How about Biden?

Ralphy1 said:
I'm glad that I won't have to suffer thru what may be our financial future down the road. Do you really think that the outlook is that rosy with the numbers on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expanding as the Boomers look for their entitlements?
Click to expand...

You DO realize that the Boomers have been Double taxed on FICA since Reagan doubled it to account for the huge number of boomers.. AND there is a surplus in SS from that tax.. Too bad it was borrowed from by Republicans over and over.. BUT there is a surplus and the USA has not defaulted on any debt yet. In addition, increasing the cap of FICA withholdings would keep it solvent forever.
 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

SOCIAL SECURITY

is not part of the Federal Budget (General Fund). It is a separate account from the General Fund, and has its own source of income ("Payroll Tax"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The SSTF is supposed to be used to pay benefits. But, the Government is under NO OBLIGATION to pay Social Security benefits, and has even borrowed substantially from the SSTF for general operations!

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus".

Other Government agencies borrowed from that trust fund, and now have to pay it back. But they already spent it! So how will they pay it back? Through bailouts and taxes. Here is a "must read" about the problem. Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!

The Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund, and their latest Report (May 2011) explain it well.

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.
 
QuickSilver said:
You DO realize that the Boomers have been Double taxed on FICA since Reagan doubled it to account for the huge number of boomers.. AND there is a surplus in SS from that tax.. Too bad it was borrowed from by Republicans over and over.. BUT there is a surplus and the USA has not defaulted on any debt yet. In addition, increasing the cap of FICA withholdings would keep it solvent forever.
Click to expand...

I do take exception to your comments about the Republicans over and over. It is the Democrats that really have shown they don't care about responsibility as they continue to spend without authority at all. That is where the over sized US debt comes from.

Read my link to the Social Security system. The amounts taken are to match the needs. If more is needed the amount taken needs increase. It is not a tax as it is written. It is intended to be a self paying organization to help folks in retirement years. It comes from their wages and the employer, not a general tax. It is especially good for those that can never save a dime for tomorrow.
 

Why do you think your are telling me something profound.. SS has never been part of the budget... neither has the post office..and we all know what Republicans are trying to do to that... Just like SS... PRIVATIZATION is the battle cry.. Talk about putting Americans at risk of the whims of Wall Street...
 
I wish that I would have been allowed to invest just 50% of my SS deductions into the markets . Go back to 1965 and until today and check to see how the S&P has fared. If I would have been allowed to invest just 50% of my SS deductions from my paycheck, I would be living like a rock star. In 1965 when I first started drawing any kind of a paycheck and paying SS tax, the S&P was at 86 points. In 2010 when I retired the S&P was at 1123. (Today it is at 2050.)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that I would be in pretty good financial shape, even at only investing 50% into the S&P's. Before the debate begins about the mini crashes and then the crash in '09-'10, remember the market is very durable and has always come back to set new highs. People that lost their a$$ in '09 & '10 did so because they panicked and pulled their money out while the market was diving , which is a fundamental rule of investing. "Never sell on the way down. This is a buying opportunity." Those of us that stayed the course, saw our 401(k)'s and IRA's make a come back and then exceed our expectations. At least mine did.

In '10 when the market hit bottom, I bought Apple at $90.00 and it went to $800+, I bought GE at $5 and it went to $25 and so on. I also bought Alcoa, which hasn't fared as well, but it has made money. My best buy was Best Buy. I was able to buy a ton of it on my broker's suggestion and I made much dinero. I am not a Republican, I am an Independent. I vote for the person that I feel is best suited for the job.
 
oldman said:
I wish that I would have been allowed to invest just 50% of my SS deductions into the markets . Go back to 1965 and until today and check to see how the S&P has fared. If I would have been allowed to invest just 50% of my SS deductions from my paycheck, I would be living like a rock star. In 1965 when I first started drawing any kind of a paycheck and paying SS tax, the S&P was at 86 points. In 2010 when I retired the S&P was at 1123. (Today it is at 2050.)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that I would be in pretty good financial shape, even at only investing 50% into the S&P's. Before the debate begins about the mini crashes and then the crash in '09-'10, remember the market is very durable and has always come back to set new highs. People that lost their a$$ in '09 & '10 did so because they panicked and pulled their money out while the market was diving , which is a fundamental rule of investing. "Never sell on the way down. This is a buying opportunity." Those of us that stayed the course, saw our 401(k)'s and IRA's make a come back and then exceed our expectations. At least mine did.

In '10 when the market hit bottom, I bought Apple at $90.00 and it went to $800+, I bought GE at $5 and it went to $25 and so on. I also bought Alcoa, which hasn't fared as well, but it has made money. My best buy was Best Buy. I was able to buy a ton of it on my broker's suggestion and I made much dinero. I am not a Republican, I am an Independent. I vote for the person that I feel is best suited for the job.
Click to expand...

All sounds really great.. However, what about the average person who has no knowledge of investing.. What about the folks that live hand to mouth now and have bills to pay and kids to feed and clothe.. Do you see them investing that money? OR do you see them buying the kids shoes... So what happens to them? Do we say tough cookies to the old and sick seniors who didn't or couldn't do what you did?
 
Josiah said:
As a life long Democrat, I have had the experience of enthusiastically supporting a candidate who epitomized all my ideological longings only to see that candidate get trounced in the general election. The politics in this country does not reward ideological purity. Our political system is premised on the two party system and in order for that to work the parties have to be encompassing enough to appeal to a wide variety of views. If you penalize a candidate for trying to appeal to a wide range of views you're just helping the other party win. It's not pretty, but it's the way it is.....and frankly those countries with multiple parties aren't pretty either.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, Josiah, Hillary was well liked in the Senate on both sides of the aisle as she realized the advantages of negotiating to eventually getting something done, she will make a good president as she has the experience and
smarts to do so.
 
I will watch with interest what the other possible dem candidates have to say. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'd vote for her if she was the dem candidate.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top