Paradoxically, it's bad because it's good. Unemployment is down, the lowest it's been in a few years. Now all of us on this board know that the parasitic government workers who calculate that rate smoke the books when a Dim is in office, but the average voter doesn't know that. I also heard that Chrysler's sales are up something like 46% over some comparable time period last year, new business starts are up, more business lending is taking place, etc. etc. It made me so sick I turned the radio to a rap station. Anyway, we've got to get busy and stamp this out! We've got to keep this economy in the tank until at least election day! Our country's future depends on it! Who wil join with me to sabotage this alleged recovery?
Just as weak as all your other efforts to appear conservative. Golly, you're dull!
Quote from: quiller on March 01, 2012, 06:42:30 AM
Just as weak as all your other efforts to appear conservative. Golly, you're dull!
But you never fail to respond.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 06:51:11 AM
But you never fail to respond.
Because you're stupid, and deserve it.
:)
Quote from: quiller on March 01, 2012, 06:57:34 AM
Because you're stupid, and deserve it.
:biggrin:
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
Paradoxically, it's bad because it's good. Unemployment is down, the lowest it's been in a few years. Now all of us on this board know that the parasitic government workers who calculate that rate smoke the books when a Dim is in office, but the average voter doesn't know that. I also heard that Chrysler's sales are up something like 46% over some comparable time period last year, new business starts are up, more business lending is taking place, etc. etc. It made me so sick I turned the radio to a rap station. Anyway, we've got to get busy and stamp this out! We've got to keep this economy in the tank until at least election day! Our country's future depends on it! Who wil join with me to sabotage this alleged recovery?
Actually the unemployment rate measures the ratio of those employed in any capacity to those not employed - but still searching for work. Usually those still looking for work are judged by counting existing and new unemployment claims. Of course that under counts or ignores, persons whose unemployment has expired (been out of work over two years), persons who would like to work, but have retired (workers between 62 and 65) and, of course the underemployed (part time workers or temporary workers). A better measurement would be the total working age population as compared to those actually full time employed. I would help you with those figures, but for some reason BLS stopped making that comparison about two years ago/sarc.
Elmer, with all due respect, Sir, I would point out that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, will believe not one iota of any statistic emanating from the Glorious Government. It exists to lie and lies to exist.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 01, 2012, 07:20:41 AM
Actually the unemployment rate measures the ratio of those employed in any capacity to those not employed - but still searching for work. Usually those still looking for work are judged by counting existing and new unemployment claims. Of course that under counts or ignores, persons whose unemployment has expired (been out of work over two years), persons who would like to work, but have retired (workers between 62 and 65) and, of course the underemployed (part time workers or temporary workers). A better measurement would be the total working age population as compared to those actually full time employed. I would help you with those figures, but for some reason BLS stopped making that comparison about two years ago/sarc.
I am sure Obama made them quit. I can't wait till he gets his head handed to him this November and Romney gets in there and makes them start back doing it.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 01, 2012, 07:31:40 AM
Elmer, with all due respect, Sir, I would point out that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, will believe not one iota of any statistic emanating from the Glorious Government. It exists to lie and lies to exist.
Yes, but only when the Dims are in office. Just let the Pubs get back in there and truth will out!
Quote from: Shooterman on March 01, 2012, 07:31:40 AM
Elmer, with all due respect, Sir, I would point out that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, will believe not one iota of any statistic emanating from the Glorious Government. It exists to lie and lies to exist.
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare. Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans? Or good healthcare program for senior citizens? Or something else? I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic. (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare. Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans? Or good healthcare program for senior citizens? Or something else? I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic. (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)
It's like Social Security. It's one of those entitlement programs that will put us in the fiscal graveyard.
Because politicians over promised. Stole all the money for political purpose. And then borrowed like hell to make it up
It was set up wrong in the first place, because the people who set it up didn't understand either economics or humanity.
The right way would have been to set up medical savings accounts free from government control, and under the control of the people using them. But that wouldn't have served the purpose of the politicians which is ALWAYS to make you dependent on them. Think of the difference it would have made had they set Social Security up as a 401K program. It would have engendered an entirely different attitude toward Business, Tax policy, Corporate crime, Savings and Investment, Government spending, etc. etc.. Or a least that's my belief.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 01, 2012, 08:26:48 AM
It's like Social Security. It's one of those entitlement programs that will put us in the fiscal graveyard.
Because politicians over promised. Stole all the money for political purpose. And then borrowed like hell to make it up
It was set up wrong in the first place, because the people who set it up didn't understand either economics or humanity.
The right way would have been to set up medical savings accounts free from government control, and under the control of the people using them. But that wouldn't have served the purpose of the politicians which is ALWAYS to make you dependent on them. Think of the difference it would have made had they set Social Security up as a 401K program. It would have engendered an entirely different attitude toward Business, Tax policy, Corporate crime, Savings and Investment, Government spending, etc. etc.. Or a least that's my belief.
You could be right. It's a case of the road not taken, so we'll never know. But I do know this with respect to social security. It was not created because people were doing a good job of providing for themselves in their golden years and the government just wanted to make sure it continued, and it has made the difference between subsistence level living and grinding poverty for many an elderly American, including, I bet, some of your relatives. And mine, too. Needs tweaking? Yes. Abolishment? No.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 08:38:48 AM
You could be right. It's a case of the road not taken, so we'll never know. But I do know this with respect to social security. It was not created because people were doing a good job of providing for themselves in their golden years and the government just wanted to make sure it continued, and it has made the difference between subsistence level living and grinding poverty for many an elderly American, including, I bet, some of your relatives. And mine, too. Needs tweaking? Yes. Abolishment? No.
Actually Social Security was set up so that the socialists - who infested the Roosevelt administration - could tax
EVERYONE - to fund their socialist schemes, without causing open revolt during the Depression. If you know anything about Social Security, it was not set up to provide more than subsistence level living until the 60's. And originally it was set at 65 because Bismarck in Germany set it at 65 , and he did so because so few people reached that age.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 01, 2012, 09:03:05 AM
Actually Social Security was set up so that the socialists - who infested the Roosevelt administration - could tax EVERYONE - to fund their socialist schemes, without causing open revolt during the Depression. If you know anything about Social Security, it was not set up to provide more than subsistence level living until the 60's. And originally it was set at 65 because Bismarck in Germany set it at 65 , and he did so because so few people reached that age.
Okay. If you say so.
BTW, here are some charts on the drop on total work force as compared to the % rate employed:
http://blog.american.com/2012/03/the-economic-case-against-obamanomics-in-13-charts/ (http://blog.american.com/2012/03/the-economic-case-against-obamanomics-in-13-charts/)
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:33:09 AM
Yes, but only when the Dims are in office. Just let the Pubs get back in there and truth will out!
No, that is false, as well. Do not put words in my mouth. I am an equal opportunity hater of the two party shit.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare. Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans? Or good healthcare program for senior citizens? Or something else? I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic. (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare. Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans? Or good healthcare program for senior citizens? Or something else? I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic. (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)
Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:12:27 AM
Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.
Didn't you pay into it already Shooter?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 02, 2012, 10:23:07 AM
Didn't you pay into it already Shooter?
Yep! There is still no getting out of it when working. I'm sure now I could opt to pay for everything myself, but with expenses as they are, I ain't got that kind of scratch.
The problem with Social security is that it was never meant to pay out. It was originally set at 65 because nobody in those days reached that age. As the lifespan increased they should have kept upping the retirement age, but they were caught in a dilemma - if they kept upping the age, it would soon become obvious it was never meant to pay out, which would destroy the political support for the program. So they left it at 65 - until it was too late.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:12:27 AM
Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.
I agree with you 100% on that one. Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs. Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff? And who benefitted? Old farts, that's who. Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
I agree with you 100% on that one. Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs. Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff? And who benefitted? Old farts, that's who. Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer.
So you believe there wouldn't have been the same advances absent government money?
Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
The problem with Social security is that it was never meant to pay out. It was originally set at 65 because nobody in those days reached that age. As the lifespan increased they should have kept upping the retirement age, but they were caught in a dilemma - if they kept upping the age, it would soon become obvious it was never meant to pay out, which would destroy the political support for the program. So they left it at 65 - until it was too late.
This is such a short sighted canard.
It is true that, at birth, the average life expecatancy in the 1930's was probably 65. But to say nobody reached that age is absurd. Ben Franklin made it to his late 80's. John Adams to 90. History is FILLED with people who lived much beyond 65 well before the 1930's.
What happened was childhood diseases and deaths in childbirth dropped. Once a guy made to his 20's, even in the 1930's, he had a life expectancy beyond 65. Everybody alive still has some life expectancy, even if he's 98.
What social security was set up to provide was some help, not a complete pension, for people who made it to 65. And plenty of them did. Then, now, and many years ago.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
So you believe there wouldn't have been the same advances absent government money?
Not necessarily goverment money, but money. And I don't see the kind of money Medicare pumped into healthcare for old farts coming from anyplace else. At least it never had prior to Medicare. That's why Medicare was established.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:29:40 AM
Yep! There is still no getting out of it when working. I'm sure now I could opt to pay for everything myself, but with expenses as they are, I ain't got that kind of scratch.
So basically you are using your own money when you use medicare.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:39:25 AM
This is such a short sighted canard.
It is true that, at birth, the average life expecatancy in the 1930's was probably 65. But to say nobody reached that age is absurd. Ben Franklin made it to his late 80's. John Adams to 90. History is FILLED with people who lived much beyond 65 well before the 1930's.
What happened was childhood diseases and deaths in childbirth dropped. Once a guy made to his 20's, even in the 1930's, he had a life expectancy beyond 65. Everybody alive still has some life expectancy, even if he's 98.
What social security was set up to provide was some help, not a complete pension, for people who made it to 65. And plenty of them did. Then, now, and many years ago.
Everyone who worked contributed to the program; but, on average, how many of them were going to be around to get the payout. The system could support the singular oldster that made it to the finish line. It's been an open secret for years, that black working males were specially screwed by the Social Security system due to our shorter average life span. If social security were set up to provide Social Security, it would be set up like an insurance annuity program. But the USSC has long since ruled that Social Security is nothing more than a government welfare program - which makes the payroll tax - A TAX. One of the ugly little secrets of the future is that Social Security will never run out of money - because when it becomes too burdensome or unsustainable, Congress will simply cancel it. That sharp pain all you people who paid into it feel? That's your government showing you where their size 15's go.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:51:37 AM
Everyone who worked contributed to the program; but, on average, how many of them were going to be around to get the payout. The system could support the singular oldster that made it to the finish line. It's been an open secret for years, that black working males were specially screwed by the Social Security system due to our shorter average life span. If social security were set up to provide Social Security, it would be set up like an insurance annuity program. But the USSC has long since ruled that Social Security is nothing more than a government welfare program - which makes the payroll tax - A TAX. One of the ugly little secrets of the future is that Social Security will never run out of money - because when it becomes too burdensome or unsustainable, Congress will simply cancel it. That sharp pain all you people who paid into it feel? That's your government showing you where their size 15's go.
Everybody did indeed contribute and everybody, then as now, did not benefit. That's the way insurance works. I have had fire insurance for YEARS but never had a single fire.
You will note that the rates have grown, too. When a much smaller percentage (but still over half) of the people did not make it to 65 the rates were like 2% each for employer and employee. As that percentage has increased, the rates have gone up.
I am also fully aware that it's not really insurance. FDR had to disguise it as that to combat all the nervous nellies who were scared absolutely out of their wits by anything that even remotely resembled "socialism." Which is what it clearly is. So is Medicare. And you're right about black males. Also women. At first social security did not cover nearly all occupations and the ones it didn't cover were, coincidentally?, those heavily employing blacks and females. Now, I am not suggesting racism or sexism had anything to do with that. But it IS a remote possibility.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 02, 2012, 10:48:18 AM
So basically you are using your own money when you use medicare.
If you don't use it very much, yes. But if you have a couple heart attacks and other issues very common to old farts, you're using all of yours and a lot of other folks', too. I mean, nobody can honestly say they're overburdened with Medicare taxes.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
I agree with you 100% on that one. Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs. Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff? And who benefitted? Old farts, that's who. Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer.
Just possibly, Elmer, you have misunderstood. It is the people's money. It never was the government's money. The people paid into the system fully expecting a ROI. ( though ROI is not quite what I would call it more like forced theft ) If Uncle Sugar and his Minions of Mischief ( PUBS and DIMS ) had not stolen the money to pay for other shit, the program would not be in the hole it is in.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 11:11:26 AM
Just possibly, Elmer, you have misunderstood. It is the people's money. It never was the government's money. The people paid into the system fully expecting a ROI. ( though ROI is not quite what I would call it more like forced theft ) If Uncle Sugar and his Minions of Mischief ( PUBS and DIMS ) had not stolen the money to pay for other shit, the program would not be in the hole it is in.
I think it is you that has misunderstood. But I gotta go. Average post count too high and got things to do. No money was ever stolen, though. That is a complete canard.
QuoteEverybody did indeed contribute and everybody, then as now, did not benefit. That's the way insurance works. I have had fire insurance for YEARS but never had a single fire.
Note I said an annuity policy, where you build up the value of the policy based upon your contributions AND your survivors get all of it back if you don't make it. Not the cheesy little payment the government gives your kids or your widow. Social Security was sold as annuity, not as term.
QuoteYou will note that the rates have grown, too. When a much smaller percentage (but still over half) of the people did not make it to 65 the rates were like 2% each for employer and employee. As that percentage has increased, the rates have gone up.
Sure with a Ponzi scheme like Social Security, a growing population could hide the basic unsustainability of the program - for a while.
QuoteI am also fully aware that it's not really insurance. FDR had to disguise it as that to combat all the nervous nellies who were scared absolutely out of their wits by anything that even remotely resembled "socialism." Which is what it clearly is. So is Medicare. And you're right about black males. Also women. At first social security did not cover nearly all occupations and the ones it didn't cover were, coincidentally?, those heavily employing blacks and females. Now, I am not suggesting racism or sexism had anything to do with that. But it IS a remote possibility.
If he wanted it to not be socialism he could have structured it as a deferred tax on savings and interest - a 401K. Oh yeah, no make that Hell yeah, not sexism but definitely racism - the backbone of the Democratic party was the "Solid South". What do you think?
Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 11:14:25 AM
Note I said an annuity policy, where you build up the value of the policy based upon your contributions AND your survivors get all of it back if you don't make it. Not the cheesy little payment the government gives your kids or your widow. Social Security was sold as annuity, not as term.Sure with a Ponzi scheme like Social Security, a growing population could hide the basic unsustainability of the program - for a while. If he wanted it to not be socialism he could have structured it as a deferred tax on savings and interest - a 401K. Oh yeah, no make that Hell yeah, not sexism but definitely racism - the backbone of the Democratic party was the "Solid South". What do you think?
Anybody who seriously believes social security is a ponzi scheme would not know a ponzi scheme if it walked up to him and slapped him upside the head with a wet dishrag.
G'day mates.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 11:15:59 AM
Anybody who seriously believes social security is a ponzi scheme would not know a ponzi scheme if it walked up to him and slapped him upside the head with a wet dishrag.
G'day mates.
And any one who doesn't recognize that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme has
ALREADY been slapped upside the head - with a mailed fist. Then you were knocked down, and while you lay there - the government went through your wallet.
Now that taxed has figured out I have only the intellect of your typical nine year old, I guess I can share this.
In between the Dick and Jane books, I was assigned to read a book on FDR in the remedial English class I am taking. (A book. I know you guys get all your info by "scouring the web" but surely you can recall what a book looks like.)
Anyway, there was this guy in FDR's administration who could do a dead on impersonation of Eleanor. I mean dead on. Voice, hand movements, the whole nine yards. Any time Franklin was in a real funk they'd send for this guy and he'd come running in the oval office screaming "FRANKLIN! YOU'VE SIMPLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE NEGROES!' Franklin laughed so hard every time he nearly cried.
And it's not that he didn't want to. But he was a politician and he knew it took baby steps. That's why occupations filled largely by blacks were omitted from social security originally. (Also note they didn't pay into it, either.) He knew better to get what he could when he could and then expand it later (which is what happened) than not get anything at all (which was the only other option at the time).
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 11:15:59 AM
Anybody who seriously believes social security is a ponzi scheme would not know a ponzi scheme if it walked up to him and slapped him upside the head with a wet dishrag.
G'day mates.
Of course it is a ponzi scheme, Elmer. People paying into it now are supporting the already retired folks. It might also be telling that at the time of inception, there were about 15 workers for every retiree, Now, there are approximately two per retiree.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 12:25:47 PM
Of course it is a ponzi scheme, Elmer. People paying into it now are supporting the already retired folks. It might also be telling that at the time of inception, there were about 15 workers for every retiree, Now, there are approximately two per retiree.
Which is exactly what it was designed to do on the front end and everbody knew it. With your ponzi scheme, it's all under wraps. Those contributing THINK they're "investing." They've been lied to. Nobody lied to anybody with respect to social security. It's doing exactly what it was set up to do just like it was set up to do it. And lots and lots of old folks, my grandparents included, maybe yours, too, escaped an old age of grinding poverty because of it. They paid in very little, got a lot out.
I will get much less out as a percentage of what I paid in than they will. I have been blessed with well paying gainful employment all my life despite having the intellect of a nine year old. But I don't begrudge those who will get a higher percentage of their pay in out than I will. I am still better off than they are, and God gets all the credit.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 01:05:19 PM
Which is exactly what it was designed to do on the front end and everbody knew it. With your ponzi scheme, it's all under wraps. Those contributing THINK they're "investing." They've been lied to. Nobody lied to anybody with respect to social security. It's doing exactly what it was set up to do just like it was set up to do it.
Mot quite true, Elmer. It has and is operated like a ponzi scheme. Much smarter people that I have called it such. I believe they are correct.
QuoteAnd lots and lots of old folks, my grandparents included, maybe yours, too, escaped an old age of grinding poverty because of it. They paid in very little, got a lot out.
I still have my grandfathers social security card. To my knowledge, he never collected a dime from the system as he died in January of '43, Before that he sold used cars and did not know how to drive, but my Dad supported my mother's parents, himself, my mother, and I and my brother who was six weeks old when Dad was recalled to active Navy duty in May '41. He did this driving a truck for a wholesale grocery and produce house.
In later years my Grandmother, who continued to live with us after the War until she passed in '65, may have collected a small amount of old age survivors benefits, but it was negligible.
With 15 workers paying into the system for everyone one not paying, it was sustainable, but not with two supporting one.
QuoteI will get much less out as a percentage of what I paid in than they will. I have been blessed with well paying gainful employment all my life despite having the intellect of a nine year old. But I don't begrudge those who will get a higher percentage of their pay in out than I will. I am still better off than they are, and God gets all the credit.
Good for you, Elmer, but many, if not most, are not that fortunate. Being on SS myself,I do not begrudge any getting money from the system. They paid into it the same as any of us. I've paid into it from the time I was 15. Wasn't much then, but pay I did.
Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
Mot quite true, Elmer. It has and is operated like a ponzi scheme. Much smarter people that I have called it such. I believe they are correct.
I still have my grandfathers social security card. To my knowledge, he never collected a dime from the system as he died in January of '43, Before that he sold used cars and did not know how to drive, but my Dad supported my mother's parents, himself, my mother, and I and my brother who was six weeks old when Dad was recalled to active Navy duty in May '41. He did this driving a truck for a wholesale grocery and produce house.
In later years my Grandmother, who continued to live with us after the War until she passed in '65, may have collected a small amount of old age survivors benefits, but it was negligible.
With 15 workers paying into the system for everyone one not paying, it was sustainable, but not with two supporting one.
Good for you, Elmer, , are not that fortunate.but many, if not most Being on SS myself,I do not begrudge any getting money from the system. They paid into it the same as any of us. I've paid into it from the time I was 15. Wasn't much then, but pay I did.
Pay I have, too. Also since I was 15. Including time in the army. Only 61 now.
Those who are less fortunate than I are the very ones I am talking about. I know smarter people than you and I have called it a ponzi scheme. But they're playing pollyticks. Not being truthful.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 01:50:55 PM
Pay I have, too. Also since I was 15. Including time in the army. Only 61 now.
Those who are less fortunate than I are the very ones I am talking about. I know smarter people than you and I have called it a ponzi scheme. But they're playing pollyticks. Not being truthful.
Whether they labeled it that as a political tactic or not, it still happens to be true. Like all Ponzi schemes the initial investors are paid off by the later investors, with the scheme working as long as the number of investors continues to rise. That's why it's also referred to as a pyramid scheme. Social Security seemed to worked for so long because after WW2 our parents got busy. They had so many babies and there were so many boomers paying into the system, that it seemed the good times would never end. But now the Boomers are starting to draw out and people are beginning to realize that those paper IOU's the government put in the fund to replace the money they stole, can't be paid.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 03, 2012, 05:37:44 AM
Whether they labeled it that as a political tactic or not, it still happens to be true. Like all Ponzi schemes the initial investors are paid off by the later investors, with the scheme working as long as the number of investors continues to rise. That's why it's also referred to as a pyramid scheme. Social Security seemed to worked for so long because after WW2 our parents got busy. They had so many babies and there were so many boomers paying into the system, that it seemed the good times would never end. But now the Boomers are starting to draw out and people are beginning to realize that those paper IOU's the government put in the fund to replace the money they stole, can't be paid.
Those "paper IOUs" are US Government Bonds. Considered the safest investment known to man by any credible financial adviser. If they're just paper IOUS, what does that make common stocks?
When receipts exceeded outgo, the receipts needed to be invested. They were invested in USG bonds. That meant the USG had funds to use that would later have to be retired with taxes, of course, but the alternative wss to levy taxes now or do without whatever was procured. Some of what was procured during that time included national defense items, not the least of which was WWII. Some of what was procured we probably would have been better off without.
It is not a ponzi scheme. USG bonds are not just paper IOUs. You are merely parrotting fire breathers like the Rushman when you say stuff like that.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 12:30:40 PM
It is not a ponzi scheme. USG bonds are not just paper IOUs. You are merely parrotting fire breathers like the Rushman when you say stuff like that.
Cut the bull shit!
You just made a statement, I want you to back it up with a link!
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2012, 12:35:30 PM
Cut the bull shit!
You just made a statement, I want you to back it up with a link!
The old "Link! Don't think!" bit, huh?
Up yours, doofus.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 12:39:20 PM
The old "Link! Don't think!" bit, huh?
Up yours, doofus.
Wrong Dumb ass, you claimed Giles listens to Rush and was parroting him.
So the burden of proof is on you.
Prove Rush said our economy is a Ponzi scheme, or take it back.
Do you want to recant?
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2012, 12:47:59 PM
Wrong Dumb ass, you claimed Giles listens to Rush and was parroting him.
So the burden of proof is on you.
Prove Rush said our economy is a Ponzi scheme, or take it back.
Do you want to recant?
See my earlier post, doofus. Take it down yourself if you don't like it.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 12:52:42 PM
See my earlier post, doofus. Take it down yourself if you don't like it.
You have two options, either admit it was pure BS, or take a vacation from posting here for an indeterminate amount of time.
You see, nearly half of your very posts are insults based on lies, like claiming to be a Conservative, then turn around and call someone a consevatard.
You were asked to knock it off, then warned.
If you can't be honest when posting like the rest of us, I see no reason you should continue to have the privilege of posting.
Make your choice wisely, no one will mock you if you do the right thing.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 12:30:40 PM
Those "paper IOUs" are US Government Bonds. Considered the safest investment known to man by any credible financial adviser. If they're just paper IOUS, what does that make common stocks?
When receipts exceeded outgo, the receipts needed to be invested. They were invested in USG bonds. That meant the USG had funds to use that would later have to be retired with taxes, of course, but the alternative wss to levy taxes now or do without whatever was procured. Some of what was procured during that time included national defense items, not the least of which was WWII. Some of what was procured we probably would have been better off without.
It is not a ponzi scheme. USG bonds are not just paper IOUs. You are merely parrotting fire breathers like the Rushman when you say stuff like that.
Those IOU's are
SPECIAL Treasury Bonds. unlike other Government bonds they are
NOT publicly traded. When a bond is not publicly trade you have no real idea of it's real value, only it's face value. What in effect has happened is that the government has take the actual money that came in, and issued an IOU to itself. A publicly traded bond carries with it an obligation to pay or face default. Default means the US would have difficulty drawing on world credit markets But these are privately held bonds owed to itself. It's as if you took ten dollars out of your wallet, and left an IOU to yourself. Suppose you don't pay, is your left half going to complain to everybody about your right half? The US owes on those
SPECIAL Treasury bonds, in a situation where they already been told they owe no actual liability on them. They're just a bookkeeping fiction. Instead of the US saying it owes umpteen trillion dollars, it instead says it owes umpteen trillion dollars less the value of those paper assets. Having long since be told it doesn't have to pay anything. I can understand that when you get to be our ages the idea of Social Security simply ending, scares the hell out of you; but that's no reason to ignore the truth. The government could screw all senior citizens tomorrow, and legally there's not much those citizens could do about it other than vote those people out. And if you really want to see "Death Panels", start insisting that the entire US budget be used to pay off hordes of greedy geezers.
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2012, 01:07:18 PM
You have two options, either admit it was pure BS, or take a vacation from posting here for an indeterminate amount of time.
You see, nearly half of your very posts are insults based on lies, like claiming to be a Conservative, then turn around and call someone a consevatard.
You were asked to knock it off, then warned.
If you can't be honest when posting like the rest of us, I see no reason you should continue to have the privilege of posting.
Make your choice wisely, no one will mock you if you do the right thing.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi322.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn430%2Fbamamom33%2FSmileys%2FTime.gif&hash=bcfbe27009d5256b89cd6e5e6a8fbff365c0df8e)
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2012, 01:07:18 PM
You have two options, either admit it was pure BS, or take a vacation from posting here for an indeterminate amount of time.
You see, nearly half of your very posts are insults based on lies, like claiming to be a Conservative, then turn around and call someone a consevatard.
You were asked to knock it off, then warned.
If you can't be honest when posting like the rest of us, I see no reason you should continue to have the privilege of posting.
Make your choice wisely, no one will mock you if you do the right thing.
Boot me, my thin skinned conservatard friend. Permanently.
Quote from: mdgiles on March 03, 2012, 01:19:14 PM
Those IOU's are SPECIAL Treasury Bonds. unlike other Government bonds they are NOT publicly trade. When a bond is not publicly trade you have no real idea of it's real value, only it's face value. What in effect has happened is that the government has take the actual money that came in, and issued an IOU to itself. A publicly traded bond carries wit it an obligation to pay or face default. Default means the US would have difficulty drawing on world credit markets But these are privately held bonds owed to itself. It's as if you took ten dollars out of your wallet, and left an IOU to yourself. Suppose you don't pay, is your left half going to complain to everybody about your right half? The US owes on those SPECIAL Treasury bonds, in a situation where they already been told they owe no actual liability on them. They're just a bookkeeping fiction. Instead of the US saying it owes umpteen trillion dollars, it instead says it owes umpteen trillion dollars less the value of those paper assets. Having long since be told it doesn't have to pay anything. I can understand that when you get to be our ages the idea of Social Security simply ending, scares the hell out of you; but that's no reason to ignore the truth. The government could screw all senior citizens tomorrow, and legally there's not much those citizens could do about it other than vote those people out. And if you really want to see "Death Panels", start insisting that the entire US budget be use to pay off hordes of greedy geezers.
It is virtually impossible to lift the veil of ignorance from people who are so bent on hanging on to it.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 01:30:13 PM
It is virtually impossible to lift the veil of ignorance from people who are so bent on hanging on to it.
No answer to my post then, correct? I didn't think you could, for some reason, having seen the government screw up time and time again; and screw over people time and time again; some people simply refuse to believe the government would do that to their Social Security - un-freaking-believable.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 03, 2012, 01:26:16 PM
Boot me, my thin skinned conservatard friend. Permanently.
Your choice, though I see no reason to ban you, you just need a timeout like a child that continues to act up.
Enjoy your time off and maybe when you return you can act like an adult and post honestly.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 11:13:55 AM
I think it is you that has misunderstood. But I gotta go. Average post count too high and got things to do. No money was ever stolen, though. That is a complete canard.
Of course it was stolen, Elmer. Oh, a big deal was made about 'borrowing' the money from the trust fund, but if they never intended to pay it back, that is theft. It is similar to me loaning you money and then you telling me to see your grand kids for payment.