Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall

[rightwinger]

More than just coins

The US has $130 trillion in wealth. When we create a retirement system, it is backed up by the US government. A Ponzi Scheme does not have that backing

The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you?

The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

Apparently you don't understand WE means all of us doing out part. Freeloaders don't do their part. That's why they're freeloaders.

People who have paid into Social Security all their lives have done their part

People that have contributed all their lives at an X amount higher have done their part. You're answer is to return them a less than x amount in order that those doing less of a part get more than an x amount in return.

Life is not fair my friend

As you can see, the deck is staked against our wealthiest citizens. That is why I feel so sorry for them

 

[Windship]

'[/QUOTE]

Currently, the cap is $118,500. Currently the minimum annual income for someone working for minimum wage is $15,080 (2080 work hour/year * $7.25/hour). The cap is 7.86 times higher than the minimum. If someone contributes at the cap and someone else contributes at the minimum, why shouldn't the person on the higher end get 7.86 times the monthly distribution?[/QUOTE]

YOU are the problem with whats wrong with this country. The minimum wage in 1973 was 1.15usdhr. On that one job, you could and DID pay rent, run a car and feed yourself...try doin that now? Do you know where all that money went? It went to the rich. See the correlation?...no...ok. Since 1970 the working ppl have been getting fucked on all sides and you just want to fuck them even more.

 

[rightwinger]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

 

[paulitician]

Too many Entitlements to sustain. Social Security will be a victim of it. We can't sustain this Welfare/Warfare State. Some Entitlements will disappear. Americans will have to pay the price for Permanent War and Entitlement addiction. Something's gotta give.

 

[Conservative65]

The PEOPLE in the U.S. have the wealth. The government doesn't have that wealth. If it did, the GOVERNMENT wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you?

The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

Apparently you don't understand WE means all of us doing out part. Freeloaders don't do their part. That's why they're freeloaders.

People who have paid into Social Security all their lives have done their part

People that have contributed all their lives at an X amount higher have done their part. You're answer is to return them a less than x amount in order that those doing less of a part get more than an x amount in return.

Life is not fair my friend

As you can see, the deck is staked against our wealthiest citizens. That is why I feel so sorry for them

There's a difference. Thing in life that aren't fair are things that can't be controlled. This is planned, therefore, controlled and outside what you say.

Here's how it will work. I'll take the SS coming my way because I was required to put in. Understand that it's not a necessity like so many freeloaders you support. While it's not a need, it will be taken even if someone else needs it more and has to do without as a result of not getting it.

 

[Camp]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

 

[Conservative65]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Funny how you define justice as giving someone something they didn't earn while punishing those that actually have it.

 

[Conservative65]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

Means testing doesn't apply to Social Security. Try again?

It must suck for poor people to be poor. They go through their entire life KNOWING the only way they ever had anything is because someone else was forced to do for them what they weren't willing to do for themselves. How sad it must be to know that you're a leech on society.

 

[g5000]

But the real gem is Social Security. Like the other unconstitutional programs already mentioned, conservatives vehemently opposed Social Security in the late 1930's. As always, they said it was unsustainable. As always, they were right. A mind-boggling $32 trillion shortfall. You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it wouldn't even cover 1/32 of that....

Thanks for exposing your ignorance. The top one percent have over $13 trillion in assets.

And that's just the top one percent.

As for the debt, Social Security has been running in the black all this time.

The biggest cause of the debt is the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures we demand from the government every year. But no one wants to look in the mirror to see who is really to blame for the debt.

The solution to Social Security is very simple, but our politicians don't have the balls to do it. All we have to do is raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

If we did that, and banned tax expenditures, we would have a massive surplus with which we could lower tax rates for EVERYONE, and pay down the debt.

But no one (including you, I bet) wants to give up their government gifts.

Stop pointing fingers, and look in the mirror for your culprit.

 

[Camp]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

Means testing doesn't apply to Social Security. Try again?

It must suck for poor people to be poor. They go through their entire life KNOWING the only way they ever had anything is because someone else was forced to do for them what they weren't willing to do for themselves. How sad it must be to know that you're a leech on society.

Means testing is a proposed solution for SS. Before the government and SS would go broke means testing would be applied.

 

[rightwinger]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Funny how you define justice as giving someone something they didn't earn while punishing those that actually have it.

The Government only has so many boxes to distribute. They prefer to provide boxes to those who need them most rather than distribute equally
That is the way We the People want it

 

[easyt65]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

 

[Conservative65]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

Means testing doesn't apply to Social Security. Try again?

It must suck for poor people to be poor. They go through their entire life KNOWING the only way they ever had anything is because someone else was forced to do for them what they weren't willing to do for themselves. How sad it must be to know that you're a leech on society.

Means testing is a proposed solution for SS. Before the government and SS would go broke means testing would be applied.

Just a worse situation. That's telling people, you were required to put into a system for 40 years but because you were financially successful because you contributed to society and made something of yourself, you're not going to get what was promised to you and you had to pay into so we can give some freeloading piece of shit something they didn't earn.

 

[Conservative65]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Funny how you define justice as giving someone something they didn't earn while punishing those that actually have it.

The Government only has so many boxes to distribute. They prefer to provide boxes to those who need them most rather than distribute equally
That is the way We the People want it

That's the problem. You Liberal morons use the zero sum game philosophy where it doesn't apply.

What you say is what the freeloading pieces of shit that don't contribute to the supply of boxes want.

 

[rightwinger]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

Means testing doesn't apply to Social Security. Try again?

It must suck for poor people to be poor. They go through their entire life KNOWING the only way they ever had anything is because someone else was forced to do for them what they weren't willing to do for themselves. How sad it must be to know that you're a leech on society.

I don't fret too much about providing a little extra to those who have only 2/10 of a percent of our wealth

Worrying about the one percent not having enough does not keep me up at night

 

[rightwinger]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

We the People will vote any politician out of office who tries to fuck with our Social Security or Medicare

 

[easyt65]

The Government only has so many boxes to distribute. They prefer to provide boxes to those who need them most rather than distribute equally
That is the way We the People want it

Redistribution of wealth as dictated by liberals / politicians. The American people are fully capable of taking care of others - church's, charities, neighbors, families...but it is about the CONTROL. The govt thinks it knows how to spend your money better, thinks it should spend your money - not you. People are smart enough to handle their own retirement, but the govt will not let you. You have to fork over money to the govt - that is 'for you' - so the govt can control where it goes, when it goes, how much you will get back, when you will get it back, and IF you will get it back...'it' being YOUR MONEY!

If you think the f*up way things are being run, like this, is the way people want it then you're 'a brick short of a load' and are NOT listening to the American people!

 

[Camp]

Just raising the cap to 250K would fix that, putting SS on all earnings would give the system a vast surplus, and enable us to give the seniors that have worked their whole lives for this nation a secure old age. But that is against the morals of the 'Conservatives'. Much better the trader that was making fun of 'Grandma Millie' while ripping us all off in the GOP's Enron scam retire with millions, than the lineman that worked night and day in the worst of weather to keep the power flowing be able to have a comfortable retirement.

Raise the cap all you want as long as the person contributing X times the amount as another person gets that same X times greater distribution than the other person.

Why shouldn't someone that puts in x times more gets x time more out? I thought you Liberals were about equality. Seems that only applies to benefiting not doing your part.

Do you know what means testing is?

Means testing doesn't apply to Social Security. Try again?

It must suck for poor people to be poor. They go through their entire life KNOWING the only way they ever had anything is because someone else was forced to do for them what they weren't willing to do for themselves. How sad it must be to know that you're a leech on society.

Means testing is a proposed solution for SS. Before the government and SS would go broke means testing would be applied.

Just a worse situation. That's telling people, you were required to put into a system for 40 years but because you were financially successful because you contributed to society and made something of yourself, you're not going to get what was promised to you and you had to pay into so we can give some freeloading piece of shit something they didn't earn.

The point is that your argument that SS will go broke is bullshit. On top of your continuing to call people who collect SS as "freeloaders" really defines who you are and your distorted sense of reality.

 

[g5000]

Imagine a thief was coming into your house every day and stealing one or two small items.

Imagine that thief had police protection.

How fricking crazy would it be for you to suggest the solution to this problem was to get the cops to go to a rich man's house and take some of his stuff for you?

That's what the people who want to "tax the rich more" sound like. They sound insane.

The problem is not that we aren't taxing the rich enough. The problem is that the thieves who are stealing from us every day have the legislative and police protection of our government.

 

[easyt65]

I don't fret too much about providing a little extra to those who have only 2/10 of a percent of our wealth.

Then pay as much as you want - give the government MORE than you owe in taxes. I, however, mind when assholes like you, who feel this way / spout this garbage, decided FOR ME that I should give more than I already do and just SEIZE my money.

Doesn't happen? Obamacare phones are funded by an additional not-highly publicized tax on your phones, money jackasses like you thought was a great idea to be taken away from ME, out of MY pocket without MY permission, so that - in many cases - lazy ass people who already have a phone can get another one for free. I have no say in that amount of MY money being taken without MY permission, but tyrannical liberals think it's a good idea and just take it from me.

There is SO EXTREMELY MUCH the Federal Government is currently doing that it just does NOT have the Constitutional authority to do right now that it isn't even funny!