Day One-Repubs launch attack on Social Security

[TooTall]

It would be one thing if your narrative was the truth,not once has the right said they want to eliminate ss thats the shit from the left,its about choice and choice only. I am better suited to make my financial choices my self,not some politician in DC NOW START BEING HONEST AND DROP THE ELIMINATION PART.
ps all propuse changes would have never affected older Americans,try again

So if you had retired in 2008, and forced to sell at that time because your income had ended, you would have been perfectly alright, in spite of the fact that your investment values had dropped by 50%.

Republican economics!

Zactly what I was gonna say.

As it is, we lost money on our investments with the bush recession (which we have regained under the commie/muslim/kenyan) but our SS was not affected.

DUH.

Can you imagine how much better off your SS would have been if a portion of it had been privatized and put in the market in 2008? Or, is that too difficult.

Not difficult at all. I did exactly that, AND I have SS. Now imagine that you retired in 2008, lost your income, had no SS, and was forced to sell in 2008...or is that too difficult?

I did not suggest that you have NO SS, only that you put a percentage of it into the market. And, since when are you forced to sell all of your investments? Normal people take a monthly distribution once they retire. Are you that stupid, or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Stephanie]

They want to save SS you dim bulbs. It cannot continue the way it is and hating Republicans is a poor solution.

You said: They want to save SS you dim bulbs.

You know that's not true. Seriously, Republicans have been wanting to end Social Security for decades. The GOP base simply doesn't believe it, they won't believe it.

You are a fucking moron.

And don't leave out a Frikken bold faced LIAR. it's shameful in our face

 

[peach174]

QUOTE="peach174, post: 10495673, member: 23262"]

Almost everyone of them is smarter than you.

So you don't know me or what I do... You don't know my IQ or EQ but you presumed to say 'Almost everyone of them is smarter than you'

Right Einstein... What is 'Almost everyone of them' : IQ, EQ and the Level of Education, I would also like to see there individual achievements in the workplace and general life...

And by the way I test at Mensa level in IQ alone... Just to give you a tip on how smart 'Almost Everyone of them' has to be...

I suspect I might be talking to someone as dumb as a hammer...

What? Has Palin joined our thread?

Speaking of Palin, did you hear what she had to say about Trig standing on his special needs dog? She mentioned that at least he didn't eat a dog as Obama stated in his book that he did when he was growing up in Indonesia. She is light years ahead of you dipshits that call her dumb.

I'll keep that in mind the next time she gives us a history lesson on Paul Revere.

She was right about that you know.
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after.[/QUOTE]

Peach, I hesitate to even mention to you the difference between what happened with Paul Revere's ride, and what Palin SAID happened to Paul Revere's ride, since it is one of the dumbest interpretations of American history ever made by a polititian, and you, apparently don't even aunderstand why. However, in a nutshell, Sarah's version had it that PR was warning the British that we were going to be free, instead of warning the colonials that the British were coming. In Sarah's version, one can come to the conclusion that the British were so taken aback by PR riding around, ringin' those bells, and firing his single shot musket that they must have considered reboarding their ships because PR and his musket may have intimidated them:



Your defense of Sarah over this issue explains an awful lot about Palin worshipers. They don't have a clue.[/QUOTE]

Why was Revere warning the colonists that the British were coming?
Because they were coming to take away their firearms and the Colonists got them before the British got there.
She was right they did not allow their guns to be taken from them.
The libs blind hatred of her off the cuff remarks is duly noted and totally unreasonable.
So what you are upset about is that Revere did not ring the bells himself or fire warning shots.

How Accurate Were Palin s Paul Revere Comments NPR
Even a history professor agrees that she was right.
BLOCK: Professor Robert Allison is chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is a perfect example of why the far left should not be in charge of anything dealing with government..

 

[Theowl32]

Typical of the left. They will turn this into (of course) that the republicans are attacking the poor. Fucking liberals.

They are denying SS needs to be addressed?

I look forward to the day liberals die.

 

[80zephyr]

1.1% and SS nnnnnnnever rears its ugly head again ..


Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

$9 a damn WEEK ... keep your ass out of Starbucks , end of problem.

According to my count, SS taxes have been raised about 20 times My guess is that each time it was raised, the same claim was made.

Mark

 

[RKMBrown]

The surplus Social Security money was never meant to be in a lock-box, in fact, the act declares how the money is to be borrowed by the government.
In regard to the Republicans stopping the transfer of funds, as has been done before, could, just be a campaign tactic by Republicans. First, Republicans create a crisis with Social Security funding by passing a law that does not allow the transfer of SS funds. After elderly people fret and go through fear syndrome; in six months Republicans pass a new law rescinding this one, and bingo Republicans have saved Social Security. Of course the Republicans haven't completed the deed yet and probably won't.

The social security money also was not meant to be bled completely dry by disability checks to tens of millions of people who for the most part, have nothing significantly wrong with them.

 

[80zephyr]

1.1% and SS nnnnnnnever rears its ugly head again ..


Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

$9 a damn WEEK ... keep your ass out of Starbucks , end of problem.

Source? Because I have to believe that if it were this simple, we'd already have done this.

Simple? This "plan" calls for a 2.2% increase that comes right out of a business owners pocket. Instead of 12.4%, it goes to 14.6%

That's huge.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

1.1% and SS nnnnnnnever rears its ugly head again ..


Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

$9 a damn WEEK ... keep your ass out of Starbucks , end of problem.

Source? Because I have to believe that if it were this simple, we'd already have done this.

12 Ways to Fix Social Security - US News

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

theres your source and 11 other ways to solve the problem ... yes, its that simple. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit just like I said.

G'day.

This one won't work Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment
The cost of living adjustment is what pays for rising cost of their health insurance.
It still keeps them at the same monthly payment each year, so they never see that cost of living adjustment.
Take away that increase and each year they will get less and less each year.
They can barely make ends meet as it is.

of course it won't ... you're smarter than the economists that say it will work.

If they are so smart, why didn't every other raise fix the problem?

Mark

 

[RKMBrown]

Ok. So basically the new rule blocks the redirecting of SS fund money to disability fund money unless the "redirection is part of a larger plan to improve Social Security's finances, by either cutting benefits or raising taxes." IOW the republicans are telling the democrats that we have to have to work to a "solution" to our projected shortfalls for SS/disability system. We are not gonna just rob from peter (retirees) to feed paul (disability recipients). This makes sense. If we have mismanaged our disability system we need to fix it. If America really has become entirely "disabled" then we need to decide if we are gonna increase taxes to pay for our apparent new tendency to become disabled, or we are gonna have to restrict what it means to be disabled, or we are gonna have to reduce what we pay for disability, or we are gonna have to provide tax breaks to people who hire people with disabilities to get them off the disability roles.

 

[80zephyr]

Our debt is rising rapidly. Either our politicians grow some balls and try to cut spending, or those choices will be made for us like they were for Greece.

Sure, it would be nice if we could afford to give everyone everything. We can't. And logical people understand that.

Mark

 

[RKMBrown]

1.1% and SS nnnnnnnever rears its ugly head again ..


Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

$9 a damn WEEK ... keep your ass out of Starbucks , end of problem.

Source? Because I have to believe that if it were this simple, we'd already have done this.

12 Ways to Fix Social Security - US News

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

theres your source and 11 other ways to solve the problem ... yes, its that simple. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit just like I said.

G'day.

This one won't work Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment
The cost of living adjustment is what pays for rising cost of their health insurance.
It still keeps them at the same monthly payment each year, so they never see that cost of living adjustment.
Take away that increase and each year they will get less and less each year.
They can barely make ends meet as it is.

of course it won't ... you're smarter than the economists that say it will work.

If they are so smart, why didn't every other raise fix the problem?

Mark

The prior increases did not fix the problem because people are living longer, more people are looking for ways to game the disability system when they get off unemployment, and because the baby boomers are entering retirement. Not to mention the expansion into Health Care coverage, and Chips.

 

[80zephyr]

Source? Because I have to believe that if it were this simple, we'd already have done this.

12 Ways to Fix Social Security - US News

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

theres your source and 11 other ways to solve the problem ... yes, its that simple. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit just like I said.

G'day.

This one won't work Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment
The cost of living adjustment is what pays for rising cost of their health insurance.
It still keeps them at the same monthly payment each year, so they never see that cost of living adjustment.
Take away that increase and each year they will get less and less each year.
They can barely make ends meet as it is.

of course it won't ... you're smarter than the economists that say it will work.

If they are so smart, why didn't every other raise fix the problem?

Mark

The prior increases did not fix the problem because people are living longer, more people are looking for ways to game the disability system when they get off unemployment, and because the baby boomers are entering retirement. Not to mention the expansion into Health Care coverage, and Chips.

So, their projections were off? I agree. And I'll bet this next projection will be off as well.

Mark

 

[Stephanie]

This thread is a perfect example of why the far left should not be in charge of anything dealing with government..

I AGREE

 

[RKMBrown]

12 Ways to Fix Social Security - US News

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

theres your source and 11 other ways to solve the problem ... yes, its that simple. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit just like I said.

G'day.

This one won't work Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment
The cost of living adjustment is what pays for rising cost of their health insurance.
It still keeps them at the same monthly payment each year, so they never see that cost of living adjustment.
Take away that increase and each year they will get less and less each year.
They can barely make ends meet as it is.

of course it won't ... you're smarter than the economists that say it will work.

If they are so smart, why didn't every other raise fix the problem?

Mark

The prior increases did not fix the problem because people are living longer, more people are looking for ways to game the disability system when they get off unemployment, and because the baby boomers are entering retirement. Not to mention the expansion into Health Care coverage, and Chips.

So, their projections were off? I agree. And I'll bet this next projection will be off as well.

Mark

No sir. The projections were on target. From the very start of the SS program the plan was to benefit current generations at the expense of future generations. It was a ponzi from the start and still is a ponzi.

 

[Ame®icano]

Source? Because I have to believe that if it were this simple, we'd already have done this.

12 Ways to Fix Social Security - US News

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

theres your source and 11 other ways to solve the problem ... yes, its that simple. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit just like I said.

G'day.

This one won't work Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment
The cost of living adjustment is what pays for rising cost of their health insurance.
It still keeps them at the same monthly payment each year, so they never see that cost of living adjustment.
Take away that increase and each year they will get less and less each year.
They can barely make ends meet as it is.

of course it won't ... you're smarter than the economists that say it will work.

If they are so smart, why didn't every other raise fix the problem?

Mark

The prior increases did not fix the problem because people are living longer, more people are looking for ways to game the disability system when they get off unemployment, and because the baby boomers are entering retirement. Not to mention the expansion into Health Care coverage, and Chips.

That what politicians wants us to believe. But not all people live longer. Roughly one third of people die before they reach the retirement, although they were paying into SS their whole life. See table 3.
Four percent never cash out any money because they are ineligible for various reasons.

 

[TooTall]

Republicans have hate SS... They have called Communism thousands of times over... And now you want us to believe you want to save it?

How stupid do you think people are?

Almost everyone of them is smarter than you.

So you don't know me or what I do... You don't know my IQ or EQ but you presumed to say 'Almost everyone of them is smarter than you'

Right Einstein... What is 'Almost everyone of them' : IQ, EQ and the Level of Education, I would also like to see there individual achievements in the workplace and general life...

And by the way I test at Mensa level in IQ alone... Just to give you a tip on how smart 'Almost Everyone of them' has to be...

I suspect I might be talking to someone as dumb as a hammer...

What? Has Palin joined our thread?

Speaking of Palin, did you hear what she had to say about Trig standing on his special needs dog? She mentioned that at least he didn't eat a dog as Obama stated in his book that he did when he was growing up in Indonesia. She is light years ahead of you dipshits that call her dumb.

I'll keep that in mind the next time she gives us a history lesson on Paul Revere.

At least she knows there aren't 57 states.

 

[squeeze berry]

the title of the OP is a lie

 

[WelfareQueen]

God....libs are fucking stupid as a dog turd.

 

[Stephanie]

the title of the OP is a lie

that's nothing new for the LAslimes. that rag should be shunned if you want any honest political reporting