> a little remedial education is my suggestion, perhaps it's not too late for
> you to discover that some of you 'beliefs' are unfounded.


Think you could come up with a less typical liberal response, or do they use the same brainwashing tactics on all of you?

As for SS being a Savings Account? What a crock. The part aobut paying for your parents is true, the part you are missing is that the average age of Americans is increasing.....that measn FEWER children to pay for OUR SS. That means THEIR income tax goes up or we do without.

Supply and Demand. I'm doing my part by making plans to NOT be a government dependent when I am to old to work for a living......just one of those crazy things us Republicans do in our spare time.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

One cannot understand the here and now,

If they can't understand the there and then.

One won't know where one is going,

If they don't know where they've been.

Yogi had a thought that might apply here too:

"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
- Yogi Berra

..... to address the 'partisan' sniping, I can only recall what Adlai coined.

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends...that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

To view the changes in the trustees projections over time:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_changes

---

Do you actually have an opinion that you can call your own or is your vast "wealth" of knowledge based only on the thoughts of others?

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

crunchy,

I've found a synopsis that might make it easier for you to compare benefits here and in the UK, you'll have to account for the exchange, but this might help you get close on the comparison:

Social Security offers mainly retirement benefits.
Workers can receive four different types of benefits under Social Security: retirement, early retirement, disability, and survivorship benefits.

Workers are entitled to retirement benefits if they have contributed to Social Security for at least 10 years, and if they have reached the normal retirement age, which is currently 65 (and is set to increase to 67 for workers born after 1959).

Early retirement benefits are available to workers if they have contributed to Social Security for at least 10 years, and if they have reached the earliest age at which benefits can be paid, currently 62. Benefits, however, are reduced by 20% compared to what the retiree would have received at age 65.

Both full and early retirement benefits were paid to 29.2 million retired workers in 2002. Of these, 71% or 20.8 million retirees received a reduced benefit payment because they chose the early retirement option. Average monthly retirement benefits for all workers receiving retirement benefits were $895 in 2002, or about $10,700 per year. In comparison, workers who had retired early received on average $830 per month.

Workers are also insured in case they become disabled.
Social Security provides insurance to workers in case they become disabled and can no longer work. The disability need not be related to an accident at the worker's job. The number of years that are required to receive disability benefits varies with the age of a worker. Younger workers need fewer years to qualify for disability benefits. In 2002, Social Security paid an average monthly disability benefit of $834 to 5.5 million beneficiaries.

Social Security offers life-insurance type benefits to workers.
If a worker dies, her family receives benefits from Social Security. Survivorship benefits are paid if the deceased worker has, on average, worked at least one quarter for each year after he or she attained the age of 21. In 2002, Social Security paid an average monthly survivorship benefit of $861.

Social Security is the most significant source of income for the majority of retirees over 65 years old.
Social Security benefits are the most important source of income for the majority of elderly households. Although these benefits are modest, they account for a large portion of income for many elderly households.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurityfacts

---

Paul,

People like Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and other democrates, a few years back were then saying the Social Security was going under and something had to be done.

Now their talking points are that it isn't.

Can the democrates quit flip-flopping and stick with their true position and not keep changing to suit their own personnel interests?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> Can the democrates quit flip-flopping and stick with their true
> position and not keep changing to suit their own personnel interests?


LAF

If they quit that, then how could they presuade uninformed voters to waste their ballot?

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> Can the democrates quit flip-flopping and stick with their true
> position and not keep changing to suit their own personnel interests?
>

This is the way I see it.. Whomever is in power says it's not broke, and whomever is NOT in power says it's broke.

It doesn't matter which party is im power.

.oO(how do you tell a politician is lying?? His mouth is open!!)

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

>
> This is the way I see it.. Whomever is in power says it's not broke, and
> whomever is NOT in power says it's broke.
>
> It doesn't matter which party is im power.
>
> .oO(how do you tell a politician is lying?? His mouth is open!!)
>
>
>

CW, I think you have to reverse your quote or are you a politician?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

RichardG,

Just like Mr. WordWeaver and his 'Christian' stuff, and Mr. HumanRights and his postings about 'human rights violations' here on this board, Mr. Paul Zimmerman is just acting the part of 'troll' here in this thread. He (and they) were interested only in pushing their own personal agenda(s), and not in having any sort of honest, intellectual exchange of ideas on the subject(s). Let's just let this thread die.

I understand that Mr. Zimmerman has difficulties running Seti/BOINC on his mac computer (due to OS X version), so he is reportedly running Seti-Classic instead. I welcome his participation in the SetiAtHome project, yet I feel that his more... controversial topics should really be posted elsewhere. I would like to point out to him that the Seti-Classic project has perfectly good forums available ( http://setiathome2.ssl.berkeley.edu/bb/bb.cgi ). It is my opinion (and it is seemingly shared by others here, though not all) that *this* forum (Cafe SETI) should be for the use of those ACTUALLY participating in the Seti/BOINC project. Bandwidth and computer resources needed to run these forums are not free, you know. Of course, once Mr. Zimmerman *is* participating in Seti/BOINC (running it on at least ONE computer), he (quite unlike my opinions on WW and HR) is quite welcome to come in, sit down, have some hot or cold beverage of his choice, and shoot the bull to his hearts content on whatever tickles his fancy.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I think you need to re-read it..

The politicians not in power say it is broke and elect us we will fix it..

The politicians in power say it's not broke so re-elect us and we will keep it that way..

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> I think you need to re-read it..
>
> The politicians not in power say it is broke and elect us we will fix it..
>
> The politicians in power say it's not broke so re-elect us and we will keep it
> that way..
>

But then, Celtic Wolf, how do you explain that the party *in* power now (the red R's) says it needs fixing, and the party not in power now (the blue D's) says it isn't broke and doesn't need fixing?

> > I think you need to re-read it..
> >
> > The politicians not in power say it is broke and elect us we will fix
> it..
> >
> > The politicians in power say it's not broke so re-elect us and we will
> keep it
> > that way..
> >
>
> But then, Celtic Wolf, how do you explain that the party *in* power now (the
> red R's) says it needs fixing, and the party not in power now (the blue D's)
> says it isn't broke and doesn't need fixing?
>

They are politicians...

It is now in the best interest of the Republicians to say it's broke and we are going to fix it.. The democrats can't agree with them,so they say it's not broke.

It's the way of US politics.. Bipartisan will always mean that there will be two opinions.. Perhaps we need a third party as strong as the other two...

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

> You ask Tyrone if he prefers working for his meals or being given Food Stamps
> simply because he doesn't want to work.

I was wondering who "Tyrone" was and where else he was mentioned or was this simply a reference to black people as the majority epitomised by a name?

Just wondering?


cRunchy

There is a big difference between saying something needs protecting and strengthening and saying there is a crisis and attempting to dismantle the program through deception and lies.

It appears that by wanting to discuss the realities of the Social Security program, I've brought up discussion points that some would rather not confront.

It's far more convenient to judge whether my presence is warranted here or not than to confront the idea that there is deception being practiced to cover the intent to weaken and cripple Social Security.

I'm only amused by the antics of your obviously partisan defenses.

As to whether or not you 'want' me here..... know that I am not here to reinforce or conform to your wishes.

If you care to civily discuss realities which pertain to Social Security, by all means I welcome learning anything which you can provide verifiable sources to confirm what you may want to add to this discussion.

If your purpose is to continue in the vein demonstrated by kong and some others, I suggest that complaining to the administrators of the program may be more productive.

---

> There is a big difference between saying something needs protecting and
> strengthening and saying there is a crisis and attempting to dismantle the
> program through deception and lies.
>
The current administration is not attempting to dismantle the program.
I wonder who's lying here.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Since you are so sure of your 'facts', can you produce any study whatsoever that explains what the end result of the plan to privatize Social Security will produce?

Since the info and the sources I have provided seem not to be even read, show us these studies.

Has the national association of actuaries produced a study to back up your assertion that I am lying?

Where is your data?

---

> Since you are so sure of your 'facts', can you produce any study whatsoever
> that explains what the end result of the plan to privatize Social Security
> will produce?
>
> Since the info and the sources I have provided seem not to be even read, show
> us these studies.
>
> Has the national association of actuaries produced a study to back up your
> assertion that I am lying?
>
> Where is your data?
>

For one the pension plan for the Congress is a good example. They weren't stupid to vote themselves into the Social Security System.

In their annual report for 2004, the trustees project that Social Security will take in more in income than it will pay out in expenditures until 2018. Between 2018 and 2028, interest income earned on the trust fund assets is forecasted to make up the difference between income and expenditures. After 2028, Social Security is expected to draw down its trust funds to pay for the expenditures that are not covered by income. Finally, in 2042, the trust fund assets are expected to be gone, and income is projected to be less than expenditures.

In 2042 it will be broke. This is the same report you quoted.

Your qoute
"There is a big difference between saying something needs protecting and strengthening and saying there is a crisis and attempting to dismantle the program through deception and lies".

The lie your stating is that they are attempting to dismantle the program. The second lie is they will use deception and lies to do it.

What's your proof that the current administration will dismantle the Social Security System. What are the deceptions and what are the lies?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

What I have given you, links to research for yourself, which you refuse to acknowledge is that the trustees, each year produce three seperate projections. One is worst case, one is middle of the road and one is what they call the optimum case.

historic tracking shows that the actual results follow the optimum case.. Overlay the projections through time and the other projections fall off the bottom of the chart. These are the projections which are cited to show the time in the future that SS is supposed to fail or fall short.

Overlay the actual results with the optimum projections and they match....

And the projected date of failure or the projected date of shortfall describes a line which is rising. The projected date is moved farther into the future with each succeeding decade.

Those site address is:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR03/II_project.html

This is not a partisan site, this is the ssa site, you will also find the projections from 2003.

Please feel free to share your data which 'proves' I am lying.

As to the plan to privatize SS... many countries have tried this plan. There is no record of success. None.

Each country that has tried this type of change to their program ended up trashing their program and in many cases, severely crippling their whole economies.

If you can prove that privatization has been a success and that what I am saying is a lie, post a link. I'll read it. We can all read it.

I have not seen these studies you must have gotten your information from. If your statements are so correct that you would call me a liar, you should at least share your sources to lend some credence to your assertion.

---

> Overlay the actual results with the optimum projections and they match....
>
> And the projected date of failure or the projected date of shortfall describes
> a line which is rising. The projected date is moved farther into the future
> with each succeeding decade.

Thanks for explaining how the congress comes up with each years planned increase in SS tax limits. They rise the tax limit so the optimum projection will be matched by the actual figures.

If this keeps up there will be no SS tax limit and then they will need to start increasing the SS tax rate.

I get the impression you not care if it collapses after 2042 or 2058, by then you would have collected your SS.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Why did I have the expectation that rather than back up your previous assertions,

you would instead attempt to change the subject?

True to type, when faced with a reality that proves your premise to be false,

the next tactical goal is obsfucation.

Instead of addressing the subject at hand,

you launch a brand new set of asspersions in a petty attempt to discredit me with falsehoods,

Republican Congressional leaders are backing away from Bush's privatization plan for exactly the same reasons I cite here in this thread.

Are you having trouble adjusting to such obvious acts of insubordination?

---