darthtang aw
Active Member
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
Excuse me while I gouge my eyes out with a baseball bat........
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483310
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/
Are you kidding me?
It's been going on since 2004. Eight years later, and now you're outraged?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483310
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/
Are you kidding me?
It's been going on since 2004. Eight years later, and now you're outraged?
darthtang aw
Active Member
It's been going on since 2004. Eight years later, and now you're outraged?
I don't care how long it has been going on for, that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Did I mention anything about it being the current administrations fault? NO. I didn't even imply it. The only thing I can fault the current administration for is continuing this costly program when our deficits keep growing and actually encouraging welfare. But I didn't say any of that till now.
I don't care how long it has been going on for, that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Did I mention anything about it being the current administrations fault? NO. I didn't even imply it. The only thing I can fault the current administration for is continuing this costly program when our deficits keep growing and actually encouraging welfare. But I didn't say any of that till now.
And who is that said that cutting welfare programs wouldn't put a dent in the deficit? Here is one example as to why that is so.
And why do people still wonder why Americans just aren't going to be idle about increased taxation. Our government is on a spending high with our money.
And why do people still wonder why Americans just aren't going to be idle about increased taxation. Our government is on a spending high with our money.
Disgusting waste of taxpayer dollars
Applicants need only attest that they are citizens of the United States, and the state must accept that attestation as conclusive,” Sessions explained in his letter. “Some states currently voluntarily participate in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which allows administrators to run a simple check to determine if non-citizen applicants are eligible for benefits. States that do not use SAVE to verify alien status may simply accept the applicant’s attestation of legal status as a substitute for verification, or, alternately, may accept submitted documents without checking their veracity.”
Yeah... "Excuse me, Mr Mexican immigrant... Are you here legally? Yes, you say? Great, we trust you! Here is all the free food you want!"
Applicants need only attest that they are citizens of the United States, and the state must accept that attestation as conclusive,” Sessions explained in his letter. “Some states currently voluntarily participate in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which allows administrators to run a simple check to determine if non-citizen applicants are eligible for benefits. States that do not use SAVE to verify alien status may simply accept the applicant’s attestation of legal status as a substitute for verification, or, alternately, may accept submitted documents without checking their veracity.”
Yeah... "Excuse me, Mr Mexican immigrant... Are you here legally? Yes, you say? Great, we trust you! Here is all the free food you want!"
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483332
And who is that said that cutting welfare programs wouldn't put a dent in the deficit? Here is one example as to why that is so.
And why do people still wonder why Americans just aren't going to be idle about increased taxation. Our government is on a spending high with our money.
Whack it completely. It still wouldn't pay the interest on the loan. You want to selectively delete the programs that don't benefit you. I get this all the time from these Tea Partyers in their 70's - "Get rid of those socialized assistance progarms like Welfare, but don't touch my SS and Medicare!" "Those low lifes who sit on their rears collecting those Welfare checks. They need to go out and get a job." But if this person is sitting at home on disability and collecting government assistance, then that's OK. Congressmen work 6 months out of the year, get medical benefits that's someone on Obamacare could only dream of, and get other perks for the rest of their lives, and no one seems to scream about that. We spent over $1 trillion on two wars for the last 10 years, for what? Several thousand American lives, thousands more with disabilties, and no closer to ending terrorism than we were right after 9/11. But that's OK. It's the patriotic thing to do. Let's get rid of DOT. We don't need highways expanded or fixed. Car fall into a pothole? That's your problem. Forget about the FDA. Grow your own food. Shoot, those fish in your tank can make a nice snack. Who needs water quality. Mexicans have drank non-purified water for decades. Hasn't killed too many of them. Education is overrated. Who needs it. Bank regulations, we don't need no stinking bank regulations. So what they steal your money with bad investments. Should've kept your money under the bed. I won't even go into my local taxes. If you want to complain about taxes, complain about ALL oif them. I've shown you where the bulk of your tax dollars go, but you choose to ignore those programs.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483332
And who is that said that cutting welfare programs wouldn't put a dent in the deficit? Here is one example as to why that is so.
And why do people still wonder why Americans just aren't going to be idle about increased taxation. Our government is on a spending high with our money.
Whack it completely. It still wouldn't pay the interest on the loan. You want to selectively delete the programs that don't benefit you. I get this all the time from these Tea Partyers in their 70's - "Get rid of those socialized assistance progarms like Welfare, but don't touch my SS and Medicare!" "Those low lifes who sit on their rears collecting those Welfare checks. They need to go out and get a job." But if this person is sitting at home on disability and collecting government assistance, then that's OK. Congressmen work 6 months out of the year, get medical benefits that's someone on Obamacare could only dream of, and get other perks for the rest of their lives, and no one seems to scream about that. We spent over $1 trillion on two wars for the last 10 years, for what? Several thousand American lives, thousands more with disabilties, and no closer to ending terrorism than we were right after 9/11. But that's OK. It's the patriotic thing to do. Let's get rid of DOT. We don't need highways expanded or fixed. Car fall into a pothole? That's your problem. Forget about the FDA. Grow your own food. Shoot, those fish in your tank can make a nice snack. Who needs water quality. Mexicans have drank non-purified water for decades. Hasn't killed too many of them. Education is overrated. Who needs it. Bank regulations, we don't need no stinking bank regulations. So what they steal your money with bad investments. Should've kept your money under the bed. I won't even go into my local taxes. If you want to complain about taxes, complain about ALL oif them. I've shown you where the bulk of your tax dollars go, but you choose to ignore those programs.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Whack it completely. It still wouldn't pay the interest on the loan. You want to selectively delete the programs that don't benefit you. I get this all the time from these Tea Partyers in their 70's - "Get rid of those socialized assistance progarms like Welfare, but don't touch my SS and Medicare!" "Those low lifes who sit on their rears collecting those Welfare checks. They need to go out and get a job." But if this person is sitting at home on disability and collecting government assistance, then that's OK. Congressmen work 6 months out of the year, get medical benefits that's someone on Obamacare could only dream of, and get other perks for the rest of their lives, and no one seems to scream about that. We spent over $1 trillion on two wars for the last 10 years, for what? Several thousand American lives, thousands more with disabilties, and no closer to ending terrorism than we were right after 9/11. But that's OK. It's the patriotic thing to do. Let's get rid of DOT. We don't need highways expanded or fixed. Car fall into a pothole? That's your problem. Forget about the FDA. Grow your own food. Shoot, those fish in your tank can make a nice snack. Who needs water quality. Mexicans have drank non-purified water for decades. Hasn't killed too many of them. Education is overrated. Who needs it. Bank regulations, we don't need no stinking bank regulations. So what they steal your money with bad investments. Should've kept your money under the bed. I won't even go into my local taxes. If you want to complain about taxes, complain about ALL oif them. I've shown you where the bulk of your tax dollars go, but you choose to ignore those programs.
You also said we couldn't fix the deficit without raising taxes...Using your link I proved you wrong and corrected the immediate and thirty year deficit by cutting things, not shutting them completely down, but cutting them back. See the problem I have with your point of view, is if cutting it won't solve the deficit, then don't do it. The keyword is cut, not stop. But you cut back enough of these programs just a little bit and guess what...no more deficit. And the greater population doesn't see a tax increase and the economy will atleast chug along instead of slowing dramatically. You constantly have a defeatist attitude and say things won't change. Well if you keep punching yourself in the face...of course you will still have a black eye. You don't demand better...you dont ask for better. You just throw up your arms and say...well cutting that wont solve the main issue.
and no closer to ending terrorism than we were right after 9/11.
Last time there was a terrorist action in a western country was ..................................
You also said we couldn't fix the deficit without raising taxes...Using your link I proved you wrong and corrected the immediate and thirty year deficit by cutting things, not shutting them completely down, but cutting them back. See the problem I have with your point of view, is if cutting it won't solve the deficit, then don't do it. The keyword is cut, not stop. But you cut back enough of these programs just a little bit and guess what...no more deficit. And the greater population doesn't see a tax increase and the economy will atleast chug along instead of slowing dramatically. You constantly have a defeatist attitude and say things won't change. Well if you keep punching yourself in the face...of course you will still have a black eye. You don't demand better...you dont ask for better. You just throw up your arms and say...well cutting that wont solve the main issue.
and no closer to ending terrorism than we were right after 9/11.
Last time there was a terrorist action in a western country was ..................................
reefraff
Active Member
Well I guess the difference between a 70 something Tea Partier and Bionic is the ability to think. The Tea Partier realizes they have been paying for their Social security benefit from every paycheck since they began working. Bionic doesn't seem to be able to grasp the difference between welfare and a defined benefit.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483346
You also said we couldn't fix the deficit without raising taxes...Using your link I proved you wrong and corrected the immediate and thirty year deficit by cutting things, not shutting them completely down, but cutting them back. See the problem I have with your point of view, is if cutting it won't solve the deficit, then don't do it. The keyword is cut, not stop. But you cut back enough of these programs just a little bit and guess what...no more deficit. And the greater population doesn't see a tax increase and the economy will atleast chug along instead of slowing dramatically. You constantly have a defeatist attitude and say things won't change. Well if you keep punching yourself in the face...of course you will still have a black eye. You don't demand better...you dont ask for better. You just throw up your arms and say...well cutting that wont solve the main issue.
Last time there was a terrorist action in a western country was ..................................
Again, what did you cut? Did you get rid of farm subsidies? Oh yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of farmers. Cut their subsidies, and watch your food prices double. To balance those two fiscal years with just cuts, you had to either completely whack the military budget in half, and take away multiple benefits in both Medicare and SS. Which is exactly what I said. You had to do something with the Big 3 in order to make a dent in the deficit. The problem with that logic is there's no way the current Republican Party would let those types of cuts occur.
Do you not read the news? What about the car bomb they caught in Times Square? they just na
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483346
You also said we couldn't fix the deficit without raising taxes...Using your link I proved you wrong and corrected the immediate and thirty year deficit by cutting things, not shutting them completely down, but cutting them back. See the problem I have with your point of view, is if cutting it won't solve the deficit, then don't do it. The keyword is cut, not stop. But you cut back enough of these programs just a little bit and guess what...no more deficit. And the greater population doesn't see a tax increase and the economy will atleast chug along instead of slowing dramatically. You constantly have a defeatist attitude and say things won't change. Well if you keep punching yourself in the face...of course you will still have a black eye. You don't demand better...you dont ask for better. You just throw up your arms and say...well cutting that wont solve the main issue.
Last time there was a terrorist action in a western country was ..................................
Again, what did you cut? Did you get rid of farm subsidies? Oh yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of farmers. Cut their subsidies, and watch your food prices double. To balance those two fiscal years with just cuts, you had to either completely whack the military budget in half, and take away multiple benefits in both Medicare and SS. Which is exactly what I said. You had to do something with the Big 3 in order to make a dent in the deficit. The problem with that logic is there's no way the current Republican Party would let those types of cuts occur.
Do you not read the news? What about the car bomb they caught in Times Square? they just na
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483361
Again, what did you cut? Did you get rid of farm subsidies? Oh yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of farmers. Cut their subsidies, and watch your food prices double. To balance those two fiscal years with just cuts, you had to either completely whack the military budget in half, and take away multiple benefits in both Medicare and SS. Which is exactly what I said. You had to do something with the Big 3 in order to make a dent in the deficit. The problem with that logic is there's no way the current Republican Party would let those types of cuts occur.
Do you not read the news? What about the car bomb they caught in Times Square? they just nabbed several Al-Qaeda operatives in Chicago or some other major city a month or so ago. Thta's Homeland Security, not Iraq or Afghanistan.
..
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483361
Again, what did you cut? Did you get rid of farm subsidies? Oh yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of farmers. Cut their subsidies, and watch your food prices double. To balance those two fiscal years with just cuts, you had to either completely whack the military budget in half, and take away multiple benefits in both Medicare and SS. Which is exactly what I said. You had to do something with the Big 3 in order to make a dent in the deficit. The problem with that logic is there's no way the current Republican Party would let those types of cuts occur.
Do you not read the news? What about the car bomb they caught in Times Square? they just nabbed several Al-Qaeda operatives in Chicago or some other major city a month or so ago. Thta's Homeland Security, not Iraq or Afghanistan.
..
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483351
Well I guess the difference between a 70 something Tea Partier and Bionic is the ability to think. The Tea Partier realizes they have been paying for their Social security benefit from every paycheck since they began working. Bionic doesn't seem to be able to grasp the difference between welfare and a defined benefit.
yea, that's the same logic they use. But they all take out more than they put in over the long run. Then they have their survivor benefits where their spouse gets their portion for the rest of their lives. Plus the kids.
Let's do some math. You have an individual whose currently 70 who started working when he was 16, and quit working when he was 65. The first 10 years of his career, he most likely made minimum wage and worked part time. Minimum wage back in 1958 was what, $1.25/hr and maybe $1.80 in 1968? Let's say an average of $1.75, 1200 hours per year, 10 years That's $21,000 in income for 10 years. Take the 5.65% out for SS, and he put $1,186.50 into his SS account his first 10 years of work. Let's say he went to college, and in 1968 he got a decent job as an Engineer. He probably started out making $15,000/year? So he kept working, moving up the pay scale each year getting 10% - 12% raises each year through the 70's, then maybe 5% - 8% raises through the 80's up until he retired in 2007. So without doing too much math, let's say he averaged $50K/year for the 39 years he worked. That's $1.95 million he earned through his career, which adds another $110,175 to his SS account for a grand total of $111,361.50. I don't know how the SS Administration does their monthly outlay calculations, but let's say he gets $1,800/month for the rest of his life? He's already taken out 5 years worth - That's $108,000. So he's already taken almost all that he put in, and if he's lucky to live until he's 80, he gets another $216,000 that he didn't pay into the system. Then after he dies, his spouse get's a percentage of his benefits for the rest of her life. So again tell me how he's "been paying for his Social Security benefit from every paycheck since he's been working"?
I don't even want to go in how much more he gets in Medicare that he paid into that system...
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483351
Well I guess the difference between a 70 something Tea Partier and Bionic is the ability to think. The Tea Partier realizes they have been paying for their Social security benefit from every paycheck since they began working. Bionic doesn't seem to be able to grasp the difference between welfare and a defined benefit.
yea, that's the same logic they use. But they all take out more than they put in over the long run. Then they have their survivor benefits where their spouse gets their portion for the rest of their lives. Plus the kids.
Let's do some math. You have an individual whose currently 70 who started working when he was 16, and quit working when he was 65. The first 10 years of his career, he most likely made minimum wage and worked part time. Minimum wage back in 1958 was what, $1.25/hr and maybe $1.80 in 1968? Let's say an average of $1.75, 1200 hours per year, 10 years That's $21,000 in income for 10 years. Take the 5.65% out for SS, and he put $1,186.50 into his SS account his first 10 years of work. Let's say he went to college, and in 1968 he got a decent job as an Engineer. He probably started out making $15,000/year? So he kept working, moving up the pay scale each year getting 10% - 12% raises each year through the 70's, then maybe 5% - 8% raises through the 80's up until he retired in 2007. So without doing too much math, let's say he averaged $50K/year for the 39 years he worked. That's $1.95 million he earned through his career, which adds another $110,175 to his SS account for a grand total of $111,361.50. I don't know how the SS Administration does their monthly outlay calculations, but let's say he gets $1,800/month for the rest of his life? He's already taken out 5 years worth - That's $108,000. So he's already taken almost all that he put in, and if he's lucky to live until he's 80, he gets another $216,000 that he didn't pay into the system. Then after he dies, his spouse get's a percentage of his benefits for the rest of her life. So again tell me how he's "been paying for his Social Security benefit from every paycheck since he's been working"?
I don't even want to go in how much more he gets in Medicare that he paid into that system...
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483366
yea, that's the same logic they use. But they all take out more than they put in over the long run. Then they have their survivor benefits where their spouse gets their portion for the rest of their lives. Plus the kids.
Let's do some math. You have an individual whose currently 70 who started working when he was 16, and quit working when he was 65. The first 10 years of his career, he most likely made minimum wage and worked part time. Minimum wage back in 1958 was what, $1.25/hr and maybe $1.80 in 1968? Let's say an average of $1.75, 1200 hours per year, 10 years That's $21,000 in income for 10 years. Take the 5.65% out for SS, and he put $1,186.50 into his SS account his first 10 years of work. Let's say he went to college, and in 1968 he got a decent job as an Engineer. He probably started out making $15,000/year? So he kept working, moving up the pay scale each year getting 10% - 12% raises each year through the 70's, then maybe 5% - 8% raises through the 80's up until he retired in 2007. So without doing too much math, let's say he averaged $50K/year for the 39 years he worked. That's $1.95 million he earned through his career, which adds another $110,175 to his SS account for a grand total of $111,361.50. I don't know how the SS Administration does their monthly outlay calculations, but let's say he gets $1,800/month for the rest of his life? He's already taken out 5 years worth - That's $108,000. So he's already taken almost all that he put in, and if he's lucky to live until he's 80, he gets another $216,000 that he didn't pay into the system. Then after he dies, his spouse get's a percentage of his benefits for the rest of her life. So again tell me how he's "been paying for his Social Security benefit from every paycheck since he's been working"?
I don't even want to go in how much more he gets in Medicare that he paid into that system...
Don't know what you base your assumption on but in 1969 the SS and Medicare part A tax was 6.3%, in 76 it was 7.1%, 1980 it was 8 and in 84 it was jacked to 11.4 and in 90 raised to it's current 12.4% Medicare Part B requires a monthly payment.
But that is beside the point. It is a defined benefit. Money is forcefully taken from our paycheck with the promise of a defined benefit. Nothing like welfare or other government giveaways.
But your argument proves the point that socialist government programs are unsustainable. Even with the huge increases in Social Security and Medicare taxes over the years both programs are both going bankrupt.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483366
yea, that's the same logic they use. But they all take out more than they put in over the long run. Then they have their survivor benefits where their spouse gets their portion for the rest of their lives. Plus the kids.
Let's do some math. You have an individual whose currently 70 who started working when he was 16, and quit working when he was 65. The first 10 years of his career, he most likely made minimum wage and worked part time. Minimum wage back in 1958 was what, $1.25/hr and maybe $1.80 in 1968? Let's say an average of $1.75, 1200 hours per year, 10 years That's $21,000 in income for 10 years. Take the 5.65% out for SS, and he put $1,186.50 into his SS account his first 10 years of work. Let's say he went to college, and in 1968 he got a decent job as an Engineer. He probably started out making $15,000/year? So he kept working, moving up the pay scale each year getting 10% - 12% raises each year through the 70's, then maybe 5% - 8% raises through the 80's up until he retired in 2007. So without doing too much math, let's say he averaged $50K/year for the 39 years he worked. That's $1.95 million he earned through his career, which adds another $110,175 to his SS account for a grand total of $111,361.50. I don't know how the SS Administration does their monthly outlay calculations, but let's say he gets $1,800/month for the rest of his life? He's already taken out 5 years worth - That's $108,000. So he's already taken almost all that he put in, and if he's lucky to live until he's 80, he gets another $216,000 that he didn't pay into the system. Then after he dies, his spouse get's a percentage of his benefits for the rest of her life. So again tell me how he's "been paying for his Social Security benefit from every paycheck since he's been working"?
I don't even want to go in how much more he gets in Medicare that he paid into that system...
Don't know what you base your assumption on but in 1969 the SS and Medicare part A tax was 6.3%, in 76 it was 7.1%, 1980 it was 8 and in 84 it was jacked to 11.4 and in 90 raised to it's current 12.4% Medicare Part B requires a monthly payment.
But that is beside the point. It is a defined benefit. Money is forcefully taken from our paycheck with the promise of a defined benefit. Nothing like welfare or other government giveaways.
But your argument proves the point that socialist government programs are unsustainable. Even with the huge increases in Social Security and Medicare taxes over the years both programs are both going bankrupt.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483398
Don't know what you base your assumption on but in 1969 the SS and Medicare part A tax was 6.3%, in 76 it was 7.1%, 1980 it was 8 and in 84 it was jacked to 11.4 and in 90 raised to it's current 12.4% Medicare Part B requires a monthly payment.
But that is beside the point. It is a defined benefit. Money is forcefully taken from our paycheck with the promise of a defined benefit. Nothing like welfare or other government giveaways.
But your argument proves the point that socialist government programs are unsustainable. Even with the huge increases in Social Security and Medicare taxes over the years both programs are both going bankrupt.
Say what? In the 40+ years 've worked, I've never paid more than 7.5% in federal taxes for my Medicare and SS payments. If you worked for a company that made you file a W-4, then you paid half, and your employer paid the other half. Independent workers paid both sides (which I do today).
Welfare has always been a temporary solutiuon for individuals who have fallen on hard times. Like any other governemtn program, there are abuses and people who fall through the cracks. You want to condemn the honest people because of a small faction that knows how to work the system
A "socialist program" is capable of sustainability if you run it correctly. When SS was first implemented, they took imperfect caluclations with 10+ year forecasts of how much money would be required to pay out all the payments for thosde that came up for retirement. They didn't factor in life expectancies, economic trends that affected the interest earnings they received on the money they had already collected, and the number of individuals who could claim survivorship on their spouses SS benefits. It was never designed to be a retirement fund. It's initial implementation was a disability insurance for those injured at work and couldn't go back to work. It ballooned to what it is today due to ignorance and oversight.
So to your point, then let's just get rid of SS altogether. I get a form once a year from the SS telling me how much I've put into the system every year that I worked. Take my total, roll it into my existing 401K, and tell me to have a nice day. You can say, "But what about the interest I should've earned on my money if I'd have that available from the beginning?" You want to increase the deficit by another trillion? Pay all the recipients based on an average of 3% compound interest over the time they "invested" into SS, and give them that money as well. Otrherwise, you just look at it as another bad investment on your part and call it even.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483398
Don't know what you base your assumption on but in 1969 the SS and Medicare part A tax was 6.3%, in 76 it was 7.1%, 1980 it was 8 and in 84 it was jacked to 11.4 and in 90 raised to it's current 12.4% Medicare Part B requires a monthly payment.
But that is beside the point. It is a defined benefit. Money is forcefully taken from our paycheck with the promise of a defined benefit. Nothing like welfare or other government giveaways.
But your argument proves the point that socialist government programs are unsustainable. Even with the huge increases in Social Security and Medicare taxes over the years both programs are both going bankrupt.
Say what? In the 40+ years 've worked, I've never paid more than 7.5% in federal taxes for my Medicare and SS payments. If you worked for a company that made you file a W-4, then you paid half, and your employer paid the other half. Independent workers paid both sides (which I do today).
Welfare has always been a temporary solutiuon for individuals who have fallen on hard times. Like any other governemtn program, there are abuses and people who fall through the cracks. You want to condemn the honest people because of a small faction that knows how to work the system
A "socialist program" is capable of sustainability if you run it correctly. When SS was first implemented, they took imperfect caluclations with 10+ year forecasts of how much money would be required to pay out all the payments for thosde that came up for retirement. They didn't factor in life expectancies, economic trends that affected the interest earnings they received on the money they had already collected, and the number of individuals who could claim survivorship on their spouses SS benefits. It was never designed to be a retirement fund. It's initial implementation was a disability insurance for those injured at work and couldn't go back to work. It ballooned to what it is today due to ignorance and oversight.
So to your point, then let's just get rid of SS altogether. I get a form once a year from the SS telling me how much I've put into the system every year that I worked. Take my total, roll it into my existing 401K, and tell me to have a nice day. You can say, "But what about the interest I should've earned on my money if I'd have that available from the beginning?" You want to increase the deficit by another trillion? Pay all the recipients based on an average of 3% compound interest over the time they "invested" into SS, and give them that money as well. Otrherwise, you just look at it as another bad investment on your part and call it even.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483400
The big 3 are our biggest problem. There are far less people in the workforce now and people live longer . These programs need a major overhaul. But these are different than welfare, people do work for these.
Thankfully I do not pay into social security
You don't? Exactly how do you avoid paying SS and Medicare taxes? Do you earn income? Don't care if you're a waiter/waitress who gets cash tips, or a gardener that works strictly on cash. You're still supposed to report that to the IRS as earned income. If you don't, it's called tax evasion. Good for you if you can get away with it. Get caught, and you get a nice vacation in the Federal pen. Or do you not live in the US?
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483400
The big 3 are our biggest problem. There are far less people in the workforce now and people live longer . These programs need a major overhaul. But these are different than welfare, people do work for these.
Thankfully I do not pay into social security
You don't? Exactly how do you avoid paying SS and Medicare taxes? Do you earn income? Don't care if you're a waiter/waitress who gets cash tips, or a gardener that works strictly on cash. You're still supposed to report that to the IRS as earned income. If you don't, it's called tax evasion. Good for you if you can get away with it. Get caught, and you get a nice vacation in the Federal pen. Or do you not live in the US?
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483428
Say what? In the 40+ years 've worked, I've never paid more than 7.5% in federal taxes for my Medicare and SS payments. If you worked for a company that made you file a W-4, then you paid half, and your employer paid the other half. Independent workers paid both sides (which I do today).
Welfare has always been a temporary solutiuon for individuals who have fallen on hard times. Like any other governemtn program, there are abuses and people who fall through the cracks. You want to condemn the honest people because of a small faction that knows how to work the system
A "socialist program" is capable of sustainability if you run it correctly. When SS was first implemented, they took imperfect caluclations with 10+ year forecasts of how much money would be required to pay out all the payments for thosde that came up for retirement. They didn't factor in life expectancies, economic trends that affected the interest earnings they received on the money they had already collected, and the number of individuals who could claim survivorship on their spouses SS benefits. It was never designed to be a retirement fund. It's initial implementation was a disability insurance for those injured at work and couldn't go back to work. It ballooned to what it is today due to ignorance and oversight.
So to your point, then let's just get rid of SS altogether. I get a form once a year from the SS telling me how much I've put into the system every year that I worked. Take my total, roll it into my existing 401K, and tell me to have a nice day. You can say, "But what about the interest I should've earned on my money if I'd have that available from the beginning?" You want to increase the deficit by another trillion? Pay all the recipients based on an average of 3% compound interest over the time they "invested" into SS, and give them that money as well. Otrherwise, you just look at it as another bad investment on your part and call it even.
Money paid by your employer still comes right out of your pocket and is paid specifically on your behalf. You are on crack about SS initially being disability insurance, that aspect of it was added much later. If the government doesn't have the money to make the monthly payments where are they going to come up with the dough to make one time payments to pay everyone off LOL! Food Stamps, housing aid, utility aid, free cell phone service etc. are not temporary aid and if 0bama gets his way neither will traditional welfare. He just decided that despite the original reform bill being specifically written to prevent it he is granting waivers to the work requirement.
And like I said before, all the crap they added on just demonstrates why we should never allow government to get involved with non essential programs. As they were adding on all the goodies they knew it wasn't sustainable. The survivor benefits aren't jack compared to immigrants who never paid into the system being able to collect on it. The proper (and smart) move would have been to require people to set aside 5% of their pay into a savings account the citizen owned and had interest applied to. Of course then the politicians couldn't have gotten their hands on the excess for all these years so that wasn't going to happen.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483428
Say what? In the 40+ years 've worked, I've never paid more than 7.5% in federal taxes for my Medicare and SS payments. If you worked for a company that made you file a W-4, then you paid half, and your employer paid the other half. Independent workers paid both sides (which I do today).
Welfare has always been a temporary solutiuon for individuals who have fallen on hard times. Like any other governemtn program, there are abuses and people who fall through the cracks. You want to condemn the honest people because of a small faction that knows how to work the system
A "socialist program" is capable of sustainability if you run it correctly. When SS was first implemented, they took imperfect caluclations with 10+ year forecasts of how much money would be required to pay out all the payments for thosde that came up for retirement. They didn't factor in life expectancies, economic trends that affected the interest earnings they received on the money they had already collected, and the number of individuals who could claim survivorship on their spouses SS benefits. It was never designed to be a retirement fund. It's initial implementation was a disability insurance for those injured at work and couldn't go back to work. It ballooned to what it is today due to ignorance and oversight.
So to your point, then let's just get rid of SS altogether. I get a form once a year from the SS telling me how much I've put into the system every year that I worked. Take my total, roll it into my existing 401K, and tell me to have a nice day. You can say, "But what about the interest I should've earned on my money if I'd have that available from the beginning?" You want to increase the deficit by another trillion? Pay all the recipients based on an average of 3% compound interest over the time they "invested" into SS, and give them that money as well. Otrherwise, you just look at it as another bad investment on your part and call it even.
Money paid by your employer still comes right out of your pocket and is paid specifically on your behalf. You are on crack about SS initially being disability insurance, that aspect of it was added much later. If the government doesn't have the money to make the monthly payments where are they going to come up with the dough to make one time payments to pay everyone off LOL! Food Stamps, housing aid, utility aid, free cell phone service etc. are not temporary aid and if 0bama gets his way neither will traditional welfare. He just decided that despite the original reform bill being specifically written to prevent it he is granting waivers to the work requirement.
And like I said before, all the crap they added on just demonstrates why we should never allow government to get involved with non essential programs. As they were adding on all the goodies they knew it wasn't sustainable. The survivor benefits aren't jack compared to immigrants who never paid into the system being able to collect on it. The proper (and smart) move would have been to require people to set aside 5% of their pay into a savings account the citizen owned and had interest applied to. Of course then the politicians couldn't have gotten their hands on the excess for all these years so that wasn't going to happen.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483431
You don't? Exactly how do you avoid paying SS and Medicare taxes? Do you earn income? Don't care if you're a waiter/waitress who gets cash tips, or a gardener that works strictly on cash. You're still supposed to report that to the IRS as earned income. If you don't, it's called tax evasion. Good for you if you can get away with it. Get caught, and you get a nice vacation in the Federal pen. Or do you not live in the US?
Members of certain unions are exempted as well as railroad workers.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483431
You don't? Exactly how do you avoid paying SS and Medicare taxes? Do you earn income? Don't care if you're a waiter/waitress who gets cash tips, or a gardener that works strictly on cash. You're still supposed to report that to the IRS as earned income. If you don't, it's called tax evasion. Good for you if you can get away with it. Get caught, and you get a nice vacation in the Federal pen. Or do you not live in the US?
Members of certain unions are exempted as well as railroad workers.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483444
Money paid by your employer still comes right out of your pocket and is paid specifically on your behalf. You are on crack about SS initially being disability insurance, that aspect of it was added much later. If the government doesn't have the money to make the monthly payments where are they going to come up with the dough to make one time payments to pay everyone off LOL! Food Stamps, housing aid, utility aid, free cell phone service etc. are not temporary aid and if 0bama gets his way neither will traditional welfare. He just decided that despite the original reform bill being specifically written to prevent it he is granting waivers to the work requirement.
And like I said before, all the crap they added on just demonstrates why we should never allow government to get involved with non essential programs. As they were adding on all the goodies they knew it wasn't sustainable. The survivor benefits aren't jack compared to immigrants who never paid into the system being able to collect on it. The proper (and smart) move would have been to require people to set aside 5% of their pay into a savings account the citizen owned and had interest applied to. Of course then the politicians couldn't have gotten their hands on the excess for all these years so that wasn't going to happen.
How does the employer part come out of my pocket? When I was working for a salkary, I got paid a set wage. On my paystub, it showed the 7% - 7.5% deductions for SS and Medicare. THAT'S IT. No other money was taken out of my paycheck from my employer. So exactly where did I pay this other half of those taxes?
Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.[sup][1] The original Social Security Act (1935)[sup][2][/sup] and the current version of the Act, as amended[3][/sup] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs.
You need to quit watching Fox News with them telling you how Obama is going to turn this country into a Socialist state.
Money paid by your employer still comes right out of your pocket and is paid specifically on your behalf. You are on crack about SS initially being disability insurance, that aspect of it was added much later. If the government doesn't have the money to make the monthly payments where are they going to come up with the dough to make one time payments to pay everyone off LOL! Food Stamps, housing aid, utility aid, free cell phone service etc. are not temporary aid and if 0bama gets his way neither will traditional welfare. He just decided that despite the original reform bill being specifically written to prevent it he is granting waivers to the work requirement.
And like I said before, all the crap they added on just demonstrates why we should never allow government to get involved with non essential programs. As they were adding on all the goodies they knew it wasn't sustainable. The survivor benefits aren't jack compared to immigrants who never paid into the system being able to collect on it. The proper (and smart) move would have been to require people to set aside 5% of their pay into a savings account the citizen owned and had interest applied to. Of course then the politicians couldn't have gotten their hands on the excess for all these years so that wasn't going to happen.
How does the employer part come out of my pocket? When I was working for a salkary, I got paid a set wage. On my paystub, it showed the 7% - 7.5% deductions for SS and Medicare. THAT'S IT. No other money was taken out of my paycheck from my employer. So exactly where did I pay this other half of those taxes?
Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.[sup][1] The original Social Security Act (1935)[sup][2][/sup] and the current version of the Act, as amended[3][/sup] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs.
You need to quit watching Fox News with them telling you how Obama is going to turn this country into a Socialist state.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483458
That's correct. The railroad has it own seperate retirement and medicare.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
The Railroad Retirement Board is run almost identical to Social Security. You still pay the same taxes as those who pay SS and Medicare, your money just goes into a different governemnt kitty.
http://www.rrb.gov/opa/agency_overview.asp
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n2/v68n2p41.html
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392363/excuse-me-while-i-gouge-my-eyes-out-with-a-baseball-bat#post_3483458
That's correct. The railroad has it own seperate retirement and medicare.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
The Railroad Retirement Board is run almost identical to Social Security. You still pay the same taxes as those who pay SS and Medicare, your money just goes into a different governemnt kitty.
http://www.rrb.gov/opa/agency_overview.asp
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n2/v68n2p41.html