Don't Let WTFagboy Call You a Hypocrite On Medicare

In that case, what value do you bring to the transaction that the customer is paying for, anyway? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

My money is made by buying the property at a good price and hoping land value rises along with housing prices in the interim.

If land prices drop along with housing prices, I lose money. There is no guarantee in business you will make money.

Tell you what, if my GC hires any Asian hookers , I will let you know so you can come and try and fuck'em!

Do you expect anyone to believe you just passively watch the 3 million dollar home being built and the person you're building it for believes you are not the general contractor? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Yes, he does.... expect anyone to believe ... especially ICE/DHS!!!!!

My money is made by buying the property at a good price and hoping land value rises along with housing prices in the interim.

If land prices drop along with housing prices, I lose money. There is no guarantee in business you will make money.

Tell you what, if my GC hires any Asian hookers , I will let you know so you can come and try and fuck'em! Originally Posted by WTF

If they are young and pretty girls, send me a photo.

Yes, he does.... expect anyone to believe ... especially ICE/DHS!!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nobody believes you know wtf Moynihan meant when you quoted this:

"Put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. In 1997, for example, the government took in $446 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out only $365 billion in benefits. The extra $81 billion went into a trust fund (valued at about $631 billion) and was lent out to finance other federal programs. Moynihan has long wanted to end this nonsense. We're extracting tax dollars from those who can least afford it – and from everyone who might have better uses for it. Paring back, or even abolishing, the payroll tax is an idea that liberals, social conservatives and libertarians can love."

It would mean that you would have had to pay for your nation building in Iraq and not used SS/Medicare funds to pay for part of it. Instead we have to listen to you cry about "Death Panels" because you do not have enough sense to be able to follow the money.

If they are young and pretty girls, send me a photo. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I see you have a selective illegal immigration policy!

I see you have a selective illegal immigration policy!

Originally Posted by WTF

I have nothing against young and pretty girls immigrating to the US legally.

Both you and the leach who quoted Moynihan do not have a clue on the big picture of following the money. Moynihan did.

Let me give you a basic color by number explanation that maybe even you two numbnuts can understand.

1)You need to understand that... Paying into SS and Medicare is paying for our parents care.

2) There is excess in that payment from which your dollar today vs. a dollar tomorrow bullshit has merit.

3) Or does it?????....If say LL got you me and the rest of us to pay for his parents care and convinced us to invest the rest in say Treasury Bonds as you suggested as a safe investment to offset our care later in life. Then LexusMarx convinced us to spend the excess money we had left over from SS and Medicare on wars because he is a neoconic scardy cat that thinks nation building is the only way his chickenshit ass can sleep at night because he has peed his panties worrying if some Muslim might sneak over here and blow him up. The expenditure kinda fucks up your time value of money. Originally Posted by WTF

No, it doesn't fuck up the time value of money at all. It validates the concept. Look at it this way. The federal government can always borrow what it needs in the private market. In your example, it is borrowing from the SS and Medicare trust funds instead. The feds are taking money out of the trust funds in return for Treasury bonds - IOUs from the government. Those IOUs earn interest for the trust funds. Rather than fucking up my argument, the fact that interest is being paid on the money in the trust funds SUPPORTS using the time value of money concept.

Your little rant about what the government allegedly did with the money is irrelevant. Money is fungible. Whether it comes from taxes or borrowing, it all gets sucked up the federal government's big fat snout and blown out its asshole in the form of spending. The IOUs in the trust fund don't say “Special debt to finance wars” so you can't very well follow the money. Lots of spending programs exploded under Bush. You could just as plausibly say we raided the trust funds to pay for education or cleaning up after Katrina or fighting AIDS in Africa.

4) Do you now see wtf Moynihan was talking about when he said this:
In 1997, for example, the government took in $446 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out only $365 billion in benefits. The extra $81 billion went into a trust fund (valued at about $631 billion) and was lent out to finance other federal programs. Originally Posted by WTF

Moynihan was arguing for government truth-in-accounting. The $81 billion borrowed from the SS trust fund in 1997 was not counted as part of the budget deficit for that year since it was considered an intra-governmental transaction. That's bullshit because if the money had been borrowed in private markets it would have counted as part of the deficit.

Bottom line - you still have to deal with the time value of money, fagboy. You simply cannot determine whether or not one generation pays its “fair share” into retirement programs without applying an interest or discount rate to the analysis.

.

and....

..... determine when they began to contribute
..... determine the growth rate of those funds
..... determine their income for each month of all those years
..... determine their amount and rate of contribution
..... determine the amount of any self-employment taxes paid
..... determine when they began to draw out SS, IF THEY DID
..... determine their life expectancy
..... determine if there is any person eligible to receive SS "under" them.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

All of the above can be incorporated into a simple NPV (net present value) model once we agree on what discount rate(s) to apply. Anyone who has taken a course in Introductory Finance would understand how to set it up, relying on actuaries for life expectancy projections and health economists for Medicare cost projections.

.

All of the above can be incorporated into a simple NPV (net present value) model ... Originally Posted by lustylad

The calculations (formula) are set up on existing spreadsheets for computations with the variables depending on the purpose, along with mortgage computations and consumer loan computations. It is for business.

Any claim for present value based on future payments must be computed on a discounted basis, .... but that is not the "leeching" argument ... which disregards the investment earning potential of the total deposited funds over the life of the recipient and the actual payments made to the recipient.

It is spurious to compare the recipient's contributions to projected payments.

I have nothing against young and pretty girls immigrating to the US legally. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Or just legally visiting occasionally.

Those IOUs earn interest for the trust funds. Rather than fucking up my argument, the fact that interest is being paid on the money in the trust funds SUPPORTS using the time value of money concept.

. You simply cannot determine whether or not one generation pays its “fair share” into retirement programs without applying an interest or discount rate to the analysis.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes you can if you look at the big picture.

You are being fooled or trying to fool by accounting tricks and a snapshot instead of looking at the entire movie.

LexusLiar's generation adjusted SS/Medicare and then took the surplus and spent it....if you have trouble admitting it was on the vast industrial military complex, tax cuts and the like then you do not understand the two biggest drives of government expenditures.

This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind. - See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/r....48VBUUpw.dpuf


If you look at it in a vacuum, then yes they set aside SS/Medicare money but that is not the real world, in the real world they promptly spent in on war toys, tax cuts. This is like you setting aside say a million dollars for retirement and then promptly quitting a high paying job for charity work that pays nothing and then borrowing 5 million dollars to travel the world getting into fights.

At the end of the day , you net value is minus 4 million dollars and counting on a downward spiral. You seem to want to hail that as some great retirement savings plan. His generation raised the SS tax rate and promptly cut personal income taxes and increased military spending.....that is wtf Moynihan was talking about. You can not have an honest debate on SS/Medicare saving without talking about other government spending and how that effects the SS/Medicare savings (or more accurately savings that is not). There is no savings.

LexusLiar's generation gave us this grand illusion called Ronnie Reagan. This is why I make fun of the Tea'billy generation. They cry about the deficit , yet they are the generation that exploded it with their supply side something for nothing attitude. "We can just cut taxes if we want to raise more tax revenue....'' That is what Reagan and Grover taught them. Nothing more....it is sad really. Luvky for them this country had another oil play or they would be in deep shit.

Any claim for present value based on future payments must be computed on a discounted basis, .... but that is not the "leeching" argument ... which disregards the investment earning potential of the total deposited funds over the life of the recipient and the actual payments made to the recipient.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree with King in calling you distorters/liars out...

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook...te-5631920.php
Another factor that people of my generation forget is that Social Security relieved us of a substantial portion of the burden of caring for our parents and grandparents as previous generations did. It is all well and fine to talk about the assets we would have if we had put our Social Security contributions in an account and invested those throughout our lives. But the reality is that our contributions went to support previous generations

Where has lustylad gone?

Is he out looking for the SS/Medicare surplus!

How much money did you find in that account lusty?

Lusty, you got Little Boy aka wtf babbling to himself again with fabricated statements he's attributing to others, which he answers with cut and pastes. Perhaps he is working on his application for MEDICAID based on a mentally disabling condition that affects his physical wellbeing ... for which he will be issued a "handicap parking sticker" so he can park closer to the welfare office door.

Where has lustylad gone?

Is he out looking for the SS/Medicare surplus!

How much money did you find in that account lusty?

Originally Posted by WTF

Looking for me, fagboy? You're beyond help. Each time I point out how sloppy and half-baked your arguments are, you double down on stupid. Then you have the chutzpah to say “look at the big picture” - when you keep missing it completely! I'll give you one last chance. Maybe a lightbulb will go off somewhere in your libtarded brain.

Thirty years ago, we raised payroll taxes so the baby boomers would contribute more earlier toward their retirement. The sooner we start saving, the more is available in our golden years, right? So hard-working people like me and LexusLover (and everyone else not on the dole like you) forked over extra tax dollars to put into those SS and Medicare trust funds.

Now, the people running the trust funds had to figure out what to do with this money. One option was to keep it in DD accounts at various banks. DD accounts earn no interest so that's like holding cash. (As an aside, the banks would be happy to take the money and lend it out to earn interest.) The folks running the trust funds figured it wouldn't look good for the money to sit idle and not grow over time. Why let the banks make money on all this cash instead of having it accrue to the beneficiaries of the trust funds? So they looked around at other options. Then the US Treasury came up with an idea. They said hey, we need to go out and borrow $250 bn to finance this year's federal budget deficit. You have a $50 surplus so why don't you lend it to us? That way, you earn a return on the money and we only have to borrow $200 bn elsewhere. It's a win-win.

So the trust funds started investing the money in US Treasury bonds. To avoid hanky-panky, the bonds are non-marketable and can only be redeemed by the trust funds at maturity. The US Treasury counts these bonds as part of the “gross” national debt but excludes them from the “net” national debt owed to the public. As the baby boomers retire and the trust funds start to be drawn down, the amount of debt held by the trust funds goes down and the debt owed to the public goes up.

Here's what you need to wrap your pea brain around, fagboy - If the trust funds didn't exist, the US Government would have borrowed the money elsewhere to cover its spending plans each year. It's not like Bushie boy wouldn't have been able to fund his “war toys” or whatever else you object to. And the gross national debt would be exactly the same. The only difference is someone else would be collecting the interest instead of the trust funds.

Now, here is a little lesson in why the time value of money matters. In 30 years, a dollar invested at 5% will grow to $4.32. At 8% it will grow to $10.06. At 10% it will grow to $17.45. Given a decent rate of return and a long enough time period, the accrued interest is far more than the original investment. So play with those numbers, fagboy. Still wanna tell us we didn't pay enough into the trust funds to cover our benefits? I didn't think so.

.