He said it again

[slobber]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

[SdK]

Kill or be killed.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

[ednksu]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

lulz

[06wildcat]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

[ednksu]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

well it kinda is

If there's a problem, the fix is more money.

or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.

[CHONGS]

jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards

absolute idiots and crazy people

[kim carnes]

jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards

absolute idiots and crazy people

lol

[slobber]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.

[p1k3]

jfc no matter what side each is on this forum is filled with absolute retards

absolute idiots and crazy people

Chings if you dont like the pit then you can getttttt out

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.

06 once claimed that it doesn't matter how much money the government spends because we only owe ourselves, so you know where he's coming from.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

well it kinda is

If there's a problem, the fix is more money.

or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.

This is the definition of government run programs. Obamacare will be a true gem.

[ednksu]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

well it kinda is

If there's a problem, the fix is more money.

or people shouldn't rely on it to function in a way it was never designed or intended to.

This is the definition of government run programs. Obamacare will be a true gem.

not necessarily.  Obamacare is designed to expand services at the expense of the Federal Government via Big Pharma, taxes, savings.  Now can we make it as far as we need to for the program to begin payback?  Is the CBO estimate for initial and short terms costs a figure from deep within their rectums?  Who knows.

SS was never a retirement system.  That is one thing the baby boomers who bitch about entitlements for the 47%/darkies fail to realize.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.

Exactly. Some people . . .

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

[06wildcat]

Two pages and not a single rough ridin' poster actually understands how Social Security works. Though JD compared it to a Ponzi scheme, which is to be expected.

I don't see where anyone attempted to explain how SS works. Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us rough ridin' posters.

06 once claimed that it doesn't matter how much money the government spends because we only owe ourselves, so you know where he's coming from.

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.

Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.

Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.

Yeah, and if it goes away, those people will be back to having to purchase their own healthcare. It's not like social security where the affected people would lose a lifetime of savings accumulated from a system they were forced to participate in. The people who get screwed if this goes away contributed nothing.

[ednksu]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.

Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.

link please

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

That is in fact what I did. I just suck at trying to restate it when I eff it up the first time.

$12k annually for 30 years at 2% =$486817
$3k annually for 30 years at 10% =$493482

Oh, ok. That's pretty surprising, actually. I still don't know how you plan on averaging 10% interest over a 30 year period, though. That seems like a best case scenario. My biggest gripe with your plan is that it is almost impossible to actually outperform SS when you opt out, and lots of uninformed people would choose to opt out and wind up with almost nothing. Then the government would be tasked with taking care of them anyway.

The government would probably be in a much better financial position to help the poor if it didn't have the SS and Medicare albatross hanging around it's neck. A better plan would be to pay non-profit corps to take care of those that qualify through donations and government grants.

I'm pretty sure the government is already doing this.

Yes, but that's in addition to the failed SS and Medicare experiment. SS, Medicare and safety net programs account for 54% of the federal budget. Somehow, I think we could do it much more efficiently, but that's an anti-government stance as government is anti-efficiency.

I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away if there were a fair way to eliminate it. Unfortunately, there is not.

This is why we should never let this health care bill get started. If we are already spending $2,000,000,000,000 per year on SS, Medicare, and safety net, how much more are we going to need to insure 30 million more?

Healthcare isn't really like social security, though. If you pull federal funding for health insurance, you aren't taking away tens of thousands of dollars that Americans have paid into a system over the course of their employment and that they are counting on as part of their retirement. You are simply requiring people to pay for their own insurance if they want healthcare. Most people are required to do that under Obamacare, anyway.

Millions of additional people are going to get free coverage under Medicaid, which is great for them, but 75% of that cost is going to be covered (taxes) by people making less than $120K.

link please

http://www.barackobama.com/health-care?source=health-care-soundbite