Military Spending versus welfare sucking libtards

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: dfnj2015

I disagree with your opinion. Welfare has traditionally meant something else:

It is, and a bad one.

If you make 40,000 a year and retire at 65, you will get about 1,500 a month (per gov projections, hold in the laughs).

Social security tax is 6.2%, matched by employer for a total of 12.4%.

If you make 40,000 a year and put in 12.4% (starting at age 30) to a 401k, you will get 10,000 dollars a month.

Tell me which one is a better use of money.

Just to further show ludicrous social security is...

In the above example, $413.33 is contributed per month on their behalf. Over 30 years of working that would be $148,800 ($413.33 * 360). This assumes no interest... Let's assume a modest return of 7.5% on average. At the end of 30 years, that person would have $516,475.

Also, keep in mind that $516,475 IS YOUR MONEY... you could pass it on to your heirs to give them a head start. however, with social security, if you die of a heart attack, your family gets nothing (wife gets some benefit) but kids don't.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dfnj2015

Imagine if we contributed to our own 401k instead of Social Security.

I would call that a bit short sided. There were many people at or near retirement who saw their 401K go up in smoke when the housing bubble crashed the market.

For those of you claiming that forcing employers to pay for social security or health care or any other employee expense is a form of welfsre that is just flat out wrong. Those expences are considered part of the employees wages.

You can argure that the money should go to the paycheck and that employees should manage these thing seperately, but either way it's part of wages not welfare.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I would call that a bit short sided. There were many people at or near retirement who saw their 401K go up in smoke when the housing bubble crashed the market.

Which recovered, and then some.

Those expences are considered part of the employees wages

So now it's considered wage.

Funny how the usual suspects constantly whine they don't get paid enough.

a reply to: dfnj2015

They didn't. At no point in time has the Pentagon received $20T in adjustment spending. Adjustments to the budget occur when they have spending that isn't accounted for for whatever reason. Think of it as balancing your checkbook, and you can't get it to balance. So instead of going through every check you ever wrote, you put in that you wrote a check for whatever the difference is. No actual money is involved.

originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: dfnj2015

It is, and a bad one.

If you make 40,000 a year and retire at 65, you will get about 1,500 a month (per gov projections, hold in the laughs).

Social security tax is 6.2%, matched by employer for a total of 12.4%.

If you make 40,000 a year and put in 12.4% (starting at age 30) to a 401k, you will get 10,000 dollars a month.

Tell me which one is a better use of money.

Just to further show ludicrous social security is...

In the above example, $413.33 is contributed per month on their behalf. Over 30 years of working that would be $148,800 ($413.33 * 360). This assumes no interest... Let's assume a modest return of 7.5% on average. At the end of 30 years, that person would have $516,475.

Also, keep in mind that $516,475 IS YOUR MONEY... you could pass it on to your heirs to give them a head start. however, with social security, if you die of a heart attack, your family gets nothing (wife gets some benefit) but kids don't.

This is exactly why the government pays back more than you pay in. We are giving to the government to invest on our behalf. All you have proven is if we have smart leaders our government would be making a profit on Social Security. If the government profits on Social Security then it's not Welfare.

According to your own example using the modest 7.5% and life expectancy of 80 the government should be making over $100,000 per person.

The difference is simple. Invest yourself and you risk losing everything. The money givin to the government has a guaranteed return on investment.

Social Security was seen as an investment into the US that was intended to pay interest to the investor. Social Security is not Welfare and your own example proves it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73

Funny how the usual suspects constantly whine they don't get paid enough.

Stop making assumptions. I have been in the top 20%. Most of my family lives in the top 20%.

It's the employees at the bottom who are not getting paid enough.

a reply to: Isurrender73

It's the employees at the bottom who are not getting paid enough.

Opinion.

Someone just said SS was part of their wages.

I wonder what else is ?

Like unemployment insurance,workmans comp insurance, vacation pay, and holiday pay.

So 'not' getting paid enough?

Bull and crap.

a reply to: neo96

Yes, Social Security was and is considered part of the minimum wage.

All of those things are part of the minimum wage. If the employer can't afford those expences their business model sucks and deserves to go out of business.

The working poor on welfare is not an opinion. Why should the middle class support food stamps when we could force employers to pay a wage that eliminates the need for welfare to the working class?

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: dfnj2015

It is, and a bad one.

If you make 40,000 a year and retire at 65, you will get about 1,500 a month (per gov projections, hold in the laughs).

Social security tax is 6.2%, matched by employer for a total of 12.4%.

If you make 40,000 a year and put in 12.4% (starting at age 30) to a 401k, you will get 10,000 dollars a month.

Tell me which one is a better use of money.

Just to further show ludicrous social security is...

In the above example, $413.33 is contributed per month on their behalf. Over 30 years of working that would be $148,800 ($413.33 * 360). This assumes no interest... Let's assume a modest return of 7.5% on average. At the end of 30 years, that person would have $516,475.

Also, keep in mind that $516,475 IS YOUR MONEY... you could pass it on to your heirs to give them a head start. however, with social security, if you die of a heart attack, your family gets nothing (wife gets some benefit) but kids don't.

This is exactly why the government pays back more than you pay in. We are giving to the government to invest on our behalf. All you have proven is if we have smart leaders our government would be making a profit on Social Security. If the government profits on Social Security then it's not Welfare.

According to your own example using the modest 7.5% and life expectancy of 80 the government should be making over $100,000 per person.

The difference is simple. Invest yourself and you risk losing everything. The money givin to the government has a guaranteed return on investment.

Social Security was seen as an investment into the US that was intended to pay interest to the investor. Social Security is not Welfare and your own example proves it.

No, you missed the point. A lot of people get back far more than they put in while many of us don't get back anything close to what we would had we been able to invest the money ourselves.

The example demonstrates that people get a far bigger return if they just kept the money themselves. In addition, they have control of the asset by being able to pass it on to family members as an inheritance.

Social security is a redistribution scheme where younger and wealthier workers pay for the retirement of older and poorer workers.

a reply to: dfnj2015



You know what....your rhetoric is supper OLD.....

a reply to: Isurrender73

For those of you claiming that forcing employers to pay for social security or health care or any other employee expense is a form of welfsre that is just flat out wrong. Those expences are considered part of the employees wages.

I don't think anyone in the thread has said that. I certainly see my almost free healthcare as part of my wages.

We are saying welfare is welfare. While I don't mind paying some money to social programs, I'm not for increasing them, I'll likely never use them (I have insurance to protect my income). So I don't want to pay more.

a reply to: dfnj2015



Again, where is trumpcare??? He had a "much, much better plan, than failing Obamacare" I don't even need to Bring his treason up.

Darn, it. Once again, I forgot to say MUCH MUCH BETTER PLAN....DARN IT!

not worth it LOL

a reply to: Isurrender73

This is exactly why the government pays back more than you pay in. We are giving to the government to invest on our behalf. All you have proven is if we have smart leaders our government would be making a profit on Social Security. If the government profits on Social Security then it's not Welfare. According to your own example using the modest 7.5% and life expectancy of 80 the government should be making over $100,000 per person. The difference is simple. Invest yourself and you risk losing everything. The money givin to the government has a guaranteed return on investment.

You contradicted yourself in the same post.

If investments lose, theirs will too if they invest. Except when a company does it on your behalf, their survival as a company is making you money. The government exists one way or the other. Why when they have been doing poorly with social security would i put more trust into them? Absolutely not, they had their chance, I say we start trimming the fat before it's too late.

a reply to: kurthall

Again, where is trumpcare??? He had a "much, much better plan, than failing Obamacare" I don't even need to Bring his treason up.

Man, people are having trouble with definitions today. Words don't mean what you want them to mean. Just because you didn't like the summit doesn't make it this countries highest crime.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution.

Nice use of buzz words though.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I am conservative and even I acknowledge there is a hell of a lot more "fat" to be trimmed from defense than there is from social program

We could easily shave 5% of the whole defense budget by proper oversight. That's roughly 30 Billion.

the $212 billion dollars represents 0.01 percent of what the military is spending.

The Defense Budget is about 600 Billion from a quick look. Your math is off. It would help if you didn't use hyperbole in your arguements.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73

Funny how the usual suspects constantly whine they don't get paid enough.

Stop making assumptions. I have been in the top 20%. Most of my family lives in the top 20%.

It's the employees at the bottom who are not getting paid enough.

And if we pay more for minimum wage, then prices will go up, that's inflation. Minimum wage isn't meant to live your whole life on. You don't have to go to college to get a good job, you just work hard and move up, or learn a trade.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73

Funny how the usual suspects constantly whine they don't get paid enough.

Stop making assumptions. I have been in the top 20%. Most of my family lives in the top 20%.

It's the employees at the bottom who are not getting paid enough.

And if we pay more for minimum wage, then prices will go up, that's inflation. Minimum wage isn't meant to live your whole life on. You don't have to go to college to get a good job, you just work hard and move up, or learn a trade.

Yes, yes. Heard it all before. What you are doing is not accounting for many programs because you don't like to call those things welfare. But yes, indeed, the governments (including the states) spend about a trillion dollars a year on "programs for the poor." See? We didn't use the term "welfare" there, and that's what you have done--redefined welfare to suit your own purposes.

The fact is, the military is a Constitutionally mandated job for the US government to do, to "provide for the common defense." Giving away money for welfare is not. In act, the Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the very idea. Why? Because they believed in individual responsibility for people to take care of themselves. That, obviously, has gone by the wayside as people pretend they are incapable of doing it without government help.

Social Security is paid for by everyone that works and that has worked.

It's not welfare. It's prepaid.