Will Republicans end social security?

[M14 Shooter]

Are you suggesting Republicans ....

Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To me this is fun. I know you...

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.

 

[sealybobo]

Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

Who do you agree with?

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court said SS was constitutional because of the general welfare clause. Conservatives tried to use the 10th amendment argument. States rights. The Supreme Court said SS was constitutional. Do you agree?

Do you think ss is a good idea? You like it? Wouldn't you, if you had the power, let young people opt out?

Haven't you yourself called it a ponzi scheme at one point in your life?

 

[sealybobo]

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.

Answer my questions and you'll prove me right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who do you agree with?

Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Answer my questions and you'll prove me right.

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.

 

[sealybobo]

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.

You stick to that position. You can't slip up and admit something that would confirm I'm right if you just keep saying that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You stick to that position.

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.
Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

 

[sealybobo]

All I see here is continued confirmation that you cannot prove your claim.
Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

I'm on another thread right now where Republicans are making the argument that if you could put away your own money into your own private investment, you would do better than SS. AND when you die, your family will get what you built up. Not so with social security.

These are good arguments except for the fact most of you Americans won't save and then we will have to save your sorry old asses. SS is a great program. If you die early, you lose. But if you live to be 100, you WIN!

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm on another thread right now where Republicans...

Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

 

[dblack]

These are good arguments except for the fact most of you Americans won't save ...

That's ok. People do all kinds of stupid shit. It's not your responsibility.

and then we will have to save your sorry old asses.

No, you don't. See above.

SS is a great program. If you die early, you lose. But if you live to be 100, you WIN!

Then you should sign up for it. But if other people don't want to, that should be their right. Government isn't there to force your preferences on others.

 

[sealybobo]

That's ok. People do all kinds of stupid shit. It's not your responsibility.

No, you don't. See above.

Then you should sign up for it. But if other people don't want to, that should be their right. Government isn't there to force your preferences on others.

Deep down I have a hard time arguing with you. Other than the fact that allowing people to do that would fuck the fund up. Then how would we pay people who've been paying i their whole lives?

The answer is simple. Politicians on both sides have raided the fund. So they just need to put the money back. Remember somehow Bush came up with the money to fight 2 20 year wars? If we can do that, we can find the money to fund people who are on social security. Or how about lotteries? Have lottery money fund social security instead of schools. Fuck the schools.

So as long as I didn't think you opting out would mean cuts to my benefits, I would agree people should be able to opt out.

And maybe we only make guys like you put half the money away. That way when you turn 70 and don't have any money, you'll at least get $1000 a month to help you get by.

So you can't opt out but you can opt to not fully be in. You know what I mean?

 

[dblack]

Deep down I have a hard time arguing with you. Other than the fact that allowing people to do that would fuck the fund up. Then how would we pay people who've been paying i their whole lives?

Pretty much everyone with a serious proposal for eliminating SS, includes some kind of phase out scheme - where the people who have paid in are "paid out" in some reasonable way. Either with lump some payments or by phasing out the program over time.

So as long as I didn't think you opting out would mean cuts to my benefits, I would agree people should be able to opt out.

But, as you alluded to above - ("Other than the fact that allowing people to do that would fuck the fund up.") - that denies the core purpose of SS, which is wealth redistribution. That's why no one will ever be allowed to "opt out".

Optional government programs rarely make sense. Usually, the free market can do a better job of providing the service in question, and the government program will languish. The only real reason to make something a government program in the first place is to force participation.

And maybe we only make guys like you put half the money away.

Guys like me?

So you can't opt out but you can opt to not fully be in. You know what I mean?

Not really.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you should sign up for it. But if other people don't want to, that should be their right. Government isn't there to force your preferences on others.

Democrats everywhere disagree.
Well, so long as they agree with what's being forced on someone and who is forcing it - try to force something them they do not like and they scream bloody murder.

 

[dblack]

Democrats everywhere disagree.

So do Republicans, near as I can tell. They just have different preferences.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So do Republicans, near as I can tell. They just have different preferences.

And to a lesser degree.

 

[dblack]

And to a lesser degree.

"lesser".

 

[Dragonlady]

Your cannot prove your claim.
And you know it.

We can prove the claim. Rick Scott said SS needed to be re-upped every 5 years, and Grassley said every year. How can anyone plan for retirement when a good portion of their income can go away at any time? It makes no rational sense at all, but that's today's Republican Party.

You're avoidance of the question is also typically Republican. Cancelling programs with no thought to the real consequences. Like Roe v Wade. You got what you wanted, and suddenly that's not what you thought would be happening.

Clueless is a good description of Republican ideology.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can prove the claim.

Then do so.
Cite your source and copy/paste the text that demonstrates the GOP wants to end/destroty Socal Security.

 

[sealybobo]

Pretty much everyone with a serious proposal for eliminating SS, includes some kind of phase out scheme - where the people who have paid in are "paid out" in some reasonable way. Either with lump some payments or by phasing out the program over time.

But, as you alluded to above - ("Other than the fact that allowing people to do that would fuck the fund up.") - that denies the core purpose of SS, which is wealth redistribution. That's why no one will ever be allowed to "opt out".

Optional government programs rarely make sense. Usually, the free market can do a better job of providing the service in question, and the government program will languish. The only real reason to make something a government program in the first place is to force participation.

Guys like me?

Not really.

Guys like you. I mean guys who want to opt out.