Obama's "forced diversity" plan to turn suburbs into ghettos

[Ray From Cleveland]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

 

[francoHFW]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Maryland Patriot]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

 

[francoHFW]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

 

[francoHFW]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Only another 18 years...Peg tax cap to inflation duh. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[9aces]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

Looters only care that the loot will last their lifetime.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Only another 18 years...Peg tax cap to inflation duh. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Lift the cap, and then you have to lift the payout. It's only fair.

The system is going broke. Deal with it.

 

[francoHFW]

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

NOT theft, obviously. Theft is fraudulent banks, lending institutions getting away with murder and the people paying the bill. Corrupt Pubs again, dupes...TARP and cronies...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Only another 18 years...Peg tax cap to inflation duh. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Lift the cap, and then you have to lift the payout. It's only fair.

The system is going broke. Deal with it.

if you lift the payout those paying extra will still not benefit from it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

NOT theft, obviously. Theft is fraudulent banks, lending institutions getting away with murder and the people paying the bill. Corrupt Pubs again, dupes...TARP and cronies...

No, theft is the corrupt liberals raising taxes to redistribute wealth to the lazy. theft is forcing someone to pay twice as much for something he already has in order to give it free to someone that refuses to work for it.

 

[francoHFW]

BS. SS being broke is another huge GOP hoax, AARP's #1 myth. Raise the tax cap.

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Pubs have been FOS for decades you mean. You feel like working till you're 75?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Pubs have been FOS for decades you mean. You feel like working till you're 75?

If you are counting on SS to retire on, then you have already proven that you dont have the brains to exist in the first place.
the way I see it, social security will pretty much cover medical costs, my personal retirement plan will cover housing, food, travel, vehicles etc... even without SS I would still get by. I do however intend on collecting anything I can, even if I dont need it to live.

 

[francoHFW]

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

NOT theft, obviously. Theft is fraudulent banks, lending institutions getting away with murder and the people paying the bill. Corrupt Pubs again, dupes...TARP and cronies...

No, theft is the corrupt liberals raising taxes to redistribute wealth to the lazy. theft is forcing someone to pay twice as much for something he already has in order to give it free to someone that refuses to work for it.

WTH was that? Everyone wants a GOOD job. After 30 years of Reaganism, there aren't many. Thanks for the corrupt depression, too. Notice that?

 

[francoHFW]

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Pubs have been FOS for decades you mean. You feel like working till you're 75?

If you are counting on SS to retire on, then you have already proven that you dont have the brains to exist in the first place.
the way I see it, social security will pretty much cover medical costs, my personal retirement plan will cover housing, food, travel, vehicles etc... even without SS I would still get by. I do however intend on collecting anything I can, even if I dont need it to live.

Lucky you. SS is for the safety net. It could happen to you. Just an accident away. Brave dupes lol!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

NOT theft, obviously. Theft is fraudulent banks, lending institutions getting away with murder and the people paying the bill. Corrupt Pubs again, dupes...TARP and cronies...

No, theft is the corrupt liberals raising taxes to redistribute wealth to the lazy. theft is forcing someone to pay twice as much for something he already has in order to give it free to someone that refuses to work for it.

WTH was that? Everyone wants a GOOD job. After 30 years of Reaganism, there aren't many. Thanks for the corrupt depression, too. Notice that?

Regan was a powerful man. what he did in 8 years, the Master of mouth Bill Clinton couldnt undue in 8 and the Kenyan was also unable to do in his 8. 8 years of Reagan stronger than 16 years of saviors, and then if you consider how far left Bush Jr was, thats actually 24 years that change could have but was not seen.

 

[9aces]

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

which answer is fairer?
raise the age then get your return on investment or, raise the top limit without raising the maximum pay out.
Seems to me that raising the top limit is nothing more than a way to get some people to pay directly to others retirement.
Something is wrong with the picture when you put 6k a month into an investment program that is only going to return 2k or less, most likely less because they wont be financially eligible to receive benefits anyway.

BS. lol. Inflation happens. Deal.

theft and inflation are two totally different things.

NOT theft, obviously. Theft is fraudulent banks, lending institutions getting away with murder and the people paying the bill. Corrupt Pubs again, dupes...TARP and cronies...

Who passed TARP again?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Pubs have been FOS for decades you mean. You feel like working till you're 75?

If you are counting on SS to retire on, then you have already proven that you dont have the brains to exist in the first place.
the way I see it, social security will pretty much cover medical costs, my personal retirement plan will cover housing, food, travel, vehicles etc... even without SS I would still get by. I do however intend on collecting anything I can, even if I dont need it to live.

Lucky you. SS is for the safety net. It could happen to you. Just an accident away. Brave dupes lol!

even at its best, SS will not pay out enough to get someone through a major health issue. You better have something else lined up or you will be in trouble should you be the one to suffer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, more tax the rich nonsense. Did you ever think that when you keep going back to the rich for more money, eventually they will leave like so many companies and wealth people have already?

If SS isn't going broke, why are they pushing for later retirement ages? Why should we lift the ceiling if SS is sound?

You libs don't have common sense enough to ask yourselves these questions. Obviously they are going broke.

They're pushing for higher retirement ages because they are REPUBLICANS, screwing the workers.
Could Social Security go bankrupt? Not Likely

Don't you even read the crap you post, or do you just look at headlines and throw it up here? Maybe you need some help:

"Under the law, if Congress doesn't agree on a plan of action to close the funding gap, benefits would need to be reduced so that taxes collected would equal benefits paid. Even in this worst-case scenario, however, retirees would still receive, on average, about 77 percent of the benefits they're expecting to get. While that certainly wouldn't be good news, benefits wouldn't go anywhere near zero.

Meanwhile, Social Security's long-term funding deficit can be reduced or eliminated with some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts phased in over time. For example, the long-term deficit could be eliminated without raising taxes if benefits were immediately reduced by 16.5 percent in aggregate. Congress could reduce benefits by increasing the retirement age, reducing the amount of monthly benefits, slowing increases in the cost of living adjustment, or some combination of these methods.

The long-term deficit also could be eliminated without reducing benefits if taxes were immediately increased by 2.66 percent of total covered payroll. You currently pay 6.2 percent of your earnings, up to $117,000, to fund retirement, survivors and disability benefits; your employer pays an equal amount. Congress could raise taxes by increasing the tax rate, increasing the limit on the amount of compensation that's subject to taxes, or some combination of the two."

So what they are saying is that one of three things are going to have to happen here: One is for Congress to put us deeper into debt by putting more tax money into the fund. Two is to reduce benefits greatly. Three is a tax increase.

This is what it's going to take to keep SS going. It cannot continue without making some sacrifices.

BS. Pubs want to raise the retirement age, Dems to raise the top limit (106k) duh- peg it to inflation, problem over.. Still good to 2033 ANYWAY. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, that's a little over 15 years away for those of you that can't subtract.

Republicans have been warning us of SS for decades now, and every time they have, you libs said the same thing you are saying in this thread: nothing is wrong. Don't worry about it.

And then when it finally crashes, you and your ilk will be here blaming Reagan.

Pubs have been FOS for decades you mean. You feel like working till you're 75?

Don't give the Democrats and more bright ideas, okay?