Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[clevergirl]

Yes, and f I buy bonds with my money, instead of being forced to let the government do it, I can leave them to someone in my will.

You are confusing the purpose of social security insurance. It is not supposed to be an individual retirement fund - it is an insurance contract between the government and you. It is similar to a life annuity coupled to a disability policy - in fact, its pretty much the same thing.

Perhaps a SS reform would have us purchasing our own bonds with time locks of say 20 years before they can be cashed out- but we own them out right. Of course the feds would cease to have access to all that cash that belongs to us...

Social Security beneficiaries are paid out of the stream of FICA tax revenues. If you diverted those FICA taxes to individual accounts, you would have to raise money for the Social Security beneficiaries through the general fund. Those first asked to pay into such a system would have to fund TWO retirements - one for current beneficiaries through the general fund and one for themselves by FICA taxes into their individualized accounts.

Not to mention that under your idea, we'd all just be purchasing treasury debt anyway and what would the difference be there?

I know what it is- it's a piss poor mandated and inefficient scam, sold to the American people as a lifeline.

My point is that people should be able to keep their own money. We are taxed enough. The original retirement age at least allowed people to enjoy the pittance they got from SS before they kicked the bucket.

The point about using money we pay, via FICA, to instead invest in our own retirement, would be a much more lucrative and a valued asset path. A path we ought to be encouraged to take by phasing out SS. The in-between-ers, like me, could choose to opt in or out... those closer to retirement could have a partial buy in to SS and the ability to invest into a private retirement fund. It's very doable.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I know what it is- it's a piss poor mandated and inefficient scam, sold to the American people as a lifeline.

Just keep repeating the party line.

My point is that people should be able to keep their own money. We are taxed enough.

I can see the concept of insurance still escapes you.

BTW, the only way to keep your money is to stuff it into your mattress. If you invest it in stocks, you give it away to the owner of the stocks in exchange for the stocks. Then when you retire, two things happen: a) you receive dividends, in which case, those funds have to be made available to you as they come due and b) you sell the stocks for money, in which case, someone has to be around to give you the money. In both cases - its pay as you go, fundamentally no different than social security. Someone has to have the funds available to pay FICA taxes in the case of SS, someone has to have the funds available to pay dividends and for shares of stocks in the case of a private investment account.

The original retirement age at least allowed people to enjoy the pittance they got from SS before they kicked the bucket.

Not true. Life expectancies were much lower when SS first came into being. A far greater percentage of people make it to retirement age now.

The point about using money we pay, via FICA, to instead invest in our own retirement, would be a much more lucrative and a valued asset path.

A) - AS ALREADY POINTED OUT - if you diverted FICA taxes to private accounts, we wouldn't have money to pay current beneficiaries! Would we just tell current retirees to go fuck themselves, or would you raise the funds for that through debt or taxation?

B) Unless you've got a crystal ball, you can't say what the more lucrative asset path is.

A path we ought to be encouraged to take by phasing out SS. The in-between-ers, like me, could choose to opt in or out... those closer to retirement could have a partial buy in to SS and the ability to invest into a private retirement fund. It's very doable.

[/quote]

Phasing it out won't change the fact that we'll be missing the funds for an entire generation of retirees. If you go half and half for 30 years - you're still missing half of the revenues needed to pay current beneficiaries - and then you'd be missing it for another have on the next 30 year cycle. You can't get something for nothing!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I know what it is- it's a piss poor mandated and inefficient scam, sold to the American people as a lifeline.

Just keep repeating the party line.

My point is that people should be able to keep their own money. We are taxed enough.

I can see the concept of insurance still escapes you.

BTW, the only way to keep your money is to stuff it into your mattress. If you invest it in stocks, you give it away to the owner of the stocks in exchange for the stocks. Then when you retire, two things happen: a) you receive dividends, in which case, those funds have to be made available to you as they come due and b) you sell the stocks for money, in which case, someone has to be around to give you the money. In both cases - its pay as you go, fundamentally no different than social security. Someone has to have the funds available to pay FICA taxes in the case of SS, someone has to have the funds available to pay dividends and for shares of stocks in the case of a private investment account.

The original retirement age at least allowed people to enjoy the pittance they got from SS before they kicked the bucket.

Not true. Life expectancies were much lower when SS first came into being. A far greater percentage of people make it to retirement age now.

The point about using money we pay, via FICA, to instead invest in our own retirement, would be a much more lucrative and a valued asset path.

A) - AS ALREADY POINTED OUT - if you diverted FICA taxes to private accounts, we wouldn't have money to pay current beneficiaries! Would we just tell current retirees to go fuck themselves, or would you raise the funds for that through debt or taxation?

B) Unless you've got a crystal ball, you can't say what the more lucrative asset path is.

A path we ought to be encouraged to take by phasing out SS. The in-between-ers, like me, could choose to opt in or out... those closer to retirement could have a partial buy in to SS and the ability to invest into a private retirement fund. It's very doable.

Phasing it out won't change the fact that we'll be missing the funds for an entire generation of retirees. If you go half and half for 30 years - you're still missing half of the revenues needed to pay current beneficiaries - and then you'd be missing it for another have on the next 30 year cycle. You can't get something for nothing!!!! You'd just be splitting the burden of an an entire generation between two generations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a moron.

That's not the issue. The "Fund" supposedly has "assets" except there's only one entity that can "Buy" the "assets" so that makes them suspect.

There's only one entity that can redeem coupons on Treasuries - and only one that can redeem the note after its expired - the issuing authority.

I fail to see how that's surprising.

Are you making the case that the fund should go back to buying marketable securities? Would it make that much of a difference? You know a U.S. Savings Bond isn't a marketable asset, either, but folks buy those all the time.

Yes, and f I buy bonds with my money, instead of being forced to let the government do it, I can leave them to someone in my will. Perhaps a SS reform would have us purchasing our own bonds with time locks of say 20 years before they can be cashed out- but we own them out right. Of course the feds would cease to have access to all that cash that belongs to us...

Uh, if you buy a bond you're giving the federal government access to the cash you buy the bond with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry bout that,



1. If you hook your wagon to SS and so it happens you do make it to *old age*, you will be glad to receive back the money you put into it.
2. But if you paid into it for thirty years, from age 18-58, then die suddenly, without an heir, then your money you paid into it, goes *poof*.
3. So if anything SS is a selective *ponzi scheme*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

 

[clevergirl]

I know what it is- it's a piss poor mandated and inefficient scam, sold to the American people as a lifeline.

Just keep repeating the party line.

My point is that people should be able to keep their own money. We are taxed enough.

I can see the concept of insurance still escapes you.

BTW, the only way to keep your money is to stuff it into your mattress. If you invest it in stocks, you give it away to the owner of the stocks in exchange for the stocks. Then when you retire, two things happen: a) you receive dividends, in which case, those funds have to be made available to you as they come due and b) you sell the stocks for money, in which case, someone has to be around to give you the money. In both cases - its pay as you go, fundamentally no different than social security. Someone has to have the funds available to pay FICA taxes in the case of SS, someone has to have the funds available to pay dividends and for shares of stocks in the case of a private investment account.


Not true. Life expectancies were much lower when SS first came into being. A far greater percentage of people make it to retirement age now.

The point about using money we pay, via FICA, to instead invest in our own retirement, would be a much more lucrative and a valued asset path.

A) - AS ALREADY POINTED OUT - if you diverted FICA taxes to private accounts, we wouldn't have money to pay current beneficiaries! Would we just tell current retirees to go fuck themselves, or would you raise the funds for that through debt or taxation?

B) Unless you've got a crystal ball, you can't say what the more lucrative asset path is.

A path we ought to be encouraged to take by phasing out SS. The in-between-ers, like me, could choose to opt in or out... those closer to retirement could have a partial buy in to SS and the ability to invest into a private retirement fund. It's very doable.

Phasing it out won't change the fact that we'll be missing the funds for an entire generation of retirees. If you go half and half for 30 years - you're still missing half of the revenues needed to pay current beneficiaries - and then you'd be missing it for another have on the next 30 year cycle. You can't get something for nothing!!!! You'd just be splitting the burden of an an entire generation between two generations.

The only one espousing the propaganda that government is our mommy, and therefor knows best, is you. Yes, SS is insurance- we are insured to never see our money until we are too old to enjoy it.

Right, feds take my money and don't let me enjoy it until they are pretty sure I only have a few good days left! What part of "it's my money" do you not understand?

Phasing it out is the only humane thing to do! Get the damned government out of our pockets as much as possible. They are not the best solution for our retirement. Chile has proven that it can be done- they have helped the world see how to unhitch from the government in an equitable way.

And before you mouth "it's insurance" again...I know that, but too many people depend on it as a retirement- because it is peddled that way and as such, it is abysmal.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Secretary of Treasury decides what bills are paid but the Republicans trying to make the government default makes my point in the previous post that with Republicans in control it(SS) might be a scheme but not with Democrats.

You are a moron.

That's not the issue. The "Fund" supposedly has "assets" except there's only one entity that can "Buy" the "assets" so that makes them suspect.

There's only one entity that can redeem coupons on Treasuries - and only one that can redeem the note after its expired - the issuing authority.

I fail to see how that's surprising.

Are you making the case that the fund should go back to buying marketable securities? Would it make that much of a difference? You know a U.S. Savings Bond isn't a marketable asset, either, but folks buy those all the time.

No OOPYDOO:

What we're advocating is that SSA SHOULD have been managed so that it WAS a "pay as you go" program. NOT intentionally run a $60Bill surplus to be stolen and squandered by Congress. They SPENT that money -- put us INTO DEBT for it --- And Now we have to PAY FOR IT AGAIN - you mental midget..

THAT'S what the issue is. It INCREASED the current Debt load, and we have to pay AGAIN for SS benefits that were previously pilfered from Working Class Americans..

The fact that you're not OUTRAGED about this doesn't phase me. The fact that you don't UNDERSTAND IT --- simply amazes me because you have so many posts on this board..

 

[clevergirl]

Sorry bout that,



1. If you hook your wagon to SS and so it happens you do make it to *old age*, you will be glad to receive back the money you put into it.
2. But if you paid into it for thirty years, from age 18-58, then die suddenly, without an heir, then your money you paid into it, goes *poof*.
3. So if anything SS is a selective *ponzi scheme*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

No, but at least you have a house to leave to your loved ones.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry bout that,



1. If you hook your wagon to SS and so it happens you do make it to *old age*, you will be glad to receive back the money you put into it.
2. But if you paid into it for thirty years, from age 18-58, then die suddenly, without an heir, then your money you paid into it, goes *poof*.
3. So if anything SS is a selective *ponzi scheme*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

No, but at least you have a house to leave to your loved ones.

Jesus, you're stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The only one espousing the propaganda that government is our mommy, and therefor knows best, is you. Yes, SS is insurance- we are insured to never see our money until we are too old to enjoy it.

Believe it or not, some people actually need money to live.

Right, feds take my money and don't let me enjoy it until they are pretty sure I only have a few good days left! What part of "it's my money" do you not understand?

You misunderstand taxation. The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to levy an income tax. When they do this, the portion that is taxed is no longer yours. The FICA tax transfers wealth from the working to the old and disabled who have paid into the program.

Phasing it out is the only humane thing to do! Get the damned government out of our pockets as much as possible. They are not the best solution for our retirement.

You have yet to explain where the extra funds required to phase it out will come from. You seem to be all wrapped up in emotional responses with no actual substance.

Chile has proven that it can be done- they have helped the world see how to unhitch from the government in an equitable way.

Great, go move to Chile then.

And before you mouth "it's insurance" again...I know that, but too many people depend on it as a retirement- because it is peddled that way and as such, it is abysmal.

The NAME of the program is Old Age Survivors INSURANCE. You can't say a program is being "peddled" as something other than insurance when the term "insurance" is IN ITS FUCKING NAME. That's just retarded. In fact the only one here "peddling" SS as anything but insurance is YOU.

 

[clevergirl]

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

No, but at least you have a house to leave to your loved ones.

Jesus, you're stupid.

I am a lot of things..but stupid isn't one of them.

I think it's more accurate to say my sarcasm went over your head...just a tad.

That round room logicians, such as your self, are unable to comprehend ideas of individual freedoms is not new to me- so I find off handed sarcasm to work well when engaging your...ummmm...type.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What we're advocating is that SSA SHOULD have been managed so that it WAS a "pay as you go" program.

It is pay as you go. The redemption of the trust fund comes out of taxes that go into the general fund to pay off treasury debt. The opposite happens when the trust fund grows.

THAT'S what the issue is. It INCREASED the current Debt load, and we have to pay AGAIN for SS benefits that were previously pilfered from Working Class Americans..

We'd have to pay the same either way - whether they raise and lower the FICA tax as needed - or whether they create a trust fund with treasuries - is pay as you go both ways. One is just easier politically.

The fact that you're not OUTRAGED about this doesn't phase me.

I try to not let my self be driven by exaggerated and overstated emotions like the right.

The fact that you don't UNDERSTAND IT --- simply amazes me because you have so many posts on this board..

I understand it fully.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry bout that,



1. If you hook your wagon to SS and so it happens you do make it to *old age*, you will be glad to receive back the money you put into it.
2. But if you paid into it for thirty years, from age 18-58, then die suddenly, without an heir, then your money you paid into it, goes *poof*.
3. So if anything SS is a selective *ponzi scheme*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

No, but at least you have a house to leave to your loved ones.

If you had an individual retirement account you could leave that to a loved one - if you die early enough. If, on the other hand, you live very long, you could use up your retirement account, and instead have to get a loved one to take some money they might put in their retirement account and give it to you to live on instead.

Of course - folks can't usually tell exactly when they're going to die. Sounds like a case for INSURANCE. Its also a feature of pension plans.

What you fail to grasp - despite your supposed cleverness - is that the fundamental difference between retirement insurance and retirement funds are that retirement funds can not only be left to survivors - but they can also RUN OUT. Retirement insurance, and many pension plans, let you trade the risk that you'll die young and not get what you paid into the system for the risk of living very long and having to be paid much more than you paid in. Retirement FUNDS do not have that feature - unless you plan on funding your retirement solely off of Treasury TIPS - in which case, you'll need 50 times your required income - at least. Even then, there's no guarantee you won't live more than 30 years after retirement, and if interest rates have dropped by then, you'll be fucked.

 

[clevergirl]

The only one espousing the propaganda that government is our mommy, and therefor knows best, is you. Yes, SS is insurance- we are insured to never see our money until we are too old to enjoy it.

Believe it or not, some people actually need money to live.

Right, feds take my money and don't let me enjoy it until they are pretty sure I only have a few good days left! What part of "it's my money" do you not understand?

You misunderstand taxation. The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to levy an income tax. When they do this, the portion that is taxed is no longer yours. The FICA tax transfers wealth from the working to the old and disabled who have paid into the program.



You have yet to explain where the extra funds required to phase it out will come from. You seem to be all wrapped up in emotional responses with no actual substance.

Chile has proven that it can be done- they have helped the world see how to unhitch from the government in an equitable way.

Great, go move to Chile then.

And before you mouth "it's insurance" again...I know that, but too many people depend on it as a retirement- because it is peddled that way and as such, it is abysmal.

The NAME of the program is Old Age Survivors INSURANCE. You can't say a program is being "peddled" as something other than insurance when the term "insurance" is IN ITS FUCKING NAME. That's just retarded. In fact the only one here "peddling" SS as anything but insurance is YOU.

LOL! At least you finally acknowledge it is no longer a "Pay as you go" system.

Yes, people need money to live- indeed it would be wonderful if all that money taken from them could actually be invested by them and used by them. Used whenever they had the need of it. Used if they choose to retire at 50 instead of 65 (soon to be 67).

The Chile system shows how it can be done. I don't need to move to Chile- I just need to help support candidates and legislation to give us what Chile has- and I will and I do.

That you gladly hand over taxes based on an amendment that was never ratified goes hand in hand with your desire to be parented until you die.

LOL...look who's all emotional and stuff...just sayin' I KNOW the name genius, the FACTS are that too man American's end up depending on SS as a retirement...Doesn't matter what you call it when it is sold to the American people as retirement-

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, people need money to live- indeed it would be wonderful if all that money taken from them could actually be invested by them and used by them. Used whenever they had the need of it. Used if they choose to retire at 50 instead of 65 (soon to be 67).

A) How do we fund current beneficiaries then?
B) What happens when you exhaust your retirement funds in old age?

That you gladly hand over taxes based on an amendment that was never ratified goes hand in hand with your desire to be parented until you die.

Sorry to inform you of this, but 42 of the 48 states existing at the time of its proposal have ratified it.

You really are insane. I just pray to god you don't vote.

 

[clevergirl]

So? If you own a house for 40 years and it never burns down, you're out all that fire insurance you bought.

No, but at least you have a house to leave to your loved ones.

If you had an individual retirement account you could leave that to a loved one - if you die early enough. If, on the other hand, you live very long, you could use up your retirement account, and instead have to get a loved one to take some money they might put in their retirement account and give it to you to live on instead.

Of course - folks can't usually tell exactly when they're going to die. Sounds like a case for INSURANCE. Its also a feature of pension plans.

What you fail to grasp - despite your supposed cleverness - is that the fundamental difference between retirement insurance and retirement funds are that retirement funds can not only be left to survivors - but they can also RUN OUT. Retirement insurance, and many pension plans, let you trade the risk that you'll die young and not get what you paid into the system for the risk of living very long and having to be paid much more than you paid in. Retirement FUNDS do not have that feature - unless you plan on funding your retirement solely off of Treasury TIPS - in which case, you'll need 50 times your required income - at least. Even then, there's no guarantee you won't live more than 30 years after retirement, and if interest rates have dropped by then, you'll be fucked.

What you seem to fail to comprehend is that people should be allowed to decide how they want to deal with their retirement and what kind of insurance they want to buy.

I have no problem with insurance- I have a problem with being forced to buy it. I have a 401 k, it would be nice if I could divert FICA into it. Even in the midst of the market upheavals it has grown. I could support the government overseeing investments, as they do in Chile, just not controlling them.

I would much rather have a portfolio to leave my kids, then 30 years of FICA flushed down the black hole of Treasury.

 

[MiddleClass]

If Perry really wanted to become President he would not have claimed that the Social Security Fund is a Ponzi Scheme. Any serious clear thinking candidate would not place his entire campaign in jeopardy like that just to express his radical rightwingnut views. With the largest block of voters being of retirement years, no one in their right mind would make such a Gaff, and yet be a serious candidate. Perry will go by the way of all of his tea party counterparts in this election, lining up behind the most moderate Republican Candidates when the nomination process is all said and done. Perry is just another flash in the pan wannabe.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What you seem to fail to comprehend is that people should be allowed to decide how they want to deal with their retirement and what kind of insurance they want to buy.

Not when failing to provide for their own old age or disability falls as a burden on the taxpayers anyway - which it does.

I have no problem with insurance- I have a problem with being forced to buy it.

Then go cry to your mamma. Or earn your income through capital gains or through rental income - both are excluded. Or go live in Galveston, or become a teacher in Louisiana. Neither pay into Social Security - they have their own retirement systems. Or you could become a farmer and only grow what you need.

I have a 401 k, it would be nice if I could divert FICA into it.

THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT

Even in the midst of the market upheavals it has grown.

Great. You should build a time machine, go back in time, and make the same investment choices again.

I would much rather have a portfolio to leave my kids, then 30 years of FICA flushed down the black hole of Treasury.

WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE LONGER THAN YOU EXPECTED AND YOU MONEY RUNS OUT?

 

[clevergirl]

Yes, people need money to live- indeed it would be wonderful if all that money taken from them could actually be invested by them and used by them. Used whenever they had the need of it. Used if they choose to retire at 50 instead of 65 (soon to be 67).

A) How do we fund current beneficiaries then?
B) What happens when you exhaust your retirement funds in old age?

That you gladly hand over taxes based on an amendment that was never ratified goes hand in hand with your desire to be parented until you die.

Sorry to inform you of this, but 42 of the 48 states existing at the time of its proposal have ratified it.

You really are insane. I just pray to god you don't vote.

I gave you a link to the country who has already transitioned- read up on it...that is if you are really interested in having answers. If you are and you want to challenge their transitional challenges ..we'll talk.

Yes, how insane of me to seek economic freedom...just plain old

Because sane people, like you, are always looking for ways to strangle freedoms and bend the knee to mommy government-my only problem with that o course is you want the rest of us to do it as well.


from the link

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.

In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.

This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.

These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:

• California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
• Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
• Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
• Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.

Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

 

[clevergirl]

What you seem to fail to comprehend is that people should be allowed to decide how they want to deal with their retirement and what kind of insurance they want to buy.

Not when failing to provide for their own old age or disability falls as a burden on the taxpayers anyway - which it does.

I have no problem with insurance- I have a problem with being forced to buy it.

Then go cry to your mamma. Or earn your income through capital gains or through rental income - both are excluded. Or go live in Galveston, or become a teacher in Louisiana. Neither pay into Social Security - they have their own retirement systems. Or you could become a farmer and only grow what you need.

THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT

Even in the midst of the market upheavals it has grown.

Great. You should build a time machine, go back in time, and make the same investment choices again.

I would much rather have a portfolio to leave my kids, then 30 years of FICA flushed down the black hole of Treasury.

WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE LONGER THAN YOU EXPECTED AND YOU MONEY RUNS OUT?

Wow capitalization and big black letters...hey, I thought I was the one that was all emotional and stuff

What if I die tomorrow; what if I get cancer; what if I win a million dollars? Life is full of risk- no one has a crystal ball. That said planning for ones retirement is not all risk- There are sound investment tools. What people need is their money to take advantage of them. As stated earlier I have no problem with government oversight- I just don't want them taking my money and telling me not to worry...meanwhile I never see it again until I am almost dead...no thanks.