Wayne Harrison wrote: Political parties have come and gone over the history of the United States. Some people act as though the two major political parties are always going to be around. It's clear from the Tea Party movement that the Republican Party is in trouble.
I would love to see three viable parties in the United States and an end to the financial influence of lobbyists on our elected officials.
How about 10? And I don't care what party you're from, when people put a suitcase full of money in front of you you're gonna take it..
Publicly funded Campaigns Wayne....... look into it, then try to have your news channel say something about it..See how that goes over with management. I think they'll go with the video of the squirrel water skiing instead
Wayne Harrison wrote: How, if people pay in more than they take out, is Social Security a "ponzi" scheme?
How, if folks pay in more than they take out, can it be that Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in revenue? Do the math Wayne. The average wage in this nation is somewhere north of $40K a year, which is taxed at roughly 12.5% (the employee is taxed half that amount for the privilege of being employed, the employer pays the other tax for hiring a worker). That comes out to roughly $5k a year being payed in penalties for employment in this nation.
Let's take the best case scenario and say that someone is employed for 45 years and that they and their employer that penalty for the entire time they are employed. That makes it $225K into the Ponzi over the 45 years. Once they reach the magical age of 65, they can start receiving their full defined payment benefit of something close to $1500 per month or $18K a year. If they live to the average life expectancy of 85 they will receive that benefit (we'll forget about the COLA to keep the math simple) for 20 years. 20 years x $18K a year comes out to $360K, or a deficit between payments made and benefits received of about $135K, which is why we currently have an unfunded liability in the Social Security Program that is more massive than the current total of the national debt. And yes, we did leave off interest on the "money" in the "trust fund", but we also left out the annual COLA and any increases above that built in increase that might come along when the nation gets into the high inflation cycle that will inevitably result from the intentional devaluation of the dollar that will come along one day to make the massive national debt easier to pay off. We are literally borrowing more capital to make the interest payments on the national debt Wayne. Right now, today, we are borrowing more money to pay the interest due on the "loan" taken out of the Social Security "trust fund" that our Congress has saddled us with. And yet somehow we are to believe that there is more money paid into SS than will be paid out in benefits? I only have one question for you Wayne. What color is the sky in that world of yours?
The reason social security is in trouble is because the politicians kept raiding the reserves.
According to my company figures, with the amount I've paid in SS taxes over the years, I should be getting more than $35,000 a year back in Social Security. Instead, as you say, I'm capped at about $18,000. The rest of my money went to someone, or something, else.
Wayne Harrison wrote: The reason social security is in trouble is because the politicians kept raiding the reserves.
According to my company figures, with the amount I've paid in SS taxes over the years, I should be getting more than $35,000 a year back in Social Security. Instead, as you say, I'm capped at about $18,000. The rest of my money went to someone, or something, else.
That is exactly what a ponzi scheme is. Those who got in first are getting a massive amount more than they paid in. Those who are later to enter (like you) get less than they put in. Those who are entering now will pay massive amounts more than they will ever see, if they see any $$ at all.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Here's your Republican talking point for when/if Democrats retain control of the House and Senate in November:
Even if Democrats are able to keep control of Congress, Republicans said they will still claim victory on November 3.
"At the very least, Democrats are going to lose functional control of the House of Representatives," said Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Wayne Harrison wrote: The reason social security is in trouble is because the politicians kept raiding the reserves.
According to my company figures, with the amount I've paid in SS taxes over the years, I should be getting more than $35,000 a year back in Social Security. Instead, as you say, I'm capped at about $18,000. The rest of my money went to someone, or something, else.
There's an Airport named for a politician back east that thanks you for your generous donation.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Wayne Harrison wrote: Here's your Republican talking point for when/if Democrats retain control of the House and Senate in November:
Even if Democrats are able to keep control of Congress, Republicans said they will still claim victory on November 3.
"At the very least, Democrats are going to lose functional control of the House of Representatives," said Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Talking point is this...at least we got rid of some of the dead weight in the republican party. Time for the dems to do the same.
I actually think it might be better for the dems to keep the house, senate in 2010, allowing 2 more years for the American people to see what inept people are in washington, and allow a complete cleaning of the house-both parties in 2012.
Also that would not give the dems ammo, when their economic policies are proven to be completely off base, to blame the reps, who with only the house, can do nothing with the dem senate and dem pres.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Wayne Harrison wrote: The reason social security is in trouble is because the politicians kept raiding the reserves.
According to my company figures, with the amount I've paid in SS taxes over the years, I should be getting more than $35,000 a year back in Social Security. Instead, as you say, I'm capped at about $18,000. The rest of my money went to someone, or something, else.
There's an Airport named for a politician back east that thanks you for your generous donation.
RenegadeCJ wrote: Talking point is this...at least we got rid of some of the dead weight in the republican party. Time for the dems to do the same.
I think the Dems are trying to get rid of the dead weight in the Republican Party, too.
But, you didn't really get rid of the dead weight in the Republican Party. They're still members. All you did is beat them in an election among fellow conservatives.
I actually think it might be better for some Tea Party candidates to be elected to the house, senate in 2010, allowing 2 years for the American people to see what inept people are in Washington, as the Tea Partiers will be able to do nothing but vote "No" even more than the Republicans and will succeed at nothing but being obstructionists.
Also that would not give the Dems ammo, as the political system grinds to halt, blocked by the Tea Party and the Republicans blocking the Tea Party and both conservatives parties trying to block the Democrats. I'm actually looking forward to seeing the Tea Party put up or shut up and see them battle Republicans for more seats as they become the new party of "No."
I will love watching Karl Rove go up against Sarah Palin.
