Politics

[Alistair]

This is actually not true. Social security has solvency issues because congress keeps robbing it. At nominal yields they should have a surplus. If they had let me invest my contributions over the past 40+ years I would have far more in savings than I will ever realize in payments.

Actually, it is true.

People imagine social security as being like a 401k. Paying into a big pot of money which is then held in bonds or whatever for you to pull back out of later. But it's not a case of you pay in your monies, the funds sit around for 50 years appreciating interest, then you get to draw down the same money in retirement.

If it did work like that, there would be no issue in people being able to simply 'opt out', like you can choose not to pay into a 401k.

You can't do that, because you're not paying in to get your money back. Instead, your contribution is buying a service contract; the right to future access to someone else's money if you remain a loyal subscriber for X years. It is not a bank, or an investment vehicle. It is, by a very literal definition, a Ponzi scheme.

Long and the short of it, you paid your social security contributions, so your parents generation could have a good retirement. The money some of you draw for social security pensions today comes out of the income from your kids 2024 social security contributions, not the money you paid in 40 years ago. 'Your' money is no longer on the balance sheet, it was paid out long ago to cover those checks your parents drew in 1984.

But this scheme only works if the ratio of 'working age people' to 'retirees' remains favorable. If you starting having more and more retirees (ie higher outgoings), and less and less people paying contributions (ie reduced income), the entire house of cards collapses because there simply isn't enough money coming in to fulfill the deal previous payees entered into. Again, major Ponzi scheme vibes here.

We're already seeing that with people living longer and the increasing challenge of maintaining the current outgoings that results. Either you make pensions worse, or you go further into debt as a nation trying to ignore the problem. Probably, you do a bit of both, depending on if it's an R sponsored 'solution' or a D sponsored 'solution'.

That's the game we're playing now... and a declining population with increasingly top heavy demographics will make it even worse.

 

[wesheltonj]

Two problems with SS. First, congress keeps raiding the pot. Second, Congress keeps enlarging who is eligible, without them paying in a dine.

 

[WAB]

Actually, it is true.

People imagine social security as being like a 401k. Paying into a big pot of money which is then held in bonds or whatever for you to pull back out of later. But it's not a case of you pay in your monies, the funds sit around for 50 years appreciating interest, then you get to draw down the same money in retirement.

If it did work like that, there would be no issue in people being able to simply 'opt out', like you can choose not to pay into a 401k.

You can't do that, because you're not paying in to get your money back. Instead, your contribution is buying a service contract; the right to future access to someone else's money if you remain a loyal subscriber for X years. It is not a bank, or an investment vehicle. It is, by a very literal definition, a Ponzi scheme.

Long and the short of it, you paid your social security contributions, so your parents generation could have a good retirement. The money some of you draw for social security pensions today comes out of the income from your kids 2024 social security contributions, not the money you paid in 40 years ago. 'Your' money is no longer on the balance sheet, it was paid out long ago to cover those checks your parents drew in 1984.

But this scheme only works if the ratio of 'working age people' to 'retirees' remains favorable. If you starting having more and more retirees (ie higher outgoings), and less and less people paying contributions (ie reduced income), the entire house of cards collapses because there simply isn't enough money coming in to fulfill the deal previous payees entered into. Again, major Ponzi scheme vibes here.

We're already seeing that with people living longer and the increasing challenge of maintaining the current outgoings that results. Either you make pensions worse, or you go further into debt as a nation trying to ignore the problem. Probably, you do a bit of both, depending on if it's an R sponsored 'solution' or a D sponsored 'solution'.

That's the game we're playing now... and a declining population with increasingly top heavy demographics will make it even worse.

That is absolutely what it has become, but I don’t believe that was the way it was set up.

 

[Brent in Az]

I have a novel idea. Take the money that the Democrats are giving to the illegals, and put that into the SS fund.

 

[LivingTheDream]

This is actually not true. Social security has solvency issues because congress keeps robbing it. At nominal yields they should have a surplus. If they had let me invest my contributions over the past 40+ years I would have far more in savings than I will ever realize in payments.

Sir, I believe we are saying the same thing. I would have loved the opportunity to have that money invested in an S&P Index fund.

 

[Alistair]

That is absolutely what it has become, but I don’t believe that was the way it was set up.

Do you not?

I do personally, although I don't claim to be an expert.

Far as I'm aware, Social Security was formally instituted in 1935. By 1940 people over 65 could begin drawing pensions, although of course they couldn't possibly have paid much in, with social security taxes having started in 1937.

So right from the start, you have the 'current' retiree, drawing money paid into the system by the 'future retiree', with no 'federal cash holding' of any note. Money in, money out.

Since then, the system has grown more bloated and expensive, but nothing has changed from that basic principle...

A fun fact, the first ever American to claim social security pension benefits was Ida May Fuller. Her total contributions 1937-1940: $24.75. Totals claimed 1940-1975: $22,888.92. Not a bad deal.

 

[flatwater bill]

DEMOCRATS, BIG TECH, AND CENSORSHIP
I was banned from YouTube. Censored, then banned. It was temporary. I had been saying things that "others might find offensive'. I gotta quit that.

The Biden-Harris regime successfully pushed censorship down from the top. If you can't discuss an issue, or discuss the science, can't protest, then they have controlled you. Big Tech billionaires have joined them to control us Rif-Raf. Afterward, elections will be meaningless. That's what I think. (Remember trying to openly discuss The Wuhan Lab?) There are numerous bills floating about here, in the UK and Europe that will effectively eliminate the First Amendment if Harris is elected. Obama is solidly behind this, calling free speech "raw sewage" at the Stanford Commencement. That's why we need to clean out Washington, Get rid of the Cackler.

Those of you that know me personally, know how much time, effort and money I have spent trying to help children around the globe. If Harris is elected, child mutilation surgery (called gender reassignment on your 6 year old), un-necessary and dangerous injections(see Dr Prasad's YT channel), and the influx of border land drugs will increase the risk to our kids and grand kids. I feel strongly about it. I hope you do.

But I digress. What was the disgusting and shameful thing that I said? The thing so many people found offensive? "All lives matter". Yup, I said it. All lives matter. Was I wrong? My only chance to get my Y.T account reactivated was to recant. To flip flop. Like Biden on the border wall. Or Hunter on the laptop. Or Kamala in a cheap hotel bed with Willie. And I did. I flipped. And flopped.

I told the 23 year old girl that banned me (temporarily) that I was dead wrong. "All lives don't matter", I said. "In fact, nobody's life at the SH you call an office matters to me a damn bit" That did it. Banned for life.

This is the final of 3 posts that I have made in "Politics" regarding the potential harm of a Harris vote on child health. I think children will suffer. In fact, it is the only issue I have been able to reach dems with. I have talked with about 20 avid dems, and we all agree that saving kids is a priority. Common ground. As a side, not one of them....not one....knew anything about Trump's policies, The Abraham Accords, or anything else. Really, very little about the World in general. Vacuous and frightening. MNM had taught them to hate. But we all did agreed on children. Stay free.....vote. .....FWB

 

[spike.t]

Wonder if they are pro or anti hunting?.......

Botswana election: BDP party loses power after nearly six decades to Duma Boko's UDC

President Mokgweetsi Masisi accepts defeat after his party loses its parliamentary majority.

www.bbc.com

Well looks like he is very left wing...so probably not pro hunting...let's see....original party communist like....promising government stipends in election speeches....and a human rights lawyer....Great just like fkn starmer in UK....

Botswana election: Duma Boko - the politician who did the unthinkable

Duma Boko is elected the country's first president not from the ruling party, in power for 58 years.

www.bbc.com

 

[spike.t]

I did as well.

Yup just had to as well.....

 

[WAB]

Do you not?

I do personally, although I don't claim to be an expert.

Far as I'm aware, Social Security was formally instituted in 1935. By 1940 people over 65 could begin drawing pensions, although of course they couldn't possibly have paid much in, with social security taxes having started in 1937.

So right from the start, you have the 'current' retiree, drawing money paid into the system by the 'future retiree', with no 'federal cash holding' of any note. Money in, money out.

Since then, the system has grown more bloated and expensive, but nothing has changed from that basic principle...

A fun fact, the first ever American to claim social security pension benefits was Ida May Fuller. Her total contributions 1937-1940: $24.75. Totals claimed 1940-1975: $22,888.92. Not a bad deal.

You clearly know more about it than I do!

 

[Dirtdart]

I must have led a sheltered life, I had to Google "NarCan".

I first became aware of narcan watching some body cam footage of a police officer that had been exposed to fentanyl during an arrest a couple pf years ago. If the other officers present had not administered narcan she would have died on the scene.

 

[gearguywb]

Speaking of SS, if it wasn't a government sponsored program where you pay money in and then hope that in later years, others pour money into it so that you can make withdrawals, I wonder what the Dept of Justice would have to say......

Sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme that others have gone to jail for.

 

[cash_tx]

I first became aware of narcan watching some body cam footage of a police officer that had been exposed to fentanyl during an arrest a couple pf years ago. If the other officers present had not administered narcan she would have died on the scene.

I was just about to tell this same story. We live in a world where inadvertent exposure to fentanyl can and does happen, so it's not a bad idea to keep some NarCan in your emergency kit.

My older daughter who is a firefighter and paramedic in a small town in North Texas gets to administer it on an all too frequent basis.

 

[sgt_zim]

That is absolutely what it has become, but I don’t believe that was the way it was set up.

That's exactly how it was set up, though the manner in which it was sold to the public was as you describe.

From the preamble to the Social Security Act of 1935

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

There was initially a trust fund into which those monies went. But the federal government was sued over this because operating a trust fund isn't a constitutionally delegated authority the federal government has. I don't recall the case off the top of my head, but the trust fund was ended by 1938 or 1939, and all that revenue has been going to the general fund ever since.

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I first became aware of narcan watching some body cam footage of a police officer that had been exposed to fentanyl during an arrest a couple pf years ago. If the other officers present had not administered narcan she would have died on the scene.

I remember that video. Terrifying

 

[Dirtdart]

I was just about to tell this same story. We live in a world where inadvertent exposure to fentanyl can and does happen, so it's not a bad idea to keep some NarCan in your emergency kit.

My older daughter who is a firefighter and paramedic in a small town in North Texas gets to administer it on an all too frequent basis.

The same people that have allowed this country to be flooded with that poison would like you to vote for them so they can continue.

 

[barryk]

I watched the whole clip and it made me think of a time when her dear old dad was in office.

Public service announcement. If someone close to you happened to lose their life in a senseless war you can send to the following address and get a nice little certificate suitable for framing.

Lovely.

 

[Brent in Az]

Mass layoff at Boeing. Various franchises closing hundreds of stores nationwide. Dismal job report.
If the Democrats manage to steal the election, it will be the final dagger to the heart of this nation.

 

[Brent in Az]

View attachment 644716

The Democrat freak show