"Super Committee" decides to go full stupid

Also, not for nothing but you forgot to address where the money to create the private accounts would come from.

Just on account of you know, our biggest problem ever being the deficit. We wouldn't want to increase that now would we? Can you describe, in detail, how we would switch to privatization, even partially, without borrowing money?
 
Darla said:
Also, not for nothing but you forgot to address where the money to create the private accounts would come from.

Just on account of you know, our biggest problem ever being the deficit. We wouldn't want to increase that now would we? Can you describe, in detail, how we would switch to privatization, even partially, without borrowing money?
Click to expand...

It is already borrowed money Darla. That is the problem with the system. That is what has to be addressed. Peter keeps borrowing from Paul. When you don't have enough Peters, the system gets screwed.

You either pay now or you pay later. It is already money we owe them.
 
Superfreak said:
It is already borrowed money Darla. That is the problem with the system. That is what has to be addressed. Peter keeps borrowing from Paul. When you don't have enough Peters, the system gets screwed.

You either pay now or you pay later. It is already money we owe them.
Click to expand...

No. Social Security as it stands does not effect the deficit. However, creating private accounts costs money. Where would that money come from right now?
 
Darla said:
I guess I have to admit that I am amazed that you are attempting to decouple privatization from Wall Street. Maybe you could care less what they want, but asking anyone to believe they wouldn't have the largest say-so is either naive or calculating.
Click to expand...

Again, Wall Street is ALREADY tied closely to the government. Tell me, are you going to sit by and let JP Morgan continue to get rich off of the current SS scheme? Are you going to continue to let the idiots in DC continue to borrow from the funds with the 'promise' they will pay it back (ie... we really mean some future politician will get stuck with that bill)?

You claim that workers would control their own money, and then you claim that the money would be invested the same as it is today, in US Treasury Bonds. So they control their own money as long as they keep it in US Treasury Bonds? And they will not be given the opportunity, maybe once a year, maybe less often, maybe more often, to change where they invest their money and with whom?
Click to expand...

They control their own money in the same manner they do the 401k/403b/457 plan. They are provided investment options, their beneficiaries maintain rights to the assets, but they do not get to choose who the assets are invested with.... and the government can restrict the investment options however they wish.

I cannot believe you are seriously making this claim, please clarify. You can drop all of the shouting and "You know nothing"'s , and just state if this is your claim, yes or no.
Click to expand...

What claim darla? That bonds have outperformed? They have. Because since March of 2000 the stock market has been flat. while bonds have slowly plodded along. Given that we are likely in for at least 3-5 more years of bear markets then it is likely they will continue to outperform on average.
 
No, this claim:

"They control their own money in the same manner they do the 401k/403b/457 plan. They are provided investment options, their beneficiaries maintain rights to the assets, but they do not get to choose who the assets are invested with.... and the government can restrict the investment options however they wish. "

You speak as if this is already written somewhere. Where did you get this from? Is this the way you would do it, or the way you have evidence showing it would be done? Because I'm pretty sure you're not going to be put in charge of it, and "government restrictions" are othewise known as regulations. Maybe you have heard something about those in recent times? Maybe you have noticed their being decimated due to the influence of big money in politics?

So where are you getting this from. Is this an assumption, a hope, a diversion, or has someone proposed this? If so, who?
 
Darla said:
No. Social Security as it stands does not effect the deficit. However, creating private accounts costs money. Where would that money come from right now?
Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (MNI) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday
that he anticipates “serious talks” between Democrats and Republicans on
cutting the budget deficit, but then sternly warned Republicans to
“leave Social Security alone.”

http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2011/02/01/uss-reid-sees-serious-talks-to-cut-deficitbut-not-soc-sec/


So whats Reid talking about ?.....If the talks are about the budget deficit, why is he concerned about SS.....


Obviously, one of you don't know WTF you're talking about.....
 
The SS "fund" has no cash....its filled with IOU's from Congress......= Government IOU's are the Deficit....


Now step away from the Koolade, Honey
 
Darla said:
No, this claim:

"They control their own money in the same manner they do the 401k/403b/457 plan. They are provided investment options, their beneficiaries maintain rights to the assets, but they do not get to choose who the assets are invested with.... and the government can restrict the investment options however they wish. "

You speak as if this is already written somewhere. Where did you get this from? Is this the way you would do it, or the way you have evidence showing it would be done? Because I'm pretty sure you're not going to be put in charge of it, and "government restrictions" are othewise known as regulations. Maybe you have heard something about those in recent times? Maybe you have noticed their being decimated due to the influence of big money in politics?

So where are you getting this from. Is this an assumption, a hope, a diversion, or has someone proposed this? If so, who?
Click to expand...

That plan was made public over the years by Republicans in general.....no bills have be introduced that I'm aware of...
 
bravo said:
WASHINGTON (MNI) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday
that he anticipates “serious talks” between Democrats and Republicans on
cutting the budget deficit, but then sternly warned Republicans to
“leave Social Security alone.”

http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2011/02/01/uss-reid-sees-serious-talks-to-cut-deficitbut-not-soc-sec/


So whats Reid talking about ?.....If the talks are about the budget deficit, why is he concerned about SS.....


Obviously, one of you don't know WTF you're talking about.....
Click to expand...

I imagine he was concerned because Repukes and con dems have attempted to hoodwink morons (hello Bravo!) into believing that SS does effect the deficit. So he was quite rightly decoupling SS from any deficit talks. SS doesn't belong in any deficit talks.

It's quite literally impossible for SS to add to the deficit. SS is a program that is kept separate from the budget and must pay its own way.

So yes, there is one person here who doesn't know what they are talking about. YOu know what they say Bravs; when you're in a poker game and can't spot the sucker, leave. It's you.
 
bravo said:
The SS "fund" has no cash....its filled with IOU's from Congress......= Government IOU's are the Deficit....


Now step away from the Koolade, Honey
Click to expand...

Lie.

The SS Trust fund is full of Us Treasury Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Stop lying.
 
Darla said:
Lie.

The SS Trust fund is full of Us Treasury Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...


hahaha,,,,,Then Harry Reid would have to be wrong and talking out of HIS ass.....

you can't have it both ways.......

Personally, I'll go with Harry....he little finger holds more brains than your and Rana's heads put together....
Soc. Sec. it directly connected to the deficit......because the Government has to borrow the money to cover whats owed....
 
bravo said:
hahaha,,,,,Then Harry Reid would have to be wrong and talking out of HIS ass.....

you can't have it both ways.......

Personally, I'll go with Harry....he little finger holds more brains than your and Rana's heads put together....
Soc. Sec. it directly connected to the deficit......because the Government has to borrow the money to cover whats owed....
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't wrong. He withstood the con attempt to tie the deficit into SS, and he rightly decoupled the two.

You seem especially stupid even for a repuke. I guess you are home collecting SS today while sitting on your ancient ass. And of course, I'm footing the bill for that. If you steal my SS, that breaks the social contract. I'm paying for you and no one will pay for me.

That would make you a welfare queen.

Fact.
 
bravo said:
hahaha,,,,,Then Harry Reid would have to be wrong and talking out of HIS ass.....

you can't have it both ways.......

Personally, I'll go with Harry....he little finger holds more brains than your and Rana's heads put together....
Soc. Sec. it directly connected to the deficit......because the Government has to borrow the money to cover whats owed....
Click to expand...


Oh, Daral, do you realize we have gotten under his skin, gotten to the deepest part of him...he mentions us even when we aren't participating, it is a sign of a true crush! He hates us because he can't chain us to the stove! Smart women intimidate Frankenconnie! Watch out or he will call you a mean name, like pinhead.
 
Rana said:
Oh, Daral, do you realize we have gotten under his skin, gotten to the deepest part of him...he mentions us even when we aren't participating, it is a sign of a true crush! He hates us because he can't chain us to the stove! Smart women intimidate Frankenconnie! Watch out or he will call you a mean name, like pinhead.
Click to expand...

He's deeply stupid. Reading moronic drains on the system like this guy could turn me into a Libertarian some day. Seriously, he probably has offspring. I don't want to pay for this shit, and the shit they spawn. There are a few here who I know are drains on the system and I know their children are.

I give it another 4 or 5 years of this shit and I'll be full-on Libertarian. I got mine, fuck you. I'm not kidding. I get really tired of it.
 
Darla said:
How can you have read this thread and pulled that out of it?

NO ONE IS making that claim.
Click to expand...
mott said that without SS, people would be broke...which of course would imply that with SS, you're not broke.

Darla said:
It is an insurance program designed to INSURE that our elderly are not without basic needs, food, water, shelter.
Click to expand...
it doesn't even do that. had my grandmother not had one of her sons living with her, she'd gone without some of those basic needs.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
mott said that without SS, people would be broke...which of course would imply that with SS, you're not broke.

it doesn't even do that. had my grandmother not had one of her sons living with her, she'd gone without some of those basic needs.
Click to expand...

Well without SS the elderly who are in poor financial situations would face dire circumstances.

There is no doubt that even with SS, many elderly have to make painful choices. I am all for raising SS, but then I am just a stupid commie.
 
Darla said:
He's deeply stupid. Reading moronic drains on the system like this guy could turn me into a Libertarian some day. Seriously, he probably has offspring. I don't want to pay for this shit, and the shit they spawn. There are a few here who I know are drains on the system and I know their children are.

I give it another 4 or 5 years of this shit and I'll be full-on Libertarian. I got mine, fuck you. I'm not kidding. I get really tired of it.
Click to expand...
Lighten up Darla. The world needs losers like Pavo too!
 
Darla said:
Well without SS the elderly who are in poor financial situations would face dire circumstances.

There is no doubt that even with SS, many elderly have to make painful choices. I am all for raising SS, but then I am just a stupid commie.
Click to expand...

here's the issue with SS. despite your claims to the contrary, SS funds are part of the general budget now. have been for over 25 years. As such, it is also part of the deficit. Now, in the past when congress has had to make cuts to the spending, they seem to always go for cutting money that comes to the people instead of their own operating budget. why don't the liberals and conservatives pay more attention to these facts?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
here's the issue with SS. despite your claims to the contrary, SS funds are part of the general budget now. have been for over 25 years. As such, it is also part of the deficit. Now, in the past when congress has had to make cuts to the spending, they seem to always go for cutting money that comes to the people instead of their own operating budget. why don't the liberals and conservatives pay more attention to these facts?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. You are spreading false information. SS is not part of the deficit -it is supported by a dedicated source of revenue. By law.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top