• 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%

Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, the facts are on my side as usual but facts just in the way of a liberal's opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
 
Conservative said:
Kid, you are hopeless, nothing changes the mind of a liberal ideologue.
Click to expand...
You are not going to convince me that a safety net insurance policy should be invested in WS.

You did however show me exactly what I suspected about yourself.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not going to convince me that a safety net insurance policy should be invested in WS.

You did however show me exactly what I suspected about yourself.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to do that, just explaining to you how your SS contribution has been wasted by the Federal Govt. that you have no problem expanding.

Why do you have to put your money in Wall Street? How about a simple savings account over time? What you are going to get in retirement is pennies compared to what you could have had you just put the money into a simple savings account over your working career.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, the facts are on my side as usual but facts just in the way of a liberal's opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Click to expand...
If you think that an investment banker's views are factual, there you are. If you want to spend your time believing you are "beating" anyone using WS centric argument, you go with that.

I just think it is sad that you spend your retirement alone on the recliner believing you are "beating" something.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If you think that an investment banker's views are factual, there you are. If you want to spend your time believing you are "beating" anyone using WS centric argument, you go with that.

I just think it is sad that you spend your retirement alone on the recliner believing you are "beating" something.
Click to expand...

I asked you what part of that article is wrong?? I think it is sad that someone your age and with your self proclaimed intelligence could be so brainwashed by an ideology that you would continue to pour gasoline on the fire making it bigger.

By the way, I am just fine. Having some carpet being laid today so I am here while that is going on. My 5 grandkids keep me very busy. Thanks so much for your concern, LOL.
 
Conservative said:
I want to be around when the light bulb goes off in your head.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
You just don't get it. Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
I hope that light bulb goes off soon.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb gone off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Light bulb go off yet or are you too immature to admit you are wrong??
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
You must have one of those new Obama light bulbs
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Doubt that light bulb will ever go off.
Click to expand...

Mr. Conservative, was "light bulb" the word of the day?
lightbulb.jpg
 
Conservative said:
No one is trying to do that, just explaining to you how your SS contribution has been wasted by the Federal Govt. that you have no problem expanding.

Why do you have to put your money in Wall Street? How about a simple savings account over time? What you are going to get in retirement is pennies compared to what you could have had you just put the money into a simple savings account over your working career.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Conservative said:
I asked you what part of that article is wrong?? I think it is sad that someone your age and with your self proclaimed intelligence could be so brainwashed by an ideology that you would continue to pour gasoline on the fire making it bigger.

By the way, I am just fine. Having some carpet being laid today so I am here while that is going on. My 5 grandkids keep me very busy. Thanks so much for your concern, LOL.
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if you are among he leading posters here, so this idea that you have other distractions is a thin argument.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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"
Click to expand...
Absolutely false.

QED.
 
Conservative said:
When you have more obligations than funding it is insolvent and apparently you don't understand what a non tradable bond is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, that is not an opinion. You even have trouble understanding what "that" is!
Click to expand...

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
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...
Your whole current defense of the false idea that SS/MC is "insolvent" is based upon long term obligations. It is false accounting, but that is how you believe you "win", by deceit.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your whole current defense of the false idea that SS/MC is "insolvent" is based upon long term obligations. It is false accounting, but that is how you believe you "win", by deceit.
Click to expand...

I only wish I was as much of an expert on everything as you think you are. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about but that doesn't stop you from talking. Where is the money going to come from to pay those IOU's that in your world aren't long term obligations?
 
Conservative said:
No it isn't, try to start a business in China. workers always have a voice here and they can use that voice not to take a job
Click to expand...

If you're one of the elite, as you support here, no problem. Start away. There will be no regulations. No minImum wage. No healthcare. Your dream world. China.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you're one of the elite, as you support here, no problem. Start away. There will be no regulations. No minImum wage. No healthcare. Your dream world. China.
Click to expand...

Vs the world you want it to be, please explain what the "racist" Thomas Sowell meant when he said the following:

“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays
Click to expand...

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
I only wish I was as much of an expert on everything as you think you are. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about but that doesn't stop you from talking. Where is the money going to come from to pay those IOU's that in your world aren't long term obligations?
Click to expand...
Changing the topic is concession of the point.

The article is replete with falsehoods, I showed just a very easily refuted one.

Hint: Stop using articles from investment bankers about how great it would be for them if they could get their hands on SS dollars to argue against SS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom