Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trung Si

    Please don't engage him, he is a troll, and he will keep on forever.
    Please mind your own business. I will let the moderators deal with your unprovoked name calling

    p.s. Okay, you were wise enough to withdraw your post. I am good with that.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

      You put words in my mouth. I have been among the first to criticize the Democrats when they failed to introduce a public option in Obamacare and predicted that without it, there would not be a significant decrease of the healthcare cost.

      What I said is that the private system of healthcare is excellent for those who can afford it and I saw nothing in your post that challenges that concept. And one can make similar comments about the retirement system or the legal system and so on.

      As for an example that you wanted me to mention of a public program that is more efficient (on average ) than the private one, see previous post regarding which government program delivers the biggest portion of a family's income in retirement, especially for the bottom half of the population.


      Social Security benefits were the primary income source, accounting for an average of about 49 percent of total family income for aged individuals. Combined income from annuities and pensions (including distributions from retirement accounts) amounted to 16 percent of family income

      So, yes, good private attorneys, nice 401Ks, and healthcare plans in the private marker may be the best choice for some among the US population but the public programs are the best choice for many others.
      I’ll comment on social security.
      Why does the fact that so many people get money from SS mean it is efficient?
      People are forced to pay into the that system their entire working lives and there is no guarantee they will ever see a cent in return.

      SS is already operating at a deficit because the money that was taken from paychecks hasn’t been saved. It has been replaced with IOUs in the form of government bonds.
      There is no money in the system, so the money must come from current. Revenue of the government.
      I would much rather have kept the SS money and invested it myself.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        I’ll comment on social security.
        Why does the fact that so many people get money from SS mean it is efficient?
        People are forced to pay into the that system their entire working lives and there is no guarantee they will ever see a cent in return.

        SS is already operating at a deficit because the money that was taken from paychecks hasn’t been saved. It has been replaced with IOUs in the form of government bonds.
        There is no money in the system, so the money must come from current. Revenue of the government.
        I would much rather have kept the SS money and invested it myself.
        It is efficient for those people in their retirement age and despite the fact that we have also retirement plans and 401Ks, we do not see that they create any meaningful income for the average retired and particularly for the bottom half of the population. How can these people afford the cost of an expensive private healthcare accounts when they cannot even afford to boost their social security income by investing in the private market? And by the way, the SS was created because of the failure of the private market to provide senior citizens a decent source of income.

        If you are suddenly into taking in consideration the amount of money people contribute to the system, then the public healthcare systems get less money than the private-based one. So what exactly is the efficiency of the US healthcare system that justifies its expensive cost compared to the public healthcare in other developed countries?
        On top of that, the public healthcare system provides much more safety in case of unemployment or underemployment.
        Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 20:13.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Please mind your own business. I will let the moderators deal with your unprovoked name calling
          I was talking about you, what name did I call you, Troll?, could it be?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

            It is efficient for those people in their retirement and despite the fact that we have retiirement plans and 401Ks, we do not see that they create any meaningful return in their retirement.
            If you are suddenly into taking in consideration the amount of money people contribute to the system, then the public healthcare systems get less money than the private-based ones. So what exactly is the efficiency of the US healthcare system that jistifies such cost?


            Social security is projected to run out of money by 2035.
            Meaning that many of the people who have paid into the system on the promise that they will get money back will be betrayed.

            Social security is failing and it is only a matter of time before people who relied on it will get screwed.
            And I am getting the sense you don’t understand the definition of the word “efficient”.
            if it is going bankrupt that would seem to be the opposite of efficiently run.
            The fact that many people are currently benefitting from a program that is expected to fail is hardly proof that it is efficient.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



              Social security is projected to run out of money by 2035.
              Meaning that many of the people who have paid into the system on the promise that they will get money back will be betrayed.

              Social security is failing and it is only a matter of time before people who relied on it will get screwed.
              And I am getting the sense you don’t understand the definition of the word “efficient”.
              if it is going bankrupt that would seem to be the opposite of efficiently run.
              The fact that many people are currently benefitting from a program that is expected to fail is hardly proof that it is efficient.
              You do not present accurately the SS economics. There has been allocation of SS funds to other government entities and if something is going to give it will be other government programs or there will be an increase in payroll taxes. It will not be the SS which will go first bankrupt.

              If there are going to be adjustments in the return of the SS recipients, that does not make SS worse than investing in the private market which is also not immune to adjustments, especially for retirees who can find themselves locked in their losses during serious recessions when they take out money for their life expenses when their investments are way down.




              Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 20:39.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                You do not present accurately the SS economics. There has been allocation of SS funds to other government entities and if something is going to give it will be other government programs or there will be an increase in payroll taxes. It will not be the SS which will go first bankrupt.

                If there are going to be adjustments in the return of the SS recipients, that does not make SS worse than investing in the private market which is also not immune to adjustments, especially for retirees who can find themselves locked in their losses during serious recessions when they take out money for their life expenses when their investments are way down.




                Um, if there has been allocation of SS funds to other government entities that means it he money has not been kept in SS.
                You are admitting that the money has been spent on other things while pretending that isn’t a problem.
                Yes, SS will be adjusted so fewer people get their money back meaning a betrayal of the original promise. Sounds like a great system.

                It is called a ponzi scheme. Maddof went to jail for his attempt to do that.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                  Um, if there has been allocation of SS funds to other government entities that means it he money has not been kept in SS.
                  You are admitting that the money has been spent on other things while pretending that isn’t a problem.
                  Yes, SS will be adjusted so fewer people get their money back meaning a betrayal of the original promise. Sounds like a great system.

                  It is called a ponzi scheme. Maddof went to jail for his attempt to do that.
                  But this does not show a bad management on behalf of SS. Ir shows bad management of the general government fund with stupid tax cuts and use or SS surpluses for other programs, and this can change to the opposite direction to help for the payment of future SS obligations. Also, how can a private base retirement investment create a better "pledge" for future returns?

                  It is NOT a ponzi scheme. Now, you just make claims which are completely detached from reality.
                  Ironically, Maddof belongs to the private sector where speculation attracts crooks and victims. The SS does not speculate.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    But this does not show a bad management on behalf of SS. Ir shows bad management of the general government fund with stupid tax cuts and use or SS surpluses for other programs, and this can change to the opposite direction to help for the payment of future SS obligations. Also, how can a private base retirement investment create a better "pledge" for future returns?

                    It is NOT a ponzi scheme. Now, you just make claims which are completely detached from reality.
                    Ironically, Maddof belongs to the private sector where speculation attracts crooks and victims. The SS does not speculate.
                    No, it shows that an @$$ hat of a politician named Lyndon Baines Johnson could manipulate Congress and turn Social Security into a Ponzi scheme to make himself look good. And, yes SS is now a Ponzi scheme. It wasn't when it was first started. It took a conniving politician to turn it into one.

                    The gist of why it is a Ponzi scheme is seen in this:

                    The basic premise of a Ponzi scheme is "to rob Peter to pay Paul". Initially, the operator pays high returns to attract investors and entice current investors to invest more money. When other investors begin to participate, a cascade effect begins. The schemer pays a "return" to initial investors from the investments of new participants, rather than from genuine profits.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
                    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 27 Feb 20, 21:29.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      No, it shows that an @$$ hat of a politician named Lyndon Baines Johnson could manipulate Congress and turn Social Security into a Ponzi scheme to make himself look good. And, yes SS is now a Ponzi scheme. It wasn't when it was first started. It took a conniving politician to turn it into one.
                      First of all, if somebody robs somebody that is the rest of the federal government which used the surpluses of the SS. Johnson's war on poverty started only because the @sshats in the private market of Johnson's time could not create an economy that could support retirees and the poor.. And things do not seem to become better. The companies who are willing to offer perks like pension plans to their employees become rare, especially for employees with just secondary education. Part time jobs are also not known for offering 401K plans and other such perks. Roughly, 50% do not have a work-based retirement plan

                      http://longevity.stanford.edu/sightl...report-mobile/

                      Table-2.2-1030x255.png
                      Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 21:51.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • Let me sum up the answer to that with this:

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Let me sum up the answer to that with this:

                          What lack of planning?

                          Did you see that 50% do not have an employer sponsored retirement plan? This means that they also lose the employer contributions to this retirement plan. As I said, the boomers lived in an era where perks and full-time employment in the same company were quite common.

                          Also, when the majority of Americans do not seem to contribute adequate money for their retirement, the problem is with the system of the retirement and not with the people themselves.
                          Trying to put the blame on about half of the US population for supposedly not planning responsibly for their future instead of admitting that the system is inadequate to meet the needs (or even faults if you wish) of the average American does not make much sense.
                          Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 22:19.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            But this does not show a bad management on behalf of SS. Ir shows bad management of the general government fund with stupid tax cuts and use or SS surpluses for other programs, and this can change to the opposite direction to help for the payment of future SS obligations. Also, how can a private base retirement investment create a better "pledge" for future returns?

                            It is NOT a ponzi scheme. Now, you just make claims which are completely detached from reality.
                            Ironically, Maddof belongs to the private sector where speculation attracts crooks and victims. The SS does not speculate.
                            Maddof went to jail.
                            people in the private sector who do as SS is will be punished. With SS, the only people who will be punished are those who trust in the government.

                            I’m sorry you don’t want to believe SS is a Ponzi scheme, but the facts are there and TAG is exactly right.

                            There are no SS surpluses anymore.
                            Tax cuts have nothing to do with SS.
                            It is fairly clear you have no idea what you are talking about, so feel free to trust in SS to take care of you.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                              Maddof went to jail.
                              people in the private sector who do as SS is will be punished. With SS, the only people who will be punished are those who trust in the government.

                              I’m sorry you don’t want to believe SS is a Ponzi scheme, but the facts are there and TAG is exactly right.

                              There are no SS surpluses anymore.
                              Tax cuts have nothing to do with SS.
                              It is fairly clear you have no idea what you are talking about, so feel free to trust in SS to take care of you.
                              But fortunes were lost.
                              Yes, we saw how the people responsible for the derivatives cluster**** were punished.

                              I just told you who robs the SS and how the problem can be solved since the SS can get the funds that were used by other parts of the government when the SS surpluses were used to cover stupid tax cuts that affected other federal programs and I saw no counterpoints.

                              I just see cheap talking points without reason which conflate demographic trends and increased life expectancy with ponzi schemes.. And I do not see any point in bitching about the adjustments that may come in future SS benefits while at the same time holding the belief that the private market can guarantee a return without adjustments or without ponzi schemes. The fact that you even brought Maddof in the conversation to complain about the SS shows that you are unreasonable.

                              And my point is that public programs and SS benefits a big part of the American society, roughly the bottom fifty percent as I showed.. I am not saying that SS benefits everybody or me and you specifically.. On the other hand, I always laugh when I see public employees talk about the distrust they have about the government. Are not you a government employee?
                              Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 23:02.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                What lack of planning?

                                Did you see that 50% do not have an employer sponsored retirement plan? This means that they also lose the employer contributions to this retirement plan. As I said, the boomers lived in an era where perks and full-time employment in the same company were quite common.
                                Since when did retirement planning depend on your employer doing it? If your employer doesn't contribute that's not your fault. It's your fault you didn't plan around that.

                                Also, when the majority of Americans do not seem to contribute adequate money for their retirement, the problem is with the system of the retirement and not with the people themselves.
                                This statement is nothing short of stupid. In essence you are saying that because people didn't bother to contribute to their retirement it's a problem with the system not the idiot people who didn't bother to plan ahead. What kind of complete nonsense is that?


                                Trying to put the blame on about half of the US population for supposedly not planning responsibly for their future instead of admitting that the system is inadequate to meet the needs (or even faults if you wish) of the average American does not make much sense.
                                Yep. Most people are idiots. You are showing us you're one of them by trying to pin the problem with not having an adequate retirement plan on anyone but the person retiring. That may be harsh, but it's a totally fair assessment.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X