Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Social Security should not be touched

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, December 1, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:34 am, Sat Dec 1, 2012.

The hotel queen (known as the "queen of mean") Leona Helmsley said, "Only the poor pay taxes." A few people having enjoyed tax relief — millionaires and billionaires. Now they are being asked to start paying their fair share. Do you think that is going to happen? Screaming and kicking is not the half of it. In their opinion, they earned it and they should be able to keep it.

Some say they would rather give to charity than to the government.

Decreasing Medicare benefits is not acceptable. Increasing the age of future Social Security retirees is not acceptable. Take a look at the obituaries and keep track of the ages. It might surprise you.

Social Security has stood on its own without cost to the federal budget, but that has not stopped Washington from trying to destroy it from time to time.

If at any time in the future Social Security needs shoring up, is it OK to take money from the budget to do so? Or do we need to send more money to a thousand other countries in need? Which is more important, taking care of your own or taking care of countries that despise us?

Will Social Security get back all the money that has been taken or borrowed by the government? I don't think so.

Ben Coleman

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

93 comments:

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:19 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    I knwo dyslexic.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:18 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Deslixic tpying?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:17 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Mr Thompson: IF LBJ and his cronies had never OPENED the SS "lockbox" that was promised would "NEVER be opened" by FDR andhad it NOT been OPENED...the Seniosr of this country would be receiving a minimum of $4000 per month instead of the paultry sums they receive today.

    Dems and Reps both spent the money out from under the Seniors...but it was LBJ who opened it up to pay for his escalationthe of Viet Nam War and all of the social programs of his "Great Society" that has been and continues to be a disaster...about $70 Trillion worth.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:02 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    McNerneys campaign staffer stated...Your point from SSA is irrelevant. I take this from a businessperson who makes much more than you and I combined (Warren Buffett). Buffett has called for raising the amount of social security tax as his contribution to social security is the same as someone who makes $250,000...

    Of course McNerney, a radical liberal, want someone who earns $1,000,000 in income to get the same social security benefit as someone that earns $150,000 in income then pay 7 times more taxes than the lower paid employee... McNerney is not a liberal, he's more a Marxist.

    Why, because Warren Buffett says it's fair... thank you for showing how McNerney really thinks... you are beyond bizarre Mr Thompson.

    So what would the tax be...

    The man who earns $150,000 pays $23,500 into social security and ends up with a $2,300 benefit at retirement...

    The man who earns $1,000,000 pays $150,000 into Social Security and ends up with $2,300 in benefit at retirement... what's wrong with this picture?

     
  • Michael Thompson posted at 2:58 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    winston Posts: 97

    Darrell,
    Your point from SSA is irrelevant. I take this from a businessperson who makes much more than you and I combined (Warren Buffett). Buffett has called for raising the amount of social security tax as his contribution to social security is the same as someone who makes $250,000. This makes certain that there is enough revenue to pay for people who come into the system and are living longer. This is not rocket science. Your point is on benefit, and I am talking about funds and solvency. These are two totally different things.
    Medicare is a tricker animal, and until there is an emphasis on ACO versus fee for service in reimbursement you will not see changes in the system.

    As for the 2012 election, it is time to move on Darrell. President Obama ran on a campaign of raising the tax rates that was almost completely opposite Mitt Romney. Obama won, and Romney lost. In addition, the Democrats gained seats in the House and increased their majority in the Senate. The Democrats even held on to states that Obama lost by wide margins (Montana and North Dakota). I think this gives Obama the mandate to take his agenda that he campaigned on (tax rate changes, immigration reform, implementation of health care reform) forward.
    As for the record, the tax rates will simply go to the rates under President Clinton. The economy did well under President Clinton, and the deficit shrank dramatically. Didn't it Darrell?
    Well, I would love to chat some more. But i have to finish my Peet's latte and finish my work so I can get to the BART station on time. You would love the view from my office Darrell. You can see the Bay Bridge and AT&T park!

    P.S.--For the record, I am not McNerney's staffer. I am his driver! ROFLWMDHOLAD!!


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:15 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Thompson stated... One pays the same amount of social security tax if they make $250,000 or if they make $25,000,000,000. This is ridiculous.

    I see Michael Thompson of the McNerney campaign staff continues to distort reality...


    There's a maximum payment - from ssa.gov "The maximum benefit depends on the age at which a worker chooses to retire. For a worker retiring at age 66 in 2010, the amount is $2,346. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21." In other words, the billionaire does not pay an higher tax than the maximum for retirement as they do not get an increased benefit . It would be ridiculous if someone had to pay with no possibility of collecting.

    But then again... we are talking about a liberal McNerney staffer who loves taxes no matter.

     
  • Michael Thompson posted at 11:29 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    winston Posts: 97

    Contrary to Mr Coleman's thesis, there is no solution but to raise age on people who receive Social Security benefits. When the system was instituted under FDR, people were expected to live only a few years past 65 (at best!). Today, people are living well past that!

    Moreover, if you look at a significant portion of people today who are over 65, they do not want to sit and fetter away. They are active and valued members in today's workforce.

    Along with increasing the age of recepients (possible to 67-70), one could look at means testing the program as well as raising Social Security taxes on extremely high income people. One pays the same amount of social security tax if they make $250,000 or if they make $25,000,000,000. This is ridiculous.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:42 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Ahhh Darrell...I see you read my mind (and post). Exactly!!! Private pensions !

    Andy: "President Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling again Obamanoids..." what party does he represent again? Which people??? The makers or the takers?

    Here's a question for all...what is going to happen when it comes time for everyone to pay their "fair share" in taxes to help off the debt and the takers refuse to pay their fair share of the debt? Will BO and his cronies borrow another $8 Trillion to bail THEM out?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:44 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Any thoughts as to why President Obama isn't threatening seniors this time?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:16 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Andrew, you identified one concern I have with Federal control with mandated programs. Notice Obama did "NOT" say people on PERS or STRS might not get their retirement check. Had you and I had the right to opt out of Social Security, we would not have been subject to president Obama's threat of getting a check or not.

    If we had been allowed to participate in a non- Federal retirement system ( like Mike)that we decide to participate in, I would be more comfortable.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:02 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    On July 12, 2011 President Barack Obama said he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out for August if an agreement on the debt ceiling isn't reached.

    "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

    President Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling again Obamanoids...[sleeping]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:34 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike stated... Editor: Again, why do you allow Liebich to continually use offensive terms?

    Then Mike stated...hey schiz 4 brains: someone here said "big people make their own words", little people use the words of others.guess what category you're in?


    This was in response to Mr Liebich posting... " You aren't the confused one Darrell"

    Mike, this is what I see as a liberal blind spot... do as I say but not as I do comes to mind.

    It is just like the Social Security issue. You have rights to belong to STRS and opt out of Social Security. You have a retirement benefit that people in Social Security would only dream of. Yet, you are making an argument that people like me should be happy with being forced into an inferior retirement plan.

    Then when I complain, you say I am just a product of conservative propoganda.

    I cannot imagine how you make that conclusion. You can discount everthing I believe and want simply by saying these are not my thoughts. I do not get it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:21 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike perceives that I think liberals are trying to take over the country for some sort of reason.

    Let me clarify. The way you worded this statement is inaccurate. I think liberals want to use the Federal governemnt as a solution to what they want done. For example, Obamacare. The liberals in my view desire national health care system ( which Obamacare is the first step) where the utimate health care safety net is in place for all people in our country. They do not want each state to have control or private industry that they claim simply do nor care about people but profits.

    So this does not mean liberals are attempting some type of take over with some type of nefarious intent, they are actually thinking they are doing something compassionate and honorable for everyone. Right?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:10 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Continued...

    So why in the world would someone like me be against this safety net?
    What are the unintended consequences of this government program that makes the quality of my life less?

    Why are so many liberals and politicians that want this safety net for others not subject to Social Security system? Why do politicians never talk about the group that receives special treatment and a better standard of life that people subject to the Social Security mandate?
    ( anyone covered by STRS,PERS, and politicians that have so much more)
    Why would I be satisfied if I took responsibility for my own retirement even if I ended up destitute?
    How does the liberal solution ( mandated Social Security instead of voluntary) decrease the quality of my life?

    The answers to the above questions form the basis of my objection to social security. I am curious what liberals think the answers are.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:08 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike stated...You weren't ".... attempting to articulate why liberal solutions sometimes are perceived as negative from a conservative

    Let's assume you are correct and I am wrong... that I was not even trying

    What are liberal perspectives and positions that they see as a solution that I see as negative? Notice I said “I” and not FOX News or any other conservatives. These are my thoughts, not others.

    Since this letter is about Social Security, let me focus on that. As a conservative, I perceive that liberals see Social Security as a safety net so that people will have at least something to live on and survive. Liberals think it is good solution to mandate safety nets in order to protect people who cannot protect themselves. Mr Heuer posted below... “I believe mandates are necessary or things like this (SS, ACA, union participation) don't work”...

    So why in the world would anyone be against this particular safety net? The intent liberals have is honorable and compassionate from my perspective. They truly want to make certain that people have a better standard of life through the Social Security System.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:28 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    hey schiz 4 brains: someone here said "big people make their own words", little people use the words of others.

    guess what category you're in?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:14 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    You aren't the confused one Darrell... [lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:11 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Mr. Heuer,
    Upon bringing Simon Birch's "Nov 3" post to my attention I responded with the facts and evidence. Which of the following facts do you dispute?

    "The Thomson Corporation acquired Reuters Group PLC to form Thomson Reuters on April 17, 2008. Thomson Reuters operated under a dual-listed company structure and had two parent companies, both of which were publicly listed. Thomson Reuters Corporation and Thomson Reuters PLC."

    "In 2009 it unified its dual listed company structure and stopped its listing on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ. It is now listed only as Thomson Reuters Corporation on the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: TRI)".

    "The Woodbridge Company Limited is a Canadian private holding company and the principal and controlling shareholder (55%) of Thomson Reuters. Woodbridge is the primary investment vehicle for members of the family of the late Roy Thomson, the first Lord Thomson of Fleet".

    "Who leads the Thomson Financial League Tables in Investment Banking Merger and Acquisition deals?"

    "The Rothschilds".

    Simon Birch's response,

    "I suspect you're getting your information from sources such as 100777.com, "a site for Truthseekers," and luckinlove.com." "Links:http://100777.com/node/164
    http://www.luckinlove.com/rothmedia.htm"

    I then informed Mr. Birch that my information was straight from Wikipedia and asked one simple question, "How can Reuters run a story about a popular protest outside the U.S. mission and even claim to quote a protester when the event never actually took place?

    I even provided a link to the Reuters story (evidence)...

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/libya-ambassador-assault-idINDEE88C00Z20120913

    Simon Birch DID NOT respond and when I posted the same question a second time he deleted my post and that Mr. Heuer is a FACT!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:35 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:15 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1296

    Andrew what do you know of facts and evidence? Misleading WND articles or irrelevant You Tube videos. You get so far out there LNS needs to reel you back in with a fact checking post (Nov 3).

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:07 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1296

    Excellent post Mike. Welcome to the distorted world of Darrell. Where discussion ends and political campaigning goes on forever. I believe mandates are necessary or things like this (SS, ACA, union participation) don't work. Freedom has more definition than Darrell wants to admit to. His is an egocentric based view not the reality of many people. Darrell will always bully his opinion even to the point of ugly personal attacks.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:52 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike, You just got done saying that social security needs to be mandated and forced instead of optional...then said to me...Your implication that I favor or support things like "mandates", "regulations", "big brother is offensive...

    I am confused... you like big brother ...or not?

    If you are against it you sound have wanted to repeal Obamacare which is Big brother on steroids. Iam not trying to insult you. I am trying to understand what appears to be a contradiction in thought.

    It is not that liberals are trying to do something nefarious...it is that they are comforted and satisfied with what federal government can do for their security. For you, that is not less freedom but stability.

    For me, it means less freedom...that is all I am saying. It is why conservatives and liberals appreciate life in a different way.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:55 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    [crying]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:49 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Darrell,
    That was a very well laid out, rational point but Mike will still hold to his emotional opinion based on no facts or evidence. Attempting to have an erudite conversation with Mike about any topic is like trying to explain the sky to a fish. [rolleyes]

    Case in point. The topic of Mr. Coleman's letter. Social Security.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:46 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:29 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    You are not having a discussion when you whey in with many liberal stereotypes, most of which I disagree with also. You seem to see the world in only two shades: liberalism and something else.

    Your implication that I favor or support things like "mandates", "regulations", "big brother", etc. is offensive, just as me saying as a conservative you are against free breakfasts and lunches for school children. Oh wait, you probably are against those. If someone from another country sat down with a group of conservatives they would conclude that spotted owls should be hunted, all forest cut down, and people should be allowed to dump used motor oil in the Mokelumme River. If you happen to agree with any of these I'm sorry, I was just sticking to the sterotypes of conservatives I have know all my life.

    You weren't ".... attempting to articulate why liberal solutions sometimes are perceived as negative from a conservative." Is this is your idea of "discussion" ? It's nice you come back and try to cover up your attempt, you are usually successful at it, the conservative apologist who is 'just trying to convey the fear and frustration of policies he/she thinks are wrong for America', but I've seen it before.

    You see the world very differently and it's because you think that liberals are different from conservatives and liberals are trying to take over the country for some sort of reason. You're just the product of conservative propoganda. I thought you had much more intellectual abilities than many of the posters here and instead, you've just said the right thing at the right time.

    I would prefer never to talk to you again.
    Good luck on your next trip to the third world.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:39 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Lecture?? Psychological evaluation? I'm confused.. thought is was called dialogue where one person expressed a thought , then a response provided.

    I was not expecting to change your mind. Was attempting to articulate why liberal solutions sometimes are perceived as negative from a conservative.

    Never mind Mike. Maybe it is better to simply fight rather than communicate.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:48 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Darrell: If I knew I was going to get some sort of lecture or psychological evaluation, I would not have responded.

    You asked my opinion, I told you: Allowing people to opt out will lead to the same set of conditions that caused the SS act in the first place.

    I don't care what kind of program is adopted if any. I am not part of it.
    Even though I paid into it, I'll never see a nickel of it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:45 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike stated... I could ask why do conservatives hate all liberals.

    Mike, you really do not understand ... I do not know conservatives that hate liberals. I do not hate you, Mr. Lucas or Ms. Bobin because you/they are liberals.

    It is liberal "policies", mandates and regulations that bothers me (not the people themselves). I do not like government (big brother) that diminishes freedom.

    Most liberals I know personally are good people who are compassionate. Unfortunately, many that have good intentions unintentionally make life less joyful for me. It is sad that I have to go to Asia to experience freedom. USA should be the place to go, not flee.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:32 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike stated...What I see here is that if given the opportunity to "opt" out, many people will. Many won't invest in retirement or will be unable to even if they contribute to SS now. And you will then end up with the dids and did nots.

    Mike, it is not your responsibility or duty to force a safety blanket. That is your liberal part of your brain thinking. Of course people will opt out. If they are a free people, that is their choice. It is a choice I wish I had. Liberals are not willing to give choice to people because some will fail...

    When I am in Thailand, I live with people who have no safety net. Because they do not, they are motivated to work hard. Also, families are more close as they depend on each other financially. The freedom to determine one's fate is much stronger in India, Thailand and China. It is sad to me the United states, once known as the land of the free is now known has the land of the forced.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 4:15 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Editor: Again, why do you allow liebich to continually use offensive terms?

    Is this going to be the new norm?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 4:13 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Darrell: Since I don't participate in Social Security, and have no plans of changing that in the near future (or long future either), suggesting ways that might keep it secure in the long term, is a waste of time. If it would become insolvent or disolved and replaced by some other government plan, I'm sure would effect almost anyone in America, part of SS or not.

    I have no control over what happens to SS, and am not even slightest amount interested in what happens to it.

    "I was stating why not let people participate who like it and those who do not want it, opt out? I thought our country was supposed to be pro choice... freedom." What I see here is that if given the opportunity to "opt" out, many people will. Many won't invest in retirement or will be unable to even if they contribute to SS now. And you will then end up with the dids and did nots.
    And a new program will be instituted, making sure everyone has a safety net, and we are back where we were before we started SS. It won't matter that they opted out 40 years ago or 60 years ago. Only what is happening right then will influence what congress does at that point in time.

    "Why do liberals demand everyone participate? " Why do conservatives make blanket statements like this? This has been a recurring theme here and I'm sure other places as well. Just like conservatives, not all liberals agree on everything. I could ask, why do conservatives hate all liberals? And I'd probably get responses like "because they do" or "I don't hate all liberals" From what I've read, conservatives mostly output whatever they have absorbed (often times in correctly). From my experience they often don't know why they repeat statements they've heard on conservative media and often times can't even explain what the statement means so they fall into hurling what they consider to be insults such as "tax and spend", "socialist", and other statements that have long lost what ever meaning there once was.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:18 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike stated... don't see SS going away. It is too big and convoluted.

    Mike, you did not address my point. I was not suggesting Social Security was going away. I was stating why not let people participate who like it and those who do not want it, opt out? I thought our country was supposed to be pro choice... freedom.
    Why do liberals demand everyone participate?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:20 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    In 1936, the government told Americans the following:

    The taxes called for in this law will be paid both by your employer and by you. For the next 3 years you will pay maybe 15 cents a week, maybe 25 cents a week, maybe 30 cents or more, according to what you earn. That is to say, during the next 3 years, beginning January 1, 1937, you will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, and at the same time your employer will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. Twenty-six million other workers and their employers will be paying at the same time.

    After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.

    [sleeping]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:14 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Darrell: I think that both you and Joanne are quite angry with each other. H E L L there are a lot of people angry with each other and that carries over in people's posts. Some of it is deserved and I think a lot of it comes from the perceived divide of "liberals" and "conservatives". In my opinion (and this is my opinion, I would guess that the right will see just the opposite), conservative posters here are very quick with the name calling and dismissal of liberals. Several times here, I have been attacked by two conservatives, one who just wanted to b i t c h and another that was just plain antagonistic. And of course liebich who is nothing more that a sick human being who can't relate to other humans.

    I know you've said in the past that you would prefer to have your SS money to inviest on your own. I don't think that is a remedy for everyone. I can see many losing all their SS money to scams and sharks that prey on normal decent people. I don't see SS going away. It is too big and convoluted.

    As to the existence of a wife, If yo say you have one, then I believe you have one. And I think it's not necessary to reveal information about her if you choose not to.

    STRS is THE STATE PENSION SYSTEM FOR EDUCATORS (mostly teachers and administrators). The rules and regulations underwhich we were hired I belileve are binding and irrevocable. None of us asked to be in STRS, we have to take it. Personnally, I would have preferred PERS. I think this similar to SS. If you are covered, you have to pay into it and as a result, the rules and regulations that applied when you joined should be irrevocable.
    Is participation in STRS or PERS evil? It has only been recently that teachers have made enough money to be on the map for salaries. I remember my mom getting a teaching job that paid her less than $3000 a year. My final compensation year, I was $90,000+ and this all occured in less than 50 years.

    I think all the padding of final year compensation has raised the public ire over defined benefit pensions, but I think this is more common in the upper levels of adminsitration and even then, most of this doesn't occur in STRS, but mostly in PERS. But rules are rules. If I had the opportunity to greatly increase my pension I would have chosen that job, even if I hated it.

    As to my support of Joann, she is a liberal like me. I believe the things she says about conservatives is basically true. I woould probably choose another way to say it. She does more homework than I would on these topics, and so I assume she knows more particulars than I do about some of these topics.
    This is why I don't "correct" her. I occasionaly have challenged some of her information and she has replied explaining the foundation of her opinion which I felt to be generally accurate. You also provide supporting documentation, but sometimes I think your back up is questionable. It's nothing personal. I think we seek out that which supports our positions and disregard the rest. I have said in the past that if you say something happened, than you believe something happened and any supporting documentation will say the same thing so I don't go back and check it.

    I think you two should cool down a little bit and reset your zero and go from there.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:52 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Perhaps the government should just take your contributions and give them to someone else as Mike has suggested...[lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:48 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    I'm quite confident that msb will continue to hold to her emotional opinions based on no facts or evidence. [whistling]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:38 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Apparently it's none of your business either as you have clearly indicated that you " prefer the government just take my contributions and give them to someone else." [lol]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:18 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Who are you talking to?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:18 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Editor:
    Since andrew can use offensive terms in an attempt to be funny, can I do the same? And I thought we weren't going to allow huge amounts of material (like liebich always copies and tries to pass off as his own) or material obviously lifted in its' entirety any more.
    Ms. Bobin pointed this out earlier on this thread.

    I didn't find any part of my quote offensive. I found you and the use of the word "libtard" offensive. What I want the government to do with my money is none of your business, please don't attempt to try.

    I see you're back to your old self, copy and paste liebich.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:12 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Pat... you may be right. I hope sheseeks help that she obviously needs.

    However, sometimes I feel sorry for Ms Bobin's husband. I cannot imagine what he must endure watching his wife complain about bigots around every corner.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:55 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    DB: msb has no reality. Why does she attack you when I am the one who made the comments about her welfared state. Apparently her phony life of phony outrage is getting to her.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:43 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    another bizarre liberal post...I'm tired of people, who have not taken the initiative to get themselves the education or job that allows them an avenue to a decent retirement constantly complaining about WHAT OTHERS HAVE. SORRY - you did didn't plan your life the way you should have - and probably didn't have the brains to do so anyway.

    Mike.... you know for a fact that I have often stated that if offered, I would have opted out of social security... that I would have taken that 12-15% of compensation and invested it. I do not want what others have. I want to take control and be self-reliant.
    I have only complained that I have been forced to accept social security and would find myself in jail if I refused to participate.

    How can you not correct this bizarre woman who makes it her mission in life to distort reality?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:32 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    A bizarre post by a bizarre liberal...If YOU, Mr. Baumbach, want a pension plan like STRS - Open a SEP IRA or whatever other plan you want. If you can afford months and months at a time in Thailand - you can afford to save for your retirement. But then, some peccadillos cannot wait, can they?

    I am curious Mike... How can you so often agree with the liberal who made the above post? Do you think it appropriate that she insist I have no wife when I do?

    In addition, she demonstrates time and time again how she does not have a grasp of how things work... for example, she states if I want to have a pension like STRS that all I need to is take out a SEP IRA. This is ignorance at best.
    In reality, as you know, STRS is a defined benefit pension backed by the taxpayer which guarantees a monthly retirement benefit no matter the investment results. An IRA is never guaranteed and is subject to investment losses. STRS is backed by the tax payer and will make up for any losses Teachers experience in their funds.
    I am curious why you do not correct her numerous mistakes and distortions.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 3:23 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2239

    This is one issue that I thing G.W. Bush got right. We need to stop this nonsense immediately.

    Lets liquidate the system, distribute its current assets to those who have paid into it in proportion to their contributions and set up a sustainable retirement system that will allow that today's workers can salvage some sort of meaningful retirement.

    To ruin todays workers just so that the lamest generation can continue to live high off the hog is beyond irresponsible, it is immoral.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:09 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929


    Which part of your own quote do you find most offensive Mike?

    The government taking your money part or the government giving it to someone else part? [sleeping]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 12:35 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    ""I'd prefer the government just take my contributions and give them to someone else" is a perfect example of your libtardedness"

    So you can add offensive to your list of many attributes that causes no one here to like you.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 12:29 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    From my experience in working in the central office for specific programs, I had to deduct 6.2% (or a percentage of that depending on an employees fraction of working in that program). Several times I asked why I had to deduct 6.2% (Employer contribution) for employees that didn't pay into Social Security and weren't going to recieve it ever. All I was ever told was that it was the way it is.

    For STRS, we deducted 8% (I think it's 8.25% now). The teachers in the disrict had their contribution of 8% deducted. I think in districts that have collective bargaining agreements stating the district will pick up part or all of an employees contribution is reflective in why some teachers have 8% and others 7.5% or less.
    At least that's how I understand it.

    You are right to withhold information on your wife. It's unnecessary for the topic under discussion. My mother (who had an STRS retirement) recieved my father's SS after he passed on.

    Social Security is not meant to live off, but provide a safety net. Anyone who has paid in to SS over their lifetime (or all of their life) should receive benefits from it. For me, it was only an issue should I have died with underage children at home and that they get something should I have qualified. That's in the past now.
    As STRS gives an adequate pension and with my additional saving, like I'm sure your wife did, if medical insurance isn't a big drag on your monthly check, you can live well without SS. My monthly check wouldn't have been substantial. I've always counseled new teachers to open TSA's as soon as possible, even for small amounts. They won't notice it and after 35 years they have an additional pot of money.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:42 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    STRS 18% was a typo...should have been 16%

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:40 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mike posted...Ms. JB: I have had my suspicions about Darrell's marital status and his wife's pension. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt however and assume that for some reason, he is unaware of his wife's pension particulars.

    Mike... as you have been respectful in your posts toward me in comparison to other liberals, I will return the respect. I know exactly what my wife's pension benefits are...however, I have respect for my wife's privacy and think it inappropriate to reveal her exact age and particulars. I do not know if you are still married, but respecting a venomous person like Bobin who wants me to post my wife’s information is not a possibility over my wife's privacy. I selected an example of a man age 60 as that is close to my age. If I retire in 5 years, my projected retirement is close to the example I posted... Why you would be suspicious of my marital status is understandable considering what I post. However... one thing I am not is a liar as stated so often by the woman who sees bigots around every corner. I am married to a wonderful woman who is Hispanic, an x bilingual teacher and a better person than myself.
    Finally, you are mistaken about the level of compensation that goes into social security for each person… it is close to 15% and STRS is close to 18%... Yes, an employee has close to 7.5% taken out of his paycheck but the employer match is actually an employee contribution.
    By any stretch of the imagination, STRS is a far superior retirement vehicle that pays out much better.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:30 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    "I'd prefer the government just take my contributions and give them to someone else" is a perfect example of your libtardedness. [sleeping]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 10:00 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Editor:
    Ignoring the obvious cut and paste posts of this contributor, the term "libtards" is quite offensive and shouldn't be allowed. This also should apply to similar terms such as "realtards" and any use of the suffix "-tard".

    I would have assumed most people here are familiar with it's trashified meaning that anyone within one of the groups is "retarded" and that people who are challenged are somehow less important or able than those of us with faculties or abilities more closely to the norm.

    Fortunately, most contributor's here know that this social norm is now a standard and the use of such "slang" to characterize or demean anyone because of belonging to a particular group of individuals is demeaning.
    This norm applies to anyone who may be challenged in any physical or mental faculty such as the blind, amputees, the deaf, and members of ethnic, religious, nationality, or racial groups.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 9:41 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1317

    Ms JB:
    I have had my suspicions about Darrell's marital status and his wife's pension. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt however and assume that for some reason, he is unaware of his wife's pension particulars.

    More importantly however, it reflects a growing distrust and anger toward public employees pensions, mostly due to ignorance. To Darrell's credit, he has actually researched pensions, a step beyond what almost everyone who is critical of public employee pensions does. Most of the public I'm sure thinks we get 100% pensions as well as 3 months paid vacation. We also collect social security, so we are double dipping (even people who don't pay into social security). I don't collect social security due to being short 1 quarter, even though I paid in for the other 39. Ripped off? Not really. Angry over it? Not really. Even though I don't have a 100% pension (more like 74% to 80%). This after 33 years of service (which for me actually comes out to be 32.88). For close to 20 years I paid into a private pension system as do most teachers. For me it was about 10% gross. On top of STRS's 8% we had to contribute.
    So unlike a lot of people in the private sector, we (most teachers) paid in an additional 6% - 15%, a contribution level not met by those in the private sector. Educators shouldn't feel bad about collecting a pension or the availability of additional pensions they paid into. What ever the deal was when we started, that was the deal. Can we pay into an additional pension program(s)? Yes. I didn't create this law, you probably didn't either, but since it is available, we would be foolish not to take it.

    I'm not angry about the lack of a Social Security Check. I'd prefer the government just take my contributions and give them to someone else.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:10 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Never mind that the Socialist Security Administration is set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets that will be delivered to 41 locations across the country.

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity38mode=form&id=6c39a2a9f00a10187a1432388a3301e5&tab=core&_cview=0&fb_source=message

    Never mind the fact that earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security ran a drill called Operation Shield which included turning the entrance of a Florida Social Security office into a checkpoint manned by Federal Protective Service officers armed with semiautomatic rifles.

    http://www.infowars.com/dhs-officers-armed-with-semiautomatics-set-up-unannounced-id-checkpoint/

    For an individual to say, “BTW Social Security is solvent for at least 20 years. It does not need fixing” is beyond idiotic. Only a person living “in a bubble” could say such a thing. Sadly, the truth is that the Socialist Security trust fund might not even make it into the next decade!

    Socialist security, possibly the world’s largest wealth redistribution scheme in history is finally now coming to an end… the AP, “People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It’s a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees.”

    Right now, approximately 56 million Americans are collecting Sociaist Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to grow to a whopping 91 million. Overall, the Socialist Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

    Back in 1950, each retiree’s Socialist Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. But now things are much different. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.
    Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178%! Also, at this point one out of every six elderly Americans is already living below the federal poverty line. So how bad are things going to be when Socialist Security collapses? That is frightening to think about.

    If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women. As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn’t do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

    Not anymore.

    A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000.

    Myself, I’m ecstatic to see this socialist ponzi scheme fail. While I feel for people who “paid into it” their whole lives and will now get nothing, the fact of the matter is the money was stolen from them, and stealing from future generations won’t make things any better. Taxes are theft, all of them, the sooner people accept it, the sooner the healing process can begin.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:56 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    much appreciated Mr. Maple...

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:09 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    DB: One must learn what nummmmmbers are before she can use them! WE learned them without a calculator...with a thing called a pencil and use another thing...our brain...somethings msb seems devoid of.

    Andrew..I don't always agree with your conclusions but your information and debate are always there to address. Platitudes and pretence are what we
    get from most of the political merchants here. I must say you bring the mind to the fight. I always appreciate the information.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:40 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Obviously, this liberal cannot back up what she claims as my numbers are correct to the penny. When called on to prove what she claims... she cannot. Anyone can go to the websites I provided and duplicate the model I submitted.

    Why liberals distort and deceive is not a mystery. They do not have truth on their side. She claims the calculators are not accurate... but they are. The only thing they cannot guarantee is the law changing or the person putting the information in is correct. I welcome anyone to try them to see how right I am.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:32 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Bubble people don't read Mr. Maple. [lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:16 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    A Google search of my post yields 11,600 results yet Ms. Bobin believes she has found the link.[sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:01 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Are you sure Mr. Docktor didn't refer to Stericycle and Mitt Romney? [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:51 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    By law, all money deposited in the Social Security trust fund must be invested in U.S. government securities. Never mind the fact that the average rate of interest earned by the Social Security trust fund has declined from 6.1 percent in January 2003 to 3.9 percent today, and it is going to continue to go even lower as long as the Fed continues to keep interest rates super low.

    Look at the decline of interest income from $50,000 invested in a five-year Treasury obligation for heavens sake. As recently as 2000, this would have yielded about 6.15 percent and an interest income of $3,075 a year. Now the same obligation is yielding 0.7 percent and an interest income of $350 a year. This is the lowest yield on this maturity of Treasury debt since the Federal Reserve started keeping an index of the yields in 1953! But it’s more than a low interest rate. It’s an income decline of nearly 89% in just 12 years! And after you account for inflation, those that put money into savings accounts today are actually losing money!

    Are you libtards ever going to WAKE-UP?[sleeping]

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:55 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Well, well, well...the truth comes out!! The liberal msb is mad because her husband didn't pay in enough so that she could live high (higher) on the hog...which apparently she does now.

    Darrell have you ever taken in to account that NO ONE not even BO threatens to take away or diminish the payments to the recipients of these plans??? Ever wonder why? Of course you already know....the VOTE for the Democrats...who PROTECT their pay!

    Interesting that these PHONY outraged people only cry about THEIR pay and not the rest of the retired people...escpecially those from whom the government stole their life savings and continues to steal what is due them with their wasted spending of nearly $ $70 TRILLION on their PHONY give-away programs...

    You know who BO and his boneheads owes ($7 Trillion) the most to? Who they have stolen the most from and continue to do so to this day??? The Social Security program...yet the seniors still vote for the thieves. I wonder what people like you would do if BO and his cronies raided YOUR savings account. Do you pay taxes on your pensions?

    Do the numbers msb...most SS payments are much LESS than your pension...that was paid for by taxpayers money...but are you grateful? I would say not. Most SENIORS receiving SS are.

    Here's a novel idea...why don't you do the calcs on just how much Seniors SHOULD be receiving today if LBJ and his bunch hadn't allowed the "lockbox" to be opened. Here's a number to start with...$4700 per month! Even an idiot can do the calcs...even you.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:22 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    beautiful

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:11 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Mr. Baumbach pleaded: "If my numbers are wrong based on the example I gave using the official STRS website, please correct the numbers Ms liberal... what do you calculate to be the right numbers?
    Stop with the BS... what are the real numbers and exactly what formula did you use? "

    Well, it is now a certainty that Mr. Baumbach has no wife that is a retired teacher, otherwise he would know all this information and would not have to rely on the STRS website calculations.

    When my husband and I went to see the STRS counselor before he retired, the counselor used the same calculator as you did and gave us 3 different scenarios. Turned out, when all the numbers were in, when the districts verified the salaries and years of employment, and the remaining sick hours were verified (unused sick time allowed to be used to increase service years), the survivors annuity is taken into account, the numbers were COMPLETELY different than any of the numbers we had previously seen.

    The "calculator" is simply a tool to give you a rough idea of what to expect. The reality is quite different - something you would know if you actually had a wife who was retired with a STRS pension.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:44 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    If my numbers are wrong based on the example I gave using the official STRS website, please correct the numbers Ms liberal... what do you calculate to be the right numbers?

    Stop with the BS... what are the real numbers and exactly what formula did you use?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:03 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Can you or mrl stay on subject...your HS teachers must be bald. Bring some facts to the game once in awhile will you?
    Phony outrage and deflection won't work with people like DB, JK, RC or myself anymore...osijo.[huh]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:19 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Lady bird did have interest in Bell helicopter. To put in the Cheney's league is like comparing a hill to MT Everest

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:45 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Pray tell us how this is so. Try not to just make a blanket statement but give us the mechanics of it.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:44 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726


    Darrell posted:

    The man who calls everyone names thinks he is an adult ??
    must be Texas red neck humor.

    You and your fellow bubble person Brian call me a left wing extremist and I ask what policy do you base this on. Why don't you cut the 6th grader nonsense?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:21 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Wrong again.

    Your second paragraph is 100% incorrect.

    As for your final paragraph, this would be a very silly retirement plan. Since the STRS mandatory contribution rate is higher than SS, one would be silly not to contribute to a 401(k) or IRA also.

    You act like there are no other retirement alternatives available to people who do not have STRS or PERS. Ludicrous.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:09 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Not confused at all, Mr. Baumbach.

    As you stated - you used the STRS calculator. That is theoretical.

    Why didn't you give us YOUR real life example of your wife's retirement arrangement. Does she not share that information with you? Or is it because your "retired teacher wife" does not, in reality, exist?

    I used the same calculator and entered the exact information from MY real life scenario, and I got a different answer from reality.

    There are many variables to consider, especially if one opts to take a partial lump sum distribution in addition to the discretionary fund lump sum distribution that is automatic. Just depends on how much income tax you want to pay in the first year.

    Also, the spousal annuity is no where NEAR to the amount the retiree receives, so your information is flat out INCORRECT.

    My husband forfeits 1/2 of his monthly benefit to pay for the annuity, but if I survive him, I will receive $1500 LESS that he is getting monthly.

    I can see that, for an insurance person with a retired teacher wife, you don't know much about STRS.

    And I see you didn't bother to comment about your INCORRECT information about SS - there are survivors benefits - depending on a couple's situation - not to mention if a parent dies and has minor children - another added benefit.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:27 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    The man who calls everyone names thinks he is an adult ??

    [lol][lol][lol] must be Texas red neck humor.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:23 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Again with the ignorance of the local liberal left..."Don't touch social security"??? You are too late mr coleman...LBJ did that in 1963 when he opened up the cofers to pay for his Viet Nam escalation and war mongering...and his "Great Society" of welfare and appeasement. Did you know that his wife "Ladybird" owned steel mfg companies that benefited from the war? Hmmm...

    The Democrats are the mishandlers of this program not the Republicans, they have no one to blame or chastise but themselves. Seniors today should be rolling in the dough...2 to 3 times more than what they currently receive. What I don't understand is why they keep believing their lies voting for the idiots...it is as though they think they don't deserve to be paid fairly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:38 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    the liberal stated...And if things have not changed since my father died, which I believe they have not, my mother, who did not work most of her life, had the option to take my father's monthly SS amount, or keep her monthly SS amount

    I was not referring to cases where the spouse did not work... your example is a minority of cases and you clearly are attempting to distract and distort reality..

    In the case of that I provided, If the male died who collected Social Security @ $1970.00 per month dies, and his spouse ( a teacher) is collecting $4,721.00 from STRS, she would get nothing from Social Security. Why? Because In the situation when you have both worked you can collect on whichever monthly benefit amount is higher. Since STRS is higher, she gets zero from Social Security.


    However, this entire line of discussion is irrelevant as the point is Social Security is far less beneficial and is not a good retirement plan. As Mr Liebich provided in his post, there is not money saved in any kind of retirement account. STRS and PERS have multi-billions in accounts just in California alone.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:21 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    This this liberal was confused...and asked ... I don't know what "calculator" you are using, Mr. Baumbach, but I CAN give you a real life example.

    answer... it was the official STRS website calculator @ http://www.calstrs.com/calculators/retbencalc.aspx

    I also used the official Social Security calculator @https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/ACU_KBA/main.jsp?URL=/apps8z/ARPI/main.jsp?locale=en&LVL=4

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:08 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I only take issue with Mr. Liebich claiming the words as his own and not giving credit to the sources from which he has plagiarized them.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:07 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    [lol][lol]

    Liberal calls people names (Typical bubble person rhetoric).. then states about others...Cannot deal with facts start calling people names ...

    [lol][lol] ... then asks...Why am I a left wing extremist... answer, who knows, maybe they just grow em that way in El Paso.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:03 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Looks good on paper but try tell that to millions who have lost their pensions like the people of delphi or hostess

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:55 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    "This letter is evidence how bad our educational system is in United States."

    This SENTENCE is evidence "how bad our educational (sic) system is in the United States."

    FYI - "educational" is an adjective, not a noun. Should read "how bad our EDUCATION system is.." Mr. Baumbach unintentionally illustrates this perfectly.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:54 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Joanne he is right in a way when he says:

    your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.

    It is the way they have paid for the tax cuts for the rich for 40 years now. They borrow the money and put it on the back of future generations. That is how the plutocrats get hold of our social security money. Otherwise Mitt Romney would have to pay more than 9% in federal income tax on 20 million dollars. Cool huh?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:50 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I don't know what "calculator" you are using, Mr. Baumbach, but I CAN give you a real life example.

    My husband receives ONE HALF of his calculated retirement monthly - the other half goes into an annuity for the surviving beneficiary - ME, if I live longer. If I die first, the only option is to select a new beneficiary. The monthly amount does not go back to the original amount.

    And if things have not changed since my father died, which I believe they have not, my mother, who did not work most of her life, had the option to take my father's monthly SS amount, or keep her monthly SS amount. Since his was 5 times the amount she was receiving, she kept his benefit amount.

    Fortunately, she was also the beneficiary of his retirement annuity from the very lucrative pension plan he received as an employee of AT&T.

    So, your conclusion that the beneficiary "gets nothing" is incorrect. I would be willing to bet that most seniors today had one wage earner and one homemaker in the family, so, yes, the beneficiary does "get" something.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:48 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Why am I a left wing extremist? Name a policy I have put out there that backs up your claim. Typical bubble person rhetoric. Cannot deal with facts start calling people names.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:46 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Brian, I am simply pointing out the facts. Has any Republican administration since Eisenhower even made an effort to balance the budget? Did not your Vice-President Dick Cheney say "deficits do not matter". Is not Clinton the only President since Eisenhower able to balance the budget? Do not the so called Fiscal Conservative Republican scream about the budget when the Democrats are in the White House but when they are there they routinely blow up the budget? These are hard core cannot be denied facts. I know that the truth hurts but deal with it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:28 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Source, word for word, for the above comment:

    http://hegeldial.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/which-politicians-will-you-trust-to-decide-what-your-portfolio-may-contain/

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:35 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Just to substantiate why teachers would never want Social Security instead of STRS I used Social Security and STRS calculators to estimate what one man would get using the same example in both cases.

    Model...a male age 60 will retire in 5 years after 35 years of contributions into the retirement system. Last three years salary was $75000.

    1. Social Security = $1,970.00 per month. If person dies, beneficiary gets nothing.
    2. Teacher's STRS =$5,650.00 per month unmodified allowance
    $4,721.00 modified so spouse can continue same retirement if employee dies first.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:30 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Regarding Mr. Lucas's post at 6:26 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012:

    Of course he has evidence the "Fiscal Liberal" Democrats did nothing of the sort.
    Again, in his attempts to demonize the Right, he paints a picture of a bunch of halos over the Left. The farthest from the truth.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:24 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Left wing extremists like Mr. Lucas do more harm than good. In their attempts to demonize the Right, they in turn marginalize the left. Although their intentions are good.
    The end result is to the contrary.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:18 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama’s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into the first term of President George W. Bush.

    At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury.

    At the close of business this last Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98.

    That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:17 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2929

    Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year– not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue. Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades.
    If the Obama administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:43 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    This letter is evidence how bad our educational system is in United States. Maybe we should simply abolish public schools and universities that consume many of our resources and give Mr. Coleman and all seniors a social security increase from what we save in education expenses.

    No, Social Security should be replaced with a real retirement plan… just ask any teacher in USA, they would agree as they do not have Social Security or want to participate. In fact, teachers would go on strike if they were forced to participate in Social Security and abandon STRS.

    Based on this letter, critical thinking and comprehension skills have been abandoned in our schools. To believe a forced retirement system that has no investment element to grow money is appropriate is bizarre. There are real examples of retirement plans that actually have money in it that is invested such as PERS and STRS . The people who have these retirement plans realized years ago how corrupt and bad social security was and had political clout to opt out and form a retirement system that is far superior.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:32 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Note to Jerome "the sky is falling" Kinderman

    There is hope. Your candidate lost and the policies you endorse are being rejected by the American people. Otherwise we would have had no chance to turn things around. All you have to remember Jerome is if you really think something is right the opposite is probably true.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:26 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    When the "Fiscal Conservative" Republicans were in they borrowed money and added to the national debt every year they were in office. Did they finance infrastructure construction, pay for more research? No they put in tax cut after tax cut ,financing it with borrowed money and sent the vast majority of that money to the wealthy. Those of us who worked for a living paid Social Security taxes which ended up in the wealthy hands. If you are a working person and vote Republican you are a sucker but do not worry. They will not send you the money the scammed from you but they will give you a nice pat on the back.

    BTW Social Security is solvent for at least 20 years. It does not need fixing

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:31 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2315

    So let me get this straight, Leona Helmsley uttered those immortal words, "Only the poor pay taxes." Really? And just how is that possible? Having money withheld each payday for the possibility of paying taxes the following April is "not" paying taxes; they’ll get it back when they file and with the EIC, many receive a whole lot more than what was withheld. Most "poor" people don't pay federal income taxes; in California, the same is true for state income taxes. And EVERYONE pays sales tax.

    Now everyone during their working lives have had to pay into the Social Security system. Of course the good part is we have only had to pay one-half of the required roughly 13% - employers are required to pony up the rest. If Mr. Coleman was trying to get across that only the middle class pay taxes, then my argument would be quite different. But I’m going to try and keep to the intent of the letter rather than attempt to guess as to what he was actually thinking.

    As for Social Security, it doesn't appear to me Mr. Coleman has much of a problem with the "rich" people; no, he rightly lays blame for the theft from the Social Security "lock box" (which of course never existed, but it provides a nice mental image of where the money should be held) on the Federal government - you know, the guys and gals WE hire every few years to make the rules that they mostly don’t need to follow themselves. But none of them are rich, are they? Well, once again it depends upon what "rich" means, huh? I'd advise anyone interested to check for themselves the actual worth of their favorite politician(s) in D.C. In fact, since we live in California, why not check out Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer.

    Right now we're waiting for the Bush Administration's tax cuts to expire. This will cause those who make over $250,000 per year to pay more. But how much more and what good will it really do? My recollection from recent articles reveals that all the money would be enough to run the government for about nine days. Wow!

    Here's the thing. There must be a meeting of the minds when it comes to getting this economy under control. Since it doesn't appear that taking more from the rich will do much good, something else should also be considered. I've got an idea - how about cutting back on spending?!? Now I don't have the figures in front of me, but I know that none of us can fathom how much money is spent by our government on some pretty frivolous things. But what about that nasty debt that has been growing with each passing day? (Check this out for an idea what’s going on there: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

    Frankly, it's time to start doing something about this problem instead of just whining about it or pointing fingers. The election on November 6th revealed to me that most voters don't care at all about the economy. Does that mean that everything is just fine? Well, we're hearing more about this fiscal cliff thingy that until just after the election I had never even heard of the term. But I hear it's real bad - and it's coming real soon!

    So how about it you guys in D.C. - whatta ya say ya start working for the good of ALL Americans; not just the guys and gals you're beholden to for all that campaign loot you gathered to buy those comfy seats you plop in every now and then.

    Or is everything really not that bad? I think it really REALLY is!

     

Recent Comments

Posted 11 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Nice red herring, Andrew!! Mike has said the same things about you, even worse, in many other posts, and nary a word from you about rules.…

More...

Posted 13 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

And we should especially pay close attention to Rule # 9: "Don’t be a troll." n Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is…

More...

Posted 13 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Christina, I understand the link may not have worked for you but the reason has nothing to do with the page not existing. The link I post…

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Walter Chang.

Posted 16 hours ago by Walter Chang.

article: Letter: We should not tolerate the use …

"Waiting" D-i-c-k, since you got a little time... Check these out. Townes van Zandt - Waitin' Around To Die http://youtu.be/…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists