• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • No

    Votes: 29 51.8%
  • Total voters
    56
I have mixed emotions about my SS..........As a young man we were always told that by the time we reached retirement age SS would be gone so I planned accordingly for my retirement.........Well when I reached retirement age surprise it was still there so I am drawing it now and it supplements my income...........


Would I give it up? Only if there were strict guidelines and close supervision where the SS fund would go and what it would be used for......
 
John1234 said:
Is a special data source needed?
Click to expand...
I suspected you didn't have anything to back up your assertions. Guess I was right.


And why do you insinuate that i am female or homosexual?
I am neither.
Click to expand...
I didn't insinuate you are male, female, or transgender. Everyone knows what Woman's Intution means and, had I said Men's Intuition, everyone would have said, 'what the hell is Men's Intuition'.
 
what fund is this? that lockbox thingy?
 
rsixing said:
Is that anything like a "bad weiner day"...:lol:
Click to expand...
Not quite? Women are allowed to have a bad hair day but if a man has a bad weiner day he would probably be smart to just keep it to himself.
 
:mrgreen:I'm new to these forums and haven't read all 14 pages of posts. I have kept up on this debate for many years though. Everyone that starts Social Security collects all they have paid into it plus interest in a few years. It was never designed as a replacement for a pension. Life expectancies were much shorter in the 1930's. The amount of money needed to keep Social Security solvent is not all that large per person, if it is done now. Who pays it isn't all that significant, be it lower, middle or upper income people. Each group should pay their fair share. It is a small price to pay. I haven't checked recently, but I think that wages are only taxed for Social Security up to 97K. Investments aren't taxed. The question really should be, do we need it? I say most definitely yes. Why? because it serves as a safety net. As we have seen in recent years, pension funds can go broke, widow and orphan stocks can go bust and real estate can lose value. That's why Social Security should never be invested in the stock market. It's also why people shouldn't invest it themselves. It was designed to be a stipend not an income. It will keep you from winding up homeless or dependent on relatives. That by the way has also become more difficult as we now have smaller families, we live longer and aren't an agrarian society any more. We have extended to other groups not originally intended. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, just that it creates further strains on the system.
 
DeeJayH said:
what trust fund?
it is a ponzi scheme
there is no fund
Click to expand...


Absolutely right. It IS a Ponzi scheme--the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

What is interesting is that FDR signed it into law in 1935 -- just a few years after Ponzi himself was caught and thrown into prison.

There is ONE huge difference between Ponzi's scheme and Roosevelt's. People could opt out of Ponzi's. People were FORCED to "invest" in Roosevelt's.

FDR -- America's all time greatest TRAITOR.
 
Absolutely!!!!!

End the greatest Ponzi scheme that has ever been devised.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Are you willing to give up your social security to end the new deal?
Click to expand...
In a heartbeat!

Everyone should have a choice: to participate in Soc Sec, or not.

However, the "Party of Choice" refuses to allow such a thing.

I guess they're really just "The Party Of Choices We Think You Should Be Able To Make"
 
I can not believe somebody dug up an ole TOT post


LONG LIVE TOT

arty:rock:2party:

 


HELL, YEA!!!!!








(Sorry, TOTbuster, but people need to keep reading this thread)
 
Last edited:
No, I wouldn't for a key reason. While I detest the program and I agree it's a giant ponzi scheme requiring ever increasing numbers of fresh meat and should have been reformed decades ago, there's a reason I wouldn't want to kill it.

My fellow Americans have a horrid savings rate. Absolutely terrible in the developed world and nothing exists to suggest this will change. Many people do not save for the future. Many have their fortunes in their houses. Not exactly easy to extract funds from aside from a home equity line of credit or a reverse mortgage.

With that in mind, I'd rather pay a relatively small portion of my income to maintain that monstrosity then to pay a huge amount of my income later when politicians tax the crap out of us to placate the millions of Americans who failed to prepare for retirement. This reason is purely selfish. I wish to reduce my outflows to the entitlement. Killing it now will almost certainly result in more money leaving my wallet in the future. This is purely cost vs benefit. And the benefit to me is in leaving it alone.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
HELL, YEA!!!!!








(Sorry, TOTbuster, but people need to keep reading this thread)
Click to expand...

I wonder what Obama will do to reduce the overbearing FICA burden on the backs of poor and middle class working individuals.
 
According to recent news reports, the social security debt will soon exceed 50 trillion. That's right -- 50 TRILLION. That will probably exceed the entire GNP.

Look at it another way: That's 1000 times greater than Madoff's "crime of the century" of 50 billion.
 
Everyone over 45 gets benefits after 70 years old.
Everyone under 45 get a refund of all the money they paid in.

All paycheck deductions end.

We'll borrow the money from China to pay for it, that seems to be popular these days.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
HELL, YEA!!!!!
Click to expand...

ronpaulvoter said:
I wonder what Obama will do to reduce the overbearing FICA burden on the backs of poor and middle class working individuals.
Click to expand...

HE HASN'T DONE A COTTONPICKING THING TO END IT YET.


Phoenix said:
Everyone over 45 gets benefits after 70 years old.
Everyone under 45 get a refund of all the money they paid in.

All paycheck deductions end.

We'll borrow the money from China to pay for it, that seems to be popular these days.
Click to expand...

A great idea. It's simple and fair. However, I would eliminate a bunch of federal agencies and programs instead of deepening our debt to China.
 
Even Madoff admits it's the greatest Ponzi scheme in the world.
 

Attachments

  • Madoff.webp
    30.4 KB · Views: 122

No, it can be funded under general revenues. Those of us who will not benefit from it will need to have money saved into 401(k)s, IRAs, and the like.
 
Hoot said:
The easiest solution is to simply raise the cap on which social security taxes are levied. Of course, the rich Bush supporters want nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea but it would result in a near wash since higher incomes are in a higher income tax bracket anyway. Don't expect people to work for near nothing.

Hoot said:
Someone who makes 1 million a year might have to pay $57,000 into S.S, something they could easily afford.
Click to expand...

I don't make anywhere near a million a year but i cannot say what that person could "afford" to pay beyond what they allready pay to the government.

Hoot said:
Right now, 14% of elderly women are living in poverty...take away that S.S. check and we're looking at close to 50%! This is America...we're supposed to be better than that.
Click to expand...

I don't believe people are thinking about not paying the retirees just those who are not retired.

Hoot said:
The easiest solution...STOP RAIDING THE S.S. TRUST FUND!!!
Click to expand...

No problem in a few years it will take all incoming revenue from FICA taxes to pay out SS liabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.