On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:33:02 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 4/3/2013 6:03 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:18:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 3/30/2013 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Most of the poor and the middle class will get more back from SS then
they paid in. Myself, should get it all back in about 7* years, the next
14 are on your kids back.

*does not factor in inflation.

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know

Reread the article with this in mind, "will get more back from SS then
THEY paid in" You will then find what I said is true.
Also, I've been paying for about 40 years, I didn't make anywhere near
$50.000 for many of those years and I'll get 30% more than the article
states. If you started today, made $50,000 every year for 45 years, your
check would be way more than $1200 a month. The numbers are just plain
wrong.
Mikek

You are a ****ing idiot. It's quite clear that you have no interest in
actual facts. Feel free to live in your fox-induced illusion.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know


This article says exactly what I have been saying all along

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When
the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they
have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us.
We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest.
Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social
Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to
the federal government."

They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is.

No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and
the phrase "full faith and credit".


The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we
were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud.

Nope. Never said.

They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a
million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the
current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over
$100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked
(66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will
get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half
already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to
pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear
that much.

Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been
collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year.

How is that sustainable?

BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it.
Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes.

The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund
and invest in equities.
Where have we heard that before?

Your buddy Bush. Next question.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:52:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:58:56 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know


This article says exactly what I have been saying all along

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When
the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they
have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us.
We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest.
Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social
Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to
the federal government."

They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is.

No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and
the phrase "full faith and credit".

They say
"Social Security lacks the secrecy and the element of fraud."

The "secret" SSA conceals is spelled out a few paragraphs later when
they say

" Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the
only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers."
That makes it a ponzi by their definition.

" A pyramid scheme takes the funds paid by investors and distributes
it amongst the people who invested before them."

... and that is exactly how SS works. They take money from OASDI tax
and immediately distribute it to the recipients.
There is no investment component, only an unfunded obligation to pay
when payments exceed income, which it does now.

They say
"The federal government can only
raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires
the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest."

I couldn't have said it better myself.



The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we
were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud.

Nope. Never said.

See above

They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a
million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the
current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over
$100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked
(66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will
get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half
already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to
pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear
that much.

Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been
collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year.

How is that sustainable?

BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it.
Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes.

The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund
and invest in equities.
Where have we heard that before?

Your buddy Bush. Next question.

Echoed by the article YOU cite.

Why do you and Kevin keep linking articles that confirm what I say?


Who the **** is kevin??

Well, for all your negative statements about Social Security, you're
sure not doing much about it. You're pocketing the money instead of
sending it back. Why aren't you doing that? Oh yeah, you're a
hypocrite.