The military also uses - or used to use - the FBI as well. When I was in the Navy in the 50s I needed a top secret clearance for my job and various FBI types visited family and friends.
I got my clearance and spent the next six months writing "TOP SECRET" backwards with India ink on aerial negatives (we were mapping China). Boring? Oh, my, I was sooo glad to be transfered to a PIO lab :)
Maybe because snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net is a female. Norma?
IMO, I think women should change their name when they marry, avoids confusion with the kids for one thing. That doesn't mean that a career woman can't continue to use her maiden name professionally.
Actually, I don't much care *what* the name change convention is, just that it be standardized to avoid confusion. I rather like the Spanish way...a married woman retains her paternal surname and tacks on the husbands; for example, Maria Gonzales (father) Sanchez (mother) becomes Maria Gonzales Sanchez) de Vera if she marries Jaime Vera. Their kid, Jesus, is Jesus Vera Gonzales; he generally calls himself Jesus Vera or maybe Jesus Vera G. The continuation of the matrimonial surname for children serves to distinguish him from other kids named Jesus Vera and satisfies both sides of the family.
I think you don't. I once figured (when I was 50?) that SS could keep all the money I had paid in previously and never pay me a dime if I could establish my own, personal account until I retired. IIRC, at a reasonable growth rate, that would have paid me as much as SS would and I'd still have the principal for my heirs when I died. Having no heirs, I would have paid myself much more than would SS :)
They may not have paid much but they didn't receive much either. Not in today's valueless dollars; keep in mind that a dollar in 1950 was worth 9.14 times what it is today.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. For those who don't care to venture, there are always CDs. Or government bonds (now *there* is a venture...buy now, get paid back in the future with $$ worth a fraction).
"Bob F" wrote
Or the libs legislate it to the unions, themselves, or the lazy. Not saying that could happen, of course ........................
And most of the "at least they have SS'ers" put an added burden on the stock market that they don't on SS. For all those who lost 2/3 or more of their savings, they got much of it back. Also, even at the worst, I still had almost 75% more in my IRA than I had put into it (compounding is your friend, especially if you start early). There still hasn't been a 20-year period since WWII where the S&P did not make at least 8% per year average over the timeframe. I have always wondered why the Dems are so sold on SS since even the report of the trustees show that minorities have a negative return on investment on SS since they tend to die earlier. (Tip, I learned in the early 60s to stay with dividend paying stocks for the most part. They are relatively more stable most of the time and nobody has figured out a way to restate a dividend.)
That is why I said "CD".
BTW most of those paper "losses" in the stock market have recovered. My 401k is still up from what it was in 2004. I know, if you believed the numbers in 2006-7, you lost money but retirement savings are a long term investment. I guarantee you, if I had put my SS money in a Dow index fund, over my working life, it would be more like a million dollars now.
When the government is broke, that SS is not going to be that wonderful either. Look at the Greeks.
Hmmm, One question is, is today's dollar as much as a dollar then(2004)? One reason people lose money is too much greed. Today's economic situation in U.S. is long time coming isnce Nixon days with Greenspan. Way, way TOO MUCH deregulation created way, way TOO MANY crooks in the financial industry.
It's worth 86% of a 2004 dollar. Check it out....
The main reason for the collapse isn't that so much. That is an ongoing pendulum thingy. Hardly the first banking problem we have had since the Great Depression. What was different this time is that EVERYONE was screwed. Banks, government, companies, even (maybe especially) individuals were so far in hock that nobody had the wherewithal to lead us out. Also the reason it is taking so long.
Names are over-rated and a pain in the ass. For awhile, I did computer account updates at work. There are some women in that building who ran through 4 husbands and names while I knew them. I don't have an answer for what to name the kids, but people should keep the name they were born with. 'Same name as the kids' doesn't hold much water any more, with such a high percentage of marriages ending up in divorce, and so many blended families. Just look at the wedding announcements in your local paper, and read the parental names usually contained therein.
My wife changed MY name.
After the first year she started calling me "Muthfcker!"
I knew I was in trouble one day when it dawned on me that I was answering to it.
I'm sorry, but in order to post to this newsgroup you must first provide identification and a valid picture ID. Please photo-scan all of these - your Drivers License, Birth Certificate, Proof of U.S. Citizenship, Passport, at least one Credit card (with PIN number), and your Social Security card. You must also provide your mailing address, email address, and phone number. Then post them on this newsgroup. After that is completed, your messages will be posted.
SS had been taken off budget years before. It still is. So, while part of your assertion is technically correct (there was the illusion of a surplus) the financial slight of hand had been put in place years before.
You have that backward. SS was always off budget until LBJ put it on budget in 1968 to help finance his war. That is how Nixon got a surplus in 1969. That didn't last long.
Uh, the top 1% of wage-earners are responsible for about 40% of federal revenues.
The top 5% generate 60% of federal revenue.
The top 10% "contribute" 70% of federal revenue.
The bottom 50% of the slugs, slackers, malcontents, and wealth-destroyers contribute less than 3%.
-snip-
I'm to tired to look this up for you again & the only number that sticks in my head is this one-
And make 75% of the money- [plus their capital gains which nobody knows what those numbers are] - so they are getting a pretty good deal, if you ask me.
Jim
The SSA would tend to disagree, "In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY
1993. " It got further complicated by the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act, which is the real source of the weird bookkeeping on the subject. "The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in. So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983). So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit." (Editor's Note: Surplus which were, by long-standing law, only able to be invested in treasury securities. THus the sleight of hand that turned a long-term liability (the securities) into a short-term asset.) Never being one to leave well enough alone: "n the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law. "The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget." However, nothing is that easy: "those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is."
The two lowest quintiles actually have a negative share of taxes getting more back in credits, etc., than they pay in taxes.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.