Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day

[Riot]

[Uhhh... isn't that where debt comes from?

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

Not the total debt. Doesn't that mean that it is always a drain and cannot carry it's own burden as a program? If most people get out more than they put in, that seems to be the case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not the total debt. Doesn't that mean that it is always a drain and cannot carry it's own burden as a program? If most people get out more than they put in, that seems to be the case.

What it means is that now, for the first time in history - never in the past - there is slightly more coming out than going in. That is why full benefits now would extend to 2037, with only 78% benefits after that. Because 2037 is when we would first see that problem.

So we make a little tweek to fix it for decades. Hardly the disasterous failure you falsely portray it as. Very successful program. Has made 100% of it's payments for decades, and will readily do that until 2037 doing nothing else. Then 78% after that. Doing nothing else.

So it will be tweeked in the near future, so that after 1937, 100% gets paid out then, too.

Now, if you don't want to be a participatory American patriot in this society, and you don't want to contribute to our common good as a society - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you think preventing old people from starving on the street in ill health is a bad thing - MOVE ELSEWHERE

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

What it means is that now, for the first time in history - never in the past - there is slightly more coming out than going in. That is why full benefits now would extend to 2037, with only 78% benefits after that. Because 2037 is when we would first see that problem.

So we make a little tweek to fix it for decades. Hardly the disasterous failure you falsely portray it as. Very successful program. Has made 100% of it's payments for decades, and will readily do that until 2037 doing nothing else. Then 78% after that. Doing nothing else.

So it will be tweeked in the near future, so that after 1937, 100% gets paid out then, too.

Now, if you don't want to be a participatory American patriot in this society, and you don't want to contribute to our common good as a society - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you think preventing old people from starving on the street in ill health is a bad thing - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you want to sit on your ass and collect a check from government, originally taxed from someone else's hard work - MOVE ELSEWHERE!

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If you want to sit on your ass and collect a check from government, origninally taxed from someone else's hard work - MOVE ELSEWHERE!

So you really thing ALL the SH*IT we are in now is because of Welfare?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you really thing ALL the SH*IT we are in now is because of Welfare?

I'm saying it doesn't help, and by definition those on it aren't moving the economy forward. And I'm saying it's among the first things to be reduced as expenses go.

It doesn't account for ALL of our debt...just $9,000,000,000,000 up until 2004. More than that now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'm saying it doesn't help, and by definition those on it aren't moving the economy forward. And I'm saying it's among the first things to be reduced as expenses go.

It doesn't account for ALL of our debt...just $9,000,000,000,000 up until 2004. More than that now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807

I hate to break it to you "failed Reaganomics" followers, but unemployment benefits and welfare most certainly DO move the economy forward during a recession, by providing ready cash that is spent in the economy immediately. The churn keeps everyone afloat while the economy recovers. That is common financial knowledge. What "by definition" are you talking about? Not any accepted financial definition.

The right wing wants to take away any help for poor starving children. 25% of the children in this "great country, where the millions of unemployed are just unmotivated" are living in poverty. You're on that bandwagon. Think about that. Is that what you envision America to be? Where we have fellow citizens homeless and starving and left on their own?

Because magically, somehow, they could all be rich if they would only get off the public dole and work because you did it? You think that is possible? That's what you want, your vision for America?

Do you think it is even doable any more, in the country where the Republican party has spent the last 40 years trying to disassemble the middle class and remove any remote help from fellow citizens to give someone a chance? Do you realize that the country isn't what it was after WWII, as far as opportunity? That the wage disparity is too great, that real wages are too stagnant, the "job creators" have taken their jobs out of this country? That what we live in today is the "new reality", and you'd better get used to it?

That's disgusting. We are better than that. We are one of the richest nations in the world, and we treat our citizens better than that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If you want to sit on your ass and collect a check from government, originally taxed from someone else's hard work - MOVE ELSEWHERE!

That's not what Social Security is. Stop misrepresenting it. Social Security recipients CONTRIBUTED to their own government check. They PAID INTO THE SYSTEM. It's no giveaway. Geeshus cripes.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's not what Social Security is. Stop misrepresenting it. Social Security recipients CONTRIBUTED to their own government check. They PAID INTO THE SYSTEM. It's no giveaway. Geeshus cripes.

I was directing that at Welfare and generalized handout programs. Yes, we are forced at gunpoint to "contribute" to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Our losses, in the form of the unrealized growth of the confiscated funds that would otherwise be invested, are all too real.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I was directing that at Welfare and generalized handout programs. Yes, we are forced at gunpoint to "contribute" to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Our losses, in the form of the unrealized growth of the confiscated funds that would otherwise be invested, are all too real.

I laughed so hard that coffee came out my nose. Yeah leave everything up to mom and pop because everyone knows how to handle their finances. Not that the sharks would find a way to separate you from your self directed SS funds. SS would be fine if our wonderful presidents didn't use it as their personal cookie jar over the last 25 years.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I was directing that at Welfare and generalized handout programs.

You mean food for starving children living in poverty? You mean Medicaid for the permanently disabled and sick who can never work? You mean a couple hundred dollars a week so someone can live in roach-infested public housing?

Yeah, some of us want to contribute to making America better, for helping those in need, in poverty, in trouble.

You're bitter and whining and complaining about the theft of pennies of your riches. You want all the benefits of this great country, all the first-world freebies like highways and running water and no fear of invasion, without donating a thing to the cause of society as a whole. That's selfish and lazy and self-centered.

Guess what? The Supreme Court long ago ruled that what's good for one, is good for all (being dismantled by the upper class, but that's another problem) So contribute your taxes, be happy you were fortunate enough to be born in America, and try working to make this country better, not trying actively to take away from the least among us who are not as fortunate as we.

Screw that. Move to another country. Maybe one where getting $100 a week is vast riches and you could appreciate the need.