On 2/14/15 3:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 4:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left
behind a 4 years old son. Suddenly, he can't provide for his child
what he normally would've for the next 14 years until that child is
old enough to provide for himself. My brother paid into Social
Security his entire working life. Why shouldn't it go to his
family, his son, until he's old enough to provide for himself?



That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
if they are concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
system

We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
disagree.
However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
those benefits. By law.

If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
later.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

--

-Mike-

On 2/14/15 4:17 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left
behind a 4 years old son. Suddenly, he can't provide for his child
what he normally would've for the next 14 years until that child is
old enough to provide for himself. My brother paid into Social
Security his entire working life. Why shouldn't it go to his
family, his son, until he's old enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh -
that's what life insurance is for.


As I replied to another post, I'm all for limited government and I would
probably argue against SS in the case of expansion or even continuation.

What my brother left for his family is a moot point in this discussion.

Since he played the SS game by the rules of the game, he and his family
are entitled to those benefits. If the rules, in this case laws, are
changed, so be it. But they shouldn't be retroactive to those who
played by those rules.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:54:35 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 2/14/15 3:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 4:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left
behind a 4 years old son. Suddenly, he can't provide for his child
what he normally would've for the next 14 years until that child is
old enough to provide for himself. My brother paid into Social
Security his entire working life. Why shouldn't it go to his
family, his son, until he's old enough to provide for himself?



That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
if they are concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
system

For the record, my father died when I was 12, so I (my mother,
actually) collected SSI until I got married (at 18).

We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
disagree.
However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
those benefits. By law.

Exactly. The ball is in play, don't change the rules now. Doing so
means bankruptcy. Everyone loses (except the unions, of course).

If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
later.

Agreed.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.

By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".

Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
there.

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:15:03 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.

....and if you able to save a quarter of your income over your entire
working life?

On 2/14/2015 4:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
if they are concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
system

We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
disagree.
However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
those benefits. By law.

If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
later.



In the same situation, I'd have done the same. If offered, why not take
it?

In my case, I'm still working, but at 66 I started taking SS, as did my
wife getting half of mine. I paid in for 50 years and now it is my turn
to take out. Nice bump in annual income too.

On 02/14/2015 09:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:15:03 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.

...and if you able to save a quarter of your income over your entire
working life?


I'd have to find some way to spend/donate more of it before the
kids/government got it all...

The irritating part is being taxed twice on part of the SS - paid tax on
all of it at the rate I paid while working and now again on part of the
distributions.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/14/2015 3:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 2/14/2015 12:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
Max wrote in news:54dec4d0$0$1242$c3e8da3$460562f1
@news.astraweb.com:

On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some
work, ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting
fences, pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up,
babysitting the kids of those who are out pulling weeds,
supervising the litter pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in
your wheelchair holding up a "People Working" sign by those who are
moving rocks for their EBT cards. We can exempt the truly
disabled. Want a $300 EBT card? Put in 40 hours of work first.
Don't like it? Then get off your butt and find a real job.

You been reading my mail...

Children made up 45 percent of people receiving food stamps,
according to the most recent annual report issued by the USDA in
November 2012. An additional 9 percent were over age 60.

Children don't receive food stamps (EBT cards), it's their parents who
receive them, and unless those parents are truly disabled they can
work for their kids' supper. I'm over 60 myself, I don't see a
problem with people working at least until age 65.

School lunches are considered to be part of the "food stamps" program.

Only by you.

On 2/14/2015 4:33 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Since he played the SS game by the rules of the game, he and his family
are entitled to those benefits. If the rules, in this case laws, are
changed, so be it. But they shouldn't be retroactive to those who
played by those rules.

If only we could retroactively hang all the liberal asshats who
introduced/voted for this type of perversion into the the SS system.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:

SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.

I'm getting charitable in my old age, but that is one of the most
ignorant, dumbest ****ing statements I've heard in over 15 years on the
wRec.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Baxter" wrote in message

wrote in :

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.

By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".

Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
there.

SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance. Charges
of
"ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are not
nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put out by
the
enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that pool
of
money.

A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the operator
pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those who come
later. Exactly how does social security differ from that? The only
difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough money to
meet their committments they can just print more.

--

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

On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:

SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.


For your personal benefit, here's how the cow ate the cabbage as to why
SS is demonstrably NOT insurance.

Social Security is, by law and a SCOTUS ruling, a TAX, not an insurance
program.

The Supreme Court decision in 'Flemming v. Nestor' clearly states that
Social Security is NOT insurance, _as there is no contractual agreement
between taxpayer and government_ .

Insurance companies use premiums, a premium is not a tax and the
premium, and any deductible, is subject to a contractual agreement, not
so with Social Security.

Insurance companies invest premiums, and use the premiums to make a
profit by applying the 'law of large numbers', which states that "for a
series of independent and identically distributed random variables, the
variance of the average amount of a claim payment decreases as the
number of claims increases", and by using deductibles to offset
catastrophic loss.

Social Security does none of the above.

Liberals love, either through ignorance or malice, to call the SS system
"insurance", which is nothing more than sleight of hand a subterfuge to
mask the fact that it is a TAX.

However, to be charitable, the old saying particularly applies to this
issue: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity"

If you want further argument, take it up with SCOTUS.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:39:54 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2015 4:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
if they are concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
system

We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
disagree.
However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
those benefits. By law.

If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
later.



In the same situation, I'd have done the same. If offered, why not take
it?

In my case, I'm still working, but at 66 I started taking SS, as did my
wife getting half of mine. I paid in for 50 years and now it is my turn
to take out. Nice bump in annual income too.

When we moved, my wife couldn't find a job so she's taking her SS now.
When I retire she'll get a bump too. Though it's not quite what she
would get (half mine) if she waited, the payback time is likely longer
than we have. ;-)

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:46:16 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 09:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:15:03 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.

...and if you able to save a quarter of your income over your entire
working life?


I'd have to find some way to spend/donate more of it before the
kids/government got it all...

Or retire earlier, though there is nothing wrong with helping the
kids.

The irritating part is being taxed twice on part of the SS - paid tax on
all of it at the rate I paid while working and now again on part of the
distributions.

At *least* the part you (we) put in should be tax exempt. But it's
not "your" money that's being paid. It's an "entitlement".

Also irritating is the progressive nature of SS. The less you made
during your life the faster the "payback". Of course, like all lefty
programs, it hits the middle class harder than anyone else.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:06:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

wrote in :

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
news:b7idnQzJrMIrzELJnZ2dnUVZ5rSdnZ2d@giganews. com:

On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.

By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".

Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
there.

SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance. Charges of
"ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are not nor
have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put out by the
enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that pool of
money.

Absolute leftist poppycock! The payments are progressive. The less
you make and the fewer years paid, the more, proportionally, the
payout. Insurance has a flat payback. You can buy as much as you
have need for. Insurance premiums are invested in securities. The
payout is taken from those securities, *NOT* the current customers.
Insurance companies don't blow the early premiums then try to make
good on it later on the current crop of suckers (ponzi scheme
defined).

It's not just that you lefties are so farking stupid, it's just that
so much of what you know is complete bull****.
- what Reagan should have said




You lefties really have a lot to learn.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:15:01 -0500, wrote:





Still working at 69, I agree with you. I also know at least 6
twenty-somethings sucking up my tax dollars in the form of an EBT card

Ditto (62). I plan on working for at least another four, if not eight
years (I'll decide when the bridge crosses).

Just be glad those six aren't living in your basement, and off your
medical insurance.

One of them was for about three months. She is a relative with few
marketable skills. Fortunately, gone now and I think still getting
government freebies like free healthcare.

On 02/15/2015 09:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:46:16 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 09:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:15:03 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.

...and if you able to save a quarter of your income over your entire
working life?


I'd have to find some way to spend/donate more of it before the
kids/government got it all...

Or retire earlier, though there is nothing wrong with helping the
kids.

I did retire at 55 - sort of. The big company I worked for offered a
nice voluntary severance package and my hand went up so fast it might
have caused the shoulder injury I now have ;-)


The irritating part is being taxed twice on part of the SS - paid tax on
all of it at the rate I paid while working and now again on part of the
distributions.

At *least* the part you (we) put in should be tax exempt. But it's
not "your" money that's being paid. It's an "entitlement".

Also irritating is the progressive nature of SS. The less you made
during your life the faster the "payback". Of course, like all lefty
programs, it hits the middle class harder than anyone else.




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Baxter" wrote in message

"dadiOH" wrote in :

"Baxter" wrote in message

wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.

By your definition, ALL insurance is a "Ponzi scheme".

Of course not. That's a wicked case of moral equivalence, you have
there.

SS is set up and works exactly the same as private insurance.
Charges of
"ponzi scheme" have been around almost since it's inception and are
not nor have they ever been true. "Ponzi scheme" is propaganda put
out by the
enemies of SS - mostly people that want to get their hands on that
pool of
money.

A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the
operator pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those
who come later. Exactly how does social security differ from that?
The only difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough
money to meet their committments they can just print more.

Read some of the links I just posted.

But to address your specific point: A Ponzi scheme fails because it runs
out of new "investors" - SS will never run out of "new investors".
---------

Not as long as it is mandatory and not as long as the feds can keep taxing
future workers at higher and higher rates.

When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could dump
social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus far, I
could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the SS would be
but WITHOUT touching the principal.


--

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

On 2/15/2015 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:

It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan designed
to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of poverty.

As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as a
pay-as-you-go system.

That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:32:29 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/15/2015 09:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:46:16 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 09:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:15:03 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/14/2015 08:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:17:28 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind
a 4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for
himself. My brother paid into Social Security his entire working
life. Why shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old
enough to provide for himself?

That is a different scenario, but at the risk of sounding harsh - that's
what life insurance is for.

The same can be said about saving for retirement but we're forced into
the government's ponzi scheme anyway.

Even though I was forced into the Ponzi scheme, I also saved 10% of
gross my entire working life, which is less than the 12.4% extracted for
the Ponzi scheme. I am able to take twice the monthly amount I receive
from SS and still watch the amount I put away grow. Anyone who thinks
they will be able to live on SS alone is in real trouble - in more ways
than one.

...and if you able to save a quarter of your income over your entire
working life?


I'd have to find some way to spend/donate more of it before the
kids/government got it all...

Or retire earlier, though there is nothing wrong with helping the
kids.

I did retire at 55 - sort of. The big company I worked for offered a
nice voluntary severance package and my hand went up so fast it might
have caused the shoulder injury I now have ;-)

I retired at 54, for the same reason though I didn't have the choice.
Best thing that ever happened to me. I only stayed retired for about
nine months, though. Other than a couple of months in '11, I've
worked since.

The difference is having to work an choosing to work.

The irritating part is being taxed twice on part of the SS - paid tax on
all of it at the rate I paid while working and now again on part of the
distributions.

At *least* the part you (we) put in should be tax exempt. But it's
not "your" money that's being paid. It's an "entitlement".

Also irritating is the progressive nature of SS. The less you made
during your life the faster the "payback". Of course, like all lefty
programs, it hits the middle class harder than anyone else.

On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:

Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.



OK, Bax.

Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.

Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
about the 150+ federal trust funds).

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Baxter" wrote in message

"dadiOH" wrote in :

When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus
far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the
SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.

And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work out -
not even 15 years at maximum contribution.

Who said anything about maximum contribution which - IIRC - was about 15%
(self employed, corp.)? I said SAVE. And let us not forget that at a
very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.

The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth IRA...it
is the only gift the feds have ever given us.


--

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

On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
Swingman wrote in

That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.

Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.

LOL

Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
misguided arguments.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:54e13d70$0$46839
:

On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:

Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at the
top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.



OK, Bax.

Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.

Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
about the 150+ federal trust funds).

All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from FAUX
NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/p...reTheTrust.htm


OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
$2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the "trust
funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.

So, a couple of questions:

1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded for?

2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?

3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
not, how much more will be needed?

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/16/2015 6:03 AM, dadiOH wrote:


The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.


Yes, people could have done better IF they saved that 6%. How many
would? Look at the big picture. Even with IRA, 401k,one third of the
eligible people are not saving anything at all. 14% of those at
retirement age have nothing saved.

They have nothing saved, but they do have SS. If they did not have at
least that much, we'd be supporting them in some form of welfare even
more than we do now. Look around. How many steady working people do
you see that have no savings account, no checking account and less than
20 bucks in their pocket. There will be many of them. (they will have
a cell phone though)

On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:54e13d70$0$46839 :

On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:

Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at
the top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.



OK, Bax.

Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.

Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
about the 150+ federal trust funds).

All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from
FAUX NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/p...AreTheTrust.ht
m


OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
$2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the
"trust funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.

I'm absolutely aware of this.

So, a couple of questions:

1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded
for?

Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the most
secure bonds on the face of the planet.

You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do with
the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for the bonds?


2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned."

Sigh, once again avoiding the question.


3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
not, how much more will be needed?

Future liabilites of SS are not fixed. SS is prohibited by law from
borrowing. There are 5 remedies for the current forcasted shortfall:
http://tinyurl.com/mca4xcq

----------
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday proposed raising Social Security
taxes to extend the life of the entitlement program and increase
benefits.

In a 12-page report, Sanders, the ranking member on the Senate Budget
Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2016, argued Social
Security's solvency problems could be solved if lawmakers simply lifted
the cap on the tax that funds the program.

“If Republicans are serious about extending the solvency of Social
Security beyond 2033, I hope they will join me in scrapping the cap that
allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their
income into Social Security than the middle class,” Sanders said.

http://tinyurl.com/qyx2qn8




You can lead a horse to water, but if he only drinks cool-aid...



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Baxter" wrote in message

"dadiOH" wrote in :

"Baxter" wrote in message

"dadiOH" wrote in
:

When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could
dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in
thus
far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what
the SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.

And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work
out
- not even 15 years at maximum contribution.

Who said anything about maximum contribution

Then you're not talking about SS.

which - IIRC - was about
15% (self employed, corp.)?

Combined = 12.4% -- but there's no guarantee that your employer would
give you his half.

I was my employer. I am generous to me

I said SAVE. And let us not forget that
at a very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.

No, 6% is not realistic.

It is in my world. And has been - and still is - for as long as I can
remember. In reality, it is on the low side.


And here's a compound interst calculator:
http://tinyurl.com/46syn


The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.

SS was never meant to be your sole retirement policy. You were always
expected to do more on your own.

Yeah but as Ed pointed out, a whole bunch don't.

--

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

On 02/16/2015 11:08 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:

Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
most secure bonds on the face of the planet.

You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do with
the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for the
bonds?

It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it matters
what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your paycheck.

The point is that either the feds will need to borrow more to pay the SS
adminstration, thereby converting the intra-governmental debt to real
debt or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the same
purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and that you
don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate debt.

Who's this "We" Kemo Sabe? The part about those dollars being spent is
very true, but your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.





--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

On 2/16/2015 6:03 AM, dadiOH wrote:


The point is that people could do better for themselves than social
security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth
IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.


Yes, people could have done better IF they saved that 6%. How many
would? Look at the big picture. Even with IRA, 401k,one third of the
eligible people are not saving anything at all. 14% of those at
retirement age have nothing saved.

They have nothing saved, but they do have SS. If they did not have at
least that much, we'd be supporting them in some form of welfare even
more than we do now. Look around. How many steady working people do
you see that have no savings account, no checking account and less than
20 bucks in their pocket. There will be many of them. (they will have
a cell phone though)

And a big screen TV.

I would have been amenable to a compromise.

Social security
- OR -
Stick at least the same amount into an inviolate account.

One of the things I think schools should be teaching is how to manage
money. If they had done so, pawnshops would have gotten less of my money
when I was 8 - 21 during my Navy years

I also think they - and their parents - should be teaching how to delay
gratification. So much of the stuff people dribble their money away on
are things they won't be using in a rather short time...if they would just
delay purchases for 30 days, the desire would often fade; if they still
wanted it, OK, buy it. BUT FOR CASH.

--

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

On 2/16/2015 9:36 AM, Baxter wrote:
Swingman wrote in news:CbKdnaCJMf-
:

On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
Swingman wrote in

That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable fact.

Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.

LOL

Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
misguided arguments.

IOW, we can ignore you - because if you had actual facts or references you
would have posted them by now. instead, all you got is some cryptic (and
unsupported) assertion.

Bax, you have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself.

The cite for the SCOTUS decision was in my reply correcting your
misguided SS=insurance ramblings.

You're doing very well in this thread ... might want to check the
closest mirror for the problem.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Baxter" wrote:

It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan
designed
to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of
poverty.

As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as
a
pay-as-you-go system.

http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8

So when someone describes Social Security as a Ponzi scheme please
take
just a moment to consider this person's understanding of economics
or
better yet, his agenda.

http://tinyurl.com/mk4smyl

If SS is a Ponzi scheme, then every insurance company in the world
is a
Ponzi scheme. If using one person's premiums to pay another person's
claims freaks you out, you should keep your distance from Berkshire
Hathaway, too.

http://tinyurl.com/8zf2n9a
------------------------------------------------
Biggest impact on the SS program is tobacco IMHO.

How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
working
lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years
before
they could start collecting benefits?

All those funds just stay in the pot.

Pretty standard actuarial table calculations in the insurance
business.

Lew

On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 11:08 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 08:46 AM, Baxter wrote:

Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the
most secure bonds on the face of the planet.

You're avoiding the question: What did the federal government do
with the money they received from the SS trust fund in exchange for
the bonds?

It doesn't matter what they did with those dollars any more than it
matters what the bank does with the dollars you deposit from your
paycheck.

The point is that either the feds will need to borrow more to pay the
SS adminstration, thereby converting the intra-governmental debt to
real debt

Debt is debt whether you owe to a family member or to a third party.

So far, the only sensible thing you have said.


or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for whatever
it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could have borrowed
that money from a third party to begin with.

We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but all
you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with it.
I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Yes, we know, you're trying to claim those dollars are spent - and
that you don't want to pay them back, you want to reneg on legitimate
debt.

Who's this "We" Kemo Sabe? The part about those dollars being spent
is very true, but your mind reading abilities are sadly lacking.

And you're the one who is objecting to paying back those dollars borrowed
from the SS Trust Fund. You're the one trying to portray those SS Trust
Fund dollars as being spent and not recoverable.


Horse ****! Go back through any of my responses in this thread and
quote what you just said.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
web.com:

On 02/15/2015 10:33 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
news:54e13d70$0$46839 :

On 02/15/2015 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:

Or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la" at
the top of your voice, and ignore the actual facts.



OK, Bax.

Since you are up on all things SS, let's take one thing at a time.

Tell us what you know about the SS "trust" fund (and for that matter
about the 150+ federal trust funds).

All you have to do is google - and stop getting your information from
FAUX NUZ and other right-wing sites that aim to kill SS.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/news/p...AreTheTrust.ht
m


OK, you are aware that these SS "special Treasury bonds" account for
$2.7 trillion of the national debt and that the bonds in all the
"trust funds add up to around $5 trillion of the debt.

I'm absolutely aware of this.

So, a couple of questions:

1. What happened to the actual tax money that these bonds were traded
for?

Your question makes no sense. The SS tax money was invested in the most
secure bonds on the face of the planet.

Just had to wipe my screen down. That was *FUNNY*!


2. When the "trust" funds need to redeem these bonds for cash to pay
benefits, where will the federal government get that cash?

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned."

Until it is.

3. Is this $2.7 trillion enough to cover future SS liabilities and if
not, how much more will be needed?

Future liabilites of SS are not fixed. SS is prohibited by law from
borrowing. There are 5 remedies for the current forcasted shortfall:
http://tinyurl.com/mca4xcq

Changing the payments (probably to zero) will be the only solution.
----------
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday proposed raising Social Security
taxes to extend the life of the entitlement program and increase
benefits.

In a 12-page report, Sanders, the ranking member on the Senate Budget
Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2016, argued Social
Security's solvency problems could be solved if lawmakers simply lifted
the cap on the tax that funds the program.

“If Republicans are serious about extending the solvency of Social
Security beyond 2033, I hope they will join me in scrapping the cap that
allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their
income into Social Security than the middle class,” Sanders said.

http://tinyurl.com/qyx2qn8

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:31:29 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 2/16/2015 9:36 AM, Baxter wrote:
Swingman wrote in news:CbKdnaCJMf-
:

On 2/15/2015 11:29 PM, Baxter wrote:
Swingman wrote in

That SCOTUS disagrees with your above _opinion_ is an unarguable
fact.

Ths SCOTUS never said any such thing.

LOL

Your pubic display of ignorance of the issues is telling on your
misguided arguments.

IOW, we can ignore you - because if you had actual facts or
references you would have posted them by now. instead, all you got
is some cryptic (and unsupported) assertion.

Bax, you have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself.

The cite for the SCOTUS decision was in my reply correcting your
misguided SS=insurance ramblings.

You're doing very well in this thread ... might want to check the
closest mirror for the problem.

We've seen your type of dishonesty before. Nope. If you had actual facts
on your side you would have posted them again.

You're welcome to your own opinion, Bax, but not your own set of
facts.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:05:05 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Baxter" wrote:

It's not a retirement savings program; it's an insurance plan
designed
to help the elderly, the disabled and their families stay out of
poverty.

As with many insurance plans, Social Security is set up primarily as
a
pay-as-you-go system.

http://tinyurl.com/pxbyct8

So when someone describes Social Security as a Ponzi scheme please
take
just a moment to consider this person's understanding of economics
or
better yet, his agenda.

http://tinyurl.com/mk4smyl

If SS is a Ponzi scheme, then every insurance company in the world
is a
Ponzi scheme. If using one person's premiums to pay another person's
claims freaks you out, you should keep your distance from Berkshire
Hathaway, too.

http://tinyurl.com/8zf2n9a
------------------------------------------------
Biggest impact on the SS program is tobacco IMHO.

How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
working
lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years
before
they could start collecting benefits?

Another reason SS should never have existed. If I save that money, my
children, or whomever I choose, gets that money (more, actually).

All those funds just stay in the pot.

No, there _IS_NO_POT_.

Pretty standard actuarial table calculations in the insurance
business.

Sure, but SS is *NOT* insurance.

On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:

or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they could
have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.

We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
demanding they replace the money he had already spent.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in


We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
and government***.

You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)