Bill McKee wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around
$13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and
have investment money left over for less than this.


That's just about what my SS check is after deductions ---- THANK YOU!

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around
$13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and
have investment money left over for less than this.


That's just about what my SS check is after deductions ---- THANK YOU!

My checks start next month. I will get more than you! HA-HA

You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less
money than SS takes out.

Where?


Bill McKee wrote:
Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around
$13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and
have investment money left over for less than this.


And what can one get for less than "max salary" payments?

Considering the benefits that Social Security offers (disability,
dependent support, retirement, long term care supplement, etc etc) I
suggest that you are either misinformed, or you're deliberately lying to
try and push a political agenda.

My disability + long term care policies (healthy mid-40s) cost me around
$10K per year, and that offers NO coverage for my spouse or any dependent.



DSK

That's just about what my SS check is after deductions ---- THANK YOU!


Bill McKee wrote:
My checks start next month. I will get more than you! HA-HA


So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot
less money than SS takes out.

Where?


Bill McKee wrote:
Call up any insurance agent. Total SS payments on max salary are around
$13,000 a year. You can buy a decent long term disability policy and and
have investment money left over for less than this.

And what can one get for less than "max salary" payments?

Considering the benefits that Social Security offers (disability,
dependent support, retirement, long term care supplement, etc etc) I
suggest that you are either misinformed, or you're deliberately lying to
try and push a political agenda.

My disability + long term care policies (healthy mid-40s) cost me around
$10K per year, and that offers NO coverage for my spouse or any dependent.



DSK





Long term care is not covered by SS. Long term disability is. As to less
than the max, you buy a less than max policy. You pay less than max to SS,
you get less than max payments. As to your children, get a term life
policy. If you are young enough to have children under 18 and that is what
the kids are covered too, you can get a large term policy for about $35 /
month. And when the widows and children act (as SS was originally known) it
was not the national retirement plan.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
That's just about what my SS check is after deductions ---- THANK YOU!


Bill McKee wrote:
My checks start next month. I will get more than you! HA-HA

So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?

DSK


I am going to take the money. But for the over $160k that I have paid in
for 42 years, I could have got a bigger payout. And the younger people, in
their 20's to 40's are going to pay a whole lot more in than I did. I paid
in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for some of those
years.

Bill McKee wrote:
Long term care is not covered by SS.

Really? I was under the impression that Social Security offered a
variety of supplemental benefits which were the same thing, in effect.

I suppose one just can't rely on what the Social Security office tells
one...


... As to less
than the max, you buy a less than max policy.

Really? I'd never have guessed. And there quickly comes a point where
one cannot buy effective coverage, period. Does SS cover those below
that point? Nod your head yes...



... As to your children, get a term life
policy.

And don't count the cost of that, so as to maintain the fiction that SS
is more expensive than comparable insurance?


... And when the widows and children act (as SS was originally known) it
was not the national retirement plan.


It still isn't "the national retirement plan" except for those who are
either very low on the economic scale and/or too friggin' stupid to save
for their own future. Which are you?

DSK

So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?


Bill McKee wrote:
I am going to take the money.

So your principles are for sale to the high bidder? Please tell me you
don't consider yourself "conservative."


... But for the over $160k that I have paid in
for 42 years, I could have got a bigger payout.

Sure.

... And the younger people, in
their 20's to 40's are going to pay a whole lot more in than I did.

That depends.


... I paid
in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for some of those
years.


And your point is?

Oh wait, I know... you're PO'd because it's the gummint. Somebody lied
and told you that Social Security was an investment program, then lied
again and told you that you could get insurance cheaper.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?


Bill McKee wrote:
I am going to take the money.

So your principles are for sale to the high bidder? Please tell me you
don't consider yourself "conservative."


... But for the over $160k that I have paid in for 42 years, I could have
got a bigger payout.

Sure.

... And the younger people, in their 20's to 40's are going to pay a
whole lot more in than I did.

That depends.


... I paid in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for
some of those years.

And your point is?

Oh wait, I know... you're PO'd because it's the gummint. Somebody lied and
told you that Social Security was an investment program, then lied again
and told you that you could get insurance cheaper.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.

DSK


You must not comprehend what you read. I have argued for a long time that
SS is not a retirement plan. But lots here think it is the national
retirement plan. Keep the old living large. My retirement plan outside of
SS is very adequate. I am going to take the money. Just like I would take
lottery winnings.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
Long term care is not covered by SS.

Really? I was under the impression that Social Security offered a variety
of supplemental benefits which were the same thing, in effect.

I suppose one just can't rely on what the Social Security office tells
one...



Long term care is not covered. If you get disabled, you will get a monthly
stipend. It does not cover you expenses. If you have no money to cover the
expenses, then you get welfare. Medi-Cal here in California. A long term
care policy will pay you a lot more.

... As to less than the max, you buy a less than max policy.

Really? I'd never have guessed. And there quickly comes a point where one
cannot buy effective coverage, period. Does SS cover those below that
point? Nod your head yes...



Those below your effective coverage will get a bare minimum from SS.



... As to your children, get a term life policy.

And don't count the cost of that, so as to maintain the fiction that SS is
more expensive than comparable insurance?



$35 bucks a month will get you $500k of term life at about 36 years old.
That $500k will give your kids a lot more monthly money if you die than SS
will



... And when the widows and children act (as SS was originally known)
it
was not the national retirement plan.

It still isn't "the national retirement plan" except for those who are
either very low on the economic scale and/or too friggin' stupid to save
for their own future. Which are you?

DSK


Why are you so bitter? You have no money are are depending on SS? Me, I
can afford to retire. And an extra $16k a year is nice. Keep working and
sending me that money. Will pay for the new motor for the boat in about 6
months.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.


Bill McKee wrote:
You must not comprehend what you read.

No, I comprehend quite well.

You have made false claims, and made several misrepresentations about
what Social Security is, and what SS does. Then, having ranted against
the evils of socialism, you announce that you'll accept socialism quite
happily when it puts money in your pocket even when you don't need it.


... I have argued for a long time that
SS is not a retirement plan. But lots here think it is the national
retirement plan. Keep the old living large.

???

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Why are you so bitter?

???

Am I the one making false claims?
Am I the one who is revealed as a hypocrit?
Am I the one who's been lying to promote his political ideas?

I'm not bitter at all, just mildly amused at the moral bankruptcy of
those try to "reform" Social Security for the benefit of the wealthy.

... You have no money are are depending on SS?

Hardly.


... Keep working and
sending me that money. Will pay for the new motor for the boat in about 6
months.


Good. I hope your coronary holds off long enough to get some use out of
it. Meanwhile, enjoy your socialist benefits, comrade... just don't call
yourself "conservative."

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.


Bill McKee wrote:
You must not comprehend what you read.

No, I comprehend quite well.


You lie.

You have made false claims, and made several misrepresentations about what
Social Security is, and what SS does. Then, having ranted against the
evils of socialism, you announce that you'll accept socialism quite
happily when it puts money in your pocket even when you don't need it.



I made no false claims. You lie again. I paid in, I will take the money.
and then the Goverment will take back some via taxation.

... I have argued for a long time that SS is not a retirement plan. But
lots here think it is the national retirement plan. Keep the old living
large.

???

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


DSK

You lying idiot. I made no false claims, you are the one saying that the SS
money returns more to you via the government than though private investment.
You are the hypocrite. You figure you are rich and smart, and the poor are
to stupid to figure out that they have been screwed by the government. You
may be right on the last part. The poor are the ones who need SS reform.
Even Roosevelt, stated there need to be some privatization of SS.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
Why are you so bitter?

???

Am I the one making false claims?
Am I the one who is revealed as a hypocrit?
Am I the one who's been lying to promote his political ideas?

I'm not bitter at all, just mildly amused at the moral bankruptcy of those
try to "reform" Social Security for the benefit of the wealthy.

... You have no money are are depending on SS?

Hardly.


... Keep working and sending me that money. Will pay for the new motor
for the boat in about 6 months.

Good. I hope your coronary holds off long enough to get some use out of
it. Meanwhile, enjoy your socialist benefits, comrade... just don't call
yourself "conservative."

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
You lie.


Let me get this straight- you've stated that one can buy a private
insurance policy that will cover everything Social Security offers,
cheaper... and you say that I lie.

You claim that Social Security is an investment program that should
offer better retirement income... and you say that I lie.


I made no false claims. You lie again.

Apparently, your idea of "truth" could be better defined as "any fact
which makes me uncomfortable.

And you have no better way of grasping reality than to call others names.

Getting back to Social Security:
... I paid in, I will take the money.

But it's not your money that you're taking. It's an entitlement that
comes straight from other's tax payments. No better, morally, than welfare.



Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
You lie.


Let me get this straight- you've stated that one can buy a private
insurance policy that will cover everything Social Security offers,
cheaper... and you say that I lie.


You can buy and invest the annual amount of SS contributions and get a much
better return. SS has an annual return of -0.1%. Pretty easy to beat that
return.

You claim that Social Security is an investment program that should offer
better retirement income... and you say that I lie.


Never said that. I said SS is a poor return on the money contributed.
There is no investment to SS.

I made no false claims. You lie again.

Apparently, your idea of "truth" could be better defined as "any fact
which makes me uncomfortable.

And you have no better way of grasping reality than to call others names.

Getting back to Social Security:
... I paid in, I will take the money.

But it's not your money that you're taking. It's an entitlement that comes
straight from other's tax payments. No better, morally, than welfare.



Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK


You are beyond comprehending. Go back to the first person who retired on
SS. She paid in about $26.30 and got back thousands. She is one of the
last people to get this big a return. Figure someone 80 years old. SS pays
them about $1600 a month and the wife gets 70% of her husband. That person
and their employer paid $660 a year until about 1964, They get a very good
return on their minimum contributions. Now lets jump forward to the 25 year
old making $85k a year. Also maximum payments into SS. They (and the
employer) are paying about 16%+ of the that $85k about $14,000 a year. They
reach 70 and they collect maybe $1700 a month ignoring inflation (which is
also ignored on the contribution side. They live 15 years and get a return
of $306,000 but they have paid in 45*18,000=$810,000 And you say they could
not get a better insurance policy for this much money. You better get a
better financial advisor.

Bill McKee wrote:
You can buy and invest the annual amount of SS contributions and get a much
better return. SS has an annual return of -0.1%. Pretty easy to beat that
return.


True, but Social Security is not an investment program.

Is this a red herring to distract yourself from your previous outright
lies? Just a little misdirection and obfuscation, it always helps
doesn't it...




Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK



You are beyond comprehending. Go back to the first person who retired on
SS. She paid in about $26.30 and got back thousands. She is one of the
last people to get this big a return.

Again you miss the point... Social Security is not an investment program.

If you want to paint Social Security as a failure, try something other
than blatant lies and not-so-artful misdirection.

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
You can buy and invest the annual amount of SS contributions and get a
much better return. SS has an annual return of -0.1%. Pretty easy to
beat that return.


True, but Social Security is not an investment program.

Is this a red herring to distract yourself from your previous outright
lies? Just a little misdirection and obfuscation, it always helps doesn't
it...




Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK



You are beyond comprehending. Go back to the first person who retired on
SS. She paid in about $26.30 and got back thousands. She is one of the
last people to get this big a return.

Again you miss the point... Social Security is not an investment program.

If you want to paint Social Security as a failure, try something other
than blatant lies and not-so-artful misdirection.

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?

DSK


I always said it was not an investment proigram. As well as not the
national retirement program.

Bill McKee wrote:
I always said it was not an investment proigram.

Then why do you keep comparing it to investment programs, and talking
about "returns"?

Can you not discuss the issue without some kind of inherent dishonesty
in your approach? Or would that leave the only option of abandoning your
preconceived "solutions"?

... As well as not the
national retirement program.


You're right, it isn't... except for those who are either too poor or
too dumb to save up for their own future. Your point is... ??

And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
I always said it was not an investment proigram.

Then why do you keep comparing it to investment programs, and talking
about "returns"?

Can you not discuss the issue without some kind of inherent dishonesty in
your approach? Or would that leave the only option of abandoning your
preconceived "solutions"?

... As well as not the national retirement program.

You're right, it isn't... except for those who are either too poor or too
dumb to save up for their own future. Your point is... ??

And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?

DSK


You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan and
you get a good return on you money. Neither is true. And the plan put
forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax money in SS (WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in a private investment
account. You do not get to keep and spend the money each month like a raise
in pay.

And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan and
you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a
straw man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And
I don't have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think
would be sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5
years ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow
imbalance would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this
would also reduce the regressiveness of the tax).


... And the plan put
forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax money in SS (WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in a private investment
account. You do not get to keep and spend the money each month like a raise
in pay.


So you're in favor of Bush's "plan"? And can you explain how this "plan"
is supposed to fix Social Security? Do you feel that it offers such a
great improvement that it's worth increasing U.S. deficit spending?

BTW if the Social Security Trust Fund did not buy US treasuries, then
Bush would be borrowing yet more from the Chinese. And the stock market
gives better returns but is also prone to crash from time to time. So
far Uncle Sam has not defaulted on the national debt. So the SS trust is
invested in lower returns but much much more secure. Do you think this
is bad?

And when are you going to answer the question: who exactly is "living
large" on Social Security?

If you can't answer these questions with at least an attempt at honesty,
then why should anybody take your opinions seriously?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan
and you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a straw
man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And I don't
have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think would be
sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5 years
ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow imbalance
would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this would also
reduce the regressiveness of the tax).

How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance and
retirement programs. Then the government will have to stop spending the SS
tax money like drunken sailors every year!

Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance and
retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS
tax money like drunken sailors every year!


Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan
and you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a straw
man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And I don't
have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think would be
sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5 years
ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow imbalance
would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this would also
reduce the regressiveness of the tax).


... And the plan put forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax
money in SS (WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in
a private investment account. You do not get to keep and spend the money
each month like a raise in pay.

So you're in favor of Bush's "plan"? And can you explain how this "plan"
is supposed to fix Social Security? Do you feel that it offers such a
great improvement that it's worth increasing U.S. deficit spending?

BTW if the Social Security Trust Fund did not buy US treasuries, then Bush
would be borrowing yet more from the Chinese. And the stock market gives
better returns but is also prone to crash from time to time. So far Uncle
Sam has not defaulted on the national debt. So the SS trust is invested in
lower returns but much much more secure. Do you think this is bad?

And when are you going to answer the question: who exactly is "living
large" on Social Security?

If you can't answer these questions with at least an attempt at honesty,
then why should anybody take your opinions seriously?

DSK



Living large: one example: Any body who put very little in to the "trust
Fund" and is getting a nice sized check is living large. 10 quarters is all
you have to contribute if I remember correctly. State employee 40 years, 3
years in industry, nice check. At least Bush is proposing a fix. Under
the last administration SS was in trouble in 10 years, and now it is 20
years. The way it is going, we are going to be like France. They are
having public employee strikes over the governments attempts to fix their
retirement system. In 25 years, there will be only 2 workers in France for
each retiree. You want to just keep raising the money collected by SS while
not paying out for even more years. What kind of fix is that?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK


Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget. They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".

Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.


... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK



Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget. They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".


See http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi

For a listing of government bonds held by the SS administration, and
interest paid on same.

Jim, wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

How about the government get out of the business of providing
insurance and retirement programs.


That would suit me just fine.


... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money
like drunken sailors every year!


Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at
all, you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making
brainless statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK



Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.
They do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If
there were government bonds in a depository, then there would be a
"trust fund".

See http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi

For a listing of government bonds held by the SS administration, and
interest paid on same.

Addendum to the above (Quoted)

The average interest rate, weighted by the amount invested at each rate,
is 5.492 percent at the end of December 2004. Similarly, the average
number of years to maturity, weighted by the amounts maturing, is 7.237
years.

A little ways from the 3% quoted by Bush

Bill McKee wrote:
Living large: one example: Any body who put very little in to the "trust
Fund" and is getting a nice sized check is living large.

OK, I guess that part was easy.

For myself, I don't think Social Security provides *anybody* with the
means to "live large" but then I'm accustomed to a standard of living
wherein a 5 course meal doesn't include peanut butter.


.. At least Bush is proposing a fix.

Is he? The proposal I've seen increases the deficit, shortens the time
to Social Security going bust, and does nothing to redress long term
Social Security cash flow imbalances.

If you look back in several other threads, you'll see how difficult it
is to defend President Bush's Social Security proposal(s) from a
standpoint of fiscal common sense. If OTOH you want to see a lot of Wall
St money kicked back to pro-Bush campaign coffers (used to be simply
Republican, but now the Rove-Bush team has begun attacking many fellow
Repubs), then it's easy to defend.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Where does the government not spend the SS money?

(sigh) Is that what you consider an intelligent answer? "The gov't" does
not spend Social Security money. Period.

... Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.

A big part of it, yes. Another big reason is that they did not stage a
futile invasion of another country, handing out gazillions of
unaccounted for dollars (not to mention hundreds of millions in gouging,
fraud, & kickbacks, to a company run by the Vice President). A billion
here, a billion there, it adds up.


... They
do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU.

Another favorite lie from the people who'd like to do for Social
Security what they did for airport security, anti-terrorism, intel ops,
etc etc.

Fact: The Social Security Trust Fund buys *only* debt issued by the U.S.
Treasury.

Fact: This is the safest investment in the world

Fact: The tax income from Social Security is no more "spent by the
gov't" than you spend your neighbor's mortgage payment, if you use the
same bank.


... If there were
government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust fund".


WTF do you think the U.S. Treasury is?

You have yet to make ONE sensible or factual statement. Yet you stick
your head further in the sand, digging deeper for those fatuous lies to
prop up your stupid prejudices. I sincerely hope that you do not call
yourself a "conservative" because you're just as big an embarassment as
NOBBY, John H, and Dave Hall. Welcome to the club.

Bye bye, unless you have a BOATING related comment.

DSK

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

DSK


Where does the government not spend the SS money? Is the reason that
Congress and President Clinton could declare a surplus in the budget.
They do not buy treasuries with the money, they just issue an IOU. If
there were government bonds in a depository, then there would be a "trust
fund".

Free hint to the clueless liebral.......Johnson melded the FICA tax into the
genereal fund......there is no "Social Security Trust Fund" That is a
liebral myth.

P.Fritz wrote:
Free hint to the clueless liebral.......Johnson melded the FICA tax into the
genereal fund......there is no "Social Security Trust Fund" That is a
liebral myth.


Really? I guess the Social Security Administration doesn't know what
it's talking about.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

Go peddle your fascist whacko bull**** somewhere else.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you aren't
smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".
2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund" an
IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.
3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.
4) The government appropriates that 15% to be used for the what ever program
they desire to spend it on.
5) The government can decide to retire Treasure Notes or Bonds with my 15%
but, the Treasury Notes or Bonds that are in the "Social Security Trust
Fund" are not retired with my 15%.

The only thing in the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a pile of IOUs. IOUs
are not money. IOUs are a promise to repay money.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

I'm sure that you and your ilk can answer that question better than us.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:
Free hint to the clueless liebral.......Johnson melded the FICA tax into
the genereal fund......there is no "Social Security Trust Fund" That is
a liebral myth.


Really? I guess the Social Security Administration doesn't know what it's
talking about.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

Go peddle your fascist whacko bull**** somewhere else.

It is all just numbers in a spread sheet. There is no money sitting in a
vault somewhere, anywhere.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html


Bert Robbins wrote:
It is all just numbers in a spread sheet. There is no money sitting in a
vault somewhere, anywhere.


And your checking account is just numbers, too. Of course there is no
"money sitting in a vault." Welcome to the brave new world of finance...
post 1300 A.D.

It's for guys like you that the Social Security Administration put the
question "Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities
held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs?" right in their FAQ? Of
course, they're all just a buncha commie pinko liberal homo-lovers who
don't Support Our Troops. Why believe them.

Does it hurt when you keep banging your head against a solid wall of facts?

DSK

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:34:41 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
Bert Robbins wrote:
How about the government get out of the business of providing insurance
and retirement programs.

That would suit me just fine.

... Then the government will have to stop spending the SS tax money like
drunken sailors every year!

Considering that "the government" doesn't spend the SS tax money at all,
you can consider this already done.

I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you aren't
smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".
2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund" an
IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.
3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.
4) The government appropriates that 15% to be used for the what ever program
they desire to spend it on.
5) The government can decide to retire Treasure Notes or Bonds with my 15%
but, the Treasury Notes or Bonds that are in the "Social Security Trust
Fund" are not retired with my 15%.

The only thing in the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a pile of IOUs. IOUs
are not money. IOUs are a promise to repay money.

You know, you Bush supporters shouldn't work so hard at making brainless
statements. Is stupidty really that seductive for you all?

I'm sure that you and your ilk can answer that question better than us.


That last statement isn't quite fair. DSK is one of a kind. How you guys can put
up with him is amazing. You should all be 8th grade teachers. You've definitely
got the patience for it!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you aren't
smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".

Bull****. SS taxes are nowhere near that high. Why do you have to lie to
try and make a point?

2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund" an
IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.

Uh huh. So a Treasury bond is just "an IOU"? I guess a $20 bill is just
a green piece of paper?


3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.

No more than your neighbors mortgage payment is in your checking account
if you use the same bank.

4) The government blah blah blah (snipped)



John H wrote:
That last statement isn't quite fair. DSK is one of a kind.

Not really. The group that I belong to is called "smart people who have
boats." We prefer facts to illogic & bull****.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html


Bert Robbins wrote:
It is all just numbers in a spread sheet. There is no money sitting in a
vault somewhere, anywhere.


And your checking account is just numbers, too. Of course there is no
"money sitting in a vault." Welcome to the brave new world of finance...
post 1300 A.D.

It's for guys like you that the Social Security Administration put the
question "Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held
by the trust funds as worthless IOUs?" right in their FAQ? Of course,
they're all just a buncha commie pinko liberal homo-lovers who don't
Support Our Troops. Why believe them.

Does it hurt when you keep banging your head against a solid wall of
facts?

DSK


If there was a trust fund, they would invest in other items than the Federal
deficit. Is just a bookkeeping entry.

Bill McKee wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html


Bert Robbins wrote:

It is all just numbers in a spread sheet. There is no money sitting in a
vault somewhere, anywhere.


And your checking account is just numbers, too. Of course there is no
"money sitting in a vault." Welcome to the brave new world of finance...
post 1300 A.D.

It's for guys like you that the Social Security Administration put the
question "Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held
by the trust funds as worthless IOUs?" right in their FAQ? Of course,
they're all just a buncha commie pinko liberal homo-lovers who don't
Support Our Troops. Why believe them.

Does it hurt when you keep banging your head against a solid wall of
facts?

DSK



If there was a trust fund, they would invest in other items than the Federal
deficit. Is just a bookkeeping entry.



Except for the fact that they are prohibited by law from doing so. I
for one wish they could (and would)

"DSK" wrote in message
...
I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you
aren't smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".

Bull****. SS taxes are nowhere near that high. Why do you have to lie to
try and make a point?

2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund"
an IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.

Uh huh. So a Treasury bond is just "an IOU"? I guess a $20 bill is just a
green piece of paper?


3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.

No more than your neighbors mortgage payment is in your checking account
if you use the same bank.

4) The government blah blah blah (snipped)



John H wrote:
That last statement isn't quite fair. DSK is one of a kind.

Not really. The group that I belong to is called "smart people who have
boats." We prefer facts to illogic & bull****.

DSK


How much is the Social Security tax (FICA)?

Bill McKee wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...

I will detail how the government spends the SS tax money because you
aren't smart enough to figure it out yourself.

1) The government extracts 15% of my income and puts it into the "Social
Security Trust Fund".

Bull****. SS taxes are nowhere near that high. Why do you have to lie to
try and make a point?


2) The government takes my 15% and gives the "Social Security Trust Fund"
an IOU in the form of a Treasury Note or Bond.

Uh huh. So a Treasury bond is just "an IOU"? I guess a $20 bill is just a
green piece of paper?



3) My 15% is now in the general account of the government.

No more than your neighbors mortgage payment is in your checking account
if you use the same bank.


4) The government blah blah blah (snipped)



John H wrote:

That last statement isn't quite fair. DSK is one of a kind.

Not really. The group that I belong to is called "smart people who have
boats." We prefer facts to illogic & bull****.

DSK



How much is the Social Security tax (FICA)?



Look at your paycheck or check www.socialsecurity.gov