36% have no nest egg- thank god SS is in good shape...26% age 50-64...

[francoHFW]

Fearing Dems, not Pubs, on SS is crazy, and Warren most of all...and we know you didn't make the country's infrastucture and laws...

 

[francoHFW]

Dems did...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

SS would be gone NOW without Dems to protect it from "privatizing" greedy idiot Pub a-holes. SS may provide only poverty, but that's better than miserable poorhouses and potters fields Pubs want again...Dems also provide food stamps and affordable housing...nothing great but a helluva improvement over Pub bs and hate.

So you now admit the absolute best you can hope for from any government welfare program...is poverty. And yet you think obiecare is going to get you the best healthcare? How stupid do you have to be to pay into any government program your entire life to only hope for poverty level results?

This is democrats all day long. Pay into the system! You have poverty to look forward to in the end!

 

[Bush92]

Democrats do not want people to have a retirement nest egg. They want total government dependence.

 

[Shrimpbox]

No republicans have proposed doing away with social security, that is a lie. What they have proposed is giving people options about what to do with their money. And yes social security was never meant to be the total support of seniors. Basically life expectancy has outpaced the financing to support the extra years.

I would love to know what set of facts some of you rabid liberals would need to have before you would say that person has lost his right to be supported by the rest of us Americans. I know many people who are stone cold druggies who work full time, people who are gamblers or alcoholics who have no intention of saving money for retirement, and I think they should get every penny they are entitled to when they turn 65, but they are not objects of sympathy because of their place in society or their finances. Liberals who claim that anyone below a certain income point is generically noble, hardworking, deserving, persecuted, entitled,and abused are not honest people who can be debated with.

What have repubs done for poor people. How about getting millions off of welfare rolls and working in the 90's when we actually had a dem president that knew how to work with congress.

There is no financial education in schools today. Kids don't even know how to balance a checkbook. Check out the espn documentary on professional athletes that came into big dough and went broke or the people who walked away from their mortgage obligations when they didn't feel like paying anymore. Liberals do not want want a financially erudite public because they would never get elected, keep em dumbed down and clueless.

Possibly the greatest crime against the working man and woman during the Obama era is the artificial lowering of interest rates. Obama has stolen billions if not trillions from lower and middle class citizens who have saved all their lives for retirement. You can get a whopping three quarters of one percent on your cash at the bank today. People who have saved all their lives to augment their retirement have been steamrollered by Obama one, to prop up the big banks, and two to force you to become more dependent on govt. just another Obama dagger to the heart of the middle class.

I tell this story to point out the greed mindset of all our culture today. When I turned 63 my whole family said you have to start taking your social security. You have earned it. There won't be any money left. If you don't take it you will miss out on forty thousand dollars. Even my 30 something children said dad you need to do this. I said I didn't want to do this, that I wanted the higher payout of postponing signing up, and I said I didn't need it. I told,them that if ss was in such bad shape more people should be doing what I was doing, that to get social security just to get more money was not ethical or moral, that it was thinking about the country and not greed that we should be doing. My arguments fell on deaf ears and to this day they think I have made a colossal mistake. Unfortunately this fits into today's narrative that if you are honest and truthful you are the fool.

The larger point here is that my wife and I never expected to have to depend on the govt to take care of us and so far and god willing we will never have to.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You couldn't find a use for, as an example, $1200 a month?

I don't believe you. Nor do I believe that you could live on your private investments.

That's not a use, it's your entire fucking retirement. You worked and paid into the system your entire life...for about 300 bucks a week. That is the absolute best you can hope for after a life time of investing in government.

Poverty, after a lifetime of investment in the government is the best you can hope for. No matter your effort.

 

[francoHFW]

You can do better than poverty just with SS- and O-Care just sets up transparent competition for insurers, and basic preventive care for the poor and poor workers. All to save money. Try and remain calm, hater dupe. lol

 

[francoHFW]

If 36% have NO nest egg, probably 70% don't have enough....so thank god for food stamps, O-Care, housing assistance, etc. And people were just as bad back when they went to poorhouses, horrible slums and were buried in common graves, so don't blame these Dem measures. You hater dupes live in a dream world...

 

[Disir]

Do not make blanket statements: it was not required for me, and not even OFFERED to my younger brother!

Again: It's a requirement where I am at. Go to your state Department of Education and look at the standards.

Or tell me your state and I will have a look at your state Department of Education and see if I can locate it for you.

 

[Disir]

Read the post dummy.

I said I would never change it. That's a slam. (you said nothing but slams). Address the point.

Yes, you did. You said so here:

I would change it in a number of ways and I would make it more flexible.

But the left always steps forward and screams "DON'T TOUCH IT". They have been brainwashed into thinking they will be eating cat food in their old ages.

Which might be good because most cats I know are smarter than most of the liberal fools I know.

 

[Politico]

Everyone should be given a choice to opt in or out of SS. Many can make wiser decisions than a small penance from the govt. You can't even pass it on to your family other than your wife....and its your money.

If I could take the money I will never see again back and go away I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Stephanie]

Democrats do not want people to have a retirement nest egg. They want total government dependence.

People were sold a bill of good on SS as if they can retire on it.

 

[Youch]

I don't think I will get much or anything from SS when I retire in 5 years.I don't trust Democrats.

I look at it this way...If I get a SS check when I retire that's fine.
I am not counting on it being there.

Smart!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Smart!

OK. Let's discuss that.

What evidence can you present here that would support the position that Social Security will not be available to retirees in 5 years?

I'd like to know if you are a supporter, in general, of the concept of Social Security? Or, like many conservatives, are you of the opinion that Social Security is a wasteful scheme?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

SS is a pragmatic, wise, necessary, and proper program acknowledging the fact that those who work hard, do the right thing, and save for retirement need not be thrown into poverty when they can no longer work as a consequence of capricious economic forces beyond their control.


It is the cornerstone of a civil society and America's economic success; where the notion of 'getting rid' of SS/Medicare is reckless, irresponsible insanity.

So what you're saying is, that you require a heavy use of language massage in order to verbalize support for SS.

I'll ask it as well - why is the program not voluntary?

 

[Youch]

OK. Let's discuss that.

What evidence can you present here that would support the position that Social Security will not be available to retirees in 5 years?

I'd like to know if you are a supporter, in general, of the concept of Social Security? Or, like many conservatives, are you of the opinion that Social Security is a wasteful scheme?

1. Always plan for the worst and hope for the best. That is smart is most scenarios, but more especially in financial planning.

2. Due mostly to changing demographics, the Social Security Trust Fund is currently unsustainable. I forget when the GAO (or whomever) stated it would no longer pencil....I think it was 2035 or so. So, 5 years, you're GTG. Nevertheless, it should not be part of retirement planning. I've been paying into it since 1982, and don't plan to retire (again) for another 20 years, and I do not plan on ever seeing that money again. If I do, great. But I don't hold my breath.

3. The SS trust fund was supposed to be a "lock box" but was raped long ago and by....wait for it, politicians. It is empty. SS payments are being paid from general funds, I believe, and thus is deficit spending. Smart? No.


As to my personal opinions about such things.... it is difficult to isolate a single program from the multitudes of tax-payer funded, largely unsustainable welfare programs. Schemes? I would means-test most of them and eliminate many altogether. But, to the extent they buy votes and are unsustainable, then yes, they are schemes. But that is not to say I disagree with a degree of social safety nets. Said another way, there is so much corruption and misuse of the SSA, that finding merit in such a leviathan is often hard. Yes, I know grandma on a fixed income of SS she gets from her dead husband is obvious merit, but the story sadly does not end there. Sorry, such a complicated issue does not have a simple answer. Mixed feelings....


Edited to add, part of my "smart" comment was directed at the dudes comment about not trusting democrats. It is equally smart not to trust RINOs, as well. Crony-capitalism is rampant on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is true. But that assumes you would save if you were not required to do so by law.

While, at the optimum, I would prefer no S.S., I would suggest there are much better ways to do things even if we still require legal contributions of some kind.

I have no problem keeping the mandated contributions we have now. I would just like to see the actual portfolios or accounts owned by the individuals not the government.

 

[Stephanie]

we can always count on Frankieo pimping for the Democrat party

and does so with no shame whatsoever...what a tool. I hope they make a little money at least for doing it

 

[Disir]

How many people actually say---I will retire and depend on social security because that's going to be great?

The vast majority of people do not. However, you don't want to put a leash on the clowns that have figured out how to scam what is left of the pensions and you don't want to put a leash on the banks. Hell, I keep trying to lock down the money taken out of my check through my employer so that the financial adviser cannot invest it and it is specifically placed into savings. They are trying to circumvent that so that I don't have that choice.

It's insane listening to a bunch of fruit cakes sit around and condemn people. Iron workers, mill rights etc. are highly skilled in their fields. They aren't stock brokers. So, what is taken out of their checks is invested via someone else. When there is a major loss then you say, you just didn't invest it wisely?

Social security is there for people as a safety net, It doesn't create poverty.

What will kill it AND you folks are aware of this is privatizing it. The fees and maintenance will bankrupt it. You just can't stand the fact that you can't get your paws on that much money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many people actually say---I will retire and depend on social security because that's going to be great?

The vast majority of people do not. However, you don't want to put a leash on the clowns that have figured out how to scam what is left of the pensions and you don't want to put a leash on the banks. Hell, I keep trying to lock down the money taken out of my check through my employer so that the financial adviser cannot invest it and it is specifically placed into savings. They are trying to circumvent that so that I don't have that choice.

It's insane listening to a bunch of fruit cakes sit around and condemn people. Iron workers, mill rights etc. are highly skilled in their fields. They aren't stock brokers. So, what is taken out of their checks is invested via someone else. When there is a major loss then you say, you just didn't invest it wisely?

Social security is there for people as a safety net, It doesn't create poverty.

What will kill it AND you folks are aware of this is privatizing it. The fees and maintenance will bankrupt it. You just can't stand the fact that you can't get your paws on that much money.

Who says you need a financial adviser?
You can buy your own investments you know and if you don't want to invest in the market then you would be free to buy nothing but US treasury bonds since you trust the government so much.