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.
This guy served as a Democrat in the Florida House and ran for Congress as a Democrat this year.
"Here's what the government isn't going to tell you. When pension funds transition from defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans, the only backing they have is the underlying assets themselves and the company or entity that's responsible for the plans - which in this case would be the U.S. government.
If the prospects of your entire future being placed in the hands of the federal government doesn't scare the daylights out of you after all we've experienced so far, I suspect that nothing will."
That work better for you?Of course all you libs know the LSM won't mention it until they absolutely can't avoid it any longer.
It was just a few days ago that NBC started reporting on the Benghazi scandal, so don't look for the co-conspirators in the complacent lap dog media to say anything about this scam until it's too late for anyone to stop it.
Maybe the "LSM" don't talk about it, because the link is almost three years old, and turned out to be bogus.
Okay -- but if someone works for 20 hours at minimum wage for just 10 years, why should he then be able to retire at age 62 and live to 98 getting a social security check?
Is it fair that many of us started paying in at age 15 or 16, worked at least full time and even worked two jobs and won't retire until we're 70 while others worked as little they possibly could and for as short a time possible?
I think too many are paying in far too little but expect a long retirement.
I think upping the age of retirement is fine, but also they need to require more than 10 short years of working part time to get in on this ponzi scheme.
The guy who works 50 years flipping burgers 40 or more hours a week of course should get his social security checks. Not the one who works just 20 hours a week for 10 years.
They are not all getting the same amount though.
Not every retiree is getting a $2100 check a month.
The payment is based on your salary and how long you worked.
Okay -- but if someone works for 20 hours at minimum wage for just 10 years, why should he then be able to retire at age 62 and live to 98 getting a social security check?
Is it fair that many of us started paying in at age 15 or 16, worked at least full time and even worked two jobs and won't retire until we're 70 while others worked as little they possibly could and for as short a time possible?
I think too many are paying in far too little but expect a long retirement.
I think upping the age of retirement is fine, but also they need to require more than 10 short years of working part time to get in on this ponzi scheme.
The guy who works 50 years flipping burgers 40 or more hours a week of course should get his social security checks. Not the one who works just 20 hours a week for 10 years.
Quote:
The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2012, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,130 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,520, you've earned your four credits for the year.
The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year you become disabled. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits.
I think this will upset a lot of retirees and other people who have established 401k's over the years. I see it as the government not giving you flexibility to do what you want with your own money that you earned over your career at work or by some other means. I think the president will be met with a lot of resistance with this proposal.........Again, since I am new, the forum won't let me post the link in full. Please add the http to the first part of the link................nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89%3A obama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34%3Asocial-security&Itemid=62
State employees in Arkansas have to do a similar thing. It's a b***h. It doesn't surprise us though daddy Obama is finding new ways to control how we spend our money.
Okay -- but if someone works for 20 hours at minimum wage for just 10 years, why should he then be able to retire at age 62 and live to 98 getting a social security check?
Is it fair that many of us started paying in at age 15 or 16, worked at least full time and even worked two jobs and won't retire until we're 70 while others worked as little they possibly could and for as short a time possible?
I think too many are paying in far too little but expect a long retirement.
I think upping the age of retirement is fine, but also they need to require more than 10 short years of working part time to get in on this ponzi scheme.
The guy who works 50 years flipping burgers 40 or more hours a week of course should get his social security checks. Not the one who works just 20 hours a week for 10 years.
I think the standard for earning one Social Security 'credit' (or 'covered quarter') should be a specific number of hours of work, and not a specific number of dollars earned. If that number turns out to be 40 per week, I'm fine with that, but not with a dollar amount of earnings.
Of course, in my world the issue of getting only 29 hours of work per week to avoid Obamacare would be resolved favorably.
I think the standard for earning one Social Security 'credit' (or 'covered quarter') should be a specific number of hours of work, and not a specific number of dollars earned. If that number turns out to be 40 per week, I'm fine with that, but not with a dollar amount of earnings.
Of course, in my world the issue of getting only 29 hours of work per week to avoid Obamacare would be resolved favorably.
This is actually a win for Obamacare. The more businesses that short change their workers by denying health care, the more people become elegible for subsidized health care. Since the original intent of Obamacare was UHC, this brings us closer to it with each business who decides to relinquish that responsibility.
we already have that system no?, social security.? but this would be different?
This would require us to contribute 5 or 10% of our income or how much the government mandates into a retirement program. It would be like a huge tax during our working years but it would pay off in our later years.
I'm not seeing anything on any creditable news sites yet. It seems to be a wild claim made only on right wing blogs so I think it is safe to say this is not creditable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This guy served as a Democrat in the Florida House and ran for Congress as a Democrat this year.
"Here's what the government isn't going to tell you. When pension funds transition from defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans, the only backing they have is the underlying assets themselves and the company or entity that's responsible for the plans - which in this case would be the U.S. government.
If the prospects of your entire future being placed in the hands of the federal government doesn't scare the daylights out of you after all we've experienced so far, I suspect that nothing will."
Of course all you libs know the LSM won't mention it until they absolutely can't avoid it any longer.
It was just a few days ago that NBC started reporting on the Benghazi scandal, so don't look for the co-conspirators in the complacent lap dog media to say anything about this scam until it's too late for anyone to stop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Maybe the "LSM" don't talk about it, because the link is almost three years old, and turned out to be bogus.
Do we have more or less debt than we did in 2010?
In 2012, are the Chinese and Saudis more or less willing to take on more of our exploding debt?
If Democrats were eying private retirement accounts in 2010, they're drolling over them now.
Fitzgerald is a rank and file Democrat who said the same things the "right wing blog" did, so it's hardly an Internet rumor.
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.
