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.
Imagine everyone's surprise when they discover government spent all the freaking SS money.
There's nothing surprising about it at all, SS is paygo and has been since inception.
Is it possible to privatize $2 trillion dollars of IOU's from congress? I don't think so.
Congress sells its IOUs all the time. If I'm not mistaken, its every Tuesday. Holy Lord you can't seriously be this stupid.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Imagine everyone's surprise when they discover government spent all the freaking SS money. Is it possible to privatize $2 trillion dollars of IOU's from congress? I don't think so.
When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".Other than government bonds which are backed by the exact same entity as Social Security, what else do you propose we allow people to invest in, in their privatized social security accounts?Who would be required to do that?It would be better to do away with SS completely than to have a government program whereby you were required to invest in stocks and corporate bonds.
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".Other than government bonds which are backed by the exact same entity as Social Security, what else do you propose we allow people to invest in, in their privatized social security accounts?Who would be required to do that?It would be better to do away with SS completely than to have a government program whereby you were required to invest in stocks and corporate bonds.
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
Yes because everyone over 65 has Alzheimer's."Dependable monthly income" ROFLAO!! WHen Obama threatened to withold checks, how dependable was it? A huge number of workers under 50 believe they will never see a penny of SS. The system itself projects its onw insolvency. That isnt dependable.We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement
These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans
All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement
People need to be able to depend on themselves, not the government.
Yeah....walk into the nearest retirement home and tell folks with Alzeheimers' that "people need to be able to depend on themselvesmot the government's (Medicare and SS)......See how youll be cheered as a "hero."
What a fucking dope
Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".Other than government bonds which are backed by the exact same entity as Social Security, what else do you propose we allow people to invest in, in their privatized social security accounts?Who would be required to do that?
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".Other than government bonds which are backed by the exact same entity as Social Security, what else do you propose we allow people to invest in, in their privatized social security accounts?
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.Where else would the money go, dipshit?The issue taken here is your use of the term "required".Other than government bonds which are backed by the exact same entity as Social Security, what else do you propose we allow people to invest in, in their privatized social security accounts?Who would be required to do that?It would be better to do away with SS completely than to have a government program whereby you were required to invest in stocks and corporate bonds.
Why do you believe that anyone will be required to invest in anything under any plan to privatize part of SS?
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Oh... so you ARE a fucking moron.
Participation in the privatization portion of SS,, under the plan set forth in 2005, the likely basis for any such program, is VOLUNTARY; it gives you the CHOICE to invest; there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone do so.
Let me know if you need that explained further; I'll use smaller words.
You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.Yes. I do need an explanation. When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
Oh look... another half-bake that does not understand that "privatization", as set forth in the plan presented in 2005 and likely to be repeated in any plan signed into law, allows you to invest up to 1/3 of your 12.4% FICA contribution with the other 2/3 going into Social Security, from which you will still draw benefit.The MAJOR PROBLEM is when those investments flop and you've lost ALL that money...what do you do then???
Beg? Steal? Borrow? Vote republican?
Not man enough, eh?Actually, I'm only trying to figure out what your opinion is regarding where the money will come from to make up the difference in lost revenue. Do you know?You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....Glad to see you understand that your statement was in error, even if you aren't honest enough to openly admit it.
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
Not man enough, eh?Actually, I'm only trying to figure out what your opinion is regarding where the money will come from to make up the difference in lost revenue. Do you know?You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.When someone chooses....
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
No worries.
Oh look... another half-bake that does not understand that "privatization", as set forth in the plan presented in 2005 and likely to be repeated in any plan signed into law, allows you to invest up to 1/3 of your 12.4% FICA contribution with the other 2/3 going into Social Security, from which you will still draw benefit.The MAJOR PROBLEM is when those investments flop and you've lost ALL that money...what do you do then???
Beg? Steal? Borrow? Vote republican?
And so, you will not loose all your money.
Glad to help you with your ignorance.
I really do not see any point in having a conversation with someone who cannot admit he is wrong -- that is, you.You really don't know, do you?Not man enough, eh?Actually, I'm only trying to figure out what your opinion is regarding where the money will come from to make up the difference in lost revenue. Do you know?You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?Chooses. No one is required to participate in the privitization plan.
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
No worries.
There's only really two choices. More taxes, or more debt. Which will it be?
I really do not see any point in having a conversation with someone who cannot admit he is wrong -- that is, you.You really don't know, do you?Not man enough, eh?Actually, I'm only trying to figure out what your opinion is regarding where the money will come from to make up the difference in lost revenue. Do you know?You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.When someone chooses to divert their SS taxes to the stock market, what replaces that money in the revenue stream required to fund current benefits? Does it grow on a magic money tree?
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
No worries.
There's only really two choices. More taxes, or more debt. Which will it be?
Are you saying we might as well call him Mr. President? Because Bush-Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome seems to be a good thing for them.He's a bush, what did you expect?He touched the third rail of politics.
Can he be resuscitated?
Why did he ever think he could say such a thing and get away with it?
I really do not see any point in having a conversation with someone who cannot admit he is wrong -- that is, youI keep asking you to explain a crucial detail of the the plan to privatize SS, you keep refusing to provide it,I really do not see any point in having a conversation with someone who cannot admit he is wrong -- that is, you.You really don't know, do you?Not man enough, eh?Actually, I'm only trying to figure out what your opinion is regarding where the money will come from to make up the difference in lost revenue. Do you know?You and I both understand you are asking this to cover for the fact that you know your statement was wrong.
Man up, admit it and maybe I'll let you off the hook.
No worries.
There's only really two choices. More taxes, or more debt. Which will it be?
