Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am

A. So you agree that my post that reforms are needed is accurate. I never said that they weren't.

I agree 100%. What I DISAGREE with is getting folks accustomed to the idea that "they" are going to rob us and there's nothing we can do about it.

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am

B. We are NO LONGER the 'richest country in the world",

I agree. In fact, we po'.

But po' countries can still decide to spend on their seniors instead of another aircraft carrier fleet. I've googled it.

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am

but we have way too many sucking the government teat to remain ONE of the richest. EVERYONE want "government to do something" about their PERSONAL ISSUES.

Let's start with wall street, and work down to *** getting free hamburgers. Backwards priorities result in retrograde results. No matter how many ***' hands we slap free burgers out of, we're not gonna equal the savings we could get from knocking ONE wall street straw out of the treasury.

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:23 am

C. I don't support more wars. THAT appears to be the LWNJs doing that.

It does seem the bathroomer party has reformed on that - several wars too late, but there is only now.

Nostradamus'omh » 23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am

This is where you are inaccurate here, Those doing the vaccine are career government officials wanting Trump dead by any means not their fault. They gave him the real vaccine when they wouldn't have to Obama, Biden, either Clinton.

By Jove, you just might be right on that score. 
 

jerra b » 23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am

pence wants to privatize social security.

Already is privatized, by federal government. those 568 people in 3 branches of federal government legislating morality, legality, ethics, economics upon the 340 million legal citizens and 25 million illegals.

Cannonpointer » 23 Mar 2023, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:31 am

By Jove, you just might be right on that score. 
 

Instincts are a wonderful way to empathize what people mind ignoring their actual reason for being alive now. they educate on the need to know premise of better days tomorrow but living never exceeds adapting to the moment here.

Hell of a mind over matter scenario, gone on since dawn of civilization and I am the first one not dead yet catching them in the act.

Cannonpointer » 23 Mar 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:30 am

I agree 100%. What I DISAGREE with is getting folks accustomed to the idea that "they" are going to rob us and there's nothing we can do about it.

I agree. In fact, we po'.

But po' countries can still decide to spend on their seniors instead of another aircraft carrier fleet. I've googled it.

Let's start with wall street, and work down to *** getting free hamburgers. Backwards priorities result in retrograde results. No matter how many ***' hands we slap free burgers out of, we're not gonna equal the savings we could get from knocking ONE wall street straw out of the treasury.

It does seem the bathroomer party has reformed on that - several wars too late, but there is only now.

---------------------------------------------------

https://apnews.com/article/pence-social ... 1efddfaf06

Pence — yet to announce a 2024 presidential bid but saying Tuesday he was “continuing to pray and reflect” on one — has previously suggested tweaks for the programs, telling CNBC in February that cuts to Medicare and Social Security should be “on the table for the long term.”
 

jerrab » 23 Mar 2023, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:37 am

---------------------------------------------------

https://apnews.com/article/pence-social ... 1efddfaf06

Pence — yet to announce a 2024 presidential bid but saying Tuesday he was “continuing to pray and reflect” on one — has previously suggested tweaks for the programs, telling CNBC in February that cuts to Medicare and Social Security should be “on the table for the long term.”

Not a Pence man, myself. 

I think "cuts" to wall street and the MIC should precede cuts to SS and Medicare. 

You?

Nostradamus'omh » 23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:29 am

This is where you are inaccurate here, Those doing the vaccine are career government officials wanting Trump dead by any means not their fault. They gave him the real vaccine when they wouldn't have to Obama, Biden, either Clinton.

...YOUR HERO, PUPPET TRUMP, IS A RUBBER-$TAMP FOR THE BANKSTER$ TOO, YOU BLATHERING BRAIN-LAUNDERED REPUBLIC#NT... [and monetary ignoramus]  WORDLE!!...       
 

peepee » 23 Mar 2023, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:49 am

...YOUR HERO, PUPPET TRUMP, IS A RUBBER-$TAMP FOR THE BANKSTER$ TOO, YOU BLATHERING BRAIN-LAUNDERED REPUBLIC#NT... [and monetary ignoramus]  WORDLE!!... :rofl:   :clap:   :wave:  
 

How many times have you read my posts? Not a once, or you would know I voted for Trump twice as a lesser of the evils to vote for. I explained I never liked the guy since I first saw him being interviewed by Barbra Walters about his book "Art of the Deal" which was a ripoff of Art of War translated into real estate brokering.

I can deal with dishonest persons, but corrupted people will be the death of me.

Nostradamus'omh » 23 Mar 2023, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:58 am

I voted for Puppet Trump twice and every other Republican puppet [and monetary ignoramus] since Puppet Dick Nixon...

 

...everybody knows, republic#nt retard [and monetary ignoramus]...     

peepee » 23 Mar 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 12:05 pm

:rolleyes:  

...everybody knows, republic#nt retard [and monetary ignoramus]...  ;)   :wave:  

So all you do is recite generic parables to what anyone posts using the same everyone else is stupider than you remain here now. Stay in charcter, please, your scripted reality has been debunked and everyone saving face won't stop denying life in real time, yet.

Xavier_Onassis » 14 Mar 2023, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2023, 12:27 pm

They have both announced that the retirement age should be raised and the payouts should be reduced.
Both of them are at the stage where they need to hit up their wealthy GOP contributors for the Big Bucks, and of course, the one thing that their fatcat buddies want to avoid is paying more into Social Security and Medicaid. Mitch is sitting on tons of money and not up the reelection. Trump also has a lot of funds, but Haley and Pence are not funded and have to convince the rich pals to contribute.

Last I checked,  the republicans were waiting for Pence’s delivery to the gallows. 

Cannonpointer » 23 Mar 2023, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:43 am

Not a Pence man, myself. 

I think "cuts" to wall street and the MIC should precede cuts to SS and Medicare. 

You?

nothing can be worse than cuts social security and medicare. and they wouldn't wait for 25 years. 
cuts to wallstreet might help.  also raising the cap on how much income can be taxed would be good. right now anything over 169,000 is not taxed.

I will  vote for candidates that make this a priority and the sooner the cap is lifted the better.

razoo » 23 Mar 2023, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 11:55 am

Nothing but misinformation  ..................obviously you don't know for sure want a ponzi scheme is ..........

Neither do you bozoo....

From the SEC......

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

 With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse

Now, can you tell me what MATERIALLY DIFFERS from a PONZI SCHEME and Social Security??

The ONES PAYING IN are seeing the PAY OUT to the ones who got in LONG AGO!!! AND with a FUND that is DRYING UP so there will NOT be the "promised rewards"!!

Now, can you tell me what MATERIALLY DIFFERS from a PONZI SCHEME and Social Security??
(1) In a Ponzi scheme, the participants are urged to contribute as much as they can to the scheme. There is NO LIMIT to the amount one can put into the scheme. In Social Security, no one can contribute more than the amount based on their income.
(2) In a Ponzi scheme, the goal of those running the scheme is to get the participants to spread the word to their relatives and friends to join in the scheme. The government requires each wage earner to participate only within the specified limits. No one is encouraged to get their families and friends to join the scheme.
(3) Typically, the number of participants in a Ponzi scheme is limited only by the population of the planet. So it is unusual for a Ponzi scheme to last more than a year or two. Bernie Madoff managed to keep his Ponzi scheme going longer than anyone to date, so far as I know.
(4) Ponzi schemes fail when there is some event that causes a large number of the participants to cash out. There is no possibility that this will happen with Social Security. You cannot withdraw your payments to SS in a lump sum.
(5) Social Security has a very tiny last payment death benefit. When you die, that is it. Socialo Security is not a get rich quick scheme like a Ponzi scheme, it is retirement and disability insurance. It is based on a scheme devised in Germany on orders from Otto Von Bismarck, by the way.
(6) Ponzi schemes are illegal Social Security is totally legal.
(7)Social Security was established in 1935. No one has ever come close to running any Ponzi scheme for 77 years.

Now you know.
If you are typical of the common rightwing nutjob, you won't even read this.
Or you will forget it deliberately.\
But to those who actually want the answer to this, well, there it is.

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system? Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

This is entirely correct.
Yeah, if I had invested all the money I have paid into SS, I think I would have more money.
However, most of the people I know and most of my relatives whom I have discussed investments with would have gone broke.

razoo » 23 Mar 2023, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 2:24 pm

Do some homework. As it is you are making **** up ................. 

The trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless. Is this true? The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation. 

What will happen when the assets held in the trust fund are needed to help pay for benefits? The trust will start selling the bonds. Currently it has to sell them back to the Treasury, although the law could easily be changed to allow sales to the same people, institutions, and governments who  buy U.S. bonds. But let’s assume the government has to buy them back. 

If the government were running a surplus, as it did for the last four years of the Clinton administration, it would use that surplus to pay for them. If, on the other hand, the government were running a balanced budget but not a surplus, it would need to issue new Treasury bonds to pay for the bonds it would buy from the trust fund.

In finance, this is called “rolling over” debt, and every major corporation in the world does it every day. At no point would the government need to roll over more than $300 billion in any given year to pay for the trust fund bonds. We already know the federal government can easily sell $475 billion per year in bonds, because it did that in 2005 and interest rates did not even go up—in fact, they remained relatively low

https://www.dollarsandsense.org/archive ... 11orr.html

You use a THIRTEEN year old PROPAGANDA PIECE to ATTEMPT to justify your ****???

Trust me porkarse, you got NOTHING and never will since LWNJs like you LOVE you some GOVERNMENT and actually believe that you will be PAID IN FULL for your teat sucking.

The REALITY IS, all those GOVERNMENT BONDS are being CASHED IN TODAY to pay FULL BENEFITS that have been put in place. Now, DENY THAT ONE or PROVE OTHERWISE!! THE SS TRUST FUND WILL BE GONE by 2033 or some year in the VERY near future.

However, without reform, the Social Security Trust Funds will soon be depleted and unable to pay full benefits. According to CBO's projections: The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which provides benefits for retired workers and their families as well as deceased workers, will be depleted in 2033.

AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, DORKFACE???? Oh that's right, BENEFITS GET CUT by 22% and YOU are NOT SUCKING AS MUCH TEAT!!
 
 

Again, Social Security is NOT AT ALL like a Ponzi scheme, and I told you why.

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 1:46 pm

Neither do you bozoo....

From the SEC......

Now, can you tell me what MATERIALLY DIFFERS from a PONZI SCHEME and Social Security??

The T-bills on account, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, are the material difference.

Beekeeper » 23 Mar 2023, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 1:46 pm

The ONES PAYING IN are seeing the PAY OUT to the ones who got in LONG AGO!!! AND with a FUND that is DRYING UP so there will NOT be the "promised rewards"!!

That is not accurate. There are treasury notes cashed in to pay the people currently drawing benefits.

The monies being PAIN IN are stored in a lock box at Al Gore's house.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Mar 2023, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 3:20 pm

The T-bills on account, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, are the material difference.


That is not accurate. There are treasury notes cashed in to pay the people currently drawing benefits.

The monies being PAIN IN are stored in a lock box at Al Gore's house.
 
 

Al Gore diversified where he keeps it to some in every house. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

Xavier_Onassis » 23 Mar 2023, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2023, 2:12 pm

Now, can you tell me what MATERIALLY DIFFERS from a PONZI SCHEME and Social Security??
(1) In a Ponzi scheme, the participants are urged to contribute as much as they can to the scheme. There is NO LIMIT to the amount one can put into the scheme. In Social Security, no one can contribute more than the amount based on their income.
(2) In a Ponzi scheme, the goal of those running the scheme is to get the participants to spread the word to their relatives and friends to join in the scheme. The government requires each wage earner to participate only within the specified limits. No one is encouraged to get their families and friends to join the scheme.
(3) Typically, the number of participants in a Ponzi scheme is limited only by the population of the planet. So it is unusual for a Ponzi scheme to last more than a year or two. Bernie Madoff managed to keep his Ponzi scheme going longer than anyone to date, so far as I know.
(4) Ponzi schemes fail when there is some event that causes a large number of the participants to cash out. There is no possibility that this will happen with Social Security. You cannot withdraw your payments to SS in a lump sum.
(5) Social Security has a very tiny last payment death benefit. When you die, that is it. Socialo Security is not a get rich quick scheme like a Ponzi scheme, it is retirement and disability insurance. It is based on a scheme devised in Germany on orders from Otto Von Bismarck, by the way.
(6) Ponzi schemes are illegal Social Security is totally legal.
(7)Social Security was established in 1935. No one has ever come close to running any Ponzi scheme for 77 years.

Now you know.
If you are typical of the common rightwing nutjob, you won't even read this.
Or you will forget it deliberately.\
But to those who actually want the answer to this, well, there it is.

That's only seven differences. EXCEPT FOR THOSE MINOR DIFFERENCES, it's a **** PONZI SCHEME!!!