We will just have to disagree on our views on the roll of government, the citizens and how we percieve history.
We will just have to disagree on our views on the roll of government, the citizens and how we percieve history.
translation for: Cleetus gives up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
If by saying that neither of us will give an inch on our views, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Agree to disagree. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
So many quick replies.
First off Paraflyer what you fail to mention is what happens if you live longer than your private savings account can pay for?
No social security for you. Since half the people can be expected to live longer than the average, than half will spend their last years living on the street.
That's why we have SOCIAL security. And you can think of the current plan as retirement insurance. Just like auto insurance if you have no claims you can say your received nothing, but YOU DID GET INSURANCE. This spreads the risk. Just like SS. Why do we need laws requiring SS? For the same reason we need laws requiring auto insurance.
Now as to your continued nonsense about how the SS funds invested in T-bills are not really there since the government can default on them, the same can be said for every penny of your personal saved money. Your bank that has a million dollars of your money goes bankrupt? You get only 250,000 insured by the Federal Deposit Gurantee Corp. What if it goes bankrupt? You lose everything.
Relying on personal accounts GUARANTEES large numbers of senior citizens will wind up homeless and destitute and become a health and crime problem.
As for Ya-know ,can't you read? You are saying what Bush is saying and the facts prove you wrong. Think of it this way. If you are looking at increasing life expectancy at 40 it may be 70 years. When your 50 it may be 70.8 years or whatever. This has nothing to do with life expectancy at BIRTH. That is where your chart and reasoning are flawed. Just like President Stoopid.
Or to put it in a real simple form. Once you reach 50 your life expectancy is not what it is for people born today. Your life expectancy is for people who are 50. So increases in the life expectancy for newborns has nothing to do with the life expectancy of people who are already 40-50-60 etc.
AND FINALLY TO ALL YOU IDIOTS. THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT SS MIGHT NOT BE THERE FOR THEM IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES DETERMINATION TO SCREW THEM OUT OF IT.
In fact this whole crisis is only a crisis because the Republicans are trying to end SS. And then they use that as an excuse to say its not safe. IF THE REPUBLICANS WERE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE EVERYONE COULD BE ASSURED OF SS. AS IT STANDS BUSH AND HIS THIEVING FRIENDS WILL NEVER SUCCEED IN THEIR PLAN TO DESTROY SS.
Actually, the only reason to have any doubts about SS is because ANY politician of ANY party cannot stand to see ANY pot of money not being used to further their own political career.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
If all the Republicans were voted out, then government and taxes would grow unchecked until the State was all and we went the way of the Soviet Union.
If all the Democrats were voted out, then the government would shrink almost to non-existance and the country would be run by whichever Mega-Corporation could seize control of the economy.
It is only in the balance - in the constant tug-of-war from both extremes - that regular folks can live fairly normal lives in the calm "eye of the storm" between the two. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors! :p )
So what's the point of all of those charts techs??? I barely get what you are saying, but you are changing the rules before the ball snaps. So, going with that one chart I provided, where in 1935, and 1940, are you saying that those numbers are for the people born in those year, or the people already over 65? Cause you're making little sense, and I'd love to know the truth of what you are saying. As it stands, I still smell smoke and see my reflection... :eek2:
Simply put life expectancy is different depending on the year you are born. Bush is using the life expectancy of someone born in 2005 as the life expectancy of someone who is already, say, 60. He has it totally mixed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
OK, then answer me from your first post:Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
How is that statement not twisting the truth beyond recognition??? First off, it was rare for a man to live to the age of 65 in 1940, so when you evaluate the few that did, sure, it's feasible that they would live well beyond that, as the exception to the norm. But if the average life expectancy of people in 1940 was just over 60, your statement is WRONG, and the President is right.Quote:
The facts: According to the SSA, the life expectancy for a 65-year-old man in 1940 was 76.9 years. Today, a man aged 65 can be expected to live to 81. Most of the increase in life expectancy in the past half century has been for infants, not for the elderly.
But, going by what you said, if a person born in 1940 was expected to live to 60, then it's feasible by your definition of life expectancy that the people at retirement in 1940 were dieing younger than 60, as they were born in the late 1800's, when the life expectancy of a newborn would have been around 45. So in essence, you are right, the president is wrong. People living in the late thirties were expected to live only to 45, so why the fuss about retirement age being as low as 60 anyway???
Now do you see where I am calling this apples and oranges?
It is all a moot point, natural disasters, war and terrorsim are on the rise and will keep the numbers of the weak elderly and sick down.
Yes, but I usually don't have to pay taxes on my insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
And:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp257475Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA Trustees
What a wonderful "insurance"....either increase the taxes, or cut benefits.......and this is the system you want to keep?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
So for your "private" retirement fund. Will you sign a waiver saying that those funds are not FDIC insured?
Seems rather hypocritical to have the federal gov't insure your retirement funds when you don't want the federal gov't insuring your retirement funds. (thru SSA)
???
If so I propose I will fund your retirement with a GREAT return on your investment. :thumbs:
Just send your funds to the Craigmodian Permanent Assurance Corporation and my team of ex Enron employees will funnel your savings into my offshore account.
And I PROMISE I'll make you retire a billionaire! Honest Injun. :)
When you talk about average lif expectancies, you have to realize that low average life expectancies don't mean that few people are living long lives (though hypothetically that could be the scenario) but rather that many people are dying very young, usually before the age of 5. That skews the average to a lower value. Receiving social security benefits is not charity. You get back what you pay in. Anyone who thinks that social security is evil socialism has neither lived during the Great Depression or has never seriously contemplated what life is would really be like in a depression and is living in a fantasy in which economic depressions do not occur. The drive to privatize social security is just a way to take your hard earned money and put it into the pockets of Wall Street brokers (sounds like charity?). Here's how it going to turn out: the government is going to create a special account for you to put your money into. You will have a choice of investments managed by select firms who also happen to be HUGE Bush campaign contributors. Government oversight of these special accounts will not exist. The management of these accounts by the investment firms (Republican contributors) will be totally unregulated and unsecured. The contributors (investment firms) will exact exorbitant management fees while diverting YOUR money into various shell corporations and other flim-flam shady constructs so the result will be that you will lose most if not all of your money while the contributors (brokers) will make billions. No< I don't have any links; just wait and see.
I object to that characterization Duke, the Craigmodian Permanent Assurance Corporation is neither a "shell corporation" or "flim-flam shady construct"
We have a theme song, as any noble orginization such as ours should...
Quote:
It's fun to charter an accountant
And sail the wide accountancy,
To find, explore the funds offshore
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy!
It can be manly in insurance.
We'll up your premium semi-annually.
It's all tax deductible.
We're fairly incorruptible,
We're sailing on the wide accountancy
Sail away! Sail away! Up, up, up your premium...
It's pretty simple to me. I work. I want the choice to decide whether I want the goverment to manage my personal funds for retirement. Unfortunately liberals seem to think that overall, people like myself are too stupid to be put in charge ofm managing my own money.
Everyone knows the goverment is more responsible with money than I could ever be....
....and since I really did not see anyone touch base on the topic title, I will...
"Is President Bush the Stupidest or the most Lying President ever? "
...Besides the usage of really bad grammer in that statement, it is a blatent attack, rather than a question...On the topic of lies, deciet, as well as stupidity Mr. Bush in no way holds the record, not that I would ever resort to calling any previous, or current president names.
...Some of you have been watching those Micheal Moore movies, havent you?