Fiscal Cliff

[Bitsy]

Any shortfall predicted for SS could be solved by removing the cap. .

Fact checking Rick Perry’s claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

[punked]

Any shortfall predicted for SS could be solved by removing the cap. .

Fact checking Rick Perry’s claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.politifac...y-ponzi-scheme/

I have shown Shady this a 100 times. He actually can't read so don't expect a response.

[Shady]

Again the problem isnt the structural sustainability of the system.

No, the problem IS the structural sustainability of the program. You're completely wrong.

[punked]

No, the problem IS the structural sustainability of the program. You're completely wrong.

Nope that is just what you wish the problem was.

[Shady]

Nope that is just what you wish the problem was.

Nope, you can't argue with math punked. People living longer, receiving social security longer, with less people working to support them. It's simple math. That same thing that we did with OAS needs to be done with social security.

[punked]

Nope, you can't argue with math punked. People living longer, receiving social security longer, with less people working to support them. It's simple math. That same thing that we did with OAS needs to be done with social security.

The Democrats addressed that problem in the 80s dummy. The automatic rise in the SS age to 67 is set to kick in in 3 years. Read a book because you NEVER know what you are talking about.

Edited November 30, 2012 by punked

[dre]

No, the problem IS the structural sustainability of the program. You're completely wrong.

Gotcha, so you dont know what the word structural means then...

[Pliny]

Any shortfall predicted for SS could be solved by removing the cap. .

Fact checking Rick Perry’s claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.politifac...y-ponzi-scheme/

I would disagree with the conclusion made at politifact. The one determining factor that makes a "Ponzi" scheme a Ponzi scheme, is people paying into a system to support earlier contributors to the system which eventually runs out of enough new contributors to make the promised pay outs. Because the government is doing it doesn't make it less a Ponzi-type scheme. It doesn't matter if fraud is not intended if fraud occurs is what matters and people paying into the system today will not see any benefits when they retire which is fraud. Of course, government has the power to change the rules, and they know they have to, because it is not sustainable. Why? Because it is designed like a Ponzi scheme.

[punked]

I would disagree with the conclusion made at politifact. The one determining factor that makes a "Ponzi" scheme a Ponzi scheme, is people paying into a system to support earlier contributors to the system which eventually runs out of enough new contributors to make the promised pay outs. Because the government is doing it doesn't make it less a Ponzi-type scheme. It doesn't matter if fraud is not intended if fraud occurs is what matters and people paying into the system today will not see any benefits when they retire which is fraud. Of course, government has the power to change the rules, and they know they have to, because it is not sustainable. Why? Because it is designed like a Ponzi scheme.

That is only true as long as the cap stays on. Once you remove the cap you remove the problem. How about you actually read the article next time.

Edited December 4, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

I would disagree with the conclusion made at politifact. The one determining factor that makes a "Ponzi" scheme a Ponzi scheme, is people paying into a system to support earlier contributors to the system which eventually runs out of enough new contributors to make the promised pay outs. Because the government is doing it doesn't make it less a Ponzi-type scheme. It doesn't matter if fraud is not intended if fraud occurs is what matters and people paying into the system today will not see any benefits when they retire which is fraud. Of course, government has the power to change the rules, and they know they have to, because it is not sustainable. Why? Because it is designed like a Ponzi scheme.

They need to make changes similar to the changes Harper made to OAS.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

They need to make changes similar to the changes Harper made to OAS.

Those changes were made already Shady. Maybe you should go back in time to the 80s so you can know what is going on. No wonder you are so uninformed you don't even know what laws exist now.

[Shady]

Those changes were made already Shady. Maybe you should go back in time to the 80s so you can know what is going on. No wonder you are so uninformed you don't even know what laws exist now.

No, they weren't made. The age of eligibility is the same as it was in the 1930s.

[punked]

No, they weren't made. The age of eligibility is the same as it was in the 1930s.

How misinformed are you Shady? No wonder you support the Republicans you know NOTHING!!! The phase into 67 (which is what you advocating for) is already happening. New rule when you don't know what you talking about you are not allowed to talk Shady and you need to stop posting in a thread when it is shown you know nothing.

Those born before 1938 have a normal retirement age of 65. Normal retirement age increases by two months for each ensuing year of birth until 1943, when it reaches 66 and stays at 66 until 1955. Thereafter the normal retirement age increases again by two months for each year until 1960, when normal retirement age is 67 and remains 67 for all individuals born thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States#Normal_retirement_age)

THE DEMOCRATS PASSED WHAT YOU THINK IS THE SOLUTION TO THE NON EXISTENT PROBLEM IN 1983. You want a solution that was passed 30 years and that was passed by a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS!

This is part of the problem Shady you are ALWAYS WRONG.

Edited December 4, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

How misinformed are you Shady? No wonder you support the Republicans you know NOTHING!!! The phase into 67 (which is what you advocating for) is already happening. New rule when you don't know what you talking about you are not allowed to talk Shady and you need to stop posting in a thread when it is shown you know nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States#Normal_retirement_age)

THE DEMOCRATS PASSED WHAT YOU THINK IS THE SOLUTION TO THE NON EXISTENT PROBLEM IN 1983. You want a solution that was passed 30 years and that was passed by a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS!

This is part of the problem Shady you are ALWAYS WRONG.

No they didn't.

[Shady]

Medicare and Medicaid also need to be reformed.

[punked]

No they didn't.

Yah but it did happen Shady. I just cited the source. GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 4, 2012 by punked

[dre]

[cybercoma]

Awesome. The GOP counteroffer to Obama talks about closing loopholes, but doesn't mention a single loophole to be closed; talks about budget cuts, but only mentions raising the medicare age and cutting the Social Security inflation adjustment. In other words, they might as well have jotted down on a paper napkin, "cut the budget" and passed it to Obama. When will the GOP stop screwing around and actually come up with a plan? This is exactly why Romney lost an election that he could have won, since voters were growing dissatisfied with Obama. It's becoming readily apparent that the GOP is lost in the proverbial desert. They now only speak in fantasy-world talking points and have nothing concrete to offer Americans.

[kimmy]

No they didn't.

The Social Security Amendments of 1983 (H.R. 1900, Public Law 98-21) Yup

I really enjoyed watching Willard at the debate telling everybody how immoral he felt it was to be passing on a monumental debt to young people, then later the same evening assuring his target demographic that don't worry, his deficit plans would only affect people under 55. What an asswipe.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...I really enjoyed watching Willard at the debate telling everybody how immoral he felt it was to be passing on a monumental debt to young people, then later the same evening assuring his target demographic that don't worry, his deficit plans would only affect people under 55. What an asswipe.

Really? "Asswipe" ? The election is long over, but apparently such deep commentary continues from across the border.

[kimmy]

Really? "Asswipe" ? The election is long over, but apparently such deep commentary continues from across the border.

Sure. What of it?

I'd also still like to see his tax returns. If Mitt still feels passionately about serving his country, he could best serve by helping point out the loopholes that people like him use to avoid paying taxes. Thanks to his campaign, we at least learned of three of them-- "Son of B.O.S.S.", "C.R.U.T.", and "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwitch"... but there are probably thousands more.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure. What of it?

What do you have against Romney? Is President Obama also an "asswipe" for swimming in identical millions?

I'd also still like to see his tax returns. If Mitt still feels passionately about serving his country, he could best serve by helping point out the loopholes that people like him use to avoid paying taxes. Thanks to his campaign, we at least learned of three of them-- "Son of B.O.S.S.", "C.R.U.T.", and "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwitch"... but there are probably thousands more.

Why? Tax returns are a private matter. Romney has served his country in public office. What have you done for yours?

[bush_cheney2004]

Added.... It is every taxpayers right to lawfully avoid tax liability.

Edited December 5, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

What do you have against Romney? Is President Obama also an "asswipe" for swimming in identical millions?

Millions, maybe, but not identical millions. I think Obama needs a few more zeroes on the end. Romney's estimated to have at least $250 million, and now that he can leave politics and get back into private equity, he might have a billion before he's done.

No, he's not an asswipe because he's rich. He'd be an asswipe even if he was a hundredaire. He'd just be a much less famous and powerful asswipe. He's said and done a lot of things that led me to that opinion; the statement I mentioned above was just one of them.

Why? Tax returns are a private matter. Romney has served his country in public office. What have you done for yours?

I brighten my country with my sunny disposition, my civic spirit and solid citizenship, my charitable efforts, and my contributions to a number of community projects. I've offered my services to the government on several occasions; they've declined thus far, but I will be here if required. And I'm a tax payer; something Willard hasn't always been able to say.

I just think that if a guy is going to run for office on the premise that rich-guys and corporations need lower taxes, he ought to man up and show us.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Millions, maybe, but not identical millions. I think Obama needs a few more zeroes on the end. Romney's estimated to have at least $250 million, and now that he can leave politics and get back into private equity, he might have a billion before he's done.

Good for him....most politicians don't know when to leave.

No, he's not an asswipe because he's rich. He'd be an asswipe even if he was a hundredaire. He'd just be a much less famous and powerful asswipe. He's said and done a lot of things that led me to that opinion; the statement I mentioned above was just one of them.

Well, you know what they say about opinions. Kinda goes with "asswipe" quite well, since it's important to you.

I brighten my country with my sunny disposition, my civic spirit and solid citizenship, my charitable efforts, and my contributions to a number of community projects. I've offered my services to the government on several occasions; they've declined thus far, but I will be here if required. And I'm a tax payer; something Willard hasn't always been able to say.

In other words, you can't even begin to measure up to Romney's public and private contributions to country.

[

I just think that if a guy is going to run for office on the premise that rich-guys and corporations need lower taxes, he ought to man up and show us.

He did....and was refreshingly honest about how America's bread gets buttered. Frankly, he really doesn't owe you anything in Canada. You have plenty of your own "asswipes" to worry about, IMHO.