A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

[Foxfyre]

Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?

Don't be stupid

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

I also know the difference between answering a question and building a straw man to avoid one. Do you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

I also know the difference between answering a question and building a straw man to avoid one. Do you?

Sure do. For example: Your contention that welfare keeps ppl poor is known as a strawman

 

[Foxfyre]

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

I also know the difference between answering a question and building a straw man to avoid one. Do you?

Sure do. For example: Your contention that welfare keeps ppl poor is known as a strawman

No dear. That is not what a straw man is. Please read up before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

Staying off your feet to let your leg heal? Great!

Staying off your feet to get a good job and start making money?

...

 

[ClosedCaption]

I also know the difference between answering a question and building a straw man to avoid one. Do you?

Sure do. For example: Your contention that welfare keeps ppl poor is known as a strawman

No dear. That is not what a straw man is. Please read up before you embarrass yourself further.

Yes Sweety it is

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, I have to go get ready for work, now. 19 more days to work after today, and I get to live off the taxpayers! Whooo Hooo! Stereotype all you want.

You mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Well, I have to go get ready for work, now. 19 more days to work after today, and I get to live off the taxpayers! Whooo Hooo! Stereotype all you want.

You mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

Brooklyn, New York? NOW it all makes sense. What makes you east coast Yankees so goddamned arrogant, thinking you know everything?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would like to point out that the original article which PC quoted railing against social programs, was posted on the Heritiage Foundation website. The Heritigage Foundation is an extreme right wing think tank which believes that ALL social programs, including public education, should be abolished. All of their research, studies and position papers start with the assumption that all social programs are bad and wasteful, and all private businesses are good.

I agree that social programs are expensive. Especially since virtually every program in the US is "means tested", which adds layers of administration and costs to every program. Studies have shown that "means testing" adds more costs to a program than it saves, but Americans are so obsessed that someone who doesn't deserve it might get a dollar or two, that they'll spend thousands to make sure that doesn't happen.

Any efforts to increase minimum wages, is met with howls of derision from the right, and yet increasing the minimum wage would substanially reduce or eliminate the need for many of the income assistance programs which you rail against. There are lots of ways of reducing dependence on social programs, and all of them start with increasing the wage of workers which have been stagnant for 35 years.

What you fail to understand is that it is the veracity of the statement, data, in question rather than the source.

That is why folks like you gripe about Heritage, or Cato.....but avoid dealing with the facts that they provide.
For the Left, obfuscation is far more efficacious than debate.



You have some gripe with the folks who provide the material?

Well then....I always wonder why folks like you didn't stop using Arabic numerals after 9/11.

 

[PoliticalChic]

interesting complaint, pc

apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!

they have microwaves too!!!

And Jacuzzi's!

 

[PoliticalChic]

you know what the differenace between you and me is?


I have no problem with you or anyone collecting SS.

Ayn Rand lived on it too when her historically failed ideas failed right inside her own life.

Thats a good thing.

thats why its there.

the best laid plans of mice and men

"the best laid plans of mice and men"
Ms. Truthie!!!!

Wow....so very glad....and impressed...to see a 'poetry' reference!

Bravo.



But, I don't believe you should have chosen that one, if your intended to support Social Security....
...you see the next line is 'Gang aft agley,'

It means, 'often go astray.'
Mess up.


As with Social Security, messed up:




The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?
"Broke," Beck

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.”
Trustees Report Summary



The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

-- "To A Mouse" by Robert Burns

We are all aware of your hatred of that "socialist commie program" Social Security. But on the other hand you'll be hypocritical enough to show up with your hand out when your time comes to collect.

Didn't you like the poetry lesson?

 

[ClosedCaption]

interesting complaint, pc

apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!

they have microwaves too!!!

And Jacuzzi's!

And Jet Planes!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

Brooklyn, New York? NOW it all makes sense. What makes you east coast Yankees so goddamned arrogant, thinking you know everything?

Relative to folks like you, I guess we do know everything.

Think of knowledge the way Celcius thought of water.
He made freezing, zero, and boiling, 100.
Those are the parameters.


So...If you represent zero knowledge.......

....you get the rest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

they have microwaves too!!!

And Jacuzzi's!

And Jet Planes!

I can prove that those known as the 'poor' have Jacuzzis...

Can you show that they have Jet Planes.



Put your dinero where you put your dinner.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

Brooklyn, New York? NOW it all makes sense. What makes you east coast Yankees so goddamned arrogant, thinking you know everything?

Relative to folks like you, I guess we do know everything.

Think of knowledge the way Celcius thought of water.
He made freezing, zero, and boiling, 100.
Those are the parameters.


So...If you represent zero knowledge.......

....you get the rest.

Been there. My one daughter just got back from there. I know now to stay away, even online.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?

Sure do.......because I have two nephews, one on my side of family and the other on my wife's side who are just like this. They are both "artists" who move from one menial job to the next while mooching off of their parents so they can "suffer" for their craft. One of them is 28 and doesn't have a pot to piss in. His brother on the other hand is a college graduate working in a Chicago advertising firm. Choices matter. When people have a run of misfortune, I don't have a problem giving them limited assitance. When people choose to live that way.......well, they need to make better choices and not ask me for a place to crash or help paying their cell phone bill.

It really goes to the heart of the thesis of the OP.

In order to keep themselves in positions they use to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, our elected leaders, bureaucrats, and appointees have powerful incentive to keep as many people dependent on big government as possible.

So you have whole generations of kids growing up not watching Mom and Dad get up, get cleaned up and dressed, and work for their money. Instead they are watching Mom or Dad get that government check, food stamps, etc. without apparently lifting a finger and then enjoying watching soaps, eating potato chips, drinking beer, cigs (or pot). So, when school or a job is boring or a drag or too hard and it is unpopular, even dangerous, to be different from everybody else, it is all too easy to shrug, not try very hard, and figure the government will send you a check too. For sure if you have a kid out of wedlock, the government money will come pouring in.

And the government sure isn't going to do anything to reduce that big, beautiful voting bloc they can count on.

And folks, that isn't compassion.

So if we take away all the government help that goes to those poor people, and make our poor people look like Africa's poor people, or India's poor people,

how exactly does that make America a better place? ...other than obviously making you feel good that you could see real people suffering real poverty...

 

[ClosedCaption]

And Jacuzzi's!

And Jet Planes!

I can prove that those known as the 'poor' have Jacuzzis...

Can you show that they have Jet Planes.

Put your dinero where you put your dinner.

I'm sure you can but not enough to say its common..Show me where its widespread and you wont look like a cherry picking ass hat.

Annnnd go!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I once heard a guy at work bitching about his taxes going to poor people, blah blah, the usual stuff,

and I said to him,

you know, the amount of your paycheck that goes to help the poor is less than the amount of your paycheck that you get for standing around talking and fucking off when you're supposed to be working.

It went over his head. lolol

 

[PoliticalChic]

And Jet Planes!

I can prove that those known as the 'poor' have Jacuzzis...

Can you show that they have Jet Planes.

Put your dinero where you put your dinner.

I'm sure you can but not enough to say its common..Show me where its widespread and you wont look like a cherry picking ass hat.

Annnnd go!

6% according to government figures.


The real question is what it says about your posts and mine...

Mine are correct, factual.

Yours are Liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

"the best laid plans of mice and men"
Ms. Truthie!!!!

Wow....so very glad....and impressed...to see a 'poetry' reference!

Bravo.



But, I don't believe you should have chosen that one, if your intended to support Social Security....
...you see the next line is 'Gang aft agley,'

It means, 'often go astray.'
Mess up.


As with Social Security, messed up:




The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?
"Broke," Beck

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.”
Trustees Report Summary



The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

-- "To A Mouse" by Robert Burns

Social Security was not 'in the red' last year. That is idiocy. Social Security payouts were covered by payroll tax receipts plus some of the year's interest earned on Trust Fund securities.

The principal in the Trust Fund actually increased.

Stop posting lies, please.

It's the same old story.

Instead of suggesting that others are incorrect, liars regularly scream that others are liars.

"The federal government for the first time in its history had to borrow money in 2010 to cover Social Security benefits to retired and disabled workers — a trend that worsened in 2011 and will not change at any point in the future unless changes are made.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a January 2012 report estimated that the 2012 shortfall will be $59 billion — rising to $76 billion in 2013, $86 billion in 2014 and $86 billion again in 2015. The CBO does not project beyond 2015 because “CBO projects the DI trust fund will be exhausted during fiscal year 2016.”
FactCheck.org : Durbin (Again) Denies Social Security?s Red Ink

But, in the case of the above poster....it is tinged with his regular and characteristic stupidity.

In fact, if the government ever declared war on stupidity, he'd be subject to a drone strike.

Technically, however, neither the social security fund or Medicare are fully depleted yet, but because all the money is spent for other things, the government has to borrow to meet its current obligations. The thing some of our friends here don't seem to grasp is the money they have paid into Social Security is not THEIR money to command. Congress could end the program today and every dime all of us have paid in is just absorbed into the general fund and none of us have a claim on it. We can't draw it out to pay off an unexpected bill. We can't bequeath it to a loved one. It isn't ours. It is money the government took from us and will pay back to us in less valuable dollars due to inflation IF it chooses to do so and is able to do so.

It is like we spend our mortgage money for a down payment on a new car. And then we don't have the money to pay the mortgage so we borrow it and have a debt to repay with interest PLUS a car payment. But anybody who has ever tried to do it knows that you can rob one account to meet a shortfall in another for only so long before it all collapses.

Further government charity drains precious vitality out of the economy, absorbs a huge lion's share of the taxes collected just to fund a massive bloated bureaucracy and ambitions of those in Congress, with a pittance being returned to the people.

Such a system will continue to promote poverty far more than it relieves it. And that is NOT compassion.

 

[jwoodie]

Well, I have to go get ready for work, now. 19 more days to work after today, and I get to live off the taxpayers! Whooo Hooo! Stereotype all you want.

You mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

Do these numbers include employer contributions made on behalf of the employee?