Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Dependable monthly income" ROFLAO!! WHen Obama threatened to withold checks, how dependable was it? A huge number of workers under 50 believe they will never see a penny of SS. The system itself projects its onw insolvency. That isnt dependable.We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement
These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans
All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement
He's pandering to his brother's base. W lost his second term momentum to this issue. It's the doppelganger of Hillary saying she's not a free trader. It's meaningless. But a nice link in the OP.He touched the third rail of politics.
Can he be resuscitated?
Why did he ever think he could say such a thing and get away with it?
He's pandering to his brother's base. W lost his second term momentum to this issue. It's the doppelganger of Hillary saying she's not a free trader. It's meaningless. But a nice link in the OP.He touched the third rail of politics.
Can he be resuscitated?
Why did he ever think he could say such a thing and get away with it?
Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?
Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.
Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.
The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.
Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..
Yeah god forbid people control the 15% of their lifetime income and actually be able to retire financially secure instead of the government stealing it for their off the books slush fund
"Dependable monthly income" ROFLAO!! WHen Obama threatened to withold checks, how dependable was it? A huge number of workers under 50 believe they will never see a penny of SS. The system itself projects its onw insolvency. That isnt dependable.We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement
These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans
All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement
People need to be able to depend on themselves, not the government.
And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'"Gambling," Jefferson once said, "is a tax on the willing.."At least give me the option.
I've done well "gambling"on the market.
Since games of chance REQUIRE many, many losers for the one "winner," the bit of money in retirement from SS is NOT the time or funds to go gambling.
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.Let us know how we're going to pay for that.BUT omg HOW DARE someone suggest ss being privatized.
Thanks.
It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.Imagine everyone's surprise when they discover government spent all the freaking SS money.
There's nothing surprising about it at all, SS is paygo and has been since inception.
Is it possible to privatize $2 trillion dollars of IOU's from congress? I don't think so.
Congress sells its IOUs all the time. If I'm not mistaken, its every Tuesday. Holy Lord you can't seriously be this stupid.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Imagine everyone's surprise when they discover government spent all the freaking SS money. Is it possible to privatize $2 trillion dollars of IOU's from congress? I don't think so.
When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'"Gambling," Jefferson once said, "is a tax on the willing.."At least give me the option.
I've done well "gambling"on the market.
Since games of chance REQUIRE many, many losers for the one "winner," the bit of money in retirement from SS is NOT the time or funds to go gambling.
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.Let us know how we're going to pay for that.BUT omg HOW DARE someone suggest ss being privatized.
Thanks.
His brother's base of those who don't really need social security, and the Wall St Fraudsters wanting the rubes. It's ironic that the tea party really was a gop revolt against the party establishment, which W was the King, and the tea party are the very people whom the establishment seeks to rob. However, I really doubt Jeb wants to refight his brother's loss at the beginning of his second term.He's pandering to his brother's base. W lost his second term momentum to this issue. It's the doppelganger of Hillary saying she's not a free trader. It's meaningless. But a nice link in the OP.He touched the third rail of politics.
Can he be resuscitated?
Why did he ever think he could say such a thing and get away with it?
To his BROTHERS base? what the hell
SS effects all of us, I don't care what "base" you come from
It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.There's nothing surprising about it at all, SS is paygo and has been since inception.
Congress sells its IOUs all the time. If I'm not mistaken, its every Tuesday. Holy Lord you can't seriously be this stupid.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
The rubes are the ones who think SS will be for them when they retire.I'm sorry, but anyone who peruses this board for ten minutes realizes there are A LOT of rubes in this world. And those rubes are ripe for the plucking by financial frauds who will strip them and leave them naked in the street.
And then those millions upon million upon millions of bankrupt rubes will demand the government support them when they turn 65 and have no nest egg.
I'm sure Wall Street loooooooooves the idea of more money falling into their hands. Love, love, love it.
Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'"Gambling," Jefferson once said, "is a tax on the willing.."At least give me the option.
I've done well "gambling"on the market.
Since games of chance REQUIRE many, many losers for the one "winner," the bit of money in retirement from SS is NOT the time or funds to go gambling.
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.Let us know how we're going to pay for that.BUT omg HOW DARE someone suggest ss being privatized.
Thanks.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.Two questions: 1) how is that any different
Guarantees?2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?
Not true. Who the hell told you that?It was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.There's nothing surprising about it at all, SS is paygo and has been since inception.
Congress sells its IOUs all the time. If I'm not mistaken, its every Tuesday. Holy Lord you can't seriously be this stupid.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
I already read it, you need glasses the average age of death for a guy was 50 years old, look at the chart moron, didn't hit 65 till around the early 80s for a guyIt was around 50 when started for men, didn't hit 65 till around 1980.You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
Nope. Age 65. Social Security History
Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'"Gambling," Jefferson once said, "is a tax on the willing.."
Since games of chance REQUIRE many, many losers for the one "winner," the bit of money in retirement from SS is NOT the time or funds to go gambling.
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.Let us know how we're going to pay for that.
Thanks.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.Two questions: 1) how is that any different
PP: I control my money.
Guarantees?2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?
You think there are guarantees in life?
Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.Two questions: 1) how is that any different
PP: I control my money.
Guarantees?2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?
You think there are guarantees in life?
Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.So rather than you having to pay your money into a government plan, you have to pay it into a private plan. The key phrase being "have to".And so, as people pay into SS after a certain point, their money goes into the privatization plan rather than the SS "trust fund".It still has to be paid for if it is "phased in"Your first problem is a complete and utter ignorance on the stock market highlighted by the fact that you think it is 'gambling.'
One of the advantages in a privatized system is that people might actually get some exposure in the market and dispel that asinine idea that owning a piece of something is akin to gambling.
That is why such a system needs to be phased in - they spent the money SS had brought in so there is nothing there to privatize but plenty of benefits owed.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.Two questions: 1) how is that any different
PP: I control my money.
Guarantees?2) who guarantees the private plan if it fails?
You think there are guarantees in life?
So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?
