U.S. Going Broke - Guess who'll pay...

[-Cp]

Whatever you paid in taxes this year, get ready to pay lots more, conclude two economists, Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters at the Cato Institute and Wharton School, respectively.

They found:

Our government has promised $63.675 trillion more in benefits than it will collect in taxes.
If the federal government confiscated all the land in the United States along with all of its improvements -- buildings, highways, plants and equipment, and other durable assets built on it -- and sold them at auction to foreign investors, it would still fall more than $20 trillion short in present value of the monies required to satisfy its future budget.
The true federal deficit isn't the $200 billion-odd a year discussed in newspapers but nearly 10 times more, $2.4 trillion.
Without Social Security and Medicare, we'd be running a surplus; the entire problem is the $72.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
Eliminating all military spending, forever, would only cover about half of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare.
Just paying for promised benefits would require an immediate new 14.4 percent tax on all payroll; a tax increase that large probably wouldn't be collectible because work would go underground.
The vast majority of the problem can be traced to Medicare; its unfunded liabilities are 8.5 times larger than the unfunded liabilities of Social Security.
To put these figures in perspective, the total output of the U.S. economy is now about $12.5 trillion. The Federal Reserve recently estimated the net worth of all U.S. consumers at $55.6 trillion.

Source: Scott Burns, "U.S. going broke; guess who will pay?" Dallas Morning News, April 22, 2007.

For text:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/scottburns/columns/2007/stories/DN-burns_22bus.ART0.State.Edition1.3658285.html

For more on Welfare Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=44

[Joe Steel]

Whatever you paid in taxes this year, get ready to pay lots more, conclude two economists, Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters at the Cato Institute and Wharton School, respectively.

Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.

[theHawk]

Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.

Wow so all rich people simply get all their money from corrupt politicians. lol. Looks like we got ourselves another Marxist lover! :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.

Another socialist member on the board.

[gabosaurus]

So what is the major expenditure for the last five years? The War in Iraq!!
If we ended the illegal war, our economy would not run up such hideous debts.
Even a ConRep should be able to figure that one out. :poke:

[darin]

So what is the major expenditure for the last five years? The War in Iraq!!
If we ended the illegal war, our economy would not run up such hideous debts.
Even a ConRep should be able to figure that one out. :poke:

Congrats on being the first on my ignore list. Ignore SHOULD be labeled Ignor-ANT list...because I can't remember one thing you've posted which made a lot of sense.

wow.

[darin]

Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.

Is that why "the Rich" pay 90%? of all taxes collected? Hrm...

[typomaniac]

If you folks are genuinely worried about welfare issues, start by going after corporate welfare. :poke:

[Abbey Marie]

And this is just the federal stuff. Taxing the middle class to fund social programs hits us from all levels of government. Our school district is asking for a 37 cent increase on the dollar in real estate taxes, primarily so they can offer free full-day kindergarten to "everyone". Can you guess who they really mean by everyone? They claim it will help "close the achievement gap" between whites and minorities. The Robin Hood mentality at work. Interestingly, our daughter went to half-day kindergarten, and she absolutely excels in school.

[manu1959]

If you folks are genuinely worried about welfare issues, start by going after corporate welfare. :poke:

corporate welfare would be .... what......?

[typomaniac]

corporate welfare would be .... what......?Your answer, sir. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)

[Mr. P]

If you folks are genuinely worried about welfare issues, start by going after corporate welfare. :poke:

If you are worried, get the Government out of the welfare/SSI safety net and let people save privately. At least it would be funded then.

[KarlMarx]

Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.

Is this a joke? It's hard to tell sometimes...

[KarlMarx]

If you folks are genuinely worried about welfare issues, start by going after corporate welfare. :poke:
That's one reason why we should not have Embryonic Stem Cell Research funded by the Federal Government.

[typomaniac]

If you are worried, get the Government out of the welfare/SSI safety net and let people save privately. At least it would be funded then.I'm much more worried about expenses in Iraq than I am about the social safety net.

[KarlMarx]

I'm much more worried about expenses in Iraq than I am about the social safety net.
Worry about Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, they are far larger budget items than the war in Iraq.

[typomaniac]

Worry about Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, they are far larger budget items than the war in Iraq.If you say so...... :uhoh:

[Abbey Marie]

Originally Posted by Joe Steel
Our budget problems are the result of subsidizing the rich with tax cuts. The solution to the problem lies in a steeply progressive tax policy and high marginal tax rates. Corrupt politicians gave the rich the People's money. The People have to get it back.


Is this a joke? It's hard to tell sometimes...


You have to understand the lingo. "Steeply progressive" = "Socialist economic programs".

[Mr. P]

I'm much more worried about expenses in Iraq than I am about the social safety net.

You should be. Iraq will end, old folks won't.

[manu1959]

Your answer, sir. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)

....and i take it that you would be opposed to doing "things" to ensure that coroprations do well?.....thus corporations should either be able to make it on their own or fail....

[typomaniac]

....and i take it that you would be opposed to doing "things" to ensure that coroprations do well?.....thus corporations should either be able to make it on their own or fail....You're darn right they should! :clap:

[Abbey Marie]

You're darn right they should! :clap:

PBS! PBS! :coffee:

[manu1959]

You're darn right they should! :clap:

i assume you will have no problem applying this standard across the board to all american citizens .... in essence each individual is a corporation of one ....

[typomaniac]

i assume you will have no problem applying this standard across the board to all american citizens .... in essence each individual is a corporation of one ....To all ADULT American citizens, sure.

(Children born here should all be given the same opportunity to make it in this country, regardless of race, income, etc. That doesn't mean they all have to be guaranteed the same results, of course.)

[manu1959]

To all ADULT American citizens, sure.

(Children born here should all be given the same opportunity to make it in this country, regardless of race, income, etc. That doesn't mean they all have to be guaranteed the same results, of course.)

so eliminating, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, federal grants, tax cuts, medical, medicade, social security, etc...for all citizens over 18 ....you are cool with that?

[typomaniac]

PBS! PBS! :coffee:PBS is a nonprofit. Apples to oranges.

[typomaniac]

so eliminating, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, federal grants, tax cuts, medical, medicade, social security, etc...for all citizens over 18 ....you are cool with that?IF it would end up costing taxpayers less, I would be. But then again, if your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle. :lmao:

Of course, just the opposite would happen in your proposed utopia. Malnourished, homeless, people without medical treatment cost everyone more money. It's nothing more than a question of economics.

[manu1959]

IF it would end up costing taxpayers less, I would be. But then again, if your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle. :lmao:

Of course, just the opposite would happen in your proposed utopia. Malnourished, homeless, people without medical treatment cost everyone more money. It's nothing more than a question of economics.

the same logic can apply to companies you don't help.....

[manu1959]

PBS is a nonprofit. Apples to oranges.

PBS is for profit.....the people that work there are paid....

[typomaniac]

the same logic can apply to companies you don't help.....Nope. Companies that go broke don't cost money for anyone but the investors.

[Hagbard Celine]

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that our economy is built on credit.

[typomaniac]

PBS is for profit.....the people that work there are paid....One of the most idiotic things I've seen on this site, and I've seen many. I'm sure you know what a "not-for-profit corporation" is. If not, go look it up. For your own sake.

[darin]

One of the most idiotic things I've seen on this site, and I've seen many. I'm sure you know what a "not-for-profit corporation" is. If not, go look it up. For your own sake.

There is a difference between NOT-FOR profit and Non-profit :)

[typomaniac]

There is a difference between NOT-FOR profit and Non-profit :)And PBS is one or the other, isn't it?

[manu1959]

One of the most idiotic things I've seen on this site, and I've seen many. I'm sure you know what a "not-for-profit corporation" is. If not, go look it up. For your own sake.

you said non profit........you do no the difference between non profit and not for profit.... If not, go look it up. For your own sake....and PBS makes a profit, it distibutes the profits to the employees as wages....

[manu1959]

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that our economy is built on credit.

can you name an economy that is not built on credit?

[loosecannon]

The Comptroller general of the Government accounting office has been warning about our unfunded liabilities crisis for a few years.

The problem is much, much larger than anything that can be solved just by reversing the tax cuts, pulling out of Iraq and even aggressive corporate taxes combined.

The problem is so large that it would take 1.6 years of the entire worlds gross domestic product to cover it.

But that is just part of the problem.

We also have record conmsumer debt.

And we have record national debt.

And we have a private pension system that is also unfunded and guaranteed by the government.

And altho it is obscure and mysterious to most folks we have an "investment" industry that sells phony assets that is the supposed store of wealth that would pay for much of this.

Derivatives as an example have no real value. If they crash as a market nothing but paper will be left in their wake. Same with many hedge funds. And same with many commodities like gold in which the gold you buy is never even purchased by the gold bank whom you transact with.

Then there is fiat money.

Did you know that the US dollar and US T bills have no real value at all?

Look up fiat money anywhere on the web and prepare to be astonished.

Bonds are guaranteed with future taxes. There is no existing store of wealth to repay bonds with when they mature. As a rule the gummit simply sells more bonds to cover the ones being redeemed at maturity.

Our entire financial system is not only massively in debt with liabilities far higher than we can pay, but at least 3/4 of all of our "wealth" and "assets" have no actual value.

And with a shrinking work force and a ballooning senior population as well as a declining industrial base there is little chance that it is at all possible to increase taxes enough to cover the unfunded liabilities deficit.

[loosecannon]

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that our economy is built on credit.

Hell most people have no idea what that comment even means.

The basis of our monetary system is fiat dollars that are printed by the treasury at will to provide for the demands of the privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel.

In order for a dollar to enter circulation it must be borrowed, and when the debt is paid off [/b] that dollar dissappears forever. And new dollars must be printed and lent to replace it.

And because the currency is all introduced as debt and that debt must be repaid with interest, the economy MUST grow logorithmically.

Which is impossible.

And there can not possible be enough money to ever pay off the original loans PLUS the interest because all money is just more debt.

Once all the debt is repaid (which is impossible) there would be no money left in circulation.

I know it sounds bizarre but spend some google time looking at "fiat currency" and you will find lots of verification.

Fiat money is a ponzi scheme, google that for shits and grins.

[loosecannon]

can you name an economy that is not built on credit?

The US 35 years ago. We were the worlds bank and the worlds gold depository.

[Nienna]

So what is the major expenditure for the last five years? The War in Iraq!!
If we ended the illegal war, our economy would not run up such hideous debts.
Even a ConRep should be able to figure that one out. :poke:

After the Great Depression, wasn't it the WAR that galvanized the economy?

[Mr. P]

And PBS is one or the other, isn't it?

Yup, and a great deal of their funding is from the tax payer..
That makes them accountable for how that money is spent.

[Pale Rider]

Another socialist member on the board.

We've had quite an abundance of commie liberals joining lately.

[Mr. P]

...

Fiat money is a ponzi scheme, google that for shits and grins.

Social Security should pop-up if you do.

[loosecannon]

After the Great Depression, wasn't it the WAR that galvanized the economy?


No. It was the lend lease act which allowed us to be the provisioners of the other allied nations.

US GDP doubled in 7 years during the war mostly because of purchases from allied nations. It usually takes 20 years for GDP to double.

After the war the dollar was chosen as the worlds reserve currency at the Bretton Wood accord which made our dollar an in demand item.

We also set up the world bank to lend even more dollars to nations for rebuilding.

We got fabulously wealthy by financing the war, not from the war itself.

[loosecannon]

Social Security should pop-up if you do.

Social security and pension funds are both fatally flawed ideas. They simply can not work.

[manu1959]

35 years ago the us economy was great....

looks like nixon was a great president afterall....:laugh2:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1972/1972-1-11.htm

[Pale Rider]

It's all pretty damn scarey. Why couldn't America just "write off" the debt "to itself?"

[Abbey Marie]

PBS is a nonprofit. Apples to oranges.

Let's see:

Manu said
corporations should either be able to make it on their own or fail....

You said,
Damn right they shoud...

There was no mention of profit, nor of non-profit, in that exchange. Therefore, by your own words, PBS, as a corporation, should have to make it on their own or fail.

"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private non-profit corporation... CPB... in 1969 decided to start its own network, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
...
The CPB annual budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005, unrestricted revenues summed to $480.4 million, $386.8 million of which come from congress' allocation to the corporation's general fund."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

Sounds to me like under your view, PBS is doomed.

[typomaniac]

Let's see:

Manu said

You said,

There was no mention of profit, nor of non-profit, in that exchange. Therefore, by your own words, PBS, as a corporation, should have to make it on their own or fail.

"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private non-profit corporation... CPB... in 1969 decided to start its own network, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
...
The CPB annual budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005, unrestricted revenues summed to $480.4 million, $386.8 million of which come from congress' allocation to the corporation's general fund."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

Sounds to me like under your view, PBS is doomed.All right, already! I should have said "For-profit corporations."

I made a mistake.

NOW is the peanut gallery happy?! :uhoh:

[loosecannon]

It's all pretty damn scarey. Why couldn't America just "write off" the debt "to itself?"


We can, we will and we are.

But it will impoverish us as it happens.

The two things you can be certain will happen is that SS and Medicare must cut costs dramatically. They may stop paying benefits.

The other is that there will be massive inflation.

But this is already happening. In the last 7 years the costs of gold, silver, copper, oil, gasoline and land have all approximately doubled.

When commodities go up in price money is actually going down in value. That is inflation.

It is a safe bet that inflation has been 7-10%/year for the last 7 years despite what the gummit figures claim.

Either land, real estate and commodities doubled in price, or the money lost half of it's value.

[manu1959]

All right, already! I should have said "For-profit corporations."

I made a mistake.

NOW is the peanut gallery happy?! :uhoh:

not happy...but you have my respect....

[loosecannon]

35 years ago the us economy was great....

looks like nixon was a great president afterall....:laugh2:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1972/1972-1-11.htm


When Nixon took the US off of the gold standard it was the begining of the end for the US dollar.

The recession in the late 70's and early 80's was a direct result of Nixon's actions. There was a period in the early 80's when many people began to be concerned that the dollar would collapse to no value at all.

Look at this gold chart for the period

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Au_annual_average_USD_price_1793-2005.png

See how fast the price jumped in the late 70's early 80's?

When gold is rising dollars are usually losing value. This spike was caused by fears that the dollar could collapse and cause a world wide recession/depression.

[Mr. P]

Social security and pension funds are both fatally flawed ideas. They simply can not work.

HA really?


A Private Retirement Plan That Works. The initial Social Security Act permitted municipal governments to opt out of the system - a loophole that Congress closed in 1983. In 1981, employees of Galveston County, Texas, chose by a vote of 78 percent to 22 percent to leave Social Security for a private alternative. Brazoria and Matagorda counties soon followed, swelling the private plan to more than 5,000 participants today. In the private plan, contributions are similar to those for Social Security but returns are quite different.


Read it...I'd love to be in such a program that 'won't work' like this one.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

[Abbey Marie]

All right, already! I should have said "For-profit corporations."

I made a mistake.

NOW is the peanut gallery happy?! :uhoh:

Okey doke. :salute:

But under the theory of corporate welfare, shouldn't even non-profits live or die on their own merits? They can fund-raise all they want, but no forced taxpayer assistance?

[Pale Rider]

We can, we will and we are.

But it will impoverish us as it happens.

The two things you can be certain will happen is that SS and Medicare must cut costs dramatically. They may stop paying benefits.

The other is that there will be massive inflation.

But this is already happening. In the last 7 years the costs of gold, silver, copper, oil, gasoline and land have all approximately doubled.

When commodities go up in price money is actually going down in value. That is inflation.

It is a safe bet that inflation has been 7-10%/year for the last 7 years despite what the gummit figures claim.

Either land, real estate and commodities doubled in price, or the money lost half of it's value.


I read once years ago, probably seven or eight years ago, that for me to aquire the same things my parents have, house, cars, belongings, etc., I would have to make somewhere in the neighborhood of FIFTEEN TIMES more money than they did. I'd bet it's higher than that now.

I believe you're right on inflation. Every year SS and military pensions go up by some miniscule 2.4% or there abouts, but every year it goes quicker and quicker. SS goes up 2.4%, and groceries, gasoline, housing, clothing, etc. go up 7.8%! We're headed for problems.

And the day they announce they're not going to pay SS anymore, is probably the day we'll see another civil war.

[Mr. P]

All right, already! I should have said "For-profit corporations."

I made a mistake.

NOW is the peanut gallery happy?! :uhoh:

You won't see a peanut gallery here with 1200+ posts.

[Mr. P]

When Nixon took the US off of the gold standard it was the begining of the end for the US dollar.

....
That was a major mistake.

[typomaniac]

Okey doke. :salute:

But under the theory of corporate welfare, shouldn't even non-profits live or die on their own merits? They can fund-raise all they want, but no forced taxpayer assistance?I'd say that depends.

For example, if the government chooses to fund a project (executed by a non-profit or anyone else) that aims to promote art and culture and thus benefit the people at large, IMO it's not such an odious thing. Assuming, of course, that if the people decide they're tired of funding it, their representatives will listen and serve them as they're supposed to anyway.

[Pale Rider]

Okey doke. :salute:

But under the theory of corporate welfare, shouldn't even non-profits live or die on their own merits? They can fund-raise all they want, but no forced taxpayer assistance?

Where's Red Green when you need him? :laugh2: PBS doesn't carry the Red Green show in Nevada. That sucks!

[Mr. P]

Where's Red Green when you need him? :laugh2: PBS doesn't carry the Red Green show in Nevada. That sucks!

He's on and off here. I love that show, and the handy mans secret weapon!:cheers2:

[Pale Rider]

He's on and off here. I love that show, and the handy mans secret weapon!:cheers2:

"If the women don't find ya handsome, they should at least find ya handy".

The show was on for fifteen years, so all you see now are reruns. Too bad, that was a funny show. Imagine that, a funny show without the usual mainstream filth.

[Joe Steel]

Is this a joke? It's hard to tell sometimes...

Taxation is the only way to solve our fiscal problems.

We have to tax the rich because they have the money.

No joke.

[Joe Steel]

Is that why "the Rich" pay 90%? of all taxes collected? Hrm...

1. So what? 90% of small number is still a small number.

2. So what? In a progressive tax arrangement, an equitable tax burden might be more than 90%.

3. They don't. According to Distribution of Major Federal Taxes 2000 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=221), the rich (top 10%) paid only 48% in 2000.

[Mr. P]

"If the women don't find ya handsome, they should at least find ya handy".

The show was on for fifteen years, so all you see now are reruns. Too bad, that was a funny show. Imagine that, a funny show without the usual mainstream filth.
He has some videos out ya now.

[loosecannon]

HA really?



Read it...I'd love to be in such a program that 'won't work' like this one.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html


It can't work for everyone indefinitely. Lots of small systems can work. But once everybody tries to live off of investments of any kind the whole thing will implode.

There isn't enough to invest in for even ten % of the population to live off of investments permanenetly.

[Mr. P]

It can't work for everyone indefinitely. Lots of small systems can work. But once everybody tries to live off of investments of any kind the whole thing will implode.

There isn't enough to invest in for even ten % of the population to live off of investments permanenetly.

Tell that to the Millions of folks that ARE invested now through IRAs or 401ks and doing very well.

More importantly tell the SSI folks they're gettin screwed.

[Pale Rider]

He has some videos out ya now.

Yup. I might pick me up the last seasons DVD.

[loosecannon]

Tell that to the Millions of folks that ARE invested now through IRAs or 401ks and doing very well.

More importantly tell the SSI folks they're gettin screwed.

Millions can do it for a while. But retirement accounts have to return a profit for about 30-60 years to serve their purpose.

How many times do you think the economy has been stable enough for that span of time to avoid currency AND market collapse since capitalism began? Hint it is a number smaller than two.

The very things that cause markets to work, cause them to collapse.

Success and collapse are intrinsically linked.

What goes up, must come down, esp when it is supported by nothing but hot air.

SS has worked, but it will fail.
The stock market has worked, but it will fail.
So will the US dollar.

We are already bankrupt, just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul until even that becomes impossible.

And there is no money in the SS trust fund. Not a dime.

[loosecannon]

I read once years ago, probably seven or eight years ago, that for me to aquire the same things my parents have, house, cars, belongings, etc., I would have to make somewhere in the neighborhood of FIFTEEN TIMES more money than they did. I'd bet it's higher than that now.

I believe you're right on inflation. Every year SS and military pensions go up by some miniscule 2.4% or there abouts, but every year it goes quicker and quicker. SS goes up 2.4%, and groceries, gasoline, housing, clothing, etc. go up 7.8%! We're headed for problems.



You are not only exactly correct but your numbers are very accurate as well.

On average the dollar loses half of it's value every 13 years. Since the federal reserve was founded in 1913, the dollar has fallen from 100 cents in value to less than 3 cents.

Do you know where that 97 cents went?

[manu1959]

I read once years ago, probably seven or eight years ago, that for me to aquire the same things my parents have, house, cars, belongings, etc., I would have to make somewhere in the neighborhood of FIFTEEN TIMES more money than they did. I'd bet it's higher than that now.

I believe you're right on inflation. Every year SS and military pensions go up by some miniscule 2.4% or there abouts, but every year it goes quicker and quicker. SS goes up 2.4%, and groceries, gasoline, housing, clothing, etc. go up 7.8%! We're headed for problems.

And the day they announce they're not going to pay SS anymore, is probably the day we'll see another civil war.

funny thing.....i am 47 and everthing is about 10 times what my dad had.....he would be 67 now

[Abbey Marie]

I'd say that depends.

For example, if the government chooses to fund a project (executed by a non-profit or anyone else) that aims to promote art and culture and thus benefit the people at large, IMO it's not such an odious thing. Assuming, of course, that if the people decide they're tired of funding it, their representatives will listen and serve them as they're supposed to anyway.

But why is that better than helping out for-profit corporations, who in turn employ thousands of people? If I have to choose, I'd rather that I and everyone else for that matter) have a job, than go to an art exhibit.

[Mr. P]

Millions can do it for a while. But retirement accounts have to return a profit for about 30-60 years to serve their purpose.

How many times do you think the economy has been stable enough for that span of time to avoid currency AND market collapse since capitalism began? Hint it is a number smaller than two.

The very things that cause markets to work, cause them to collapse.

Success and collapse are intrinsically linked.

What goes up, must come down, esp when it is supported by nothing but hot air.

SS has worked, but it will fail.
The stock market has worked, but it will fail.
So will the US dollar.

We are already bankrupt, just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul until even that becomes impossible.

And there is no money in the SS trust fund. Not a dime.

There is no trust fund to start with. I'll go stocks with a 10% return on average. Yes it may fail but my $$ will be mine. SSI will fail and you get zip. No thanks.

[MtnBiker]

If a person invests money in the stock market who own that investment after the person dies?

A person contributes to SS through payroll deduction over a lifetime and dies soon after retirement who owns the money contributed to the SS?

[typomaniac]

But why is that better than helping out for-profit corporations, who in turn employ thousands of people?The answer to your question is simple: just because a for-profit corporation turns a bigger profit does not necessarily mean that it will employ more people.

[manu1959]

The answer to your question is simple: just because a for-profit corporation turns a bigger profit does not necessarily mean that it will employ more people.

it does not mean they won't either ....

[typomaniac]

it does not mean they won't either ....But why gamble with your tax money just to give them a bigger profit? :uhoh:

[Mr. P]

The answer to your question is simple: just because a for-profit corporation turns a bigger profit does not necessarily mean that it will employ more people.

Nor does it mean they won't.

[manu1959]

But why gamble with your tax money just to give them a bigger profit? :uhoh:

because they create jobs and technology which creates taxes which creates infrastructure which benefits society?

[Mr. P]

it does not mean they won't either ....

*yes you did, I type slow and didn't see it*:laugh2:

[typomaniac]

because they create jobs and technology which creates taxes which creates infrastructure which benefits society?If you win the next Powerball lottery, are you suddenly going to go out and hire 100 people?

[manu1959]

If you win the next Powerball lottery, are you suddenly going to go out and hire 100 people?

don't play the lottery.....my company has 200 employees....the goal is to make a profit....the more work we do the more profit we make.....profit funds growth growth funds profit.....

but for fun lets say i win lotto cuz you bought me a ticket as a birthday gift....how much did i win and how much are you going to ask for?

[typomaniac]

my company has 200 employees....the goal is to make a profit....the more work we do the more profit we make.....profit funds growth growth funds profit.....If you really have a 200-employee company, then you already know that there is ONLY ONE reason that you ever hire somebody: because that person's talent, skill, and labor can make more money for you than it will cost you to pay his wages. So don't try to hide behind smoke and mirrors about growth funding profit and expect me to believe you're telling me the whole story. I have plenty of business experience of my own, thank you.

[Abbey Marie]

because they create jobs and technology which creates taxes which creates infrastructure which benefits society?

That says it well.