Have you noticed TeaBillies are the loudest to rant about big BAD government then follow that up with complaints about poor roads, bad schools, late social security checks and bad Medicare coverage?

Listen to them.

On 12/15/2013 11:08 AM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
Have you noticed TeaBillies are the loudest to rant about big BAD government then follow that up with complaints about poor roads, bad schools, late social security checks and bad Medicare coverage?

Listen to them.


It's the old "I've got mine" syndrome.

But, to be fair, most of them have paid their fair share into the SS
system. The complaint is what the government did with the money they
gave them. It's a valid point.

On 12/15/2013 11:08 AM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
Have you noticed TeaBillies are the loudest to rant about big BAD government
then follow that up with complaints about poor roads, bad schools,
late social
security checks and bad Medicare coverage?

Listen to them.


I refuse to listen to them.

On 12/15/2013 11:08 AM, Daring Dufas : A Sock Of Killer Loon wrote:
Have you noticed

Killer Loon, living proof that human females should never have sex with
farm animals. ^_^

TDD

They get back 2x that they put in.

"gonjah" wrote in message ...
On 12/15/2013 11:08 AM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
Have you noticed TeaBillies are the loudest to rant about big BAD government then follow that up with complaints about poor
roads, bad schools, late social security checks and bad Medicare coverage?

Listen to them.


It's the old "I've got mine" syndrome.

But, to be fair, most of them have paid their fair share into the SS system. The complaint is what the government did with the
money they gave them. It's a valid point.

Well, SS, being un-Constitutional, should not exist. Since it was a Ponzi
scheme from the get go, with the miserable scum that is Congress managing
an imaginary fund that is required to address needs that are far beyond the
scope of original intent, the People have a right to know the how's and why's
of keeping such a system.

On 12/15/2013 12:37 PM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
They get back 2x that they put in.


Maybe but remember, a lot of that money is in: '30s,'40s,'50s,'60s,"70s"
etc.. dollars.

What would that money (in present day dollars) be worth if it was put
into a modest investment?

In article , gonjah
wrote:

On 12/15/2013 11:08 AM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
Have you noticed TeaBillies are the loudest to rant about big BAD
government then follow that up with complaints about poor roads, bad
schools, late social security checks and bad Medicare coverage?

Listen to them.


It's the old "I've got mine" syndrome.

But, to be fair, most of them have paid their fair share into the SS
system. The complaint is what the government did with the money they
gave them. It's a valid point.

There is nothing that they have done with the money. That is most of the
problem. Every cent that came in above what was needed (the "surplus")
was put the only place that it could, a special treasury security. There
is not now, nor has there ever been any flow of money to pay back the
principle let alone the interest.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

You can forfeit yours anytime you want ..along with you credits on your income taxes.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m...
In article , gonjah

There is nothing that they have done with the money. That is most of the
problem. Every cent that came in above what was needed (the "surplus")
was put the only place that it could, a special treasury security. There
is not now, nor has there ever been any flow of money to pay back the
principle let alone the interest.

LOL! Every cent that came in was spent. The "fund" is an accounting gimmick
to make the annual deficit look smaller. Clinton was fond of this and using
short term interest projections to cook his books. Actually, it was his
goons cooking the books, and the CBO did not make enough noise about this.
The mediots, of course, did not report the facts, either.

"gonjah" wrote in message

On 12/15/2013 12:37 PM, Daring Dufas : Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
They get back 2x that they put in.


Maybe but remember, a lot of that money is in:
'30s,'40s,'50s,'60s,"70s" etc.. dollars.

What would that money (in present day dollars) be worth
if it was put into a modest investment?

When I was in my eary 50s (I'm 80 now) I figured that if I could stop paying
SS and use the same amount of money as self investment I could accumulate
enough by retirement to pay myself what SS would have paid but WITHOUT
diminishing the principal.

An easy, approximate way to figure a future value is to divide 72 by
whatever rate of interest you receive. The result is the time in years that
it takes for money to double if there are no withdrawals and if the interest
is compounded. For example, if you are getting 6% interest then the money
will double in 12 years; at 10 %, in 7.2 years.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"dadiOH" wrote in message ...

Maybe but remember, a lot of that money is in:
'30s,'40s,'50s,'60s,"70s" etc.. dollars.

What would that money (in present day dollars) be worth
if it was put into a modest investment?

When I was in my eary 50s (I'm 80 now) I figured that if I could stop paying
SS and use the same amount of money as self investment I could accumulate
enough by retirement to pay myself what SS would have paid but WITHOUT
diminishing the principal.

An easy, approximate way to figure a future value is to divide 72 by
whatever rate of interest you receive. The result is the time in years that
it takes for money to double if there are no withdrawals and if the interest
is compounded. For example, if you are getting 6% interest then the money
will double in 12 years; at 10 %, in 7.2 years.


If believe the general number is 2% return on SS, and 10-15% on private.

In article ,
"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article , gonjah

There is nothing that they have done with the money. That is most of the
problem. Every cent that came in above what was needed (the "surplus")
was put the only place that it could, a special treasury security. There
is not now, nor has there ever been any flow of money to pay back the
principle let alone the interest.

LOL! Every cent that came in was spent. The "fund" is an accounting gimmick
to make the annual deficit look smaller. Clinton was fond of this and using
short term interest projections to cook his books. Actually, it was his
goons cooking the books, and the CBO did not make enough noise about this.
The mediots, of course, did not report the facts, either.

Nothing was spent. Every penny is still exactly where it was put. If
there had been a flow of income to pay it off, and it was diverted, then
I would say you have a point. While I agree that it was used for book
cooking purposes, that is a different thing altogether than to suggest
it was spent. If the deficit was smaller, it would be easier to repay.
But even if we had run surpluses for all of those years, we would still
need to come up with exactly the same amount of money.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...

Maybe but remember, a lot of that money is in:
'30s,'40s,'50s,'60s,"70s" etc.. dollars.

What would that money (in present day dollars) be worth
if it was put into a modest investment?

When I was in my eary 50s (I'm 80 now) I figured that if I could stop
paying
SS and use the same amount of money as self investment I could accumulate
enough by retirement to pay myself what SS would have paid but WITHOUT
diminishing the principal.

An easy, approximate way to figure a future value is to divide 72 by
whatever rate of interest you receive. The result is the time in years
that
it takes for money to double if there are no withdrawals and if the
interest
is compounded. For example, if you are getting 6% interest then the money
will double in 12 years; at 10 %, in 7.2 years.


If believe the general number is 2% return on SS, and 10-15% on private.



Depends. Most blacks and hispanics have a negative return of their SS
investment since they tend to die earlier. The Boomers may come close to
2% but those coming behind us, will probably have negative ROI across
the board. The S&P has generally run 8% return for every 20 year period
since WWII. Dividends on the S&P (even over the last 10 years or so)
have added around 2% or so to the base return. The best bet is when you
reinvest the dividends. I actually broke even with the reinvested
dividends between 2006 and 2010.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Cite.

"Daring Dufas : Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare" wrote
in message ...
They get back 2x that they put in.


If you calculate the ROI with compound interest and subtract the 2X they are
still screwed.

"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

Well, SS, being un-Constitutional, should not exist.

Exactly what clause(s) of the Constitution does Social Security violate?
Thanks,
Doug

On 12/20/2013 2:28 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

Well, SS, being un-Constitutional, should not exist.

Exactly what clause(s) of the Constitution does Social Security violate?
Thanks,
Doug


Do you know how it was passed? If not, look it up and get back to me.
I am not a history teacher. I expect "you" to know.

Regardless, have a nice day.

On 12/20/2013 4:34 PM, Irreverent Maximus wrote:
On 12/20/2013 2:28 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

Well, SS, being un-Constitutional, should not exist.

Exactly what clause(s) of the Constitution does Social Security violate?
Thanks,
Doug


Do you know how it was passed? If not, look it up and get back to me.
I am not a history teacher. I expect "you" to know.

Regardless, have a nice day.

I guess, it's not a power delegated by the Constitution.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 12/20/2013 3:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

I guess, it's not a power delegated by the Constitution.


Obviously.

Irreverent Maximus wrote:

On 12/20/2013 2:28 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"Irreverent Maximus" wrote:

Well, SS, being un-Constitutional, should not exist.

Exactly what clause(s) of the Constitution does Social Security violate?
Thanks,
Doug


Do you know how it was passed? If not, look it up and get back to me.
I am not a history teacher. I expect "you" to know.

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking for a history lesson. I was asking why *you* think
it is unconstitutional. The only way to know that is to ask.

As for how it was passed, I've read the Congressional Record for the dates
leading up to April 19, 1935, June 19, 1935, and August 8, 1935. They seem
totally unremarkable. Quorums were present and the bills passed by solid
majorities. Otherwise, the usual amending and parliamentary maneuvering.

Beyond that, Social Security seems to be well within the bounds of Article 1,
Section 8, aided by the 16th Amendment. The nine people whose opinions really
count have agreed on multiple occasions.

-- Doug