On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:12:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

So, you haven't participated in Social Security, Medicare, and all the
other federal and state programs supported by taxes. As usual, you're
full of it.

You can call SS a Ponzi, but that's just your and your right wing
****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this
country to other people in this country.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:02:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:21:10 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:12:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

So, you haven't participated in Social Security, Medicare, and all the
other federal and state programs supported by taxes. As usual, you're
full of it.

... at the point of a government gun.

Huh? You're being forced at gun point to cash your check? No, you do
it willingly.


You can call SS a Ponzi, but that's just your and your right wing
****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this
country to other people in this country.

That is what Bernie said

You're disputing it's a promise made to seniors and unfortunates
who've lost parents? That's what Stalin said. (yeah, I'm kidding)

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:04:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:43:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:02:16 -0400, wrote:


You can call SS a Ponzi, but that's just your and your right wing
****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this
country to other people in this country.

That is what Bernie said

You're disputing it's a promise made to seniors and unfortunates
who've lost parents? That's what Stalin said. (yeah, I'm kidding)

It is a promise but it is an unfunded promise. The Trust Fund is just
a line item on the national debt.


And, how exactly would you prefer it to be funded? Perhaps in gold
bullion? Or, in a 100% risk free account... like perhaps one
guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US? Oh yeah, you're
full of it.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:24:36 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:04:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:43:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:02:16 -0400, wrote:


You can call SS a Ponzi, but that's just your and your right wing
****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this
country to other people in this country.

That is what Bernie said

You're disputing it's a promise made to seniors and unfortunates
who've lost parents? That's what Stalin said. (yeah, I'm kidding)

It is a promise but it is an unfunded promise. The Trust Fund is just
a line item on the national debt.


And, how exactly would you prefer it to be funded? Perhaps in gold
bullion? Or, in a 100% risk free account... like perhaps one
guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US? Oh yeah, you're
full of it.

That is the main flaw in the plan. There is no real way for the
government to save money since they don't back currency with any hard
asset.

They back it with the faith and credit of a country that has never
defaulted on it's debt...NEVER by statute.

Money is simply whatever the fed says it is. If they "save" money it
is the same as reducing the money supply.

Feel free to hoard gold. I'm sure there's a supermarket somewhere
that'll take it.

SS should have always been, what it was for 73 years, pay as you go
but that would have required raising the retirement age and increasing
the FICA tax.

It's still pay as you go. 100% for the next 25 years and beyond that
forever at close to 100%.

Reagan and Clinton both did things along those lines but nobody has
tried it since.

Reagan did ****. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

They should have adjusted the tax rate to reflect actual costs, as the
system was originally designed.
Unfortunately in 1939-40 it became apparent they were accumulating a
big pot of unspent money and so they started spending it, putting an
IOU in the box.


You're such an expert. You should run from something... like your
paranoia.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:27:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:20:50 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:33 -0400, wrote:


That is the main flaw in the plan. There is no real way for the
government to save money since they don't back currency with any hard
asset.

They back it with the faith and credit of a country that has never
defaulted on it's debt...NEVER by statute.

We are still young
How is Stockton, San Bernadino and Compton doing?

So, now you're claiming that cities never fail and never go bankrupt.
You're claiming that stockton is somehow representative of the entire
US?


Money is simply whatever the fed says it is. If they "save" money it
is the same as reducing the money supply.

Feel free to hoard gold. I'm sure there's a supermarket somewhere
that'll take it.

If the **** hits the fan, gold and silver might be all they do take.
In the mean time, the bag of silver coins I have has turned a nice
profit.

Ah yes, the "**** hits the fan" line. Like "when the crunch comes" or
when the blacks start the racial war or when Manson does or someone.

That's pretty close to the most looney thing you've said, well, since
you told me you want to **** over my family I guess.

SS should have always been, what it was for 73 years, pay as you go
but that would have required raising the retirement age and increasing
the FICA tax.

It's still pay as you go. 100% for the next 25 years and beyond that
forever at close to 100%.

Not at all, SS is $85 billion in the hole as we speak, being bailed
out by federal revenue, 40% of which is borrowed.

So what? I thought you said it was bankrupt? Oh yeah, you're just full
of ****.


Reagan and Clinton both did things along those lines but nobody has
tried it since.

Reagan did ****. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Again you are not addressing the issue

Yes I am. You're just changing the subject. Sure is easy, but it's
totally transparent.


The 1983 tax bill Reagan signed raised the tax rate on wages for SS
from 10.7% to 12.2% and it was in the bill that it would rise to the
current 12.4% in 1990. That bill also allowed the IRS to tax SS
benefits, originally up to 50% was subject to the income tax. It also
accelerated the increase in the salary cap and raised the full
retirement age.

That is a lot more than "not ****"

The 1993 tax bill that Clinton signed (passed by a tie breaking vote
from Gore) raised the taxable amount of SS benefits to 85%,
It uncapped the top salary for medicare taxes

The 1994 law imposed FICA taxes on all domestic help with a threshold
of $1000 a year.

Maybe you should learn how to use Thomas if you want to play the game.

What's your point? You quoted Thomas but you don't provide any
reference point. What point are you trying to make? that we should go
back to the gold standard? Jesuss christ you sound like you need to
take a lude.

They should have adjusted the tax rate to reflect actual costs, as the
system was originally designed.
Unfortunately in 1939-40 it became apparent they were accumulating a
big pot of unspent money and so they started spending it, putting an
IOU in the box.


You're such an expert. You should run from something... like your
paranoia.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:46:14 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:22:35 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:27:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:20:50 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:33 -0400, wrote:


That is the main flaw in the plan. There is no real way for the
government to save money since they don't back currency with any hard
asset.

They back it with the faith and credit of a country that has never
defaulted on it's debt...NEVER by statute.

We are still young
How is Stockton, San Bernadino and Compton doing?

So, now you're claiming that cities never fail and never go bankrupt.
You're claiming that stockton is somehow representative of the entire
US?

It failed for the same reason. unfunded entitlements.

Why dno't you claim we're just like Greece. What a numbnuts.




Reagan and Clinton both did things along those lines but nobody has
tried it since.

Reagan did ****. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Again you are not addressing the issue

Yes I am. You're just changing the subject. Sure is easy, but it's
totally transparent.

How am I changing the subject, we were talking about SS legislation.


The 1983 tax bill Reagan signed raised the tax rate on wages for SS
from 10.7% to 12.2% and it was in the bill that it would rise to the
current 12.4% in 1990. That bill also allowed the IRS to tax SS
benefits, originally up to 50% was subject to the income tax. It also
accelerated the increase in the salary cap and raised the full
retirement age.

That is a lot more than "not ****"

The 1993 tax bill that Clinton signed (passed by a tie breaking vote
from Gore) raised the taxable amount of SS benefits to 85%,
It uncapped the top salary for medicare taxes

The 1994 law imposed FICA taxes on all domestic help with a threshold
of $1000 a year.

Maybe you should learn how to use Thomas if you want to play the game.

What's your point? You quoted Thomas but you don't provide any
reference point. What point are you trying to make? that we should go
back to the gold standard? Jesuss christ you sound like you need to
take a lude.

We were talking about which presidents propped up Social Security and
what they did.
It sounds like you are the one who is eating ludes like jelly beans.
It would explain why you can't keep up with what we are talking about.


Presidents? Huh? Congress is the one who alocates money. Try again.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:57:44 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:


We were talking about which presidents propped up Social Security and
what they did.
It sounds like you are the one who is eating ludes like jelly beans.
It would explain why you can't keep up with what we are talking about.


Presidents? Huh? Congress is the one who alocates money. Try again.
\
OK, have it your way, It wasn't Reagan that ran up the debt, it was
Tip O'Neil and it was Newt Gingrich who was responsible for the
surplus in the 90s.

You win.

How about just the honest part? Lots of people had a hand in both the
surplus and the run up debt. Reagan's policies didn't help. O'Neil
didn't help, and Newt was always and will always be an asshole.

On 4/2/2013 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:42:51 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:


We were talking about which presidents propped up Social Security and
what they did.
It sounds like you are the one who is eating ludes like jelly beans.
It would explain why you can't keep up with what we are talking about.


Presidents? Huh? Congress is the one who alocates money. Try again.
\
OK, have it your way, It wasn't Reagan that ran up the debt, it was
Tip O'Neil and it was Newt Gingrich who was responsible for the
surplus in the 90s.

You win.
You give in so easily.
Try "whatever" instead.

On Mar 30, 4:02*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar201309:21:10 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:









On Sat, 30 Mar201310:12:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar201309:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar201314:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar201316:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar201312:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in aPonzischeme in the first place.

So, you haven't participated in Social Security, Medicare, and all the
other federal and state programs supported by taxes. As usual, you're
full of it.

... at the point of a government gun.

You can call SS aPonzi, but that's just your and your right wing
****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this
country to other people in this country.

That is what Bernie said

This guy probably will too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...?tid=obnetwork