Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[kaz]

Here is the text
Social Security History
you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

Lesh

Lush has figured out now that he was wrong, and he's not man enough to admit it ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Many people are confused since the media keeps lying.

The Constitution gives reasons that cannot be used to deny the vote. Nowhere does the Constitution say there is a "right to vote," you are totally right about that

I would just like to know where in the Constitution does it say we couldn't make people take a test to vote. Doing that is not discriminatory in any way. Of course the leftists would bring race into it like they always do, but like we do today, we just ignore their lies.

 

[kaz]

I said every insurance company send out a check if you qualify. I never said any of them send it to me every month.

Let's get back to reality.

I asked what insurance company sends everyone a check every month like social security does.

Your answer? All of them.

If you want to double speak what you meant, that's fine. But when you claim you "said" something else, you are just lying. You do that a lot, don't you? Be honest ...

 

[kaz]

I would just like to know where in the Constitution does it say we couldn't make people take a test to vote. Doing that is not discriminatory in any way. Of course the leftists would bring race into it like they always do, but like we do today, we just ignore their lies.

We crossed wires somewhere. The Constitution doesn't say you can't require a test to vote.

I meant a lot of people don't understand that. I believe you do understand that. So do I

 

[Lesh]

Lesh

Lush has figured out now that he was wrong, and he's not man enough to admit it ...

Wrong asshole. I showed you that an entity called the Trust Fund has existed since 1940.

I showed you where it still existed in 1968-69

Why you want to claim it did not is a mystery...but it did and you are of course wrong as always

 

[Lesh]

We both know you can't show a link that Reagan inherited a real trust fund with money in it because YOU ARE LYING you piece of shit

What?

The Trust Fund existed from 1940 until now. Was there a lot of money in it when Reagan came into office?

Probably very little. What's your point? He used it as a vehicle to "park" the excess payroll taxes when he DOUBLED them

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's get back to reality.

I asked what insurance company sends everyone a check every month like social security does.

Your answer? All of them.

If you want to double speak what you meant, that's fine. But when you claim you "said" something else, you are just lying. You do that a lot, don't you? Be honest ...

Yes I did.

You asked what insurance company sends you a check, and I answered.

I said:
"Every insurance company. If you pay the premiums, and then qualify, they send you a check. Every insurance company that has disability insurance will send you a check if you become disabled."

I never said they sent the checks to me personally. Just that they do send out checks if you qualify.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's get back to reality.

I asked what insurance company sends everyone a check every month like social security does.

Your answer? All of them.

If you want to double speak what you meant, that's fine. But when you claim you "said" something else, you are just lying. You do that a lot, don't you? Be honest ...

And if you want to discuss lying about what someone said...

Try look at your own posts.

Post #313
I said:
“Actually, no it does not bother me at all. I paid into the system that promised me a retirement. That it was screwed up by politicians to pay for pork-barrel bullshit and handing billions to the Military/Industrial machine is something I had no control over.

But thanks for paying your taxes so I can enjoy the little extra money I will have, in addition to my 401k.”



Post# 323
In direct response, you said:
“LOL, obviously you don't know shit about finance since you believe that your savings are measured by what you paid for them rather than the balance after you invest it. In this case you saved zero, and still want a check. You're a greedy, amoral bastard”


So you pretend I never mentioned my 401k, which I did several times.

 

[Flopper]

Why #2 at all.

Removing the cap totally solves the entire problem.

I paid payroll taxes on every dime I ever earned...so should the wealthy...and it "hurt" me far more than it'll hurt them

Especially when you consider all the tax cuts they have gotten over the last 40 years

So in other words put the burden on the wealthy yet again. That would be a loss for them, and like they always do, look for other ways to recoup that loss. Where do you think they will replace that money from?

You people on the left never learn anything. The rich never lose a penny. They pass all their losses to us, the little guy. You leftists live in this fantasy world where anytime the rich have to cough up more money, they just have to do with one less yacht.

It there was only option 2, republicans like you in Congress would echo your sentiments, about the whole burden being put on the wealthy. If we had only option 3, increase S.S. payroll withholding, democrats would respond claiming the whole burden is being placed on those least able to shoulder it. Since we have options that either party would support if a single party controlled government and options that are negotiable if control of government is split, the probability that S.S. will be saved is very high.

Although it has not been mentioned the Disability Insurance Trust Fund is in almost as bad a shape as the retirement fund. It goes bust in 2038.

 

[Flopper]

Semantics.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a system set up by Reagan in the 80s to fund the shortfall for Baby Boomers.

It doesn't fit your definition?

Who cares.

The Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund was created pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, approved August 10, 1939. This trust fund became effective on January 1, 1940, and superseded the old-age reserve account established under the Social Security Act of 1935.

Under Reagan in 1983, the shortfall in trust fund was solved by taxing S.S. benefits. I don't think he made in changes to operation of the fund.

 

[Flopper]

It would allow people to generate their own wealth and no we can't have that can we?

you want to keep a shitty system that actually is designed to squeeze more money out of the middle class than have those people be able to improve their financial positions

Talk about STUPID

Retirement systems that generate wealth also generate risk. Social Security is a risk free investment thus returns will be less than systems that build wealth. It is also more than just a retirement system. It provides important life insurance and disability benefits. Comparing it to private retirement systems that builds wealth is not a fair comparison. A better comparison is with annuities. However, unlike most annuities that are considered riskless, it provides an increasing payout due to inflation adjustments, and the dollar for dollar S.S payout is higher.

Unlike other retirement savings systems that are voluntary, you can not lose your security benefits due to divorces, lawsuits, bankruptcies, fraudulent investment schemes, pressure from relatives to cash in, addition to drugs and alcohol, lack of investment expertise, and dozens of unbelievable stupid acts that you would swear you will never commit.

Social Security is a safety net you can count on when all other retirements fail to delivery. This what it is considered the basis on which all retirements system build.

​

 

[Flopper]

Retirement systems that generate wealth also generate risk. Social Security is a risk free investment thus returns will be less than systems that build wealth. It is also more than just a retirement system. It provides important life insurance and disability benefits. Comparing it to private retirement systems that builds wealth is not a fair comparison. A better comparison is with annuities. However, unlike most annuities that are considered riskless, it provides an increasing payout due to inflation adjustments, and the dollar for dollar S.S payout is higher.

Unlike other retirement savings systems that are voluntary, you can not lose your security benefits due to divorces, lawsuits, bankruptcies, fraudulent investment schemes, pressure from relatives to cash in, addition to drugs and alcohol, lack of investment expertise, and dozens of unbelievable stupid acts that you would swear you will never commit.

Social Security is a safety net you can count on when all other retirements fail to delivery. This is what is considered to be the basis on which all retirements system build.

​

 

[FA_Q2]

I would just like to know where in the Constitution does it say we couldn't make people take a test to vote. Doing that is not discriminatory in any way. Of course the leftists would bring race into it like they always do, but like we do today, we just ignore their lies.

Can the government administer a test to exercise your right to free speech?

Can the government administer a test before you exercise your freedom of assembly?

There is your answer. It is a horrible idea anyway Ray and it should be obvious as to why.

The left controls virtually every single major federal institution. Almost all of them. Who do you think will control this new test? How long do you think it will take before questions that will delineate who is and is not playing for the correct team? I would give it less than 2 years and such a test will weed out 'undesirable' voters very fast and I guarantee you would be one of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It there was only option 2, republicans like you in Congress would echo your sentiments, about the whole burden being put on the wealthy. If we had only option 3, increase S.S. payroll withholding, democrats would respond claiming the whole burden is being placed on those least able to shoulder it. Since we have options that either party would support if a single party controlled government and options that are negotiable if control of government is split, the probability that S.S. will be saved is very high.

Although it has not been mentioned the Disability Insurance Trust Fund is in almost as bad a shape as the retirement fund. It goes bust in 2038.

And you want to put that on steroids?

We only have one option here that is pragmatic, and that is to phase government out of our retirement. By doing so it would shift the burden away from government and eventually make it an individual problem instead of a nationwide one. Plus doing it my way would make it a benefit to individuals instead of a problem. They would be earning interest from day one of working, have more money when they retire, and quite possibly be able to retire earlier than government allows us today.

If people could retire earlier, it would also aid in disability as less people would be applicable for it since they are already retired.

According to Social Security, the older we get the more likely we could end up disabled from work.

Fact Sheet

SOCIAL SECURITY

Individuals Who Receive Social Security Disability
Insurance Benefits, by Age Group 1
In 2013, the Social Security Administration paid disability insurance benefits to about 8.3
million beneficiaries aged 40 or older and to about 1.3 million disability insurance beneficiaries
under age 40.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/ss-customer/age-group-dib.pdf

According to this study, we have over 7 times more people on disability over the age of 40 than we do under. That means if we can use the private market for a better return on our money, it would not only take the SS problem out of the hands of government, but also extend the programs the government keeps like disability.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can the government administer a test to exercise your right to free speech?

Can the government administer a test before you exercise your freedom of assembly?

There is your answer. It is a horrible idea anyway Ray and it should be obvious as to why.

The left controls virtually every single major federal institution. Almost all of them. Who do you think will control this new test? How long do you think it will take before questions that will delineate who is and is not playing for the correct team? I would give it less than 2 years and such a test will weed out 'undesirable' voters very fast and I guarantee you would be one of them.

Not at all. I would love to see such a test. It would not be partisan in any way, just basic questions like who is the VP of our country? What party do they belong to? Who is the speaker of the House? What party do they belong to? What party leads the Senate? Is the United States in debt? if so, by how much? What branch creates the spending for our country?

These are things any voter should know if they are voting. Hell, we could make it multiple choice and all you have to do is circle the correct answer.

People here are political junkies so it's a no brainer for us. However most people are not like us, and therefore we'd have much better results if we could guarantee voters know the least when it comes to our government and current events and policies. Of course the Democrats would never go for it. They depend on that inner-city vote with a lot of high school dropouts that don't even understand the differences between state and federal governments. That's where all the big numbers come from when they win elections.

If I have to get a federal background check to exercise my right to bear arms, then a simple test like this would not be out of the question when it comes to constitutionality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all. I would love to see such a test. It would not be partisan in any way, just basic questions like who is the VP of our country? What party do they belong to? Who is the speaker of the House? What party do they belong to? What party leads the Senate? Is the United States in debt? if so, by how much? What branch creates the spending for our country?

These are things any voter should know if they are voting. Hell, we could make it multiple choice and all you have to do is circle the correct answer.

People here are political junkies so it's a no brainer for us. However most people are not like us, and therefore we'd have much better results if we could guarantee voters know the least when it comes to our government and current events and policies. Of course the Democrats would never go for it. They depend on that inner-city vote with a lot of high school dropouts that don't even understand the differences between state and federal governments. That's where all the big numbers come from when they win elections.

If I have to get a federal background check to exercise my right to bear arms, then a simple test like this would not be out of the question when it comes to constitutionality

Yes it would.

Like I said, do you think it is constitutional for the government to require you to take a 'simple' test to exercise your free speech?

Why not?

And you are being incredibly naïve if you think that the parties would not try and take over that test to skew to their own voters. If you think gerrymandering happens now, wait until they can place a few 'simple' economic questions in that 'test.'

Soon enough, you will see a question like: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to state militias.

And we all know what the left's answer to that will be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Unconstitutioonal in what way?

Testing someone to see if they have a right to vote relates to a poll tax.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not at all. I would love to see such a test. It would not be partisan in any way, just basic questions like who is the VP of our country? What party do they belong to? Who is the speaker of the House? What party do they belong to? What party leads the Senate? Is the United States in debt? if so, by how much? What branch creates the spending for our country?

These are things any voter should know if they are voting. Hell, we could make it multiple choice and all you have to do is circle the correct answer.

People here are political junkies so it's a no brainer for us. However most people are not like us, and therefore we'd have much better results if we could guarantee voters know the least when it comes to our government and current events and policies. Of course the Democrats would never go for it. They depend on that inner-city vote with a lot of high school dropouts that don't even understand the differences between state and federal governments. That's where all the big numbers come from when they win elections.

If I have to get a federal background check to exercise my right to bear arms, then a simple test like this would not be out of the question when it comes to constitutionality.

Yeah, it would. You obviously did not learn your history as this was once used as a way to keep blacks from voting. Get a good book Ray and learn something!

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

SS and MC were started in 1934 and 1965 respectfully. In 1934 job were much more physical and people’s bodies broke down starting in their 50s. Nowadays go to any company and you see people working well into their 70s… heck even construction are less strenuous on the person’s body. The trend is only going to increase. In addition, medicine is getting better and people are living longer. This reality should be recognized.

In addition it is much easier to take care of oneself and eat better and feel better at older ages.

Our safety nets need to reflect this new reality.

No

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I would just like to know where in the Constitution does it say we couldn't make people take a test to vote. Doing that is not discriminatory in any way. Of course the leftists would bring race into it like they always do, but like we do today, we just ignore their lies.

It doesn't, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made literacy tests illegal and the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional to ban them and any other tests for voting.