USANext Stages Swiftboat-Style Attack Ad Against AARP

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
[q[]Tell you what, take all your neoconservative buddies, find an island (a nice one even) and move there. Take all your money, belongings, whatever and rot there. No one will EVVVER take your money again. Sound like a plan? Good. Buh-bye.

It would be funny to see all the wealthy repbulicans leave. Where you make up the 70% of the taxes they pay?

I thought that our blue/red charts showed us that it was the other way around.

Thats ironic, then why is it most Democrats support social programs that redistribute wealth fro the haves to the have nots?
Because the Demcorats are broke ass gimme-my-handout deadbeats. (A large portion anyways)

And Republicans are war-mongering murderers hellbent on the destruction of the Constitution. Well, I'll say that as long as we're throwing around stupid generalizations like that.

Ok, then you tell me why the Democratic voters are by and large the pooror segment of America? You tell me why Democrats by and large support social programs?
You can SAY its a generalized statement, but its not, thats what is so sad. Democrats as a group ARE the poorer of our society, why do you think Democrats always try to portray themselves as "For the "working" man", and for the "have nots" in this country?
Gee, you do the math, but its pretty obvious.......[/quote]

Because America IS the working man.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Big tax increases for big military... sorry Goebbals.

Poor people should up and die eh? Don't like it.... LEAVE.

Ok, fine, lets go down this road.

Tell me why is it my responsibility to support the lesser in this country? Why do I have NO CHOICE in supporting the broke ass deadbeats in this country?
Why do I have to do that?

Sure you have a choice. Encourage your politicians to end social programs.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Because America IS the working man.

Ok, so if America "IS the working man", why does my money go to help those who arent working?!
The WORKING man doesnt need these government handouts just to get by!! Why?
BECAUSE HES WORKING!!!

So, while America might be the working man, the Democratic supporters sure as hell ARENT!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Big tax increases for big military... sorry Goebbals.

Poor people should up and die eh? Don't like it.... LEAVE.

Ok, fine, lets go down this road.

Tell me why is it my responsibility to support the lesser in this country? Why do I have NO CHOICE in supporting the broke ass deadbeats in this country?
Why do I have to do that?

Sure you have a choice. Encourage your politicians to end social programs.

Your avoiding the question. Nice.
Anyways, I'll play ball. Cant. EVERY politican knows its political suicide to try to scrap the socialist programs we have in place. Why? Because for some reason, if your on a socialist program you STILL have the right to vote!
Think someone on those socialist programs would vote for someone whos going to cut his money?
I think not.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Because America IS the working man.

Ok, so if America "IS the working man", why does my money go to help those who arent working?!
The WORKING man doesnt need these government handouts just to get by!! Why?
BECAUSE HES WORKING!!!

So, while America might be the working man, the Democratic supporters sure as hell ARENT!

You know what.... you're an ass. Oh yeah, 59 million people are unemployed.

News flash: 99% of Republican supporters are "have nots" as well.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Because America IS the working man.

Ok, so if America "IS the working man", why does my money go to help those who arent working?!
The WORKING man doesnt need these government handouts just to get by!! Why?
BECAUSE HES WORKING!!!

So, while America might be the working man, the Democratic supporters sure as hell ARENT!

You know what.... you're an ass. Oh yeah, 59 million people are unemployed.

News flash: 99% of Republican supporters are "have nots" as well.

So, first you avoid my question, THEN you call me names?
Your a Democrat arent you?

Seriously, firstly why am I FORCED to support those who are less fortunate (And dont tell me becuase its law, YOU tell me in YOUR words why I should support them) and secondly, why am I an ass??

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole attack on SS and the AARP is merely diversionary while the real scam is being perpetrated within the general fund and also within the stock market.

Surplus funds from SS tax collections, loans, cover only about 1/3 of current deficits, the rest is borrowed from other sources. The situation has been created by taxcuts for the wealthy, very lax tax enforcement on top incomes, increased corporate subsidies, and a war of adventure in Iraq. Much of Govt services currently provided to the average taxpayer are financed in exactly the same method as used in ponzi schemes- time shifting the liabilities into the future.

The stock market currently runs on share price appreciation rather than dividends, and has for 25 years. As corporate execs and BOD members divert a larger and larger share of revenues to themselves, the only way for average investors to make money is for the price of shares to go up, and the only way that happens is for more money to enter the market, either voluntarily, or with a forced diversion from SS... If stocks were such a great deal, then why would the folks who own them want to force you to buy theirs? Because the weasels of Wall Street are really just a bunch of swell guys?

Actually there are two types of companties one is growth and the other pays dividends.
Growth companies do not have to pay dividends as their growth provides the financial returns to the investor. Companies that that profit from a stable market(GE,Coke,...) pay dividends. And aince the there has been a dividend tax cut, more companties have been paying dividends( that should make you happy based on this little rant of yours).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Ok, now how is SS a ponzi scheme?

Pon·zi scheme Audio pronunciation of "ponzi scheme" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.

An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

This exactly describes the current pay as you go SS method. IT would be illegal if the goverment was not runnding.

Wait, weren't you rigthwingers just complaining that SS does not provide high enough profits and needs to be replaced with private accounts? Also, it doesn't promise profits from fictitious sources, it promices profits from investor money invested in US government bonds. If it's a pay as you go system, why has it been running a surplus?
It's not anywhere near the ponzi scheme that the stock market has been in very recent years.

Ponzi schemes initially pay a high return and then collapse as they able to pay returns to the new investors. This describes what has happened to SS since it was started. Initial recepiants got very large returns, current recepiants are getting reasonable returns, and currently the future recepiants are going to get less than they paid in.

This is exactly how a ponzi works.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Ok, now how is SS a ponzi scheme?

Pon·zi scheme Audio pronunciation of "ponzi scheme" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.

An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

This exactly describes the current pay as you go SS method. IT would be illegal if the goverment was not runnding.

1)SS doesn't promise high profits.
2)Insurance companies run in this manner. Would you call insurance a ponzi scheme?
(also did you see my earlier post showing how SS does, in fact, have a disability insurance component?)

1. It promises a life time retirement.
2 Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: DZip
The AARP is misleading the uninformed about individual investment accounts. I wish I could have invested some of my social security taxes in a private account 30 years ago. In the past 30 years my private investments (IRA's and 401k) have averaged 8.7% growth per year. The same amount in a secure savings account would be considerably less. Another misleading point the AARP makes is private investment accounts are mandatory, they would be voluntary and you can make a choice. The AARP is using scare tactics on its gullible members.

Another misleading point that you make is comparing social security to a IRA. Social security includes a disability benefit, which makes it much more comperable to an insurance product than an IRA.

The disability benefit is taxed seperatly from the retirement portion.

What do you mean by this?

charrison,
I think you are confusing social security with SSI. Here is a link describing how SS is more than a retirement account: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html
it also describes the difference between SS and SSI.

The portion of SS for retirement is funded by 6.5% contribution by employee and employer(total 13%). SS disability is funded with 1.8% contribution. These two things are taxed and funded seperatly.

 

[Jhhnn]

From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment. Who do you think pays the money when you sell securities from private account? Same younger generation whose SS taxes will be directed into the private markets. So instead of giving you that money through SS, they will go through private markets where brokerages will get their cut of that money.

 

[Jhhnn]

Guess what, charrison? that $1.5T accumulated over 20 years is just about the same amount that your heroes, GWB and the Repub Congressional leadership, have added to the younger generation's debt load over a four year period... It's about 1/5 of the total debt, the vast majority of which has been accumulated under republican administrations since 1980...

Yeh, we're facing a financial crisis, alright, but SS isn't the cause, it'll just be the first to get the axe... When push comes to shove, the International Bankers and America's Financial Elite will get theirs, ordinary chumps depending on their SS cheques will get the shaft...

The Bush Admin is just trying to sell the idea that SS won't be there when you need it, even though their own policies would be the reason for it...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Guess what, charrison? that $1.5T accumulated over 20 years is just about the same amount that your heroes, GWB and the Repub Congressional leadership, have added to the younger generation's debt load over a four year period... It's about 1/5 of the total debt, the vast majority of which has been accumulated under republican administrations since 1980...

Yeh, we're facing a financial crisis, alright, but SS isn't the cause, it'll just be the first to get the axe... When push comes to shove, the International Bankers and America's Financial Elite will get theirs, ordinary chumps depending on their SS cheques will get the shaft...

The Bush Admin is just trying to sell the idea that SS won't be there when you need it, even though their own policies would be the reason for it...

So you are faulting me for trying to get SS monties away from the hands of congress. The same congress that is mandated to spend SS surplusses and replace them treasury bonds.

You also fail to forget that congress was in control of democrats for most of those years you are complaining about....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment. Who do you think pays the money when you sell securities from private account? Same younger generation whose SS taxes will be directed into the private markets. So instead of giving you that money through SS, they will go through private markets where brokerages will get their cut of that money.

Things are produced via private markets. Peice of paper are produced in SS. There is a difference.

 

[alchemize]

Wow, with all your thoughts and discussion points you've shared, I don't even know where to start the discussion. I mean, you've pretty much covered all the bases. Ok next thread.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit. The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back. Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment. Who do you think pays the money when you sell securities from private account? Same younger generation whose SS taxes will be directed into the private markets. So instead of giving you that money through SS, they will go through private markets where brokerages will get their cut of that money.

Things are produced via private markets. Peice of paper are produced in SS. There is a difference.

What is being produced via private markets? Markets are a place to sell things, not produce them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment. Who do you think pays the money when you sell securities from private account? Same younger generation whose SS taxes will be directed into the private markets. So instead of giving you that money through SS, they will go through private markets where brokerages will get their cut of that money.

Things are produced via private markets. Peice of paper are produced in SS. There is a difference.

What is being produced via private markets? Markets are a place to sell things, not produce them.

Um..think about what the stock market funds....

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit.

Same is true for any investment

The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back.

Link to case, please

Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

Markets can and do crash. Younger workers can easily lose on the market. Thanks for playing.
Keep in mind that SS came to life after the Gread Depression, when many cocky "investors" like somce on this board lost their shirts and became destitute. If Stock market was such a great engine for retirement security, we wouldn't have SS now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit.

Same is true for any investment

The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back.

Link to case, please

Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

Markets can and do crash. Younger workers can easily lose on the market. Thanks for playing.
Keep in mind that SS came to life after the Gread Depression, when many cocky "investors" like somce on this board lost their shirts and became destitute. If Stock market was such a great engine for retirement security, we wouldn't have SS now.

And the young will be getting screwed by SS in 30-40 years if the system is left as is.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke."

Horse pucky. They'd have over $1.5T invested, just like SS has over $1.5T invested in US govt securities, supposedly the safest in the world...

Unless, of course, you think that the far Right will succeed in bankrupting the govt, which is a distinct possibility with the current leadership...

They have $1.5T that will have to be taxed(above the13% being paid in payroll taxes) out of the younger generation to pay for retirees. I would hardly call this an investment.

Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment. Who do you think pays the money when you sell securities from private account? Same younger generation whose SS taxes will be directed into the private markets. So instead of giving you that money through SS, they will go through private markets where brokerages will get their cut of that money.

Things are produced via private markets. Peice of paper are produced in SS. There is a difference.

What is being produced via private markets? Markets are a place to sell things, not produce them.

Um..think about what the stock market funds....

Uhuh. And how does SS not fund that as well? People do spend their SS checks on goods and services, you know...

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit.

Same is true for any investment

The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back.

Link to case, please

Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

Markets can and do crash. Younger workers can easily lose on the market. Thanks for playing.
Keep in mind that SS came to life after the Gread Depression, when many cocky "investors" like somce on this board lost their shirts and became destitute. If Stock market was such a great engine for retirement security, we wouldn't have SS now.

And the young will be getting screwed by SS in 30-40 years if the system is left as is.

They will be screwed now with paying transition costs, and maybe in 30-40 years if the stock market predictions don't fan out, if the system is privatized.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit.

Same is true for any investment

The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back.

Link to case, please

Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

Markets can and do crash. Younger workers can easily lose on the market. Thanks for playing.
Keep in mind that SS came to life after the Gread Depression, when many cocky "investors" like somce on this board lost their shirts and became destitute. If Stock market was such a great engine for retirement security, we wouldn't have SS now.

And the young will be getting screwed by SS in 30-40 years if the system is left as is.

They will be screwed now with paying transition costs, and maybe in 30-40 years if the stock market predictions don't fan out, if the system is privatized.

Paying 2T in transition costs is far less than 10T in shortfalls later.