2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

[Guest NewsBot]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary on Sunday said he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul....

 

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

 

More...

[Old Salt]

Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit...

 

...his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

Political speak for: "Of course taxes are going up - how else did you think we were going to pay for all this sh!t."

[RoyalOrleans]

Wow... that's a shocker!

 

Ok... I'm calm... just those evil, greedy rich people, right?

 

(Please note: sarcasm is hard to convey over the interweb.)

[eddo]

Wow... that's a shocker!

 

Ok... I'm calm... just those evil, greedy rich people, right?

 

(Please note: sarcasm is hard to convey over the interweb.)

 

I understood the sarcasm loud and clear.

[ImWithStupid]

But, but, Senator Hopey Changey said...

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U]YouTube - President Obama's Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year[/ame]

 

 

Is this something like...

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w]YouTube - George H. W. Bush[/ame]

 

 

No, it's exactly the same.

[timesjoke]

Well Obama has broken just about every campaign promise so why not this one too?

[phreakwars]

He has? Be specific, which promises did he break?

.

.

[eddo]

He has? Be specific, which promises did he break?

.

.

 

Here's 11- as of March 12th:

Obama racks up list of broken promises- WorldNetDaily

 

Here's some more (although some are doubles of the first link):

Promise Broken rulings on the Obameter

[timesjoke]

He has? Be specific, which promises did he break?

.

.

 

You know Bender, I am a tad dissapointed you had to ask, why not just pay attention to what is happening as it happens instead of walking through life with your liberal/socialist blinders on.

 

Read what eddo offered and let's see if you can come back and admit that your messiah is not the guy he pretends to be.

 

 

 

 

We will have tax increases, one way or another no matter what happens. If they try to hide their tax increases on the "rich" those taxes will imply filter down to everyone in the form of higher prices for every day products.

 

 

The consumer pays all taxes.

[phreakwars]

First of all, you had to have eddo save you from having to answer the question. I know exactly what promises he has broken. I happen to have the URL eddo listed bookmarked for quite some time, you'll even notice I reference it in another post on here rebutting you on this exact same thing. Either way, the promises are MOST CERTAINLY not the ones your making them out to be. End income tax for seniors? $3000 tax credit for companies that create jobs? Recognize the Armenian genocide? Come on, pick a better broken promise to bitch about.

 

As far as raising taxes goes, his promise was no new taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He has said again, contrary to what the Republican Guetner says, that he is committed to keeping that promise. Personally, I say HURRY UP AND RAISE THEM. Because to me... his campaign promise was that he was gonna help the economy by sticking it to the mother fukkers that have been sticking it to the middle class by raising their taxes. I'm pissed off that it's taking so damn long.

 

Higher prices to the consumer? Really? So let me get this straight... if we raise the minimum wage, it means higher prices, if we tax the rich more, it means higher prices. So which is it? Both? I call bullshiit. Do you have ANY stats to back up that? I realize your feeble mind has programmed you to defend the rich. It's not your fault really, it's what the lobbyist have fed into your leaders minds and pockets to convince you of this. They hang out in Washington and work on ways to line their pockets off the backs of the working class and counter by trying to portray those working class as the poor welfare class that you should hate and call lazy.

 

And there ya go again using the Messiah line... Messiah? Yeah maybe if you right wingers weren't so damn obsessed calling the guy Messiah, you'd stop treating him like one and expecting him to pull off a fukking miracle.

 

Then again, our economy IS in recovery whether you wanna own up to it or not.

 

And SO WHAT if he does raise taxes on the middle class? Big deal. Afraid of contributing to the shiit we all live in are ya? Perhaps if you wouldn't have voted for an asshole war monger who spent money like it was going out of style, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Yeah, we spent it all on his watch, your just mad that we now gotta pay for it on Obama's watch.

.

.

[eddo]

First of all, you had to have eddo save you from having to answer the question.

 

I'm just everybody's bitch, ain't I???

 

[ImWithStupid]

First of all, you had to have eddo save you from having to answer the question. .

 

I don't know if I'd give eddo the credit. Ali probably made him do it.

 

 

As far as raising taxes goes, his promise was no new taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He has said again, contrary to what the Republican Guetner says, that he is committed to keeping that promise .

 

Geithner is a Democrat and the head of the White House Economic Council, Larry Summers said it too. The problem was, they weren't supposed to say anything before the fate of the socialized medicine ends up, kinda like the second quarter state of the economy report that the White House is burying until after the health care vote.

 

 

And SO WHAT if he does raise taxes on the middle class? Big deal. Afraid of contributing to the shiit we all live in are ya? Perhaps if you wouldn't have voted for an asshole war monger who spent money like it was going out of style, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Yeah, we spent it all on his watch, your just mad that we now gotta pay for it on Obama's watch.

.

.

 

Yes, the Republicans in power did spend a lot of money as if they were Democrats, but the main reason for the economy was caused by the community reinvestment act causing the housing bubble, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (Democrat feel good legislation and projects to make it a right to own a house. How ya feeling about it now?). Now they want to make a new GSE system doomed to fail in health care, and since January 20th the Democrats have appropriated more money to be spent then all the Presidents and Congress' that have come before them put together.

 

 

I blame Jimmy Carter

[phreakwars]

Democrats did it, even though the house and senate were ran by the Repukes at the time? Nice try. You fail.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho3g8UjimdY]YouTube - Shocking Facts About Red States With A Bigger Shock At End About The CBO Health Report[/ame]

.

.

[RoyalOrleans]

Democrats did it, even though the house and senate were ran by the Repukes at the time? Nice try. You fail.

 

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. The origins of this crisis go back to the CRA ("Community Reinvestment Act") passed late in the Carter administration, and given teeth under the anointed Clinton. The Great and Powerful Obama was the legal representative pushing Acorn's case that granted CRA teeth to block mergers, expansions and other general business practices of any bank or agency providing consumer mortgages if they didn't also provide graft, um, loans to otherwise unqualified people.

 

They accomplished this by personally attacking the bank\instiution's executives and families (not unlike Hitler's Brown Shirts back in the day). In the end, companies like Bank of America (BAC) set aside billions and handed it to Acorn to allow them to underwrite the loans, which (BAC, others) would then carry.

 

VERY VERY bad business, but this is what you get for knuckling under to blackmail. An old saying; once you pay the Dennegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. Basically, once you pay a ransom, it never goes away, just continues to rise just like dealing with any other type of playground bully.

 

So; we have the Feds creating pressure from one direction and tacit allowance of blackmail and personal attacks from Acorn on the other. Then the FED gets involved and starts dropping interest rates, making mortgages less expensive (in the near term). On the other side, the banking lobby gains permission to create derivatives to spread the risk (and add leverage) to their increasing portfolio of high-risk "sub-prime" mortgages that they have to carry in order to comply with new Banking regulations coming out of the Senate Banking committee, headed by Barney.

 

Add to this mess, Fanny and Freddie are the prime purchasers of these sub prime mortgages, which creates the market furor. Until Fannie and Freddie were ordered by Frank's committee to increase dramatically its portfolio of sub-prime mortgages (to the tune of a trillion initially, to a similar target annually ) there was a limited market for sub primes. Now the originating banks can get the initial fees, then sell the mortgages\securities packages to Fannie and Freddie.

 

Once a liquid market was created other investment houses (US and otherwise) got in the act as the securities could be traded much like other bonds.

 

This entire furor was pushed and then cheer leaded by Congress and the Fed's artificially low rates.

 

Now the house of cards has collapsed, and we've, against all logic, bought out the over leveraged insurance and banks.

 

A curious aside; before Obama took office, the Democrat Congress wouldn't allow a change to the financial reporting methods under which the banks were required to value their bonds and other assets at current liquid market prices (mark-to-market). This meant that one month you had a billion in mortgage backed assets, then the market siezes, and no one wants to buy so suddenly they are worth zilch, zero, nado, zip, et al. Balance sheets are bad and the market crashes (just before an election).

 

This is silly; just because you can't sell your house in a day, doesn't mean that it has no value.

 

Once Obama took office, this rule was changed... magically balance sheets are "healthier". Ask this very quietly, could this crisis have been manipulated for political gain?

 

NOW... Republicans on the House Oversight panel are finally getting down to business on what caused the initial housing crisis that led to the collapse of the economy. A new 26-page report highlight's the government's role in trying to increase sub-prime home ownership. Michelle Malkin has some details:

 

Political pressure led to the erosion of responsible lending practices: In the early 1990s, Fannie and Freddie began to come under considerable political pressure to lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers. (p.6)

 

Lower down payments led to housing prices that outpaced income growth: Once government-sponsored efforts to decrease down payments spread to the wider market, home prices became increasingly untethered from any kind of demand limited by borrowers' ability to pay. Instead, borrowers could just make smaller down payments and take on higher debt, allowing home prices to continue their unrestrained rise. Some statistics help illustrate how this occurred. Between 2001 and 2006, median home prices increased by an inflation-adjusted 50 percent, yet at the same time Americans' income failed to keep up. (p. 11)

 

Members of an "affordable housing" coalition shared profits with political allies to help legitimize their business practices: Fannie Mae created and used The Fannie Mae Foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically-connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It also hired well-known academics to give an aura of academic rigor to policy positions favorable to Fannie Mae. One paper coauthored by now-Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, concluded that the chance was minimal that the GSEs were not holding sufficient capital to cover their losses in the event of a severe economic shock. The authors suggested that "the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero," and that "the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is just $2 million." (p.7)

 

The Government Sponsored Enterprises led the way into the housing crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leaders in risky mortgage lending. According to an analysis presented to the Committee, between 2002 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.9 trillion of mortgages made to borrowers with credit scores below 660, one of the definitions of "subprime" used by federal banking regulators. This represents over 54% of all such mortgages purchased during those years. (p.24)

[timesjoke]

First of all, you had to have eddo save you from having to answer the question. I know exactly what promises he has broken. I happen to have the URL eddo listed bookmarked for quite some time, you'll even notice I reference it in another post on here rebutting you on this exact same thing.

 

So your just pretending to be uninformed every time you ask a question.....why?

 

More liberal/socialist games? Why not just discuss things in an honest way?

 

 

Either way, the promises are MOST CERTAINLY not the ones your making them out to be. End income tax for seniors? $3000 tax credit for companies that create jobs? Recognize the Armenian genocide? Come on, pick a better broken promise to bitch about.

 

A broken promise is a broken promise Bender, integrity and all that.......are you saying a liberal/socialist does not have to keep their promises?

 

 

As far as raising taxes goes, his promise was no new taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He has said again, contrary to what the Republican Guetner says, that he is committed to keeping that promise. Personally, I say HURRY UP AND RAISE THEM. Because to me... his campaign promise was that he was gonna help the economy by sticking it to the mother fukkers that have been sticking it to the middle class by raising their taxes. I'm pissed off that it's taking so damn long.

 

Republican Guetner?

 

Um........no Bender, his is not a Republican....talk about fail, lol.

 

 

Higher prices to the consumer? Really? So let me get this straight... if we raise the minimum wage, it means higher prices, if we tax the rich more, it means higher prices. So which is it? Both? I call bullshiit. Do you have ANY stats to back up that? I realize your feeble mind has programmed you to defend the rich. It's not your fault really, it's what the lobbyist have fed into your leaders minds and pockets to convince you of this. They hang out in Washington and work on ways to line their pockets off the backs of the working class and counter by trying to portray those working class as the poor welfare class that you should hate and call lazy.

 

It is called the cost of doing business Bender. A company in business must take all costs (this is everything from electric bills to getting materials, to taxes) to figure out the base cost of being in business. If you raise minimum wage this raises the cost of doing business. If you raise taxes this raises the cost of doing business.

 

Basic math.

 

 

And there ya go again using the Messiah line... Messiah? Yeah maybe if you right wingers weren't so damn obsessed calling the guy Messiah, you'd stop treating him like one and expecting him to pull off a fukking miracle.

 

I expect him to do as he promised, where is the "change" in Washington if he is just going to ignore all his promises and act 100% partisan?

 

It is guys like you who deify this man to the point you can never find fault in anything he does.

 

 

Then again, our economy IS in recovery whether you wanna own up to it or not.

 

Credit for what? Keeping unemployment below 8% as he promised?

 

And SO WHAT if he does raise taxes on the middle class? Big deal. Afraid of contributing to the shiit we all live in are ya?

 

It is a big deal because he promised not to but he has such a hardon for creating socialist programs the people do not really matter, only the power matters.

 

Perhaps if you wouldn't have voted for an asshole war monger who spent money like it was going out of style, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Yeah, we spent it all on his watch, your just mad that we now gotta pay for it on Obama's watch.

.

.

 

In september 2003 the Bush administration tried to reform the housing finance industry, this would have formed to supervise fannie and freddie. The democrats placed their entire unified power against this plan.

 

Barney Frank, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee:

 

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"

 

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA]YouTube - Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie[/ame]

[phreakwars]

You know what I noticed about you TJ, you have an authoritarian mindset. Incapable of actually thinking for yourself. You like to use buzzwords constantly "LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, MESSIAH" blah blah blah... if you were REALLY against socialism you'd start a new trend and forfeit your Socialist Security earnings and Medicaid when you retire. Taxes are a part of life. If you don't like them, move to a country that doesn't tax. You, just like many other delusional right wingers, just can't handle the fact that a majority of Americans voted for a change in the policys that govern us. You claim to be oh so against government control... An odd thing to say from someone who signed up to serve the country and take orders from the government. Yeah, government doing things is bad.... unless they tell you to go kill someone, it's patriotic.. Even if your killing someone for oil, it's patriotic.

 

If they wanna tax you to help others... it's unconstitutional... forget that line "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE" in the constitution's preamble, or the line that says:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

 

I need to ask... what is your definition of the "GENERAL WELFARE" of us U.S. citizens? Whatever pleases the party?

.

.

[timesjoke]

And what I have noticed about liberals/socialists like you is your always stuck on the "all or nothing" mindset. That is why you can't bring yourself to admit Obama has ever done anything wrong even though it is shown time and again that he has, you even admit to having that link detailing all the broken promises by Obama but you at the same time will never admit him telling lies to get elected is bad.

 

How is that change?

 

 

Your right, the people did vote for "change" so where is this "change"? Obama is 100% partisan, has made lie after lie just to gain power, and refuses to admit when he has screwed up royally........how is he different? What new attitude or change has he brought to the table that was not already there from Presidents past?

 

 

 

I have no problem with the Government taxing the people, but they should be responsible with that money and not just throw it away by blindly throwing that hard earned money at problems without any idea if it will help anyone or if there are better and less costly ways to help as well if we just slow down and think instead of reacting from emotions and power grapping instincts as Obama is doing now.

 

 

The general welfare......well I have read a lot of papers on this subject from historians and political science professors but your asking me what "I" believe it means so I will give you my purely honest answer.........

 

It means what it says......."general" welfare. What is general? To me general is to set the stage for prosperity and freedom. General is not specific or individual in my opinion, it is more of a basic concept. An example would be roads, roads ensure general welfare by making travel of goods and people safer and faster and benefit everyone on the whole.

 

 

Giving a "free check" to someone is not general, it is specific and it also hurts those you steal from at the same time. General welfare should not hurt more people than it helps......there is a basic concept for you.

 

 

 

I do not believe the Government should be in the business of hurting the majority to "help" the lazy and unmotivated few.

 

 

I will go back to my point about you Bender, your earning your own way, you got educated and you work hard, why do you liberals/socialists believe other people can't do what you did and do?

 

 

I believe people can, you believe people can't.

[RoyalOrleans]

You know what I noticed about you TJ, you have an authoritarian mindset. Incapable of actually thinking for yourself. You like to use buzzwords constantly "LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, MESSIAH" blah blah blah... if you were REALLY against socialism you'd start a new trend and forfeit your Socialist Security earnings and Medicaid when you retire. Taxes are a part of life. If you don't like them, move to a country that doesn't tax. You, just like many other delusional right wingers, just can't handle the fact that a majority of Americans voted for a change in the policys that govern us. You claim to be oh so against government control... An odd thing to say from someone who signed up to serve the country and take orders from the government. Yeah, government doing things is bad.... unless they tell you to go kill someone, it's patriotic.. Even if your killing someone for oil, it's patriotic.

 

If they wanna tax you to help others... it's unconstitutional... forget that line "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE" in the constitution's preamble, or the line that says:

 

 

 

I need to ask... what is your definition of the "GENERAL WELFARE" of us U.S. citizens? Whatever pleases the party?

.

.

 

What kills me, TJ takes the weight of what I (or anyone else) take the time to carefully think through, research, and post, and turns it into his own little rant of bullsh!t and hearsay. Such as, TJ saying that you voted Democrat or Liberal because of some feeling of guilt. WTF?

 

But, but, but... wait! It gets worse and his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[RoyalOrleans]

And what I have noticed about liberals/socialists like you is your always stuck on the "all or nothing" mindset. That is why you can't bring yourself to admit Obama has ever done anything wrong even though it is shown time and again that he has, you even admit to having that link detailing all the broken promises by Obama but you at the same time will never admit him telling lies to get elected is bad.

 

How is that change?

 

 

Your right, the people did vote for "change" so where is this "change"? Obama is 100% partisan, has made lie after lie just to gain power, and refuses to admit when he has screwed up royally........how is he different? What new attitude or change has he brought to the table that was not already there from Presidents past?

 

 

 

I have no problem with the Government taxing the people, but they should be responsible with that money and not just throw it away by blindly throwing that hard earned money at problems without any idea if it will help anyone or if there are better and less costly ways to help as well if we just slow down and think instead of reacting from emotions and power grapping instincts as Obama is doing now.

 

 

The general welfare......well I have read a lot of papers on this subject from historians and political science professors but your asking me what "I" believe it means so I will give you my purely honest answer.........

 

It means what it says......."general" welfare. What is general? To me general is to set the stage for prosperity and freedom. General is not specific or individual in my opinion, it is more of a basic concept. An example would be roads, roads ensure general welfare by making travel of goods and people safer and faster and benefit everyone on the whole.

 

 

Giving a "free check" to someone is not general, it is specific and it also hurts those you steal from at the same time. General welfare should not hurt more people than it helps......there is a basic concept for you.

 

 

 

I do not believe the Government should be in the business of hurting the majority to "help" the lazy and unmotivated few.

 

 

I will go back to my point about you Bender, your earning your own way, you got educated and you work hard, why do you liberals/socialists believe other people can't do what you did and do?

 

 

I believe people can, you believe people can't.

 

... can't shut up.

 

Every fukken bully I have ever fukken known can't shut up!

 

They just talk and talk and talk and talk without making much sense. Just a bunch of ill-conceived rants littered with trigger words and accusatory language without references.

[timesjoke]

lol, just like your talk, talk, talk.

 

You got some sugar in your gastank RO? I swear you chat like a schoolgirl about nothing at all.

 

 

By the way, it is arrogant to think only you can read and I must be relying on you to offer me "talking points". I do read what you offer and sometimes it offers me something new but most of what you post I have seen from thrity or more places or directly from the books they are taken from, your not as original as you like to think you are.

[RoyalOrleans]

lol, just like your talk, talk, talk.

 

You got some sugar in your gastank RO? I swear you chat like a schoolgirl about nothing at all.

 

 

By the way, it is arrogant to think only you can read and I must be relying on you to offer me "talking points". I do read what you offer and sometimes it offers me something new but most of what you post I have seen from thrity or more places or directly from the books they are taken from, your not as original as you like to think you are.

 

Ohhh... like you post anything short of stagnant air.

[phreakwars]

Hey, I'll at least give R.O. the credit for being a free thinker and admitting the flaws of the party he likes the most. TJ, your ranting on your usual mindless authoritarian rant about me not wanting to admit this or that about Obama, Jesus, do you want a comprehensive fukking rundown of things I have listed in the past. For one, he's a pussy, he plays too god damn nice with people, he tries to god damn hard to please people, he doesn't have the balls to be straight forward and say "hey, we NEED to tax more because of this and this and this". That's fukking reality. Taxes are a bitch, but we can't solve America's problems with tax cuts, your buddy Bush 1 soon found that out with his bullshiit promises of "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"

 

Are we gonna get lied to by people seeking office... yep, it's pretty much something you can guarentee. So what gives with voting for the "MESSIAH"

 

Ain't nothing to do with guilt, or entitlement, or promises... it was about VISION.

 

Can you HONESTLY say McCain had any vision for our futures? Hell, if the old fart would of actually had one, I would have voted for him. The ONLY Republican that DID have a vision was Ron Paul who would have EASILY had my vote over anything the Democrats were offering.

 

So, yep, that's why the Negro got my vote that you wanna put those authoritarian buzz words of "LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST" on me for.

 

Fukking sore loser with no vision is all you are.

 

Furthermore. You say:

 

The general welfare......well I have read a lot of papers on this subject from historians and political science professors but your asking me what "I" believe it means so I will give you my purely honest answer.........

 

It means what it says......."general" welfare. What is general? To me general is to set the stage for prosperity and freedom. General is not specific or individual in my opinion, it is more of a basic concept. An example would be roads, roads ensure general welfare by making travel of goods and people safer and faster and benefit everyone on the whole.

So, do you think the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens were on the mind of lawmakers who came up with the VERY SOCIALIST Social Security system, or the VERY SOCIALIST Medicaid system?(which BTW Republicans were against both) Or was this just a plan to "enslave us under government control"?

 

Spare me your authoritarian rhetoric of socialism. These systems were designed to do just like section 8 of our Constitution granted congress the authority to do. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

So, do you think the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens were on the mind of lawmakers who came up with the VERY SOCIALIST Social Security system, or the VERY SOCIALIST Medicaid system?(which BTW Republicans were against both) Or was this just a plan to "enslave us under government control"?

 

Spare me your authoritarian rhetoric of socialism. These systems were designed to do just like section 8 of our Constitution granted congress the authority to do. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.

.

.

 

 

Actually, Medicare wouldn't have passed under LBJ if it weren't for the Republicans, and Social Security was supposed to be temporary and was only supposed to be insurance in case you didn't save enough for retirement and was only supposed to go to those who contributed.

 

Had it stayed that way I would have been alright with SSI, but when it allowed people to draw from it that didn't contribute and people decided it was a retirement plan and became a complete entitlement is when it went to hell.

 

Personally, I'd gladly give up Social Security and Medicare if they gave me back what I've paid in, didn't have to pay in any more, and could invest that money, myself.

 

Just my opinion.

[phreakwars]

Actually, Medicare wouldn't have passed under LBJ if it weren't for the Republicans.

 

Personally, I'd gladly give up Social Security and Medicare if they gave me back what I've paid in, didn't have to pay in any more, and could invest that money, myself.

 

Just my opinion.

How noble of you... here's the reality... if you DID get all that money back, it wouldn't even be anywhere close to what the government gives you in benefits when you retire. Don't believe me... next time you get your socialist security statement, add up all the money you paid into the system over the years, then look at your estimated monthly benefit amount and figure out how long that money you paid in would last you if that was all you were gonna get back. A couple years worth at most.

 

The most common rebuttal for that is usually "WELL, I COULD HAVE INVESTED THAT MONEY AND MADE MYSELF RICH"

 

Oh REALLY? The Republicans had the very stupid idea (that was thankfully thwarted) of wanting to dump our social security into the stock markets. We all know what happened there, don't try and fool yourself and think you could have thwarted that market crash and saved your own retirement funds. That's just VERY wishful thinking.

 

The system set in place now sustains the retired in a very decent way... although not perfect, it still provides those who are too elderly to work with the "GENERAL WELFARE" they need to survive in America.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

How noble of you... here's the reality... if you DID get all that money back, it wouldn't even be anywhere close to what the government gives you in benefits when you retire. Don't believe me... next time you get your socialist security statement, add up all the money you paid into the system over the years, then look at your estimated monthly benefit amount and figure out how long that money you paid in would last you if that was all you were gonna get back. A couple years worth at most. .

 

I know it isn't as much as you put in. That's the problem. It goes to people who don't put in anything at all.

 

You're taking a figure off of just what is contributed. That's wrongful thinking in this matter.

 

You have to take into consideration investment returns and compounding interest. Neither of which you get with SSI.

 

Social Security was conceived as a pure Ponzi scheme. Contributions collected were immediately paid out to beneficiaries. That worked adequately back in the 1930s when payouts started at age 65 and life expectancy was 67. Over the years life expectancy has risen to 78 and substantial payouts have been added for surviving dependent children and other welfare functions. One substantial reform was initiated under Reagan, in which a trust fund was added to help cover the withdrawals of retiring baby boomers.

 

The trust fund is invested entirely in government bonds, which means that Social Security contributions have been funding the debt load. We know that most Social Security contributions are paid out without being invested, but it?s still interesting to see what would happen if the contributions were all invested in either government bonds or the stock market.

 

With the market having crashed last year, some say that should put an end to the notion that the risky stock market might be a viable alternative to safe bonds.

I have been contributing to Social Security since 1964. Like everyone, I received a year-by-year accounting of the my contributions from the Social Security Administration, so I put the data into a spreadsheet to see theoretically how alternatives might have fared. I found on the internet the ten-year Treasury Bill rates and the gains and losses of the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is a broader-based index than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, so I took it as a more stable investment.

 

My method in building the spread sheet was to begin each year with the balance from the previous year, adjust the balance with investment gains or losses, and finally add the contributions for the year. I included both my contributions and my employer?s contributions, but only the Social Security part, not the Medicare contribution

 

The stock market provided more excitement than Treasury Bills. The $216K in contributions grew steadily to be worth $613K at the start of 2009. The stock investments lost a heart-stopping plunge from $1,740K last year, but nonetheless still had $1,093 at year end. So despite the worst market year in the 45 year period, the stock investment was still 78% ahead of Treasuries.

 

[attach=full]2457[/attach]

 

In the past the market declined in eight of the 45 years, but never more than two years in a row. As investment firms are fond of saying, that is no guarantee of future performance. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of pure statistics it?s likely to recover considerably more than T-bills over the next few years.

 

One implication is that if a portion of my Social Security contributions were invested in the stock market, say 25%, all of the welfare payments could have been made and my retirement benefits might have nearly doubled. And that?s true despite the biggest market sell-off in 45 years.

FactsPlusLogic: Suppose Social Security contributions were invested

 

The most common rebuttal for that is usually "WELL, I COULD HAVE INVESTED THAT MONEY AND MADE MYSELF RICH".

 

I never said that.

 

 

Oh REALLY? The Republicans had the very stupid idea (that was thankfully thwarted) of wanting to dump our social security into the stock markets. We all know what happened there, don't try and fool yourself and think you could have thwarted that market crash and saved your own retirement funds. That's just VERY wishful thinking. .

 

Actually, the plan was to allow people to invest a "portion" not all of their contribution themselves. Giving themselves some control of their money.

 

As far as the "market crash", I have a long time till retirement. Most of the loss anyone who wasn't stupid enough to panic and sell their investments has had, was a paper loss.

 

The economy will come back eventually and that money will be recouped, so yea I would much rather of had my SSI money invested.

 

 

The system set in place now sustains the retired in a very decent way... although not perfect, it still provides those who are too elderly to work with the "GENERAL WELFARE" they need to survive in America.

.

.

 

That's the most laughable statement I've read in a long time.

 

You realize that Social Security alone is almost $7 trillion in debt of unfunded liabilities.

 

Sustains. It can't be sustained. It's exactly the same Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff pulled. Wait no, I take that back. SSI, and Medicare are worse. Madoff wasn't making divident payments to people who didn't invest in the system like SSI and Medicare does.