Obama's Economy

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 10:35pm

According to the Independent Journal government statistics show by the end of 2011 108.6 million people were on some sort of means tested government assistance programs while 101.7 million were working. This is even after a previous almost trillion dollar stimulus program - more people receiving government assistance as opposed to those working full time jobs

Not a record to be too proud of

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 10:40pm

More than 60 million of those 100 million are the people receiving Social Security.

Maybe more people should die?

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 10:48pm

Probably on Medicare as well. Hmmmmm.
Roxy darling, the Boomers are beginning to retire. Give the sphincter a break.

[Magicslugs]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 11:45pm

Obama was looked as a saint in the beginning now we know how bad America's economy is and its sinking and no one seems to care.

[tinysmagic]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 11:53pm

http://www.examiner.com/article/50-politically-biased-sources-not-to-get-your-news-from

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 11/1/13 at 11:54pm

"Obama was looked as a saint in the beginning now we know how bad America's economy is and its sinking and no one seems to care."

Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to set your buttons on "ignore". We have someone who graces us with their presence today for the first time to bash Obama.

[dented146]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 2:04am

Welcome to the site magicslugs. But I don't agree with you that no one cares. Caring is why you are here; it's the reason we all end up here disagreeing with one another.

What I see is this fantastic country where, over the last couple of decades, the citizens have been brainwashed into believing that people with different opinions are the enemy, the enemy of what is good and right for our country. People who are conservative or religious are automatically stupid and bigoted.. People who are liberal are automatically socialists or unpatriotic or just want a handout.

And we consume a media which plays to both sides and makes the gulf wider with every slanted story. And both sides slant their stories. Our founding fathers designed the Constitution to be an instrument which forces compromise. But today compromise is a dirty word and any politician with that in mind is considered a traitor by their party.

We all care. We all just happen to care about our own side.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 11:00am

Welcome to the site, magic slugs? You gotta be kidding, dented.

Also, Roxy, you're just spoofing now, right? The Independent Journal is neither Independent nor a journal. Discuss.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 12:53pm

Well stated dented

[OneMoreRound]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 1:07pm

And now for some real statistics, not propaganda from Independent Journal

49% of the population lives in households receiving government aid, which of course is not the same as 49% of the population receiving government aid. Most of that aid goes to the elderly and disabled.








Who receives government assistance Updated On: 11/2/13 at 01:07 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 1:08pm

Sounds like good advice to me.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 1:21pm

The adults are smart enough to figure it out on their own.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 1:31pm

That's true too.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 4:49pm

You want it

The leeching my wife and I are doing is collecting social security which we both paid into our entire working lives

My wife took early ss as she cannot find a job in Obamas wonderful economy despite possessing 3 degrees and speaking French and Spanish. She currently has no health care.

Before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself get you facts straight.

By the way Phyllis Soc Sec is your money and not the governments although they treat it like it is. Bad deal - the government takes your money and pays you no interest for over 45 years in my case.



I thought Republicans were the mean spirited ones.

Updated On: 11/2/13 at 04:49 PM

Posted: 11/2/13 at 5:19pm

So if you collect all the money you put in to SS, they cut you off, right? Or they SHOULD cut you off? And what makes YOUR Social Security "earned" and their disability or SNAP benefits "government assistance"? They paid into the system too.

I'll tell you the difference: YOU get Social security even if you have a million dollars in the bank, own two homes and a Cadillac and it goes into your checking account each month so none can give you the stink eye if they don't approve of what you decide to spend it on.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 5:23pm

If I'm reading you right, Roxy, you're saying that these are entitlements for you and your wife and in the grand Ponzi scheme of this economy, you and the Mrs will be getting money because you're old and unemployable, which you say is going to bankrupt the country and leave young people with nothing. But you'll be sure to take what you can get. Nice country, America.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 5:44pm

If pointing out you clear hypocrisy is being mean spirited, than so be it.

And, you also receive medicare benefits. Another government benefit where I would hazard to guess you may receive more in benefits than you actually contributed.

Which, BTW, I would have no problem with, except for the fact that you deride and attack the very programs that you benefit from. So, perhaps you should look in the mirror before casting stones. Or, is getting back what one puts into the system (and then some) only viable for you and yours?

For the record, I am pretty sure by the time I am eligible I will not be able to qualify for Social Security - because I have been careful with my money, saved for my retirement, and, unlike many, actually have a pension (I work in the private sector). I expect SS to be means tested, and if making it viable for those who need it most means I may have to budget a bit more today and tomorrow, so be it. But, that will be close to $200,000 (by the time I retire) of my money contributed to enable folks (like you) to have some security in retirement.

Guess, what - I am OK with that if it means people will not have to eat cat food. I think the social safety net is important. Even if those same people bought more stuff than me, had newer cars than me, and generally took more from the system than I did.

You, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to receive benefits with open arms, while condemning those who do the same thing. According to your own post - you are part of the problem. Own it, deal with it, accept it. Or, stop making posts that by their very definition demonstrate your hypocrisy.



Updated On: 11/2/13 at 05:44 PM

[Ex-Siny]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 6:29pm

Roxy, you and the Mrs. are going to get back far more in SS and Medicare than you had paid in.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 10:48pm

So does every other person collecting Social Security and that includes many democrats. How many people die before ever collecting it? What happens to that money Does it go to their survivors or does the government keep it?

Nice try but you have to do better than that.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/2/13 at 11:41pm

Roxy, in some cases yes it does go to survivors. From CNN:
Survivor benefits are available for certain family members as long as you accumulated the 40 credits before dying.
Your children may qualify for 75% of your Social Security benefits based on your record of contributions, up until they turn 18 years old (or 19, in the case of a child still in elementary or secondary school). As for your spouse, he or she can receive a reduced benefit (71.5% of your benefits) as early as age 60, or your full benefit after reaching full retirement age. Those benefits will continue indefinitely unless your spouse remarries.
Benefits for your spouse and kids are also limited by a family maximum, which is the maximum amount that can be paid from your earnings record. For more details on survivor benefits, check out the Social Security Administration's Web site.

[dented146]

Posted: 11/3/13 at 12:55am

Not true exsiny. I have been putting into Social Security for 41 years. It is my self-employment tax and over the years it has ranged from 8% to about 12% of the federal tax that I pay.
If I wait until I'm 70 and a half I will receive about 3000 a month which is far less than any union program ever pays. My wife who retired as a teacher in California has Calstirs instead of SS. It is a system funded by the teachers. The teachers put in 8% of their salary. My wife did it for the 32 years she worked. She will receive about 6000 a month for the rest of her life and her retirement program invested the money very conservatively.

I estimate that I put at least three times her amount into the Social Security system over the last 40 years in order to get a paltry 3000. Why the pathetic payout? Because Congress has been taking money out of the system to cover their spending for years. It is really very simple and symbolic of all government programs. I am not blaming Democrats. This addiction to spend and waste money is a flagrant Congressional problem.

[Ex-Siny]

Posted: 11/3/13 at 1:41am

Dented, you are forgetting that under SS you'll be getting COLA's every year, so just because you'll start at 3,000 does not mean you'll stay there.

Second, SS is an insurance program, which your wife's pension is not. SS covers disability and survivors' benefits and that's where extra money goes.

Third, while most people get about what they had put in SS (some more, some less), most people get far more in Medicare than what they'd paid - on average almost 4 times more.

And, fourth, don't assume that the pension your wife will be receiving is fully funded by her contributions. As a city worker, large part of her pension will be paid for by the taxpayers. It's what's causing municipal budget deficits across the country - public employees' pensions and health care costs.


SS and Medicare: What You Paid vs. What You'll Get

[dented146]

Posted: 11/3/13 at 1:14am

Yes, what you said is true although the COLA is pretty insignificant. In the case of California as opposed to the recent bru-haha in Minn. where teachers had been contributing very little, the teachers in California were sustaining the system. In recent years there has begun to be a shortfall.

Look, I'm for a sound system. My objection is that the money that workers put in the system should have resulted, over the years in a massive trust. But the money has been squandered away by politicians.

I would like to see Social Security made stronger. I feel that the people who need the money would be getting more if the money had not been used for other programs. The retirement age should be higher and wealthy people who don't need the money should be willing to accept some sacrifice even though they contributed mightily into the system. I am likely one of those people.

But if I am going to be asked to give up part of the money in which I am entitled then I feel Congress should show some fiscal discipline. Right now there in no hint of that happening.

[Ex-Siny]

Posted: 11/3/13 at 1:29am

Dented, SS funds have not been squandered by Congress. They have been invested in government securities. This is the mechanism by which government borrows the money - from foreign and domestic investors, institutions and trusts. The only way SS will lose this money is if the government defaults on its obligations. I suppose if we elect enough tea partiers it may yet happen, but other than that the money will be paid back with interest, according to the law.
Social Security Trusts

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/3/13 at 10:37am

Siny, you give me a headache. This is why stalemates happen all over this country... People become so stuck in their opposing viewpoints that we lose common ground and a way to meet in the middle with our various viewpoints. It seems like you're determined to fight against every single thing Dented says. That can only go so far until you become unbearably stubborn and closed minded. That is the problem with both parties.