RE: O/T: GOP Eyes Changes to Food-Stamp Program

Page 5 of 6  
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Baxter

Just had to wipe my screen down. That was *FUNNY*!

Until it is.

Changing the payments (probably to zero) will be the only solution.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


A Ponzi scheme is maintained - at least for a while - because the operator pays out to those first in by using what is paid in by those who come later. Exactly how does social security differ from that? The only difference I can see is that if the feds don't take in enough money to meet their committments they can just print more.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read some of the links I just posted.
But to address your specific point: A Ponzi scheme fails because it runs out of new "investors" - SS will never run out of "new investors". --------- In other words: A Ponzi scheme is generally a system in which investors think they?re investing in something real but are instead being used to pay one another back. Eventually, the scheme runs out of new investors and collapses.
Here?s how the Social Security Administration -- which, somewhat touchingly, has a whole web page explaining why its not a Ponzi scheme -- describes Social Security: ?It would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments.?
The superficial similarity to a Ponzi scheme is that different sets of investors are relying on future investors, or at least future growth, to get paid back. But that defines a Ponzi scheme so broadly as to make the term meaningless. In that definition, any intergenerational transfer system is a Ponzi scheme.
http://tinyurl.com/kpsobeu
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Not as long as it is mandatory and not as long as the feds can keep taxing future workers at higher and higher rates.
When I was 50 - I'll be 82 next summer - I figured that if I could dump social security, letting them keep everything I'd paid in thus far, I could save enough in the next 15 years to pay myself what the SS would be but WITHOUT touching the principal.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you'd have been wrong because those numbers simply don't work out - not even 15 years at maximum contribution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Who said anything about maximum contribution which - IIRC - was about 15% (self employed, corp.)? I said SAVE. And let us not forget that at a very realistic 6%, the principal doubles every 12 years.
The point is that people could do better for themselves than social security does. I certainly hope everyone reading this has a Roth IRA...it is the only gift the feds have ever given us.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2015 6:03 AM, dadiOH wrote:

Yes, people could have done better IF they saved that 6%. How many would? Look at the big picture. Even with IRA, 401k,one third of the eligible people are not saving anything at all. 14% of those at retirement age have nothing saved.
They have nothing saved, but they do have SS. If they did not have at least that much, we'd be supporting them in some form of welfare even more than we do now. Look around. How many steady working people do you see that have no savings account, no checking account and less than 20 bucks in their pocket. There will be many of them. (they will have a cell phone though)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

'Course, there's virtually no public/pay phones anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And a big screen TV.
I would have been amenable to a compromise.
Social security - OR - Stick at least the same amount into an inviolate account.
One of the things I think schools should be teaching is how to manage money. If they had done so, pawnshops would have gotten less of my money when I was 8 - 21 during my Navy years :)
I also think they - and their parents - should be teaching how to delay gratification. So much of the stuff people dribble their money away on are things they won't be using in a rather short time...if they would just delay purchases for 30 days, the desire would often fade; if they still wanted it, OK, buy it. BUT FOR CASH.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then you're not talking about SS.

Combined = 12.4% -- but there's no guarantee that your employer would give you his half.

No, 6% is not realistic.
And here's a compound interst calculator: http://tinyurl.com/46syn

SS was never meant to be your sole retirement policy. You were always expected to do more on your own.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I was my employer. I am generous to me :)

It is in my world. And has been - and still is - for as long as I can remember. In reality, it is on the low side.

Yeah but as Ed pointed out, a whole bunch don't.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2015 1:06 AM, Baxter wrote:

For your personal benefit, here's how the cow ate the cabbage as to why SS is demonstrably NOT insurance.
Social Security is, by law and a SCOTUS ruling, a TAX, not an insurance program.
The Supreme Court decision in 'Flemming v. Nestor' clearly states that Social Security is NOT insurance, _as there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer and government_ .
Insurance companies use premiums, a premium is not a tax and the premium, and any deductible, is subject to a contractual agreement, not so with Social Security.
Insurance companies invest premiums, and use the premiums to make a profit by applying the 'law of large numbers', which states that "for a series of independent and identically distributed random variables, the variance of the average amount of a claim payment decreases as the number of claims increases", and by using deductibles to offset catastrophic loss.
Social Security does none of the above.
Liberals love, either through ignorance or malice, to call the SS system "insurance", which is nothing more than sleight of hand a subterfuge to mask the fact that it is a TAX.
However, to be charitable, the old saying particularly applies to this issue: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
If you want further argument, take it up with SCOTUS.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:06:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter

Absolute leftist poppycock! The payments are progressive. The less you make and the fewer years paid, the more, proportionally, the payout. Insurance has a flat payback. You can buy as much as you have need for. Insurance premiums are invested in securities. The payout is taken from those securities, *NOT* the current customers. Insurance companies don't blow the early premiums then try to make good on it later on the current crop of suckers (ponzi scheme defined).
It's not just that you lefties are so farking stupid, it's just that so much of what you know is complete bullshit. - what Reagan should have said
You lefties really have a lot to learn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Baxter" wrote:

------------------------------------------------ Biggest impact on the SS program is tobacco IMHO.
How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their working lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of years before they could start collecting benefits?
All those funds just stay in the pot.
Pretty standard actuarial table calculations in the insurance business.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. Whatever is in that pot gets paid out - just like a poker pot gets paid out to the winner (survivors), even though some players fold (die). There is no account for individuals.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

--------------------------------------------------- "Baxter" wrote:

----------------------------------------------------- Agreed there is no account for individuals per se.
Think you misunderstood the intent of my comment.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:05:05 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"

Another reason SS should never have existed. If I save that money, my children, or whomever I choose, gets that money (more, actually).

No, there _IS_NO_POT_.

Sure, but SS is *NOT* insurance.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Just Wondering" wrote:

------------------------------------------------------- Looks like you have got at least one politican who shares your point of view.
http://tinyurl.com/qyeepas
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Just Wondering" wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road gangs [think cool Hand Luke] anymore. You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch of contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.
Dave in SoTex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/17/2015 03:55 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.