Not to mention the fact that the prisons are filled to overflowing with kids that people had and didn't want. Sometimes abortion or sterilization should be mandatory!

 

Out here where I am, not a month goes by when someone doesn't kill their own kid. Many of those kids are tortured to death. Some have killed more than one kid!  Those people should be sterilized to make absolutely certain they never have another child!

 

That's true, BBT - the funds have always been spent (on Social Security benefits) almost as fast as they came in.  The Trust Fund balance would cover about 4 years of benefits if tax revenues were cut off.

 

For those who have Excel, here is the historical balance sheet:

 

 

If you insert a column @ BV, and sum the horizontal lines, you find that total cash income through 2006 for the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund has been $9.9 trillion, and total outlays have been $8.1 trillion - leaving the $1.8 trillion in the trust fund balance.  That means 82% of the total income has been spent on benefits to the beneficiaries - and the remaining 18% is still in the Trust Fund, saved to subsidize future benefits when current cash income no longer offsets total annual benefits.

 

The figures for the Disability Insurance portion of Social Security are $1.4 trillion in income, and $1.2 trillion in cash outlays - with 86% of the income having already been spent on benefits.

 

So - all previous administrations have indeed "dipped into" the Social Security coffers - to pay Social Security benefits, precisely as the program was designed to do.  This program has always been a "pay as you go" income transfer program - transfering income from current workers, to benefit current retirees.

 

The reason it has become so expensive (as Bob stated so clearly) is there were 42 workers for every retiree when the system was devised, there are only 3 workers per retiree now, and by 2030, there is a projection of only 2 workers per retiree.  Unlimited immigration would help - but then the population would be increasing dramatically.

 

The bottom line for this is ... it can only work if the population grows exponentially forever, or if people die before retirement age.

But what is the solution?

 

Forcing people to gamble in the stock market with no guarantee that even the money they put in will be there when the time comes and they need it?  Speaking as one who lost a sizeable amount of money in a 401K when the bottom fell out in the 1990's, I can tell you that scheme is just as silly as the secret embezzlement of our social security funds. What good will it do if people build a nest egg only to have it yanked out from under them?  We haven't recovered the lost money yet, even though we put in more than we ever did in terms of pay percentage and in terms of the pay the percentage is based on being considerably higher.

 

Maybe we could bury money in coffee cans in the back yard. It wouldn't be worth anything when the time came when we need it but at least it would still be there-- unless Uncle Sam decided to dig for oil or gold or some other precious thing in the name of emminent domain and stole it from us too.

 

In my opinion, the government should be forced to put back every cent they stole over the years, plus interest. And then some really tough laws should be passed to prevent them from ever stealing another nickel of it!

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Libertarian the Answer

To: Libertarian the Answer

Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:27 AM

Subject: Re: Ignoble at the ballot box

-----------------------------------------------------------

New Message on Libertarian the Answer

-----------------------------------------------------------
From: JuniusJnr
Message 22 in Discussion

But what is the solution?   Forcing people to gamble in the stock market with no guarantee that even the money they put in will be there when the time comes and they need it?  Speaking as one who lost a sizeable amount of money in a 401K when the bottom fell out in the 1990's, I can tell you that scheme is just as silly as the secret embezzlement of our social security funds. What good will it do if people build a nest egg only to have it yanked out from under them?  We haven't recovered the lost money yet, even though we put in more than we ever did in terms of pay percentage and in terms of the pay the percentage is based on being considerably higher.   Maybe we could bury money in coffee cans in the back yard. It wouldn't be worth anything when the time came when we need it but at least it would still be there-- unless Uncle Sam decided to dig for oil or gold or some other precious thing in the name of emminent domain and stole it from us too.   In my opinion, the government should be forced to put back every cent they stole over the years, plus interest. And then some really tough laws should be passed to prevent them from ever stealing another nickel of it!     

-----------------------------------------------------------

To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your E-mail Settings.
http://groups.msn.com/LibertariantheAnswer/_emailsettings.msnw

Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member Services.
http://groups.msn.com/_passportredir.msnw?ppmprop=help

For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page.
http://groups.msn.com/contact

If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list.
mailto:[email protected]

The stock market is gambling.  Period.

 

Conventional advice is to never invest any more than you can afford to lose.

 

 

Not sure how we got here from the opening, but I'm glad management is not too strict about digressions.  Sometimes questions have to be answered before the original focus can resume.

 

Each generation should pay its own way.  SS was not temporary, it was recognized simply as beginning legislation that obviously would need tweaking.  Those who pandered and tweaked for votes are partly responsible, but people deeply affected by the o so sad stories of  senior citizens eating dog food that gained currency in the media, (as in we the people), are the most ignorant, self centered, short term thinkers on the planet.  People rule.  Unless you take the time to inform them, find someone who can speak their language, this country is screwed.

 

The media could, but will not.  We count on a free press.  And, WHAT are they pandering to?  the lowest common denominator.   Not good.  People will rise to expectations, and all that's happening in education and politics is lower expectations.

 

 

Romantic that I am,  I still believe that most people will try harder to become informed before elections when faced with a $25 dollar fine.  Yes, that miniscule amount will get more people to the polls.  Once a majority of people actually want to know what the hell is going on, they will find out---and be SHOCKED.

This is not a new concept.  Other nations already have compulsory voting. 

 

I don't think libertarian views are foreign to the American people; my view is that they are endemic.  A group of people just pulled them out of mainstream thought and called them Libertarian.  It doesn't have to be a third party.  Party politics is mediocre, group think ignorance.  REAL problematic.

 

Stop the primaries.  What a waste of tax money.  It only hobbled the party bosses for a few decades.  Time to drop the primary myths and go straight to elections with factual information about each candidate.  Maybe something like the abstracts provided for referendums and initiatives.  Have a runoff of top vote getters, if necessary, to get at least a majority of public support for a candidate.

 

 

Thank you.   

I had four piece-of-cake, all-a-glow, pregnancies, but that is not true for the other women in my life as a military dependent.  After my husband retired, and our children were grown, my daughter and daughter-in-law nearly died; but for advances in science they would have.   Abortion has nothing to do with this topic, unless you fear a repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision.  I'm not aware of any ballot that has it put before the public for a decision.  Once the Supreme Court adjudicates an issue based on the Bill of Rights, it's a pretty done deal, and states are in violation of the Constitution if they take away the right of a woman to decide whether she will carry a pregnancy to full term.  FREEDOM of CHOICE to the third trimester.  God himself interferes most often before the fourth month.  That's why so many couples wait to tell everyone until after the fourth month---if they can.  A niece recently suffered a miscarriage just before reaching her fourth month and the whole family was devastated, and my daughter said, See mom, that's why I wanted to wait to tell everyone.  Personally, the thought of her suffering a miscarriage alone upsets me.  I made my choices, and she must make hers, what's best for her.

 

 

Feeling a little cryptic, I guess.   Going to stop, now.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I was referring to the 95% attendance rule passed in Hawaii in the early 1980's and the effect it had on their shopping malls, but feel free to enjoy your moment if you must.  I attended public schools.  

The stock market is gambling.  Period.

 

No it is not.

For some they play it that way, just pick any old stock and hope. But if you do your due diligence you can make it in the market. That's not to say there is not risk, there is. But name me anything that does not have risk. Even the retirement you have has risk associated with it. They're only a coupe of people on these boards that I have had contact with that I would think were too dense to make money in the market. Study and understanding the market can make you money.

Bob

 

by the way most all threads digress in just a few post. I'm usually the reason why.

 

Picking individual stocks might be a gamble.  Investing in broad index funds such as Vanguard's Total Stock Index or Index 500 is not (in the long run).

 

After all - if the stock market ever truly collapses, you can kiss our government goodbye anyway - because the economy is gone.

I have changed my party registration from "None" to "Republican" - in order to vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

 

I'll likely change back to "None" at some point - as I cannot support the general policies of this Republican Party.

 

I guess right now I truly am a RINO ...

We can vote in either primary in Texas just not both. So I will vote in the Rep. for the I think the first time.

Bob

Not true I voted for Pat Buchanan one year

In our local primary politics, Republicans vote for the weakest Democrat and Democrats vote for the weakest Republican.  Unfortunately, they are frequently successful. Weak and Weaker are in the race, and people scratch their heads in wonder at how that happened.  If you switch parties on the ballot, your ballot is thrown out.

 

Time to get rid of primary elections.  Taxpayers foot the bill, and they're no longer working as intended, if they ever did.  Maybe it was justified as a means of loosening the grip of party bosses on  the nominations, but it only worked for a few elections.  Certain people deliver the votes for the annointed candidate, once again.