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.
I think what this thread has shown is that there is strong non-idealogical support for SS. That means the politicians will find a solution. The real question is what the cost of that solution will be.
What this thread shows if that our dear 'conservatives' are a bunch of raving socialists when we're talking about their own social benefits. They are only 'conservatives' when it comes to denying benefits from others. Why can't they just collect their checks and leave it at that? Why do they have to run around pretending to be anti-spending and Obama-hating capitalists when they collect government checks every month?
"There is no reason to legislate advantages to citizens at the expense of other citizens".
It appears that one fact escapes the young man.
Every single law that advantages someone disadvantages someone else....every one.
So are you proposing no legislation at all?
I think what this thread has shown is that there is strong non-idealogical support for SS. That means the politicians will find a solution. The real question is what the cost of that solution will be.
I think what you see from most is support for keeping the promises that have been made over many years as taxes have been collected from them. You might get a completely different view if the question is whether or not to continue SS, continue making promises we can't keep, etc.
I think what you see from most is support for keeping the promises that have been made over many years as taxes have been collected from them. You might get a completely different view if the question is whether or not to continue SS, continue making promises we can't keep, etc.
I think that is very fair comment although I suspect that most people see SS as "a good thing". IMHO of course.
The sympathy story about the first women not being able to give her grandchildren more than $20 because i do not give her enough tax dollars makes me sick.
The nerve of her to write such crap! She probably never made enough in her working life to give them more than $20 and she expects tax payers to give her a better lifestyle after-work (one i might add she didn't save for on her own or earn) then she had during her working years??
If she didn't have $20 to give to her grandchildren when she was working.....how much money could she realistically save for retirement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorock99
COLA (Cost of living adjustments) - If inflation doesn't rise you don't get an adjustment, that's how it works, so suck it up, because most of the money these 80 somethings are receiving isn't theirs. The fact they don't seem to comprehend they are welfare recipients is the part that boggles my mind.
The problem with the increases COLA has given them is that it gets taken away with the increase the get charged for Medicare part B.
You're right about the money the 80 something year olds get not being theirs....theirs went to the 80 something year olds when they were working....some of which NEVER paid into social security. When it first started, all the people that received checks, never paid into it....that's why it works the way it does.
Yes, how on earth do the people who calculate cost of living get away with that malarkey of tossing out all the things that have increased significantly in the last year? Are we that far gone as a nation that we just blindly accept it? Stupid question, I know!
It wouldn't be as stupid a question if the premise of it were true, but unfortunately, food and energy costs are still included in CPI-U. The fact that so-called "core inflation" (all items less food and energy) is also tabulated has no effect on any formula that is based on CPI-U. By the way, both food and energy costs have declined over the past year.
Would you rather go with a more optimistic projection? I wonder, because Clinton, Bush and now Obama all acknowledge that SS is going broke. It's out lives we're talking about.
I'd rather that whatever the situation with Social Security, it be approached as necessary in some rational way. Picking out the most pessimistic projection available and then making false or inflammatory statements about it does not meet the standard. When Clinton was recommending that some of the budget surplus that existed when he was President could well be used to further reinforce SS financing, the SS Trustees were projecting that the Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2029. When Bush was trying to steal SS and place it in the competenet hands of Wall Street investment banks, the SS Trutees were projecting that the Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2042. Now with one year of the economic crisis added into their data, it has become 2037. It helps if one understands these numbers well enough to be able to take them for what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Trust me, it's going broke...
I have no reason to trust you, and frankly many reasons not to. You will have to back up your claims with actual fact and logic. No free passes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
...and there will be major tax increases to collect the money to make the payments. Either that, or they won't make the payments. Or we have to come up with something else to make up for the difference.
Depending on the duration of this economic downturn, there may or may not be any actual need for any of the actions you contemplate. We certainly might choose, as we have many times in the past, to make modifications that would help keep SS on course with respect to foreseeable demographic and other conditions, but absent this current mess turning into some Lost Decade or more, the need to do so is no certain thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I have already chosen (about 15 years ago) to go with and aggressive personal saving plan, but I fear even that won't be enough.
The four common sources of retirement security are Social Security, Medicare, employment-based pensions, and personal savings. Those who are in a position to do so are indeed well advised to take good care of the last item in that list.
Boompa why bring politics into this debate. I don't hear any republicans in congress yelling to end this program. In fact they are lock and step with the democrats on expanding government.
Trust me making this political will only result in agreement with those from the opposing aisle.
Let me state for the record i have nothing against the elderly, but i am against the law that supports giving them an advantage over me. This law makes me naturally inclined to be against them, so it is a choice I'm being forced to make, because of unfair/unjust legislation, that has given them an advantage over me. An advantage i do not get.
My real issue as much less to do with the elderly individually, but the fact, that they support such laws. My goal is to eliminate divide and you don't eliminate divide by creating more of it through legislation. People who want to unite individuals seek to tear down laws that give some advantages that other don't enjoy. Making me out to be a hater of the elderly is silly. At some point i hopefully will be an elderly person, but i just believe in freedom and extending freedom equally to everyone. As a citizen I just do not believe there is any law that should give me an advantage over any other citizen. It only leads to unequal outcomes and a country divided.
How do they have an advantage when some of them are barely scraping by?
How do they have an advantage when some of them are barely scraping by?
What American do you know besides those with assets in the top 1%, that aren't scraping by?
The question is what makes this particular group scraping by more derserving of a special legislative advantage than the other 95% of individuals scraping by?
Because they're old? (if you agree they should get it because they are old, then by that simple logic, you are automatically agreeing, younger workers shouldn't save their money and be thirty, because at some point the will get old) - It becomes a never ending cycle to make and actually approve the cradle to the grave mentality that the state (is fully responsible for your well being). It promotes serfdom and is the biggest threat to freedom. Seriously, we are all just lving on a giant plantation called North America.
The Lord of the Estate said to the Vassel (serf), "Resistence is futile" (Fuedalism or Fuedal Society) hehe
Simple Answer is nothing!
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.
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.
