How will the Dems explain this?

Larry Gude

Strung Out
No...

aps45819 said:
:yeahthat: including divorce lawyers

11. We denounce all lawyers as being drags on society and accept as absolutely necessary the smallest possible number. Like plumbers with large butt cracks. Lawyers are hereby excluded from all Constitutional rights including free speech and the right to give money to anyome remotely connected with politics. Lawyers must hereby live with their clients for one year after getting them off the hook.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
...by saying (and meaning) this:
2. Social Security was a great idea whose time has gone. We must replace it with an ownership society so that ALL citizens, especially the poor and disadvanteged, will have the entry card to full citizenship and all the benefits therein; ownership.
You know, I was watching a "CSI" last night, where a woman mentioned that when her husband was dying, they planned to hide his death from the authorities - because after his death, her Social Security checks would get cut in half.

And THAT really p!ssed me off. Because if SS worked like a private retirement account, it would pay her until the end of time. She would NEVER have to concoct some scheme to get government checks - it'd be HER OWN MONEY. Not some "favor" the government graciously provides in return for 40-50 years of free tax revenue.

It really ought to sicken people that they can pay *tens of thousands* of dollars into some government run retirement benefit which never pays out a *DIME* if you die before you're eligible. Because, you're buying into a program - it's NEVER your money, no matter how many years you pay into it.

Kinda like paying rent for a house for fifty years. Even though you've paid for it many times over, it ain't yours. Never will be.

Can you imagine how people would react if they were told that SS minimum age would be raised to, say, 77? And they'd say, what a ripoff! Most people won't get ANY! You pay into a system, but get nothing back! That's highway robbery.

Always HAS been. Raising it to 77 would just rob MORE people. Making it YOUR money is the JUST thing to do.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SamSpade said:
That's highway robbery.
Good luck to ya on spreading that news. Republicans have been trying for years and liberals just put their hands over their ears and go, "La la la, I can't hear you."

It is completely outrageous and why ANYONE buys into this scam is beyond me.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Certain groups can opt out of Social Security. This is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Opting_out_of_Social_Security
Opting out of Social Security

While there is no requirement for individuals to join the Social Security program, there is no general provision for individuals to opt out of the program (some specific exemptions are discussed below). Internal Revenue Code Provisions section 3101 imposes payroll taxes on individuals and employer matching taxes. Section 3102 mandates that employers deduct these payroll taxes from worker's wages before they are paid. Generally, the payroll tax is mandatory on every worker, including the self-employed.


Groups not required to pay Social Security

There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from Social Security taxes:




  • Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
  • State, or local government workers participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
  • Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
  • Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
  • Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
  • Household workers earning less than $1,100 per year.
  • Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
  • College students working at their school.
  • Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
  • Some primary and secondary school educators have their own pension and disability insurance system that predates Social Security. They are allowed to pay in to their own system instead of the government system. Partly because these funds can be invested in securities, teachers' pension plans tend to be fairly generous.
Before the 1983 changes, three counties in Texas (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the system and now use an Alternate Plan, a private pension plan created and administered by First Financial Benefits, Inc.
 
Last edited:

ylexot

Super Genius
2ndAmendment said:
[*]Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
Hmmmm, maybe I should get that internet minister certification :biggrin:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
ylexot said:
I saw that one too, but my browser timed out trying to go there. The question is, will this work for getting out of Social Security?
:shrug: You can try.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
ylexot said:
I saw that one too, but my browser timed out trying to go there. The question is, will this work for getting out of Social Security?

You would still have to pay social security in any paycheck that normally pays social security. You wouldn't pay Social Security on your church paycheck.

When I taught for Texas, we didn't pay SS but paid into the state retirement system (much better than the one here). After 30 years you would get slightly over 2/3 of your top 3 years average income as your retirement pension. It cost us the same as social security would have from our paycheck but we got way more out of it (i.e. 67% instead of the lower SS fixed income amount).
 

rraley

New Member
Well it's been awhile, but I've found a topic that I would like to comment on.

It is great news that our budget deficit will not meet the projections of either the White House or the CBO. There are a number of dynamics that, in my estimation, have led to this shrinking budget deficit. First of all, economists overestimate EVERYTHING. It is their nature: they will make mountains out of mole hills whether it means creating theoretical surpluses or deficits. The game of economic projection can often be volley and is often tied to the individual economist's nature and outlook rather than reason. Secondly, several tax incentives have exhausted themselves (they were only temporary tax packages that were passed immediately after 9/11 to help keep the economy from spiraling even further down in the aftermath). One such incentive for corporations could provide the federal government close to $100 billion over the next several years. And thirdly, the economy is growing more robustly and a robust economy = more tax money, as we all should know. Look at St. Mary's County: reduced property taxes, more tax revenue (due to increasing assessments and prosperity due to development associated with the base). We can debate what causes this economic growth and resulting increased tax revenues. President Bush and many of you would point to his tax plan, others would not. I will say that yes the Bush tax cuts led to increased revenue in this cycle, but in the long run, ultimately have led to reduced revenue overall (tax revenue is the smallest share of GDP in over forty years despite the increase this year). Nevertheless, this is a good development and perhaps my mode of economic thinking is wrong in this case (I do not believe that reduced taxes leads to increased revenue overall; while tax revenue indeed will increase, it will not be at the same level as it would have been had the tax rates not been reduced).

What is still wrong with this picture is that there still is a $300 billion deficit, the third largest in history. This deficit, combined with the record deficits of years before, darken our economic future and has led to a crippling national debt which is being financed by foreign governments, most notably the Chinese. We owe close to $3 trillion to foreign governments, which is a dynamic that should scare the bejesus out of all of us. Furthermore, this deficit does not include the $145 billion that the federal government is going to take from the Social Security Trust Fund this year to pay for other discretionary programs. This money should not be spent on these programs, it should be saved for future benefit payouts, but since it is being spent, it only adds to the deficit we will experience in 2017 in Social Security.

What we need in America at this point is true fiscal conservatism, and I emphasize the word "true." We do not need Howard Dean's version of "fiscal conservatism" in which health care and other added entitlement programs are more important than tax breaks, nor do we need George W. Bush's version of it in which tax breaks, mostly for wealthier earners, and increased spending for defense and homeland security are more important than reaching the black. Both sides have bastardized the term "fiscal conservative" and it's time for action to meet the label. So this is what I propose...

1) don't be satisfied if the budget deficit is only $330 billion as opposed to $430 billion

2) reduce overall government spending by 5% (we have to cut, not limit increases)...my top programs for cutting: defense, farm subsidies, Amtrak, and energy

3) delay the enactment of the 2003 Prescription Drug Benefit and scale it back substantially so that only the neediest seniors receive a benefit

4) return the tax rates for the top 2 branches back to pre-2001 levels

Hopefully with these actions taken, the federal government will once be living within its means and will start to run surpluses again. With a surplus the federal government can stop its practice of signing IOU's for the SS Trust Fund, save money for the impending crisis with entitlement programs (other action has to be taken in regards to this as well, which will further help our budget situation), and divert money to pay down our huge national debt (which helps the budget in the long run because financing the deficit is the third largest portion of this year's federal budget).
 

rraley

New Member
Oh and in case you haven't yet...I suggest that all of you go out and buy Peter Peterson's "Running on Empty." It is an excellent book about the future of entitlement spending and American economics. Written by the former Secretary of Commerce under Richard Nixon, it offers proposals about what to do and it indicts the inability of both parties to address the fiscal problems of our nation. Good, easy read that is full of facts.
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
rraley said:
What is still wrong with this picture is that there still is a $300 billion deficit, the third largest in history. This deficit, combined with the record deficits of years before, darken our economic future and has led to a crippling national debt which is being financed by foreign governments, most notably the Chinese. We owe close to $3 trillion to foreign governments, which is a dynamic that should scare the bejesus out of all of us.
:yeahthat:Give it 20 years and I see China becoming the new 'Russia' perhaps even taking the world power throne from the U.S.
 

Toxick

Splat
BuddyLee said:
:yeahthat:Give it 20 years and I see China becoming the new 'Russia' perhaps even taking the world power throne from the U.S.


I would agree with you.


Except for the fact that the men so vastly outnumber the women there due to their child limiting population policy (and the subsequent "accidental" deaths of girl children), that China's population will collapse under the weight of its own testicles in 15 years.


And besides the sheer numbers, and a few nucular bombs, what else have they got?
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
Toxick said:
I would agree with you.


Except for the fact that the men so vastly outnumber the women there due to their child limiting population policy (and the subsequent "accidental" deaths of girl children), that China's population will collapse under the weight of its own testicles in 15 years.
:killingme

And besides the sheer numbers, and a few nucular bombs, what else have they got?
Rice!
 

rraley

New Member
Toxick said:
And besides the sheer numbers, and a few nucular bombs, what else have they got?

The world's largest military. The world's fastest growing economy. The world's third largest nuclear arsenal. The largest foreign owner of American debt. The world's highest level of industrial and business productivity. Quite a damn resume for an up and coming power.

Plus the child limitation policies are only in effect for cities (limited to two children) and even if that does lead to a somewhat smaller population over the years, what then China will have a population of 950 million instead of 1 billion?
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
rraley said:
The world's largest military. The world's fastest growing economy. The world's third largest nuclear arsenal. The largest foreign owner of American debt. The world's highest level of industrial and business productivity. Quite a damn resume for an up and coming power.

Plus the child limitation policies are only in effect for cities (limited to two children) and even if that does lead to a somewhat smaller population over the years, what then China will have a population of 950 million instead of 1 billion?

Foreign owner of debt? Its not like they can foreclose or get voice in the US from owning our debt. They can't force us to pay it any time they like. Its a fixed income instrument that the Chinese and other foreign governments invested in because of its fiscal security. If owning foreign government debt was a way to take ownership of a country, we would be a much larger nation already. :yay:

OMG! OMG! The Chinese own our debt!!! They can... they can... uh... get interest and principal payments from us? :lmao:
 

rraley

New Member
FromTexas said:
Foreign owner of debt? Its not like they can foreclose or get voice in the US from owning our debt. They can't force us to pay it any time they like. Its a fixed income instrument that the Chinese and other foreign governments invested in because of its fiscal security. If owning foreign government debt was a way to take ownership of a country, we would be a much larger nation already. :yay:

OMG! OMG! The Chinese own our debt!!! They can... they can... uh... get interest and principal payments from us? :lmao:

It's this sort of statement that shows why our leaders don't do anything about it. When interest rates float higher and the US budget deficit becomes more systematic (which is the path we are following right now), foreign nations are well within their rights to either demand payment, or they will pull out their investments. Both of these cases will not be good for our nation...just look at the effect that debt has had on African nations and South American nations; the same could apply for us if we are not careful (though it will not be near as traumatic as for those nations for obvious reasons).
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
rraley said:
It's this sort of statement that shows why our leaders don't do anything about it. When interest rates float higher and the US budget deficit becomes more systematic (which is the path we are following right now), foreign nations are well within their rights to either demand payment, or they will pull out their investments. Both of these cases will not be good for our nation...just look at the effect that debt has had on African nations and South American nations; the same could apply for us if we are not careful (though it will not be near as traumatic as for those nations for obvious reasons).

:rolleyes:

They can't demand payment beyond the terms of our debt they bought. There are no rights on debt other than the terms it is purchased under. You can't just stomp your feet and say, "Me want money back now!" when you bought 20 year or 30 year debt.

Our debt is more than adequately covered by GDP.

Stop drinking up the misinformation and understand instead.
 
Top