Page 167 of 215 FirstFirst ... 67117157165166167168169177 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,670 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #1661
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Tht is based on the idea that savings are safe...but they are not especially in light of the repeal of Glass. And again, this was not designed as a retirement fund, it has been and was designed as a safety net.

    This is the base failure of this argument, it is a false premise.
    Still waiting for the part of the article that is false?

    Is this false?

    Both Social Security (since 1935) and it sister program, Medicare (since 1965) have been insolvent for years, as is typical of a Ponzi scheme, and despite gargantuan increases in the tax rates they inflict and the number of people they force to pay into them via automatic paycheck deductions. FICA and Medicare tax rates, combined (and also for employers and employers, together), increased steadily from just 2.25% of pay between 1935 and 1953 to 4.50% by 1960, 6.90% by 1970, 8.10% by 1980, and 15.3% by 1990 (where it now stands). Meanwhile the income on which these higher tax rates apply has been repeatedly increased.
    How about this?

    In a 1936 publicity pamphlet describing the program to Americans, the Social Security Administration pledged that after 1949 the combined payroll tax rate of 6% would apply only to a worker’s annual income up to $3,000 and “that is the most you will ever pay.” Yet that 6% rate was breached under JFK (1962) and today’s rate (15.3%) is more than double the 1949 promised rate. Worse, today’s high rate applies to as much as $106,800 of annual income, which is more than triple the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what $3,000 was worth in 1949 (i.e., $28,642). Thus instead of paying $1,718/year (6% on income as high as $28,642), we’re now forced to pay $16,340/year (15.3% on income as high as $106,800) – an increase of nearly ten-fold.
    Or this?

    One might expect these massive new inflows to be more than enough for Washington to establish a “trust” fund, invest it productively, and pay higher benefits. Not so. In the 1960s Congress and Treasury began raiding the Social Security fund, to finance general outlays, while leaving behind an ever-rising pile of non-tradable Treasury bonds (now worth $2.6 trillion). Most inflows were spent immediately on current beneficiaries, a method basic to any Ponzi scheme, and U.S. politicians gave it the cute-sounding name PAYGO (“pay-as-you-go”). In a private pension plan or annuity the beneficiary receives returns based on what he contributes, plus real investment returns, and assets are held in a legally-segregated account which he owns. In contrast, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right,” so politicians now perennially exploit voters by scaring them about potential changes.
    Or how about this?

    The Ponzi status of the scheme is also corroborated by its widening net of victims. In 1935 it applied only to workers in commerce and industry, but in 1939 it was first applied to seamen and bank employees, then in 1946 to railroad workers, in 1950 to regularly-employed farm workers, the self-employed, and federal employees lacking pensions, in 1951 to railroad workers, in 1954 to home workers plus state and local government employees, in 1956 to the military, firemen, and policemen, in 1965 to interns, self-employed doctors and tip recipients, in 1967 to clergy, and in 1983 to all federal civilian employees hired after that year, plus Congress, the President, Vice-President, federal judges, and workers at non-profit organizations.
    Or again, how about this since you expect future payments to be made by future employees?

    Another obvious sign that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is the fact that the working age population (18-65 years old) is dwindling as a multiple of retirees collecting benefits. In 1935 there were 9.4 working-age Americans per retiree, but the ratio has since declined to 5.7 in 1960, 5.2 in 1985, and 4.8 in 2010. The Social Security Administration itself predicts the ratio will fall to 2.8 by 2035. Put another way, in 1935 each worker had to support 1/9th of a retiree, but by 2035 he’ll have to support roughly three times that load, or 1/3rd of a retiree.
    You see, liberals will always bury their head in the sand while kicking the can down the road to the next generation. The problem is eventually there will be no can to kick any further.

  2. #1662
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Incessant repetition is the con way.
    It normally takes incessant repetition to penetrate the mind of a liberal. Light bulb go off yet?

    Still waiting for the part of the article that is wrong?

  3. #1663
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Still waiting for the part of the article that is false?

    Is this false?



    Or this?

    "Both Social Security (since 1935) and it sister program, Medicare (since 1965) have been insolvent for years"
    Absolutely false.

    QED.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  4. #1664
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Absolutely false.

    QED.
    When you have more obligations than funding it is insolvent and apparently you don't understand what a non tradable bond is.

  5. #1665
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    When you have more obligations than funding it is insolvent and apparently you don't understand what a non tradable bond is.
    Cash flow insolvency involves a lack of liquidity to pay debts as they fall due.

    The funds are paying current debts.

    Therefore they are not "insolvent".

    Q frigging ED.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #1666
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Cash flow insolvency involves a lack of liquidity to pay debts as they fall due.

    The funds are paying current debts.

    Therefore they are not "insolvent".

    Q frigging ED.
    Your opinion noted

  7. #1667
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Your opinion noted
    Um, that is not an opinion. You even have trouble understanding what "that" is!
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #1668
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Um, that is not an opinion. You even have trouble understanding what "that" is!
    Yep, if only I had the superior intelligence of a liberal then I too could blame everyone else for personal mistake made and never have to admit when wrong. What I love are liberals like you who pick and choose the term they want to address such as Cash flow insolvency and not balance sheet insolvency. You are the one that doesn't seem to know the difference. SS and Medicare are BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENT

  9. #1669
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yep, if only I had the superior intelligence of a liberal then I too could blame everyone else for personal mistake made and never have to admit when wrong. What I love are liberals like you who pick and choose the term they want to address such as Cash flow insolvency and not balance sheet insolvency. You are the one that doesn't seem to know the difference. SS and Medicare are BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENT
    And this is why trying to use business accounting to govt entities fails. Every single govt entity will fail this test since future liabilities will always outstrip current assets. Govt is completely dependent upon current revenue for current AND future liabilities, again you created a false premise.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #1670
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    And this is why trying to use business accounting to govt entities fails. Every single govt entity will fail this test since future liabilities will always outstrip current assets. Govt is completely dependent upon current revenue for current AND future liabilities, again you created a false premise.
    Just goes to show how inefficient the govt. is that you want to expand powers to but only when Democrats control the govt. Name for me a future obligation that the govt. has other than SS and Medicare that are insolvent? You are easily confused by budget items vs. long term obligations, just like you were confused about the Bush budget deficits and Bush budget that was never signed until Obama signed it in 2009

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •