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

[OohPooPahDoo]

Really? Where exactly were they starving? I see nothing in the historical record that shows folks starving. How on earth did they survive for all those hundreds of years when there was no government system? Did some space alien come down and feed them? Or maybe the histories are wrong and people just died after they were 25 or so.

They survived fine until a GREAT DEPRESSION hit and wrecked the economy. Maybe you look that up in your historical record moron.

Really? Who starved in the Great Depression? The churches did just fine feeding the people who needed help. LBJ began his war on poverty 50 years ago. His administration and those that followed have spent at least 5 trillion dollars on the "war". Guess what the poverty rate is nearly the SAME as it was back then....real successful wasn't it?

Once again, think...or at least learn how to.

Really? That's your plan for the next Great Depression? Dump it on the Churches? Do you think the churches just have billions laying around they don't know what to do with?

Hey FUCK our responsibility as a society, we'll just make those nice churchgoers pay for it all!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's not a burden as you say it is. In fact it's a boon for the economy.

If there are 3 people and 1 is retired then 2 will have to make enough for 3, right?

Yes

GREAT. We're making a breakthrough.

Now say there are 4 people and 2 work to make enough for 4? In which of the two examples - 2 workers and 3 people - and 2 workers and 4 people - will the workers receive a greater share of what they produce?

Let's try some basic math....

2 workers divided by 3 people = 2/3 share
2 workers divided by 4 people = 1/2 share

Hmmmmmm...... It almost appears as if the difficulty of supporting a larger and larger retiree population has little to do with the retirement method in place.

Of course - if the retired have more INCOME than the working, the 2 workers in 4 people would get LESS than 1/2 of what they produce - and conversely, if the retired have less income than the working, the 2 workers in 4 will get more than 1/2 of what they produce.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program.

How? Where does the liability go?

 

[westwall]

I am retired, no one supports me.

Really? You have all the goods and services you need for the rest of your life? No one has to actually produce those? Wow.

I have never filed to recieve my SS benefits and never will.

Awesome. Your utter stupidity at not claiming your own money will lower the burden of SS on the rest of us, thanks!

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone was allowed to set up their own retirement programs.

THEY ARE.

Yes I do. If the civilisation ended today my family, friends and I would do fine. You....not so good. As far as not collecting my SS I consider it my civic duty to help those who truly need the money as I don't. The system is doomed but hey my paltry donation will help someone who can't figure out how to get to a church.

And no they aren't. They are required to pay into a woefully incompetent organisation who has managed to lose money in every endeavor they have ever tried. That's OK mr. drone. Keep those shakles on, you'll grow to enjoy them I'm sure.

 

[westwall]

They survived fine until a GREAT DEPRESSION hit and wrecked the economy. Maybe you look that up in your historical record moron.

Really? Who starved in the Great Depression? The churches did just fine feeding the people who needed help. LBJ began his war on poverty 50 years ago. His administration and those that followed have spent at least 5 trillion dollars on the "war". Guess what the poverty rate is nearly the SAME as it was back then....real successful wasn't it?

Once again, think...or at least learn how to.

Really? That's your plan for the next Great Depression? Dump it on the Churches? Do you think the churches just have billions laying around they don't know what to do with?

Hey FUCK our responsibility as a society, we'll just make those nice churchgoers pay for it all!

That's what churches do fool. That's one of their prime reasons for being. I notice you didn't answer the question of how people were able to live before your all powerful and benevolent government took over. So how did they survive before? Space aliens?

And how about we let the people take care of themselves. Cuts the waste and incompetence of you types right out. Of course then you actually have to go get a real job and do real work instead of sponging off the real workers but hey, you might be able to do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program.

How? Where does the liability go?

OOpdyOO:: I said we were done with this thread. Or I am.. I answered the OP squarely in my first couple posts. You didn't have a clue what "what reducing future liabilities" meant and still don't.. Good luck with your financial life..

 

[Skull Pilot]

If there are 3 people and 1 is retired then 2 will have to make enough for 3, right?

Yes

GREAT. We're making a breakthrough.

Now say there are 4 people and 2 work to make enough for 4? In which of the two examples - 2 workers and 3 people - and 2 workers and 4 people - will the workers receive a greater share of what they produce?

Let's try some basic math....

2 workers divided by 3 people = 2/3 share
2 workers divided by 4 people = 1/2 share

Hmmmmmm...... It almost appears as if the difficulty of supporting a larger and larger retiree population has little to do with the retirement method in place.

Of course - if the retired have more INCOME than the working, the 2 workers in 4 people would get LESS than 1/2 of what they produce - and conversely, if the retired have less income than the working, the 2 workers in 4 will get more than 1/2 of what they produce.

Nice editing job asswipe.

If you're going to quote me quote the whole reply.

Tell me are there more people buying cars than actually make cars?

The answer is yes.

Do auto manufacturers and their employees believe this to be a burden on them?

The answer is no.

 

[westwall]

Yes

GREAT. We're making a breakthrough.

Now say there are 4 people and 2 work to make enough for 4? In which of the two examples - 2 workers and 3 people - and 2 workers and 4 people - will the workers receive a greater share of what they produce?

Let's try some basic math....

2 workers divided by 3 people = 2/3 share
2 workers divided by 4 people = 1/2 share

Hmmmmmm...... It almost appears as if the difficulty of supporting a larger and larger retiree population has little to do with the retirement method in place.

Of course - if the retired have more INCOME than the working, the 2 workers in 4 people would get LESS than 1/2 of what they produce - and conversely, if the retired have less income than the working, the 2 workers in 4 will get more than 1/2 of what they produce.

Nice editing job asswipe.

If you're going to quote me quote the whole reply.

Tell me are there more people buying cars than actually make cars?

The answer is yes.

Do auto manufacturers and their employees believe this to be a burden on them?

The answer is no.

He must be a student of Phil Jones, he's an expert at "editing".

 

[Rinata]

I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.
The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the electronic booklet because I don't know that much about SSI. Maybe it will be helpful to you if you haven't read it.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

 

[westwall]

I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.
The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the electronic booklet because I don't know that much about SSI. Maybe it will be helpful to you if you haven't read it.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.
The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the electronic booklet because I don't know that much about SSI. Maybe it will be helpful to you if you haven't read it.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Very interesting.. You have to be virtually destitute to qualify for SSI. But the part I found most disturbing is the limits on "resources". Basically, if you ever SAVED or INVESTED ANY money -- tough luck Charley.. Not only THAT -- but the income limits are HALVED if it doesn't come from salary.. So work that WalMart Job granny, because if you SAVED anything for retirement, we're not gonna supplement your meager-ass income if it comes from the bank..

I found the same brain-dead qualification for EITC this morning.. What is it with these compassionate clowns? Don't they know that DISCOURAGING folks to have resources in order to get the biscuit is counter productive?

 

[westwall]

I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.
The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the electronic booklet because I don't know that much about SSI. Maybe it will be helpful to you if you haven't read it.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Very interesting.. You have to be virtually destitute to qualify for SSI. But the part I found most disturbing is the limits on "resources". Basically, if you ever SAVED or INVESTED ANY money -- tough luck Charley.. Not only THAT -- but the income limits are HALVED if it doesn't come from salary.. So work that WalMart Job granny, because if you SAVED anything for retirement, we're not gonna supplement your meager-ass income if it comes from the bank..

I found the same brain-dead qualification for EITC this morning.. What is it with these compassionate clowns? Don't they know that DISCOURAGING folks to have resources in order to get the biscuit is counter productive?

The government has raised a generation of imbeciles. They aren't capable of fending for themselves nor can they think for themselves.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The answer is that the surplus should have been to used to REDUCE FUTURE LIABILITIES to the program.

How? Where does the liability go?

OOpdyOO:: I said we were done with this thread. Or I am.. I answered the OP squarely in my first couple posts. You didn't have a clue what "what reducing future liabilities" meant and still don't.. Good luck with your financial life..

Where does the future liability go when its taken off the taxpayers?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes I do. If the civilisation ended today my family, friends and I would do fine.

How long have you survived without the presence of civilization in the past? Just trying to determine your track record.

You....not so good. As far as not collecting my SS I consider it my civic duty to help those who truly need the money as I don't.

You could collect it and distribute it to the charity of your choice - instead, you allow Big Government to determine its use. Interesting. Do you consider yourself a conservative?

The system is doomed but hey my paltry donation will help someone who can't figure out how to get to a church.

There you go again wanting to push all of societies responsibilities onto those nice churchgoers. You know they have limited funding just like anyone else? And since they have huge investments in the financial markets (which support much of their charity efforts) - their incomes go down in bad times, too. Its wonderful work the Catholic Church and other religious charities perform, but I don't think its fair to expect them to do it all while the rest of us sit back on our asses and watch.

And no they aren't.

Wow. So its your position that people aren't even allowed to invest outside of Social Security. Yet you clearly have. How did you get away with it? Are you afraid of getting busted?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you're going to quote me quote the whole reply.

The entire quote is available for inspection in the link within the quotation, should you forget your own words.

Tell me are there more people buying cars than actually make cars?

Yes.

Do auto manufacturers and their employees believe this to be a burden on them?

The production of goods and/or services requires time, money, and physical and mental labor. That's why they sell those cars for money instead of giving them away.



I believe we've established that if there are T total people and W total workers, the workers will each, on average, have to produce T/W times the output required if T=W.

Now answer me this - if a boss tells a worker that he'll have to work 10 hours more per week for no extra pay - is that worker getting a bigger or smaller share of his labor? What if a worker has to work 10% more hours and also gets 10% more pay for it - but prices go up 10%?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you're going to quote me quote the whole reply.

The entire quote is available for inspection in the link within the quotation, should you forget your own words.

Tell me are there more people buying cars than actually make cars?

Yes.

Do auto manufacturers and their employees believe this to be a burden on them?

The production of goods and/or services requires time, money, and physical and mental labor. That's why they sell those cars for money instead of giving them away.

Answer my question. Do auto manufacturers or their employees call it a burden if more people are buying their cars than actually making them?

I believe we've established that if there are T total people and W total workers, the workers will each, on average, have to produce T/W times the output required if T=W.

Now answer me this - if a boss tells a worker that he'll have to work 10 hours more per week for no extra pay - is that worker getting a bigger or smaller share of his labor? What if a worker has to work 10% more hours and also gets 10% more pay for it - but prices go up 10%?

For one a boss cannot force a person to work for no pay so your entire argument is worthless.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As far as not collecting my SS I consider it my civic duty to help those who truly need the money as I don't.

I call BULLSHIT. No one could be so stupid as to not collect something they've paid for, even you. The only logical conclusion is that you cheated on your taxes your whole life and filing for SS would bring the government down on you. I'm guessing you were self-employed and decided the self-employment tax was way too much. How did you do it? Cash business?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Answer my question. Do auto manufacturers or their employees call it a burden if more people are buying their cars than actually making them?

I don't know what they "call" anything, I don't hang out in an auto plant. But if they have to work longer hours to make more cars then yes - that's a bigger burden. Do you know what words mean?

For one a boss cannot force a person to work for no pay so your entire argument is worthless.

I didn't say he was forcing someone to work for no pay, I said they were having to work longer for the same pay. Ever heard of a salary? Ever heard of a wage cut?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Answer my question. Do auto manufacturers or their employees call it a burden if more people are buying their cars than actually making them?

I don't know what they "call" anything, I don't hang out in an auto plant. But if they have to work longer hours to make more cars then yes - that's a bigger burden. Do you know what words mean?

For one a boss cannot force a person to work for no pay so your entire argument is worthless.

I didn't say he was forcing someone to work for no pay, I said they were having to work longer for the same pay. Ever heard of a salary? Ever heard of a wage cut?

Salary contracts are not subject to unlimited hours and most people who produce goods are not salaried employees.

And you have not proven that if there are more people buying goods or services than are producing or using them will result in salary and wage cuts or that it is a so called burden on the economy.

When there are more people consuming than producing the economy booms and people prosper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Salary contracts are not subject to unlimited hours....

Right, you just wind up with comp time you never get to use.

and most people who produce goods are not salaried employees.

Services are also part of the economy dipshit

And you have not proven that if there are more people buying goods or services than are producing or using them will result in salary and wage cuts or that it is a so called burden on the economy.

it will result in cuts to buying power. Its simple economic fool.

Higher demand with the same supply leads to higher prices. If my pay is the same and prices go up - has the buying power of my pay gone up or down?