U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2011, 05:39 PM
 
17,056 posts, read 11,452,938 times
Reputation: 9019

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Ignorant? Nice. I GUARANTEE I can make your head spin with my knowledge of the system. It is so much more complex than you can grasp. Your team oriented pep rally politics is the bottom of the barrel and has nothing to do with issues. You read from a script that includes put downs and you think you are so superior in your “knowledge”. Nice try

You are debating with yourself, first off I have no clue what “Townhall” is and Malkin is another Pep rally name calling b*tch who I can’t stand. I live in facts and numbers, not in reliving your high school days by putting you rivals down.

Do you even know that SS is now running an annual deficit 8 YEARS before its median projection and years earlier than the trustees “worst case” scenario?

Do you know what the median unemployment rate used for the future trust fund calculation is?

Do you understand that in the trust fund calculation using the prior “surplus” which is now held in non-tradable intergovernmental bonds doesn’t factor in the future tax or debt cost needed to redeem those bonds?

Do you know the historical years the trustee used to build their probability models? Do you know the banding they did on the historical economic numbers?
I am sure it makes you feel better to think I am some right wing conservative reading from a script, JUST LIKE YOU ARE. Sorry I am not.
Take your cheerleader dress off and join us in the real world.

Don't confuse a liberal with facts- they just hate that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 05:41 PM
 
3,756 posts, read 8,230,362 times
Reputation: 1063
Yep, hoping folks will not live long enough to collect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 05:45 PM
 
Location: mancos
7,047 posts, read 6,202,590 times
Reputation: 4541
[quote=Annie53;18137927]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Most of them quit before 67 too, or 65 for that matter. Social Security was never meant to be the retirement plan for everyone and it shouldn't be counted on for that.[/quote]

That is true, but in reality, most American's do not save money for their reitirement. If they are not FORCED to "save" their money in the SS system, they will just end up on some other type of public assistance when they get old.....assistance that they have never even contributed to.

Sadly, way too many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and never save any money......for anything.

If they've got $$.....they spend it, hell, if they don't have $$ they spend it.
WHAT? so who exactly does pay for public assistance if not the working taxpayer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 05:49 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,192,984 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
I don't put any value in your right wing propaganda. I get my information from the SS Trust fund website, and objective newspapers of record.

You get your information from right wing sources that feed your uncritical, unquestioning mind, twisted half truths about SS.

They dumb down these myths so lazy uneducated whites think they have the facts.
Well try this right wing fact: for the first time since SS came into existence the program will pay out more in benefits than it takes in SS taxes. And the baby boomers are just now beginning to retire. But, hey, it's really not a problem if you can manage to keep your head in the sand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,382 posts, read 7,544,045 times
Reputation: 6627
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Congratulations all you age age 50 and below folks.

You voted the GOP in. You'll likely be working to age 70 now before your benefits kick in.
Is it really so hard to understand that if nothing is done then there won't be any SS whatsoever in 12-18 years. The average lifespan of a person when SS began was late 50s, so 65 is what they set it at. Get it? Above the average lifespan. The life span today is more than 20 years longer, so why not raise it by just 5?

You people like to revise the meaning of everything else, why not revise this? It's one revision that makes perfect sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Ohio
14,361 posts, read 12,657,759 times
Reputation: 19173
Quote:
Originally Posted by parfleche View Post
WHAT? so who exactly does pay for public assistance if not the working taxpayer
What I am trying to say is, if we do not force people to pay into SS and help contribute to their own retirement......we will have people that get old and depend on the taxpayer to take care of them.

Instead of paying SS tax, for example, the taxpayer would still end up paying a "Senior Welfare Tax".

Let's say you save for YOUR retirement and have a nice portfolio built up.......then, the first wave of people who don't save and don't have SS get old and are destitute.......guess we will have to raise the capital gains taxes {among others} to put them all on "Senior Welfare". See what I am getting at?

It is a catch 22.....pay now or pay later.....but you will pay.

The haves have to care for the have nots........this is America!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,486 posts, read 13,132,961 times
Reputation: 5931
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Congratulations all you age age 50 and below folks.

You voted the GOP in. You'll likely be working to age 70 now before your benefits kick in.

This amounts to a 15% cut in your benefits.

John Boehner: Raise Social Security Retirement Age to 70 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?

Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?

* SS is a well managed program . It only has a 1% administrative costs.
* It has a small long term deficit that could be corrected with minor tax increases.
* The small deficit that it does have is almost a non-factor in the budget deficit. Cutting your benefits will barely make a difference in the deficit.

[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]
it makes sense

if you we born after 1970 raise it to 70
if you were born after 1980 make it 75


why keep it at such a low number... my uncle was still climbing ladders at 88 years old
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:28 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,486 posts, read 13,132,961 times
Reputation: 5931
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h View Post
Is it really so hard to understand that if nothing is done then there won't be any SS whatsoever in 12-18 years. The average lifespan of a person when SS began was late 50s, so 65 is what they set it at. Get it? Above the average lifespan. The life span today is more than 20 years longer, so why not raise it by just 5?

You people like to revise the meaning of everything else, why not revise this? It's one revision that makes perfect sense.
it does make sense....but the whiney left wont have it

why not just make a MANDITORY (with matching) 7% 401k on top of the other 401k, and left the INDIVIDUAL control it...let us control our OWN MONEY...........what a thought
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:36 PM
 
Location: 22 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
23,486 posts, read 13,132,961 times
Reputation: 5931
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
I can't say I have all that much of a problem with this. Do that, raise (or better, eliminate) the cap on FICA taxes, and a couple other minor things, and SS is viable for a long time to come, and it will have a big impact on our budget deficit.

Now just raise income taxes back to the Clinton levels for anybody with income above $250,000 per year, close some loopholes, cut the defense budget and we'll be most of the way there to balancing the budget.
Quote:
raise (or better, eliminate) the cap on FICA taxes
raising the cap will make things worse..the cap on intake have EVERYTHING to do with the PAYOUT

raise the cap will take more in...but also pay much more out...causeing insolvency to happen quicker

Quote:
Now just raise income taxes back to the Clinton levels for anybody with income above $250,000 per year
why 250k...why against the middleclass

years ago the top bracket was on the rich...as defined back then was on houshold income of over 400k...3.5 million in today's dollars

dont hurt the 250k middleclass


Quote:
cut the defense budget
yes cut defense...but cut WELFARE first...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 06:43 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,163,367 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
raising the cap will make things worse..the cap on intake have EVERYTHING to do with the PAYOUT

raise the cap will take more in...but also pay much more out...causeing insolvency to happen quicker
How about we make it then that money above that cap collected in FICA taxes are used for the general SS fund, rather than being counted towards a later payout?


Quote:
why 250k...why against the middleclass

years ago the top bracket was on the rich...as defined back then was on houshold income of over 400k...3.5 million in today's dollars

dont hurt the 250k middleclass
We've had this conversation before. You think that somebody with a higher annual income than about 98% of the rest of the country is middle class. I disagree. But heck, how about keep all income taxes the same, but raise them slightly above the Clinton levels for those making, say $2 or $3 million per year in income?


Quote:
yes cut defense...but cut WELFARE first...
Unless you're counting SS and Medicare as welfare, the defense budget is significantly more of an issue than welfare. Let's prioritize here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top