How to fix SS Trump style

[miketx]

All you are proving is that you hate Americans, and that you are full of hate for the elderly.

 

[SwimExpert]

All you are proving is that you hate Americans, and that you are full of hate for the elderly.

And that you are an entitled welfare junkie.

 

[miketx]

Liar.

 

[Timmy]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

 

[SwimExpert]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Let them die.

 

[AntonToo]

Do you have problems understanding the "my prediction" there. I can tell that my predictions have a very high degree of accuracy. And given your stupid comment, the odds just became higher.

Unlike you I'm in perfect position to know EXACTLY the odds of your "prediction" about me to be true - and it is 0%. From that I can safely conclude that your predictions are just sht you make up.

 

[AntonToo]

If what they supported could eradicate poverty, the trillions given to those in poverty since 1965 would have at least made a dent. In 1965, the percentage of Americans in poverty was around 14%. Today, after trillions were spent, the percentage of Americans in poverty is still 14%.

How many of those bleeding hearts would make a personal investment in something with a return of zero 50 years later?

BS. Poverty rate doesn't provide overall picture.

Take Medicare for example - it covers elderly healthcare and makes them better off obviously but it doesn't change poverty threshold.

 

[Andylusion]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

 

[Andylusion]

If what they supported could eradicate poverty, the trillions given to those in poverty since 1965 would have at least made a dent. In 1965, the percentage of Americans in poverty was around 14%. Today, after trillions were spent, the percentage of Americans in poverty is still 14%.

How many of those bleeding hearts would make a personal investment in something with a return of zero 50 years later?

BS. Poverty rate doesn't provide overall picture.

Take Medicare for example - it covers elderly healthcare and makes them better off obviously but it doesn't change poverty threshold.

But you people are the people complaining about the cost of health care. Well..... the reason health care costs have gone up, is because they charge you a higher price, to offset the low payouts of medicare.

You do know that right? The reason the premiums on private insurance have drastically increased, is because they are cost shifting from Medicare. It's fact. Documented fact dude.

 

[Andylusion]

SS is nothing more than another handout program where those on the lower income end of life will get something far greater in return than they ever put in. Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

This is the standard conservative angle:

Rich are overburdened, poor are not pulling their weight. Let give rich tax cuts and tax the poor more.

Of course not a single politician is crazy enough to explicitly take up this position, but that's the out-on-the-moon base they have to work with. And then you wonder why they all lie to you.

The reasons we are against taxing the rich, is because it makes everyone worse off. I know this is super shocking to some..... but whatever money the government takes from the rich, the rich can't use to provide jobs, or increase wages. Shocking huh.

As for the poor not pulling their weight.... that's just a fact.

If the poor were pulling their weight, they wouldn't be poor. You do realize that two people working minimum wage, is $31,000 a year. Right? That places you in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

And that's if you earn minimum wage. It's HARD to just earn minimum wage. You have to suck so bad, that you are not worth giving a raise to, but yet not suck bad enough to be fired? You realize that if you work 40 hours at McDonalds, you are automatically earning more than minimum wage, and if you work more than 6 months you get raises?

So when people are poor.... there must be a reason. You have to be doing something to cause yourself to be poor. You are either not showing up, or taking to many breaks, or something that is causing you to not be promoted.

You work consistently at McDonald's long enough, you'll have your own store, and make $100,000 a year. I had a guy who started off working $9/hour, and now he runs his own auto parts store for Advance Auto Parts. All he did, was work. No degree. No college. He just worked.

People don't work. Then you cry about how we point that out.

 

[Conservative65]

If what they supported could eradicate poverty, the trillions given to those in poverty since 1965 would have at least made a dent. In 1965, the percentage of Americans in poverty was around 14%. Today, after trillions were spent, the percentage of Americans in poverty is still 14%.

How many of those bleeding hearts would make a personal investment in something with a return of zero 50 years later?

BS. Poverty rate doesn't provide overall picture.

Take Medicare for example - it covers elderly healthcare and makes them better off obviously but it doesn't change poverty threshold.

Medicare isn't a program for the poor and not part of the trillions of dollars referenced above.

 

[AntonToo]

The reasons we are against taxing the rich, is because it makes everyone worse off. I know this is super shocking to some....

Shocking? More like laughable BS.

No, everyone would not be better off if only we'd stop taxing the rich. Rich would be better off if we stop taxing the rich. Everyone else would be fked by increased tax burden that revenue shortfall would create, even accounting for some secondary effects of rich taking some of that money and investing it, while spending most of it on frivolous luxuries.

We have some bills to pay that we are long ago behind on and the question is not whether or not we want to stick it to the rich that conservatives seem to think this issue to be about. The question is given these bills how can we distribute the burden in a way that makes most sense?

Lets tax more those that can barely make ends meet while giving tax relief to those that barely feel it? Seriously? That's your big idea?

 

[AntonToo]

Medicare isn't a program for the poor and not part of the trillions of dollars referenced above.

It's a program for all elderly, including those it benefits most - poor elderly. Duh?

The point is a lot of the help poor have received from the "liberhul programs" would not be reflected in the poverty rates the way it's calculated. Doesn't mean they aren't helped by them.

 

[AntonToo]

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

Umm....would you want to actually live in those wonderful "thousands of years"?

And selfish and narcissistic? For having some concern for fellow Americans and conscience slightly beyond your own picket fence? Sounds a bit upside down.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

While going to college and post graduate work may shorten a career, it's not a hard fact. I have two Master's degrees both of which were earned while working, therefore, it didn't shorten anything. Also, the median income for someone with a Master's degree is approximately $33,000 more per year vs. a high school diploma and those are Census bureau numbers.

Your insistence that an opt out will end SS is the doom and gloom the Liberals in government use in order to convince people that government programs are such a good thing.

My belief that an opt-out will end SS is a matter of common sense and basic math. It has nothing to do with the merits of the program. It has to do with an understanding of the size of the problem.

Pay for it by changing that members of Congress can get a pension for life having only been in office for FIVE years. That means a Senator becomes eligible for that pension by getting elected only once and a House member three times. We both know what being an incumbent means and how easy it is to get reelected in many districts. I also understand that the amount is based on years, a 3 year average salary, and a multiplier. However, once a member of Congress meeting the minimum years of service required reaches retirement, based one today's numbers, would get almost $18,000/year. That's more that some low income earnings workers will get and they worked far more years than 5 to get it.

If I doubt that you understand the size of the problem it is because you throw out million of dollars of solutions for trillions of dollars of problems.

Another way would be to stop making it where illegals benefit from social welfare programs. How many billions/year would that save?

Zero. You are confusing welfare programs with Social Security. As I said I don't think you understand how the system works.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Comparing insurance to an investment is flawed analysis.

Social Security is not insurance. It is a welfare program.

So you can explain to me how Bernie Sanders and his wife get $46,000 from a welfare program?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

If Americans 40 and under depend on social security as an insurance polacy they are just stupid. Social se urity is a lie, nothing more. I be all for getting rid of it and just keeping the deduction to do with as I please.

The only thing SS insures me against is having too much money. It will be gone by the time I retire. We're paying so Baby Boomers can live off our money.

I started paying social security taxes when I was 16. That was 1976.

I've been paying for generations before me for 40 years now and will continue to do so until 2027.

I have no problem with this. I wouldn't have what I have today without generations before me.

Especially what's called "The Greatest Generation."

My generation and I paid for their retirement and social security. Without those people, we could be speaking German and Japanese right now. America could be split in half by those two nations. The west Japanese controlled and the east nazi controlled.

Just like all before me, I was told all my life that I would be eligible for full SS benefits at age 65. Unlike everyone before me, the rules were changed on me more than half way to 65. The law was changed and I now have to wait a couple more years, until I'm 67 to get full SS benefits.

So we all have paid for what those before us sacrificed their lives just so we can have the nation we have today. With all the benefits we have such as schools, hospitals and health care, roads, interstates, national and state parks, the list goes on and on.

So I have no problem with paying to make sure we don't have seniors dying younger and having no food. I don't believe it's right to take someone's money all their working life, tell them they will get back, then not give it back to them as promised.

I have no problem with giving back to the generations before me who paid all their lives into the system and gave all they did for me, you and future generations.

If you want to pay for previous generations so badly, why don't you pay for your own parents' retirement? Stop robbing me for it.

I did.

My dad retired in the 90s when Boeing gave early retirement packages to their engineers. He didn't live on any social security or medicare benefits until he was 65. Until then, he retired on his pension, annuities and other investments from working all his life.

He died one week after his 67th birthday. He got social security and medicare for 2 years.

My mom did better. She retired in the early 2000s at 65. She died last year at the age of 78.

I'm telling you that you're no different from me. We all paid for those before us. The people who gave so much so we can have what we take for granted everyday.

As I stated. I paid for all the generations before me.

In 1983, the system was broke. We had to go to the next generation with higher and higher taxes because those workers previously hadn't paid. I am glad that you choose to pay for those generations before you. Maybe future generations will do the same for you. They may not, but you have no claim on them because of your past decisions.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

 

[kaz]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Taking money from one person and giving it to another isn't "insurance." Neither is sending someone money for being old. Actually in no way is it "insurance." You're just regurgitating Democrat talking points

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Never mind. I take all that back. You call greed wanting to get what you have already paid for. You aren't worth talking to.

Not at all, but I do call making a small sacrifice, like a minor cut in the proposed benefits in order to sustain the system for another generation or two to come, pretty reasonable and selfless. You know, much like the sacrifice your parents made for you during WWII, but who am I kidding. The Baby Boomers will never agree to that because it's always been all about you.

I think you may have the wrong generations. The parents of the boomers are the ones who initiated Social Security in the 1950s as a pay-as-go take from your children system. They voted in Medicare when the oldest boomer was about 20. I am not sure I see the sacrifice in these programs. Boomers are foolish enough to think that these programs will continue because 'they paid in'. It isn't about greed. It is about naivete.