Are you willing to give up you social security to end the new deal?

BWG · Oct 16, 2006

DeeJayH said:
SS is anything but a success
and maybe you should re-read Bodi's post about how SS started

Kandahar said:
It's not a success.

ProudAmerican said:
yeah, SS is a raging success. lol.

Get rid of it then. Or are you all talk.
What's that you say? Oh, just another excuse.
You got the numbers, get rid of it!!!!!
:2wave:

Patrickt said:
And, how happy would you have been if another 12% of pre-tax dollars were going into your 401k?

Kandahar said:
You could've made a lot more money if the government hadn't stolen your SS money in the first place, and let you invest it.

Why, so that I have to make another trip to the bank to buy more CDs (and I'm not talking about music...LOL) :lol:
What are you going to do when your investments lose money? :2rofll:

doughgirl · Oct 16, 2006

Kandahar said, “If we must have this pyramid scheme at all, we can delay the inevitable by encouraging MORE immigration. Immigration is what keeps the United States young and growing, as opposed to European countries with stagnant/declining populations.”

I never said immigration. I said illegal immigration. Huge difference.
Most European countries are curbing immigration because of the negative effects it is having on their economies and their cultures.

And its having devastating effects on ours……“draining our health care systems, school systems, our criminal justice systems“……

http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/perspective/art_negative_effects.html

LEGAL immigration is fine……..ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is what it says it is…….illegal.

Average life expectancy in America........ 75.

http://www.eagle-min.com/faq/faq85.htm

“I also believe that if you're making over a certain amount of money in retirement...say..$250,000 grand a year, that you receive no S.S. benefits. You don't need S.S. benefits if you're pulling in that kind of income. I don't care if you've paid into the system, or not.’

Bullcrapolla………lets take medical benefits away from them too? Lets just take everything away from them……. because they obviously were more successful then those making less. No medicare etc….Let make them pay full price for the drugs they might need…….lets just penalize them across the table because they are rich. :roll:

“Why should millionaires be drawing S.S. checks?’

Because they paid into the system and that is fair.

Why should they have to tote the load for those who obviously weren’t as successful.

“Don't like it? Consider it a priviledge and part of your responsibility to get to live in a free nation.”

What you propose is absolutely un- American.

“I'd also like to see something done about all the kids drawing S.S. disability checks from the government. I'm working my arse off, and I see kids, half my age, drawing disability checks each month..probably for drug addiction..or what not, and they seem perfectly healthy and capable of working a job.

If you've worked hard all your life, and paid into the system...you deserve that extra bit of income to sustain a better retirement.”

Well hell Hoot, just make the wealthy pay for them too. A better retirement? Hasn’t the wealthy worked hard too? Now your picking on the handicapped………… YOu want the rich to pay for you........yet you want extra by taking way from those who are sick and handicapped...:rofl

TurtleDude · Oct 16, 2006

Hoot said:
Istill say we need to raise the cap on which social security taxes are taken.

Right now, a CEO can make 40 million a year, yet pay the exact same S.S. taxes as someone who makes $86,000 a year.

I don't care what anyone says, this isn't right.

yet they get the same benefits just as if they both bought the same insurance policy. what is not right is that a guy making forty million a year pays more in taxes in one year than the average american will in a lifetime yet that executive GETS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT or benefits above what joe six pack gets from the government and most likely gets LESS.

Hoot said:
I I also believe that if you're making over a certain amount of money in retirement...say..$250,000 grand a year, that you receive no S.S. benefits. You don't need S.S. benefits if you're pulling in that kind of income. I don't care if you've paid into the system, or not.

Why should millionaires be drawing S.S. checks?

because they paid into the ponzi scheme. I realize socialists want more and more income redistributionist schemes but this fraudulent mess known as socialist security was not supposed to be another soak the rich plot by you class warfare jihadists.

Hoot said:
I Don't like it? Consider it a priviledge and part of your responsibility to get to live in a free nation.

spoken like a true marxist. In a free nation, we wouldn't be forcing the productive to pay for the lazy and the slothful so rich elite lefties can gain more power by creating more slothful dependents.

Hoot said:
I I'd also like to see something done about all the kids drawing S.S. disability checks from the government. I'm working my arse off, and I see kids, half my age, drawing disability checks each month..probably for drug addiction..or what not, and they seem perfectly healthy and capable of working a job.

If you've worked hard all your life, and paid into the system...you deserve that extra bit of income to sustain a better retirement.

Or how 'bout this...you don't work and pay into the system, then you receive no S.S. benefits.

The whole problem with Bush's idea was..it penalizes the poor. ( Big surprise there, right?) If your income is such that you have little left over after paying the bills and putting food on the table, then you certainly have no money to invest for future retirement. That's where S.S. taxes can help the poor look forward to a retirement with dignity.

I think you are acting rather two faced-you want hardworking rich to get screwed out of the benefits they paid for and in the same post you whine about someone else getting stuff they didn't work for. In other words, you all in are in favor of screwing people richer than you but you are against getting screwed yourself.

Kandahar · Oct 16, 2006

BWG said:
Get rid of it then. Or are you all talk.
What's that you say? Oh, just another excuse.
You got the numbers, get rid of it!!!!!
:2wave:

What the hell? Do you have anything substantive to add to the conversation about the best policy, or is "Nyah, nyah, the voters agree with me" the best argument you can come up with?

BWG said:
Why, so that I have to make another trip to the bank to buy more CDs (and I'm not talking about music...LOL) :lol:

What are you going to do when your investments lose money? :2rofll:

There's still food stamps, medicare, and support from your family. But paying people simply because they're old is quite different; retirement isn't essential to survival in the same way that food and medicine are.

Kandahar · Oct 16, 2006

doughgirl said:
I never said immigration. I said illegal immigration. Huge difference.
Most European countries are curbing immigration because of the negative effects it is having on their economies and their cultures.

Wrong. Their economies are being negatively affected partially BECAUSE they're curbing immigration (among other problems).

doughgirl said:
And its having devastating effects on ours……“draining our health care systems, school systems, our criminal justice systems“……

Bull. Immigrants are net taxpayers (excluding education, which is an investment rather than an expense), and are more likely to start their own businesses than native-born Americans.

doughgirl said:
LEGAL immigration is fine……..ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is what it says it is…….illegal.

If we increase the amount of legal immigration, illegal immigration will decline because there is less incentive to break the law.

doughgirl said:
Bullcrapolla………lets take medical benefits away from them too? Lets just take everything away from them……. because they obviously were more successful then those making less. No medicare etc….Let make them pay full price for the drugs they might need…….lets just penalize them across the table because they are rich. :roll:

Any changes or lack of changes are going to hurt someone. It makes sense that as long as we're going to have SS, it should be reserved for those who truly need it. Do you have an alternative solution or do you just want to complain about ours?

doughgirl said:
Because they paid into the system and that is fair.

Why should they have to tote the load for those who obviously weren’t as successful.

Why should *I* have to tote the load for those older than I am, who voted to continue this program for all those years before I was born?

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

BodiSatva said:
Has anybody addressed the simple solution yet...i have not read most of these posts...

When SS was enacted in the NEW DEAL, the average age of life was 63.
They made retirement, or the age that SS was achievable, the age 65.

Oooohhh...

Interesting...

Why not make a National call for increasing retirement benifits to the age of 79, or essentially 2 years after whatever TODAYS average age of life IS?

What the hell is the problem with THAT?

Well, those that are getting older, that is what the problem is.
So...it is not about what is right...it is about WHO VOTES!

When they talk about voting...and older people vote more than younger people...welll, younger people are just ****ing themselves in the *** by not taking this **** seriously.

that is all

I agree with this concept. It actually has been raised already, from 65 to 67. I don't know if we have to make it 78, but given that people are leading longer heathier lives, I see no reason why the age shouldn't be bumped to at least 70, that would save a tremendous about of $$.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Saboteur said:
Yes, but I want every penny I've put in back with interest.

Die young with dependents or live to be 100 and you'll get your money back with interest.

But like any other insurance, there's no guarantee you get your money back with social security.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Patrickt said:
"I have my 401, savings AND SS. I'm happy as well.
(you'd be amazed at what you can figure out what to do with all that EXTRA SS money...LOL)"

And, how happy would you have been if another 12% of pre-tax dollars were going into your 401k?

Until he ran out of money at age 93.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Patrickt said:
"I have my 401, savings AND SS. I'm happy as well.
(you'd be amazed at what you can figure out what to do with all that EXTRA SS money...LOL)"

And, how happy would you have been if another 12% of pre-tax dollars were going into your 401k?

Until he ran out of money at age 93.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Kandahar said:
It's not a success. A simple look at demographic trends in this country indicates that there will be a day of reckoning in the not-too-distant future. So let's get rid of the program before that happens.

SS has been a great success at removing tens of millions of old folks from destitution. I like not seeing old folks living in the streets.

The problem you describe is one of adjustment. I agree the program as is now configured is too rich. Change the age to 70 and stop giving the limited money to folks like Warren Buffet and that would problem solve the long term financing indefinitely.

You could've made a lot more money if the government hadn't stolen your SS money in the first place, and let you invest it.

Unless you invested it all in tech stocks in the 90s.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Stinger said:
Can you imagine someone buying a retirement program from a company and 30 years into it the company sends them letter saying that instead starting to pay you at 65 as the contract stated they were now informing you that they would not be able to start paying you until you hit 68 and that they may not have enough money anyway and that if you continue to make as much as you do and save as much on your own as you do they will cut what they pay you in half because they don't have the revenue coming in and you make too much anyway....................and that person calling up a friend boasting what a great successful company it is.

That happens all the time, companies go Ch. 11 and wipe out pensions.

Kandahar · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
SS has been a great success at removing tens of millions of old folks from destitution. I like not seeing old folks living in the streets.

There are other programs to help poor people. Paying someone just for being old is silly.

Iriemon said:
The problem you describe is one of adjustment. I agree the program as is now configured is too rich. Change the age to 70 and stop giving the limited money to folks like Warren Buffet and that would problem solve the long term financing indefinitely.

That would delay the inevitable, but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem. At all. Americans will continue to live longer and longer, if the demographic and scientific trends are any indication. We're adding several months to the human lifespan every year, and that rate is increasing. Within the next decade, we'll be adding more than one year to the lifespan per year. And when that happens, the demographic disaster of SS will be obvious.

Iriemon said:
Unless you invested it all in tech stocks in the 90s.

If you'd prefer to have near-total security, you could invest it all in government bonds...and you'd STILL come out ahead of SS.

DeeJayH · Oct 16, 2006

BWG said:
1Get rid of it then. Or are you all talk.
What's that you say? Oh, just another excuse.

2You got the numbers, get rid of it!!!!!What are you going to do when your investments lose money?

1. why not, it is doing away with itself. I have no delusion that i will collect 1 dime stolen from me over my 25 years worked so far.

2. a properly diversified portfolio does not lose money, LONG TERM
ever hear of triple exempt municipal bonds? they are exempt from fed, state, and local taxes, and as bonds they are guaranteed, backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing municipality
all this means they are all but guaranteed income with tax exempt status which blows away SS's meager ROI probably 10 fold

BWG · Oct 16, 2006

Kandahar said:
What the hell? Do you have anything substantive to add to the conversation about the best policy, or is "Nyah, nyah, the voters agree with me" the best argument you can come up with?

Apparently the majority of Americans don't believe that the Republican 'policy' is better. If they did, the Republicans would get rid of it in a heartbeat. That has been one of their objectives for years now. They have the majority of government right now. What's the hold up? Are you ticked because your suggestion isn't working out?

Kandahar said:
Why should *I* have to tote the load for those older than I am, who voted to continue this program for all those years before I was born?

So, the democracy is OK as long as everyone votes the way you think they should?

Kandahar said:
Do you have an alternative solution or do you just want to complain about ours?

The alternative solution ain't working out too well, so it seems as though the majority is satisfied with what we have.

Kandahar said:
If you'd prefer to have near-total security, you could invest it all in government bonds...and you'd STILL come out ahead of SS.

You have ways to invest in whatever you want. SS is insurance.
:lol:

BWG · Oct 16, 2006

DeeJayH said:
a properly diversified portfolio does not lose money, LONG TERM
ever hear of triple exempt municipal bonds? they are exempt from fed, state, and local taxes, and as bonds they are guaranteed, backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing municipality
all this means they are all but guaranteed income with tax exempt status which blows away SS's meager ROI probably 10 fold

Just think, if I had had you as my financial advisor, I could have had gold plated bathroom fixtures. Darn.

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

BWG said:
Get rid of it then. Or are you all talk.
What's that you say? Oh, just another excuse.
You got the numbers, get rid of it!!!!!
:2wave:

Or reform it and make it a viable system. Oh yeah I forgot, the left shot down the first attempt to move in that direction.

Why, so that I have to make another trip to the bank to buy more CDs (and I'm not talking about music...LOL) :lol:
What are you going to do when your investments lose money? :2rofll:

What are you going to do with the government tells you they won't pay you at the age you're suppose to start collecting on nor are they going to pay you what was promised and in fact you will lose money now?

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
That happens all the time, companies go Ch. 11 and wipe out pensions.

Yes and you call that success? But then I wasn't talking about a company someone is working for.

FYI my pension is in my name, if the company I work for goes bankrupt it doesn't effect my retirement.

So was there a point in there or something?

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
I agree with this concept. It actually has been raised already, from 65 to 67. I don't know if we have to make it 78, but given that people are leading longer heathier lives, I see no reason why the age shouldn't be bumped to at least 70, that would save a tremendous about of $$.

And what if the investment firm holding your 401K money sent you a letter saying they needed it so you cannot start getting any of it until you are 78 years old now?

When I started paying in the "contract" as the left so likes to call it was that I would be able to recieve my SS IN FULL at 65, the government has already reniged on that, now you and others wanted to penalize me if I save myself and make me work longer before I can recieve the SS the "contract" said I would recieve.

Yeah, what a successful program.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Stinger said:
Yes and you call that success? But then I wasn't talking about a company someone is working for.

FYI my pension is in my name, if the company I work for goes bankrupt it doesn't effect my retirement.

So was there a point in there or something?

The point was that the terrible scenario you were painting actually happens. Not all are as lucky as you.

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Stinger said:
And what if the investment firm holding your 401K money sent you a letter saying they needed it so you cannot start getting any of it until you are 78 years old now?

When I started paying in the "contract" as the left so likes to call it was that I would be able to recieve my SS IN FULL at 65, the government has already reniged on that, now you and others wanted to penalize me if I save myself and make me work longer before I can recieve the SS the "contract" said I would recieve.

Yeah, what a successful program.

Who on the left told you SS was a "contract"? What a silly thing to say.
And you believed that?

It's been a great success. We don't have millions of old folks begging in the streets. Maybe that is not something that would bother you.

Kandahar · Oct 16, 2006

BWG said:
Apparently the majority of Americans don't believe that the Republican 'policy' is better. If they did, the Republicans would get rid of it in a heartbeat. That has been one of their objectives for years now. They have the majority of government right now. What's the hold up? Are you ticked because your suggestion isn't working out?

No, I'm irritated because you're trying to take what the voters support, and pass that off as some kind of rational public policy. I certainly hope you have a better argument for leaving SS the way it is than "the voters agree with me."

BWG said:
So, the democracy is OK as long as everyone votes the way you think they should?

It seems to me that people have no right to vote to spend their children's money, for the same reason that whites have no right to vote to enslave blacks.

BWG said:
The alternative solution ain't working out too well, so it seems as though the majority is satisfied with what we have.

So you wouldn't make any changes at all? You'd just ignore the obvious demographic trends, and do nothing until the program goes bust?

BWG said:
You have ways to invest in whatever you want. SS is insurance.
:lol:

If you want security, government bonds provide a better return than SS and are less of a risk. But those of us who ARE comfortable taking risks should not be protected from ourselves.

Kandahar · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
It's been a great success. We don't have millions of old folks begging in the streets. Maybe that is not something that would bother you.

You keep avoiding the question: If your goal is to keep people out of poverty, we already have poverty-based government assistance. Why do we need a universal entitlement that pays people just for being old?

ProudAmerican · Oct 16, 2006

I have an even better idea.

think of all the money we could save if we just raise it to 90????

hell, lets make it 100!!!!!!!

bismitch · Oct 16, 2006

Think of all the poor old people with no money to pay their medical bills.

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
The point was that the terrible scenario you were painting actually happens. Not all are as lucky as you.

It IS happening, the government has already renigged on me, and you want them to do more of it. If it's a company I have a choice about it, with the government I don't. And the days of defined pension plans where the employee is not the outright owner of the wealth are dying, more and more companies are moving to 401k's and employee own non-contributory plans making it safer for the employee.

The point is the government needs to be doing the same thing.

Are you willing to give up you social security to end the new deal?