Jump to content
think

Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats As Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, TBHWT said:

Please don't just blame Republicans for lying there's a lot of lying to go around theses days.

so... do you give them a free pass?  Or do you consider social security and medicare socialist programs or not????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, slideman said:

I will never reply to you again.

ducky bragged about driving to Maine to suck a gay lawyer's cock on the beach in Ogunquit.  I put that little faggot on ignore a LONG time ago... I recommend you do likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

so... do you give them a free pass?  Or do you consider social security and medicare socialist programs or not????

Couldn't really say MM. Because no matter what I say I'll get an arguement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

FALSE.  

 

Many sources now say that starting with those who retired in 2000, SS participants get less back, on average, than they put into the system (see http://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-not-deal-once-165406538.html , for example).    But I think the payback from social security is worse than that and has been for a long time. That’s because the Social Security Administration ran simulations (and they should be biased, if anything, towards presenting SS in the best possible light, don’t you think?) to find the Moneys Worth Ratio (MWR … the ratio of present value of expected benefits to the present value of expected payroll taxes) of the program and the result of those analysis can be summarized by this Wikipedia chart:

 

Social_Security_Benefits_by_Income_Quint

 

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Social_Security_Benefits_by_Income_Quintile.jpg)


As you can see, the middle income earners are barely making back what they put into the program. The highest income earners are only getting about 60% back. Only the lowest earners are doing well and even they are only doubling their contributions. This 2012 SSA publication ( http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/ran7/index.html ) breaks the figures from which those curves came down by income levels (Very Low, Low, Medium High and Maximum), year of birth (1920-2004), and whether the recipient is a single male, single female, one-earner couple or a two earner couple.  See Table 1 at the linked article for the results.
 
Look at the Medium income group first. Those were people earning $41,655. You’ll note that single men, regardless of age, consistently get a return under 1 … which means they get less than they put into the program. Women, because they live longer, do better, but most birth years, they still see returns of less than 1 and the few years that didn’t, show returns of only 1.01-1.03. That's awful. True, one-earner couples do better. They see ratios of 1.48-1.70. But that’s because only one person in the couple is contributing but payouts are for two. Two earner couples do much worse with MWRs most years that are below one and only 1.01-1.02 in the good years. Those are abysmal returns.
 
Next, look at the High income group ($66,648). Single men get a 0.59—0.77 return. Single women get a 0.66-0.86 return. Single earner couples get 1.23-1.42 returns. And two earner couples get 0.69-0.84 returns. Abysmal doesn’t even begin to describe how bad those returns are, folks.
 
Look at the Maximum income group. Even the one-earner couples barely break even. Two earner couples and single women get back about 60% of what they contributed (as shown in the above chart) and single men get less than 60% of their contributions back. They should be taking up arms.
 
Only those in the Low and Very Low income group (the Democratic Socialist Party’s base that is now out protesting in the streets) consistently get returns above 1. And even those are nothing to gloat about. As I noted, the highest returns in the Low group (again one earner couples) is 2-2.25. The others get returns between 1.1 and 1.3. They could have done much better just putting their money in government bonds. And it would be their money. Not a debt the government can eliminate at any moment with the stroke of a pen. 
 
That’s how bad Social Security has been and will be for most Americans. In fact, the SSA did those same calculations for several scenarios (see the link). The one above was Present Law … in other words, using the taxes and benefits specified in present laws (at the time). The other two tables are for efforts to come to grip with the coming bankruptcy of the system. The first (Table 2) is for an Increased Payroll Tax scenario (payroll taxes increase from 12.4% to 16.89%). The other (Table 3) is for a Payable Benefits scenario (where benefits gradually decrease after “trust fund” reserve depletion to 73% of scheduled benefits in 2086). The other scenarios don’t make Table 1 look any better in terms of what the MWRs are for SS’ participants. Just saying …
 
The bottom line, TBHWT, is that SS contributors don’t make out like bandits, they get shafted, like most investors in ponzi schemes do. Because NOTHING is really invested and earns interest. Nothing was EVER really invested. It was ALL spent as it came in. The high returns of the early years were only possible because lots of contributors where handing money to very few retirees and because the dishonest government wanted to convince people that Social Security was a good idea. The ratio of payees to retirees started out at 159 to 1. Imagine that … 159 people paying into the system for ever person what was taking money out it. By 1950, however, there were only 16 workers supporting each retiree. By 1965 it was down to 4 to 1. Now it’s slightly under three people supporting one, and by 2030 it’s predicted that there will only be two people supporting each *retiree*.
 
SS was a ponzi scheme … a liberal scam … from day one. And it’s plain as day if you just look at the numbers.

Well the sad thing is the fact that they give SS to people who never worked a day in their live's. Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maineman said:

little faggot

 

Why does the gay community think DemocRATS are on their side ... when this is the attitude DemocRATS show towards them time and time again?   Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBHWT said:

Well the sad thing is the fact that they give SS to people who never worked a day in their live's. Fact.

 

So how does that square with you saying that eventually people get back their contributions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TBHWT said:

Couldn't really say MM. Because no matter what I say I'll get an arguement. 

so.... republicans telling voters to Tell LBJ to stop medicare because it's socialist, and republicans who say, "keep your socialist hands off my medicare" are both honest?

 

You really can't come down on one side or the other on that one?  Really?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TBHWT said:

Well the sad thing is the fact that they give SS to people who never worked a day in their live's. Fact.

LIAR.  people who never contributed to a FICA account, get no money from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

LIAR.  people who never contributed to a FICA account, get no money from it.

They do if they are disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kfools said:

They do if they are disabled.

not the same account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

not the same account.

Mmmmm there is no account. Damned government been tapping it for years. 

 

Besides, are you sure ss disability is not paid from the same account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Hey think ... why are you hiding from a discussion of FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism?

 

The one where you start off the conversation by calling me a sock puppet and then immediately start playing the guilt by association game by claiming the author was no good because of who their dad was?

 

Starting off your response with an insult and then using guilt by association to discredit a source is a non starter for me. I normally don't respond to stuff like that. Sorry. 

 

If you had legitimate criticism of the author based on HIS record that's another thing entirely.

 

And the rest of it was just garbage. History has shown what FDR did and what happened was he got Social Security started which Hoover called socialism.

 

So if you're claiming Hoover didn't call Social Security socialism which is what this thread is about go ahead. Otherwise i'm not wasting my time with your conspiracy theories, guilt by association, and accusations of being a sock puppet.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, think said:

The one where you start off the conversation by calling me a sock puppet

 

We do have a lot of sock puppets around here ... and your posts do seem familiar.  

 

But if you can't handle the heat, there's always the snowflake room.  B)

 

Quote

and then immediately start playing the guilt by association game by claiming the author was no good because of who their dad was?

 

I think the fact that Paul lied about FDR's campaign and his programs (I proved that) is proof enough that the acorn didn't land far from the tree.

 

Quote

Starting off your response with an insult and then using guilt by association to discredit a source is a non starter for me. I normally don't respond to stuff like that. Sorry. 

 

Now you're sounding even more like someone we all know.

 

Quote

If you had legitimate criticism of the author based on HIS record that's another thing entirely.

 

I gave you a legitimate criticism.   I showed that the article lies about FDR.   So I can understand why you don't want to discuss that now, SNOWFLAKE.

 

Quote

And the rest of it was just garbage.

 

No it's not.   I posted nothing but facts about FDR, Stuart Chase and the book he wrote.   Facts that you clearly want to hide from now.

 

Quote

History has shown what FDR did and what happened was he got Social Security started which Hoover called socialism.

 

Social Security is one of the programs that FDR's Fabian Socialist laden Brain Trust dreamed up, SNOWFLAKE.

 

Of course it's socialism.

 

It's the government taking over your ability to invest for yourself and ripping you off in the process.

 

I can prove that the average person will make far less from Social Security than they could have ... should have ... by investing their own money quite safely.

 

The truth is that you don't even own your contributions to Social Security, *think*.


Do you know that?

 

You have no rights to them.


The Supreme Court ruled that.


Social Security was designed to make million and millions of people totally dependent on The State.

 

That is the very heart of socialism, snowflake.

 

Quote

So if you're claiming Hoover didn't call Social Security socialism which is what this thread is about go ahead.

 

I never claimed that.  

 

I said you claimed that and agreed that if he did then Hoover was right in calling The New Deal a gateway to totalitarianism.

 

Quote

Otherwise i'm not wasting my time with your conspiracy theories, guilt by association, and accusations of being a sock puppet.

 

Pluck, pluck, pluck.

 

I'm telling you folks ... NOTHING stops a conversation with a DemocRAT faster than offering to debate FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism.

 

Because they know their head will explode if they even *think* about that.

 

Just saying ... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, slideman said:

 

I respectfully disagree, FDR didn't save capitalism, he regulated it to death , he made government larger and his income tax scheme was an example of cronyism at its worst.

 

I get what he was attempting to do hence all the social programs but really his new deal policy prolonged the great depression, WW2 brought us out of the great depression

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

We do have a lot of sock puppets around here ... and your posts do seem familiar.  

 

But if you can't handle the heat, there's always the snowflake room.  B)

 

 

I think the fact that Paul lied about FDR's campaign and his programs (I proved that) is proof enough that the acorn didn't land far from the tree.

 

 

Now you're sounding even more like someone we all know.

 

 

I gave you a legitimate criticism.   I showed that the article lies about FDR.   So I can understand why you don't want to discuss that now, SNOWFLAKE.

 

 

No it's not.   I posted nothing but facts about FDR, Stuart Chase and the book he wrote.   Facts that you clearly want to hide from now.

 

 

Social Security is one of the programs that FDR's Fabian Socialist laden Brain Trust dreamed up, SNOWFLAKE.

 

Of course it's socialism.

 

It's the government taking over your ability to invest for yourself and ripping you off in the process.

 

I can prove that that average person will make far less from Social Security than they could have ... should have ... by investing their own money quite safely.

 

The truth is that you don't even own your contributions to Social Security, *think*.


Do you know that?

 

You have no rights to them.


The Supreme Court ruled that.


Social Security was designed to make million and millions of people totally dependent on The State.

 

That is the very heart of socialism, snowflake.

 

 

I never claimed that.  

 

I said you claimed that and agreed that if he did then Hoover was right in calling The New Deal a gateway to totalitarianism.

 

 

Pluck, pluck, pluck.

 

I'm telling you folks ... NOTHING stops a conversation with a DemocRAT faster than offering to debate FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism.

 

Because they know their head will explode if they even *think* about that.

 

Just saying ... :lol:

 

Social Security has been around 80 years. Grow up and join reality. Either that or find an Alex Jones forum. You'll fit right in....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pwkbirdie56 said:

I guess both party's can claim they are a bit socialist.    

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialismSocialism definition, a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution,  ...

No, not really. You have an issue understanding theories, don't you?

 

There is no private property in a socialist system for instance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.<

 

try to to remember that as you bandy the term about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DeepBreath said:

 You bet I am, fag. 

We know, what's your point?

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JTZilla said:

democrats are not considered people

Is that because so many of them are Black, brown, Asian and female?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlueDoggL said:

We know, what's your point?

See the source image

Why would try and attack me using Republicans when you know I'm a Libertarian? 🤣Damn, you're pretty stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×