Jump to content

Social Insecurity...


Recommended Posts

Google Ida M. Fuller.

 

On January 31, 1940 she became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54. On her second payment she was in the money.

 

Make no mistake. Social Security was SOLD to the American people. It has never been, insurance or a pension fund. It has always been a redistribution tax. A very, very communist like scheme. The truth is so unsavory to many good Americans that receive this "benefit" that they'll willing defend the lie they've been told.

 

Payroll tax rose dramatically from 1970-83. For his working life, a worker between 1930 and 1970 probably did pay in 1% and his employer paid in 1%. Today it's over 15% for most Americans.

 

...and that's not enough to sustain the program.

 

 

AKA A PONZI SCHEME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's worth noting that the SS website, in boasting about Ida Fuller

http://www.ssa.gov/history/imf.html

fails to mention how much she made from her $24.75 contribution to the SS system:

$22,888.92 .

Yes indeed, it was a Ponzi scheme from day one.

But the scheme has gone bust.

Now, most people will get back far less than what they put in, had they taken the same money and invested it in very secure, relatively low return assets.

In fact,

http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/

Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85.


Of course, had they taken that same $598,000 and invested it in sound investments, they'd collect far more than $556,000. Many times that much.

 

The ponzi scheme has gone bust.

 

Now it's nothing but a system that's designed to impoverish those who pay into it so they're forever dependent on the government and politicians …

 

... particularly Democrats. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Ida M. Fuller.

 

On January 31, 1940 she became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54. On her second payment she was in the money.

 

Make no mistake. Social Security was SOLD to the American people. It has never been, insurance or a pension fund. It has always been a redistribution tax. A very, very communist like scheme. The truth is so unsavory to many good Americans that receive this "benefit" that they'll willing defend the lie they've been told.

 

Payroll tax rose dramatically from 1970-83. For his working life, a worker between 1930 and 1970 probably did pay in 1% and his employer paid in 1%. Today it's over 15% for most Americans.

 

...and that's not enough to sustain the program.

 

 

AKA A PONZI SCHEME

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that the SS website, in boasting about Ida Fuller

 

http://www.ssa.gov/history/imf.html

 

fails to mention how much she made from her $24.75 contribution to the SS system:

 

$22,888.92 .

 

Yes indeed, it was a Ponzi scheme from day one.

 

But the scheme has gone bust.

 

Now, most people will get back far less than what they put in, had they taken the same money and invested it in very secure, relatively low return assets.

 

In fact,

 

http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/

 

 

Of course, had they taken that same $598,000 and invested it in sound investments, they'd collect far more than $556,000. Many times that much.

 

The ponzi scheme has gone bust.

 

Now it's nothing but a system that's designed to impoverish those who pay into it so they're forever dependent on the government and politicians …

 

... particularly Democrats. :angry:

 

 

And what happens to these peoples investments for retirement when they lose it all? Got a clue on that one? You call SS a scheme, what part of stock market crash isn't a scheme? What you are saying, let me go to Las Vegas where I have no control of my money & roll the dice and depend on ol lady luck for my old aged future. Do you have a clue how many people Win those games? Damn few, that's how many!!

 

 

stock-market-crash-2014-2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Ida M. Fuller.

 

On January 31, 1940 she became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54. On her second payment she was in the money.

 

Make no mistake. Social Security was SOLD to the American people. It has never been, insurance or a pension fund. It has always been a redistribution tax. A very, very communist like scheme. The truth is so unsavory to many good Americans that receive this "benefit" that they'll willing defend the lie they've been told.

 

Payroll tax rose dramatically from 1970-83. For his working life, a worker between 1930 and 1970 probably did pay in 1% and his employer paid in 1%. Today it's over 15% for most Americans.

 

...and that's not enough to sustain the program.

 

 

AKA A PONZI SCHEME

As long as babies are being born, it remains viable. Even w/the borrowing from it, it has taken in more than it has paid out, & is expected to continue doing so through 2037 withOUT ANY CHANGES. However, if there is a real fear, then all we need do is RAISE OR ELIMINATE the INCOME CAP, presently at around $117,000. Your own words tell US that there is GOOD EVIDENCE that it should be done.

 

ALL of the BLACKidiots@FIXEDnewsCORP ARE SO UNgrateful & STUPID that they doN'T even realize that they STILL wouldN'T be able to drink out of the same drinking fountain has sean hannity in the South, if not for that GREAT LIBERAL Texan, LBJ!

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As long as babies are being born, it remains viable. Even w/the borrowing from it, it has taken in more than it has paid out, & is expected to continue doing so through 2037 withOUT ANY CHANGES. However, if there is a real fear, then all we need do is RAISE OR ELIMINATE the INCOME CAP, presently at around $117,000. Your own words tell US that there is GOOD EVIDENCE that it should be done.

 

ALL of the BLACKidiots@FIXEDnewsCORP ARE SO UNgrateful & STUPID that they doN'T even realize that they STILL wouldN'T be able to drink out of the same drinking fountain has sean hannity in the South, if not for that GREAT LIBERAL Texan, LBJ!

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

 

 

 

SS would have been just fine if it wasn't 'borrowed' from, but let's ask who 'borrowed' it.. conservatives act like everything has been stolen, that money has been spent on the American people, and we keep voting these politicians in office since the New Deal!

 

With that said, if there was a way to give people the option, without crashing the system, I think it could work. People don't just 'gamble' their money when they are properly investing. There are times when you can be more risky, but typically, 10 to 15 years leading up to a person's retirement, you should start putting money in less risky investments, like bonds. Also, even amidst all this economic chaos, investors and the DOW are doing pretty well.. so it's kind of proof that ya just gotta not panic, keep your money in the stock market, and it'll come back, it always does. And the day it doesn't, we'll ALL have a lot to worry about…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As long as babies are being born, it remains viable. Even w/the borrowing from it, it has taken in more than it has paid out, & is expected to continue doing so through 2037 withOUT ANY CHANGES. However, if there is a real fear, then all we need do is RAISE OR ELIMINATE the INCOME CAP, presently at around $117,000. Your own words tell US that there is GOOD EVIDENCE that it should be done.

 

 

There is never, ever a good reason for perpetuating a ponzi scheme.

 

The 2037 number is bogus.

 

From the trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

"After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

 

 

SS would have been just fine if it wasn't 'borrowed' from, but let's ask who 'borrowed' it.. conservatives act like everything has been stolen, that money has been spent on the American people, and we keep voting these politicians in office since the New Deal!

 

With that said, if there was a way to give people the option, without crashing the system, I think it could work. People don't just 'gamble' their money when they are properly investing. There are times when you can be more risky, but typically, 10 to 15 years leading up to a person's retirement, you should start putting money in less risky investments, like bonds. Also, even amidst all this economic chaos, investors and the DOW are doing pretty well.. so it's kind of proof that ya just gotta not panic, keep your money in the stock market, and it'll come back, it always does. And the day it doesn't, we'll ALL have a lot to worry about…

 

Social security would never be fine. It's a program that earns almost zero interest and has more people taking out vice chipping in as retirements increase. The borrowing problem doesn't obviate that. Furthermore, the scope was increased to SSDI (disability) without people paying in. The bleeding heart liberals set up this entitlement with no regard to the laws of mathematics and economics.

 

The math for the program can never work. It goes broke and the last people in get screwed, just like everything the left sets up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As long as babies are being born, it remains viable. Even w/the borrowing from it, it has taken in more than it has paid out, & is expected to continue doing so through 2037 withOUT ANY CHANGES. However, if there is a real fear, then all we need do is RAISE OR ELIMINATE the INCOME CAP, presently at around $117,000. Your own words tell US that there is GOOD EVIDENCE that it should be done.

 

ALL of the BLACKidiots@FIXEDnewsCORP ARE SO UNgrateful & STUPID that they doN'T even realize that they STILL wouldN'T be able to drink out of the same drinking fountain has sean hannity in the South, if not for that GREAT LIBERAL Texan, LBJ!

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

 

Here's even better evidence that raising the cap shouldn't be done, as a self-employed person I will pay around $17,900 this year alone and I've been paying amounts like that for many years. I have paid into this system since I was a kid and by the time I get old enough to retire I will have paid $100's of thousands of dollars into this scheme and then the government will send me a few of MY OWN DOLLARS on a monthly basis, let's call it an allowance, something parents give to their kids, which pretty much sums up how Liberals feel about our own private lives and government, they want government to take care of us and treat us all like a bunch of kids. Raising the cap on SS is a Liberal wet dream, take even more from the people who need the crappy system the least, can you say INCOME REDISTRIBUTION?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Ida M. Fuller.

 

On January 31, 1940 she became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54. On her second payment she was in the money.

 

Make no mistake. Social Security was SOLD to the American people. It has never been, insurance or a pension fund. It has always been a redistribution tax. A very, very communist like scheme. The truth is so unsavory to many good Americans that receive this "benefit" that they'll willing defend the lie they've been told.

 

Payroll tax rose dramatically from 1970-83. For his working life, a worker between 1930 and 1970 probably did pay in 1% and his employer paid in 1%. Today it's over 15% for most Americans.

 

...and that's not enough to sustain the program.

 

 

AKA A PONZI SCHEME

I spend 40 years working to earn enough to not need social security following society's rules and when I reached 3 years prior to being of social security age, social engineers wiped out the value of my lifetime's efforts. Economics is a ponzi scheme, not just social security.

 

Reality is a ponzi scheme, not just social security. Humanity is a ponzi scheme, not just social security. Need I add spiritualism as well?

 

But here is my thinking, instead of burning down the house I need to live in, fix what went wrong.

 

Instead of telling everyone go to hell, I figured out now is eternity and brought hell to them that enforce the rules of nobody can know more than what they learned after birth socially saving ideology rather than living within natural balancing making everything self contained spaced apart currently here.

 

Now you intellectual geniuses playing semantics with liberal arts of plastering young brains to mind social narratives of what if cradle to grave, Your time is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demdopes always come up with the same line. They would have lost it in the markets. Over 40 years you would have made a fortune in the markets. Even if the Gov. Forced you to put it into insured bank cert. of del. you would have made Waaaaay more than the return you get from SS. Your SS return is ZERO, NADA. You will pay in more than you get back. Bush wanted to let you have a lousy %.01 of the money to invest. Dems said nooooo. The reason was it was to be your money and you could leave it to an heir. The dems wanted the money to blow on phony SSDI claims. You could not have a lousy %.01. I am not in this fight. I never paid into the Ponzi scheme. I retired from the fed. in the old CSRS. That system is fully funded and pays light years more than SS. Since the dems will never let you invest the money the only way to save the SS is to start paying out LESS. The best plan that I have heard is all those under 55 will have to wait to an older age to collect full social security. This plan will effect no one over 55 now. The dems will not buy into it. They will say throw granny over a cliff and other garbage. If you live beyond 2033 the nation will have to borrow money to pay for you. Your kids will thank you for that one. hahahaaaaa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demdopes always come up with the same line. They would have lost it in the markets. Over 40 years you would have made a fortune in the markets. Even if the Gov. Forced you to put it into insured bank cert. of del. you would have made Waaaaay more than the return you get from SS. Your SS return is ZERO, NADA. You will pay in more than you get back. Bush wanted to let you have a lousy %.01 of the money to invest. Dems said nooooo. The reason was it was to be your money and you could leave it to an heir. The dems wanted the money to blow on phony SSDI claims. You could not have a lousy %.01. I am not in this fight. I never paid into the Ponzi scheme. I retired from the fed. in the old CSRS. That system is fully funded and pays light years more than SS. Since the dems will never let you invest the money the only way to save the SS is to start paying out LESS. The best plan that I have heard is all those under 55 will have to wait to an older age to collect full social security. This plan will effect no one over 55 now. The dems will not buy into it. They will say throw granny over a cliff and other garbage. If you live beyond 2033 the nation will have to borrow money to pay for you. Your kids will thank you for that one. hahahaaaaa.

You aren't as smart as you think. When money is defined by more than one standard measure like gold, the same currency has multiple fractional values and when one multiplies fractions with each other, the whole point of beginning is never reached again in value.

 

1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. 1/4 x 1/4 is 1/16. Exponentials fool, existentials never figure out by themselves playing two sides against everything else included to being here now.

 

Why are lifetimes insecure to being themselves cradle to grave? Is it because of religion or academic comparisons of what society teaches each social consciousness of collective thought recited for generations of ancestors passing through this atmosphere?

 

How many people know absolutely, now is Eternity? Those that do didn't learn it from societal evolutionists controlling the marketplace of selling notions of global spiritualism and national prides as leaders are compensated with symbolic values of power, wealth, and fame conducting business as usual squaring off 4 points of distraction using circle logic triangulating playing two sides against a middle held silent by law protecting character role models..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even go into what a horrible albatross social security is.

 

Without social security there would not be a single worker making average income that would NOT retire a millionaire.

 

Most deposit less than 10% of their income in a 401k and get much of the way to a million. Imagine if that were 27%!!!!

 

We should pay for the true safety net for old people out of the general fund. And allow average Americans to generate wealth and leave it to their families by abolishing social security.

 

It's a horrible, horrible weight on our shoulders that keeps us poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even go into what a horrible albatross social security is.

 

Without social security there would not be a single worker making average income that would NOT retire a millionaire.

 

Most deposit less than 10% of their income in a 401k and get much of the way to a million. Imagine if that were 27%!!!!

 

We should pay for the true safety net for old people out of the general fund. And allow average Americans to generate wealth and leave it to their families by abolishing social security.

 

It's a horrible, horrible weight on our shoulders that keeps us poorer.

Do you understand what destroyed the concept?

 

American Disabilities act I think got signed by William Jefferson Clinton. Within the regulations of that legislation DCF sealed its deal at collapsing this country economically saving those that cannot survive under their own talents while those caring for them can become millionaires in the process.

 

And nobody cares to see how it was done. They just look for excuses to make sure it doesn't stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tell us what would be a better plan?

Whom are you asking? Or is this just an arrow shot into the crowd, where it lands you don't care.

 

Planned obsolescence protected by plausible deniability is fraud. Now just because social engineers design societies doesn't make it correct to give legal rights to acting beyond one's skin matters and being yourself becomes crimes against humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what happens to these peoples investments for retirement when they lose it all?

Done wisely, they won't.

 

As I've demonstrated many times on this forum.

 

Apparently without you getting any the wiser.

 

But let me try again.

 

To test whether there is a vacuum between your ears or not.

 

Here's an example that I provided Protectionist a few years ago (in 2011). It proves that if people had been allowed to invest their own money in very safe financial instruments, instead of handing it over to the SSA, their return now would be many times greater from SS. And at the same time, they'd be protected from those periodic market downturns that you're using to try and scare people. Here:

 

------------


 


Consider a specific example from the SSA website (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html ) ... that of a person (let's say a man) who is born in 1950 and retired at the age of 62 this year. He started work at the age of 18 and worked 43 years. The SSA website shows how to calculate what that person would get on a monthly basis now, based on earnings each year since 1968. Assuming the maximum SS earnings that were allowed in each year, I built a spreadsheet to do the calculation and it turns out that the SS system would pay that person $1874 per month starting at age 62 (this year).
 


 

Now, what if that person had taken his and his employer's contributions to SS over those years and instead put them to work in the stock market? To be on the safe side, I would invest each years contributions into the S&P 500 stock index. That's a VERY conservative investment. One isn't allowed to put the money into individual stocks, but must spread the risk out over all the companies in the S&P 500. Now let's face it, if what are basically 500 of the largest companies in America fail, can anything … even the US government … be far behind? For all practical purposes, the S&P 500 over any reasonable length of time is just as sure, just as secure, as the Federal government. Seriously.
 


 

Now how much goes into this account. The SS tax rates have varied over the years (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html ). In 1968, the percent of earnings that one (plus one's employer) had to contribute to the SS system was 7.7% of taxable earnings, up to the maximums listed above in the first link. Which means a contribution of $601 in 1968, given the maximum SS earnings at that time of $7800. In 1969 it was 8.4% which meant a contribution of $655 on a maximum SS earnings of $7800. And so forth.


 


I built another spreadsheet and placed this information in it for each year from 1968 to 2011. I then added to the spreadsheet the historical returns of the S&P index fund for each year over that time (from http://historicalreturns-sp500.blogspot.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500 ). Then I used the spreadsheet to value the account each year marching forward from 1968 to 2011, assuming all losses came from the account and all gains went back into the account. The result is that the account would be worth $1.64 MILLION dollars today! That's my nest egg instead of Social Security. Now let's see if I can retire on it and live as well as the fellow getting a check for $1874 each month from the government courtesy of Democrats.
 


 

Here's what I do. I take out $224880 from my nest egg and put it in a local bank's checking account. That way I can write myself a $1874 check each month for the next 10 years, exactly what I'd expect get from Uncle Sam during that time. Heck, make it $449760 in the account so I can live twice as well as that SS fellow.
 


 

I take the rest of the money ($1.19 million) and put it in T-Bills. What could be safer? Right,? Afterall, that's where we are told the SS trust funds are *invested*. So I'll just do the same. (It's not what I'd really do, but I'll play along liberal stupidity.) The current 10 year yield for a T-Bill (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield ) is a little over 2%. So that's where the $1.19 million goes.


 


Now let move forward 10 years. My savings account is now gone. But boy have I been living a nicer life than the poor sucker who is living off his $1874 Social Security check. My 10 Year T-Bill's have reached maturity. They made 2% per year. So that account is now worth $1.45 million. I take $449760 from that and put it in my checking account. What's left ($1.0 million) goes back into a 10 year T-bill. Let's just assume that 10 year T-bills are still getting just 2% (it will probably be much higher since they are tied to inflation and inflation is bound to go up thanks to Obama).
 


 

Another 10 years passes and I've been living the life of Reilly (while that sucker on Social Security is still watching every penny). My 10 year T-Bills reach maturity and are now worth $1.22 million. Take another $449760 from that. The rest ($771,000) goes back into 10 year T-Bills.
 
Another 10 years passes. That poor SS *dude*. I'm still living twice the life he has been living. Better food. Better clothing. Better housing. Better cars. Better vacations. Better everything. And I haven't been stressing about my finances, like him, so I may even live longer. Now my T-Bill account is worth (still assuming 2%) $940,000.
 


 

I repeat the same process putting $492,000 back into T-Bills. Another 10 years go by. By now the SS chap is probably long expired due to his subsistence living, but I'm still … well, I'm 102 years old and still enjoying life. But to be honest I probably don't have that many years left. Good thing, because my current nest egg is … let me check … $594,850. Hey … maybe I will live to 112. But if not, my relatives get a nice estate. The SS fellow's relatives get nothing.
 


 

And here's the kicker. I can do MUCH better than that and still be very secure. I could, for example, leave half the original nest egg ($820,000) in the S&P Index fund and let it continue to grow for another 20 years at the historical 6.8% after inflation. If I did that, that portion would likely be worth $3 MILLION dollars in inflation adjusted dollars, when I was only 82 years old. Imagine what my life would be like then, compared to that poor, stupid, social security victim? Imagine what my children's lives would be like with THAT as an estate. 
 :D

 


------------

Now the above clearly protects one from market downturns like the one whose chart you posted in an attempt to scare people. And it gives back to the person MANY times what they would get from SS. And in the end they can even give what's left to their children. Shintao, all you can do is response to this example is keep trying to needlessly, and dishonestly, scare people. And lie. And obfuscate. Because when all is said and done, you want people to remain dependent ... on Democrats/progressives/socialists/communists ... like you. I'm trying to free them. You're want to keep them enslaved. :angry:

SS would have been just fine if it wasn't 'borrowed' from,

Go ahead. Repeat your meme. I already showed it's garbage. But you ignored my response. So repeat the meme. Like a Truther.

 

From the trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

"After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

The real lie here is that there is no trust fund.

 

There is no bank containing any money that says Social Security.

 

EVERY DOLLAR paid out in social security has to come from current day taxes.

tell us what would be a better plan?

 

See my post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

SS would have been just fine if it wasn't 'borrowed' from, but let's ask who 'borrowed' it.. conservatives act like everything has been stolen, that money has been spent on the American people, and we keep voting these politicians in office since the New Deal!

 

With that said, if there was a way to give people the option, without crashing the system, I think it could work. People don't just 'gamble' their money when they are properly investing. There are times when you can be more risky, but typically, 10 to 15 years leading up to a person's retirement, you should start putting money in less risky investments, like bonds. Also, even amidst all this economic chaos, investors and the DOW are doing pretty well.. so it's kind of proof that ya just gotta not panic, keep your money in the stock market, and it'll come back, it always does. And the day it doesn't, we'll ALL have a lot to worry about…

S.S. doesN'T prevent ANY1 from investing additional $ in the stock market w/IRA's. It just gives them a little bit of U.S.A. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE if none of their bets pay off, & a chance to start a business when they reach a full retirement age if their bets do pay off, with a little security in case that business doesn't do as good as they hoped.

 

But doN'T EVER EXPECT the IDIOTS@FIXEDnewsCORP to explain that to ANY1.

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hit quote but it rarely shows a quote .

so I'll just put it out there to people that critic of SS

if a person b!tch's about something then show us a better way


you must have been asleep when the stock market crashed on 08 and millions lost their retirements to think investments are even clost to safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demdopes always come up with the same line. They would have lost it in the markets. Over 40 years you would have made a fortune in the markets. Even if the Gov. Forced you to put it into insured bank cert. of del. you would have made Waaaaay more than the return you get from SS. Your SS return is ZERO, NADA. You will pay in more than you get back. Bush wanted to let you have a lousy %.01 of the money to invest. Dems said nooooo. The reason was it was to be your money and you could leave it to an heir. The dems wanted the money to blow on phony SSDI claims. You could not have a lousy %.01. I am not in this fight. I never paid into the Ponzi scheme. I retired from the fed. in the old CSRS. That system is fully funded and pays light years more than SS. Since the dems will never let you invest the money the only way to save the SS is to start paying out LESS. The best plan that I have heard is all those under 55 will have to wait to an older age to collect full social security. This plan will effect no one over 55 now. The dems will not buy into it. They will say throw granny over a cliff and other garbage. If you live beyond 2033 the nation will have to borrow money to pay for you. Your kids will thank you for that one. hahahaaaaa.

"If you live beyond 2033 the nation will have to borrow money to pay for you" NOT if we raise or ELIMINATE the Income Cap, now set @ $113,700. It has already been established that CAP is WAY TOO LOW.

Another thing NO1 will mention on FIXEDnewsCORP is that the Baby Boomers will shortly thereafter become extinct. & it doesN'T look like we will run out of a population to support it.

http://chartsbin.com/view/gdn

Just need to make sure the IDIOT CONS doN'T blow it all up, & your kids will end up even better off than u.

What we need now, is a Health Care Public Option as an alternative to private insurance SCAMS.

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you must have been asleep when the stock market crashed on 08 and millions lost their retirements to think investments are even clost to safe

 

The crash in 2008 lasted a couple years.

 

And now the stock market is higher than ever.

 

Only three types of people lost money in 2008, lefty.

 

The first are people who panicked and got out of the market at the lows, rather than waiting for the market to do what it has ALWAYS done after corrections … go back up. This was the bulk of those who lost money, by the way.

 

The second are people who foolishly put all their assets into just a few stocks (rather than broader based funds) … and were unlucky enough that those stocks did particularly badly during the downtown and either went broke or didn't recover like all the others did. This is the next biggest group of people.

 

And in a distant third are people who were living so close to the edge that they had to sell stock in order to pay the rent. In other words, these were people who didn't have cash on hand to tide them through a downturn.

 

Now the example I gave you avoids all three pitfalls. The person who has been wisely stashing away money over the course of his work years will find that stash growing at the historical rate of the S&P over all those years. Only as that person approaches retirement must he withdraw money and he can easily time that withdrawal to make sure it doesn't occur during a downturn. Just as long as he doesn't get greedy and wait to the very last minute.

 

In my example the person withdrew $449760 from a total account of $1.64 million that his account had grown over the years. He could do that when the market was high at some point in the period before retirement. He didn't get greedy and wait to the very last minute because that would expose him to a sudden downturn. Smart fellow.

 

That withdrawal allows him to live twice as well as an SS recipient for the next TEN YEARS. So he's not living on the edge where the next rent check must come from stocks. He keeps that money in total non-risky form (perhaps even cash in a bank), while the rest remains in the S&P index fund and grows further.

 

About 5 or 6 years into that ten year period, he begins watching the market again, and when the market is high, again pulls out the next 10 years worth of living expenses. And so on.

 

He never has to sell his stock fund during a downturn. It's called managing your risk. But you don't seem to grasp that.

 

Or you do and would rather scare people into remaining dependent on the government. If so, I find that reprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

S.S. doesN'T prevent ANY1 from investing additional $ in the stock market w/IRA's. It just gives them a little bit of U.S.A. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE if none of their bets pay off, & a chance to start a business when they reach a full retirement age if their bets do pay off, with a little security in case that business doesn't do as good as they hoped.

 

But doN'T EVER EXPECT the IDIOTS@FIXEDnewsCORP to explain that to ANY1.

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

 

 

 

if they could give us the option to take our money out without ruining the system, I think it'd be a better solution. but, the point was made that Social Security now pays out to the disabled, and Im sure it's quite a bit. I've accepted that, just like I accept Medicare helps the poor..

 

let's face it, a lot of it really is welfare. Why can't more people call a spade a spade. I still support Social Security, I believe we need to help disabled people, though I can point to a few stories in which people I knew personally were receiving hundreds of dollars a month when they were as strong as an ox, so there is a lot of reform that can be done with all these programs, and there is a lot of resistance to ANY common sense reforms, because Democrats are quick to demagogue whenever the issue is brought up, and i find that disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those people were city's, unions, states ,

 

only the rich staid rich . so what should happen to those groups that lost pensions ?


FICA touch out SS money every pay check .

 

people on SS deserve their money , or do you think insurance companies should be calling their clients welfare recipients ? because that is what SS is


I'm glad so many of you are able to on your own put retirement money aside .

most people today live pay check to pay check , save nothing . can't really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The crash in 2008 lasted a couple years.

 

And now the stock market is higher than ever.

 

Only three types of people lost money in 2008, lefty.

 

The first are people who panicked and got out of the market at the lows, rather than waiting for the market to do what it has ALWAYS done after corrections … go back up. This was the bulk of those who lost money, by the way.

 

The second are people who foolishly put all their assets into just a few stocks (rather than broader based funds) … and were unlucky enough that those stocks did particularly badly during the downtown and either went broke or didn't recover like all the others did. This is the next biggest group of people.

 

And in a distant third are people who were living so close to the edge that they had to sell stock in order to pay the rent. In other words, these were people who didn't have cash on hand to tide them through a downturn.

 

Now the example I gave you avoids all three pitfalls. The person who has been wisely stashing away money over the course of his work years will find that stash growing at the historical rate of the S&P over all those years. Only as that person approaches retirement must he withdraw money and he can easily time that withdrawal to make sure it doesn't occur during a downturn. Just as long as he doesn't get greedy and wait to the very last minute.

 

In my example the person withdrew $449760 from a total account of $1.64 million that his account had grown over the years. He could do that when the market was high at some point in the period before retirement. He didn't get greedy and wait to the very last minute because that would expose him to a sudden downturn. Smart fellow.

 

That withdrawal allows him to live twice as well as an SS recipient for the next TEN YEARS. So he's not living on the edge where the next rent check must come from stocks. He keeps that money in total non-risky form (perhaps even cash in a bank), while the rest remains in the S&P index fund and grows further.

 

About 5 or 6 years into that ten year period, he begins watching the market again, and when the market is high, again pulls out the next 10 years worth of living expenses. And so on.

 

He never has to sell his stock fund during a downturn. It's called managing your risk. But you don't seem to grasp that.

 

Or you do and would rather scare people into remaining dependent on the government. If so, I find that reprehensible.

Damn I could tear this apart so easy. But there is only one point that irritates my instincts most and I highlited it. You are a character that traded his sole for a soul possession of humanity's directives misleading society's children cradle to grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As long as babies are being born, it remains viable. Even w/the borrowing from it, it has taken in more than it has paid out, & is expected to continue doing so through 2037 withOUT ANY CHANGES. However, if there is a real fear, then all we need do is RAISE OR ELIMINATE the INCOME CAP, presently at around $117,000. Your own words tell US that there is GOOD EVIDENCE that it should be done.

 

ALL of the BLACKidiots@FIXEDnewsCORP ARE SO UNgrateful & STUPID that they doN'T even realize that they STILL wouldN'T be able to drink out of the same drinking fountain has sean hannity in the South, if not for that GREAT LIBERAL Texan, LBJ!

http://www.thedailys...ional-autocrats

http://www.thedailys...istraction-loop

Dave Peiser For Congress!

http://www.peiserforcongress.com/

http://<span style="...real-tax-reform

http://www.freewebs....description.htm

70365_100005799457554_14620414_q.jpg

2014: VOTE FOR WE THE PEOPLE IN THE "PEOPLE'S HOUSE!" USA!

prPMT2010-10-29.GIF

 

WHAT AN IDIOT

 

I repeat a web site I posted on another thread to you.

 

www.usdebtclock.org

 

REad it and weap. Currently the UNFUNDED liabilities like Social Security, Medicare, and Prescription have over $128 trillion of debt for this country. That is ovr $1 million for each tax payer. When are you going to cough in your part????

 

DEMOCRATS HAVE BANKRUPTED THIS COUNTRY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those people were city's, unions, states ,

 

only the rich staid rich . so what should happen to those groups that lost pensions ?

FICA touch out SS money every pay check .

 

people on SS deserve their money , or do you think insurance companies should be calling their clients welfare recipients ? because that is what SS is

I'm glad so many of you are able to on your own put retirement money aside .

most people today live pay check to pay check , save nothing . can't really

If the clients got their payments made mostly from the government subsidies what do you call them if not welfare recipients.

 

You obviously have not looked at the mobility of people in classes and how long they stay there. There is movement up and down between most classes every year and those who were rich fall down and those in the poor rise up. All different classes of wealth have this going on. So someone who was rich last year falls down and others rise to being rich.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

here is the problem with SS and Medicare.

 

How do you fix a problem where every tax payer owes over $1 million a tax payer??? Our money is going to be worthless with the FED printing $75 billion a month to keep the stock market up. So you better have hard currency in your 401K etc. or it will become worthless.

 

DEMOCRATS HAVE BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...