Re: Harry Reid's Message to the Republicans: Don't Mess With Social Security

Not sure if this helps, but today I got a notice of several posts went to my spam box.  Upon checking, they were all yours from the other day. Ask jk.

 

In a message dated 11/27/2012 10:34:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jgg1000@hotmail.com writes:

Then why are all my posts posted then "deleted" within the minute???

On Monday, November 26, 2012 4:24:23 PM UTC-5, Annie39 wrote:

no one banned you. If you are having problems, it's on your end, not the group

 

 

In a message dated 11/26/2012 4:04:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jgg...@hotmail.com writes:

Am I still banned

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:23:39 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:

After some thought it appears that there were very different circumstances. Clinton led us through a time when we thought the wealth was unlimited. By the time W brought up the subject he was already in trouble over the still missing and politically problematic ends. In both cases economists opposed the idea, even then for different reasons. W would have had to borrow to pay brokerage fees. Clinton was busy with America's most incompetent investigator.

Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T

GregfromBoston <greg.v...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yes he did.
>
>Individual accounts were administratively feasible and would likely cost
>$20-30 per year per account to administer. However, to hold down costs,
>individual *investment choices*<http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/clinton-wanted-social-security-privatized#>would have to be limited until accounts accumulated some level of minimum
>balance, perhaps $5,000.
>
>Market risks were not a sufficient reason to oppose individual accounts.
>Administration analysts found that long-term investment was, in reality,
>relatively safe. The administration also noted that the current Social
>Security system contains political risks that may well be worse than market
>risks.
>
>Concerns over redistribution could be addressed through the adjustment of
>benefit formulas, matching contributions or other means.
>
>
>On Monday, November 19, 2012 7:39:09 PM UTC-5, mg wrote:
>
>> I think you are confused. Clinton never "proposed giving people the
>> option of
>> investing 6% of their SS in the markets".
>>
>>
>> On Nov 19, 1:03 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > A shoe box full of IOUs isn't self-funded, its a rape victim.
>> >
>> > Isn't it odd how when Clinton proposed giving people the option of
>> > investing 6% of their SS in the markets, he was forward thinking, but
>> when
>> > Bush proposed a 2% option he was privatizing SS?
>> >
>> > On Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:23:22 PM UTC-5, mg wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Nov 18, 8:16 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > Al Gore was right about the "locked box", but the trick is you need
>> a
>> > > box
>> > > > before a lock will do shit
>> >
>> > > Yup. I think Al Gore probably saw it all coming years in advance.
>> > > First the Republicans would run up a huge debt and deficit on purpose
>> > > and then they would blame Social Security for everything, even though
>> > > it's self-funded.
>> >
>> > > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:55:44 PM UTC-5, mg wrote:
>> > > > > What difference does it make? As I said, Social Security didn't
>> cause
>> > > > > the mess we are in and the effort by politicians to throw it into
>> the
>> > > > > budget talks is nothing more than a clever attempt to hoodwink
>> > > > > gullible Americans into thinking it did.
>> >
>> > > > > On Nov 17, 5:12 pm, jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > read the summary read the entire report
>> >
>> > > > > >http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
>> >
>> > > > > > Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in
>> 2010
>> > > and
>> > > > > > 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees
>> > > estimate
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income
>> > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest
>> income
>> > > > > relative
>> > > > > > to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in
>> > > 2011,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion
>> between
>> > > 2012
>> > > > > > and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the
>> > > recovery
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a
>> > > > > > substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
>> > > Redemption
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will
>> provide
>> > > the
>> > > > > > resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since
>> > > these
>> > > > > > redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020,
>> > > nominal
>> > > > > trust
>> > > > > > fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which
>> > > > > indicates
>> > > > > > the number of years of program cost that could be financed
>> solely
>> > > with
>> > > > > > current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through
>> 2011,
>> > > and
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > expected to decline further in future years. After 2020,
>> Treasury
>> > > will
>> > > > > > redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest
>> earnings
>> > > until
>> > > > > > exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier
>> than
>> > > > > > projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient
>> to
>> > > pay
>> > > > > only
>> > > > > > about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086
>> >
>> > > > > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:53:49 PM UTC-5, mg wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > On Nov 17, 11:01 am, jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > mg, the problem is systemic to SS...
>> >
>> > > > > > > > 1) too few workers per retiree to pay the deficit between
>> SSA
>> > > income
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > paid benefits.
>> > > > > > > > 2) A core question is "How do you pay for the the deficits?"
>> > > > >  Increased
>> > > > > > > > taxes on workers, more China debt, print more money???  Just
>> how
>> > > are
>> > > > > 2.3
>> > > > > > > > workers going to pay for 4 grandparents???
>> >
>> > > > > > > > In short, doing nothing messes with Social Security and will
>> be
>> > > a
>> > > > > root
>> > > > > > > > cause of generational warfare...
>> >
>> > > > > > > As Ronald Reagan once said:
>> >
>> > > > > > > "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social
>> > > Security
>> > > > > > > is totally funded by the payroll tax ... if you reduce the
>> outflow
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund
>> to
>> > > > > > > reduce the deficit."
>> > > > > > > -- Ronald Reagan, October 7, 1984
>> >
>> > > > > > > Social Security didn't cause the mess we are in and the effort
>> by
>> > > > > > > politicians to throw it into the budget talks is nothing more
>> than
>> > > a
>> > > > > > > clever attempt to hoodwink gullible Americans into thinking it
>> > > did.
>> >
>> > > > > > > What is needed is a more honest dialogue about what actually
>> did
>> > > cause
>> > > > > > > the massive debt and deficits and they are as follows:
>> >
>> > > > > > > 1. Bush's optional wars that he didn't pay for.
>> > > > > > > 2. Bush's tax cuts that he didn't pay for.
>> > > > > > > 3. Bush's drug program that he didn't pay for.
>> > > > > > > 4. The economic crash that was caused by Wall Street and the
>> > > > > > > Republicans.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:55:17 AM UTC-5, mg wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > "Senate Democrats won't "mess with Social Security": Reid
>> > > > > > > > > Reuters – Wed, Nov 7, 2012
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid
>> on
>> > > > > > > > > Wednesday reaffirmed his opposition to tinkering with the
>> > > Social
>> > > > > > > > > Security retirement program in pushing for a bipartisan
>> > > deficit-
>> > > > > > > > > reduction deal.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > "We are not going to mess with Social Security," Reid told
>> > > > > reporters
>> > > > > > > > > as he left a post-election news conference that he used to
>> > > call
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > cooperation between the two parties in dealing with U.S.
>> > > fiscal
>> > > > > woes.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > (Reporting By Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Stacey Joyce)"
>>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.