Get rid of Social Security now?

[francoHFW]

Bs. Lol!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AARP says "SS is going broke" is the USA's #1 myth. And history shows people DON"T save and need SS. Pub dupes!

Stupid people don't save, but enough about you.

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking News: The whole world but you dupes know the GOP is totally FOS. Most of the world doesn't know about the Pub Propaganda Machine, so they can't figure out how you can be so "dumb"....

The RW IS where all the lies are, dupe! See my sig pp1, anything on Libya or F+F, Obama gutted Medicare and Workfare, had total power for 2 years etc etc. Total lying a-holes...Your examples of LW lies are pure Pubcrappe, chump.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And again

People should be able to put the money taken for SS and the employer match into a private account owned by them and not the government.

The money is already taken out by law we should keep that mandate. All I am saying is that rather than being thrown in an off the books slush fund each individual should hold ownership of his own account and be able to exercise some control over his own money rather than relinquishing total control of 15% of his lifetime income to the government.

We've all seen how well the government handles money haven't we?

Are you saying that in the program you recommend everything should remain the same except government will have nothing to do with it? If so, where will the authority to mandate contributions from workers and their employers come from?

The success of the Social Security program is predicated on the force of Law. Its intended purpose is to forcibly prevent those who are either unwilling or incapable of planning for their old age, which most people under fifty do not truly believe (accept) will come to them, thereby imposing the burden of a massive population of destitute seniors on society -- which was the situation before the Social Security program commenced.

And it has worked flawlessly for more than seventy-five years! My allotment was deposited in my checking account this morning as it has on the first of every month for the past eleven years and is likely to continue for at least another ten years.

(Thank you, President Roosevelt!)

You just do not get it. You will not see the majority of the money taken from you. What you and all other SS payees get back from the federal government is a mere pittance.
By the time I hit retirement age, there will be nothing left. So I get to pay you and you get yours but because the federal government keeps stealing and wasting the money my generation is having confiscated, we're just supposed to sit back and watch, right?
In using the logic of liberals.....You said earlier that you are a retired government worker. That means you are getting a taxpayer funded pension. Now because you libs use this all the time....Here goes. You have enough. You don't need Social Security...
See how this works?.
Now, go ahead with your reply. I already know what you are going to write, but I will give you a chance to have your say...BTW you know that they say about giving someone enough rope...
You just go ahead and fire away.

 

[francoHFW]

The AARP says you are a brainwashed idiot. Read something.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The AARP says you are a brainwashed idiot. Read something.

From that political left wing organization, I would take that as a compliment.
AARP stopped being an advocacy group for Seniors when the board members fugured out they could make a lot of money for themselves by aligning with any political party that wanted a whole ton of guaranteed votes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And again

People should be able to put the money taken for SS and the employer match into a private account owned by them and not the government.

The money is already taken out by law we should keep that mandate. All I am saying is that rather than being thrown in an off the books slush fund each individual should hold ownership of his own account and be able to exercise some control over his own money rather than relinquishing total control of 15% of his lifetime income to the government.

We've all seen how well the government handles money haven't we?

Are you saying that in the program you recommend everything should remain the same except government will have nothing to do with it? If so, where will the authority to mandate contributions from workers and their employers come from?

The mandate already exists. I just want the money to be deposited into an account earmarked for retirement that individuals actually own rather that throwing it into the SS slush fund.

I really fail to see why that is so hard for you to understand.

The success of the Social Security program is predicated on the force of Law. Its intended purpose is to forcibly prevent those who are either unwilling or incapable of planning for their old age, which most people under fifty do not truly believe (accept) will come to them, thereby imposing the burden of a massive population of destitute seniors on society -- which was the situation before the Social Security program commenced.

And have I not been saying that the forced savings will still be there only the accounts will actually be owned by the people?

And it has worked flawlessly for more than seventy-five years! My allotment was deposited in my checking account this morning as it has on the first of every month for the past eleven years and is likely to continue for at least another ten years.

(Thank you, President Roosevelt!)

Sorry but it is not flawless. If it were there would be no unfunded liabilities.

 

[Navy1960]

Sorry but no.

15% of ones lifetime income is no small thing.

And I am being prevented from investing that 15% of my income into a vehicle of my choice. Instead it gets thrown into a slush fund.

If I added that money taken from me for the SS slush fund to what I already save it would have added up to nearly 35% of my lifetime income and I would seriously be thinking of retiring in less than 5 years rather than the 15 it will most likely be.

Given the fact that the above statistics I cited you are true, and the fact that over 50% of Americans do not save money, someone like yourself would be the exception and not the rule. So lets say for a moment you did save that 15% over your lifetime, and the so called " slush" fund as you call it wasn't there, you would quickly find your savings eaten alive by higher state and local taxes, costs for medical expenses, and whole host of expenses that will be higher as a result of Americans that have no savings being taken care of by the state in which you live. Again, your taxes go to pay for a whole host of things you may or may not agree with, including everything from roads, dams, missiles, ships, jets, and social security, the point is thats the price you and I pay for being American citizens, if our society wished to be one where everyone was on their own and there was no shared respoinsibility then we would all be individually responsible for our own highways, defending our own nation, cleaning our own water, making sure our food is safe, etc. in the end if you were to take on the burden of all that , you would have no savings to worry about nor would you have a nation to worry about as well.

And again

People should be able to put the money taken for SS and the employer match into a private account owned by them and not the government.

The money is already taken out by law we should keep that mandate. All I am saying is that rather than being thrown in an off the books slush fund each individual should hold ownership of his own account and be able to exercise some control over his own money rather than relinquishing total control of 15% of his lifetime income to the government.

We've all seen how well the government handles money haven't we?

While I agree with you on the how the Govt. has mismanaged tax dollars across the board, I cannot agree on Social Security for the reasons I stated above, while I do believe that people should have some method by which they should be able to get EVERTYHING that paid into Social Security back, or be able to pass along to their kids anything left, allowing for a system by which Social Security is now an just another savings plan to choose from , will result in what I have shown, and there is a long history to back that up prior to Social Security . What people do not see, is that even though they may be able to save for themseves in the long run it will end up costing them more in the long run. I do believe that Social Security can be tweaked for things like I mentioned above, and not used as a funding source for Govt. spending and used for what it was intended. So while I do see you point on this one I have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Given the fact that the above statistics I cited you are true, and the fact that over 50% of Americans do not save money, someone like yourself would be the exception and not the rule. So lets say for a moment you did save that 15% over your lifetime, and the so called " slush" fund as you call it wasn't there, you would quickly find your savings eaten alive by higher state and local taxes, costs for medical expenses, and whole host of expenses that will be higher as a result of Americans that have no savings being taken care of by the state in which you live. Again, your taxes go to pay for a whole host of things you may or may not agree with, including everything from roads, dams, missiles, ships, jets, and social security, the point is thats the price you and I pay for being American citizens, if our society wished to be one where everyone was on their own and there was no shared respoinsibility then we would all be individually responsible for our own highways, defending our own nation, cleaning our own water, making sure our food is safe, etc. in the end if you were to take on the burden of all that , you would have no savings to worry about nor would you have a nation to worry about as well.

And again

People should be able to put the money taken for SS and the employer match into a private account owned by them and not the government.

The money is already taken out by law we should keep that mandate. All I am saying is that rather than being thrown in an off the books slush fund each individual should hold ownership of his own account and be able to exercise some control over his own money rather than relinquishing total control of 15% of his lifetime income to the government.

We've all seen how well the government handles money haven't we?

While I agree with you on the how the Govt. has mismanaged tax dollars across the board, I cannot agree on Social Security for the reasons I stated above, while I do believe that people should have some method by which they should be able to get EVERTYHING that paid into Social Security back, or be able to pass along to their kids anything left, allowing for a system by which Social Security is now an just another savings plan to choose from , will result in what I have shown, and there is a long history to back that up prior to Social Security . What people do not see, is that even though they may be able to save for themseves in the long run it will end up costing them more in the long run. I do believe that Social Security can be tweaked for things like I mentioned above, and not used as a funding source for Govt. spending and used for what it was intended. So while I do see you point on this one I have to respectfully disagree with you.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want the government to control so much of their money.

If the savings mandate was upheld and that same amount of money that would be thrown into a government slush fund was held in individually owned accounts earmarked for retirement not only would people have more money on which to retire but they would be able to leave what's left to whomever they choose without government interference.

 

[Navy1960]

Sorry but no.

15% of ones lifetime income is no small thing.

And I am being prevented from investing that 15% of my income into a vehicle of my choice. Instead it gets thrown into a slush fund.

If I added that money taken from me for the SS slush fund to what I already save it would have added up to nearly 35% of my lifetime income and I would seriously be thinking of retiring in less than 5 years rather than the 15 it will most likely be.

Given the fact that the above statistics I cited you are true, and the fact that over 50% of Americans do not save money, someone like yourself would be the exception and not the rule. So lets say for a moment you did save that 15% over your lifetime, and the so called " slush" fund as you call it wasn't there, you would quickly find your savings eaten alive by higher state and local taxes, costs for medical expenses, and whole host of expenses that will be higher as a result of Americans that have no savings being taken care of by the state in which you live. Again, your taxes go to pay for a whole host of things you may or may not agree with, including everything from roads, dams, missiles, ships, jets, and social security, the point is thats the price you and I pay for being American citizens, if our society wished to be one where everyone was on their own and there was no shared respoinsibility then we would all be individually responsible for our own highways, defending our own nation, cleaning our own water, making sure our food is safe, etc. in the end if you were to take on the burden of all that , you would have no savings to worry about nor would you have a nation to worry about as well.

Oh, so if it were not for the mere pittance of Social Security, all would be lost?
The problem with liberals is you people are faithless dolts. You have zero confidence in your fellow humans to be anything but helpless.
I have heard this song before. You people who think the rest of us cannot be trusted with our own finances. That based on the lowest common denominator made up by a small minority of people who are too stupid to turn the lights on so they don't kick the fucking vacuum cleaner...
Look, social security is NOT nor was it ever intended to be something on which one lives. It is a SUPPLEMENT.
That is not the problem. The whole thing needs to be blown up and remade. Remade into a savings vehicle where the government can touch NOT ONE STINKING DIME of it. Each person pays into their OWN account. An account from which each person or in the event of their passing, a designee gets to draw from with certain limits.
The American people were fucked when the federal government gave itself the right to steal our SS money. THAT is why the system is on the verge of collapse. And that is why it sucks.
The real issue is there are just enough people who would rather eat the crumbs of the stolen bread, than go get the bread back from the cock sucker that took it.

First you assume that I am a liberal because I posted facts on Social Security, so be it, however, I have been a member of the Republican party longer than you have been alive more than likely. All that aside for a moment , I might suggest you re-read my postings , I have suggested that Social Security has been used for what it was NOT intended for and that is a funding source for all other programs within the Federal Govt. from buying Shovels, to put Sand in the sandtraps at NAS Pensacola. My point is that without Social Security those who think that all will be great because they will have control over their own savings are fooling themselves into believing that costs will remain the same. Right now according to the SSA there about 56 Million Americans on Social Security and without it, those Americans will be a burden on the states and in turn for everyone in those states , in the form of higher taxes, higher costs. etc. So that 15 % you pay now, which will be saved, will rapidly be absorbed and much more should those people now become the responsibility of the states. So what your advocating is that someones 86 year old Grandfather who is somehow taking from you personally, who most likely worked all their lives , served this nation , is taking from you. Well my friend those people are the very shoulders in which you stand on that built this nation. I agree with you that Social Security should not be used as a slush fund for the Federal Govt. to use to spend on whatever they choose . However nothing is stopping you or anyone else from having a savings account or investing to offset your savings when you retire. The bottom line is this, our nation thrives because we all share a common responsibility to support it, for those who want this let veryone go their own way, keep this in mind, no indivudual ever stormed the beach on D Day by themselves or landed on the moon by themselves, or for that matter built this nation by themselves, without the help of millions of other Americans sharing in that responsibility. So those taxes you and I pay into Social Security are our responsibility as American citizens to share in this nation, and while you have every right to disagree with that, I suggest that if you want to change it , then start by voting for those who agree with you to make those changes.

 

[cutter]

I know the democrat just like to spend and never think about where the money is going to come from but I have a simple question. As a larger percentage of the population retires, how do you plan on paying for Social Security?

 

[Contumacious]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

Social Security is a socialist scam and should have never been adopted.

Unfortunately the welfare/warfare state has been forcing Americans, under penalty of law, to contribute.

While I agree that the Ponzi scheme should be abolished, those 50 and older should be compensated. Federal lands or other federal property should be sold to compensate those who were victimized by DC.

.

 

[MikeK]

And again

People should be able to put the money taken for SS and the employer match into a private account owned by them and not the government.

The money is already taken out by law we should keep that mandate. All I am saying is that rather than being thrown in an off the books slush fund each individual should hold ownership of his own account and be able to exercise some control over his own money rather than relinquishing total control of 15% of his lifetime income to the government.

What kind of "control" are you talking about? Please be specific.

 

[MikeK]

Social Security is a socialist scam and should have never been adopted.

Unfortunately the welfare/warfare state has been forcing Americans, under penalty of law, to contribute.

While I agree that the Ponzi scheme should be abolished, those 50 and older should be compensated. Federal lands or other federal property should be sold to compensate those who were victimized by DC..

If Social Security is a "scam" I, and many millions of other working class Americans, probably including your parents and grandparents, have benefited substantially from it. I wish there were some other "scams" like it I could particpate in.

And since you are among those few bitter and misinformed right-wing acolytes who believe Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, you should read these articles and educate yourself so you'll no longer be disillusioned by that embarrassing bit of propaganda.

No, Governor Perry, Social Security Is Not 'A Ponzi Scheme' - Forbes

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

 

[flacaltenn]

Social Security is a socialist scam and should have never been adopted.

Unfortunately the welfare/warfare state has been forcing Americans, under penalty of law, to contribute.

While I agree that the Ponzi scheme should be abolished, those 50 and older should be compensated. Federal lands or other federal property should be sold to compensate those who were victimized by DC..

If Social Security is a "scam" I, and many millions of other working class Americans, probably including your parents and grandparents, have benefited substantially from it. I wish there were some other "scams" like it I could particpate in.

And since you are among those few bitter and misinformed right-wing acolytes who believe Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, you should read these articles and educate yourself so you'll no longer be disillusioned by that embarrassing bit of propaganda.

No, Governor Perry, Social Security Is Not 'A Ponzi Scheme' - Forbes

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

Hey Mikey.. You BELIEVE that Mother Jones crap?? There are 4 lies in THEIR Venn diagram. The largest being that social security is invested in Treasury Bonds.. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in Trust Fund.. The prospectus from SSA says so...

And the financing HAS BEEN EXTREMELY fraudulent.. Involving thefts of the surplus from the working poor for decades, poor and criminal management of the revenue stream and outright to LYING to people about the Trust Fund..

I'll lay off the analog to a Ponzi scheme it's different and ways MORE TRAGIC than a Ponzi scheme. But you need to lay off the blatant propaganda and distortions that your belief is based on...

It's broke-ass NOW.. Six years ahead of schedule and NOTHING to fund the deficit is coming out "Treasury Bonds" or the fund. The cost of the overruns are being covered by the 53% of Americans that actually pay INCOME tax. The rest are getting carried out of "good will"...

 

[MikeK]

[Hey Mikey.. You BELIEVE that Mother Jones crap?? There are 4 lies in THEIR Venn diagram. The largest being that social security is invested in Treasury Bonds.. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in Trust Fund.. The prospectus from SSA says so...

And the financing HAS BEEN EXTREMELY fraudulent.. Involving thefts of the surplus from the working poor for decades, poor and criminal management of the revenue stream and outright to LYING to people about the Trust Fund..

I'll lay off the analog to a Ponzi scheme it's different and ways MORE TRAGIC than a Ponzi scheme. But you need to lay off the blatant propaganda and distortions that your belief is based on...

It's broke-ass NOW.. Six years ahead of schedule and NOTHING to fund the deficit is coming out "Treasury Bonds" or the fund. The cost of the overruns are being covered by the 53% of Americans that actually pay INCOME tax. The rest are getting carried out of "good will"...

You can continue deluding yourself with that Chicken-Little propaganda if you wish. Meanwhile my monthly Social Security allotment was deposited in my checking account yesterday morning, as it has been every month for the past eleven years, and everything I've heard from SSA and from a veritable platoon of respected experts assures me the program is secure and intact. The negatives come largely from pissed-off neo-Conservatives and is wishful thinking for the most part.

Social Security is backed by the federal government. When the Social Security allotments can't be paid it will mean we have a lot more to be concerned with than that. It will mean the government is broke -- wiped out. If it were otherwise, how do you think it would work out if Government was broke but Social Security was still intact? Can you imagine that scenario?

So what I have to say is you stay with Wall Street and I'll stay with what I have. And I wish you luck.

PS: How do you know so much about what is and isn't invested in the program? And if you refute the Venn data, show us your conflicting data. Otherwise you're blowing smoke.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What kind of "control" are you talking about? Please be specific.

Haven't I been specific enough?

By control I mean just that. People get to pick where they put their money.

Reason tells us it should be in a balanced portfolio designed for long term stability and as one nears retirement age one should shift from predominantly equities to more conservative options.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Grandma]

Yes, investing in a portfolio is a freaking brilliant idea! I'll put the money right next to all our 401K money that we lost in the 2008 crash. And markets do crash, it's a cyclicle thing.

Wall Street needs fixed one hell of a lot more than Social Security.

Now for anyone that doesn't get how SS works here's the deal:

About seven-and-a-half percent of your weekly check is taken out, matched by your employer, and put into the SS Fund. By the time you reach retirement age your share of the fund should be worth several hundred thousand dollars.

The money you saved is returned to you in monthly increments, at present usually $1000. If you are married, whichever spouse earned the most gets the $1000, the other spouse usually gets $500. When one of the couple dies, the $1000 check goes to the survivor, the $500 check stops.

Now the system was designed to keep retired persons afloat until they died. Life expectancy has increased. Does that mean that SS will go broke? No.

Money put in by people that die before they retire mostly stays in the general SS Fund. Exceptions are made for those that left minor children, and those that become disabled before retiring. Still, most of the decedents' money stays in the Fund. If a retired person dies before their contributions equal their withdrawals, the money stays in the SS Fund.

You young'uns ARE NOT paying for the Boomers' SS. The Boomers paid into the Fund, and that includes the mjority of women, who worked before marriage and children, as well as those that have worked continuously. You are paying for your own retirement.

The Social Security Fund is far more stable and solvent than money put into Wall Street.


Now Medicare, that's another matter than can only be fixed by instituting universal health care. But that's another thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking News: The whole world but you dupes know the GOP is totally FOS. Most of the world doesn't know about the Pub Propaganda Machine, so they can't figure out how you can be so "dumb"....

The RW IS where all the lies are, dupe! See my sig pp1, anything on Libya or F+F, Obama gutted Medicare and Workfare, had total power for 2 years etc etc. Total lying a-holes...Your examples of LW lies are pure Pubcrappe, chump.

Who you gonna blame when Obama loses Tuesday?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, investing in a portfolio is a freaking brilliant idea! I'll put the money right next to all our 401K money that we lost in the 2008 crash. And markets do crash, it's a cyclicle thing.

Wall Street needs fixed one hell of a lot more than Social Security.

Now for anyone that doesn't get how SS works here's the deal:

About seven-and-a-half percent of your weekly check is taken out, matched by your employer, and put into the SS Fund. By the time you reach retirement age your share of the fund should be worth several hundred thousand dollars.

The money you saved is returned to you in monthly increments, at present usually $1000. If you are married, whichever spouse earned the most gets the $1000, the other spouse usually gets $500. When one of the couple dies, the $1000 check goes to the survivor, the $500 check stops.

Now the system was designed to keep retired persons afloat until they died. Life expectancy has increased. Does that mean that SS will go broke? No.

Money put in by people that die before they retire mostly stays in the general SS Fund. Exceptions are made for those that left minor children, and those that become disabled before retiring. Still, most of the decedents' money stays in the Fund. If a retired person dies before their contributions equal their withdrawals, the money stays in the SS Fund.

You young'uns ARE NOT paying for the Boomers' SS. The Boomers paid into the Fund, and that includes the mjority of women, who worked before marriage and children, as well as those that have worked continuously. You are paying for your own retirement.

The Social Security Fund is far more stable and solvent than money put into Wall Street.


Now Medicare, that's another matter than can only be fixed by instituting universal health care. But that's another thread.

Granny --- nice fairy tale.. There's nothing of value in the Soc Sec fund. All that money YOU put in --- gone.. Young'uns ARE writing your checks.. Sorry M'aam, but not much of that was true.. It was set-up to be a self-sustaining "pay as you go" program. Current workers paying for retired workers. YOUR money was long spent and stolen -- not invested..

I'd tell my kids your "story" but the reality is actually NOT a fairy tale --- It's an f'in nightmare..