Our live's are about to change.

[colt61]

Go to youtube and type in (obama deception uncut) click on the 1:51:22 watch entire thing, you won't believe how scared you will be.

[JimBianchi]

BHO frightens many of us because he promised big, delivered a few huge projects very quickly and looked good in the short term to the libs and press. he continues to ride that wave even today.

But the reality is harsher. As the hard-left libs have so eloquently stated:
He (BHO) has broken more promises than he has kept. (And they are pissed!)

With a Republican Congress now in place it is very difficult for him to pass true leftist policies, and near impossible for those that do pass, to stand up to a 5-4 Conservative SC.

If BHO does what Clinton did after he lost the Congress in 1994, that is move to the center and compromise on all things legislative to get stuff done, then BHO has chance to win re-election and get the legacy of accomplishment that he so desperately wants. The economy would turn around and he will get he credit.

If he does what Carter did, that is, stay the hard left course, (his current staff choices and shake-ups in the cabinets would suggest the Carter Model) he will go down in flames as a comma, a pause, a short foot-note in our nations history. A man who did (spent) much that was quickly undone and defeated in the courts.

BHO wants a lot and if we had the prosperity, growth and the revenue that we had under Clinton for 6yrs (thank you Newt Gingrich) he could do a lot more harm to the country than we could ever image.

But luckily, most Americans do not believe in Keynesian economics, at least they don't when times are tough, like now. People want to keep the money they earn and keep the government out of there business (Classic Supply Side Econ.). When times are good, people are more generous and willing to give more, but those times are now a decade away. (yes, a decade of pain is ahead, I believe)

But this, the longest recession in US history, has created a whole new class of people. The 15 to 20% of American households that receives some kind of handout every month.

Student aid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, Aid to Dependant Mothers (WIC).

This group as a whole was very small even 5 years ago, and now, because of uncontrolled spending (started under Bush, with a Democratic Congress) and the expansion of available aid/money, this group as become dependent on the government teat for its daily nourishment. If they had a strong organization and a central plan, they could run the country into the ground.

The one saving grace in all this is that they as a group don't vote often or even at all. Once the middle class, white people turned their back on BHO, his chances of continuing this travesty of spending is doomed. Independents voted him in, they will kick him out.

BHO has said and done some frightening things, and he wants to do more. He really believes as long as there is power and paper he can continue to print money to pay for his projects. He wants to "Spend his Way to Prosperity. (Keynesian economics)

BHO ain't defeated yet, but according to political analysis far better than me, Republicans will gain seats in the house and Senate in 2012, maybe even a Super Majority in both (My heart flutters at the thought!) and BHO is less than a shoe-in for reelection. I would say short of nominating a Cow Pie, Republicans will win easily.

Those of us who have been hurt the most in this economic down turn are fired up and ready to fight. We will win in 2012. It is up to us to decide how BIG the victory is.

[MW surveyor]

Jim - Well stated!

[Rainman48314]

BHO frightens many of us because he promised big, delivered a few huge projects very quickly and looked good in the short term to the libs and press. he continues to ride that wave even today.

But the reality is harsher. As the hard-left libs have so eloquently stated:
He (BHO) has broken more promises than he has kept. (And they are pissed!)

With a Republican Congress now in place it is very difficult for him to pass true leftist policies, and near impossible for those that do pass, to stand up to a 5-4 Conservative SC.

If BHO does what Clinton did after he lost the Congress in 1994, that is move to the center and compromise on all things legislative to get stuff done, then BHO has chance to win re-election and get the legacy of accomplishment that he so desperately wants. The economy would turn around and he will get he credit.

If he does what Carter did, that is, stay the hard left course, (his current staff choices and shake-ups in the cabinets would suggest the Carter Model) he will go down in flames as a comma, a pause, a short foot-note in our nations history. A man who did (spent) much that was quickly undone and defeated in the courts.

BHO wants a lot and if we had the prosperity, growth and the revenue that we had under Clinton for 6yrs (thank you Newt Gingrich) he could do a lot more harm to the country than we could ever image.

But luckily, most Americans do not believe in Keynesian economics, at least they don't when times are tough, like now. People want to keep the money they earn and keep the government out of there business (Classic Supply Side Econ.). When times are good, people are more generous and willing to give more, but those times are now a decade away. (yes, a decade of pain is ahead, I believe)

But this, the longest recession in US history, has created a whole new class of people. The 15 to 20% of American households that receives some kind of handout every month.

Student aid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, Aid to Dependant Mothers (WIC).

This group as a whole was very small even 5 years ago, and now, because of uncontrolled spending (started under Bush, with a Democratic Congress) and the expansion of available aid/money, this group as become dependent on the government teat for its daily nourishment. If they had a strong organization and a central plan, they could run the country into the ground.

The one saving grace in all this is that they as a group don't vote often or even at all. Once the middle class, white people turned their back on BHO, his chances of continuing this travesty of spending is doomed. Independents voted him in, they will kick him out.

BHO has said and done some frightening things, and he wants to do more. He really believes as long as there is power and paper he can continue to print money to pay for his projects. He wants to "Spend his Way to Prosperity. (Keynesian economics)

BHO ain't defeated yet, but according to political analysis far better than me, Republicans will gain seats in the house and Senate in 2012, maybe even a Super Majority in both (My heart flutters at the thought!) and BHO is less than a shoe-in for reelection. I would say short of nominating a Cow Pie, Republicans will win easily.

Those of us who have been hurt the most in this economic down turn are fired up and ready to fight. We will win in 2012. It is up to us to decide how BIG the victory is.While I probably don't agree 100% with you (not a Newt fan), I appreciate how calmly you stated your case and presented your opinion. If you visit other forums, you'll find this quite rare.
This is a nice place and it has to do with the mature members here. Thanks

[Rainman48314]

Go to youtube and type in (obama deception uncut) click on the 1:51:22 watch entire thing, you won't believe how scared you will be.
There's always a kernal of truth to any story. When I look at Alex Jones' credentials, I am very unimpressed. Interestingg theories though. A lot to digest.

[Jeremiah/Az]

I would say short of nominating a Cow Pie, Republicans will win easily. (quote)

Can you say McCain & Dole, about as unappealing candidates as anyone could imagine. The Republicans just have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I am a staunch conservative, but come on Republicans. Give us someone to vote for without holdin' our noses!:puke:

[JimBianchi]

While I probably don't agree 100% with you (not a Newt fan), I appreciate how calmly you stated your case and presented your opinion. If you visit other forums, you'll find this quite rare.
This is a nice place and it has to do with the mature members here. Thanks

Newt was a great speaker of the house, but since his personal issues are so public now, I think he should not get the nomination.

I don't have a favorite yet, still to many fish in the pond.

But I think Romney will get the nod. (Looking at past tract records for the nomination process, (R) generally nominate the #2 choice from the last convention, Dole/Bush/McCain where all #2 at their previous conventions)

I am not thrilled at the idea, but baring a Tea Party Revolt in the party, Mitt is the One.

[jeepster09]

I don't think Mitt's the one.....he bailed on us during the last primary just as he was building speed. I won't support him again. Michelle Bachman may be a good choice. She has guts and speaks her mind with knowledge behind her words.

[jocko]

Mitch Daniels, a relative unknow who has done wonders fo rhte state of Indiana and has good press, but no money to really attach the primary, let alone the finals. I like Mitt, but I think his past will haunt him, He dropped out once spent a ton of hius money trying, as some Mass baggage on helath that will haunt him. He is a good man and can lead our country but I just don't see him beating Osama, I mean Obama. unless gas stays at $4.50 and abouve and then most all people will vote the incumbent out of office.

Bachman will not make it, I kinda like her but the trails of Palin haunt me and others, Not sure I want as woman as our leader of the military and foreign world. She cold be a good woman vote getter as a vp. is she can't see Russia from her front porch. I think Sarah screwed the women for awhile. Course I blame the McCain people for that. Get a pretty face, hell with the brains, and they did that well.

Oh well. If many remember that little midget Ross Perot was telling everyone exactly what they wanted to hear, I was ready to get behind him and he didn't have the balls for a presidential fight

[JimBianchi]

Perot is an old man.

The Dems will beat him over the head with his age, and many of his past rants..

No clear front runner yet, but I like Bachman more than Palin.

[Kahrson]

Sadly all you need to do is look at the popularity of Trump to realize how weak the GOP field is. I'm bracing for another 4 years of Obama.

[Tilos]

+1 what jim said in #2
Add to that, that about 45% of Americans pay no income taxes and don't want that to change, BHO will be hard to beat, with all those voters in his camp.
just scentin'
Tilos

[CarlCyrus]

The Socialists will continue to run the printing presses to print money out of thin air with no capital backing.

They will also tinker with the CPI so that "their" calculated rate of inflation will be such that the COLAs will be way behind inflation.

And as a result, they will pay those future multi-trillion dollar deficits with dollars of less value. Yes, you will still get your Social Security, but it will buy about 1/2 to 1/3 of what it did 7-10 years previously. The Socialists will boast that they protected your Social Security and Medicare/Medicaide but more of you will be living below the poverty line on those worth-less SS checks.

Better wake up...pay off your debt, own your home outright because life is going to get real grim for a larger and larger chunk of America.

Carl

[CarlCyrus]

Go to the "shadowstats" site for a better picture of unemployment and inflation (without the Gov't spin/distortion).

Carl

[jocko]

Perot is an old man.

The Dems will beat him over the head with his age, and many of his past rants..

No clear front runner yet, but I like Bachman more than Palin.

said in my post Perot will run or should run. He certainly is to old, his time has come and went... It was probably over 30 years ago when he had rthe country excitred with his philosphy, and then backed out. Comparing backman to Palin is an insult to Backman.

It's gonna take 200 million + to even have a shot at the "great one" Money buys alot of votes. Chrisma won't winit this time, Obama killed that chance..

[JimBianchi]

As with most elections, the Dems with vote (D) 39%. They went 89% D, 10% R, 1% I
The republicans will vote (R) 32%
Same as the Dems.
The independents (29%) went 52-44 to the D. Hardly a slam dunk win. And polling shows the the VAST majority believe they did not know who BHO really was, and won't be fooled again.


According to CNN The (I) went 52-44 to the (D) in 2008 and will flop 60-40 to the R in 2012. The currently polling has them as MOST LIKELY to vote for the (R) 2012, a huge change in fortune from 2008, and even worse now then just a year ago.

Also, more than 10 million voters stayed home in 2008, vast majority because they hated McCain. If they are drawn back in with a good top ticket, the Republicans are golden.

(I used CNN's polling data on purpose. Pre-election polling verse actual results showed them to be the most bias, pro Dem polls. Rassmuten (Sp?) was the most accurate. Accurate, unbiased polls show the Republicans are going to CRUSH the Dems in 2012.)

[jocko]

oh I hope ur right

[O'Dell]

Over the years it's usually been 40% Dems and 40% Rep, with the 20% in the middle, Ind, Lib, Soc, and others deciding the issue. There are rare cases of a candidate getting more than 60% of the popular vote, but it doesn't happen often. If it does, you generally have one with great charisma or one that has none. [like McCain]

I know he has negatives, but the person in Washington that most closely matches my views is Newt. Although he's not well known [yet], I also really like Herman Cain. If you ever hear him speak, and you're conservative, you can't help but like what he stands for.

[jocko]

Newt is super smart, politicaly to, but he just has to much baggage and to much WASHINGTON in him. He won't even run is my bet..

[O'Dell]

Newt is super smart, politicaly to, but he just has to much baggage and to much WASHINGTON in him. He won't even run is my bet..

I don't mind the 'Washington" part in his case, but you're right about the baggage. [I said negatives] Newt and Herman are both from Atlanta too, so it would be anything but a balanced ticket. But how cool would it be to have a ticket where both the Presidential and VP candidates know me by my first name.

[aray]

Herman Cain sounded interesting in the debates.

[jocko]

gonna take alot and I mean alot of money to go against the "chosen one". He supposably has close to a billion dollars in his war chest and he doesnt need to even fight for the primaries. Money talks, People walks, may not be right but that is usually what it is..

[apheod]

so none of you guys support ron paul? seriously?

to follow the constitution in this day and age, would require drastic, radical changes to the way this country is run, and the laws are written. it would require many of our laws to be repealed. hence, ron paul is a radical.

also, i've seen all of alex jones movies and many others of the same opinion. its really sad how few people there are in america who know, or will even believe this stuff when shown proof.

[Cash.45]

Like Jocko said, I wish Mitch Daniels would run and be recognized for the leader he is. As Governor of Indiana he made some very tough decisions (and stuck by them) that were much maligned by the liberal press and the Democrats, but have turned out to be exactly what the state needed to keep our budget in check and the running soundly. I hope he chooses to run because, like Reagan, I think he could come out of nowhere and be really good for the country.

[O'Dell]

so none of you guys support ron paul? seriously?

to follow the constitution in this day and age, would require drastic, radical changes to the way this country is run, and the laws are written. it would require many of our laws to be repealed. hence, ron paul is a radical.

also, i've seen all of alex jones movies and many others of the same opinion. its really sad how few people there are in america who know, or will even believe this stuff when shown proof.

I'm a Libertarian and even I don't support Ron Paul. Who is Alex Jones? Is he the nut with all the conspiracy Theories?

[O'Dell]

Herman Cain sounded interesting in the debates.

Was this the debate in SC last week? I heard that there was a focus group watching and before the debate there was one Cain supporter. Afterwards, over half had come over to him.

[jeep45238]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xEw_wnCvE_0/SGFBbRKeRQI/AAAAAAAAEgI/2ZI49Kzq1oA/s400/two_wings_same_bird.jpg

[Rainman48314]

so none of you guys support ron paul? seriously?

to follow the constitution in this day and age, would require drastic, radical changes to the way this country is run, and the laws are written. it would require many of our laws to be repealed. hence, ron paul is a radical.

also, i've seen all of alex jones movies and many others of the same opinion. its really sad how few people there are in america who know, or will even believe this stuff when shown proof.

I'll admit to only watching the first half, but, that in part, was that it seemed short on proof. I felt I was watching a Hollywood production not too different from Michael Moore. The credibility wasn't there for me. I agreed with some of the larger notions. Its just they took it to a whole darker level.

[Rainman48314]

gonna take alot and I mean alot of money to go against the "chosen one". He supposably has close to a billion dollars in his war chest and he doesnt need to even fight for the primaries. Money talks, People walks, may not be right but that is usually what it is..There ought to be a ceiling on campaign spending. If one has to spend a BILLION to win, too many potential candidates are effectively barred from running. It also opens up abuses by special interests with deep pockets. I fear our choices will be between "bad or worse", again.

[500KV]

I keep wondering whether the Hildabeast will challenge Zero in the primaries.

While the Clintons are not known to embark on suicide missions, I think she has more testicular fortitude than the great one will ever have and might give him a run for his money.

OTOH if she couldn't beat him in 2008 when he was a junior senator/community organizer could she be succesful now ?
I personally think she's waiting on him to stump his toe.

[Willieboy]

I think Newt would be most able to turn the country around and put it back on its feet. However, I don't think he's electable. I'd be okay with Bachman but as has been said, there are still too many fish in the pond.

Over the long haul, I think the country's in real trouble. There are too many people in the wagon and too few pulling it. The Democratic/Liberal strategy of buying votes with transfer payments has been successful for them and I see no end in sight. Every day, there are more and more people standing around with their hands out.

Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Philidelphia and Baltimore have all but lost their tax base, yet the expectation of hand outs only increases. I think these cities represent an example of what the country will look like in the years to come. I hate the prospect, but I fear it is realistic. I'm glad I'm an old guy now, but worry for my children.

[jocko]

read today in the Journa where Newt is going to announ ce next week and he has raised over 32 million so far for his primary run..I like jhim but even the journal felt that people want a new face and not the same ol washington baggge, which I tend to think could be true. Certainly NEWT could degbate the great one and BURY him. He isjust that smart, but I am just not sure he can win, but no dobt if he gets the nomination, he willget jocko's family\'s vote for sure.

[getsome]

I really hope people will get behind Herman Cain and learn all they can about the man...He has everything going for him except name recognition...He is a very intelligent and successful buisness leader, he is articulate speaker in expressing his views, (doesn't need a teleprompter) he is behind the "Fair Tax" and is an African American...I think a Herman Cain/Newt Gingrich ticket would be a great combination and a winner in 2012..

[Tilos]

+1 to Willieboy
And the almost 45% of americans that pay NO income tax will be supporting/voting for the "tax the evil rich" party.
Tilos

[jocko]

indeed I drink coffee with a retired vfery wealthy nice fella who is always *****-ng because he has not got his COLA the last two years on his SSI.

[Willieboy]

He's very wealty and yet is on SSI?

[jocko]

over 65, they still get what they originally paid in. but some people bit-ch for about anything. He wasn't wealthy 50 years ago, when he was paying in part of his pay check like everyone else. because he isnow is no reason to not give him what he so rightfully paid in for, although he doesnt need it, that is not the point..

[Tilos]

Yes, saved my whole life, drove old beater cars that I fixed myself, packed a lunch, never any extended vacation anywhere I couldn't drive to or camp at and paid my taxes...etc.

People all around me worked pay check to pay check, never saved a dime, drove new cars, spent every dime they made a borrowed all that they could get.

Now the gov'mt wants to say I'm not eligable for SS through "means testing" (I saved too much), and the people who spent every dime, sure, they're broke so get SS.
Go Figure

Remember those campaigning on the "SS lock box"...what happened to that deal and those guys?

Federal term limits are the short, and only answer in my view.
Tilos

[Willieboy]

I don't begrudge people from collecting SS benefits if they've paid into it and I don't consider it some form of welfare. SSI though, I thought was a form of welfare one must be impoverished to receive. That's why I asked if a wealth person really received SSI payments.

How about this idea. If SS and Medicare are going broke, how about the senators and congressmen, past and present, forgo their pension payments and those payments be added to the SS and medicare plans? They are afterall, the goofballs who spent the original "trust fund" when they combined it with the general account.

[Rainman48314]

The Socialists will continue to run the printing presses to print money out of thin air with no capital backing.

They will also tinker with the CPI so that "their" calculated rate of inflation will be such that the COLAs will be way behind inflation.

And as a result, they will pay those future multi-trillion dollar deficits with dollars of less value. Yes, you will still get your Social Security, but it will buy about 1/2 to 1/3 of what it did 7-10 years previously. The Socialists will boast that they protected your Social Security and Medicare/Medicaide but more of you will be living below the poverty line on those worth-less SS checks.

Better wake up...pay off your debt, own your home outright because life is going to get real grim for a larger and larger chunk of America.

CarlI hope you're wrong, but I fear you are not.

[Rainman48314]

Yes, saved my whole life, drove old beater cars that I fixed myself, packed a lunch, never any extended vacation anywhere I couldn't drive to or camp at and paid my taxes...etc.

People all around me worked pay check to pay check, never saved a dime, drove new cars, spent every dime they made a borrowed all that they could get.

Now the gov'mt wants to say I'm not eligable for SS through "means testing" (I saved too much), and the people who spent every dime, sure, they're broke so get SS.
Go Figure

Remember those campaigning on the "SS lock box"...what happened to that deal and those guys?

Federal term limits are the short, and only answer in my view.
TilosI'm reasonably sure "means testing" refers to your income, not your assets. Living frugally won't hurt you. Its the size of other pensions, not your savings.

[Rainman48314]

I really hope people will get behind Herman Cain and learn all they can about the man...He has everything going for him except name recognition...He is a very intelligent and successful buisness leader, he is articulate speaker in expressing his views, (doesn't need a teleprompter) he is behind the "Fair Tax" and is an African American...I think a Herman Cain/Newt Gingrich ticket would be a great combination and a winner in 2012..


That ticket won't win it. There has to be something better.

Romney/Bachman ?

[Rainman48314]

indeed I drink coffee with a retired vfery wealthy nice fella who is always *****-ng because he has not got his COLA the last two years on his SSI.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal government benefit program providing cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter to persons who are blind or otherwise disabled and have little or no other income. Monthly SSI benefits are paid to persons with limited income and resources who are disabled, blind, or age 65 or older. Blind or disabled children, as well as adults, can qualify to get SSI benefits.

SSI is Different From Social Security Benefits
While SSI benefits are administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI benefits do not require and are not based on the recipient's prior work or a family member's prior work. In other words, no current or prior employment is required to qualify for SSI benefits.
Unlike Social Security benefits, SSI benefits are funded by general funds from the U.S. Treasury generated by income taxes paid be individuals and corporations. Social Security taxes withheld from workers' paychecks under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA (http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm)) do not help fund the SSI program. Total SSI funding, along with maximum monthly amounts to be paid to SSI recipients, are set annually by Congress as part of the federal budget process.
SSI recipients in most states can also have their benefits supplemented by Medicaid to help pay for doctor bills, prescriptions and other health care costs.
SSI beneficiaries may also be eligible for food stamps in every state except California. In some states, an application for SSI benefits also serves as an application for food stamps.
Basic Qualifications for SSI Benefits
To get SSI benefits, a person must:

disabled, blind, or at least 65 years old and have "limited" outside income and resources.
be a resident of the United States and not be absent from the country for more than 30 days; and
be either a U.S. citizen or national, or in one of certain categories of eligible non–citizens.

Details on SSI eligibility and qualifications can be found on the Social Security - SSI Eligibility Requirements web site (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm).
SSI Payment Details
Amounts of SSI benefit payments are set annually by Congress and are typically adjusted every January to reflect the current cost of living. The maximum monthly SSI benefit amount in 2008, adjusted for the 2.3 percent January 2008 COLA, is $637 for an individual and $956 for a couple. This amount is projected to increase to $653 for an individual and $980 for a couple when adjusted for the estimated 2.5 percent COLA payable beginning in January 2009. The average monthly benefit payment was $458 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 and is expected to increase to $473 in FY 2008 and $486 in FY 2009.
By 2009, the number of SSI recipients is expected to exceed 7.3 million people.
SSI benefit payments are not taxable.
Exact benefit amounts paid to individual SSI recipients may be less than the maximum depending on non-SSI income, like wages and other Social Security benefits. Persons living in their own home, in the home of another person, or in a Medicaid-approved nursing home may also have their SSI payments reduced accordingly.
Updated current maximum and average SSI payment amounts can be found on the SSI Statistics web site (http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/index.html).For Complete Information on the SSI Program
Complete details on all aspects of the SSI program are available on the Social Security - Understanding Supplemental Security Income web site (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-understanding-ssi.htm).

[Rainman48314]

I don't begrudge people from collecting SS benefits if they've paid into it and I don't consider it some form of welfare. SSI though, I thought was a form of welfare one must be impoverished to receive. That's why I asked if a wealth person really received SSI payments.

How about this idea. If SS and Medicare are going broke, how about the senators and congressmen, past and present, forgo their pension payments and those payments be added to the SS and medicare plans? They are afterall, the goofballs who spent the original "trust fund" when they combined it with the general account.

You are correct, SSI is a welfare program, often collected in tandem with Medicaid. It comes from General tax revenue, no one pays a payroll tax for it. No wealthy people are getting this handout of $650 per month

[jocko]

areu saying that because I paid in to SSI for over 40 years, thatbecause today I can afford to not getmy monthly check thatI amnot entitled to it??? What about if i BUY SOME GOVERNMENT BONDS AND THEY 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD they tell me that heh jocko ur ok financially, you not going to get your interest earned all these years. I paid into it, no one else did.

U can cal lit anythingy ou want welfare, I cal lit giving me back at least what I paid into it.plus interest, certainly don't deprive me of it because I worked hard, saved and am now basically able to live with SSI. That decision to not take it should be mine and not the governments now. SSI isn't going broke because of people like me that don't need it but are gettingit. If the fokking government would have kept its hand out of that slush fund, wewould not even be discussing it. Now they want to efund it by drawing al inein the sane and everyone abouve a certain income doesn't get sh-t eventhough they paid into if for 40+ years..

[Rainman48314]

Jocko

Neither YOU or ANYONE paid into SSI (Supplemental Security Income). We all paid FICA, most of which goes for Social Security Benefits. These are TWO separate programs. I posted a complete summary in post #43. Hope you feel better now.

[jocko]

sorry about that. Most people do call it social securtiy, should I feel better now??? I was talking about retirement benefits that most pay into ..

[Willieboy]

You should feel better Jocko. If you paid into Social Security for at least forty quarters, you are entitled to receive benefits, and it is not welfare.

[ltxi]

I knew what you meant. It was the SSI acronym that tripped everyone up.

As to your friend's whining about no COLA for two years...I suspect there was no complaint about the "accidental" 5.8% increase three years ago as well as not noticing that the cost of living as COLA defined has been flat or decreased for the past two years. Also, as required by law the base Medicare premiums couldn't increase despite the rise in healthcare costs. Don't suppose he noticed that, either.

[jocko]

how about 40 years.. my wife is still working and paying. I have since corrected my error of SSI to SS. hope that helps alittle to those whou coldnt see where I was coming from.sorry about that..

[jocko]

u never rmention the things that u don't want people to hear. I guess I can't say he is a whiner, but he brings it up alot mostly in a joking manner. Hell I didn't notice what u just posted either. I accept what I get and be thankful there is some left for me to get...

[aray]

If you paid into Social Security for at least forty quarters, you are entitled to receive benefits, and it is not welfare.

Well ... it depends upon your definition of "welfare".

Most Social Security recipients get back far more in payments than they sent in in taxes. So by that definition you could call it welfare.

Ah, some say, but the money was invested, and we're just getting the interest. Sadly, no it wasn't. It is a direct payout program.

Making it worse, there isn't even really a Social Security Trust Fund. The Feds "stole" it all to fund the general budget. All SS really consists of is one big IOU.

And last, but certainly not least, the way it is structured is exactly like one big Ponzi scheme. It is mathematically guaranteed to fail. The Feds can and/or have pushed off the failure date several times, by: raising taxes, bringing in new workers previously exempt, raising the retirement age, etc. But doomed it is.

If IBM, or Ford, or any company ran their pension schemes the way the Federal Government runs Social Security, the CFO would be thrown into jail. It would be illegal. And rightly so.

[jocko]

i guess u can quarter up a pie anyway u want and call it what u want,,, but it is still a pie

My son who is 23 pays into it and no doubt he has a good chance of never seeing it when he retires and probably it wil lbe at age 68+ to. and ur basicalay right, it is a big Ponzi scheme only the government is Madoff..

[Tilos]

Rainman:
I'll defer to the politicians on what means testing is today, however it may "mean" something else in the future, as it's a moving target.

Just some more double speak to make more people ineligable for SS.
They are always looking for a way to tweek Roth IRAs and squeeze some taxes out of them, it's only a matter of time.
YMMV, Tilos

[O'Dell]

+1 to Willieboy
And the almost 45% of americans that pay NO income tax will be supporting/voting for the "tax the evil rich" party.
Tilos

The latest government figures indicate that the % has topped 50%. Let's hope that they are as unmotivated to vote as they are to work.

[O'Dell]

Well ... it depends upon your definition of "welfare".

Most Social Security recipients get back far more in payments than they sent in in taxes. So by that definition you could call it welfare.

Ah, some say, but the money was invested, and we're just getting the interest. Sadly, no it wasn't. It is a direct payout program.

Making it worse, there isn't even really a Social Security Trust Fund. The Feds "stole" it all to fund the general budget. All SS really consists of is one big IOU.

And last, but certainly not least, the way it is structured is exactly like one big Ponzi scheme. It is mathematically guaranteed to fail. The Feds can and/or have pushed off the failure date several times, by: raising taxes, bringing in new workers previously exempt, raising the retirement age, etc. But doomed it is.

If IBM, or Ford, or any company ran their pension schemes the way the Federal Government runs Social Security, the CFO would be thrown into jail. It would be illegal. And rightly so.

Unfortunate, but true. The SS System would be illegal in all fifty states if attempted by a private fund. But let's look at it from another angle. I have been paying into the "fund" since I was about 16. If all that money had been invested in an index fund, I would be a millionaire several times over.

[O'Dell]

That ticket won't win it. There has to be something better.

Romney/Bachman ?

I would love the ticket, but Newt is too easy to demagogue. Cain on the other hand is clean as a whistle. The only thing he doesn't have right now is name recognition. But think back, how many people knew of Obama 18 months before the election in 2008. He was a newly elected junior Senator that never really did anything but get elected, and even that was under a big cloud.

I think we need to see what happens in the early primaries. Cain could easily do well and get the recognition he needs. I also don't think we've heard the last of Huckabee either.

BTW, Newt is suppose to announce this Wednesday, and officially be the first Republican to throw his hat in the ring.

[Rainman48314]

sorry about that. Most people do call it social securtiy, should I feel better now??? I was talking about retirement benefits that most pay into ..
Yes, you should feel better because I believe you will collect Social Security and if you live a number of years into retirement, you will get back all your deposits, your employers deposits and a couple of extra bucks. May you never need SSI, it would mean living on very little money. For people on it, its usually their sole source of income.

I hope you aren't offended by my correction, but its hard to have a discussion if we confuse VASTLY different programs. Kinda like when Medicaid and Medicare get confused...or Kahr and car.

If I get ambitious, I just might calculate how long I need to live past 65 to get back the $99,000 I paid into SS, and of course, the $99,000 my various Employers paid in as well. Those are figures from the last annual statement I got from the SS Admin.

[Rainman48314]

I would love the ticket, but Newt is too easy to demagogue. Cain on the other hand is clean as a whistle. The only thing he doesn't have right now is name recognition. But think back, how many people knew of Obama 18 months before the election in 2008. He was a newly elected junior Senator that never really did anything but get elected, and even that was under a big cloud.

I think we need to see what happens in the early primaries. Cain could easily do well and get the recognition he needs. I also don't think we've heard the last of Huckabee either.

BTW, Newt is suppose to announce this Wednesday, and officially be the first Republican to throw his hat in the ring.I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually looking forward to the Primaries. Not only does the GOP need to come up with a good and electable candidate, someone has to give that candidate about $1B to campaign on a level field with Obama.

[Rainman48314]

Yes, you should feel better because I believe you will collect Social Security and if you live a number of years into retirement, you will get back all your deposits, your employers deposits and a couple of extra bucks. May you never need SSI, it would mean living on very little money. For people on it, its usually their sole source of income.

I hope you aren't offended by my correction, but its hard to have a discussion if we confuse VASTLY different programs. Kinda like when Medicaid and Medicare get confused...or Kahr and car.

If I get ambitious, I just might calculate how long I need to live past 65 to get back the $99,000 I paid into SS, and of course, the $99,000 my various Employers paid in as well. Those are figures from the last annual statement I got from the SS Admin.

I'm 61 now, by age 62 I will have $100,000 plus Employer match of $100,000 into the SS Retirement system. I would collect $1697 per month from Age 62 to death. To recoup "my" $200,000, I need to live 9.82 years (or 71), thereafter, with male life expectancy of under 79, I am hypothetically using investment earnings for another 8 years. This also leaves out any COLA adjustments from 62-79. Your thoughts?

[jocko]

die at age 72!!!!

[Tilos]

My thoughts...how much would that 200k be if uncle sugar let you buy IBM or Home Depot stock along the way, instead of redistributing it.

You paid it...but it's gone.
just scentin'
Tilos

[jocko]

hinhdsight is always 20-20.

[Willieboy]

I would never call SS payments welfare. If taxpayers had been free to invest their own money, they would receive their principal as well as earnings in return. The fact government chose to screw everything up is not the fault of the citizens. That's why I say confiscate congressional pensions to make up for SS shortfalls.

[Rainman48314]

My thoughts...how much would that 200k be if uncle sugar let you buy IBM or Home Depot stock along the way, instead of redistributing it.

You paid it...but it's gone.
just scentin'
Tilos

I could use the annual return of the S&P500 for the years of my work history. I'd have to ignore that FICA went in bi-weekly not annually, over 40 years, not too big an error. The report the SSA provides lists dollar amounts for each year. It would be unfair to pick one stock using 20/20 hindsight. We'd all pick google, apple etc. Of course, they didn't always exist. Perhaps someone can find a calculator in Excell that would let us just enter the 40 values for the years we have info for.

[O'Dell]

I'm 61 now, by age 62 I will have $100,000 plus Employer match of $100,000 into the SS Retirement system. I would collect $1697 per month from Age 62 to death. To recoup "my" $200,000, I need to live 9.82 years (or 71), thereafter, with male life expectancy of under 79, I am hypothetically using investment earnings for another 8 years. This also leaves out any COLA adjustments from 62-79. Your thoughts?

I'm a few years your senior and waited until full retirement to start the payments. Currently I'm drawing $2245 a month, but since I have them take out 25% for federal taxes, I get a bit under $1700. More than enough taxes are withheld on my day job, but the 25% mostly covers my SS, writing, investments, and a few other small sources of income I have. I don't remember how much I paid into the system as I don't get statements anymore. I suppose I could look it up.

[Rainman48314]

I'm a few years your senior and waited until full retirement to start the payments. Currently I'm drawing $2245 a month, but since I have them take out 25% for federal taxes, I get a bit under $1700. More than enough taxes are withheld on my day job, but the 25% mostly covers my SS, writing, investments, and a few other small sources of income I have. I don't remember how much I paid into the system as I don't get statements anymore. I suppose I could look it up.
Your monies deposited are in that same $200k ballpark since my benefit at normal (full) retirement is close to yours at $2338.

The key thing is are you enjoying your retirement? Sounds like you still work a bit by writing. I was terminated last August when my job was eliminated. For the right position, I'd work another 4.5 to 5 years. If nothing comes along, I'll apply for SS at 62 or 63

[O'Dell]

Your monies deposited are in that same $200k ballpark since my benefit at normal (full) retirement is close to yours at $2338.

The key thing is are you enjoying your retirement? Sounds like you still work a bit by writing. I was terminated last August when my job was eliminated. For the right position, I'd work another 4.5 to 5 years. If nothing comes along, I'll apply for SS at 62 or 63

What retirement? :D I think I'm working harder than I ever did. I'm still doing the same work I've done for 20 years, I've just cut back to 3 or 4 hours a day. I still have the computer company, but since they're so cheap now, I don't built that many. I still have my rental properties. I still write for two magazines. And since Vickie bought the Diner, I'm spending 3 or 4 hours a day there, for which I get paid exactly $0. I'm really not complaining though. The whole concept of waking up in the morning and having no place I have to be terrifies me.

[Rainman48314]

What retirement? :D I think I'm working harder than I ever did. I'm still doing the same work I've done for 20 years, I've just cut back to 3 or 4 hours a day. I still have the computer company, but since they're so cheap now, I don't built that many. I still have my rental properties. I still write for two magazines. And since Vickie bought the Diner, I'm spending 3 or 4 hours a day there, for which I get paid exactly $0. I'm really not complaining though. The whole concept of waking up in the morning and having no place I have to be terrifies me.

A busy life is a good life. You do sound like you ARE working harder than most.

[jocko]

I retired at age 53, starting collecting ss at age 62, never looked back after that. For me getting up in the morning and having no place THAT I HAVETO GO OR DO, is a good thing. I didn't retire to go back to work. I ride by the busness that I sold at age 53 every day and never even give it a thought. Best move I ever did..

[Rainman48314]

I retired at age 53, starting collecting ss at age 62, never looked back after that. For me getting up in the morning and having no place THAT I HAVETO GO OR DO, is a good thing. I didn't retire to go back to work. I ride by the busness that I sold at age 53 every day and never even give it a thought. Best move I ever did..I envy you that early retirement. I'm not busy enough. I'm starting golf season and shoot at the range but there's a lot of time left open. I enjoyed my work but don't really miss it. My g/f still works and she's 7 years younger.

[O'Dell]

When I go to the Diner in the morning, there always a group of older men there, drinking coffee and talking. Sometimes I join in but mostly not, because I'm too busy or I have an appointment. Then in the afternoon there's the same group, drinking coffee and talking. Where they go from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM, I don't have a clue, but I do know for sure, I don't want to be one of them.

I'm lucky that I don't need much sleep because from 3:00 to 7:30 is about all I ever get. The weekend are even worst. I do wish I had more time to go to the gun range. I still have a SA Loaded Lightweight 1911 and an STI Escort I've had for a month and haven't even shot yet. I squeezed in a couple of hours last week for the PM9, because I wanted to report back to you folks, but that's it. I thought that maybe today, but that didn't work out. I thought the same thing yesterday, but..... Maybe tomorrow.

[jocko]

I envy you that early retirement. I'm not busy enough. I starting golf season and shot at the range but there's a lot of time left open. I enjoyed my work but don't really miss it. My g/f still works and she's 7 years younger.

Harley Davidson time for me, so I have no problems passing time.I enjoy just riding by myself or with the wife. Nothing like riding to louisians (I live in Indiana) for a sandwich at a shop my wife found on line. I would not even think of that in a car. life is good:behindsofa: Her and I have road in 9 different cuntries in europe, It's a passion and has geen for over 50 years.

[TheTman]

I'm kind of liking Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son, I don't think he is running, but I like the guy. He's a big Tea Party supporter, and I agree with a lot of their platforms. High time the average middle class Americans got up and made some noise.

[jocko]

I envy you that early retirement. I'm not busy enough. I starting golf season and shot at the range but there's a lot of time left open. I enjoyed my work but don't really miss it. My g/f still works and she's 7 years younger.

wife (2nd) still works and is 18 years younger. I was a flunk out student at BYU and I lived hisp hilosphy. "I DON'T CARE HOW YOU BRING UM BUT BRING UM YOUNG!!! I thought he meant women:behindsofa:

[CarlCyrus]

I knew what you meant. It was the SSI acronym that tripped everyone up.

As to your friend's whining about no COLA for two years...I suspect there was no complaint about the "accidental" 5.8% increase three years ago as well as not noticing that the cost of living as COLA defined has been flat or decreased for the past two years. Also, as required by law the base Medicare premiums couldn't increase despite the rise in healthcare costs. Don't suppose he noticed that, either.

Better go check "shadowstats" website. True inflation is running 8%-10% and the Government gives you no COLA because they calculate the CPI different. They take out energy and food (which we all must buy) to calculate their rate of inflation.

I told you before, the Socialists will guarantee to you that you will receive SS, they just don't guarantee what it will buy in the future.

My favorite bumper sticker right now is: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher, in a television interview for Thames TV This Week on February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

It has been popularly paraphrased in various forms:

* "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."
* "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
* "Eventually, socialists run out of other peoples' money [to spend]."

Carl

[CarlCyrus]

Well ... it depends upon your definition of "welfare".

Most Social Security recipients get back far more in payments than they sent in in taxes. So by that definition you could call it welfare.

Ah, some say, but the money was invested, and we're just getting the interest. Sadly, no it wasn't. It is a direct payout program.

Making it worse, there isn't even really a Social Security Trust Fund. The Feds "stole" it all to fund the general budget. All SS really consists of is one big IOU.

And last, but certainly not least, the way it is structured is exactly like one big Ponzi scheme. It is mathematically guaranteed to fail. The Feds can and/or have pushed off the failure date several times, by: raising taxes, bringing in new workers previously exempt, raising the retirement age, etc. But doomed it is.

If IBM, or Ford, or any company ran their pension schemes the way the Federal Government runs Social Security, the CFO would be thrown into jail. It would be illegal. And rightly so.

You can't call it a Ponzi scheme...It is really inter-generational theft. You are stealing from your children and grandchildren.

Carl

[Tilos]

Carl:
I'm having a hard time believing you really drank that "inter-generational theft" media/liberal Koolaid and bought into blame game.

The gov'mt takes it to zero every year...the gov YOU elected.
If they were not so busy stealing the money and had raised the retirement age as life expectancy went up and left the $ there we would not be discussing this today.
When SS started, retirement was 65 and the average life expectancy for an American male was 67 :eek:.
It's not grandpa's fault the money's gone.
Tilos

[Rainman48314]

Carl:
I'm having a hard time believing you really drank that "inter-generational theft" media/liberal Koolaid and bought into blame game.

The gov'mt takes it to zero every year...the gov YOU elected.
If they were not so busy stealing the money and had raised the retirement age as life expectancy went up and left the $ there we would not be discussing this today.
When SS started, retirement was 65 and the average life expectancy for an American male was 67 :eek:.
It's not grandpa's fault the money's gone.
Tilos
In 1936, because of the 25% unemployment rate, the primary goal of Social Security was to get older workers out of the work force so those jobs would go to younger men. It didn't even cover women or farm workers at first. The retirement date was set at 65, which was considered actuarially sound, since, at the time, the average life expectancy in America was 61. By making the retirement date four years later than the average life expectancy, it was thought the proposed social security tax of ½ of 1% each for employer and employee was adequate. Since the first retirees would put no funds, or practically no funds into the treasury, it was assumed that the retirees would be paid with deficit financing and the contributions of their children's generation.

It was set up that way because the goal was actually twofold in 1936 — (1) to get older workers out of the job market so younger workers could take their jobs and (2) to help the retirees children who would have the burden of raising their children while helping to care for their parents.

It worked fairly well in the early days of Social Security since about half the people did not live long enough to collect any money. The life expectancy increased to its present 74.63 years for males and 80.36 years for women, while people are allowed to retire and collect Social Security as young as 62 years.

If Social Security used the same actuarial charts used in 2005 that were used in 1936 when the retirement date was pegged to the life-expectancy rate, the ages of becoming eligible for Social Security for men would be approximately age 79 and for women it would be age 85

[Tilos]

OK then.
I was close, going from memory with the numbers and you just echo'd my point with a lot more info.

(evil)rich/poor = class warfare
A poor man NEVER gave me a job...anyone?

SS/greedy gramps = generational warfare.

Tilos

[Rainman48314]

OK then.
I was close, going from memory with the numbers and you just echo'd my point with a lot more info.

(evil)rich/poor = class warfare
A poor man NEVER gave me a job...anyone?

SS/greedy gramps = generational warfare.

Tilos

Your point was a good one. I can't imagine waiting for a SS benefit until I hit 79 (if I ever do).

[ltxi]

On the other hand, the SS tax rate ain't exactly 0.5% anymore now is it?