OT – USA Today said…
Question:
I saw in USA Today…. They mentioned the Social Securtiy *surplus*…. Folks, those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite some time… you do NOT get a refund. The ‘overpayment’ by those of us who pay into SS in the USA will be about 163 BILLION this year…! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Now, someone should chime in about who exactly suggested to congress that we SPEND this money, collected for SS, on NON-SS items. While we’ve been having a SURPLUS of SS for YEARS AND YEARS, folks seem worried about SS deficits looming some years down the road. This is the "secret tax" folks. If the US had INVESTED or merely SAVED this money, well… that could never happen when politicians are involved… Now, some have suggested "investing" some of this SURPLUS… that means, they want to invest some of YOUR money… money YOU have OVERPAID into the SS system, so that you might have MORE money when you *retire*… alas, there are plenty who are against that suggestion. This OVERCHARGE you pay is already allocated to be used for stuff you no nothing about. Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is… gtski
Response:
> I saw in USA Today….I saw on FoxNews Today….I….OK- I’m….stupid. Still; > Turns out i just figured out that the US has ALWAYS STOLEN this money by lumping the take in w/ *all* IRS purloins and, well… > it’s being splattered across everything from HUd to DoD! > *Now* I almost sorta understand what Gore was alluding to w/ that whole "Lock Box" bit.
> Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is…and I’m as stupid about domestic politics as I am the international stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They don’t all run around farms in Mao costumes over China way? Please help me out here paul, pmg, TD, wheaton, SoK66, leaky, -oh god- > gtski
Response:
> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund
You’re an idiot. There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean poverty. But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t matter to you.
Response:
> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund > You’re an idiot. > There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an > insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s > a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean > poverty. > But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t > matter to you.
and you clearly have no clue as to what ss is or how it works. if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. gtski raised a legitimate question… one that has been raised by political leaders on both sides of the aisle. he didn’t attack ss or suggest that it should be done away with. it needs fixed, and to do that you have to understand the mechanisms of how it works, and what could be done better, and what is being done (spending the current annual surplus) that perhaps shouldn’t be done. but you are a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, irregardless of the cost, and you really don’t care what happens to ss as long as you can make republicans look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, but trashing a republican is everything" is your mantra of hate. go crawl back under your rock. paul az
Response:
normally I wouldn’t say anything but since you picked on my typing today and I’m sick with the flu and feeling pissy, I’m gonna dish > if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. ….it needs fixed,
You’re not. I won’t. It needs to be fixed run-on sentences, no caps etc.
Response:
> i would explain. your not. i wont.
So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system works…
Response:
>> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…
Paul’s right, as usual. Pixie’s wrong, as usual. This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain it to you. See ya, John
Response:
How smoothly truth applies…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > but I am a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, > irregardless of the cost, and I really don’t care what happens to ss as > long as I can make democrats look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, > but trashing a democrat is everything" is my mantra of hate. > I’ll go crawl back under my rock.
Response:
:
: >> i would explain. your not. i wont. : > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system : > works… : : Paul’s right, as usual. : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. : : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain : it to you. : : See ya, : John Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future generations of the elderly will be saddled with excessive reserves No problem though as the repugnicons are here to solve the problem.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > Paul’s right, as usual. > Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, > they’ll explain it to you. > See ya, > John
Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on everything BUT grandma. In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line "there’s no problem with Social Security."
Response:
> In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."
How come you are all concerned about debts? You wanna fork it over for Iraq and Haliburton? Why are you playing favoritism? One billion here, one billion there. It’ll be OK.
Response:
> > i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…
Or notice which side of the aisle he was sitting on, when he mouthed off on the SC decision. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>i would explain. your not. i wont. >>So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system >>works… >Paul’s right, as usual. >Pixie’s wrong, as usual. >This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, >they’ll explain it to you. >See ya, >John > Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon > Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the > Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched > onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on > everything BUT grandma.
I remember when SS wasn’t taxed… so not only is the SS system OVERFUNDED by the tax-PAYERS… the beneficiaries must pay tax on the PORTION they DO get…! ! ! ! (Ugh…! ! ) What a *racket*..! ! ! > In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."
The *boomers*… the largest single "voting block" to ever exist in the US. :-) Amazingly, it *appears* that if the whole scam… I mean SS *system* would have been LEFT ALONE… and/or the surpluses had been *saved*, the "boomers" might be livin large soon… ( or at least "largER" ;-)…) It seems like politicians seem to find the nooks and crannys that the voters don’t really *understand* and bleed whatever cash they can from it.
Response:
> > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, > than out go is a surplus.
So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about how the real world works.. Social Security isn’t an insurance program (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" to buy) and therefore has no "surplus." You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Response:
>> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works..
We did the real world comparison once and YOU are the HOLLOW man who hasn’t done shit. For years I managed medium size businesses that had over 100 employees, and YOU do NOT have a CLUE as to how the real world works. > Social Security isn’t an insurance program
You IGNORANT TWIT. I NEVER made any such comparison! Someday you’ll learn to follow a thread! > (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" > to buy)
You would be on a more firm footing if you were sure that the Earth was flat, you MORON. > and therefore has no "surplus."
If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would be called a SURPLUS! Take any High School level Economics class. There also quite a few Tutor’s available, so get someone to READ the textbook for you, so that someone can explain these comcepts that are obviously well beyond your ability to comprehend. > You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I made NO COMPARISONS, you MUST get your MEDS CHECKED, you are hallucinating AGAIN! See ya, John
Response:
> >> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >> income, >> than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works.. > We did the real world comparison once
Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. There’s no "surplus." Figure it out. > If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would > be called a SURPLUS!
You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used. There is no surplus. > I made
Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.
Response:
> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance.
DUH.. > There’s no "surplus."
Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call that left over balance what? Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! See ya, John
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > : >> i would explain. your not. i wont. > : > > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security > system > : > works… > : > : Paul’s right, as usual. > : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > : > : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll > explain > : it to you. > : > : See ya, > : John > Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future > generations of the elderly will be saddled with > excessive reserves > No problem though as the repugnicons are here to > solve the problem.
lol, you are sooooooooo clueless. future obligations are huge. future surpluses are non existent. today’s surpluses are being spent (as they have for 40+ years) so are not available to cover the coming shortfall. when the system started, there were something like 25 workers supporting each retiree. that is NOT the case today, and the rate is slipping fast for the future. there will be something like 2 workers supporting each retiree. that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy". buy a book, or turn your tv off of nickelodian. buy a vowel. something! you need a clue of some kind. paul az – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, > and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call > that left over balance what? > Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will > find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in > MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! > See ya, > John
he doesn’t read. he doesn’t even watch current events on tv. all of his lefty heroes even understand and use the terminology that he is rejecting. he is without a clue, as usual. if a conservative/libertarian/non lefty ever said that water was wet, pixie would argue that it was all a lie and a right wing plot. at one time the stereotype of a paranoid conspiracy fearing freak was considered to be more typical of the right than the left. pixie and many (not all) of the lefties here are making a concerted effort to re-write that stereotype. utimately, pixie and some others here at aga are slowly turning into trolls. others here (mulay, morgen) were trolls when they arrived. paul az
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >>>income, >>>than out go is a surplus. >>So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about >>how the real world works.. >We did the real world comparison once > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. > There’s no "surplus." Figure it out.
Wow… Paxi is getting a little heated here… "It isn’t a business"… now this is Pax at his most insightful. Well, neither is govt in general, eh Pax..?? So, all those "budget surpluses" of a few years back, weren’t really *surpluses*… ok. Ummm… I’m wondering what you call SSI… >If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would >be called a SURPLUS! > You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that > there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of > money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used.
Well yes, $163 billion this year will be, say "OVER THERE"… it’ll be collected for SS, won’t be SPENT on what it is/was INTENDED for, which means it’s "surplus. And this SS surplus (Paxi, dude.. even the govt calls it that) is then "moved" to somewhere else and SPENT.. or as you say USED. Maybe you are suggesting that all the "surplus" taxes collected from taxpayers should not qualify as a surplus and should just be USED… > There is no surplus.
Sure there is. And everyone but you seems to think so… and your concept of NO SURPLUS might come in handy in Washington… for if there can be no surplus, there can be no deficit… eh Pax..??? >I made > Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.
Pax, it’s good to hear you’re glad about something, even if it’s merely a sarcastic remark of little use…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > When I wrote "…that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy"…" > and will not part with. It is part of the "Dylan Thomas" aspect that keeps me going. Fucking asshole liberals. > paul "the cape" HERO of Mesa, AZ
Response:
> > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics
Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk? Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass? No. There is no Social Security "surplus."
Response:
>> Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept?
Since passage of President Johnson’s Great Society, the Social Security surplus gets dumped into the General Fund and is spent. There are those that would like to take that money and put it into a Social Security fund. If that had been done, and it was drawing interest there wouldn’t be the same looming problem that we face today. See ya, John
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. >DUH.. >>There’s no "surplus." >Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus?
Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected through payroll taxes and other payments. > Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk?
Ummmm…. does it matter to you exactly where it’s "kept"..?? > Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass?
Uh-oh… you’re sounding like Elmis after a binge… > No.
Right. It’s not there. > There is no Social Security "surplus."
PAX, you’re a fan of CNN… here’s one for you… http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/social.security.ap/index.html From that article… "..they were drafting a bill that would wall off the surplus payroll tax revenues Social Security is slated to receive until 2017." and… Rep. Shaw said… "The American people believe that there is something out there in West Virginia with their names on it. There is not now — but there will be if we pass this bill." Pax, he doesn’t mean the surplus MONEY will be there…! ! ! I know, it’s hard for you to comprehend. More from the article… … "While the federal government would continue to spend the surplus tax money…" … " The government would continue to spend the excess revenues…" (Paxi… John explained to you, *excess* revenues equals *surplus*) … "Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said: "I’ve been consistent and faithful to the idea that we shouldn’t spend the Social Security surplus on other initiatives…" Oops..! ! ! A Democrat, a DEMOCRAT, suggests that we should spend the "surplus" on "other initiatives"… my, my… Pax, are the surpluses in a bag shoved up HIS ass..????? Now, Paxidude… about the "insurance" aspect of Social Security… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/28/shields.socialsecurity/inde… A quote from this opinion… " For 70 years, the enduring premise of the program has been that the publicly financed insurance and pension system…" Oh shit..! ! ! Pax, say it so..! ! ! (again and again.. SS isn’t insurance..! ! !) Ok, maybe he is wrong, and you are right… it’s possible… (but I doubt it) Theres lots more there about "SS surpluses" etc… and I suspect the writer is more a-tuned to the specifics than Timepax could EVER be… Now, this CNN article… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.socialsecurity.tm/inde… From the article… "…He remembers a White House meeting in the mid-1980s at which he raised the idea of overhauling the program as a way to cut the deficit.." (this was during the Regan admin) Shee-iiit..! ! ! Someone in the Regan Admin was "on it" (to reform enlightened of Mr. Moore… oh, that it didn’t happen. But… the Reps stated… "It was one thing every Republican said was off the table — even these revolutionary Republicans," Moore recalls… (this is about *SS reform*) Wait… these were Republicans saying this… isn’t’ this what the Deems are whining about now…???? Aren’t they a little late..??? No, they’ve been co-opting Rep planks for YEARs..! ! ! ! Then again, it was folks within the Reps who were trying to address the *problem* years ago to get an early *fix* in…. From the article…. "By turning every American into an investor, and a government safety net into a system that rewards judicious risk and individual initiative, Republicans believe they can change how Americans see every question from free trade to capital gains — tax cuts." The above concept, is contrary to the Dems quasi-socialist approach… but seems quite *progressive* in nature, and more in tune with the *American way*… IMMHO… Now… this article goes on to say more and more about the *state* of the SS system, *surpluses*, etc… From the article…. "What will actually happen in 2018, according to the Social Security trustees who oversee the program, is that the money paid out in benefits will begin to exceed the amount collected in taxes. And since Social Security will run a surplus until then (and has been running one for some time), it has billions available that it can tap to fill the gap. Even under conservative estimates, the system as it stands will have enough money to pay all its promised benefits until 2042 and most of its obligations for decades after." PAX..! ! ! NOTE the words "…Social Security will run a surplus.." What is *funny* is that the article mentions that SS has "..billions available"… ummm… where..??? Like Pax says, they are *used*… meaning "spent"… as in, NOT saved. So these *billions* are like the un-funded pension plans in the private sector. But… the article claims… ".. even under conservative estimates…" it’ll be solvent till 2042 and beyond… Later, in this article… the following.. "As Bush planned his first presidential campaign, he brought in experts to brief him on how privatization had worked in places like Chile, and even Sweden –surely one of the rare instances of a Republican taking the lead from a country known for a near socialist welfare system." Another *opinion* from CNN… " And yet Bush is right about one big thing: Social Security does face a fiscal challenge — one that will be less painful to handle the sooner we tackle it." leave it alone, no changes needed…etc..etc.." And there’s more…. " Though policymakers talk of Social Security as a trust fund (or, in the imagery that Al Gore and Saturday Night Live made famous, "a lock box"), it was enacted as an insurance program in which current workers pay for older generations. Today more than three-quarters of payroll taxes go to pay benefits." Pax… dude… CNN is saying that SS "… was enacted as and insurance program…" … ! ! ! ! ! Set them straight Paxi..! ! ! Again from the CNN article "… projected shortfall is not a new situation, or even the worst that Social Security has faced. " More… "What about Bush’s proposed individual accounts? On their own, they do nothing to solve Social Security’s funding problems. Even the White House admits as much." Wait… the White House admits it..! ! ! ! Sounds pretty *honest* to me… are you feeling hood-winked Pax..???? Maybe you just aren’t listening. Finally, one of the most important statements… "At the end of 2004, about 48 million Americans — not just retired workers but also the disabled and the spouses and children of deceased workers — drew $41.5 billion a month in benefits. Even with 401(k)s and pensions figured, nearly two-thirds of those who receive benefits count on it for more than half their income; a third rely on it for 90 percent." This shows how folks are NOT saving enough of their PAY… sure they wasn’t their kids/grandkids to have $160 sneakers, limos for their 9th grade graduation, $150/month cable bills… then they rely on SS for As far as financing the "private accounts"… the following perspective… "… he explained that the government might have to borrow $100 billion to $150 billion a year for 10 years to finance the new private accounts. Participants say the traders told Snow that the markets could easily absorb that much. As a bond executive said, "Mr. Secretary, that’s a rounding error in our business." " Take note of that folks… $100 billion to $150 billion over ten years… a "rounding era" in the bond trading business. How much was the war in Iraq costing us..??? 83 billion…??? Amortized over 5-6 years… well, some of you will get it… Ok… now for the man… Bill Clinton himself… http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/ind… Clinton… "… by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people.." Oh Pax… Clinton says a "surplus" comes in EVERY MONTH..! ! ! But Pax, Clinton didn’t say "where" this surplus *is*, or is *kept*… maybe it’s kept up Clintons ass…eh Paxi..???? Then, on to… http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/25/rec.budget.deficit/index.html Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota… said back in 2001…. "The Medicare surplus is gone, the Social Security surplus is almost all gone," Conrad said. "But we’ve had no choice … we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Timepax… this guy says "surplus" over and over…. I mean, WTF..???? Where is this guy getting his info…??? He talks about "Budget surplus"… "Medicare surplus"… SS surplus… PAXI.. where are all those surpluses kept…???? They were *used* right..??? SO how could they be surpluses…??? For all you Jr. Economists out there… it was interesting to note this in the article…. "That figure does not include expected new spending to increase airline security, compensate victims of the attacks, stimulate the economy and pay for further defense and security needs. Those additional measures are expected to cost significantly more than $50 billion. Part of the problem, Conrad said, is the economic slowdown is expected to result in a loss of about $60 billion in tax revenue next year. " This "slowdown" started during Clintons last year in office… His last quote… "…we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Any of you Jr. Economists out there care to chime in on what govt fiscal measures are used to "strengthen the economy" in a recession..????
… read more »
Response:
> > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? > Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected > through payroll taxes and other payments.
Where might that be? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.
Response:
Related Posts