5 ways to tell if you're a Libertarian

What is your opinion on people being able to opt out and save/invest themselves?

I'm not opposed to it being in place for those that want it as long as it doesn't cost me.

And who's gonna pay for it when the market crashes and these people lose all their money?

Stupid peckerwood.
 
Flash said we can't afford to do the proportional higher amount for the higher incomes. That leaves only one other option and that's to cut the lower income to 1/4 of the two I compared since the contributions for the lower was 1/4 that of the higher I used.

I suspect those on the higher income end could live with that since most will have planned and done privately what they should have done.

You definitely think like me on SS!

vg0hfl.jpg


From one retard to another.
 
And who's gonna pay for it when the market crashes and these people lose all their money?

Stupid peckerwood.

They don't lose when they invest long-term. Require everybody to put the same 12.4% in a S&P 500 mutual fund. Even big losses comes back or still has more remaining than SS. There are several advantages: 1) more income than SS 2) that money can be left to heirs 3) it eliminates the largest government spending category.

The average annual returns of the S&P 500 from 1928-2014 is 10%.

The problem with letting the young getting their own accounts is that their payroll taxes are needed to fund current retirees.
 
You're a lying piece of wussy-ass trash, peckerwood.

Prove you own what you claim to own or fuck off.

Your words prove you acknowledged it.

I've offered ways to prove it and you continue to run like a fucking coward.
 
And who's gonna pay for it when the market crashes and these people lose all their money?

Stupid peckerwood.

The people that invested. Those that invest in that manner don't have all their eggs in one basket.

The people that you support getting money they never earned don't have a basket or eggs because they're either too stupid or too lazy to have one. The rest of us support them and they've done nothing. That should be stopped. Agree?
 
They don't lose when they invest long-term. Require everybody to put the same 12.4% in a S&P 500 mutual fund. Even big losses comes back or still has more remaining than SS. There are several advantages: 1) more income than SS 2) that money can be left to heirs 3) it eliminates the largest government spending category.

The average annual returns of the S&P 500 from 1928-2014 is 10%.

The problem with letting the young getting their own accounts is that their payroll taxes are needed to fund current retirees.

You lost him when you said individual investing. He relies on the government for every dime he has in his pocket.
 
Capitalist libertarianism offers the greatest amount of freedom and liberty. For many it goes too far and is the reason many libertarians (economically conservative and socially liberal) are not Libertarian Party supporters. They tend to favor a higher level of government involvement than the party. Most of the rich do not favor such limited government--they are getting rich off food stamps, infrastructure projects, Medicare and Medicaid...........
Without their state the rich would all be in jail.
 
That's because the trust fund was stolen and put into the general war fund.

That is a big misconception. The trust fund was not stolen and has $2.5 trillion surplus which is currently funding the revenue shortfall as it was intended. The original SS law required any surplus to be placed in government securities (at 2%). It was better than just letting the surplus sit in the trust fund while selling treasuries on the open market.
 
Your words prove you acknowledged it.

I've offered ways to prove it and you continue to run like a fucking coward.

You're a lying brokeback peckerwood pansy. You've never offered shit but the sight of your ass hiding behind your keyboard.

The people that invested. Those that invest in that manner don't have all their eggs in one basket.

The people that you support getting money they never earned don't have a basket or eggs because they're either too stupid or too lazy to have one. The rest of us support them and they've done nothing. That should be stopped. Agree?

Wrong. When the people who invested lose everything they invested, the first thing they'll do is go running to the danged ol' gub'mint with both hands out, crying gimme gimme gimme!!!!.

And you'll be right where you always are.... at the front of the line with your hands out like the rest of them.
 
They don't lose when they invest long-term. Require everybody to put the same 12.4% in a S&P 500 mutual fund. Even big losses comes back or still has more remaining than SS. There are several advantages: 1) more income than SS 2) that money can be left to heirs 3) it eliminates the largest government spending category.

The average annual returns of the S&P 500 from 1928-2014 is 10%.

The problem with letting the young getting their own accounts is that their payroll taxes are needed to fund current retirees.

That doesn't address the problem of who's going to provide interim support for seniors while the market recovers and their dividends have taken a major hit.

It's gambling with people's futures and many people are not equipped nor can they afford such a gamble.
 
You lost him when you said individual investing. He relies on the government for every dime he has in his pocket.

Wrong as usual, trailer trash. My net worth is probably many times yours, assuming you even have a net worth, which I doubt. I've never taken one dime from the govt while you probably collect disability, SNAP and everything else you can get your dirty, grimy mitts on.
 
That doesn't address the problem of who's going to provide interim support for seniors while the market recovers and their dividends have taken a major hit.

It's gambling with people's futures and many people are not equipped nor can they afford such a gamble.

You sell some of your shares which cover part of your living expenses while your value recovers. Like Social Security, this is not supposed to be your total retirement income but is in addition to your pension or other income. You continue to have more income than your SS payment.
 
You sell some of your shares which cover part of your living expenses while your value recovers. Like Social Security, this is not supposed to be your total retirement income but is in addition to your pension or other income. You continue to have more income than your SS payment.

Sell them for what? A fraction of what they were originally worth?

Then what have you got after you've sold them all to support yourself while the market slowly recovers?

It's too much of a gamble which is why seniors will never allow it.
 
You're a lying brokeback peckerwood pansy. You've never offered shit but the sight of your ass hiding behind your keyboard.



Wrong. When the people who invested lose everything they invested, the first thing they'll do is go running to the danged ol' gub'mint with both hands out, crying gimme gimme gimme!!!!.

And you'll be right where you always are.... at the front of the line with your hands out like the rest of them.

With an average return of 10% annually in S&P you do not lose everything you invested and any loss comes back. The 2008 recession dropped many funds by 40% by that has more than recovered. It is obviously a better financial plan than SS which is already spending more than it brings in. By about 2037 the $2.5 trillion surplus will be gone and revenues will only fund about 70% of the benefits; so, SS is obviously not a sound solution.
 
Back
Top