Social Security could be big chill for 50-somethings By Susan Page, USA
TODAY
Mon Nov 28

Chuck and Kim Garwood of Peachtree City, Ga., are counting the days and
calculating the dollars until they can retire.

He's 57 now, an Army veteran who works as a consultant in industrial
safety. She's 48 and starting a part-time job in a small
financial-planning office. Once daughter Allison graduates from the
University of Georgia and the way is clear for them to stop working,
they plan to rely on Social Security for a solid 20% of their
retirement income.

The Social Security system "may change, and needs to," Garwood says.
But he's confident he'll be grandfathered in, so to speak, under the
current rules and benefits.

Or maybe not.

When President Bush proposed a Social Security overhaul this year as
the top domestic priority of his second term, he promised the changes
wouldn't apply to anyone 55 or older. But Bush's plan has gone nowhere,
and actuaries say demographics and simple arithmetic will make it
difficult to repeat that commitment in the future.


Americans who are 50-something - a point in life when many are
registering peak earnings, seeing their children move into the
workplace and beginning to make detailed plans for their retirement -
could be in for some unwelcome surprises down the road.


"Keeping that promise this year made our job much more difficult," says
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "I don't see how you're
going to be able to have that rule of thumb three years from now."


Americans moving toward retirement wouldn't lose benefits entirely.
With no changes, payroll taxes would cover nearly 75% of current
benefits when the trust fund is exhausted. But policymakers who want to
keep the system solvent and protect low-income seniors could take steps
that would affect those nearing retirement or already the Trimming
benefits, especially for the more affluent. Reducing cost-of-living
adjustments. Subjecting more Social Security income to taxation.


Changes such as those become more likely for near-retirees as each year
passes.


For one thing, the task of fixing Social Security gets harder as it
moves closer to the time when it runs a deficit (starting in 2017,
according to the Social Security Administration) or exhausts its trust
fund entirely (in 2041).


For another, the number of people who are 55 and older is beginning to
swell with members of the baby boom generation - the bulge in the
population that helped create Social Security's predicament in the
first place.


There were 67.8 million people in the protected 55-and-older age group
this year. The Social Security Administration projects that number will
grow to 76.7 million in 2010 and 91.6 million in 2017 - and the number
of Social Security beneficiaries also will be rising. The oldest baby
boomers become eligible for early retirement in 2008.


"As you move forward in time, more and more of the baby boomers get
fully protected," says Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution, a
think tank in Washington. "Past 2009, the bulk of the baby-boom
(generation) is falling under that protection, and it becomes almost
impossible to sustain that assurance."


A sobering response


"To me, there's just an incredible amount of uncertainty right now,"
says Katherine Watson, 50, a social worker and substitute teacher from
Bloomington, Ill. Retirement's uncertainties go beyond Social Security.
When her husband attended a pre-retirement session at the insurance
firm at which he works, a colleague asked whether the company was sure
to continue providing pensions and retiree health insurance. "The
response was 'no,' which sobered everyone in the room," she says.


For Garwood, last-minute changes could disrupt his careful
computations. He is a man of precision. Asked how long he served in the
U.S. Army, the retired lieutenant colonel responds: "20 years, seven
months and 20 days." When does he plan to start drawing Social
Security? In February 2010, as soon as he's eligible. He expects annual
payments of $15,000.


Military retirement will provide $35,000 of his planned $75,000-a-year
retirement income. He'll have income from the retirement investment
accounts he began in 1987 after a conversation with co-workers prompted
him to start saving.


Kim, nine years his junior, isn't eligible to receive his military
benefits. She would be more dependent on Social Security if he dies
first. "And she comes from long live-ers," he says; she has relatives
in their 80s and 90s.

The couple plan an active retirement. He participates in Ironman
triathlons. They want to bike across the country for a month in 2007
and to hike the Appalachian Trail in 2008. "I've been working since I
was in the seventh grade," Garwood says. Some of his friends talk about
wanting to work through their 60s and beyond, but he says, "I've had
enough."

He can't imagine that Social Security would change the rules for him so
late in the game. "I put the money in; I expect to take the money out,"
he says. "I don't see how that could happen otherwise."

Trade-offs: Old vs. young

That was pretty much the reasoning by the White House when it promised
to shield near-retirees from changes, according to Charles Blahaus, a
White House aide and an architect of Bush's Social Security plan. "If
you are in retirement or on the verge of retirement, you can't adjust,"
Blahaus says. "You've worked your entire life with a certain
expectation."

There's also a political calculation in the promise: Older Americans -
who happen to be the age group most likely to vote - presumably are
less likely to protest benefit cuts if the changes didn't apply to
them. "They're the people who are most aware of the issues," says
Evelyn Morton of the AARP, an advocacy group open to people 50 and
older. "(For) people who are younger ... 'tomorrow' means next week."

But four years from now, that protection for older workers could only
be offered at the serious expense of younger ones. Then, Blahaus says,
the increase in costs to protect those 55 and older would be equal to
the savings achieved from raising the retirement age by another year
for those coming up behind them. The retirement age already has been
raised to 67 for those who are now 45 and younger.

As for now, Bush acknowledged last month that his Social Security
proposal was moribund, though he promised he would continue to "remind"
voters about a problem "that's not going away." Grassley says the next
"bite of the apple" for Congress seriously to consider changes in
Social Security won't come until at least 2009, after the next
presidential election.

Grassley and other Republican leaders blame Democrats for blocking
action this year to score political points. Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid and other Democrats blame Bush for refusing to put aside his
proposal to add individual investment accounts to Social Security. If
he had done that, they say, they would have been willing to discuss a
plan for solvency.

A few advocates still hold out hope for some action in the next year or
two. Republican Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rick Santorum of
Pennsylvania are pushing for a proposal that would use Social
Security's current surpluses to fund individual investment accounts.
They're still waiting for a White House endorsement that would help
them build support in Congress. "No one wants to jump on a train if
it's not going anywhere," DeMint says.

The last big fix

In the past, big changes have been made in Social Security only when
the system stood on the verge of catastrophe. The last time Congress
acted, in 1983, the system was only months away from being too broke to
send benefit checks to retirees.

"It was hitting the point when the Old Age and Survivor Fund was
literally running out of money," recalls Steve Goss, chief actuary for
the Social Security Administration. "That's clearly not a world anybody
wants to move toward."

In that case, the steps taken affected not only near-retirees but also
seniors already on the rolls. Their next cost-of-living increase was
postponed for six months, and the following year up to one-half of
benefits was subjected to income taxes for the first time. For workers,
scheduled increases in payroll-tax rates were accelerated. A timetable
to gradually raise the retirement age to 67 from 65 was adopted.

The package embraced by President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill
was supposed to ensure the system's solvency at least until early the
next century - that is, until the baby boomers started to retire. That
is, until now.

Predictably, retirement is on the minds of people in their 50s. A USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month found that, among those 50 to 64 years
old, nine of 10 had done planning for retirement, though most worried
they hadn't done enough.

They're counting on Social Security. Three of 10 say the benefit checks
will be their main source of income. They are twice as likely as
younger people to expect Social Security to be their mainstay. Just 13%
say they won't rely on those benefits at all.

"I would hope it would be a quarter to a third of the pie for me, and
I'm guessing I'm pretty typical," says Mike Kornblum, 53, of Natick,
Mass. He advises companies on social responsibility and crisis
management. "It's a little like a cornerstone in a house. If you pull
it out, you don't want the whole house to collapse."

With one child out of college and a second halfway through, Kornblum
and his wife are contributing maximum amounts to 401(k) and IRA
accounts each year. He'd like to retire in 10 or 12 years. But he
wonders whether he needs to "cut back on my current lifestyle to
compensate for the possibility that the Social Security piece won't be
there at all, or will be there in a reduced way."

Ralph Petersen, 50, a tow-truck driver from SeaTac in Washington state,
says the small retirement investment account he had started was nearly
wiped out by the dot-com bust five years ago. He's found it impossible
to put much away since then. "I'm not quite living paycheck to
paycheck, but it's close," he says.

When does he hope to retire?

"Retirement? What retirement? I'm going to have to work until I'm dead
- that's reality," Petersen says. He's puts more faith in luck than he
does Social Security: "My only chance at retirement now is winning the
lottery."

I can' tell what your trying to prove here, but I'm not hanging my hat
on retiring on what my kids make, which is what SS has become, and if
you have your a bigger fool than you make yourself out to be in these
damn newsgroups.

I hope to hell some politico with balls kills ALL of SS for everyone not
getting a check already so people will learn about personal responsibility

I have a friend who is deaf, but completely able to work, but he has to
limit the hours he works so it doesn't affect his SS payments. He
barely pays in but collects a check every month.

Might have been a good idea many years ago, but like unions it has
outlived it's usefulness.

Plan for your own damn retirement, I am, and quit waiting for a
guberment tit.

Rod

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Social Security could be big chill for 50-somethings By Susan Page, USA
TODAY
Mon Nov 28

Chuck and Kim Garwood of Peachtree City, Ga., are counting the days and
calculating the dollars until they can retire.

He's 57 now, an Army veteran who works as a consultant in industrial
safety. She's 48 and starting a part-time job in a small
financial-planning office. Once daughter Allison graduates from the
University of Georgia and the way is clear for them to stop working,
they plan to rely on Social Security for a solid 20% of their
retirement income.

The Social Security system "may change, and needs to," Garwood says.
But he's confident he'll be grandfathered in, so to speak, under the
current rules and benefits.

Or maybe not.

When President Bush proposed a Social Security overhaul this year as
the top domestic priority of his second term, he promised the changes
wouldn't apply to anyone 55 or older. But Bush's plan has gone nowhere,
and actuaries say demographics and simple arithmetic will make it
difficult to repeat that commitment in the future.


Americans who are 50-something - a point in life when many are
registering peak earnings, seeing their children move into the
workplace and beginning to make detailed plans for their retirement -
could be in for some unwelcome surprises down the road.


"Keeping that promise this year made our job much more difficult," says
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "I don't see how you're
going to be able to have that rule of thumb three years from now."


Americans moving toward retirement wouldn't lose benefits entirely.
With no changes, payroll taxes would cover nearly 75% of current
benefits when the trust fund is exhausted. But policymakers who want to
keep the system solvent and protect low-income seniors could take steps
that would affect those nearing retirement or already the Trimming
benefits, especially for the more affluent. Reducing cost-of-living
adjustments. Subjecting more Social Security income to taxation.


Changes such as those become more likely for near-retirees as each year
passes.


For one thing, the task of fixing Social Security gets harder as it
moves closer to the time when it runs a deficit (starting in 2017,
according to the Social Security Administration) or exhausts its trust
fund entirely (in 2041).


For another, the number of people who are 55 and older is beginning to
swell with members of the baby boom generation - the bulge in the
population that helped create Social Security's predicament in the
first place.


There were 67.8 million people in the protected 55-and-older age group
this year. The Social Security Administration projects that number will
grow to 76.7 million in 2010 and 91.6 million in 2017 - and the number
of Social Security beneficiaries also will be rising. The oldest baby
boomers become eligible for early retirement in 2008.


"As you move forward in time, more and more of the baby boomers get
fully protected," says Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution, a
think tank in Washington. "Past 2009, the bulk of the baby-boom
(generation) is falling under that protection, and it becomes almost
impossible to sustain that assurance."


A sobering response


"To me, there's just an incredible amount of uncertainty right now,"
says Katherine Watson, 50, a social worker and substitute teacher from
Bloomington, Ill. Retirement's uncertainties go beyond Social Security.
When her husband attended a pre-retirement session at the insurance
firm at which he works, a colleague asked whether the company was sure
to continue providing pensions and retiree health insurance. "The
response was 'no,' which sobered everyone in the room," she says.


For Garwood, last-minute changes could disrupt his careful
computations. He is a man of precision. Asked how long he served in the
U.S. Army, the retired lieutenant colonel responds: "20 years, seven
months and 20 days." When does he plan to start drawing Social
Security? In February 2010, as soon as he's eligible. He expects annual
payments of $15,000.


Military retirement will provide $35,000 of his planned $75,000-a-year
retirement income. He'll have income from the retirement investment
accounts he began in 1987 after a conversation with co-workers prompted
him to start saving.


Kim, nine years his junior, isn't eligible to receive his military
benefits. She would be more dependent on Social Security if he dies
first. "And she comes from long live-ers," he says; she has relatives
in their 80s and 90s.

The couple plan an active retirement. He participates in Ironman
triathlons. They want to bike across the country for a month in 2007
and to hike the Appalachian Trail in 2008. "I've been working since I
was in the seventh grade," Garwood says. Some of his friends talk about
wanting to work through their 60s and beyond, but he says, "I've had
enough."

He can't imagine that Social Security would change the rules for him so
late in the game. "I put the money in; I expect to take the money out,"
he says. "I don't see how that could happen otherwise."

Trade-offs: Old vs. young

That was pretty much the reasoning by the White House when it promised
to shield near-retirees from changes, according to Charles Blahaus, a
White House aide and an architect of Bush's Social Security plan. "If
you are in retirement or on the verge of retirement, you can't adjust,"
Blahaus says. "You've worked your entire life with a certain
expectation."

There's also a political calculation in the promise: Older Americans -
who happen to be the age group most likely to vote - presumably are
less likely to protest benefit cuts if the changes didn't apply to
them. "They're the people who are most aware of the issues," says
Evelyn Morton of the AARP, an advocacy group open to people 50 and
older. "(For) people who are younger ... 'tomorrow' means next week."

But four years from now, that protection for older workers could only
be offered at the serious expense of younger ones. Then, Blahaus says,
the increase in costs to protect those 55 and older would be equal to
the savings achieved from raising the retirement age by another year
for those coming up behind them. The retirement age already has been
raised to 67 for those who are now 45 and younger.

As for now, Bush acknowledged last month that his Social Security
proposal was moribund, though he promised he would continue to "remind"
voters about a problem "that's not going away." Grassley says the next
"bite of the apple" for Congress seriously to consider changes in
Social Security won't come until at least 2009, after the next
presidential election.

Grassley and other Republican leaders blame Democrats for blocking
action this year to score political points. Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid and other Democrats blame Bush for refusing to put aside his
proposal to add individual investment accounts to Social Security. If
he had done that, they say, they would have been willing to discuss a
plan for solvency.

A few advocates still hold out hope for some action in the next year or
two. Republican Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rick Santorum of
Pennsylvania are pushing for a proposal that would use Social
Security's current surpluses to fund individual investment accounts.
They're still waiting for a White House endorsement that would help
them build support in Congress. "No one wants to jump on a train if
it's not going anywhere," DeMint says.

The last big fix

In the past, big changes have been made in Social Security only when
the system stood on the verge of catastrophe. The last time Congress
acted, in 1983, the system was only months away from being too broke to
send benefit checks to retirees.

"It was hitting the point when the Old Age and Survivor Fund was
literally running out of money," recalls Steve Goss, chief actuary for
the Social Security Administration. "That's clearly not a world anybody
wants to move toward."

In that case, the steps taken affected not only near-retirees but also
seniors already on the rolls. Their next cost-of-living increase was
postponed for six months, and the following year up to one-half of
benefits was subjected to income taxes for the first time. For workers,
scheduled increases in payroll-tax rates were accelerated. A timetable
to gradually raise the retirement age to 67 from 65 was adopted.

The package embraced by President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill
was supposed to ensure the system's solvency at least until early the
next century - that is, until the baby boomers started to retire. That
is, until now.

Predictably, retirement is on the minds of people in their 50s. A USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month found that, among those 50 to 64 years
old, nine of 10 had done planning for retirement, though most worried
they hadn't done enough.

They're counting on Social Security. Three of 10 say the benefit checks
will be their main source of income. They are twice as likely as
younger people to expect Social Security to be their mainstay. Just 13%
say they won't rely on those benefits at all.

"I would hope it would be a quarter to a third of the pie for me, and
I'm guessing I'm pretty typical," says Mike Kornblum, 53, of Natick,
Mass. He advises companies on social responsibility and crisis
management. "It's a little like a cornerstone in a house. If you pull
it out, you don't want the whole house to collapse."

With one child out of college and a second halfway through, Kornblum
and his wife are contributing maximum amounts to 401(k) and IRA
accounts each year. He'd like to retire in 10 or 12 years. But he
wonders whether he needs to "cut back on my current lifestyle to
compensate for the possibility that the Social Security piece won't be
there at all, or will be there in a reduced way."

Ralph Petersen, 50, a tow-truck driver from SeaTac in Washington state,
says the small retirement investment account he had started was nearly
wiped out by the dot-com bust five years ago. He's found it impossible
to put much away since then. "I'm not quite living paycheck to
paycheck, but it's close," he says.

When does he hope to retire?

"Retirement? What retirement? I'm going to have to work until I'm dead
- that's reality," Petersen says. He's puts more faith in luck than he
does Social Security: "My only chance at retirement now is winning the
lottery."

Rod Richeson wrote in
:

I can' tell what your trying to prove here, but I'm not hanging my hat
on retiring on what my kids make, which is what SS has become, and if
you have your a bigger fool than you make yourself out to be in these
damn newsgroups.

I hope to hell some politico with balls kills ALL of SS for everyone
not getting a check already so people will learn about personal
responsibility

I have a friend who is deaf, but completely able to work, but he has
to limit the hours he works so it doesn't affect his SS payments. He
barely pays in but collects a check every month.

Might have been a good idea many years ago, but like unions it has
outlived it's usefulness.

Plan for your own damn retirement, I am, and quit waiting for a
guberment tit.

Rod
you're an idiot, and a cold blooded one at that.

Plan for your own damn retirement, I am, and quit waiting for a
guberment tit.

Rod


If I had the money the "guberment" stole from me for SS, I could have
retired years ago.

On 28 Nov 2005 21:14:46 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

Social Security could be big chill for 50-somethings By Susan Page, USA
TODAY
Mon Nov 28
snip
And from this we learn that the bigger the organization or
institution, the less they can be trusted, until they get so
large they can't be trusted at all.

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

Uncle George

In article , F. George McDuffee
says...

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

NOBODY (well, hardly nobody) seems to get this.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 21:14:46 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

Social Security could be big chill for 50-somethings By Susan Page,
USA TODAY
Mon Nov 28
snip
And from this we learn that the bigger the organization or
institution, the less they can be trusted, until they get so
large they can't be trusted at all.

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the
US Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products
consumed in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

Mindless stuff. Thats been a tiny part of the workforce for decades now.

This is another of the "off the books" costs that make
the initial cost cheap import goods so expensive in total.

Pig ignorant lie.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in it.

Pathetic, really.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about
$5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS.

Fact: rich people are parasites who live way too long, raking in fat SS
checks for decades even though they didn't pay any SS, while the poor
people who paid the money usually die before they can receive any
money.

This proves that socialism is a horrible system that steals from the
poor to pay the rich.

The 55 age limit is deliberately set so parasitic Baby Boomers can
continue to steal from younger generations. That's another backward
move. What they SHOULD do is not give ANY SS money to anyone born
before 1965. The greedy geezers destroyed the economy, so let them die
off without giving them SS or any medical benefits. Only people born
after 1965 should receive any SS, and they shouldn't pay anything
unless they make more than about $90,000 in a year.

It is a good thing when Baby Boomers die.

"Terry Lomax" writes:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about
$5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS.

Fact: rich people are parasites who live way too long, raking in fat SS
checks for decades even though they didn't pay any SS, while the poor
people who paid the money usually die before they can receive any
money.

This proves that socialism is a horrible system that steals from the
poor to pay the rich.

The 55 age limit is deliberately set so parasitic Baby Boomers can
continue to steal from younger generations. That's another backward
move. What they SHOULD do is not give ANY SS money to anyone born
before 1965. The greedy geezers destroyed the economy, so let them die
off without giving them SS or any medical benefits. Only people born
after 1965 should receive any SS, and they shouldn't pay anything
unless they make more than about $90,000 in a year.

It is a good thing when Baby Boomers die.



Man, this is an excellent idea!!!!!!!!


But, could we cough cough make it _1958_? :-

snip
Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the
US Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products
consumed in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

Mindless stuff. Thats been a tiny part of the workforce for decades now.

This is another of the "off the books" costs that make
the initial cost cheap import goods so expensive in total.

Pig ignorant lie.
snip
Even worse --- because the employees and employers both pay about
7% of wages up to some cutoff point, when some company announces
they "saved" a billion dollars in labor costs, that's 140 million
that the Social Security Trust Fund *WON'T* get, even if the jobs
stay in the US. The SSTA loss will be lower but still
substantial if the company is including fringe benefits, etc. in
their projected "savings." This is in addition to the losses due
to off-shore labor produced goods. The loss of overtime pay also
appears to have had an impact.

USA is now projected to be the "Argentina" of the north in 2035
because of its uncontrolled federal budget and current account
trade deficits.

The Federal debt has long been dismissed as a major problem
because "we owe it to ourselves." Latest data shows this is no
longer the case.

Uncle George

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Social Security could be big chill

Socialist InSecurity has been the biggest con perpetrated upon the American
people (and much of the world, in other forms).

Why?

The Federal Insurance Contribution Act / Social Security Act of 1935 was NOT
"insurance" for the American people.

The Congressional Research Service declares that there is no property right
inherent in entitlements under FICA/SocSec. They are synonymous with
"gifts" and Congress can change the contribution rate and the entitlements
at ANY TIME.

The legal consequences of accepting "gifts" from the public treasury are
less than beneficial, despite the assumption that "freebies" from
government are grand.

In law, one who accepts charity from the public treasury is known as a
pauper / vagrant. Only those who "voluntarily" enroll into national
socialism are eligible for "entitlements". Ergo, one who is eligible, is
pauperized.

Coincidentally, that is why the government has abandoned the "homeless".
They can't prosecute them as vagrants (status criminals) while ignoring the
millions of other vagrants who are residing at residences. Of course, you
weren't told that a DOMICILE is a legal home of an inhabitant. A "legal
residence" is not a domicile. Every "resident" residing at a residence is
presumed to be a transient vagabond.

Bizarre? Read the law for yourself.

Prior to 1935, paupers and vagrants suffered plenty of constitutional abuse.
FDR lied when he told folks that "Relief was not charity" - few Americans
would have signed up if they knew the truth.

Over the generations since that evil deed, America has been transformed from
a capitalist nation into a socialist nation.

Capitalism is defined as the ownership and enjoyment of PRIVATE PROPERTY.

In case you are unaware, Socialism abolishes private property. Private
property is legally defined as land, houses and chattels owned ABSOLUTELY
by an individual. In contrast, estate (real and personal property) is
defined as that which is held with an interest LESS THAN TITLE, by a person
or persons. It is a fact that no state or federal constitution delegates
power over private property. Careful reading will show that the government
only can tax ESTATE, not private property. Furthermore, if private property
is taken for public use, the owner is due JUST COMPENSATION. However,
estate is not protected, thus can be condemned for back taxes, mortgages,
etc.,etc. without just compensation.

In a nutshell, the U.S.Congress went bankrupt to a gang of international
usurers in 1933, caused by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Since the
bankrupted U.S. had no assets that the creditor could attach, the Congress
was made trustees of their own bankruptcy. In law, trustee is the highest
obligation and it supersedes all others. Neat trick, eh?

Congress obliged their creditor with passing the first Socialist inSecurity
act, but was ruled by the Supreme court as unconstitutional. FDR rushed out
an got an international treaty that legitimized the second version, passed
in 1935.

In law, a contributor is one who is equally liable for paying a claim. Every
American who signed up under the Federal Insurance CONTRIBUTION act
underwrote the national debt, which was unpayable then as now. ($7
trillions is far greater than the underlying notes (evidences of debt), and
there isn't enough gold nor silver in the whole world to retire that debt
with lawful monies of the U.S.A., pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, et
seq.)

That obligation also underpins the legal tender of repudiated notes. In
House Joint Resolution of March, 1933, Congress declared it would no longer
redeem their notes for real money. However, if YOU are a contributor,
enrolled and enumerated, you have no legal right to object to the tender of
worthless notes that YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY.

Your valuable labor and property are stolen, via usury and socialism. And
you have no legal right to object to the theft.

That's the whole key to their scam.

Every numbered socialist surrendered his absolute right to own himself, his
children, his labor and that which he exchanges his labor for, in exchange
for the impossible obligation to pay the national debt, eligibility for
entitlements (pauperization), and dropping to the lowest status at law,
excepted from the rights and powers of the free inhabitants, and the
privileges and immunities of the free citizens.

In case you were unaware, natural and personal liberty are NOT civil
liberty. Civil liberty is that which the GOVERNMENT GIVES (and takes away).

When Patrick Henry cried out: "Give me liberty or give me death!" he wasn't
referring to civil or political liberty. He was speaking of natural and
personal liberty of the free man, not beholden to any lord or monarch.

As long as you consent, via participation in national socialism, you are
your own worst enemy.

-
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
Social Security could

If you insist on OT posting on rcm, please at least have the courtesy to
not x-post.

Vaughn

In article , Jet Graphics says...

... Private
property is legally defined as land, houses and chattels owned ABSOLUTELY
by an individual. ...

Ah, you need to go *back* to law school there. IF you ever
went there in the first place....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

F. George McDuffee wrote

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the
US Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products
consumed in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

Mindless stuff. Thats been a tiny part
of the workforce for decades now.

This is another of the "off the books" costs that make
the initial cost cheap import goods so expensive in total.

Pig ignorant lie.

Even worse --- because the employees and employers both
pay about 7% of wages up to some cutoff point, when some
company announces they "saved" a billion dollars in labor
costs, that's 140 million that the Social Security Trust Fund
*WON'T* get, even if the jobs stay in the US.

Yawn with an unemployment rate of 5%

They're just working somewhere else instead.

The SSTA loss will be lower but still substantial if the company
is including fringe benefits, etc. in their projected "savings." This
is in addition to the losses due to off-shore labor produced goods.

Pity they STILL have jobs somewhere else with an unemployment rate of 5%

The loss of overtime pay also appears to have had an impact.

Only when viewed thru your mindless blinkers.

USA is now projected to be the "Argentina" of the north in 2035

Only by mindless fools like you.

because of its uncontrolled federal budget

It wont stay at current rates till then, stupid.

Iraq aint gunna last that long, and even W wont
be stupid enough to do another any time soon.

and current account trade deficits.

The Federal debt has long been dismissed as a
major problem because "we owe it to ourselves."
Latest data shows this is no longer the case.

More utterly mindless silly stuff.

On 29 Nov 2005 13:08:07 -0800, "Terry Lomax"
wrote:


F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

SS payouts are based on "contributions." If we increase the
"contributions" from the rich, we'll just increase the
payouts to the rich. The only way to soak the rich with SS
taxes is to decouple the payouts from the "contributions" or
to institute a needs test. But the SS supporters are the
ones most opposed to doing either, as it would (further)
delegitimize SS.

Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about
$5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS.

Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help
SS's solvency?

(anti-rich and anti-baby boomer diatribes, snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

John Cowart

bo peep wrote:

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

John Cowart

If you have any facts that dispute the previous post, please present them.
Otherwise, your retort reflects badly upon you.

Here's an inexpensive exercise - the price of a first class postage stamp -
write to your local congresscritter and politely ask the following
questions:

To the Honorable Congresscritter:

I have some questions that I want you to answer. I await your reply.

Questions

If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional [1], how can "everyone"
born in America, be "U.S. citizens" with associated duties and
obligations?

If the Supreme Court says "people are sovereign"[2] but "citizens
are subjects"[3], who are those sovereign Americans who are not U.S.
citizens nor State Citizens?

If the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a
State [4], am I a foreign person [5] with respect to the United
States or the Federal government corporation?

If there is no law compelling one to enroll in social security, and
no law punishing one who doesn't participate, is it 100% voluntary?

If one wishes to stop participating in social security, can one
lawfully revoke his signature upon the application, and renounce all
future claims to entitlements?

If one made an error claiming to be a U.S. or State
citizen/resident, when in fact, one was an American national, born &
domiciled within one of the States of the united States of America,
can one correct the record, and cancel the application for
enrollment into social security?
How is this accomplished?

Is an American national, who is NOT a citizen of a State of the
united States, nor the United States, nor under any laws of any
third country, a "foreign state" with respect to the Federal government?

If the constitution guarantees a "republican form" of government, is it not
a violation to promote and defend democracy[6]?

Thank you,


Undersigned.


==================================
Footnotes

[1] 13th amendment

[2] "At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and
they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 GA at 93.

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for
expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are
entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own
prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

[3] "... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to
the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has
resulted from the change in government."
- State v. Manuel, 122 N.C. 122; State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122; 14
Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4

[4] FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign
corporation with respect to a state. - - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris
Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

[5] FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976
§ 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States
as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created
under the laws of any third country.

[6] Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; ....
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]

"GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,
either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom
those powers are specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in
and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly
through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy,
aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

[Please note the identity of the parties who exercise sovereignty:
Republican form = People (not citizens), directly exercise sovereignty
Democratic form = Whole body of free citizens, indirectly exercise
sovereignty]

More reference material:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/29

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On 29 Nov 2005 13:08:07 -0800, "Terry Lomax"
wrote:


F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

SS payouts are based on "contributions." If we increase the
"contributions" from the rich, we'll just increase the
payouts to the rich. The only way to soak the rich with SS
taxes is to decouple the payouts from the "contributions" or
to institute a needs test. But the SS supporters are the
ones most opposed to doing either, as it would (further)
delegitimize SS.

So you're saying that because it was and is marketed as some sort of Ponzi
scheme, we must run it like a Ponzi scheme? Nonsense. Social Security has
ALWAYS been pure income reallocation, i.e., social welfare. The first SS
check went out the same week SS wihtholding began. What has been missing is
reallocation of the upper end of earned income and all unearned income, both
of which have been exempt from reallocation.

We ought to make Social Security more honest and rationalize it at the same
time, by funding it with a low tax on ALL personal income and making the
payout the same for everyone who qualifies. We should also impose a means
test that eliminates or reduces benefits for those with high incomes or
substantial assets that put them in, say, the top quartile.

Jeff

F. George McDuffee wrote:
snip
Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the
US Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products
consumed in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

Mindless stuff. Thats been a tiny part of the workforce for decades now.

This is another of the "off the books" costs that make
the initial cost cheap import goods so expensive in total.

Pig ignorant lie.
snip
Even worse --- because the employees and employers both pay about
7% of wages up to some cutoff point, when some company announces
they "saved" a billion dollars in labor costs, that's 140 million
that the Social Security Trust Fund *WON'T* get, even if the jobs
stay in the US. The SSTA loss will be lower but still
substantial if the company is including fringe benefits, etc. in
their projected "savings." This is in addition to the losses due
to off-shore labor produced goods. The loss of overtime pay also
appears to have had an impact.

USA is now projected to be the "Argentina" of the north in 2035
because of its uncontrolled federal budget and current account
trade deficits.

The Federal debt has long been dismissed as a major problem
because "we owe it to ourselves." Latest data shows this is no
longer the case.

Uncle George

One big difference between the U.S. and Argentina is that our debt is
in DOLLARS. When the big crunch comes, the U.S. Govt. can print money
to pay its debts. The hyperinflation resulting from this would also
reduce the debt in "real" dollars- A. McIntire

"Terry Lomax" wrote in message
oups.com...

F. George McDuffee wrote:

In the 50's the rallying cry for the political right was "who
lost China." In the 20teens it will "who stole social security"
for the majority who lost 7 percent of their gross lifetime
income in one of the most successful Ponzi schemes ever operated.

It's worse than that for many people, as independent contractors lost
14 percent of their income, being both the "employer" and the
"employee".

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the US
Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products consumed
in the US because of off-shore sourcing. This is another of the
"off the books" costs that make the initial cost cheap import
goods so expensive in total.

Social Security may be in a "lock box" but there is no bottom in
it.

By far the easiest way to have enough money for SS is to REMOVE THE
UPPER CAP! Rich people who make more than a certain amount do NOT pay
any SS! As wages approach infinity, the SS% approaches ZERO. The
PROPER way to implement SS would be to make people pay ZERO if they
make _LESS_ than the cutoff amount, and make the people who pay MORE
than the cutoff amount fund it. Fact: there would be much more SS tax
revenue if the rich paid their share.

Friggin moron.

I'm all for removing the cap on contributions -- with the single
caveat that the cap on benefits be removed too.

If I pay 28,000,000 a year into it, you can be damned sure
it ain't fair to give me the same lousy benefit you'll be
collecting.

Sure, remove the cap -- on both the contribution *AND*
the benefit.

Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.

In article ,
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about
$5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS.

Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help
SS's solvency?

I think he was trying to say "from each according to their ability, to
each according to their need". We all know politicians 'need' more

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:28:05 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .

(snips)

SS payouts are based on "contributions." If we increase the
"contributions" from the rich, we'll just increase the
payouts to the rich. The only way to soak the rich with SS
taxes is to decouple the payouts from the "contributions" or
to institute a needs test. But the SS supporters are the
ones most opposed to doing either, as it would (further)
delegitimize SS.

So you're saying that because it was and is marketed as some sort of Ponzi
scheme, we must run it like a Ponzi scheme? Nonsense.

The government runs it as if it was a scheme in which the
pay outs are somewhat related to the "contributions." If I
had the final say, we wouldn't "run it" at all. But I
don't. I'm merely pointing out the basic fallacy in
thinking that increasing the "contributions" from the rich
would solve the problem.

Social Security has
ALWAYS been pure income reallocation, i.e., social welfare. The first SS
check went out the same week SS wihtholding began. What has been missing is
reallocation of the upper end of earned income and all unearned income, both
of which have been exempt from reallocation.

.... because it was sold as an insurance program in which one
got back money roughly commensurate with what one paid in.

We ought to make Social Security more honest and rationalize it at the same
time, by funding it with a low tax on ALL personal income and making the
payout the same for everyone who qualifies. We should also impose a means
test that eliminates or reduces benefits for those with high incomes or
substantial assets that put them in, say, the top quartile.

That would do it, but we wouldn't have "Social Security"
anymore - just another pure welfare plan. We have a
well-disguised welfare plan now, because people LIKE to be
fooled about the whole thing - told that they are really
getting back "what they paid in." They don't want to be
told, "You're now old and on welfare." I know this from
direct experience.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

wrote:

One big difference between the U.S. and Argentina is that our debt is
in DOLLARS. When the big crunch comes, the U.S. Govt. can print money
to pay its debts. The hyperinflation resulting from this would also
reduce the debt in "real" dollars- A. McIntire

So I should swap to Italian lire or Hong Kong dollars now to preserve
the value of my money.

Oh wait, the rest of the world is swapping to Euros' {:-).

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote

... because it was sold as an insurance program in which one
got back money roughly commensurate with what one paid in.


On average, maybe. Insurance emphatically does _not_ pay you, individually,
"money roughly commensurate with" your premiums. The whole point of
insurance is that some people get more out of it than they ever paid into
it.

-- TP

Sgt.Sausage wrote:
Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.

the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.

SoCalMike wrote
Sgt.Sausage wrote

Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor.

the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.

Mindless silly stuff today. The rich get rich from
the purchases of those who are nothing like poor.

Most obviously with Gates.

The real poor just steal what he produces.

SoCalMike wrote:

Sgt.Sausage wrote:
Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.

the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.

Any chance you can provide definitions of rich and poor here?

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

Might have been a good idea many years ago, but like unions it has
outlived it's usefulness.

Plan for your own damn retirement, I am, and quit waiting for a
guberment tit.

Rod
you're an idiot, and a cold blooded one at that.

He sounds like the kind of person who is ****ed because he can't smoke when
filling up his car with gas.

Hawke

wrote:

Well, the poor can always do what the rich did.

Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they
don't go belly up.

Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this.
1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses.
2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy
3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money

When you become a "near retiree", i.e. see lots of friends laid off in
their due to the churning of the US economy, that "small" social
security check starts looking good. I'm assuming a 6% investment
return in my geezer years. That $1000 / month then means $200,000
less to save.

All these silly people worrying that it will be gone. The geezers are
the
most prolific voters. SS will be the LAST item to be cut in a fiscal
crunch.
Not to say they may slow down the increase formulas. Currently
SS *initial* payouts are based on national incomes which grows almost
twice as fast as inflation.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:00:23 +1100, Terry Collins
wrote:

wrote:

One big difference between the U.S. and Argentina is that our debt is
in DOLLARS. When the big crunch comes, the U.S. Govt. can print money
to pay its debts. The hyperinflation resulting from this would also
reduce the debt in "real" dollars- A. McIntire

So I should swap to Italian lire or Hong Kong dollars now to preserve
the value of my money.

Oh wait, the rest of the world is swapping to Euros' {:-).

=================
"Many a truth is oft spake in jest." This was one of them. It
is unlikely our overseas lenders will continue to accept US
dollar denominated bonds forever. When you see the US issuing
foreign bonds denominated in Euros, yuan, etc. run, don't walk,
to the exits.

Evita plays softly here

Uncle George

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:57:29 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:28:05 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
. ..

(snips)

SS payouts are based on "contributions." If we increase the
"contributions" from the rich, we'll just increase the
payouts to the rich. The only way to soak the rich with SS
taxes is to decouple the payouts from the "contributions" or
to institute a needs test. But the SS supporters are the
ones most opposed to doing either, as it would (further)
delegitimize SS.

So you're saying that because it was and is marketed as some sort of Ponzi
scheme, we must run it like a Ponzi scheme? Nonsense.

The government runs it as if it was a scheme in which the
pay outs are somewhat related to the "contributions." If I
had the final say, we wouldn't "run it" at all. But I
don't. I'm merely pointing out the basic fallacy in
thinking that increasing the "contributions" from the rich
would solve the problem.

Social Security has
ALWAYS been pure income reallocation, i.e., social welfare. The first SS
check went out the same week SS wihtholding began. What has been missing is
reallocation of the upper end of earned income and all unearned income, both
of which have been exempt from reallocation.

... because it was sold as an insurance program in which one
got back money roughly commensurate with what one paid in.

We ought to make Social Security more honest and rationalize it at the same
time, by funding it with a low tax on ALL personal income and making the
payout the same for everyone who qualifies. We should also impose a means
test that eliminates or reduces benefits for those with high incomes or
substantial assets that put them in, say, the top quartile.

That would do it, but we wouldn't have "Social Security"
anymore - just another pure welfare plan. We have a
well-disguised welfare plan now, because people LIKE to be
fooled about the whole thing - told that they are really
getting back "what they paid in." They don't want to be
told, "You're now old and on welfare." I know this from
direct experience.
=====================
Pay as you go is the only practical way. The amount of capital
accumulated if it were 'saved" would be so huge as to shortly
dwarf all other sources, and how do you allociate the
investments. Think of government backed funds like Freddy Mac,
on steroids and with an attitude.

Uncle George

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:03:09 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike
wrote:

Sgt.Sausage wrote:
Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.

the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.

Well, the poor can always do what the rich did.

Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they
don't go belly up.

Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save
them.

Rick Bowen
Texas State Rifle Association
Life Member
lex talionis.
============================
Problem is defining "the rich." One hint -- it is not the amount
of money you have.

For example, Sam Walton was never "rich" in his attitude towards
people. His successors, although they may have less money, are
"rich" and show it in the way they treat people.

I know several people who drive old pick-up trucks and put their
pants on one leg at a time, who I would trust with everything I
have. They just happen to have money. I wouldn't trust their
kids as far as I could pick up ther Hum-Vees with my left hand.

Uncle George

Don't smoke and drive a diesel.



Hawke wrote:
Might have been a good idea many years ago, but like unions it has
outlived it's usefulness.

Plan for your own damn retirement, I am, and quit waiting for a
guberment tit.

Rod

you're an idiot, and a cold blooded one at that.


He sounds like the kind of person who is ****ed because he can't smoke when
filling up his car with gas.

Hawke

When calculating the return on a social security "investment"
many people forget to include the value of the disability and
survivors insurance.

When the premiums for these, although the "face amounts" of the
"policies" are low, are included, the SS yield is not that bad,
the fund value does not vary with the "phase of the mooon," and
it is proof against theft by an individual.

Uncle George

On 1 Dec 2005 09:12:39 -0800, "rick++"
wrote:

When you become a "near retiree", i.e. see lots of friends laid off in
their due to the churning of the US economy, that "small" social
security check starts looking good. I'm assuming a 6% investment
return in my geezer years. That $1000 / month then means $200,000
less to save.

All these silly people worrying that it will be gone. The geezers are
the
most prolific voters. SS will be the LAST item to be cut in a fiscal
crunch.
Not to say they may slow down the increase formulas. Currently
SS *initial* payouts are based on national incomes which grows almost
twice as fast as inflation.

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:00:23 +1100, Terry Collins
wrote:

wrote:

One big difference between the U.S. and Argentina is that our
debt is in DOLLARS. When the big crunch comes, the U.S. Govt. can
print money to pay its debts. The hyperinflation resulting from
this would also reduce the debt in "real" dollars- A. McIntire

So I should swap to Italian lire or Hong Kong dollars now to preserve
the value of my money.

Oh wait, the rest of the world is swapping to Euros' {:-).

=================
"Many a truth is oft spake in jest." This was one of them.
It is unlikely our overseas lenders will continue to accept
US dollar denominated bonds forever.

We'll see. It still leaves every other currency for dead
unless you want to trade on currency fluctuations.

When you see the US issuing foreign
bonds denominated in Euros, yuan, etc.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

run, don't walk, to the exits.

Evita plays softly here

Just another silly little fantasy, like the one that
a full scale depression is just around the corner.

Wouldnt be anything like the last one even if it does happen.

Terry Collins wrote
wrote

Well, the poor can always do what the rich did.

Start their own business, risk everything
they own, and hope they don't go belly up.

Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this.

Quite a few have done that, mostly new immigrants.

1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses.
2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy
3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money

And a few of the 'poor' do end up rich too.

Rod Speed wrote:dumb schmucks money

And a few of the 'poor' do end up rich too.



And then there is Rod who started out middle class and wound up on
welfare.

Rod Speed wrote:
a full scale depression is just around the corner.

Wouldnt be anything like the last one even if it does happen.


Won't affect a welfare leech like you.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike
wrote:


Sgt.Sausage wrote:

Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.

the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.


Well, the poor can always do what the rich did.

Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they
don't go belly up.

Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save
them.

The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited
wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by
the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve
to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing
could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire,
there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund
brats out there. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage
their own investment portfolios and require professional management to
do it for them. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but
it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do
with it.

Jeff

Jeff