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.
No, I was thinking more along the lines of they have been paying out agreed upon, scheduled retirement benefits for 75 years and never missed a payment yet. What are the odds they will miss next month's payment?
FYI:, I'm very familiar with your whole spiel on how, technically, it isn't THIS or it isn't THAT and all that you cite to prove you're right, that it is just some ponzi shell game. All your scenarios are future, doom and gloom projections designed to convince people to kill the entire program. I deal in what HAS happened in the past and what IS happening today. Social Security has been reformed twice since it's inception to keep pace with changing demographics and future recipients demands. It has also never missed a payment to any individual who was due one in it's entire history. It can be fixed with another adjustment to accomodate current and future recipients. I don't think anyone is buying your doom and gloom scenarios which you constantly post on the Social Security Threads.
Great post, I too have no interest in seeing Social Security dissolved. It can be reformed, have the age limit raised, or whatever, but this is a program we all pay into so that it will be there for us when we hit retirement years. Anyone who is interest in getting rid of this program are the people I stop listening to because they are no longer worth my time to listen to them.
Great post, I too have no interest in seeing Social Security dissolved. It can be reformed, have the age limit raised, or whatever, but this is a program we all pay into so that it will be there for us when we hit retirement years. Anyone who is interest in getting rid of this program are the people I stop listening to because they are no longer worth my time to listen to them.
No one has discussed getting rid of the program, so if you stopped listening, then maybe you never were.
The fact that they can raise the age limit, reform it, directly disproves that we've paid into it so it'll be there.
Money you pay into something is there FOR YOU, and not subject to reform.. Thats why Social Security IS WELFARE.
Social security needs to be reformed, either increase doanations or cut benefits or both but the longer they wait the bigger the problem becomes.
By the way social security was supposed to be a retirement stipend, not a sole source income as some have come to expect. There have been some that are reliant on SS through misfortune, but there are many that never saved for their retirement.
Most Americans are under the impression that just because they paid into SS it gave them the right to collect benefits for the rest of their lives. The common line goes, "I paid for SS. I have a right to be paid benefits."
Here's the language from the original bill, of the Social Security Act of 1935, that shoots holes in their dreams of unfettered checks from the govt until they die. It's from Section 1104:
Moreover, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) the Supreme Court "established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right." In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Harlan wrote:
"What this means is that payroll taxpayers have no right to Social Security benefits whatsoever; they are owed nothing; they have no contractual rights, no ownership -- and no recourse should Congress end the program."
Ryan talks about keeping people over 55 on SS and weaning the young off it. Many of us suspect that underneath all this political hay is a devious Republican plan to eliminate SS/Medicare as quickly and stealthily as possible for both young AND old--and the sooner, the better.
All of that is true, but here is the problem, the voters are supposed to be the boss, and any congress that votes to take away the majority of the populations benefits, will not long stand.
I think eventually the government will establish a basic income level for retired people. It take in many different factors, 401/pension/S/S/ IRA etc...say 2200 is what they say a retired person needs and if you have 4000 coming in, they will deduct your S/S check 1st. So in a way, it will punish those that saved, worked hard etc..and reward those that did not.
I think eventually the government will establish a basic income level for retired people. It take in many different factors, 401/pension/S/S/ IRA etc...say 2200 is what they say a retired person needs and if you have 4000 coming in, they will deduct your S/S check 1st. So in a way, it will punish those that saved, worked hard etc..and reward those that did not.
The only problem with social security is that its given to people at way to young of an age.
Life expectancy when it was enacted was 62. We've raised that to 65 over all these years. But life expectancy is up over 70.
Thats the problem with social security, not that it lacks money, not that its welfare. It was designed to help families of elderly americans take care of them when they could no longer physically work.
I see a lot of 68 year olds who can physically work.
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.
