FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Intrepretation: I would rather see 80 year old widows living on the street starving, afterall things are fine in my backyard.
Intrepretation: I would rather see 80 year old widows living on the street starving, afterall things are fine in my backyard.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
How about 80 year old widows on the street in Africa or Asia or South America? Don't you care about them? Do you want to cover them too? Isn't the whole world your backyard? Once you start drawing lines "where" you draw them is a matter of opinion.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And there is the Progressive mentality exposed for all to gander at and mock for it's abject stupidity.
Yes, without the government to take care of us, how could we possible survive?
Instead of letting citizens retain their income and invest it privately, the GOV'MENT needs to collect it and invest it wisely for our futures. Soc Sec at this exact moment has 14.1 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities...get that? UNFUNDED. Medicare is at 74.6 TRILLION and the prescription drug liability is at 18.7 TRILLION. Boy, oh boy, isn't bankrupting a nation for the purposes of Government control and a blind devotion to a philosophy that has failed in EVERY instance it has been tried.
Funny, the money I started putting into a private retirement account has been growing and growing. That money is really there, as opposed to every red cent you Progressive fucks took to "supposedly" invest for my futrure needs.
Answer this painfully simple question. If you had every dollar they took out of your pay for Soc Sec and Med, and had privately invested it, how much would you have for your future right now? I'll bet it's more than the current LIABILITY of $348,480 that every citizen currently owes.
checkmate.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
WTF are you talking about? The Social Security Trust Fund currently has a surplus of $2.5 Trillion and projections are there will be a surplus until at least 2017. Pulling numbers off of Glenn Becks site does not make it true.
Man o' the green
Active Member
What does Glenn Beck have to do with our fiscal disaster ? Don't shoot the messenger.
www.usdebtclock.org
Liabilities :
$ 14.186 T Soc Sec
$ 18.769 T Rx Benefit
$ 74.641 T Medicare
Debt/GDP ratio = 86.9 %
I welcome anyone to tell me how this site is inaccurate, because this is the real hole we are in. It doesn't matter how compassionate you are, this bill cannot be paid.
Explain the Soc Sec surplus please. ( and it hasn't been a "trust-fund" for many generations )
the420 apprentice
Well-Known Member
muyloco that is some scary shit you just stated. these crooks in washington are nothing but that. They lie cheat and steal just like a common criminal. we the people have resposibility to educate out selfs more on the politics of congress. i think the only way foward in this country is to purge ourselves of these bastards and all across this nation vote for anyone who has never held office before. a washington that doesnt owe there service to some lobbyist or a pack of deals they made years ago. The president can only serve two terms so why should these old farts run our country there way instead of in the vision of the people. if i had the computer skills i would surf the web and push this idea to anyone who would listen and the maybe it could become the organized movement that has put this country in such a dire situation.
these bastards cant be left to continue to destroy our country. during the debate yesterday there was clearly an incident when obama had to correct his numbers from the cbo. obama stated the cbo sayed health care premiums would not increase under his plan. when in fact they will and he soon corrected his self. they are riding on the notion that subsidies will make the increase nonexsitent but that will just be paid off the backs of more americans. now the real kicker is cnn not 10 minutes later spins it in the the obama direction completely cutting out the correction in his statement and left saying that there would be no increase in premiums. complete lies because i watched it, now for the millions who only checked cnn later that day gets a spin on the truth. the lines of information are broken with politics and its a damn shame.
now sit back an imagine a sweep of congress and a new start free iou's and politicians owned by lobbyist a new america of todays leaders not the leaders of yesterday. now spread the idea and lets start something with real change!
these bastards cant be left to continue to destroy our country. during the debate yesterday there was clearly an incident when obama had to correct his numbers from the cbo. obama stated the cbo sayed health care premiums would not increase under his plan. when in fact they will and he soon corrected his self. they are riding on the notion that subsidies will make the increase nonexsitent but that will just be paid off the backs of more americans. now the real kicker is cnn not 10 minutes later spins it in the the obama direction completely cutting out the correction in his statement and left saying that there would be no increase in premiums. complete lies because i watched it, now for the millions who only checked cnn later that day gets a spin on the truth. the lines of information are broken with politics and its a damn shame.
now sit back an imagine a sweep of congress and a new start free iou's and politicians owned by lobbyist a new america of todays leaders not the leaders of yesterday. now spread the idea and lets start something with real change!
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Wow, are you in complete denial. Social Security is BANKRUPT. Medicare is BANKRUPT. Not maybe...not kinda... Bankrupt. Unplug from MSNBC and the Huffington Post for a second and maybe you could actually run into a fact that isn't one of the "cooked" numbers they're feeding you with your strained plums.
Funny that in your predictably flaccid reply you attack Beck over numbers that were not gleaned from him or his show. It shows your derangement knows no bounds and will not be swayed by such unimportant considerations like actual facts and undeniable realities. The debate on our unfunded liabilities is over, there is a overwhelming consensus among economists... what are you a flat earther or something? (sorry about that last one, but since you are flinging absurd arguments around, I thought I'd use one from the Left's hero... Fat AL)
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
What you are failing to take into account with that is yes there is 14 trillion going out with social security BUT they are taking in almost 17 trillion. Maybe you should tell wikipedia there hasnt been a trust fund for generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
As of the end of calendar year 2008, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2.4 trillion. [1] Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017 (according to Charles Blahous, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy). Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds. [2] The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain in surplus indefinitely.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Once again for the visually impaired.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
As of the end of calendar year 2008, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2.4 trillion. [1] Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017 (according to Charles Blahous, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy). Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds. [2] The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain in surplus indefinitely.
Man o' the green
Active Member
That number is accounting fiction. It has no real bearing to the total liabilities of the government. You can use it when you "pretend" that social security is not part of the rest of government debt problem.
Social Security is simply another taxing mechanism today. There is no money held in savings, All surplus income is spent immediately by the government on everything else, hence no trust fund.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
He'll be back. He's changing the wikipedia post on social security so he can quote it...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't think we'll be using that douchebag's numbers. Especially, since the ACTUAL numbers are so easy to find.
I suggest you read this article, it's not partisan and it appears to be written for a fourth grader's comprehension, so the Progressives on this forum might actually be able to digest it.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15639.html
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
He'll be back. He's changing the wikipedia post on social security so he can quote it...
Whatever you say buddy, next you'll be arguing how your ancestors rode dinosaurs. Your therapist must be very disappointed in your lack of progress.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
..........
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Ok, so you read the article, didn't you Eagle? You now see the grim reality, you notice how he specifically addressed your little 2.4 trillion surplus? This is where you get to do something I've never seen you do before... admit your wrong. The Government is LYING to us, imagine that. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing, they've both been perpetuating the lie. The reality is there is NO trust fund, there is NO SURPLUS. 2010 is the year when all the bullshit ends... it's insolvent. Borrowing from yourself and using unmarketable assets to hide the truth is unsustainable... Period.
You can keep shuffling your chess pieces around in a futile effort to find an escape, but as I stated before, Checkmate.
You can keep shuffling your chess pieces around in a futile effort to find an escape, but as I stated before, Checkmate.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Bush junior tried addressing the problem. The Democrats crushed him. They're not the same.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
A revelation. In order for Obama (the statists) to implement their "change", they need the welfare state to be overburdened, and collapse. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must collapse. In order for them to collapse, peoples attentions need to be diverted from the shaky structures, or else the people will demand immediate repairs. So how do you divert them? You pretend to be too busy fixing something else that is in even more dire need of repair. Healthcare. A ploy that if accomplished, (health care passes), BO-NUS. If the legislation fails, those shaky structures are now a wobblin even more, and the statists are a prayin for the big gust to take em down... While they look for something else big to "fix".
Cheech Wizard
Well-Known Member
One Big Ass Mistake America
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
you're wrong about that. he didn't correct himself. he said that the savings would be between 14-20% and that subscribers may use those savings to purchase better coverage.
it wasn't a debate. it was a healthcare summit. it wasn't suppose to be a debate, but a productive meeting. of course the republicans turned it into something else. i loved how mccain thought he was campaigning.
btw, the transcript is available online. maybe you should go read it.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
I read the article. The author, Gary North, is NOT non-partisan. He has strong and radical political beliefs, especially in banking. He is also a Christian Reconstructionist - believes religion belongs in government, and everywhere else for that matter. That's working real well in the middle east.
He is also the guy who gained most of his notoriety for his prediction of a Y2K catastrophe. he predicted an economic collapse because computers wouldn't know what day it was. North advised his followers to take survivalist preparedness measures. For example, he sponsored the Securing Your Home Forum and the Inventory and Barter Items Forum.
Think I'll look elsewhere for economic opinion. Uncheck.