Posted on 10/19/2013 3:02:34 AM PDT by markomalley
Traditionally, letters to the editor are the vehicle for a newspaper's readers to voice their disagreement with an article appearing in the paper. The Los Angeles Times has announced that it won't print any letters from readers who differ with their positions, using climate change as an example:
Regular readers of The Times' Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.
Why? Simply put, this objection to the president's healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.
Interestingly, their insistence on conformity to the global warming theory comes at a time when the theory's proponents admit there hasn't been climate change for 15 years. In fact there are many scientists now predicting the earth is heading for an ice age.
We’re the Times. If we don’t cover it, it never happened!
No they do not.
I know that you will say but they only put five in and took ten out but you forget the interest that was earned on that money.
A savings bond bought for $25.00 in 1980 is worth $165.74 today.
When you calculate it properly you discover that they have actually paid in far more then they ever could collect.
There was no interest earned—the government does not invest your contributions. What I said was correct.
Actually they do. They loan it to the general fund. In other words, savings bonds.
That is why I used that method of calculating the return.
You are being disingenuous. The bonds are indeed purchased, but the proceeds do NOT go to Social Security Recipients—instead, they are returned to the general operating budget of the Federal Government. There is no “trust fund.”
Therefore there are returns that should be paid back to the SS fund and a bunch of people should go to jail.
You’re going to need a time machine, because this looting of the Social Security fund has been going on for more than forty years...
You can arrest the ones that are still alive. And you can begin the repayment into the fund of the money that was looted.
How about we finally put this ridiculous entitlement program out of our collective misery? Allowing individuals to voluntarily opt out of the program would ensure an orderly and fair termination of the program.
Get back to me when you get schooled on the concept of “compounded interest.” Until then, anything you say about payout not equaling payin is complete and utter ignorant crap.
I don't think that would be enough for you, zippy. I think you want people who have payed in for 40-50 years to give up and walk away from what they are owed. That's what I think of you.
Social Security now pays out more than it collects. I suggest you read the following for a start:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA689.pdf
You will see why your snarky comment about compound interest is wrong.
You are a thief who would steal the life savings from an elderly person if you could just shake the cane away for a moment.
I wish for every American to have the option to opt out of Social Security. If you are currenty receiving “benefits,” then you would choose to stay in. I don’t understand your ire, nor your opposition to individual choice in retirement planning.
“I don’t think that would be enough for you, zippy. I think you want people who have payed in for 40-50 years to give up and walk away from what they are owed. That’s what I think of you.”
I’m sorry—are we talking about life’s savings, or are we talking about Social Security? If you think Social Security is a savings account, you are sadly mistaken.
Please look up the word, “voluntarily,” in the dictionary before posting a reply. Thanks in advance.
I’ve been reading your posts down through this thread. You are clearly on the “loot the retirees” bandwagon. That’s all I need to know of your arguments. Thanks for playing.
While I understand that you're talking about the system that is and not the system that should have been, the truth is that if I'd have been putting this much money annually into a simple mutual fund that I'd be seeing a whole lot more money than SS is going to give me.
I've been paying in since I was 15.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.