Originally Posted by Guest

No, I am speaking about the 1920 budget, and the effects that it had back then. Sometimes common sense applies. When you have to explain everything in great detail, no one here is going to listen. Take a look at the posts. The majority are one or two sentences long. The fact of the matter here people don't want to reply only attack.

Take a look at the threads. There was a Republican debate last night, and there isn't one thread on the board about it. Any Republican on Republican disagreement is avoided at all costs here. I started a post several weeks ago when two Republicans went at each other on Meet the Press, and it died a quick death.

Anytime you try to go into great detail, you are accused of changing the subject. You may be the exception, but the others will join the conversation, and it will be brought down to the gutter in one big hurry.

Well, I will agree with you totally on your assessment !

I have started threads on Syria, Iran, Israel, and even the budget, along with a number of others. I also always add a link to validate what I am saying so as to not be accused of simply "saying stuff". THAT to me is what a forum is about and other that I frequent ARE like that.

That does not make me anyone special by any stretch and can only offer my opinion.

I KNOW there are some very nice and intelligent liberal, Democratic posters. They were here way back when this forum began in 2007 (started actually discussing the possibility of a horse racing site here). They were smart, quick and alert and well read posters. I disagreed many times but they, and I always kept the conversation civil and based on facts and relative to the issues.

Even at the beginning of the 2008 cycle we had spirited but civil conversations.

Then a new breed came upon us, and I can only tell you that many of those liberal democratic folks that used to post have told me in emails that they got sick of the newbies. Newbies can be defined anyway you want....because I have no idea if they are or were new to The Villages, TOTV but suddenly, there was a surge of liberal posters (this does not mean by any measure that conservative posters are exempt from what I am saying at all) who for some reason came with the mentality of simply flaming and being a nuisance. (Something you would think you would not see in The Villages, because generally you are speaking to your neighbors)

I mention liberals only because the trouble makers seem to come mostly from that sphere which means nothing but random chance on this forum. They are the ones that perpetrate the myths about living in The Villages, and probably have scared a few potential neighbors away with their scary posts, which they also used to delight in posting on the main board.

So many were thrown off this board, have come back....many are on there third and fourth names here. They moved to TOPIX, and polluted that for a bit....seems maybe have settled there I hear.

These people ignored anything that required reading or being informed. Their game was to work WITH EACH OTHER to flame and insure that they polluted the moderators with complaints.

Why adults would act that way is beyond me.

I got a reputation and am still libeled on TOPIX and alluded to as a member of some gang that this group has manufactured in their head which never existed.

But in any case, there are many, many, many smart and wise liberals and many, many many smart and wise conservatives who live here and many of them used to post here.

I admittely, while my wife is recuperating, stop here a few times a day but spend most of my time reading and on other ADULT political sites where you can exchange ideas and learn

Your post, however, makes me wonder why waste my time with folks who have only an interest in what is commonly referred to as flaming

YOU ARE CORRECT...If you go into any detail, you are accused of..well, I have been accused of plagarism which is a lie (however, there are those who simply make things up...of course they have no links but just make it up...as with common courtesy the rules on copyrights and flaming are over their heads) and as you say, NEVER get a response simply a barb aimed at you or someone.

The gutter, as you call it, seems to be where most of these people want to be and thus you have inspired me to just walk away. I used to learn so much way back.....we had posters that were proficient with economics who would post and link to great sites. We had political professionals and the like but when you came on here, you would learn something. That is gone.

Thanks for your post...take care, and if everything goes as normal a few quips will land here taking me to task blaming me for anything (by the way I have never been thrown off here...changed my name once because I got some unsettling emails (because of an opinion) which bother me and the owner suggested that) and then probably on TOPIX, which is the toilet of the internet I think, there will be more mocking. Thats the game...mock, demean but whatever you do, as you correctly pointed out....ignore issues.

I did learn one thing from this group. NAMES....I have been called names that I never heard before...I have been accused of being any derisive name you can think of.

Take care...good luck

Originally Posted by Guest

Everyone does pay taxes. Social security, Medicare, gasoline, and sales taxes. If they rent, indirectly they are paying property taxes.

Bush's biggest tax cuts went to the people in the 39.6% tax bracket.

Take a look the chart of the 2014 budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._-_FY_2011.png

The two biggest categories are social security, and Medicare. The Republicans largest group of supporters are older Americans. Socialism seems to be working fine for us. It takes gall to complain about everybody else. We are the biggest takers. Sure we paid into the program for 30-40 years, but that money wasn't put aside for us. It was paid to people that were collecting at the time. If they put the plug on social security, which they won't do, we would be out of luck. We are not entitled to social security.

Defense spending is greater than discretionary spending. Constitution mandates national defense, but not at the cost of everything else.

Your post is very painful for most of us to honestly look at but goes to root of problem. You will hear "I paid into social security and medicare all my life" but they fail to mention that they have probably got back what they paid in and more already. The next generation did not promise us anything, we elected polititians who did. Should not the generation that is not even old enough to vote have someone looking after their interests? It is very convenient to just point at democrats or republicans and wait until next election before we face the truth. When do we start addressing the truth that we have promised us ourselves much more than we can mathematically deliver? I believe it is still true numbers don't lie.

I am living in a great place. I have traveled the world and have seen some great and not so great places, but the U.S. is the best by far. Whether a democrat or republican has been in office hasn't changed my life one way or the other. Sometimes the economy was good sometimes not. There has never been anything on this forum or any of the political forums that has changed my vote. I am so happy to be surrounded by so many opinions. Freedom of speech is great. The day somebody tells you that you or one of your loved ones is sick, then I listen to educated opinions, not here.

Originally Posted by Guest

Everyone does pay taxes. Social security, Medicare, gasoline, and sales taxes. If they rent, indirectly they are paying property taxes.

Bush's biggest tax cuts went to the people in the 39.6% tax bracket.

Take a look the chart of the 2014 budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._-_FY_2011.png

The two biggest categories are social security, and Medicare. The Republicans largest group of supporters are older Americans. Socialism seems to be working fine for us. It takes gall to complain about everybody else. We are the biggest takers. Sure we paid into the program for 30-40 years, but that money wasn't put aside for us. It was paid to people that were collecting at the time. If they put the plug on social security, which they won't do, we would be out of luck. We are not entitled to social security.

Defense spending is greater than discretionary spending. Constitution mandates national defense, but not at the cost of everything else.

You are remiss in adding one element of fact. We did have a Social Security surplus from the '80's. And you also didn't mention that THIS socialism was FORCED upon us. We didn't welcome it, the liberals welcomed it. If my money would have been even moderately invested with a slight earnings, it would be better. You act like since we subsidize our pensions with our own money Social Security, then we are embracing socialism. Not true. Social Security was not set up to pay for those that did not contribute. We have many folks getting social security that never paid into it. And that IS socialism.

And Defense spending is a much smaller percentage of the budget than entitlements; much smaller.

And Medicare is disgraceful. You pay all your working life for Medicare and what do you get in return? Hospitalization, and hardly anything else. No paid doctor visits, no medicine. If you want anything else, you have to pay another $105 per month for Medicare B. That's each, spouse is separate. I am one of the lucky ones where I have a total BC/BS policy. My medicare doesn't pay anything unless I am hospitalized. What good does medicare do to those that can't afford supplements? Even the poor folks get a better deal with Medicaid. And they don't have to pay for it.

The government messes up anything that they have a hand in.

Why do folks insist upon calling paid into programs entitlements?

Maybe for those who wind up getting the benefit that have never paid one dime into either SS or medicare view it as an entitlement. For the rest of us collecting a mandatory investment is not.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why do folks insist upon calling paid into programs entitlements?

Maybe for those who wind up getting the benefit that have never paid one dime into either SS or medicare view it as an entitlement. For the rest of us collecting a mandatory investment is not.

You are on the money, but I think the reason many of us call it an entitlement is because it is easier to use one word instead of Social Security benefits, or whatever.

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are on the money, but I think the reason many of us call it an entitlement is because it is easier to use one word instead of Social Security benefits, or whatever.

I agree with you.

You are required to pay into SS but you draw out more than you put into it. Figure out how much you had to put in, now figure out how much you believe you and your spouse will withdraw for a lifetime. Which figure is higher?

You cannot say you would have been able to invest that same amount and get a higher return - we all know that the vast majority do not or would not start any saving for retirement until their mid-40's unless forced to do it.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are required to pay into SS but you draw out more than you put into it. Figure out how much you had to put in, now figure out how much you believe you and your spouse will withdraw for a lifetime. Which figure is higher?

You cannot say you would have been able to invest that same amount and get a higher return - we all know that the vast majority do not or would not start any saving for retirement until their mid-40's unless forced to do it.

Not true. You are assuming that the average American can NOT make good choices. On the other hand, they did elect a total unknown and he did turn out to be a failure, so you might have a certain amount of credibility in your statement.

However, if they treated it like they do their Thrift Savings plan, there would be a lot of folks with a very decent lifestyle now. That's what they did to the gov pension plan. They added SS payroll deductions, lowered the percentage of gov pension and supplied the added Thrift Savings plan. I would like to see the gov savings on that change.

I am tired of folks telling me that something CAN'T be done. It can, and it should. We have the best country in the world and we should live up to that standard. We don't want to be a European style socialist country. They are ALL failing. Even the ones that Sanders is bragging about. Failing, unsustainable, going bankrupt. Greece is just a preview of coming attractions.

America needs to show them how independent we are from our gov nanny. Privatize just about everything and it will thrive.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are required to pay into SS but you draw out more than you put into it. Figure out how much you had to put in, now figure out how much you believe you and your spouse will withdraw for a lifetime. Which figure is higher?

You cannot say you would have been able to invest that same amount and get a higher return - we all know that the vast majority do not or would not start any saving for retirement until their mid-40's unless forced to do it.

I think you may have missed the fact that it does not have be a dollar for dollar match of what was put in to be equitable.

The SS powers that be take the money and invest it, plus they have the contributions of the young paying in and the SS investing and add it all together as a source from which to pay out.

So if one want a comparison of paid in vs paid out the interest earned would have to be taken into account.


And like most corporate retirement accounts it probably earns more than the anticipated growth to benefit ratio. Many companies have dipped into to excess retirement reserves for that reason.....as has the federal government....without paying back what it took.....

Originally Posted by Guest

I think you may have missed the fact that it does not have be a dollar for dollar match of what was put in to be equitable.

The SS powers that be take the money and invest it, plus they have the contributions of the young paying in and the SS investing and add it all together as a source from which to pay out.

So if one want a comparison of paid in vs paid out the interest earned would have to be taken into account.


And like most corporate retirement accounts it probably earns more than the anticipated growth to benefit ratio. Many companies have dipped into to excess retirement reserves for that reason.....as has the federal government....without paying back what it took.....

That's the problem, it's been depleted because it is a bad investment. Even if it makes 3%, which may not be accurate, it doesn't do any good if congress borrows from it. I do realize that right now, we have the baby boomers retiring and siphoning off a more than is coming in. Let's be honest, the whole process is very similar to a Ponzi scheme.

Instead of stating the obvious, that Social Security is threatening to derail, someone needs to take the idea seriously and come up with viable solutions. Privatizing part of it sounds feasible. But, only/ONLY if it is continuously audited. I don't buy the idea that the stock market could fail and ruin it. It would actually shore up the stock market with a steady flow of revenue. I am not saying that all of it should be privatized, but it wouldn't hurt to allow the option of having part of your money go to the Thrift Savings plan of something similar. There are a lot of benefits of this idea.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's the problem, it's been depleted because it is a bad investment. Even if it makes 3%, which may not be accurate, it doesn't do any good if congress borrows from it. I do realize that right now, we have the baby boomers retiring and siphoning off a more than is coming in. Let's be honest, the whole process is very similar to a Ponzi scheme.

Instead of stating the obvious, that Social Security is threatening to derail, someone needs to take the idea seriously and come up with viable solutions. Privatizing part of it sounds feasible. But, only/ONLY if it is continuously audited. I don't buy the idea that the stock market could fail and ruin it. It would actually shore up the stock market with a steady flow of revenue. I am not saying that all of it should be privatized, but it wouldn't hurt to allow the option of having part of your money go to the Thrift Savings plan of something similar. There are a lot of benefits of this idea.

How about turning back the clock? If you are not a contributor you do not get SS benefits. Let them get what ever assist they have gotten from some where else.

How about having professionals manage the billions instead of inept politicians or appointees. Do you know any billion aires collecting only 3%?
Even if you don't it matters not.

These two suggestions alone would assure liquidity on into the future. Now if we could just get the stupid politicians out of the mix there could be some progress.

Originally Posted by Guest

How about turning back the clock? If you are not a contributor you do not get SS benefits. Let them get what ever assist they have gotten from some where else.

How about having professionals manage the billions instead of inept politicians or appointees. Do you know any billion aires collecting only 3%?
Even if you don't it matters not.

These two suggestions alone would assure liquidity on into the future. Now if we could just get the stupid politicians out of the mix there could be some progress.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Guest

You are required to pay into SS but you draw out more than you put into it. Figure out how much you had to put in, now figure out how much you believe you and your spouse will withdraw for a lifetime. Which figure is higher?

You cannot say you would have been able to invest that same amount and get a higher return - we all know that the vast majority do not or would not start any saving for retirement until their mid-40's unless forced to do it.

I recently attended a seminar on Social Security and they showed where the first recipient paid into the system a little less than $25.00 and collected over $100,000.00 in her lifetime and that was before a large number of sweeting enhancements were added. A pencil, pad of paper, and a willingness to be honest easily shows we have promised much more than can ever be paid. Kind of like Detroit.

Originally Posted by Guest

How about turning back the clock? If you are not a contributor you do not get SS benefits. Let them get what ever assist they have gotten from some where else.



How about having professionals manage the billions instead of inept politicians or appointees. Do you know any billion aires collecting only 3%?

Even if you don't it matters not.



These two suggestions alone would assure liquidity on into the future. Now if we could just get the stupid politicians out of the mix there could be some progress.

My wish is option 3: that I had the money I was forced to give the gov't and was able to manage it as I saw fit. I'd be much better off.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's the problem, it's been depleted because it is a bad investment. Even if it makes 3%, which may not be accurate, it doesn't do any good if congress borrows from it. I do realize that right now, we have the baby boomers retiring and siphoning off a more than is coming in. Let's be honest, the whole process is very similar to a Ponzi scheme.

I'm afraid this statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how the SS Trust fund works. The 2.78 trillion currently in the fund is INVESTED in the only place permitted by law---US Treasuries. So the rate of return is about 3%--it is the average interest on 30 year T-bills over the last 30 years. In a sense, Congress is "borrowing" it, since T-bills are how the government borrows money, but they are also paying the interest, so it does "do good". The privatization argument states that instead of investing solely in treasuries, some of the fund could be put into equities for a higher rate of return, but also a higher risk. This is NOT some sort of self directed proposal where YOU choose where to invest YOUR money---God help us all if that was allowed. Right now, the fund will continue to grow until 2019, when the demographic reality of baby boomers hits, and from then on is depleted until it hits zero somewhere around 2035, so early planning is essential, if the politicians can ever agree to do anything