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'm not saying Obama is good for SS/Medicare. He seems nearly as determined as I perceive R/R are to undermine it. But unless I'm reading a lot of garbage from reputable editorialists on the matter it sure seems that R/R will do their level best to destroy it.
You're reading a lot of garbage.
Define "destroy."
I just want to make sure I understand you clearly.....
....some basic facts....
A person making minimum wage all of their life will get $763/month in Social Security benefits. That person is currently paying $96/month in FICA payroll taxes.
If we privatize Social Security....opting to implement what effectively amounts to a "end-of-life-insurance" policy then a minimum wage worker would now be paying $21/month for $500,000 worth of retirement benefits, and would have a monthly retirement income of $1,660.
So, you're saying it is in everyone's best interest that a minimum wage worker pay $96/month instead of $21/month in order to get a benefit of $763/month instead of $1,660/month.
Now, I'm not exactly a math wizard, but my understanding was that...
$96 > $21
$763 < $1,660
....and if I'm wrong, please explain that to me.
Can you explain why people should pay more and get less, instead of paying less and getting more?
Is there some advantage to having the government mail a $763 check instead of a private entity mailing a $1,660 check?
What kind of advantage? Because I'm just not seeing it.
Is the Fear & Threat Routine an advantage?
Because, you know, if it is (an advantage) then I'll ask my doctor if I need to increase the level of Fear & Threat in my life. I would be totally distraught if I wasn't getting the government's daily recommended dose of Fear & Threat in my life.
Living in constant fear and being threatened by my government to cut my Social Security benefits, yeah I can see where I'd be missing out on a lot.
Title 42 United States Code Section 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who— (1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414(a) of this title), (2) has attained age 62, and (3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416(l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
If the government's program is so good, maybe we should have government auto insurance and government home-owner's insurance.
Social Security is not a retirement plan; not an hedge fund; not a money market account; not a pension plan; not a savings plan; and not a 401(k) plan.
It is an insurance plan....which does not require government involvement.
And if privatizing Social Security so that someone earning minimum wage can pay $21 each month as a premium instead of $96 in FICA taxes in order to receive $1,660 from the insurance plan instead of $763 from the government....
...amounts to destroying Social Security in someone's bizarrely differently twisted mind, then yes, let's destroy Social Security.
It's really sad how brainwashed you Obama lovers really are. Obama has done NOTHING in his 4 years in office to help save SS and Medicare. He has no plan, congress hasn't had a budget in over 3 years. Obama has done nothing but try and spend his way out of this, and has added 6 trillion dollars in new debt in less then 4 years. The bottom line is that Obama has no plan to save SS and Medicare, has no plan on how to turn this economy around, has no plan to fix anything. Before you start saying what Romney is going to do, maybe you should look at what your president has done...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
You know, Mike, you should really try reading the posts that come after the OP instead of just reading the OP and then jumping to the end of the thread. I have said repeatedly here that I am no fan of Obama and am acutely aware that he poses nearly as dire a threat to SS/Medicare as does R/R. I just feel that R/R are the bigger wrecking ball, but I do not absolve Obama of his culpability in undermining the programs.
By the way:
Quote:
So, with Romney-Ryan, we will have to start finding more money for Medicare very, very soon.
But, here's the rub: Both Romney and Ryan have pledged to Grover Norquist that they would never, ever, ever, raise any taxes on anyone. So, raising Medicare taxes is out.
Here's another rub: they are determined to provide the wealthy with about a $4T tax cut. And, they are going to increase defense spending.
So, there is only one place left to go -- Medicare itself. By first repealing the PPCA, Romney-Ryan will force themselves to... end Medicare for all seniors, including those currently being covered.
OK, we are going hear more lies about $700B cut from Medicare because of ObamaCare. That $700B is savings in payments to hospitals and other providers (other than physicians) negotiated as part of the health care deal plus elimination of over-payments under a program called "Medicare Advantage" that did not work.
No one's benefits were reduced or eliminated. No money went from Medicare to ObamaCare.
I just want to make sure I understand you clearly.....
....some basic facts....
A person making minimum wage all of their life will get $763/month in Social Security benefits. That person is currently paying $96/month in FICA payroll taxes.
If we privatize Social Security....opting to implement what effectively amounts to a "end-of-life-insurance" policy then a minimum wage worker would now be paying $21/month for $500,000 worth of retirement benefits, and would have a monthly retirement income of $1,660.
So, you're saying it is in everyone's best interest that a minimum wage worker pay $96/month instead of $21/month in order to get a benefit of $763/month instead of $1,660/month.
Now, I'm not exactly a math wizard, but my understanding was that...
$96 > $21
$763 < $1,660
....and if I'm wrong, please explain that to me.
End-of-life-insurance covers burial expenses.
Just saying.....
If you are 54 today, and they eliminate SS, there is NO PLAN out there which will get you a $1660 check for $21 payment.
This country cannot be led to where it will not go. Period.
That explains two things: why Obama will lose, and why the Republicans would not destroy Social Security even if they swept all branches of government.
"Medicare as we know it" by the way, is dead as a doornail. Obamacare kills it, the Ryan plan kills it, no matter who wins, the "open checkbook" policy of the health system showering money on the medical system for torturing old people is done with.
The op assumes a conclusion without providing a cause and effect rationale to support the accusations.
Just simply, all claims by R/R are lies.
It assumes that just like in Obamaworld, any change ignores the supporting structure of the economy and simply cuts it off.
no transition, no explanation, just mandatory suffering for the cause and some theoretical, yet to be described, version of an ideal global society.
Obama redifines terms to make make problems appear or go away. SS and medicare will go away either by the magic of rhetoriic or be exchanged for some yet to be revealed grand plan Andy Stern dreams up and hands to obama.
I hope SS and medicare do go away and are replaced with something better.
The OP sounds like an advocate for horse drawn carts at a time when automobiles were being introduced. "It was good enough for grandad so its good enough for me!!"
Perish the thought that in the future a better way may be created to surpass a system founded in the 1930s. At least R/R won't be destroying lives and the economy as has been obama's demonstrated way to achieve change.
Perhaps you never heard people on SS or medicare will not be affected if you are already there or about to enroll. Sure all lies. Guess as an obama supporter, lies are a way of life and the assumption is everyone is lying.
True - and I never stated that the amount would cover the entire cost either.
But the principle is the same - is it really too much to ask for people to salt a little cash away instead of depending on government "entitlements"?
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.
