• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

No. SS was designed as a pay-go system that faced a structural demographic decoupling in terms of future liabilities. Hence, the reforms that built persistent surpasses.



Surplus = (revenue-expenditure) > 0

No amount of redefining terminology diminishes this fact.

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes

So the answer is as usual you refuse to answer so let me help you. You were coerced into putting money into SS and yes it is a future obligation owed to you that has been spent. Paying more in that going out doesn't change the fact that SS is a future obligation in the amount you contributed with maybe the hope of a little return. Light bulb go off yet?
 
LOL, constant supply that is dwindling. You really have no idea, do you? Sad, SS was never intended to be paid out when it was established as the retirement age was higher than the life expectancy age. Your money has been spent on someone else, and someone else's money is going to be spent on you. That never was the intent nor is it something that you apparently understand. Light bulb go off yet?

When any insurance pays money to its benefactors, it comes from current premiums paid. Light bulb go off yet?
 
Anyone that would listen to an investment banker that cheerleaded the use of insurance dollars for purchasing MBS's....is beyond me.

How anyone can continue to support the liberal ideology is beyond me. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? What exactly in the article is wrong? Your were forced to contribute to SS, your contribution is a future obligation to the Federal govt. thus an expense. Your contribution has been spent on something else and eventually has to be funded. Where does the money come from? Light bulb go off yet or are you too immature to admit you are wrong??
 
When any insurance pays money to its benefactors, it comes from current premiums paid. Light bulb go off yet?

What insurance company is SS invested in? Where do the insurance premiums for SS go? You must have one of those new Obama light bulbs

By the way, insurance companies invest premiums getting a return on those premiums from the profits generated by other companies and entities
 
All Presidents have used SS funds on budget as created by LBJ in the 60's as part of the unified budget.
Which means that Reagan did the same thing.


Reagan was responsible for 1.7 trillion dollars in debt whereas Obama is responsible for over 6.2 trillion in less than 5 years.
Reagan's % increase is greater and his recession spending was greater while his recession was smaller


SS is bankrupt,
Absolutely false
 
So the answer is as usual you refuse to answer so let me help you. You were coerced into putting money into SS and yes it is a future obligation owed to you that has been spent. Paying more in that going out doesn't change the fact that SS is a future obligation in the amount you contributed with maybe the hope of a little return. Light bulb go off yet?

Future liability is not a deficit, no matter how much you wish it were.
 
Which means that Reagan did the same thing.


Reagan's % increase is greater and his recession spending was greater while his recession was smaller


Absolutely false

When we pay debt service on the percentage change then I will be concerned about it. somehow a 1.7 trillion dollar debt is worse than a 6.2 trillion dollar debt in the liberal world. New liberal math?
 
Which means that Reagan did the same thing.


Reagan's % increase is greater and his recession spending was greater while his recession was smaller


Absolutely false

Conservative believes the majority of Americans are as mathematically illiterate as him.
 
Future liability is not a deficit, no matter how much you wish it were.

Never said it was a deficit but did say it wasn't a surplus, it is a future liability that has to be funded. Taking the money now an spending it doesn't change that liability and has to be funded somehow. Where is the money going to come from in a declining labor force?
 
Conservative believes the majority of Americans are as mathematically illiterate as him.

No, sorry, I never have been a liberal. Let me know if the country pays debt service on the percentage change in debt or the actual dollars of debt?
 
How anyone can continue to support the liberal ideology is beyond me. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? What exactly in the article is wrong? Your were forced to contribute to SS, your contribution is a future obligation to the Federal govt. thus an expense. Your contribution has been spent on something else and eventually has to be funded. Where does the money come from? Light bulb go off yet or are you too immature to admit you are wrong??
Among the many errors, the biggest one is the idea that my contribution "is a future obligation to the Federal govt". You can't express this correctly and I think it is still your greatest misconception....or is it a problem of sentence formation...I just don't know.
 
Among the many errors, the biggest one is the idea that my contribution "is a future obligation to the Federal govt". You can't express this correctly and I think it is still your greatest misconception....or is it a problem of sentence formation...I just don't know.

Really? So who is obligated to pay you your SS benefits if not the Govt? Do you understand the term liability? The govt owes you the money thus it is a future obligation. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong. Doubt that light bulb will ever go off.

So your contribution is to charity and not SS?
 
No, sorry, I never have been a liberal. Let me know if the country pays debt service on the percentage change in debt or the actual dollars of debt?

Should I give you a club and mammoth pelt to go with your understanding of contemporary finance?
 
I think we have proof AM radio signals kill brain cells!
 
Should I give you a club and mammoth pelt to go with your understanding of contemporary finance?

You are free to give away whatever you want including you bogus opinion and total lack of understanding of where your SS dollars go. Your book smart street stupid arguments may make you feel good and superior but are out of touch with reality. Where is the money going to come from to fund your SS retirement supplements?

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes
 
When we pay debt service on the percentage change then I will be concerned about it. somehow a 1.7 trillion dollar debt is worse than a 6.2 trillion dollar debt in the liberal world. New liberal math?
This is the typical conservative math where gross and aggregate is used and inflation and percentages are ignored. Where self induced recessions are compared to financial collapses and we are told the former is worse. Where SS is called ponzi to justify those dollars used in rigged markets to line the pockets of investment bankers.

That is the conservative way.
 
I think we have proof AM radio signals kill brain cells!

After the loss of my wife I don't listen to talk radio any more, sitting here watching ESPN and beating the crap out of you and other liberals. You see, logic and common aren't in the liberal vocabulary nor is a basic understanding of where your SS money goes.
 
This is the typical conservative math where gross and aggregate is used and inflation and percentages are ignored. Where self induced recessions are compared to financial collapses and we are told the former is worse. Where SS is called ponzi to justify those dollars used in rigged markets to line the pockets of investment bankers.

That is the conservative way.

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes

Seems that maybe the words need to be in a bigger font for you to read
 
Really? So who is obligated to pay you your SS benefits if not the Govt? Do you understand the term liability? The govt owes you the money thus it is a future obligation. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong. Doubt that light bulb will ever go off.

So your contribution is to charity and not SS?
My contribution is used to pay CURRENT retirees, a small part is used for "future obligations". You just keep tripping over yourself with your inaccurate descriptions
 
My contribution is used to pay CURRENT retirees, a small part is used for "future obligations". You just keep tripping over yourself with your inaccurate descriptions

of course it is so tell me how that is different from a Ponzi Scheme. Let this help you

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes

Is that what you were taught about SS and the purpose for SS, that your contributions would pay for someone else? why is that even necessary?
 
Seems that maybe the words need to be in a bigger font for you to read
PPS....Con, it is another investment banker trying to get a bigger pool of money to lose while he walks away with a percent.

That is closer to your "ponzi".
 
Never said it was a deficit but did say it wasn't a surplus

Surplus has been defined mathematically.

it is a future liability that has to be funded.

SS is a future liability. The surplus funds are exactly that, surplus funds.


Taking the money now an spending it doesn't change that liability and has to be funded somehow. Where is the money going to come from in a declining labor force?

Future tax revenues will fund S.S. Clinton still balanced the budget whether you like it or not.
 
of course it is so tell me how that is different from a Ponzi Scheme. Let this help you
Jesus, I have already explained it to you, and yet you think that a scammers article is going to persuade me.
 
Surplus has been defined mathematically.



SS is a future liability. The surplus funds are exactly that, surplus funds.




Future tax revenues will fund S.S. Clinton still balanced the budget whether you like it or not.

That is your problem mathematics doesn't tell the whole story. You ought to understand that. This really is sad that someone like you with such a brilliant mind cannot understand that SS was never intended to be this way and your contributions are long gone secured by trillions in IOU's that have to be funded. Keep believing that future tax revenue will fund those trillions in liabilities.
 
After the loss of my wife I don't listen to talk radio any more, sitting here watching ESPN and beating the crap out of you and other liberals. You see, logic and common aren't in the liberal vocabulary nor is a basic understanding of where your SS money goes.
This is why you need to get out. You are not beating anything and you are driving yourself crazy.


I imagined it was just like this....I was right.
 
Back
Top Bottom