed to just sit there..

Ahh. But that IS exactly what it does. Actually it does worse,
treasuries normally pay less than inflation. And that is what that
pittance is "invested" in.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

Make that 132 million.

Employment chart:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Interesting: That chart clearly shows the recession Clinton left Bush,
and today's situation.

Try setting it to 1990 to 2011 and look again please.

 

[[email protected]]

Try setting it to 1990 to 2011 and look again please.

Try setting it to 1970 and you'll see that there is only one time where the
number of employed got reset anything close to a decade. Go back as far as it
goes (1939); same story. The slope is relatively constant (~growth) until
2000 with the 2000 and 2008 recessions by far the worst bouts of unemployment.