No social security check anymore (border, lobbyists, lobby, school)

[Nirvana-Guy]

Originally Posted by amichel

I would even go so far as to say that I would forfeit any and all rights to social security to be allowed to invest even a third of what they are now stealing from me for my own retirement.

Oh, I think most people would. But the Dems have politicizing the issue for votes, saying seniors will starve if they allow people to put 1/3 of their cash into a private savings account.

The truth is the DEms want to CONTROL people, therefore, they need people to be dependent on the government, begging the government for scraps off their table. That is NOT what SS was there to do. It was Depression-era relief, NOT a retirement plan/welfare for illegals plan.

Therefore, this system is doomed to fail and it continues to rip off people like myself, who pay knowing I will NOT be able to collect $1 for all the thousands they have STOLEN from me.

Originally Posted by Nirvana-Guy

I agree. I get so mad everytime I see hundreds of Dollars being STOLEN from my paycheck every paycheck for Social Security. We all know SS is going bankrupt anyway as millions are on welfare, millions of illegal aliens live off SS, and the system was never designed to be a retirement plan in the first place!!

I want to put my money in the private sector (regulated, to prevent fraud and schemes) because SS is a loser for people who are under 50 years old.

Originally Posted by Greatday

Yep - I agree. And, I did just that. No Medicare either -

Originally Posted by amichel

FORCED Ponzi schemes can last indefinitely!

Yes they can...

Originally Posted by amichel

Eventually, the people at the end of the pyramid don't get anything.

That is what is going to happen to all us idiots who continue to pay for SS and are under 50. We won't get $1 from this crappy system.

Originally Posted by Greatday

Another strange thing about social security: You pay into it so you can get your money out - then, the government taxes you on the benifits you get -

Almost sounds like double taxation

It is double taxation! Thank John Kerry and Ted Kennedy for levying taxes on top of SS that seniors receive. That is their idea.

That is double taxation all the way. These guys want to tax you when you are DEAD, what do you expect?!? With the Death tax, it would be TRIPLE taxation!!

[Moth]

Even under pessimistic forecasting assumptions, Social Security is rock solid through 2041. Social Security came into being at about 3:30 in the afternoon on Wednesday, August 14, 1935...

About as rock solid as quicksand. Of course compared to Medicare/Medicaid, its Gibraltar.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Greatday

"Rock Solid"? I don't think so

What you think doesn't change the facts. And if you don't know the facts, there's no telling what you might think...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Another strange thing about social security: You pay into it so you can get your money out - then, the government taxes you on the benifits you get - Almost sounds like double taxation

Means-testing. Many don't like it. It only kicks in if you have significant income aside from your SS benefits. But we have quite a few things that are subject to means-testing within the tax structure. Deductability of IRA contributions, child-care credits, personal exemptions, itemized deductions. You probably have to oppose all of them if you want to oppose any of them...

[Moth]

The facts, in a nutshell, is that a demographic bump is going to deprive a great many people of any Social Security despite having contributed all their lives. Studies by economists and think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum have verified this time and time again. Even politicians on both sides of the fence acknowlege this although partisanship prevents them from acting responsibly.

Aging populations and increased life spans are straining such schemes in multiple arenas- the Big Three car makers, European welfare states and the American welfare states. There is no getting around this fact.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Moth

The facts, in a nutshell, is that a demographic bump is going to deprive a great many people of any Social Security despite having contributed all their lives.

Absolute falsehood. The bulge constituted by baby-boomer retirements is exactly why they have been building up, since the early days of their working careers, the substantial reserve that is represented in the SS Trust Fund. This reserve will comfortably carry SS past the point when the last baby boomer departs the planet.

Originally Posted by Moth

Studies by economists and think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum have verified this time and time again. Even politicians on both sides of the fence acknowlege this although partisanship prevents them from acting responsibly.

Only lobbyists for Big Money make such claims. The analyses of CBO, SSA, and numerous actually independent analysts routinely belie these claims.

Originally Posted by Moth

Aging populations and increased life spans are straining such schemes in multiple arenas- the Big Three car makers, European welfare states and the American welfare states. There is no getting around this fact.

You are not arguing strain. You are arguing a particular, and in this case imaginary, effect that you wish to attribute to such strain.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Moth

The facts, in a nutshell, is that a demographic bump is going to deprive a great many people of any Social Security despite having contributed all their lives. Studies by economists and think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum have verified this time and time again. Even politicians on both sides of the fence acknowlege this although partisanship prevents them from acting responsibly.

Aging populations and increased life spans are straining such schemes in multiple arenas- the Big Three car makers, European welfare states and the American welfare states. There is no getting around this fact.

I'm more in Saganista's camp on the SS issue, though I believe the system needs a series of formula "tweaks" to survive long term. I support the basic objective of the program, though I understand the concerns of posters who wish to privatize part of the contributions. If folks were assured that they would ultimately receive their anticipated benefits, perhaps they would be more willing to critically analyze the program. If certain they will ultimately be ripped off, I would agree with their resentment. I just don't think that is inevitable.

By "tweaking" the program I mean things such as; altering what conditions qualify for benefits, raising or eliminating the cap on salaries requiring contribution, means testing benefits for wealthy retired folks, upping the tax contribution amounts by a 1/4% and/or altering the formula for annual benefit increases. One or all of the above might be necessary for long term benefits to be payable.

You mention that multiple think tanks have determined future beneficiaries would be deprived of benefits under the current direction. The study I'm most aware of is the Congressional Budget Office (below), do you have any other analytical studies to reference (not second source or blogs)?

Testimony on the Future of Social Security

[grew-up-3rd-culture]

Originally Posted by ontheroad

I think you should raise this issue when you are around 62, and then think about cat food.

Listen. A banana is 25¢. A grapefruit is 97¢ and a can of tuna is 60¢. All are healthier than cat food.

[Moth]

Absolute falsehood. The bulge constituted by baby-boomer retirements is exactly why they have been building up, since the early days of their working careers, the substantial reserve that is represented in the SS Trust Fund. This reserve will comfortably carry SS past the point when the last baby boomer departs the planet.

That presupposes that funds collected by Uncle Sam are deposited into a special bank account dedicated to Social Security. That is a falsehood as the fund are spent immediatly on all the things, both necessary and absurd, that government squanders money. "Trust funds" and "reserves" exist only as debits and credits on a government spreadsheet.

Only lobbyists for Big Money make such claims. The analyses of CBO, SSA, and numerous actually independent analysts routinely belie these claims.

No, people who look soberly at the situation make these claims. Think Tanks are not lobbyists for Big Money (what is Big Money anyway?). Economists such as Robert Samuelson and the late Milton Friedman are or were not lobbyists.

CBO and SSA? Two government entities. Is this the same government that cannot figure out Iraq, cannot rebuild New Orleans, cannot balance a budget to save their life, cannot protect a border, cannot deliver the mail, and spends $100 for a hammer? No chance that two groups of useless bureacrats would not tell a bunch of others exactly what they wanted to hear? Nah, government never, ever lies.

You are not arguing strain. You are arguing a particular, and in this case imaginary, effect that you wish to attribute to such strain.

I am not imagining anything. If Social Security were like the TVA, that rare, once in a lifetime government program that actually worked well, I would be all for it. The fact of the matter is it did work for a time, but now conditions have changed. These changes are real and must be addressed. It is far from an impossible situation and can indeed be remedied with a series of reforms. Except for the fact that denial has led to politicians playing games with it.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by saganista

Means-testing. Many don't like it. It only kicks in if you have significant income aside from your SS benefits. But we have quite a few things that are subject to means-testing within the tax structure. Deductability of IRA contributions, child-care credits, personal exemptions, itemized deductions. You probably have to oppose all of them if you want to oppose any of them...

"Significant income"? Try fiftenn/twenty grand. Man, you are shameless.

And no one "probably" has to oppose anything. We're not talking income tax. We're talking Social Security, remember?

Sheesh.