fairmon's comment history

fairmon said...

ki said..Baby boomers are also the only group who paid into both past and their own ss retirement account.

They paid those drawing when they were working while congress liberalized the program.

Also not mentioned is widow/widower survivors benefits and their children. SS is more than baby boomer retirees and the disabled. So trying to place blame on either is naive.

Hey dumas I didn't place blame, just posted facts from the social security board. Some of those you mentioned have been due to the congress liberalizing without making the necessary adjustments to appropriately fund them. The sooner the adjustments are made the less traumatic they will be. I am sure the Ostrich's in D.C. will keep their head in the sand until it is a full blown crisis.

November 24, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
fairmon said...

When the government shut down one scare tactic was we may not be able to send out social security checks. FACT, the revenue was and is sufficient to pay current recipients. There was no suggestion that food, stamps, housing subsidies, free cell phone time and other welfare programs would be vulnerable although they may have been if social security revenue wasn't used to continue funding them. It is not a matter of revenue but spending priorities for current revenue without borrowing the congress and administration establish.

November 24, 2014 at 8:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

Social security facts for those saying the money has been borrowed as the reason it is an issue. There is no "fund", it is all about how it is accounted for. The accounting includes interest that is paid on 30 year U.S. treasuries as though the money was borrowed.

o SS has been around ~78 years.

o ~57 million people are paid ~63 billion per month.

o 9 million are drawing disability

o 1 of 4 to draw are disabled

o 1 of 8 die before drawing

o SS is the only source of income for 37%.

o 2013 SS board report says SS is 100% covered thru 2033 then reduces to be funded enough to only pay 75% of current benefit.

o Taxes paid by current workers and employers pay current recipients.

o In 1956 the number working and paying was 16 to 1.

o Today that number is 2.8 to 1.

o By 2033 it will be 2.1 to 1

o People are living longer and the baby boomers will cause a spike in the number drawing.

o A moderate adjustment to the annual cap, the tax rate and full eligibility age can enable the current program to stay viable.

source: socialsecurity.gov/OACT Check it out at this site.

November 24, 2014 at 8:21 a.m.
fairmon said...

limric said...

Would you also mandate the Federal Govt. pay back the gazillions it borrowed from Social Security - to everyone Fairmon?

It was a hypothetical question. There is no fund, there has never been a fund and there will be no fund. It is accounting 101 where each dollar in is shown and each dollar out is shown, the balance is what the full faith and credit of the U.S. government owes the people contributing and others promised a piece the contributors action. The current plan should work fine through 2033 according to the social security board.

Returning a lump sum to all participants, current contributors and recipients, would be like any other Ponzi scheme when investors ask for their money back and there are not enough new investors to pay them. Except, the government can borrow or print money thus the full faith and credit commitment should be good. So, would I like to see the hypothetical happen? YES, YES and YES but there is no way it will even be considered by anyone in the government. It would be giving up too much control.

November 24, 2014 at 8:04 a.m.
fairmon said...

MickeyRat said...

Like I said; whether you like them or not is irrelevant. They ARE accomplishments. The question was (partially) answered.

MickeyRat...I have to agree with you, in the context you are using the word even a serial killer a bank robber or drug dealer has accomplishments so to take exception to Hilary participating in some political action whether good or bad would be wrong....so "my bad" she has had those personal accomplishments although she did not initiate most of them one has to assume she endorsed them for her own reasons.

November 23, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.
fairmon said...

MickeyRat said Hilary's accomplishments were.....

She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She played a leading role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. Successfully brought increased research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the NIH. Investigated illnesses affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.

The first ‘first lady’ to be elected to the senate. Cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain of multiple deployments. Supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans.

These are all political actions with no value metric provided, they are not personal accomplishments.

MickeryRat said....Helped repair a U.S. reputation badly damaged (wrecked) by a previous administration.

Surely you jest, check the newspapers in other countries if you think people are not laughing at the ineptness of the U.S. And, if you think there is one country that likes us you are naïve.

MickeyRat said.....Hilary brought about the Global Hunger and Food Security program. Prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. --- What was it that you right wingers use to call it? Oh yea, a ‘Surge’.

Brought about, prevailed over......what is the accomplishment?

MickeyRat....Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. They are accomplishments.

See the literal definition of accomplishment, these don't fit. She has worked hard and will be elected. She doesn't need exaggeration, overstating, misleading, unrealistic and un-kept promises or any other deceptive behavior or lies like the current POTUS has done.

November 23, 2014 at 3:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

Ki said...

did you see the update interview of one particular special forces who turned out to be a fake? Did you also see where the commander of that four man special forces unit said no such stand down orders were ever received?

I believe the three I saw interviewed and you prefer to believe what supports what you want to be true. We will never agree on the issue and history will reveal the truth.

November 23, 2014 at 12:55 p.m.
fairmon said...

Ki said...

And your point, fair?

This POTUS is an inexperienced, inept, waffling, lying puppet. I know liberals use the politically correct term misspoke. But the fact is both parties lie when it enhances their retention of power or increasing it.

You keep spewing the ignorance you get from extreme left wing talking points.

November 23, 2014 at 12:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

Ki said...

There were no orders to stand down.

So you conclude the three special forces members interviewed by a TV journalist that said they did receive the order are liars? Do you conclude that because it doesn't agree with what you want the truth to be?

November 23, 2014 at 12:42 p.m.
fairmon said...

Ki said...

fair, it wasn't an embassy that was attacked in Benghazi.

You are so full of crap with bad information. Obama acknowledged it was an embassy and the ambassador was his employee. There was never a suggestion it was an outpost for torture.

November 23, 2014 at 12:39 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.