Tea Terrorists - champions of debt avoidance

Aw yes, TEA party and debts. I vividly remember the 4th of July rally a couple of years ago at the "Ranch" where they filmed Dallas. I spoke quiet a while with a young fellow about how out of control the government had become. It's hard to forget a conversation with a young guy wearing a USMC "T" shirt and two artificial arms. Debts indeed, debts indeed.

WTF, you brought it up, I was thinking maybe this time you'd have some facts to back up your statement. I guess not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You asked for it and here it is. I stand by my statement that the older generation set up a system where they get back more than they put in. Any so called conserative would realize what a con job that is. That is why I say they are greedy pld fucs or stupid old fucs, either way we should have made adjustments to this system as we realized we lived longer and health care cost soared.

But no , the Tea Party folks (you know, the old fucs) want to cut funding to college kids instead of stepping up to the plate and admitting that they set up a system where they want the younger generation to pay for their retirement by not helping them pay for their education. Thus in my book, they are greed muther fuckers.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...-in-retirement


Married couples generally benefit the most from Social Security and Medicare payments, especially when one spouse earns significantly more than the other. A two-earner couple with one spouse earning the average wage each year ($43,100 in 2010) and the other spouse earning 45 percent of the average wage annually ($19,400 in 2010) who both retire in 2010 will get back $300,000 more in retirement benefits than they paid into the system. A couple with this earnings history would pay $500,000 in taxes over their lifetime, but get back $800,000 in benefits.
When both members of the couple earn the same average wage over their working life, they get back $192,000 more than their tax contributions. In this case the spouses paid $690,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes and are likely to get $882,000 worth of benefits in

WTF,
You are only looking at principal. Nobody puts money into a fund or account every week for 40+ years without seeing a return on investment. Using your silly argument they should have put it under the mattress.

WTF,
You are only looking at principal. Nobody puts money into a fund or account every week for 40+ years without seeing a return on investment. Using your silly argument they should have put it under the mattress. Originally Posted by Budman

Here is another example just for your slow ass!
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=124889549

Take a hypothetical employee who entered the workforce in 1965 and retired in 2010, and assume that employee earned the country's median income throughout his career. That person and his employer would have paid about $23,000 in Medicare taxes by the time the employee retired.
If the amount contributed each year had been put into a savings account earning 5 percent interest, there would have been a balance in the employee's account at the end of the employee's career of about $50,000.
The annual average benefit paid to Medicare participants today is about $11,700. Of that amount, most Medicare beneficiaries pay an annual premium of about $1,200, leaving a net average cost of just over $10,000.
So it would only take about five years to exhaust the contributions made by the employee, assuming that those contributions would have been placed in a savings account.
However, the average life expectancy at age 65 is now 18 years, meaning the money put into the system for our hypothetical employee would run out 13 years before the employee dies.
The federal government currently estimates that after deducting the premiums Medicare beneficiaries pay, the total cost for the average beneficiary for his or her lifetime will be more than $250,000.
Even if we discount those future benefits to their current net present value (basically the amount you would need in savings today to pay for the average person's Medicare benefits) the average employee's contributions still cover less than one-third of the cost.

You Tea Terrorist are like little 5 year olds, no matter how good the broccoli I am feeding is good for you long term health, you cry and cry for that Reagan candy.

Just because you scream and holler will not change the facts. You have not paid enough in for wtf you are taking out of these programs.

Reagan basically adjusted the SS system in 86 (?) but promptly spent the excess on increased military build up. Some may argue that was a good investement but that is wtf happened. I would atrgue that the Soviet Union was brought down by low oil prices. The Arabs flooded the market because they did not like their presence in Afgan. I would say the opposite has happened for the last ten years. But that really is for another discussion.

Your argument is still flawed. You assume that everyone lives long enough to recieve benefits. How many people put into the sytem and never receive a penny of benefits? You also claim that the "greedy old fucs" designed a system knowing they were going to out live the funds? Life expectancy in the US in 1960 was less than 70 years. This was for people born in 1960. So the "greedy old fucs" that put the system in place probably didn't have that rosie of a life expectancy at the time.

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf

Your argument is still flawed. You assume that everyone lives long enough to recieve benefits. How many people put into the sytem and never receive a penny of benefits? You also claim that the "greedy old fucs" designed a system knowing they were going to out live the funds? Life expectancy in the US in 1960 was less than 70 years. This was for people born in 1960. So the "greedy old fucs" that put the system in place probably didn't have that rosie of a life expectancy at the time.

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf Originally Posted by Budman

God Damn, what is it with you guys named budman?

Do you not understand the average? Yes folks who die before they hit 65 get fuc'd.

But on average and that is wtf the first article was ( you do realize that we are starting to run a deficit in that program?) on average we are putting less in than we are taking out!

Now did you read this when I posted it thirty minutes ago?

''That is why I say they are greedy old fucs or stupid old fucs, either way we should have made adjustments to this system as we realized we lived longer and health care cost soared. ''

When we try and make adjustments the greedy old fucs are the ones crying the loudest. The Tea Terrorist. That is why I call them greedy old fucs!

Having a discussion with a fool like you is pointless. I don't know anybody who believes that the SS/MC system needs to be adjusted but you seem to think that the current recipients of SS/MC are greedy and hold all the blame for this situation and therefore should bear all the burden of making it solvent. In your little pea brain you would cut off all benefits to these "greedy old fucs" unless their liberal I'm sure. The blame for this crisis is the fucking politicos who have been spending our dollars like it grows on trees.

Having a discussion with a fool like you is pointless. I don't know anybody who believes that the SS/MC system needs to be adjusted but you seem to think that the current recipients of SS/MC are greedy and hold all the blame for this situation and therefore should bear all the burden of making it solvent. In your little pea brain you would cut off all benefits to these "greedy old fucs" unless their liberal I'm sure. The blame for this crisis is the fucking politicos who have been spending our dollars like it grows on trees. Originally Posted by Budman

No Budman, you having a discussion with me is pointless. You do not know the subject matter.

Did you mean that nobody thinks SS/MC needs adjusting? Everybody knows it needs adjusting , I think is wtf you meant.

The old fucs vote like crazy. Did you see wtf they did when Obama tried to make adjustments? They cried "Death Panels"

Did you see wtf they did when Paul Ryan tried to make adjustments? They shouted him down when he went back home.

Yes they are greedy fucs. They want to cut school funding for our youth instead of fixing a problem they created. They elected these politicans that you talk about, so yes, they are to fuc'n blame.

You're right about one thing. I did make a typo and I agree that everybody believes it needs adjusting. What we disagree on is who's to blame. IMO the blame lays squarely on the backs of the politicos who have spent every dime that comes in x 10.

You're right about one thing. I did make a typo and I agree that everybody believes it needs adjusting. What we disagree on is who's to blame. IMO the blame lays squarely on the backs of the politicos who have spent every dime that comes in x 10. Originally Posted by Budman

But we elect them.

So I disagree with you, I think the blame is on us.

They will do wtf ever we tell them to do to keep getting elected.

Look how big a fuss people have made when politicians actually tell them the truth.

Obama was called Death Panel when he told them the truth anf Paul Pyan got the cold shoulder from people on his healthcare plan.

We are the problem.

I'm going to surprise you at least a little, WTF, because I am going to agree with you at least in part. The SS and Medicare system are working just as planned by the politicians. They have created a dependency class who will always scream if their benefits get cut. Many of the "old fucks" have been trained to rely on government for a subsistence level of retirement, which for many individuals would be disastrous if cut. Sure, we voted for it (I didn't) but we weren't told up front how the program would work.

I would support a partially privatized system, where the money collected could be placed in certain funds approved by the government. Make it kind of a hybrid defined contribution/ defined benefit plan. By that I mean that if the return does not equal what would have been provided by SS, government would supplement up to that level. If the return exceeds that which would have been provided by SS, good for the investor. If someone dies before collecting, or before the private funds are used up, one-half of the remainder would go to the government to help cover the supplementation program. This would cost a lot less, and people would have some ownership in the system. (Normally I resist government involvement, but since the collection system is in place, the government should have some say in where it is invested.)

There, problem solved. Now to school funding . . .

Did you bring me anything from NYC?

COG. School funding?? You mean how to cut school funding by 60%? Given that in the last 30 years, school funding (in real dollars) has increased 2.5 times and outcomes are flat, it would seem that dropping back to 1980 spending levels would be warranted. What is interesting about schools is that is where you would think that a lot of innovation and independent thought would occur. Exactly the opposite is true. Maybe because they are dependent on government dollars and have no reason to innovate. For profit private schools are the most innovative groups I have ever seen. They have to be. Also, education administration has exploded from 25 years ago. I grew up in a rural county in the south. There were 25 total schools. 12 elementary, 8 jr. high (middle). 5 high schools. The ENTIRE administrative staff at the county level was 12. (mid 1970s). Currently there are over 150 in the country administrative staff. About 50 of them have county cars. they have a huge new building. The student population in the county has decreased by 5% in the last 30 years. hmmm...

Blue, I was joking. This thread isn't about school funding. I was just yanking WTF's chain.

But I think we would have a lot of common ground concerning the problems with education.

I thought he was bringing you the clap? did you not get your delivery.