Fishing - This is good

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - This is good (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=32862)

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -

Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.

Er, how do you figure that? I have no idea of the exact numbers, but
I'd offer that most folks taking benefits from SSI have not contributed
much to "the fund" as they have paid very little tax or otherwise
contributed to the general funding of the Fed.

Now, if you're talking about old age benefits, those folks have
contributed, in general, but there is no way that take-out will continue
to exceed input and when the whole "Trust Fund" **** hits the fan
(granted, not for a coupla-three decades, if projections are halfway
close), your age group's kids and my age group are gonna be lucky to get
anything and certainly my "take-out" is not going to be anywhere near my
_overall_ input.

Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

No, but a proper investment strategy will, over the years, yield more
than the various Fed programs ("old age" - "Social Security") and
welfare (SSI) schemes

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

Well, sure...suppose someone fell asleep with the cookies in the oven...

HTH,
R

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

What the **** does retirement have to do with SSI? Children can collect
it, and it's strictly (or almost so) an entitlement program - you're
confusing SSI with "old age"/retirement benefits. But don't get me
wrong, the whole old age benefits system is a cluster****, too...

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it. In fact, it is specifically for "the poor" -
IOW, it's welfare with a Federal bureaucracy to really, um, redistribute
wealth...

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

SNICKER

HTH,
R

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:57:26 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it.

You truly are a ****ing ignorant, dishonest piece of ****. And desperate.

There is NO means testing in SSI.

THOSE LYING *******S!! They _claim_...well, let's let the SSA explain
it:

"Rules for getting SSI:

Your income and resources:

Whether you can get SSI depends on your income and resources (the things
you own)."

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11000.html#part3

....but, to be fair, they don't count the first $20 a month of income or
the first $65 a month someone actually earns...

Hee-hee-hee,
R
....for a self-proclaimed stock-market investor, I'd say you make one
hell of an innertube model...

" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 3:39 pm, rw wrote:
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

I'm sure if you gave them the option to opt out of the program
most would. I know I'd agree not to take any SS if they agreed
to stop taking the money from my paychecks.....
.....or was that not what you meant? :-)
- Ken

It was not always the national retirement system. It was originally the
Widows and childrens act to keep the poor widow and children from starving
when the wage earner died. Which was usually the mail. The original rate
was 1% of (I think) the first $1500 if earnbed income. As late as 1963 I
still managed to get a raise in my paycheck about 2/3 the way through the
year as an apprentice making $62.50 a week. The amount paid into the system
was 1% of the first $3300 income. So between the employer and employee the
total investment was $660. And this gave you and your family a livetime
disability plan. Not until LBJ needed more money for himself and the wife
via war and he raised the rate of payment and the limit and promised more
money to the masses. Gave a huge increase in Federal revenue and little
extra expense in those days. But the expense has risen exponentially while
revenues have not. Most of those collecting SS now did not pay in enough to
really justify the high checks. Buy an insurance policy that covers you for
death and disability and figure out what that would have cost you a year,
and then on top of that the amount of money that you would have to put into
an annuity to get the present returns. Probably a lot more than most of us
paid in. The rate for the youg people like my kids is probably enough to
cover the payments, except this Ponzi scheme will have paid out the money to
us early collectors. What happens in 15 years when there is only 3-4
workers for every retiree?

OT: US Election, "This is good"

On Oct 26, 6:35*pm, Don46 wrote:
Why don't all of you take a weekend off and do some fly fishing? *:-)

Don, I bet lots of people will be fishing this weekend. I am headed
out wednesday for a week or so fishing in Eastern Washington. What
did you think of all the posts on the Salmon River trips? Did you read
the TR on fly fishing on the Neva in Italy? There are also some very
current posts on plans for trips up into Canada. Any experiences to
share with these venues or others you've fished recently?

Dave

On Oct 27, 10:20*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

SSI is separate from Social Security. *Was originally for those like my
Grandmother who was never required to pay the SS tax. *They were farmers and
exempt for the tax. *Then it was expanded to cover poor. *My brother's wife
brought her elderly parents here from England and they promptly got signed
up for SSI. *I always thought it sucked, but they were instantly eligible.
SSI for your enlightenment is not Social Security, but is administered by
the SS Administration. *And the money comes out of the SS taxes paid by the
working.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you are right about people getting onto the SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY
INCOME program. And in the 1980s and 1990s financial advisers figured
out the loopholes and wholesale, MIDDLECLASS and well off people piled
onto the program. It took the Feds several years to plug the abuser's
gap. For a while some people figured out how to get children declared
disabled for very questionable things (like talking back to their
parents) and we saw it used to subsidize private school tuition etc.
These were not poor Black people doing the cheating. It was primarily
WHITE well off people. US.

And it was also well connected immigrants primarily associated with H!
B visa using technology firms that slipped in, but other game players
included both Christian and Jewish immigrant serving programs.. Part
of the recruitment strategy was to set the new hires parents and
siblings up on SSI, as per the guidance of tech company HRD staff.
That way they could pay less of the company's money, but backfill with
Uncle Sap's money. Name the big tech company, and they played the
game. Thank god the Feds plugged this part of the H1B abuses. But very
few Americans know about this fiasco, much less the difference between
SSI and Social Security retirement.

One of the reasons I get ****ed when I hear some of the "private
sector this", and "private sector that" bull**** from business execs
who try for State and Federal elective office, is that I do know
something about who cheated and abused these programs and frankly I
sometimes want to kick their hypocritical asses. They are mostly Rs
but the Ds have had a few too.

You are wrong as to where the money comes from. The money for SSI
technically comes out of general revenue, not the Trust Fund. However
that is almost immaterial in the whole scheme of things.

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"

As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

My numbers may be off and need updating but that is the general shape
of it. Bottomline is that Wall Street and their Congressional lackeys
made a good fight to rip off America's largest single source of
retirement income, and almost convinced a giddy populace that they
could get rich in the magical stock market. They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Its another example of conflating the ideology of greed, with
political expression. The reforms of the Roosevelt years saved this
country from a radical turn to the left. The social security system,
the unemployment insurance trust fund, the workmen's compensation
system, the banking (FDIC) and financial system reforms, and the fair
labor laws of our fathers, established a safety net and a firm set of
ground rules within which capitalism and free market enterprise could
flourish.

Sadly, greed and one political party's obsession with tearing down the
stabilizing structure of our father's hard earned Roosevelt reforms,
that has resulted in the mess we are currently in. Now, panicked we
see the unseemly near nationalization of the tattered system by the
administration. We see over reactions that threaten the basic
competitive and entrepreunurial character of our economy. I find it
ironic that it will fall to the Democrats to rebuild the competitive
and entrepreunurial character of our economy.

Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? *I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Of course you would. And I would like my tax money used to subsidize
those 400 or so substantial US and offshore companies who pay no
taxes. I would like to be able to tell them pay their share of police,
fire, school etc costs. Boeing flies its planes out over international
waters to avoid taxes. Microsoft runs its money thru a closet in
Nevada so Bill Gates can posture about how my school taxes should be
spent, I subsidize Intel's factory roads, the Hartford forest lands
and Weyerhaeuser pay diddle squat. And I have a better insight these
days on just how the Ag bill works since I bought some farm land.

Bottom-line is that a lot of this ideology stuff has clouded what we
really need to do in this country to both take proper care of our
people and build up a productive, competitive and entrepreneurial
private sector that can pay for our way of life in a sustainable
basis.

Dave