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.
Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.
...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.
You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
We are the wealthiest nation on earth
We the People have decided that we will take care of our poorest citizens. That means we do not want the wealthiest nation on earth having people begging for food and shelter
Now I know that upsets you "Dog eat dog world" assholes, but that is the way it is
You have shown through your post in this thread you do not understand how SS works.Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and never has been.
SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.
...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.
You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
You have shown through your post in this thread you do not understand how SS works.Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.
...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.
You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
Translation: As long as there are still coins in the pockets of citizens that can still be seized by the govt then SS is 'secure'.SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.
...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.
You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
The US is the wealthiest nation on earth. That is what backs it up
Ponzi Schemes do not have that
More than just coins
The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing
Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.
...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.
You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
We are the wealthiest nation on earth
We the People have decided that we will take care of our poorest citizens. That means we do not want the wealthiest nation on earth having people begging for food and shelter
Now I know that upsets you "Dog eat dog world" assholes, but that is the way it is
Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
We are the wealthiest nation on earth
We the People have decided that we will take care of our poorest citizens. That means we do not want the wealthiest nation on earth having people begging for food and shelter
Now I know that upsets you "Dog eat dog world" assholes, but that is the way it is
If you bleeding hearts actually cared for people as much as you say you do, your response when it comes to the poor wouldn't be "get someone else to fund it so I can care". You'd fund it yourself.
Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
We are the wealthiest nation on earth
We the People have decided that we will take care of our poorest citizens. That means we do not want the wealthiest nation on earth having people begging for food and shelter
Now I know that upsets you "Dog eat dog world" assholes, but that is the way it is
If you bleeding hearts actually cared for people as much as you say you do, your response when it comes to the poor wouldn't be "get someone else to fund it so I can care". You'd fund it yourself.
We the People do fund it
Every single time. Literally....every.....single....time. Throughout history, conservatives have done their homework, used sound data for projections, and accurately predicted exactly what would happen. And every time, Dumbocrats were too hungry for power to care.
Conservatives vehemently opposed Medicare and Medicaid in the late 1960's. They said it was unsustainable. Not only do we now currently sit with $19 trillion in national debt, but even Barack Obama himself and the Dumbocrats went around the nation in 2008 insisting that we needed "Obamacare" because healthcare costs were "unaffordable" and Medicare & Medicaid were devastating to the federal budget. They loudly proclaimed that something had to be done because the current situation was unsustainable. Well, conservatives told them that over 50 years ago!
And of course - conservatives warned about Obamacare as well. All of their warnings have come to fruition (it did cause people to lose their doctor, it did cause people to lose their health insurance, it did cost way more than projected by the lying Dumbocrats, and 17 of the 23 insurance exchanges have already collapsed and closed up shop after just a couple of short years).
But the real gem is Social Security. Like the other unconstitutional programs already mentioned, conservatives vehemently opposed Social Security in the late 1930's. As always, they said it was unsustainable. As always, they were right. A mind-boggling $32 trillion shortfall. You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it wouldn't even cover 1/32 of that....
Under the infinite horizon, Social Security will have $32.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities by 2090, $6.3 trillion more than last year's projection. (See the chart below.)
The infinite horizon calculation is the most important part of the trustees' annual report, said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor and co-author of "Get What's Yours," a best-seller about how to maximize claiming Social Security retirement benefits.
"We're not broke in 20 years to 30 years, we're broke now," Kotlikoff said. "All the bills have been kept off the books by Congress and presidential administrations for six decades."
Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall that will cut your benefit
Translation: As long as there are still coins in the pockets of citizens that can still be seized by the govt then SS is 'secure'.You do not have a shoebox with YOUR money in it
Your money and that contributed by your employer goes to pay those who are retired right now. When you retire, someone else will pay for you
What makes it not a Ponzi Scheme is that Social Security is secured by the US Government.
Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
The US is the wealthiest nation on earth. That is what backs it up
Ponzi Schemes do not have that
More than just coins
The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing
The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.
Yes, the US Government and the people it represents made a moral commitment to provide a system that helps prevent senior Americans from living in complete lives of destitution and poverty. They made the commitment 80 years ago and have repeatedly restated and reinforced that commitment. They are able to guarantee their commitment because they have the authority and power to legislate, budget and tax to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.
In other words, they let those that were freeloaders continue to be freeloaders.
We are the wealthiest nation on earth
We the People have decided that we will take care of our poorest citizens. That means we do not want the wealthiest nation on earth having people begging for food and shelter
Now I know that upsets you "Dog eat dog world" assholes, but that is the way it is
If you bleeding hearts actually cared for people as much as you say you do, your response when it comes to the poor wouldn't be "get someone else to fund it so I can care". You'd fund it yourself.
We the People do fund it
If not all the people do, it's not WE, moron. I bet you think we the people fund things paid for by income taxes despite not all the people paying income taxes.
I don't know who made the first raid into SS, transferring it from a lock-box fund to the General fund. Depends on party, I guess. Some say Johnson to cover VietNam and some say Reagan in a 1983 piece of legislation, but it's pretty clear the fund has been raided by every president since then. I remember back in the 90s a big fight (lost) to eliminate the caps on the SS deduction. Seemed sensible to me. The people most able to pay the deduction were exempted because they made over 100K, or whatever the cap was. They got a break, and those under the limit would pay it the rest of their working lives. That fight is still going on, isn't it? The fight to keep the caps and find another way to spare the well-off from the burden of taxes, that is?SS was fine till the Dems threw it in the General Fund. They have been robbing blind ever since.
Every single time. Literally....every.....single....time. Throughout history, conservatives have done their homework, used sound data for projections, and accurately predicted exactly what would happen. And every time, Dumbocrats were too hungry for power to care.
Conservatives vehemently opposed Medicare and Medicaid in the late 1960's. They said it was unsustainable. Not only do we now currently sit with $19 trillion in national debt, but even Barack Obama himself and the Dumbocrats went around the nation in 2008 insisting that we needed "Obamacare" because healthcare costs were "unaffordable" and Medicare & Medicaid were devastating to the federal budget. They loudly proclaimed that something had to be done because the current situation was unsustainable. Well, conservatives told them that over 50 years ago!
And of course - conservatives warned about Obamacare as well. All of their warnings have come to fruition (it did cause people to lose their doctor, it did cause people to lose their health insurance, it did cost way more than projected by the lying Dumbocrats, and 17 of the 23 insurance exchanges have already collapsed and closed up shop after just a couple of short years).
But the real gem is Social Security. Like the other unconstitutional programs already mentioned, conservatives vehemently opposed Social Security in the late 1930's. As always, they said it was unsustainable. As always, they were right. A mind-boggling $32 trillion shortfall. You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it wouldn't even cover 1/32 of that....
Under the infinite horizon, Social Security will have $32.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities by 2090, $6.3 trillion more than last year's projection. (See the chart below.)
The infinite horizon calculation is the most important part of the trustees' annual report, said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor and co-author of "Get What's Yours," a best-seller about how to maximize claiming Social Security retirement benefits.
"We're not broke in 20 years to 30 years, we're broke now," Kotlikoff said. "All the bills have been kept off the books by Congress and presidential administrations for six decades."
Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall that will cut your benefit
Translation: As long as there are still coins in the pockets of citizens that can still be seized by the govt then SS is 'secure'.Tell me what backs up that claim of security. Because they say so?
The US is the wealthiest nation on earth. That is what backs it up
Ponzi Schemes do not have that
More than just coins
The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing
The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.
You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you?
The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"
Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.
Translation: As long as there are still coins in the pockets of citizens that can still be seized by the govt then SS is 'secure'.The US is the wealthiest nation on earth. That is what backs it up
Ponzi Schemes do not have that
More than just coins
The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing
The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.
You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you?
The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"
Apparently you don't understand WE means all of us doing out part. Freeloaders don't do their part. That's why they're freeloaders.
I don't know who made the first raid into SS, transferring it from a lock-box fund to the General fund. Depends on party, I guess. Some say Johnson to cover VietNam and some say Reagan in a 1983 piece of legislation, but it's pretty clear the fund has been raided by every president since then. I remember back in the 90s a big fight (lost) to eliminate the caps on the SS deduction. Seemed sensible to me. The people most able to pay the deduction were exempted because they made over 100K, or whatever the cap was. They got a break, and those under the limit would pay it the rest of their working lives. That fight is still going on, isn't it? The fight to keep the caps and find another way to spare the well-off from the burden of taxes, that is?SS was fine till the Dems threw it in the General Fund. They have been robbing blind ever since.
The elimination of the caps has nothing to do with sparing the well off from taxes. Benefit payments are calculated based on how much an individual pays into Soc Sec over their working years. If you payed in the maximum for the required number of years, you collect the maximum benefit at retirement.
If you raised or eliminated the cap, Soc Sec would have to raise the benefit amount paid. Can you imagine what a person that made a million dollars a year would get when he retired?
A complete rewrite of the Soc Sec law would be required.
Do you think the premiums on a life insurance policy should be based on someones income? The I in FICA stands for Insurance.
Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.
Translation: As long as there are still coins in the pockets of citizens that can still be seized by the govt then SS is 'secure'.
More than just coins
The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing
The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.
You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you?
The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"
Apparently you don't understand WE means all of us doing out part. Freeloaders don't do their part. That's why they're freeloaders.
People who have paid into Social Security all their lives have done their part
