Canada trying to ban Ruger #1 single shot rifles

[HillsideDesolate]

When Canada banned the AR15 and got into a frenzy of gun control, i just wrote them off as a Country i wanted to visit.
We have enought dumb Democrats getting involved with gun control in this Country, that we don't need new advice or ideas from Canada.

Canada has taken advantage of the USA for many years, i remember them flooding us with steel products that their Government was subsidiving the costs of it's Mfg. same as China is doing today.

I also remember when two men who held many woman hostage, then raped and tortured them then murdered them.

When they were founed to be the ones involved they quickly ran into Canada, Canada would not extradict them to the USA unless we removed the death penality from being used if they were found guilty.

I don't consider Canada to be a country, that is rightful American soil.

One of my favorite things about Oklahoma is that I no longer have to interact with Canadians.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You’re wrong about how social security works

You generally have to earn a certain number of credits to draw benefits (currently 40) unless you are in a qualifying category of people who get to draw without having paid into the system.

And fwiw there’s a fairly sizable number of folk in that category who draw benefits but never paid into the system.

Additionally only 4% of the population are defined as never beneficiaries by the Social Security AdminIstration

Social Security is socialism do you really think you’re gonna draw the money you paid in ? That’s not how it works, someone else paid for you or is currently paying for you, that’s always how Social Security has worked.It’s a mandatory participation system and you don’t get to opt out.

One of the reasons Social Security is becoming insolvent is because the ratio of people paying into the system supports beneficiaries has been shrinking for decades. It’s currently around 2 : 1 where it previously was as much higher .

The number of "credits" a person has doesn't denote how much they receive. How much a person receives is based upon how much they paid in.

I know there are some people on "disability" who may have not paid into the system or have too few "credits". This, however, was not part of the system originally.

Social Security is not insolvent at this time. It is still drawing more money from workers than it needs in the immediate. Social Security is an "investment" with diminishing returns due to inflation. Sure, there are the COLA's, but they come after inflation has done it's damage to recipients and does not make up for the loss of value. Knowing these two facts, all one can conclude is that the only winner here, the only beneficiary, is the government. It takes in more than it needs and pays out less than what was promised.

Those never beneficiaries are as a result of not having paid in or not having earned enough credits. It is about 3.5% of those old enough to collect, not 4% of the population.

Woody

 

[turkeyrun]

illegal invaders are receiving SS. Odumbo brought in his mooslim brotherhood; set them up a coomunity, to form a voting block and put mooslims into Goobermint, and receiving SS benefits. Pedo Joe is doing the same with his flood of imvaders.

Social Security WILL go broke and those of us who paid in will suffer. Welfare will never go broke and votes will be bought. FJB

 

[WoodsCraft]

The number of "credits" a person has doesn't denote how much they receive. How much a person receives is based upon how much they paid in.

I know there are some people on "disability" who may have not paid into the system or have too few "credits". This, however, was not part of the system originally.

Social Security is not insolvent at this time. It is still drawing more money from workers than it needs in the immediate. Social Security is an "investment" with diminishing returns due to inflation. Sure, there are the COLA's, but they come after inflation has done it's damage to recipients and does not make up for the loss of value. Knowing these two facts, all one can conclude is that the only winner here, the only beneficiary, is the government. It takes in more than it needs and pays out less than what was promised.

Those never beneficiaries are as a result of not having paid in or not having earned enough credits. It is about 3.5% of those old enough to collect, not 4% of the population.

First of all the categories of people who draw social security but never paid in is not just limited to SSDI recipients.

It’s not a matter of IF social security is insolvent at this time but more of it is becoming insolvent at an ever accelerating rate the ratio of payors vs beneficiaries has been decreasing for decades while the amount beneficiaries receive has been increasing .

As for the never beneficiaries category it includes immigrants and others who did not pay in enough to draw benefits see that 40 credits I mentioned. Those 40 credits are quarters and equal 120 months . That 4% I cited is statistically accurate and its not 3.5 % its much closer at this point to 3.8% if you understood statistics you know that percentages are rounded after you hit a .5% increase.

Social Security is socialism in its purest form , you must pay in. There is no opt out try to do so and see what happens. Its not an investment not even remotely, what you are currently paying in is being used to pay current beneficiaries . There is no “account” where your funds are held and invested on your behalf.

 

[Chuckie]

I don't consider Canada to be a country, that is rightful American soil.

One of my favorite things about Oklahoma is that I no longer have to interact with Canadians.

illegal invaders are receiving SS. Odumbo brought in his mooslim brotherhood; set them up a coomunity, to form a voting block and put mooslims into Goobermint, and receiving SS benefits. Pedo Joe is doing the same with his flood of imvaders.

Social Security WILL go broke and those of us who paid in will suffer. Welfare will never go broke and votes will be bought. FJB

Actually illegals for the most part try to remain under the radar so they very seldom apply for, nor receive, any type of Federal aid or benefits. Even in a lot of states they are wary of signing up for state-based aid because they don't want to be 'exposed' as being in the country illegally. And no, illegals typically do not get Social Security benefits.

 

[HillsideDesolate]

Actually illegals try to remain under the radar so they very seldom apply for any type of Federal aid or benefits. Even in a lot of states, they are wary of signing up for state aid because they don't want to be 'discovered'.

True many illegals are actually paying in under a fake name or someone elses.social.

 

[Chuckie]

True many illegals are actually paying in under a fake name or someone elses.social.

Yep, some do use the SS number of someone else (dead child) but I think that most do not bother with doing this because it's just too easy to get busted and sent to Federal prison or deported.

I've worked with a lot of people from Mexico (when I lived in California-NTM) and what they typically do is work their butts off, send as much money as possible back to their family/relatives in Mexico whom deposit the money into a Mexican bank account. When they get enough saved up they go back to Mexico, and because of the favorable exchange rate, are able to live the good life in retirement, or open a small business.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Me in Red.

First of all the categories of people who draw social security but never paid in is not just limited to SSDI recipients.

It’s not a matter of IF social security is insolvent at this time but more of it is becoming insolvent at an ever accelerating rate the ratio of payors vs beneficiaries has been decreasing for decades while the amount beneficiaries receive has been increasing . The number of recipients is increasing, not the amount beneficiaries receive. Due to inflation, the amount recipients receive is diminishing.

As for the never beneficiaries category it includes immigrants and others who did not pay in enough to draw benefits see that 40 credits I mentioned. Those 40 credits are quarters and equal 120 months . That 4% I cited is statistically accurate and its not 3.5 % its much closer at this point to 3.8% if you understood statistics you know that percentages are rounded after you hit a .5% increase. Fine.

Social Security is socialism in its purest form , you must pay in. There is no opt out try to do so and see what happens. Its not an investment not even remotely, what you are currently paying in is being used to pay current beneficiaries . There is no “account” where your funds are held and invested on your behalf. Just because a person has to pay into it doesn't make it socialism. People pay taxes for many things and can't opt out,. At any rate, it is not socialism at its purest. If you want pure socialism, look to North Korea.
Granted, the money a person pays in is neither held in trust nor invested. That said, the government still takes in more than is needed in the immediate and that excess is not held for future benefits. People lose by government taking in more than it needs, and people lose because government fails to maintain the value of the benefits paid out by having no restitution for the loss people suffer that is not compensated for by time the COLA is administered.

Woody

 

[WoodsCraft]

Me in Red.

Woody

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree . Go back and re read what the definition of socialism is. North Korea by the way is communism or the extreme version of socialism. Social Security is a socialist scheme by every definition.

I am 100% right in my statements when I said the ratio of payors vs beneficiaries is decreasing go look it up . In 1945 there were 41 workers to 4 retirees . As of 2013—the most recent year for which data are available—there were only 2.8 workers in the system for each retiree collecting from it.

The ratio of workers to retirees is projected to continue falling. By 2034, the best-case scenario is 2.3 workers paying for each retiree, and in the worst-case scenario that ratio is 2 workers per retiree.

You keep ignorantly referring to the amount paid which is symptom of a decreasing availability of funds due to an ever shrinking pool of payors. Yes there is some mismanagement but the bigger issue is the declining revenue stream. One last time Social Security is becoming insolvent and most economists agree that is the case and it will be totally insolvent by 2038z


I really encourage you to educate yourself more in political science and accounting and how finances work.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree . Go back and re read what the definition of socialism is. North Korea by the way is communism or the extreme version of socialism. Social Security is a socialist scheme by every definition.

I am 100% right in my statements when I said the ratio of payors vs beneficiaries is decreasing go look it up . In 1945 there were 41 workers to 4 retirees . As of 2013—the most recent year for which data are available—there were only 2.8 workers in the system for each retiree collecting from it. I never challenged this.

The ratio of workers to retirees is projected to continue falling. By 2034, the best-case scenario is 2.3 workers paying for each retiree, and in the worst-case scenario that ratio is 2 workers per retiree. Nor this.

You keep ignorantly referring to the amount paid which is symptom of a decreasing availability of funds due to an ever shrinking pool of payors. Yes there is some mismanagement but the bigger issue is the declining revenue stream. One last time Social Security is becoming insolvent and most economists agree that is the case and it will be totally insolvent by 2038z


I really encourage you to educate yourself more in political science and accounting and how finances work.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree, but your gaslighting flame is nuked. The decreasing payouts(value) is not a symptom of decreasing availability of funds. The system is still taking in more than is required for the immediate need. That is why there is a "surplus" on the books. The decrease in value of the payouts is a result of inflation and the devious insufficiency of the COLA.

I'll ignore your gaslighting advice.

Woody