Permaent
Save For
Social
Security
with
massive
benefit
cuts
LOS
ANGELES
Times
By
Miehael
Hilitzik
Amid all the hand-wringing over Republican plans to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid and repeal the
Affordable Care Act, it shouldn't be overlooked that the GOP has the knives out for Social Security too.
The latest reminder comes from Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Tex., chairman of the Ways and Means Social
Security subcommittee. Johnson on Thursday uncorked what he termed a "plan to permanently save
Social Security."
Followers of GOP habits won't be surprised to learn that it achieves this goal entirely through benefit
cuts, without a dime of new revenues such as higher payroll taxes on the wealthy. In fact, Johnson's plan
reduces the resources coming into the program by eliminating a key tax -another way that he absolves

richer Americans of paying their fair share, while increasing the burdens of retirement for almost
everyone else.

Recommended for you:
Retirement Calculators - Free, Accurate & Easy to Use.
Free, Accurate & Easy to Use. Find Retirement Calculator.
FinanceWeb.org/Free-Calculators I Sponsored
Predictably, this plan has already been hailed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a
billionaire's front group that likes to portray itself as a neutral budget watchdog. (The foundation of
hedge fund billionaire Peter G. Peterson, whose hostility to Social Security is well-documented, provided
$3.3 million in funding for the committee in 2015; that's the equivalent of about half the group's
revenue of $7.1 million in 2014)
The group calls Johnson's proposal "a thoughtful plan" and the product of "true leadership." But it also
says that "revenue and benefit changes both need to be on the table." Johnson's plan doesn't meet that
standard at all.
Typically, Social Security "reform" proposals at least pay lip service to the fact that the payroll tax has
been giving the wealthy a larger and larger pass, by covering an ever-shrinking percentage of their
wages and exempting the capital gains and dividends that make up a larger share of high-end income.
Johnson's plan doesn't mention that at all. It does, however, give higher-income beneficiaries a tax cut
by eliminating income tax on benefits starting in 2045. The tax affects about 30 of retirees by treating
at least half of the benefits of those earning more than $32,000 as taxable income.
By law, the tax must be credited to the Social Security system. It's scheduled to bring in as much as $78
billion in 2025. Johnson's rationale here is murky. If Social Security is in such bad shape that he sees the
need to slash benefits, why cut its revenue, too?
Social Security's actuaries, who analyzed the plan at Johnson's request, agreed that it would improve the
program's finances, but noted that virtually every provision involved a benefit cut.
Let's take a look.
Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit
increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of
about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from
17 to as much as 43, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080

The act would cut way back on cost-of-living increases for retirees. It would do this by cutting out cost-
of-living raises entirely for retirees earning adjusted gross income of more than $85,000 ($170,000 for
couples) starting in December 2018, and using the chained consumer price index to calculate the COLA
for all others. (The income threshold would be adjusted for inflation.)

Johnson asserts that the chained CPI is "a more accurate measure of inflation," but he's blowing smoke.
There are no grounds to say the index, which was heavily promoted a few years ago by yet another gang
associated with Peter G. Peterson, is more accurate than the index used today. If anything, it
understates price increases in housing and healthcare, which have especially pronounced impacts on the
household budgets of seniors. Conservatives like it for one reason: It grows more slowly than the regular
CPI, so it's cheaper. As we explained a few years ago, using the chained CPI is a benefit cut, and one that
gets larger year by year. Period.

Johnson would also cut benefits for the spouses and children of retired and disabled workers by pegging
them to average wages, rather than to the wages actually earned by the worker. This pares the benefits
for families earning more than the average.

Finally, the measure also raises the full retirement age, which is now pegged to reach 67 by 2022, to 69
by 2030. this means that workers taking early retirement, which is permitted as soon as age 62, would
face a steeper cut in annual benefits for starting early. Johnson would increase the age up to which
delayed retirement credits may be earned to 72, from 70. Workers who can afford to put off claiming
Social Security will reap the great rewards from this maneuver; by their nature, they tend to be
wealthier people who have the resources to live on while deferring Social Security.

Conservatives often argue that raising the retirement age is innocuous because Americans are living
longer. Their lengthier retirements, it's argued, put an unexpected strain on Social Security's finances,
and they don't need all that money anyway.
But this change is unfair and short-sighted for several reasons. One is that life expectancy is closely tied
to income, education and careers. Well-heeled persons who spend much of their lives behind a desk -
like congressmen from Texas and analysts at billionaire-funded think tanks, say, are more likely to live
longer and can stay in their careers well into their 60s and 70s. That's not so for workers who spent their
careers in menial or physically challenging work.
Raising the retirement age is also predicated on life expectancies rising indefinitely. Just as trees don't
grow into the stratosphere and your three-foot-tall child at 10 won't be nine feet tall at 30, there's no
guarantee this trend isn't finite. Indeed, just this week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported that u.S. life expectancies actually declined last year for the first time since 1993, falling to 78.8
years at birth from 78.9 in 2014, statistically a major decline.
It may be unwise to draw too sweeping a conclusion from a single year's figures, but this statistic is a
reminder that life expectancy is a dynamic phenomenon, and we may merely have been living through a
two-decade bump. Nature may have its own ideas about the appropriate average lifespan for members
of the human race.
The bottom line is that Johnson's plan is one of the most cynical and dishonest Social Security "fixes" to
come down the Republican chute in years. It "fixes" Social Security in the same sense that one "fixes" a
cat, and makes the program less relevant for millions of Americans facing retirement with ever shrinking
resources.
Is this a serious policy prescription? Social Security advocates are properly aghast. As Nancy Altman, co-
founder of Social Security Works, put it Friday, in the last election "no one voted for massive cuts to
Social Security, nor to end the program as we know it." Donald Trump even campaigned on a hands-off
pledge.
"Trump needs to immediately reassure the American people that he will keep his campaign promise and
veto this awful bill," Altman said. "He should tweet that immediately."
Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or ernail
michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.
Return to Michael Hiltzlk's blog.
Also watch: Democrats Vow to Fight Social Security Reforms
Click to expand

Good article. Thanks.

SS is "out of money" because they stole it. Have them replace the $trillions they took and it will be fine. Problem is...they don't have the means to replace what they stole.

This article is another example of fear mongering.

The article speaks to rich people paying their fair share of taxes. What does that mean? The term "fair share"in itself is intentionally misleading. To suggest that one is not paying his fair share means they should pay more. So what does that say about those who do not pay into the tax system? Do you really believe that all of those non payers are penniless, homeless, etc or simply deadbeats? so if the rich are not paying their fair share, and the evidence suggest they are the prime contributors to our tax system, what then do you say about those dead beats?

And , are more taxes warranted? Ask yourself what really should be the goal of our tax system?

In a household its not only the income you earn that determines your financial stability but how wisely you use the income earned.

So the first order of business is that government show some monetary responsibility in the use of our tax dollars.

Far too many legal loopholes exist in our present system, and there is not an American or American corporation among us who hasn't made use of a tax credit, deduction etc. And this in itself flies in the face of those claims for others to their fair share of taxes. Because the truth is no one wants to pay taxes to the government but we all do under the threat of penalty.

The objective of a tax system should be efficient and sufficient. A better and simpler tax system can be had. However it won't because politicians do not have the stamina and will to accomplish such a task nor to deal effectively and intelligently with either our social security or medicare/medicaid systems .

Tax the rich more is a ploy by the political left to escape notice and to continue to divide this nation. So its serves no useful purpose. Politicians goals are to have a direct link to your wallets and what they view as free money. When it comes to politicians my belief is its government v. we the people

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

This article is another example of fear mongering.

The article speaks to rich people paying their fair share of taxes. What does that mean? The term "fair share"in itself is intentionally misleading. To suggest that one is not paying his fair share means they should pay more. So what does that say about those who do not pay into the tax system? Do you really believe that all of those non payers are penniless, homeless, etc or simply deadbeats? so if the rich are not paying their fair share, and the evidence suggest they are the prime contributors to our tax system, what then do you say about those dead beats?

And , are more taxes warranted? Ask yourself what really should be the goal of our tax system?

In a household its not only the income you earn that determines your financial stability but how wisely you use the income earned.

So the first order of business is that government show some monetary responsibility in the use of our tax dollars.

Far too many legal loopholes exist in our present system, and there is not an American or American corporation among us who hasn't made use of a tax credit, deduction etc. And this in itself flies in the face of those claims for others to their fair share of taxes. Because the truth is no one wants to pay taxes to the government but we all do under the threat of penalty.

The objective of a tax system should be efficient and sufficient. A better and simpler tax system can be had. However it won't because politicians do not have the stamina and will to accomplish such a task nor to deal effectively and intelligently with either our social security or medicare/medicaid systems .

Tax the rich more is a ploy by the political left to escape notice and to continue to divide this nation. So its serves no useful purpose. Politicians goals are to have a direct link to your wallets and what they view as free money. When it comes to politicians my belief is its government v. we the people

Personal Best Regards:

Although I agree with much of what you wrote I don't believe the "tax the rich" is a ploy. I think it is long over due. For two long now republicans have been trying to sell the "trickle down" BS. How did that work with Bush? It's now time to balance things out a bit.
It's not fear mongering at all. I see it as educating the public. The republicans will make a quick a furious push to pass legislation that will benefit the wealthy of this country. Without information provided by this article the middle class of this country won't be prepared to push back and it will be too late.

Originally Posted by Guest

Although I agree with much of what you wrote I don't believe the "tax the rich" is a ploy. I think it is long over due. For two long now republicans have been trying to sell the "trickle down" BS. How did that work with Bush? It's now time to balance things out a bit.
It's not fear mongering at all. I see it as educating the public. The republicans will make a quick a furious push to pass legislation that will benefit the wealthy of this country. Without information provided by this article the middle class of this country won't be prepared to push back and it will be too late.

Trickle down does work, IF congress does not increase the deficit by spending more. Trickle down causes the middle class and lower class to have a better lifestyle, standard of living. But, whenever congress sees more money coming in from higher tax revenues, they go hog wild and start spending like drunken sailor.

Originally Posted by Guest

This article is another example of fear mongering.

The article speaks to rich people paying their fair share of taxes. What does that mean? The term "fair share"in itself is intentionally misleading. To suggest that one is not paying his fair share means they should pay more. So what does that say about those who do not pay into the tax system? Do you really believe that all of those non payers are penniless, homeless, etc or simply deadbeats? so if the rich are not paying their fair share, and the evidence suggest they are the prime contributors to our tax system, what then do you say about those dead beats?

And , are more taxes warranted? Ask yourself what really should be the goal of our tax system?

In a household its not only the income you earn that determines your financial stability but how wisely you use the income earned.

So the first order of business is that government show some monetary responsibility in the use of our tax dollars.

Far too many legal loopholes exist in our present system, and there is not an American or American corporation among us who hasn't made use of a tax credit, deduction etc. And this in itself flies in the face of those claims for others to their fair share of taxes. Because the truth is no one wants to pay taxes to the government but we all do under the threat of penalty.

The objective of a tax system should be efficient and sufficient. A better and simpler tax system can be had. However it won't because politicians do not have the stamina and will to accomplish such a task nor to deal effectively and intelligently with either our social security or medicare/medicaid systems .

Tax the rich more is a ploy by the political left to escape notice and to continue to divide this nation. So its serves no useful purpose. Politicians goals are to have a direct link to your wallets and what they view as free money. When it comes to politicians my belief is its government v. we the people

Personal Best Regards:

I think they're minorities taking advantage of the system. Many collect welfare and work under the table...they do quite well. Or they sit home and party all day.

Income taxes pay the interest on the debt...that's about it...not much left after that.

That's hard to do when their JOB is to get and hand out money.

Gotta give tribute... What kills me, our leaders live like kings, like royalty.

They MAKE rules to benefit their benefactors...THAT is WHY we don't get tax reform...all those "loopholes" were placed there.

There are TOO MANY "poor" and THAT is the problem that needs to be dealt with. 50 million on food stamps alone. "In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent about $75 billion on SNAP. About 93 percent went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food.Mar 24, 2016"

The "rich" could afford to pay more taxes...Bill Gates, Buffett, you don't think they can afford a few more bucks? There ARE loopholes, there ARE favorable deduction laws...on purpose. THEY are rich too, and they want to keep all they can.

Politicians take from "us" and give to their campaign contributors...they appoint people who will treat their contributors well. The whole thing is a system or perpetual graft and corruption.

Originally Posted by Guest

Although I agree with much of what you wrote I don't believe the "tax the rich" is a ploy. I think it is long over due. For two long now republicans have been trying to sell the "trickle down" BS. How did that work with Bush? It's now time to balance things out a bit.
It's not fear mongering at all. I see it as educating the public. The republicans will make a quick a furious push to pass legislation that will benefit the wealthy of this country. Without information provided by this article the middle class of this country won't be prepared to push back and it will be too late.

The "system" is designed for the benefit of the rich.

Originally Posted by Guest

Trickle down does work, IF congress does not increase the deficit by spending more. Trickle down causes the middle class and lower class to have a better lifestyle, standard of living. But, whenever congress sees more money coming in from higher tax revenues, they go hog wild and start spending like drunken sailor.

That's their job..."send money home" while they loot the country at large. They don't need higher revenues, they borrow.

Maybe someone who thinks they know the answers can enlighten us how the government can add more and more that never paid in one cent and still remain solvent in the long run?

Also include commentary on what happens as the number of people who still actively contribute to SS continues to dwindle. Input dries up while out put is ever increasing?

There are no mysteries here!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Trickle down does work, IF congress does not increase the deficit by spending more. Trickle down causes the middle class and lower class to have a better lifestyle, standard of living. But, whenever congress sees more money coming in from higher tax revenues, they go hog wild and start spending like drunken sailor.

This is a hot button item for me. For 8 years under Bush we kept hearing; Don't call them wealthy call them "job creators". Give the rich, I mean job creators" more tax breaks and it will trickle down to the average Joe. Ya, right. It didn't work with Bush and it wasn't because of increased spending. What did happen was the rich, sorry I meant to say job creators, took their savings from tax breaks and put it into stocks and mutual funds. Not much trickle down with the stock market.

Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us.

Originally Posted by Guest

Maybe someone who thinks they know the answers can enlighten us how the government can add more and more that never paid in one cent and still remain solvent in the long run?

Also include commentary on what happens as the number of people who still actively contribute to SS continues to dwindle. Input dries up while out put is ever increasing?

There are no mysteries here!!

The mystery is why we continue to send the same Senators and Representatives to congress every two years. What isn't a mystery is something for nothing is still the big driver in American politics. That is true everywhere including Florida's friendliest home town. When you have more voters getting tax payer funds than there are voters paying the pyramid inverts and crushes itself.

HOW WE GOT HERE
Social Security was deliberately mis-explained from the start. There is no pile of money representing what you/I paid in over 45 years of working. The working people pay in and their money pays for the people who are collecting. When first SOLD to the American people there were approximately 14 workers paying in for every person collecting. Today there are 2.5 workers paying in for every person collecting.
To make it even worse, Bush added prescription drug coverage-WITH NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING. Obama added OBAMACARE-WITH FAR FROM ADEQUATE FUNDING.
THE NATIONAL DEBT-MORE IMPOSSIBLE GOVERNMENT BOOKKEEPING.
Again we have been MISLED. We all know that OBAMA added TEN TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE NATIONAL DEBT-DOUBLING THAT MONEY THAT MUST BE REPAID. I for one REALIZE that I simply cannot comprehend what a TRILLION DOLLARS IS. I've had people try to explain it a more than one freight train full of hundred dollar bills. GOERING Hitler's propaganda minister called it the big lie. You say the same thing over and over again and people-COME TO THINK THAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT.
We have been told that CHINA is our largest creditor, YET, ANOTHER LIE. The truth is we owe slightly more to Japan then to China. THE SHOCK IS that we owe 20% of our national debt to Japan and China TOGETHER. SOCIAL SECURITY HOLDS 42% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. LOOK AT THIS SCAM-you/I have been forced to pay into this ponzi scheme for 45 YEARS. I say forced because like most every other tax in this country it is a PROGRESSIVE TAX-at a middle income level, you pay in far more dollars compared to what you receive then people who SHOW LESS INCOME. What is the level of unreported income-DEPENDS ON WHO IS DOING THE GUESSING. Not only are all of us who are forced to pay into social security getting a poor deal as you could buy the same benefit package for far less if you bought it privately-OUR GOVERNMENT WHO BORROWED YOUR MONEY DECIDED HOW MUCH INTEREST THEY WILL PAY ON THE MONEY THEY BORROWED.

NOTHING CAN MESS THINGS UP THE WAY GOVERNMENT CAN.
TRYING TO BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR WHAT WILL AND WHAT MUST HAPPEN IS SIMPLY STUPID.
WE WILL SEE BENEFIT CUTS, AS OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT THE MONEY WE SENT THEM TO BUY VOTES FROM THE PEOPLE BEFORE US. THE NUMBERS ARE A MATTER OF RECORD-IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT TOMORROW YOU WILL ONE DAY OLDER THAN TODAY AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF RETIRED PEOPLE WOULD GROW DUE TO WWII. I PLANED. I PAID TOP RATES INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. I FEAR DUE TO MY SAVINGS, INVESTMENTS, MY GOVERNMENT WORTHY OF ZERO TRUST WILL DECIDE I DO NOT NEED TO RECEIVE THEIR PROMISE CALLED SOCIAL SECURITY. IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. WE JUST WENT ON MEDICARE. FIRST OF ALL WE PAY TWICE THE MINIMUM THAT OTHERS PAY FOR THE SAME COVERAGE AND WE HAVE NO INFLATION PROTECTION-WHICH OTHER PEOPLE DO. WE TAX SUCCESS AND SUBSIDIZE FAILURE.
THE FACT IS WHEN YOU TAX SOMETHING-HARD WORK-YOU WILL HAVE LESS OF IT. WHEN, YOU SUBSIDIZE SOMETHING YOU WILL HAVE MORE OF IT.

THAT IS HOW WE GOT HERE-OUR GOVERNMENT LED US HERE.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is a hot button item for me. For 8 years under Bush we kept hearing; Don't call them wealthy call them "job creators". Give the rich, I mean job creators" more tax breaks and it will trickle down to the average Joe. Ya, right. It didn't work with Bush and it wasn't because of increased spending. What did happen was the rich, sorry I meant to say job creators, took their savings from tax breaks and put it into stocks and mutual funds. Not much trickle down with the stock market.

Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us.

YOU HAD CHOICES TO MAKE-WE ALL DID.
You too could have, SHOULD HAVE invested money in the STOCK MARKET. FYI-I have followed a PLAN of INVESTING-SAVING at least 10% of my income over 45 years. LONG TERM stock market returns is roughly 8%.
SIMPLE TO FIGURE AT 8% YOUR MONEY DOUBLES EVERY 9 YEARS. I was an OVERNIGHT SUCCESS-IT ONLY TOOK ME 45 YEARS. In 45 years your money WILL or in your case WOULD HAVE doubled FIVE TIMES-10,000 (1)=20,000(2)=40,000 (3)=80,000 (4)=160,000 (5)=320,000.
WE ALL HAD CHOICES. I had a friend WHO THINKS AS YOU DO. He always told me I AM CHEAP AND HOW I SHOULD SPEND MY MONEY. Long story short. He always drove a nice new car. He wore a nice expensive watch, shoes etc. HE LOST HIS HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE. HE STILL HAS NOT PAID ME THE THREE THOUSAND HE BORROWED. LIKE YOU, HE VOTED FOR OBAMA AND OF COURSE HILLARY. LIKE YOU HE TRIED TO CALL ME EVIL,RACIST, NAZI. The truth, is is worked damn hard, I saved RATHER THAN SPENT. FRANKLY, I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO THINK IT WAS EASY AND I OOOOOOO UUUU.

SORRY I AM PROUD TO BE DEPLORABLE-IT ONLY TOOK ME 45 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

Originally Posted by Guest

This article is another example of fear mongering.

The article speaks to rich people paying their fair share of taxes. What does that mean? The term "fair share"in itself is intentionally misleading. To suggest that one is not paying his fair share means they should pay more. So what does that say about those who do not pay into the tax system? Do you really believe that all of those non payers are penniless, homeless, etc or simply deadbeats? so if the rich are not paying their fair share, and the evidence suggest they are the prime contributors to our tax system, what then do you say about those dead be

And , are more taxes warranted? Ask yourself what really should be the goal of our tax system?

In a household its not only the income you earn that determines your financial stability but how wisely you use the income earned.

So the first order of business is that government show some monetary responsibility in the use of our tax dollars.

Far too many legal loopholes exist in our present system, and there is not an American or American corporation among us who hasn't made use of a tax credit, deduction etc. And this in itself flies in the face of those claims for others to their fair share of taxes. Because the truth is no one wants to pay taxes to the government but we all do under the threat of penalty.

The objective of a tax system should be efficient and sufficient. A better and simpler tax system can be had. However it won't because politicians do not have the stamina and will to accomplish such a task nor to deal effectively and intelligently with either our social security or medicare/medicaid systems .

Tax the rich more is a ploy by the political left to escape notice and to continue to divide this nation. So its serves no useful purpose. Politicians goals are to have a direct link to your wallets and what they view as free money. When it comes to politicians my belief is its government v. we the people

Personal Best Regards:

There used to be a clothier that ran an ad that the educated consumer is our best customer. For our government and frankly for all governments the uneducated, unread, is most easily led or the truth is misled.

The LIBERAL CRY tax the rich is crazy IF YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS. What we first of all have been led to misunderstand is that what we hear is INCOME TAX.
I recall reading somewhere that income tax is only 20% of what our government TAKES from us. HUH? Yes look at your cell phone bill-roughly 1/3 of it is taxes. Fill up your car-again roughly 1/3 of what you pay is tax. There are tolls, registration fees (plates) etc etc etc. One of my friends used to say,"they have so many ways to pluck the chicken he does not realize he is bald."

We hear about taxing the EVIL TOP 1%. RE: taxes we ALL think someone else should pay and we should get. Hey, I'm not in the top one percent so the top 1% should pay much more. LOOK at this government manipulation by the democratic party. First I doubt the top 1% votes for the gimmmmmeeee u ooooooooo meee party any way. In any case if say half the top 1% did vote for the democratic party it is half of 1% of the voters that they risk and how many GIMMMMMMEEEEEEEESSSSSS do they get in exchange.

THE FACT IS-if our government simply took everything they have-not a tax but just TAKE IT-IT WOULD NOT PAY THE TEN TRILLION DOLLARS THAT OBAMA ADDED TO THE NATIONAL DEBT.

MEXICO-is making an effort to have WEALTHY AMERICANS move there. ARE WE CRAZY? Heck Mexico would gladly send us say 6 or 100 poor for every wealthy person that buys property in Mexico to escape OBAMA'S proposal to tax the rich.

No one is innocent-TRUMP screams INCREASE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING. My question are, where is he going to find the SKILLED LABOR to work at manufacturing. Even the basic skills are not being taught in our school system.
For that matter, the WORLD ECONOMY is slow. Who are we going to sell all THIS STUFF TO?

THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. WE HAVE HAD EIGHT YEARS OF A USELESS TUG OF WAR. IT IS TIME THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COME TOGETHER AND ALL, OR AT LEAST MOST, PULL IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

Originally Posted by Guest

YOU HAD CHOICES TO MAKE-WE ALL DID.
You too could have, SHOULD HAVE invested money in the STOCK MARKET. FYI-I have followed a PLAN of INVESTING-SAVING at least 10% of my income over 45 years. LONG TERM stock market returns is roughly 8%.
SIMPLE TO FIGURE AT 8% YOUR MONEY DOUBLES EVERY 9 YEARS. I was an OVERNIGHT SUCCESS-IT ONLY TOOK ME 45 YEARS. In 45 years your money WILL or in your case WOULD HAVE doubled FIVE TIMES-10,000 (1)=20,000(2)=40,000 (3)=80,000 (4)=160,000 (5)=320,000.
WE ALL HAD CHOICES. I had a friend WHO THINKS AS YOU DO. He always told me I AM CHEAP AND HOW I SHOULD SPEND MY MONEY. Long story short. He always drove a nice new car. He wore a nice expensive watch, shoes etc. HE LOST HIS HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE. HE STILL HAS NOT PAID ME THE THREE THOUSAND HE BORROWED. LIKE YOU, HE VOTED FOR OBAMA AND OF COURSE HILLARY. LIKE YOU HE TRIED TO CALL ME EVIL,RACIST, NAZI. The truth, is is worked damn hard, I saved RATHER THAN SPENT. FRANKLY, I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO THINK IT WAS EASY AND I OOOOOOO UUUU.

SORRY I AM PROUD TO BE DEPLORABLE-IT ONLY TOOK ME 45 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

Well, we do agree on one thing; you are deplorable. You're also a little bit slow. I wasn't commenting on the stock market. Republicans sell the "trickle down" economics as a way of adding jobs. If the rich get tax breaks they will invest their savings back in to their business and create more jobs. The new jobs would add to the tax base and pay for the tax breaks for the rich. The problem is it has been shown the rich didn't invest in creating new jobs.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, we do agree on one thing; you are deplorable.

You're also a little bit slow.

When you nail it...you really nail it!