Discussion:
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018. https
Add Reply
PJay OD
2018-06-07 14:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.


"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
GLOBALIST
2018-06-07 16:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
This and VA failing I have heard for decades
The Real GLOBALIST
2018-06-13 14:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
This and VA failing I have heard for decades
With Trump, you'll get to experience it. He's starting with your VA.
How's your wallet, traitor?
mg
2018-06-07 16:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-07 19:09:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
mg
2018-06-09 19:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
The US military could thin the numbers down pretty good in a
relatively short period of time, but given the public's traditional
lack of appreciation for government solutions, I don't think they'd
get much thanks for their efforts.
El Castor
2018-06-09 20:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
d***@agent.com
2018-06-11 00:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Skor Dalia
2018-06-11 01:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better.
Good. Shorten yours to the maximum extent possible. NOW.
El Castor
2018-06-11 06:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-11 18:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
El Castor
2018-06-12 01:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.

As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-12 18:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
We've been through this a number of times, most recently with:

Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018

You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
El Castor
2018-06-12 22:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
d***@agent.com
2018-06-13 19:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
No thanks, I'm tryin' to quit!
Been there with you, done that with you!
El Castor
2018-06-15 18:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
No thanks, I'm tryin' to quit!
Been there with you, done that with you!
Answer my question.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-16 00:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
No thanks, I'm tryin' to quit!
Been there with you, done that with you!
Answer my question.
I'm not the one causing the negative consequences! We ALL are,
together! So, we can ALL take our medicine together! lol
El Castor
2018-06-16 06:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
No thanks, I'm tryin' to quit!
Been there with you, done that with you!
Answer my question.
I'm not the one causing the negative consequences! We ALL are,
together! So, we can ALL take our medicine together! lol
You first. We will all be inspired by your sacrifice.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-17 05:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
No thanks, I'm tryin' to quit!
Been there with you, done that with you!
Answer my question.
I'm not the one causing the negative consequences! We ALL are,
together! So, we can ALL take our medicine together! lol
You first. We will all be inspired by your sacrifice.
You're great, but you're not THAT great!

d***@agent.com
2018-06-13 20:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+....
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
Show a little humility/common sense and stop making flu shots!
Do you get a flu shot or an annual physical? Do you encourage your
family members to behave in ways likely to shorten their life?
The subject is ALL OF US, and how it's all gonna work moving
forward. It's obvious that shortening life spans will make everything
work better. You're not looking at the big picture, you're just
thinking of yourself and how you don't want to have to get
the flu any more than you have to now!
Please answer my question.
The subject of the discussion is SOCIAL SECURITY, and how it's
all gonna work out for ALL of us. Give us the solution to the
problem!
Won't answer? That's the answer I was looking for. In addition to
being a jackass, you are also a hypocrite. A poor excuse for a human
being. Tsk, tsk.
As for SS, we will do what we have always done -- tweak contributions
and benefits, and we will all be just fine.
Letter on flu shots, Dec. 18, 2017
AND
Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires on Climate
Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration, Jan. 1 -Jan 10, 2018
You seem to have a "quick forgetter".
I don't read all your posts, at any rate I didn't ask about just
yourself. Assumining you have family members, do you recommend they
NOT get flu shots -- hopefully to speed up their demise?
Subject: Jerry Brown Promotes Mass Immigration and then Blames Fires
on Climate Change Which is Caused by Mass Immigration
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
[...]
Svensmark's hypotheses is that increased cosmic ray activity produces
clouds that shield the earth from the sun, thereby producing cooling.
In a 2009 paper he claimed that cosmic rays had ended the current
warming trend and were going to plunge us into another ice age.
Increased ionization should produce cooling, not warming. Never mind
the spiral arms of the galaxy or a nearby supernova, the sun production
of cosmic rays has been increasing over the past several decades which
would have a cooling effect. Warming has increased however.
If we stop making flu shots altogether, it would address the
carrying capacity/population issue by shortening life spans by
a few years. And since it would be an unselfish act, it would also
address the main cause of conflict in the world, the undisciplined
craving for more by political leaders everywhere, a selfishness gone
wild, the same condition that afflicts alcoholics and addicts.
The principle of unselfishness is mentioned in every sermon,
in every house of worship, every day that services are held,
but that obviously is not enough to reach all areas of society.
You again? Why don't you start with yourself. There must be a bridge
or cliff nearby.
The main cause of conflict throughout world history has been
the undisciplined craving for more by political leaders,
a selfishness gone wild, the same condition that afflicts
alcoholics and addicts.
The remedy for that does not seem to be a ban on flu shots.
Maybe your vision is faulty.
Has the fertility rate in the developed world been in a steady
decline, and has it fallen below the replacement rate -- YES or
NO?????
What will the world be like with 10 billion people?
Do you believe politics as usual will bring world peace?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/02/01/death-spiral-demographics-the-countries-shrinking-the-fastest/#243275a9b83c
"For most of recent history, the world has worried about the curse of
overpopulation. But in many countries, the problem may soon be too few
people, and of those, too many old ones. In 1995 only one country,
Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and
by 2020 that number will hit 35. Demographers estimate that global
population growth will end this century."
"Japan's population fell at the beginning of this year at the fastest
pace since 1968, when the earliest comparable figures started getting
collected."
http://www.businessinsider.com/japans-population-falling-faster-than-ever-before-2017-7
"Italy suffers drastic declining birth rate"
http://www.italianinsider.it/?q=node/5500
"Shrinking China: A Demographic Crisis"
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/shrinking-china-demographic-crisis
https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html
World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision
21 June 2017
The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach
8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 & 11.2 billion in 2100,
according to a new United Nations report being launched today.
With roughly 83 million people being added to the world’s
population every year, the upward trend in population size is
expected to continue, even assuming that fertility levels will
continue to decline.
[...]
As long as we control our borders, the population of the Congo is
about as important as the population of Mars. If they are unable to
feed their people, they should starve. In any event, Africa excluded,
population of the developed world, China included, is below
replacement rate. India, at 2.40 is still above, but on a steady
decline. Find something else to worry about. Asteroid strike? Nuclear
war? Giant eruption in Yellowstone that would blanket the earth in a
volcanic winter? Solar flare that destroys our power grid? Gamma ray
burst from a distant star focused on the Earth, that strips away or
atmosphere? But if you believe humans have a duty to die, what's
keeping you?
The main cause of conflict throughout world history has been
the undisciplined craving for more by political leaders, a
selfishness gone wild, the same condition that afflicts
allcoholics and addicts.
The principle of unselfishness is mentioned in every sermon,
in every house of worship, every day that services are held,
but that obviously is not enough to reach all areas of society.
Selfishness aside, you seem to believe that flu shots (and other
inoculations?) should be limited or withheld to encourage more people
to die, therefore reducing the size of the human race. Right?

Do you and your family member get flu shots? If you have children, did
they receive the usual childhood vaccinations?
w***@gmail.com
2018-06-12 01:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-06-12 01:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
El Castor
2018-06-12 07:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
mg
2018-06-12 16:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security

Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.

The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.

I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-06-12 16:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
You accurately said that not touching Social Security will reduce
benefits by 23% in 2034. So how is not touching Social Security qualify
one as being a friend of the American people?
El Castor
2018-06-12 19:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
mg
2018-06-12 22:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:48:07 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
I think the problem is to big now to solve it with tweaks. I think
there are going to have to be big cuts one way, or the other. Either
we wait until 2034 and let the big cuts kick in automatically. Or, we
let the politicians do the social-engineering thing and make even
bigger cuts to the higher-end beneficiaries.

If the public lets the politicians decide, I don't think there's much
doubt that they'll make huge cuts to the upper portion of the SS
beneficiaries.

In my opinion, based on human nature and what I know about politics,
if they do that, that will be the end of SS program since people
obviously prefer to save for their own retirement rather than someone
else's, and if that happens, I'll bet there will be plenty of
politicians telling them they could get a lot better deal elsewhere,
like making their own investments, for instance.
El Castor
2018-06-12 23:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:48:07 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
I think the problem is to big now to solve it with tweaks. I think
there are going to have to be big cuts one way, or the other. Either
we wait until 2034 and let the big cuts kick in automatically. Or, we
let the politicians do the social-engineering thing and make even
bigger cuts to the higher-end beneficiaries.
If the public lets the politicians decide, I don't think there's much
doubt that they'll make huge cuts to the upper portion of the SS
beneficiaries.
In my opinion, based on human nature and what I know about politics,
if they do that, that will be the end of SS program since people
obviously prefer to save for their own retirement rather than someone
else's, and if that happens, I'll bet there will be plenty of
politicians telling them they could get a lot better deal elsewhere,
like making their own investments, for instance.
Something will happen well before 2034 to stretch it out to 2044+.
But whatever. Even with all the supplements I gobble, chances are I
will be a box of ashes by then. (-8
d***@agent.com
2018-06-13 19:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
I think the problem is to big now to solve it with tweaks. I think
there are going to have to be big cuts one way, or the other. Either
we wait until 2034 and let the big cuts kick in automatically. Or, we
let the politicians do the social-engineering thing and make even
bigger cuts to the higher-end beneficiaries.
If the public lets the politicians decide, I don't think there's much
doubt that they'll make huge cuts to the upper portion of the SS
beneficiaries.
In my opinion, based on human nature and what I know about politics,
if they do that, that will be the end of SS program since people
obviously prefer to save for their own retirement rather than someone
else's, and if that happens, I'll bet there will be plenty of
politicians telling them they could get a lot better deal elsewhere,
like making their own investments, for instance.
Something will happen well before 2034 to stretch it out to 2044+.
But whatever. Even with all the supplements I gobble, chances are I
will be a box of ashes by then. (-8
Yeah, you're not lookin' at the big picture, you're just thinkin'
of yourself! You don't know what the big picture is, and
you don't want to know!
El Castor
2018-06-13 21:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
I think the problem is to big now to solve it with tweaks. I think
there are going to have to be big cuts one way, or the other. Either
we wait until 2034 and let the big cuts kick in automatically. Or, we
let the politicians do the social-engineering thing and make even
bigger cuts to the higher-end beneficiaries.
If the public lets the politicians decide, I don't think there's much
doubt that they'll make huge cuts to the upper portion of the SS
beneficiaries.
In my opinion, based on human nature and what I know about politics,
if they do that, that will be the end of SS program since people
obviously prefer to save for their own retirement rather than someone
else's, and if that happens, I'll bet there will be plenty of
politicians telling them they could get a lot better deal elsewhere,
like making their own investments, for instance.
Something will happen well before 2034 to stretch it out to 2044+.
But whatever. Even with all the supplements I gobble, chances are I
will be a box of ashes by then. (-8
Yeah, you're not lookin' at the big picture, you're just thinkin'
of yourself! You don't know what the big picture is, and
you don't want to know!
If you were looking at the big picture you would admit that with or
without flu vaccine populations in the civilized world are headed
nowhere but down. Your favorite thing to bitch and moan about is an
illusion.

"Japan's falling birth rate posing serious problems for economy"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-falling-birth-rate-posing-serious-problems-for-economy-a7770596.html

"Italy is a 'dying country' says minister as birth rate plummets "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/italy-is-a-dying-country-says-minister-as-birth-rate-plummets

"A bleak future and population crisis for South Korea"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-bleak-future-and-population-crisis-for-south-korea/article21249599/

Of course they are breeding like rabbits in Niger and the Congo. Fine,
let them starve. Meanwhile you should find something else to bitch and
moan about.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-13 22:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
[...]
Yeah, you're not lookin' at the big picture, you're just thinkin'
of yourself! You don't know what the big picture is, and
you don't want to know!
If you were looking at the big picture you would admit that with or
without flu vaccine populations in the civilized world are headed
nowhere but down. Your favorite thing to bitch and moan about is an
illusion.
"Japan's falling birth rate posing serious problems for economy"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-falling-birth-rate-posing-serious-problems-for-economy-a7770596.html
"Italy is a 'dying country' says minister as birth rate plummets "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/italy-is-a-dying-country-says-minister-as-birth-rate-plummets
"A bleak future and population crisis for South Korea"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-bleak-future-and-population-crisis-for-south-korea/article21249599/
Of course they are breeding like rabbits in Niger and the Congo. Fine,
let them starve. Meanwhile you should find something else to bitch and
moan about.
The primary cause of conflict is the undisciplined craving for more,
a selfishness gone wild, the same condition that afflicts alcoholics
and addicts of all types. There are higher authorities who can
intervene with alcoholics and addicts, but no higher authority able
to intervene with troublemaking political leaders. We need to
establish the principle of unselfishness worldwide in a believable
way --- to stop making flu shots is a believable way!
El Castor
2018-06-14 07:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
[...]
Yeah, you're not lookin' at the big picture, you're just thinkin'
of yourself! You don't know what the big picture is, and
you don't want to know!
If you were looking at the big picture you would admit that with or
without flu vaccine populations in the civilized world are headed
nowhere but down. Your favorite thing to bitch and moan about is an
illusion.
"Japan's falling birth rate posing serious problems for economy"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-falling-birth-rate-posing-serious-problems-for-economy-a7770596.html
"Italy is a 'dying country' says minister as birth rate plummets "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/italy-is-a-dying-country-says-minister-as-birth-rate-plummets
"A bleak future and population crisis for South Korea"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-bleak-future-and-population-crisis-for-south-korea/article21249599/
Of course they are breeding like rabbits in Niger and the Congo. Fine,
let them starve. Meanwhile you should find something else to bitch and
moan about.
The primary cause of conflict is the undisciplined craving for more,
a selfishness gone wild, the same condition that afflicts alcoholics
and addicts of all types. There are higher authorities who can
intervene with alcoholics and addicts, but no higher authority able
to intervene with troublemaking political leaders. We need to
establish the principle of unselfishness worldwide in a believable
way --- to stop making flu shots is a believable way!
Why wait for the flu to get you? Isn't there a bridge or cliff in the
neighborhood?
d***@agent.com
2018-06-14 21:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@agent.com
[...]
Yeah, you're not lookin' at the big picture, you're just thinkin'
of yourself! You don't know what the big picture is, and
you don't want to know!
If you were looking at the big picture you would admit that with or
without flu vaccine populations in the civilized world are headed
nowhere but down. Your favorite thing to bitch and moan about is an
illusion.
"Japan's falling birth rate posing serious problems for economy"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-falling-birth-rate-posing-serious-problems-for-economy-a7770596.html
"Italy is a 'dying country' says minister as birth rate plummets "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/italy-is-a-dying-country-says-minister-as-birth-rate-plummets
"A bleak future and population crisis for South Korea"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-bleak-future-and-population-crisis-for-south-korea/article21249599/
Of course they are breeding like rabbits in Niger and the Congo. Fine,
let them starve. Meanwhile you should find something else to bitch and
moan about.
The primary cause of conflict is the undisciplined craving for more,
a selfishness gone wild, the same condition that afflicts alcoholics
and addicts of all types. There are higher authorities who can
intervene with alcoholics and addicts, but no higher authority able
to intervene with troublemaking political leaders. We need to
establish the principle of unselfishness worldwide in a believable
way --- to stop making flu shots is a believable way!
Why wait for the flu to get you? Isn't there a bridge or cliff in the
neighborhood?
God doesn't want me to kill myself! But He sure wants all of us
to be humble, and live peacefully! That's why he gave us
Alcoholics Anonymous! lol
Skor Dalia
2018-06-14 23:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
God doesn't want me to kill myself!
But you need to. Any asshole who recommends that people quit using
life-saving vaccines needs to be the first to go.

When are you done? It's obvious that you need to go ASAP.
d***@agent.com
2018-06-15 17:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
God doesn't want me to kill myself!
But you need to. Anyone who recommends that people quit
using life-saving vaccines needs to be the first to go.
Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers
in check. That's the way Nature works! You don't like that.
We need to establish the principle of unselfishness worldwide in a
believable way --- to stop making flu shots is a believable way!
mg
2018-06-14 01:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:01:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:48:07 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
I think the problem is to big now to solve it with tweaks. I think
there are going to have to be big cuts one way, or the other. Either
we wait until 2034 and let the big cuts kick in automatically. Or, we
let the politicians do the social-engineering thing and make even
bigger cuts to the higher-end beneficiaries.
If the public lets the politicians decide, I don't think there's much
doubt that they'll make huge cuts to the upper portion of the SS
beneficiaries.
In my opinion, based on human nature and what I know about politics,
if they do that, that will be the end of SS program since people
obviously prefer to save for their own retirement rather than someone
else's, and if that happens, I'll bet there will be plenty of
politicians telling them they could get a lot better deal elsewhere,
like making their own investments, for instance.
Something will happen well before 2034 to stretch it out to 2044+.
But whatever. Even with all the supplements I gobble, chances are I
will be a box of ashes by then. (-8
Yup, I suspect that by then most all of us will be gone by then.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-06-13 00:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Those are cuts.
Post by El Castor
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
El Castor
2018-06-13 07:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:55:56 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:52:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by PJay OD
SOCIAL SECURITY: Ultimate demise of long term unworkability of SOCIALISTIC Ponzi scheme manifests in 2018.
"...annual cost of Social Security is projected to surpass total income this year..."
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+cost+of+Social +Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US684&oq=%22annual+cost+of+Social+Security+is+projected+to+surpass+total+income+this+year%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.30352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"An unfunded liability is a debt that is not covered by the value of assets, savings or investments that have been allocated to pay the debt."
If nothing is done to change things, SS will continue to pay
retirement benefits at the current level until about 2034 and then,
after that, the benefit will be reduced to approximately 77% of
currently scheduled benefits.
The government could repay what it took out!
If nothing is done, the government will have fully repaid what it took
out in 2034.
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business, although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
I seriously doubt that we will ever see outright cuts to SS benefits.
More likely, tweaks to retirement age, salary limits, the COLA, etc.
Those are cuts.
True, I suppose. The "outright" cuts I had in mind were decreases in
monthly payments to existing recipients of SS. Politicians are likely
to avoid that.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Of course, the longer this is postponed, the larger the tweaks.
Congress has an incentive to act soon, rather than later. The Trust
Fund is more or less a fiction. The bonds are non-negotiable, they
really don't pay interest, at least not in the way that real T bonds
pay interest, but turning those bonds into real dollars is real. They
would rather not do that, so they have an incentive to get off their
ass and start tweaking.
b***@gmail.com
2018-06-12 21:24:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Post by mg
although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
mg
2018-06-12 22:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.

The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
although
I would guess that removing the cap on SS earnings, and/or increasing
deductions would be favored by the majority of Americans.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security
Establishment politicians favor a plan which I think would turn the SS
system into a total welfare plan or if you prefer, a lot more of a
welfare plan than it already is. Both Bush and Obama established
commissions which essentially recommended the same general solution,
which is to take money from the top half of the income earners, which
would mean, in rough terms, cutting benefits for those who made over
$50K or $60K/yr and giving those benefits to people who made less than
that. One of the problems with that, in my opinion, is that once the
public come to fully understand what's going on, and they see SS as
purely a welfare program paid for by the wage earner, they're going to
want to kill the program.
The Tea Party has been one of the main obstacles to various "grand
bargain" ideas between Democrats and Republicans, which would cut SS
and Medicare benefits and so has the working class and some rebellious
Democrats, and candidates like Sanders and Trump. And as most people
will recall, I'm sure, Donald Trump won the election by being
anti-Establishment and, among other things, promising not to touch the
Medicare and Social Security programs, not to mention being against
Obamatrade, and trade agreements like NAFTA, and mass immigration.
I'm not sure, incidentally what Sanders position is/was on SS. So, as
far as I know, Trump might be the only friend the American people have
in regard to the SS and Medicare programs, which are arguably the most
popular government programs, ever.
b***@gmail.com
2018-06-13 03:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
mg
2018-06-13 06:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
El Castor
2018-06-13 07:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
In 2014 the top 1% ...
Earned 20.58% of AGI
Paid 39.48% of Federal Income Taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

How much do you think they should pay?

BTW -- My daughter rented out her California house and is renting a
house in Boise -- a house that would literally sell for 4 times as
much in San Francisco. Should those San Francisco housing prices be
permitted?
mg
2018-06-13 15:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:35:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
In 2014 the top 1% ...
Earned 20.58% of AGI
Paid 39.48% of Federal Income Taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
My philosophy with taxes, in general, is that the pain of paying taxes
should be equalized as much as possible and should not be based on
percentages, like you have quoted above. For example, if there was one
billionaire in the U.S. and one billion people each making $10,000 a
year, I would say that the billionaire ought to pay all the taxes.

However, in regard to how Social Security should be funded, I think,
in theory anyway, that SS benefits should probably be actuarially
correct with no income transfer component. Or, in other words,
benefits should be based solely on what a person contributed to the
program. Then, I think there should be a second government welfare
program for those who did not save enough money for their retirement.

The problem with that idea, though, is that the SS program actually
has a lot of income transfer components in it and the program is also
extremely popular. In fact, I think it's probably the most popular
government program ever. So, I suppose we could say that the SS system
is sort of a hybrid system consisting of an individual retirement
account combined with some welfare components.

Anyway, to make a long story short, since the SS system has a large
amount of welfare components in it, I favor removing the cap on
earnings to make the tax more progressive so that it isn't only the
working class and the (lower) middle class that are funding the
welfare components. (And I also favor increasing the contributory
amounts for both the employees and employers.)
Post by El Castor
BTW -- My daughter rented out her California house and is renting a
house in Boise -- a house that would literally sell for 4 times as
much in San Francisco. Should those San Francisco housing prices be
permitted?
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-13 16:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The former head of HHS was
interviewed on MSNBC recently.
His position was that social
security was stable -- that
tweaks could be made. One he
mentioned was the "trophy
wife benefit," whereby the
children of a second marriage
receive benefits upon the
ss recipient's death.
mg
2018-06-13 23:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
The former head of HHS was
interviewed on MSNBC recently.
His position was that social
security was stable -- that
tweaks could be made. One he
mentioned was the "trophy
wife benefit," whereby the
children of a second marriage
receive benefits upon the
ss recipient's death.
Yes, I certainly believe that SS is absolutely stable and will remain
stable until on or about 2034, at which time benefits will be reduced
by roughly 25%. So, in that regard, I don't think there's any other
system in the world that is more stable than the Social Security
system.

However, it can become unstable fast, if the politicians change the
law.
El Castor
2018-06-13 18:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:35:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
In 2014 the top 1% ...
Earned 20.58% of AGI
Paid 39.48% of Federal Income Taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
My philosophy with taxes, in general, is that the pain of paying taxes
should be equalized as much as possible and should not be based on
percentages, like you have quoted above. For example, if there was one
billionaire in the U.S. and one billion people each making $10,000 a
year, I would say that the billionaire ought to pay all the taxes.
However, in regard to how Social Security should be funded, I think,
in theory anyway, that SS benefits should probably be actuarially
correct with no income transfer component. Or, in other words,
benefits should be based solely on what a person contributed to the
program. Then, I think there should be a second government welfare
program for those who did not save enough money for their retirement.
The problem with that idea, though, is that the SS program actually
has a lot of income transfer components in it and the program is also
extremely popular. In fact, I think it's probably the most popular
government program ever. So, I suppose we could say that the SS system
is sort of a hybrid system consisting of an individual retirement
account combined with some welfare components.
Anyway, to make a long story short, since the SS system has a large
amount of welfare components in it, I favor removing the cap on
earnings to make the tax more progressive so that it isn't only the
working class and the (lower) middle class that are funding the
welfare components. (And I also favor increasing the contributory
amounts for both the employees and employers.)
So, if you removed the cap on contributions, would you allow those who
contributed much more to receive correspondingly greater benefits?
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
BTW -- My daughter rented out her California house and is renting a
house in Boise -- a house that would literally sell for 4 times as
much in San Francisco. Should those San Francisco housing prices be
permitted?
mg
2018-06-13 22:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:46:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:35:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:22:47 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
The government would prefer not to do that, so when the stars are
aligned, and all is right in DC, the tweaking will begin.
I think you're totally right about that and, IMHO (well. perhaps not
entirely humble) mainstream political leaders in both parties will do
anything to avoid increasing payroll deductions on business,
There aren't any payroll deductions on business. They simply pay you a smaller salary to cover the costs. But SS is a gravy train. Where else can you get a 90% ROI for an average earning of $750 a month over 35 years? Anyone not participating in that would be a fool.
Social Security is a better deal for some people than others. For
instance, non-working wives make out extremely well and I think there
is a significant amount of income redistricution in the system from
higher-income individuals to lower-income individuals. Nonethe less,
polls indicate that SS is an incredibly popular program as it is right
now.
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those higher-income
individuals will still support the SS program if they eventually have
to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for instance, of their benefit
amount (while the lower-income individuals either take no cut, or
perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system. Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
In 2014 the top 1% ...
Earned 20.58% of AGI
Paid 39.48% of Federal Income Taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
My philosophy with taxes, in general, is that the pain of paying taxes
should be equalized as much as possible and should not be based on
percentages, like you have quoted above. For example, if there was one
billionaire in the U.S. and one billion people each making $10,000 a
year, I would say that the billionaire ought to pay all the taxes.
However, in regard to how Social Security should be funded, I think,
in theory anyway, that SS benefits should probably be actuarially
correct with no income transfer component. Or, in other words,
benefits should be based solely on what a person contributed to the
program. Then, I think there should be a second government welfare
program for those who did not save enough money for their retirement.
The problem with that idea, though, is that the SS program actually
has a lot of income transfer components in it and the program is also
extremely popular. In fact, I think it's probably the most popular
government program ever. So, I suppose we could say that the SS system
is sort of a hybrid system consisting of an individual retirement
account combined with some welfare components.
Anyway, to make a long story short, since the SS system has a large
amount of welfare components in it, I favor removing the cap on
earnings to make the tax more progressive so that it isn't only the
working class and the (lower) middle class that are funding the
welfare components. (And I also favor increasing the contributory
amounts for both the employees and employers.)
So, if you removed the cap on contributions, would you allow those who
contributed much more to receive correspondingly greater benefits?
Yes, and I think they would under the existing calculation method. My
understanding is that someone who averaged $200,000, would receive a
benefit payment twice as large as someone who averaged $100,000, for
instance and I don't think there's any cap on the amount of the
benefit payment.
https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?articleId=templatedata/internet/file/data/sales_tools/mfsp_ssrefer_gdr&servletCommand=default
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
BTW -- My daughter rented out her California house and is renting a
house in Boise -- a house that would literally sell for 4 times as
much in San Francisco. Should those San Francisco housing prices be
permitted?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-06-13 14:40:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those
higher-income individuals will still support the SS program if
they eventually have to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for
instance, of their benefit amount (while the lower-income
individuals either take no cut, or perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system.
Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or
Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
Citation? I find it very hard to believe that any proposed plan that
adds additional means testing to SS benefits exempts Gates and Buffett.
mg
2018-06-14 00:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:40:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those
higher-income individuals will still support the SS program if
they eventually have to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for
instance, of their benefit amount (while the lower-income
individuals either take no cut, or perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system.
Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or
Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
Citation? I find it very hard to believe that any proposed plan that
adds additional means testing to SS benefits exempts Gates and Buffett.
There are no plans by the political establishment, as far as I know,
to remove the SS earnings cap and no plans, as far as I know, that
would include capital gains, or dividend income as a revenue source
for the SS program.

The Obama Commission (aka "the Catfood Commission) did propose a plan
(and I think Bush did something similar) that changed the bend points
and reduced the income replacement rate for incomes over $38,000 from
32% to 10% and incomes over $64,000 from 15% to 5%.

So, I think it would be dishonest to say that the purpose of the Obama
Commission's SS plan was to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to
pay for the SS shortfall. Don't you agree?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-06-14 01:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:40:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
The question that I'm asking, though, is whether those
higher-income individuals will still support the SS program if
they eventually have to take a cut of 40%, or 50%, or 60%, for
instance, of their benefit amount (while the lower-income
individuals either take no cut, or perhaps get an increase)?
I don't think higher income people care much about the SS system.
Do you really think Bill Gates cares much about his SS benefits? Or
Warren Buffet for that matter.
I think I can safely say that there's no plan by the political
establishment to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to help pay
for the SS shortfall. As I recall, with the Obama Commission's
proposal, the cuts applied for people making about $60K, or perhaps
even less.
Citation? I find it very hard to believe that any proposed plan that
adds additional means testing to SS benefits exempts Gates and Buffett.
There are no plans by the political establishment, as far as I know,
to remove the SS earnings cap and no plans, as far as I know, that
would include capital gains, or dividend income as a revenue source
for the SS program.
The Obama Commission (aka "the Catfood Commission) did propose a plan
(and I think Bush did something similar) that changed the bend points
and reduced the income replacement rate for incomes over $38,000 from
32% to 10% and incomes over $64,000 from 15% to 5%.
So, I think it would be dishonest to say that the purpose of the Obama
Commission's SS plan was to tax rich people, like Gates and Buffet, to
pay for the SS shortfall. Don't you agree?
I wasn't commenting on your claim about taxing rich people. I was
commenting on your claim about the cuts applying to people making about
$60K, or perhaps even less. That sounded to me like you were claiming
Gates and Buffett aren't subject to the cuts.
me
2018-06-07 20:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It will all be paid. Every promise made will be paid to keep the pitchforks from coming out. This will happen until money no longer has value. Then everyone will either be drafted into the police state or chaos results. Observe Venezuela.
b***@gmail.com
2018-06-07 23:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It will all be paid. Every promise made will be paid to keep the pitchforks from coming out. This will happen until money no longer has value. Then everyone will >either be drafted into the police state or chaos results. Observe Venezuela.
Any politician who suggests SS benefits be cut will lose his job in the next election.
Loading...