Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

[westwall]

Actually the physical limits are mainly due to PHYSICS.

Give us a formula that supports your theory then. I am interested.

power = work x time

How about the limiting factors, plus there are a whole crapload of variables I can think of. You'll have to do better.

 

[westwall]

Historically the young adults have always produced the goods and services the old people need.



Over the past several posts. Just follow the links back. It goes something like this:

So you think that forcible taxation is the same as setting up a retirement program?

It really depends. But I'd hate to burden you with any but the most simple of thoughts. Taxes BAD!!!

Don't dodge my question.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

Wow, the joys of Keynesian economics...

I'm a true capitalist so...

 

[westwall]

Wow. So they have privatized roads where you live. Where is that?


You are such the bullshit artist. You aren't even eligible for social security I bet.

Qualified this year bucko.

LOL! So you're just not taking the early retirement. Big fucking whop, most people who don't have to don't. Here you had us all convinced you weren't taking it all. like I said - U=BS artist

No doofus I am 65 now, I qualify and I'm not bothering.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Give us a formula that supports your theory then. I am interested.

power = work x time

How about the limiting factors, plus there are a whole crapload of variables I can think of. You'll have to do better.

When considering the maximum output of anything - you only need to know the limiting factors, everything else is irrelevant. Your car has a maximum speed - for instance. Say its 180 mph. Maybe if you put a couple of 300 lb fatties in the back seat like you do every Friday night, its 120 mph - or maybe if you let the car go and don't keep it up for a while, its 160 mph - but in neither case can you exceed 180 mph, can you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you think that forcible taxation is the same as setting up a retirement program?

It really depends. But I'd hate to burden you with any but the most simple of thoughts. Taxes BAD!!!

Don't dodge my question.

The answer depends on things other than the factors mentioned in the question. If you ask me "Should I go when the traffic light it lit?" - I can't really answer that entirely correctly with a yes or no.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

Wow, the joys of Keynesian economics...

I'm a true capitalist so...

So how would you have invested the social security trust funds it in a manner which does not place the burden on the future U.S. economy?

 

[westwall]

You assume there's a road where we are! I can actually drive from my home and get to Reno or Carson City and never leave dirt. It's great!

Awesome. The rest of us that don't have the luxury of the natural dirt roads that no one built especially not government or the forest service for sure they were just kinda there and who cares where they came from no one had to make them that you get to use have to suck off the government's teat every time we leave our driveway. You and your Nevada friends are the only free people on the planet. The rest of us live the miserable existence of having to have a gun shoved in our face everytime we go to the gas pump, forcing us to pay the gas tax, so they can build these roads to make us all dependent slaves. And everyone on this board really does believe that you really mostly drive on dirt when you go to the grocery store - no, really, we believe you. Its not like you're an obvious bullshit artist.

No, we're not free. But we are a little more free then you. Freedom is in your mind and you my friend are shackled to the belief that socialism is the way to go. Please feel free to point out any socialist country that has thrived. I can't think of one. I can think of a lot that have failed and a bunch that are scraping by, but I can't think of a single one that has thrived.

Most of my state is owned by the Feds BTW so I take great pleasure in using the land as much as possible. Yes of course I have to buy gasoline and pay the taxes that maintain the roads, but I do indeed get to avoid the roads for a lot of the time, and no, where I drive or ride or ski there are no roads, Forest Service or otherwise.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Qualified this year bucko.

LOL! So you're just not taking the early retirement. Big fucking whop, most people who don't have to don't. Here you had us all convinced you weren't taking it all. like I said - U=BS artist

No doofus I am 65 now, I qualify and I'm not bothering.

You shouldn't bother - being born between 1943 and 1954 - your full retirement age is 66. So you can get higher benefits by waiting.



You know what happens if you don't claim your social security benefits, right? The government finds the 10 most lazy alcoholic poor and unemployed people in the world and buys them angus streaks and bombay saphire with your SS - only requirement being they drink the gin in front of their children while watching cable TV - also funded by your unclaimed SS - and that the angus streaks get ground up and made into fancy hamburgers.

 

[westwall]

power = work x time

How about the limiting factors, plus there are a whole crapload of variables I can think of. You'll have to do better.

When considering the maximum output of anything - you only need to know the limiting factors, everything else is irrelevant. Your car has a maximum speed - for instance. Say its 180 mph. Maybe if you put a couple of 300 lb fatties in the back seat like you do every Friday night, its 120 mph - or maybe if you let the car go and don't keep it up for a while, its 160 mph - but in neither case can you exceed 180 mph, can you?

What group of workers produce more. Those in a capitalistic system or a socialist system?

 

[westwall]

It really depends. But I'd hate to burden you with any but the most simple of thoughts. Taxes BAD!!!

Don't dodge my question.

The answer depends on things other than the factors mentioned in the question. If you ask me "Should I go when the traffic light it lit?" - I can't really answer that entirely correctly with a yes or no.

I didn't ask you about a traffic light though did I. Answer the question. It's a philosophical question so you should have no problem sharing your views on it.

 

[westwall]

LOL! So you're just not taking the early retirement. Big fucking whop, most people who don't have to don't. Here you had us all convinced you weren't taking it all. like I said - U=BS artist

No doofus I am 65 now, I qualify and I'm not bothering.

You shouldn't bother - being born between 1943 and 1954 - your full retirement age is 66. So you can get higher benefits by waiting.



You know what happens if you don't claim your social security benefits, right? The government finds the 10 most lazy alcoholic poor and unemployed people in the world and buys them angus streaks and bombay saphire with your SS - only requirement being they drink the gin in front of their children while watching cable TV - also funded by your unclaimed SS - and that the angus streaks get ground up and made into fancy hamburgers.

So long as they drink Bombay Gin I'm good with that!

 

[Mr.Nick]

Actually the physical limits are mainly due to PHYSICS.

Give us a formula that supports your theory then. I am interested.

power = work x time

Sorry, anyone with an accounting background would that...

There is a wealth equation/formula.....

Capital is probably one of the first things you learn any field of economics.

It's the basis of everything....

WTF.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, we're not free. But we are a little more free then you.

Awesome. What exactly are you freer to do in Nevada than anyone else? Drive between one dry ass rock and another?

Freedom is in your mind and you my friend are shackled to the belief that socialism is the way to go

You're so overdramatic I want to puke, are you sure you aren't gay?

Please feel free to point out any socialist country that has thrived.

The U.S.

....where I drive or ride or ski there are no roads, Forest Service or otherwise.

Sure thing bud. You drive around in the desert alot. We got it. You're a real man.

In lots of other places, they have these things called "trees". The tend to get in the way of things.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry, anyone with an accounting background would that...

There is a wealth equation/formula.....

Great. Let's see it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Don't dodge my question.

The answer depends on things other than the factors mentioned in the question. If you ask me "Should I go when the traffic light it lit?" - I can't really answer that entirely correctly with a yes or no.

I didn't ask you about a traffic light though did I. Answer the question. It's a philosophical question so you should have no problem sharing your views on it.

This isn't a thread about philosophy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How about the limiting factors, plus there are a whole crapload of variables I can think of. You'll have to do better.

When considering the maximum output of anything - you only need to know the limiting factors, everything else is irrelevant. Your car has a maximum speed - for instance. Say its 180 mph. Maybe if you put a couple of 300 lb fatties in the back seat like you do every Friday night, its 120 mph - or maybe if you let the car go and don't keep it up for a while, its 160 mph - but in neither case can you exceed 180 mph, can you?

What group of workers produce more. Those in a capitalistic system or a socialist system?

The ones that produce the most produce more. Doesn't matter what system they are in. Go ask the Chinese.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry, anyone with an accounting background would that...

There is a wealth equation/formula.....

Great. Let's see it.

Assets - liabilities = wealth.

 

[westwall]

No, we're not free. But we are a little more free then you.

Awesome. What exactly are you freer to do in Nevada than anyone else? Drive between one dry ass rock and another?

Freedom is in your mind and you my friend are shackled to the belief that socialism is the way to go

You're so overdramatic I want to puke, are you sure you aren't gay?

Please feel free to point out any socialist country that has thrived.

The U.S.

....where I drive or ride or ski there are no roads, Forest Service or otherwise.

Sure thing bud. You drive around in the desert alot. We got it. You're a real man.

In lots of other places, they have these things called "trees". The tend to get in the way of things.

You mean like these? This trail is a few miles from my house. As far as freedoms go we are free todo pretty much whatever we want so long as we don't harm anyone else. Heck you can even get laid here, YOU. Legalised brothels for those who can't get a gal.

No, I'm not gay but my sister is a lesbian and my daughters Godmother is likewise a lesbian (doesn't know my sister though, they live in different states) so I understand their issues.

Last time I checked the US was a capitalistic country. You folks are trying to turn it into a socialist country and if that happens the country will begin it's inexorable collapse.


And yes, I am, a real man. Glad you noticed!

 

[westwall]

The answer depends on things other than the factors mentioned in the question. If you ask me "Should I go when the traffic light it lit?" - I can't really answer that entirely correctly with a yes or no.

I didn't ask you about a traffic light though did I. Answer the question. It's a philosophical question so you should have no problem sharing your views on it.

This isn't a thread about philosophy.

Actually, yes it is.