Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 08-12-2012, 02:03 AM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,108,411 times
Reputation: 2949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
So, work is still required to take out welfare?
Don't forget, they only have to pretend to be looking for work in order to qualify. That could mean turning down interviews and applying for jobs that they will never get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2012, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,108,411 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
How do you require welfare folks to work in an economy where U-6 is 15 percent? Specifically, how do you require them to work when millions of Americans can't find jobs?

Is there a government program that provides jobs specifically to welfare recipients? If there is, millions of unemployed folks will be powerful sore.
Just wondering if you realize that part of the reason so many are unemployed is b/c they refuse to take jobs that are "lower" than they "deserve." It's easier to sit on welfare/UE than go flip burgers, apparently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 02:52 AM
 
Location: not Chicagoland
1,202 posts, read 1,251,420 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
The government the last few decades has been stealing all the contributions from SS into the general fund.
MAYBE if SS is privatized we can stop the theft of SS contributions by our government.
What do you folks think of that?

I wouldn't mind if SS was where it is now IF THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T MAKE A THEFT OF IT.
So then a corporation (probably multiple) could make more billions off of our livelihoods another way? And because they care so much about people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 03:18 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,800,976 times
Reputation: 7706
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
If Bush had his way back in 2005, there'd be no social security today. It would have disappeared into the Wall St ledgers in September of 2008.
That's absurd. Only five percent of contributions
could be invested in one of three safe instruments.
Over time the funds privately invested would
outperform Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 08:05 AM
 
4,278 posts, read 5,176,247 times
Reputation: 2375
It is too late to do much about SS other than raise the retirement age(never happen), raise tax limit, (most likely), and go after fraud. (government to inept to solve this problem)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 09:49 AM
 
11,411 posts, read 7,800,858 times
Reputation: 21923
Why not do the following?

Remove SS funds from the general fund. No more "borrowing" of funds for other uses.

Remove the cap on earnings. People want higher earners to pay more taxes and this way they do.

Increase retirement age. Been done before. I figure if I already have to work until 68 for full benefits, I can make it to 69 or 70.

Increase the SS tax percent. Been done before and if we did all of the above the percent increase wouldn't be nearly as large as the last increase.

Do these things in combination and SS will be around for our kids and grandkids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 10:17 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,036,965 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
OK, where is the repayment by government supposed to come from?
One would think that the answer would be fairly obvious, taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 10:19 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,036,965 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
That's absurd. Only five percent of contributions
could be invested in one of three safe instruments.
Over time the funds privately invested would
outperform Social Security.
What would those "safe" instruments be seeing that nothing has been "safe" from the financial markets as any pension fund manager will tell you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2012, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,800,976 times
Reputation: 7706
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
What would those "safe" instruments be seeing that nothing has been "safe" from the financial markets as any pension fund manager will tell you.
It was a good plan. I wish I had been able to participate in it.
Bush's plan for Social Security - Mar. 4, 2005


Quote:
How would individual accounts work? The accounts would be modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan -- a 401-k type program that is already available to government employees -- and centrally administered by the government.

Workers would have a choice of five broadly diversified index funds and a lifecycle fund, in which the portfolio grows more conservative as the investor nears retirement.

"We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement," the president said in his speech. Specifically, when a worker turns 47 the account will automatically be invested in the lifecycle fund unless the worker and his or her spouse sign a waiver opting out.

In terms of fees, the Social Security Administration estimates the administrative cost per account will be 0.3 percentage points.

Money in the accounts could not be taken out or borrowed before retirement. At retirement, it's likely workers would have to annuitize a portion and only take out a lump sum if doing so would not result in the worker moving below the poverty line. Any unused portion of the account could be left to heirs.
Long term investment has always paid off in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,258,566 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
The gov't can replace what it steals? You mean with more taxpayer money?
He doesn't understand that they can't tax us to get that $3+ trillion swiftly to pay off what they owe us.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top