Liberal Plan: Everyone On Welfare!

[Flopper]

The latest is to allow people to work and get welfare too!

That's nothing new. It started with the welfare reform act of 1996. Allowing people to work while receiving welfare is one of smartest things we have ever done with welfare.

 

[Claudette]

Are you certain that you do?

See below.....

"Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.

Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.

In 1981, when Galveston County employees pulled out of the Social Security system, the program was projected to be insolvent by 2010, said Rick Gornto, the designer of the Alternate Plan and president of First Financial Benefits, the company that manages the retirement accounts. “People in Texas are very independent minded, and they stepped out and challenged the system,” he said.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, 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 with a payout of $11,490 a month.

Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But 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...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

Yup and I remember reading about a country in South America that did the same thing.

They gave their citizens the optioin of staying with their SS or opting to privatize thier contributions.

Those that privatized are making way more each month than those that stayed with that countries SS program.

Wish I could remember which country it was.

Chile.

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

 

[UpAndAbout]

i think you could look into past performance as being indicative of future performance.

but heck, i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box...

*shrug*

" i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box..."

No, it wasn't .....it was Bill Clinton:

He took $152.3B from Social Security and claimed a surplus.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

Yeah, and in 2007 Bush took 340 Billion from SS and claimed a 161 billion deficit, but no CON$erviNutzis bitched about that then!!!

Here's a newsflash - I never trusted or like the government when Bush was president anymore than I do now. I never have, never. My husband worked for the government and found out first hand how it works, or doesn't work as the case may be. We're not stupid, we know they use SS money for other things. I have no confidence in the government, I don't care if Bozo the Clown is elected president.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

2. Sadly....half of this nation depends on 'the dole' in one way or another:

a. At least 106 million Americans receive benefits from one or more of these programs.
Sara Murray, “Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in
Household Receiving Government Benefit,”
Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011, http://blogs.
wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-ofhouseholds-receive-some-government-benefit/.

How dare those lazy seniors who worked and paid into Social Security and Medicare all their lives collect a dime from the government. Don't they know the GOP expects them to work and pay until they drop dead from exhaustion???!!!

From your link:

Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

Rs know that most "welfare" goes to the elderly, children and the disabled. They also know that most of the disabled are war veterens. Its just that they really don't care.

We have seen, right here on this forum, posters who defended dead best dad and scum teenager, Joe Walsh?. They also defended Noot Gingrich who openly deserted his children.

If pubs have the power, they will let (force) those people to starve to death. We MUST vote these monsters out of office.

 

[Jarhead]

The latest is to allow people to work and get welfare too!

That's nothing new. It started with the welfare reform act of 1996. Allowing people to work while receiving welfare is one of smartest things we have ever done with welfare.

a working person on welfare pays local and state taxes. A person not working on wlefare pays nothing. Corntibutes nothing.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup and I remember reading about a country in South America that did the same thing.

They gave their citizens the optioin of staying with their SS or opting to privatize thier contributions.

Those that privatized are making way more each month than those that stayed with that countries SS program.

Wish I could remember which country it was.

Chile.

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

 

[Listening]

i think you could look into past performance as being indicative of future performance.

but heck, i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box...

*shrug*

" i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box..."

No, it wasn't .....it was Bill Clinton:

He took $152.3B from Social Security and claimed a surplus.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

lol.. wiki answers? really? what nonsense....

nice deflect though. it's always fun watching you give a lesson in obfuscation, deflection and trolling.

And we are still awaiting your first post with pertinent facts.

Not holding our breaths tho'

Schillian...the mouth that keeps on flapping.

 

[candycorn]

Who said that about seniors? I would like my social security invested in the stock market, once Obama is gone. Why do democrats raid social security to give to the NEA?

you must be into gambling in vegas too...

do you know what would have happened to your accounts if they were privatized in october 2008?

of course you don't.

Those who had 401k's during the last months of the Bush Administration lost their shirts. Buckeye is a moron if he actually thinks that. How little they know or how soon they forget.

 

[Listening]

Chile.

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who said that about seniors? I would like my social security invested in the stock market, once Obama is gone. Why do democrats raid social security to give to the NEA?

you must be into gambling in vegas too...

do you know what would have happened to your accounts if they were privatized in october 2008?

of course you don't.

Are you certain that you do?

See below.....

"Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.

Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.

In 1981, when Galveston County employees pulled out of the Social Security system, the program was projected to be insolvent by 2010, said Rick Gornto, the designer of the Alternate Plan and president of First Financial Benefits, the company that manages the retirement accounts. “People in Texas are very independent minded, and they stepped out and challenged the system,” he said.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, 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 with a payout of $11,490 a month.

Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But 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...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

In 2008 our more aggressive investments lost half their value. Our more conservative investments only took about a 25% hit. But even if we had lost half our investment in 2008, we would have been better off four fold than we are by paying social security all these years.

As I posted on another thread focused on comparing private retirement accounts with Social Security today:

If, when I first started working for a living, I had conservatively invested the same amount as the FICA deductions from my paycheck:

1. I would now have an investment account worth well over $1 million and would be enjoying a comfortable retirement income off that investment of between $50k and $100k per year.

2. I would likely have no debts and the money would be mine to re-invest, spend, give away, or whatever i wanted to do with it.

3. I can transfer all or part of my account to somebody else as I wish or bequeath it to my heirs who would receive the full balance (less any applicable taxes) when I died.

4. No matter what happens, the money is my private property and is therefore Constitutionally protected.

However, the same amount in Social Security taxes confiscated by the government results in a situation in which:

1. I receive a bit more than $13k a year in Social Security benefits which by no means covers the mortgage, taxes, and living expenses, let alone provides much in the way of quality of life. If single it does however entitle me to be ranked among the poorest of Americans.

2. I cannot draw on any yet unspent monies of the funds I have contributed. The government however has spent that money rather than putting it aside to at least grow by drawing interest.

3. If I die before I draw any monies from my account or before I have used all that I have paid in, the government takes the money. It is not available to my spouse or heirs.

4. There is no constitutional provision protecting my social security account and absolutely nothing to prevent Congress from ending the program tomorrow in which case the government could legally keep every nickle we have paid in and would have to give us nothing. We have absolutely no protection other than the generosity of those elected to the House and Senate. Obama had plenty of ability to make good on threats to withhold social security payments if the debt ceiling was not raised.

For anybody with any sense, it is a no brainer.

And yet the addiction to a concept of never having to take responsibility for ourselves because we trust the government to take care of us is powerful and extremely difficult to break. On Wiseacre's President's thread, it was pointed out that the addiction started small and insignificant with the Social Security Act, but that is what started the snowball rolling. And it has changed the character and culture of America to one of freedome loving and personal responsibility in which people learned to manage and save their money to a culture of entitlement, debt, and dependency.

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

SO WHAT!! Boosh vetoed everything they tried except the Min Wage increase they shamed Pubs into, so they just gave up and said it's all yours, fool...Change the channel, moron LOL!

 

[Listening]

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

SO WHAT!! Boosh vetoed everything they tried except the Min Wage increase they shamed Pubs into, so they just gave up and said it's all yours, fool...Change the channel, moron LOL!

You mean kinda like the way Barney and Co. got in the way of regulating FM/FM and let the housing bubble happen. I thought so.

It's good to know you blame the GOP house for controlling things, but the dem house is powerless.

You really are a stoog and a tool.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

1. The plan of the Liberal-socialist administration is to make certain that 'poor' families have incomes and standards of living equal to those who work and produce. This can only be done by confiscatory taxation and socialism at a level unheard of in America.

Yeah.....I'm sure the 1%ers are really....

....losing sleep, over that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

You should know by now that Dems/liberals/leftists will never accept blame for anything.

 

[edthecynic]

you must be into gambling in vegas too...

do you know what would have happened to your accounts if they were privatized in october 2008?

of course you don't.

Are you certain that you do?

See below.....

"Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.

Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security — many in these counties consider their system superior.

In 1981, when Galveston County employees pulled out of the Social Security system, the program was projected to be insolvent by 2010, said Rick Gornto, the designer of the Alternate Plan and president of First Financial Benefits, the company that manages the retirement accounts. “People in Texas are very independent minded, and they stepped out and challenged the system,” he said.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, 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 with a payout of $11,490 a month.

Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But 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...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

In 2008 our more aggressive investments lost half their value. Our more conservative investments only took about a 25% hit. But even if we had lost half our investment in 2008, we would have been better off four fold than we are by paying social security all these years.

As I posted on another thread focused on comparing private retirement accounts with Social Security today:

If, when I first started working for a living, I had conservatively invested the same amount as the FICA deductions from my paycheck:

1. I would now have an investment account worth well over $1 million and would be enjoying a comfortable retirement income off that investment of between $50k and $100k per year.

2. I would likely have no debts and the money would be mine to re-invest, spend, give away, or whatever i wanted to do with it.

3. I can transfer all or part of my account to somebody else as I wish or bequeath it to my heirs who would receive the full balance (less any applicable taxes) when I died.

4. No matter what happens, the money is my private property and is therefore Constitutionally protected.

However, the same amount in Social Security taxes confiscated by the government results in a situation in which:

1. I receive a bit more than $13k a year in Social Security benefits which by no means covers the mortgage, taxes, and living expenses, let alone provides much in the way of quality of life. If single it does however entitle me to be ranked among the poorest of Americans.

2. I cannot draw on any yet unspent monies of the funds I have contributed. The government however has spent that money rather than putting it aside to at least grow by drawing interest.

3. If I die before I draw any monies from my account or before I have used all that I have paid in, the government takes the money. It is not available to my spouse or heirs.

4. There is no constitutional provision protecting my social security account and absolutely nothing to prevent Congress from ending the program tomorrow in which case the government could legally keep every nickle we have paid in and would have to give us nothing. We have absolutely no protection other than the generosity of those elected to the House and Senate. Obama had plenty of ability to make good on threats to withhold social security payments if the debt ceiling was not raised.

For anybody with any sense, it is a no brainer.

And yet the addiction to a concept of never having to take responsibility for ourselves because we trust the government to take care of us is powerful and extremely difficult to break. On Wiseacre's President's thread, it was pointed out that the addiction started small and insignificant with the Social Security Act, but that is what started the snowball rolling. And it has changed the character and culture of America to one of freedome loving and personal responsibility in which people learned to manage and save their money to a culture of entitlement, debt, and dependency.

You would have that money only if you could go back in time and invest for the future. However by investing in the present for the future the results can go very wrong if for example you invested in stocks like ENRON!!!

So obviously some professional will have to do the investing for the average person but even that pro could screw up or cheat you like Bernie Madoff did, so then do you let the government invest your money or pick your investment broker?

 

[francoHFW]

Total Pubcrappe- It's not a new entitlement attitude, It's a GD Pub Depression fool. It costs MONEY to avert a depression and pay support to 10 million unemployed. Great job, Pubbies. Moron.

 

[Listening]

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

You should know by now that Dems/liberals/leftists will never accept blame for anything.

In Franco's case, I'm betting he heard from his parents that it was never his fault (becasue he was to stupid to know any better) and he still believes them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

You should know by now that Dems/liberals/leftists will never accept blame for anything.

In Franco's case, I'm betting he heard from his parents that it was never his fault (becasue he was to stupid to know any better) and he still believes them.

Likely.
He -is- special, you know.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yup, and then we had the Pub World Depression of 2008 and they lost all their retirement funds...BRILLIANT!! Pub Dupes!

Pubs in 2012: "Tax cuts for the bloated rich, destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe SS"

LOL! Well that's how we got our first DEM Rep here EVER last year. The dupes and Pubs live in a dream world if they think this'll fly...

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

SO WHAT!! Boosh vetoed everything they tried except the Min Wage increase they shamed Pubs into, so they just gave up and said it's all yours, fool...Change the channel, moron LOL!

Did they? Please post a single piece of legislation the Democrats passed re taxes on the general public that Bush vetoed. Or a single budget the Democratically controlled Congress passed that Bush vetoed. And then show how treasury revenues decreased under the Bush tax policies or that the ratio of taxes paid by the rich substantially decreased compared to the ratio of taxes paid by the little guys, especially considering that the Bush tax policy dropped millions of people off the federal income tax rolls altogether.

Take your time. Do expect that to take quite a bit of time to come up with though as you won't be able to do it with any credible source.

 

[edthecynic]

Dems had the congress in 2008. Just thought I mention that for your tiny little mind.

SO WHAT!! Boosh vetoed everything they tried except the Min Wage increase they shamed Pubs into, so they just gave up and said it's all yours, fool...Change the channel, moron LOL!

You mean kinda like the way Barney and Co. got in the way of regulating FM/FM and let the housing bubble happen. I thought so.

It's good to know you blame the GOP house for controlling things, but the dem house is powerless.

You really are a stoog and a tool.

So a minority congressman is more powerful than the president!

Actually it was the GOP who blocked FM/FM reform when it passed the house over Barney's objections, by refusing to bring it up before the Senate for a vote. However when Pelosi became speaker she passed a reform bill that passed the House and Senate and became law.

But you knew that already, CON$ just never take responsibility for their failures and blame them on everyone else.