• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
By that description, a bank is a ponzi scheme.

In fact, a bank only has a liability to hold reserves of 0% for deposits under $10,000,000.00, 3% for deposits between $10,000,000.00 and $58,800,000.00, and 10% for deposits exceeding $58,800,000.00.

I wonder if anyone in this discussion can illustrate why this is not a ponzi scheme.
 
The only fraud involved is the fraud that you and your conservative buddies are trying to force on the American worker, you and your conservative buddies see an opportunity to end SS and have working Americans invest in Wall Street, you have not been able to find a way to get your fingers into the SS pot so you want to have the hard working middle class and poor invest their money in Wall Street where you can manipulate stock prices and walk away with the unsecured investments of hard working Americans, you are not as slick as you think you are, but again go ahead put your fingers into the SS pot I want to see the day that America can once again fulfill it's promise to those who labored to build her and those who bleed to defend her

Well now, isn't that special, nothing refutes anything I have posted. Your money is gone, spent by those compassionate liberals that you support and what do we have to show for it, trillions in IOU's that have to be funded. You are one brainwashed human being who is out of touch with reality. Facts simply confuse you
 
Well now, isn't that special, nothing refutes anything I have posted. Your money is gone, spent by those compassionate liberals that you support and what do we have to show for it, trillions in IOU's that have to be funded. You are one brainwashed human being who is out of touch with reality. Facts simply confuse you

By any chance were you cloned from Stephen Colbert?
 
Your arguement is that the government isn't about to arrest itself. Yeah, no kidding.
No, my argument is that social security is not illegal.
 
No, my argument is that social security is not illegal.

It's illegal for me to kill someone that is no threat to me. The government may do so. Unfortunately the government allows themselves to legally do things what would be illegal for others.
 
Well now, isn't that special, nothing refutes anything I have posted. Your money is gone, spent by those compassionate liberals that you support and what do we have to show for it, trillions in IOU's that have to be funded. You are one brainwashed human being who is out of touch with reality. Facts simply confuse you

Hey! Didn't we just establish that ALL the admins since LBJ tapped the trust funds? There were some republicans in there too. So conservatives spent some of that money too.

In fact I bet you a twenty dollar donation that Republicans spent MORE than Dems (starve the beast and all). Now who do you hold responsible for this kind of stuff again? The congress or the president? I seem to remember some confusion on this point in the past. But if we can parse WHO spent what when then my wager stands.
 
It's illegal for me to kill someone that is no threat to me. The government may do so. Unfortunately the government allows themselves to legally do things what would be illegal for others.
In what way does the government legally kill someone who is not a threat?
 
Hey! Didn't we just establish that ALL the admins since LBJ tapped the trust funds? There were some republicans in there too. So conservatives spent some of that money too.

In fact I bet you a twenty dollar donation that Republicans spent MORE than Dems (starve the beast and all). Now who do you hold responsible for this kind of stuff again? The congress or the president? I seem to remember some confusion on this point in the past. But if we can parse WHO spent what when then my wager stands.

Nixon
Ford
Reagan
GWH Bush
Clinton
GW Bush
Obama

You win on the Republican Presidents but it is Congress that borrows and appropriates the money, not the President so I will take that bet
 
Well now, isn't that special, nothing refutes anything I have posted. Your money is gone, spent by those compassionate liberals that you support and what do we have to show for it, trillions in IOU's that have to be funded. You are one brainwashed human being who is out of touch with reality. Facts simply confuse you

I have provided links that show SS is not a ponzi scheme you choose to ignore any thing that disproves your BS, You think that you are so intelligent that nobody can see what your real agenda is, as I have told you before you are not that slick, enjoy the money you have already made from the backs of Wall Street investors, keep pushing to end SS I want to see an end to the republican party. Your brain washing techniques are not that good
 
I have provided links that show SS is not a ponzi scheme you choose to ignore any thing t hat disproves your BS, You think that you are so intelligent that nobody can see what your real agenda is, as I have told you before you are not that slick, enjoy the money you have already made from the backs of Wall Street investors, keep pushing to end SS I want to see an end to the republican party. Your brain washing techniques are not that good

I agreed with your link but you don't understand that it was the surplus of SS that went on budget. So that you stop making a fool of yourself read the history of SS. Just goes to show what brainwashing does and that is why this country is in such a mess. totally uninformed individuals who cannot admit when wrong.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

From that article which is posted on the SS website

"On-Budget"-

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.
 
I stand by my statement, it is what it is, your money going to someone else and someone else paying your SS check. That isn't insurance, that is the characteristics of a ponzi scheme.
You could stomp on your statement, I really couldn't care less. When you pay premiums for insurance that money is used to pay claims.
 
You could stomp on your statement, I really couldn't care less. When you pay premiums for insurance that money is used to pay claims.

You really don't want to go down that road. You aren't forced into insurance and trying to compare the two doesn't make any sense. You contributed to SS on the basis that your money would be there for you when you retire. That is a lie based upon changes to SS in the 60's.
 
I agreed with your link but you don't understand that it was the surplus of SS that went on budget. So that you stop making a fool of yourself read the history of SS. Just goes to show what brainwashing does and that is why this country is in such a mess. totally uninformed individuals who cannot admit when wrong.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

From that article which is posted on the SS website

Why not go back to 1899? your cherry picking your information in an attempt to put an end to SS and replace it with private accounts that would be invested in Wall Street, if Wall Street was liquidated tomorrow how many people would lose thier life savings? Wall Street is nothing but a large gambling casino where the insiders manipulate the stock prices and walk away as million and billionaires

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress increased the FICA tax to fund Social Security, phased in gradually into the 1980s.[5] In the early 1980s, financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits (thus raising the possibility of benefit cuts). The federal government appointed the National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan (who had not yet been named Chairman of the Federal Reserve), to investigate what additional changes to federal law were necessary to shore up the fiscal health of the Social Security program.[6] The Greenspan Commission projected that the system would be solvent for the entirety of its 75-year forecast period with certain recommendations.[6] The changes to federal law enacted in 1983 pursuant to the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission merely advanced the time frame for previously scheduled payroll tax increases (though it raised slightly the payroll tax for the self-employed to equal the employer-employee rate), changed certain benefit calculations, and raised the retirement age to 67 by the year 2027.[7] As of the end of calendar year 2010, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2.6 trillion.[8] Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017. Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds.[9]

How are your reading comprehension skills?
 
I suppose you think John McCain would pick some body better, I don't.

We will never know but we do know what the Obama record is and it is that record that will make him a one term President. There is no justification for giving this guy another 4 years but as I can see here there are many very poorly informed people who ignore the rhetoric and buy the rhetoric. Obama had total control of the Congress for two years and we have seen the results of Obamanomics which of course you and others want to ignore.
 
When you pay premiums for insurance that money is used to pay claims.

Not really. If this was the case, the entire insurance industry would have collapsed a long time ago. Insurance companies take the money received from premiums, and invests it in avenues that can provide the great yields with the least risk.

FWIW :2razz:
 
Why not go back to 1899? your cherry picking your information in an attempt to put an end to SS and replace it with private accounts that would be invested in Wall Street, if Wall Street was liquidated tomorrow how many people would lose thier life savings? Wall Street is nothing but a large gambling casino where the insiders manipulate the stock prices and walk away as million and billionaires



How are your reading comprehension skills?

Obviously better than yours, here is the budget of the United States. Tell me why SS is listed as an on budget item? Is it ego that will not let you admit that you are wrong and that liberalism has made a fool out of you?

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1,089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9


2,021.6

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9


Total 3496.4
 
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
GWH Bush
Clinton
GW Bush
Obama

You win on the Republican Presidents but it is Congress that borrows and appropriates the money, not the President so I will take that bet
WTF??

Which story are you sticking with? 'Cause you're talking out of both sides of your mouthg again...

  • "Every President BUT Reagan has taken money from SS and put it on budget" ~ Conservative
  • "it is Congress that borrows and appropriates the money, not the President..." ~ Conservative
 
Not really. If this was the case, the entire insurance industry would have collapsed a long time ago. Insurance companies take the money received from premiums, and invests it in avenues that can provide the great yields with the least risk.

FWIW :2razz:
Social Security invests it's money in U.S. treasury securities. :coffeepap:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom