Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jarl,
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.
Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.
Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.
First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'
1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security
a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
2. 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.
3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?
a. Like this:
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
As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....
....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.
Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong
One of his many, many accomplishments
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.
The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.
Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars
Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong
One of his many, many accomplishments
Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.
Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.
Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.
Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.
First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'
1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security
a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
2. 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.
3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?
a. Like this:
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
As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....
....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong
One of his many, many accomplishments
Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.
Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.
Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.
Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.
First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'
1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security
a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
2. 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.
3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?
a. Like this:
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
As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....
....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.
Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.
Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.
First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'
1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security
a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
2. 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.
3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?
a. Like this:
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
As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....
....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.
The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.
Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars
Guarantee??????
The courts have already stated that the government has no requirement to pay Social Security to anyone at anytime.
" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”
Courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!
“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”
The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments.We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.
...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it....the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.
Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi schemefrom which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed
Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong
One of his many, many accomplishments
Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.
Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?
FDR would be thrilled with elderly Americans being taken care of
He would also support Obamacare
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.
1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed
Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.
Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.
Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.
First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'
1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security
a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
2. 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.
3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?
a. Like this:
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
As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....
....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Galveston left at the start of the largest bull market in world history. There is no guarantee that we are heading into a massive bull market. The larger problem is that Galveston left without having to take any of the legacy costs of the system.
The larger problem is that we only hear about Galveston. You don't talk as much about Small Falls, RI.
Bankruptcy saves tiny Rhode Island city, but leaves scars
Guarantee??????
The courts have already stated that the government has no requirement to pay Social Security to anyone at anytime.
" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”
Courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!
“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”
The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments.We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.
...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it....the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.
Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi schemefrom which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed
There is no guarantee in anything, see Small Falls, RI.
My point is that Galveston is not a terribly meaningful example because of its timing because there is no guarantee that we are entering a massive bull market.
Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?
Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.
Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.
"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."
When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:
11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....
But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.
1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed
1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.
