End Social Security

[Pr0d1gy]

I'd rather we just end non-stop trolling by you and your ilk.

 

[schneiderguy]

Keep up the good work Incorruptible. Don't mind the shaming tactics by the libruls that disagree with you. Their goal in politics and on AT P&N is to silence the opposition by any means necessary.

 

[shira]

Its hard to stay out of other peoples lives when they want government in mine and there idiotic choices affect me.

End ss completely

And all those people, now retired, who (along with their employer) paid into SS for 45 or 50 years and funded the SS payments of those who came before? You're just going to end SS and fuck them over?

How fair of you.

OR

Let people opt out and get back anything they paid in and must a sign a waiver never asking for government again, unless government screws up the economy

And you're going to pay them back how much money, exactly? If someone and their company each paid $1000 in SS taxes in 1970, are you going to pay them back $1000, $2000, or the $11,923 (the buying power in 2012 of $2000 in 1970)? If you pay them $1000 or $2000, you're STEALING from them. Again, how fair of you.

 

[schneiderguy]

And all those people, now retired, who (along with their employer) paid into SS for 45 or 50 years and funded the SS payments of those who came before? You're just going to end SS and fuck them over?

How fair of you.

The same people who voted for the idiots that ran up a $16 trillion national debt?

They don't deserve a dime.

 

[First]

The same people who voted for the idiots that ran up a $16 trillion national debt?

They don't deserve a dime.

No one voted specifically for a $16T debt, libertopian. Just as people who voted for Ron Paul didn't vote for him to not pass a single bill or have any impact on legislation in his quarter century in Congress.

Or maybe they did. Libertarians are a variegated and confused bunch.

 

[marvdmartian]

Seeing as, in order for me to collect any decent (promised but unlikely) amount, I have to wait almost 2 more decades, I'm not too far from agreeing with the OP.

SS was a great idea, when it came about, because it actually helped people to save for their future, without giving them a choice. The government said, "We're going to take this money and invest it, and you'll reap a benefit from it some day". I have yet to ever hear anyone complain about getting LESS out of SS than they put in, unless they died before collecting.

But then the politicians saw that steadily growing lump of money, and couldn't keep their hands out of it. They "borrowed", and promised it would be paid back, and that SS would remain solvent.

Then they decided that people that were disabled, and unable to work, should be able to partake of it too. Unfortunately, you can't get something for nothing, and when they wrote the law, the politicians left some HUGE loopholes, that were taken advantage of for more than a few years, before they were closed up again. And we had less money to go around, because they didn't increase the withholding, or come up with a new program, to cover the disability payouts.

And the politicians kept borrowing from the pot, with more promises they knew would never be kept (but didn't care, because they'd be retired, and well off, long before anyone was affected).

Now you have a huge group of people who are taking from the pot, and the pot isn't growing nearly as fast as it used to. We have fewer people working (and more on "entitlements", NOT including SS), we have fewer people in the age groups that can work, and we have, for the most part, lower wages (which leads to lower withholdings to pay into the pot). We've even cut back on the amount of withholdings, in order to try to boost the economy back out of a foolish recession.

Worst of all, we have generations of people who have paid steadily, over decades of their lives, who will likely never see the full benefit of their investment in SS. Personally, I paid in over $2200, so far this year, at the lower withholding rate, and the year's not yet over. At the regular rate, my annual withholding is closer to $3000. I've worked for over 3 decades, so far, and (like I said earlier) have almost 2 left, and will have worked 5 full decades, if I decide to take SS at the age of 67.

And, quite frankly, I don't expect that fund to have enough money left in it, at that time, to pay me much more than beer money every month.

So how do you think a 20-something year old, with a long time left before they can collect SS, is going to feel about the program?? :hmm:

 

[Incorruptible]

Keep up the good work Incorruptible. Don't mind the shaming tactics by the libruls that disagree with you. Their goal in politics and on AT P&N is to silence the opposition by any means necessary.

Thanks! I know that big government supporters will always try to attack me and use name calling since they have no arguments.

SS shouldn't have been created, people should be responsible for their own retirement and life not the government. People should be able to opt out of SS since the government has no right to force them into it.

One important thing too many idiots forget is that we had a a group of people who voted for all this and other entitlements BUT they didnt pay for it and handed the cost down to their grandchildren and later generations. This is just wrong and pathetic from these people.

 

[hal2kilo]

I've been contributing to Social Security for over 40 years.



Get off my lawn, punk!

+:thumbsup:

 

[schneiderguy]

No one voted specifically for a $16T debt

I didn't say they did. They did, however, vote for people who have shown they cannot be trusted to keep a balanced budget.

The rest of your post is an irrelevant personal attack so I won't even respond to it.

 

[shira]

Seeing as, in order for me to collect any decent (promised but unlikely) amount, I have to wait almost 2 more decades, I'm not too far from agreeing with the OP.

SS was a great idea, when it came about, because it actually helped people to save for their future, without giving them a choice. The government said, "We're going to take this money and invest it, and you'll reap a benefit from it some day". I have yet to ever hear anyone complain about getting LESS out of SS than they put in, unless they died before collecting.

But then the politicians saw that steadily growing lump of money, and couldn't keep their hands out of it. They "borrowed", and promised it would be paid back, and that SS would remain solvent.

Then they decided that people that were disabled, and unable to work, should be able to partake of it too. Unfortunately, you can't get something for nothing, and when they wrote the law, the politicians left some HUGE loopholes, that were taken advantage of for more than a few years, before they were closed up again. And we had less money to go around, because they didn't increase the withholding, or come up with a new program, to cover the disability payouts.

And the politicians kept borrowing from the pot, with more promises they knew would never be kept (but didn't care, because they'd be retired, and well off, long before anyone was affected).

Now you have a huge group of people who are taking from the pot, and the pot isn't growing nearly as fast as it used to. We have fewer people working (and more on "entitlements", NOT including SS), we have fewer people in the age groups that can work, and we have, for the most part, lower wages (which leads to lower withholdings to pay into the pot). We've even cut back on the amount of withholdings, in order to try to boost the economy back out of a foolish recession.

Worst of all, we have generations of people who have paid steadily, over decades of their lives, who will likely never see the full benefit of their investment in SS. Personally, I paid in over $2200, so far this year, at the lower withholding rate, and the year's not yet over. At the regular rate, my annual withholding is closer to $3000. I've worked for over 3 decades, so far, and (like I said earlier) have almost 2 left, and will have worked 5 full decades, if I decide to take SS at the age of 67.

And, quite frankly, I don't expect that fund to have enough money left in it, at that time, to pay me much more than beer money every month.

So how do you think a 20-something year old, with a long time left before they can collect SS, is going to feel about the program?? :hmm:

Yours isn't an argument to end SS; it's an argument to reform it. Honestly, even if NOTHING were changed and the "demographic cliff" occurs, SS would be able to pay out 72% of its obligations.

As I wrote above, SS is easily fixable. The real "problem" is that throughout its history, SS ran significant surpluses which were not only easy money to fund the U.S. government, but starting the Nixon or Johnson the SS surplus was "netted" with the general budget, making the overall deficit seem smaller. This sleight of hand disguised the true size of the yearly deficit and made it easier for all sorts of mischief to occur (as in cutting taxes, starting and fighting expensive wars, and expanding social programs). If the true size of the yearly deficit had been left obvious to the average (read: incredibly stupid and uninformed) American, it's VERY likely that our current income tax rates would be higher.

Of course, SS is now no longer running a surplus. It's begun to draw down the SS trust fund. But there is no fund; all the money is in a special class of T-bills that must be paid back out of general revenues. So not only is the true size of our budget deficits now no longer being hidden, the budget deficit is being exaggerated because the money is flowing in the opposite direct - from the general fund into SS. And THAT is why there's so much sturm un drang about SS right now.

But as I said, SS is easily fixed. Unfortunately, it's dangerous for spineless politicians to mess with the finances of old people.

 

[unokitty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlblduvPeCs

Social security is stealing from the young to give to the poor.

You realize that this is quite analogous to the principle behind Obama Care where the young pay more to subsidize the old. Right?

See:
Should Your Kids Subsidize My Grandmother's Health Care?

Two points.
One
If you are a young male, you have to pay more for car insurance because young males get in more accidents.

Two
If you are an old person, you will use more health care services than young people. But you don't have to pay more because Obama care dictates that young people have to pay more to subsidize the services that old people use.

How cool is that?

Uno

 

[WHAMPOM]

I have no problem with the people paying into it and getting it back but have the younger generations opt out and refund them whatever they put in.

End social security. Social Security is a ponzi scheme

No it is a PAY-GO system, simply adjust collections to match payments and overhead without a surplus and it is golden. That would keep the greedy politicians from giving the rich tax breaks on the backs of the working man.

 

[Siddhartha]

Let people suffer from there own actions. I shouldn't have to pay for this nonsense.

End social security and get those lazy leeches off of it now

I have found that people who can write this statement are incapable of understanding the purpose and worth of having a social safety net. That is until they need it. How many big government, FERMA, etc haters are there now located on New Jersey's coast that was hit by Hurrican Sandy?

 

[Incorruptible]

I have found that people who can write this statement are incapable of understanding the purpose and worth of having a social safety net. That is until they need it. How many big government, FERMA, etc haters are there now located on New Jersey's coast that was hit by Hurrican Sandy?

You do realize that Fema caused more harm than good and private charity is much more efficient than Fema

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPlAeexNlzs

 

[michal1980]

medicare is even worse

 

[michal1980]

Social Security only needs minor changes to make it sustainable indefinately.

One is to slightly raise the retirement to 69.5 for those under 50.

The other is raise/do away with the cap what income is taxed for FICA purposes.

SS should NOT be means tested like the republicans want to do and everyone should have to pay the % on all income no matter the income level. Republicans only want to means test so they can justify the rich only paying FICA taxes on income only up to ~$105k or whatever its currently set at.

theres also a limit on payouts.

but you idiots on the left never mention that. once the evil rich(now down to 100k make you evil rich). hit that limit, they no longer pay for SS but there payout also doesn't grow.

 

[Incorruptible]

medicare is even worse

It is which is why these programs must be ended

 

[Darwin333]

The reason the ROI on SS is so low is to avoid things like that.

SS has an ROI at all? I know we loan it to ourselves and pay ourselves interest........ but isn't that like taking a $20 out of your left pocket and putting it into your right pocket and claiming to be richer? Thats not even mentioning inflation....

 

[techs]

End Social Security?

Yes, please post these kinds of threads as frequently as possible.
Nothing says vote Democratic like talking about ending Social Security.
Oh, and look for the Democrats to propose a Constitutional amendment to ensure Social Securitys survival.
I would love to see Republicans try and vote against it.

 

[First]

I didn't say they did. They did, however, vote for people who have shown they cannot be trusted to keep a balanced budget.

People vote for representatives that don't always do things they agree with because by nature there is no such thing as a representative that is 100% aligned with a voter's every view. Making your original point entirely pointless and frankly stupid.

The rest of your post is an irrelevant personal attack so I won't even respond to it.

I was just letting you know the reality of your party and your personal Christ, Ron Paul, to delineate exactly what a rep who doesn't do the most basic task his constituency demands of him, looks like.

 

[schneiderguy]

People vote for representatives that don't always do things they agree with because by nature there is no such thing as a representative that is 100% aligned with a voter's every view. Making your original point entirely pointless and frankly stupid.

A rational person would change their voting behavior if their views did not match with those of the people they keep voting for.

If the voters were concerned about the budget deficit and its impact on future generations, they would have not voted for the people who keep making it bigger.

Saying "I want a balanced budget" means nothing if you don't vote that way; either you don't really care about a balanced budget, or it is lower on your priorities than "gib me more free stuffs plz". Either way, the masses that keep voting in Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the budget mess.

I was just letting you know the reality of your party and your personal Christ, Ron Paul, to delineate exactly what a rep who doesn't do the most basic task his constituency demands of him, looks like.

One person cannot get legislation passed by himself. If he kept getting elected his constituency obviously thought he was doing a good job.

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but the government does not need to be constantly passing new laws to be doing a good job. More laws usually creates problems, rather than solving the issues they were intended to fix.

 

[schneiderguy]

I have found that people who can write this statement are incapable of understanding the purpose and worth of having a social safety net. That is until they need it. How many big government, FERMA, etc haters are there now located on New Jersey's coast that was hit by Hurrican Sandy?

The absence of government run safety nets does not mean there will be an absence of safety nets.

If people want a safety net (Retirement insurance?) they would be free to purchase it. If they don't, they are free to do what they want with their money instead of having 15% taken out of every paycheck.

 

[Exterous]

And, quite frankly, I don't expect that fund to have enough money left in it, at that time, to pay me much more than beer money every month.

So how do you think a 20-something year old, with a long time left before they can collect SS, is going to feel about the program?? :hmm:

Well - as a 20-something year old with a long time left before I can collect SS I look forward to a defined benefit to supplement my retirement savings. I think a lot of 20 somethings get caught up in the 'it ain't gonna be there' fever and don't take to heart the fact that SS is easily fixable and, even if it isn't fixed, you will still (barring some drastic detrimental event) be able to get most of your benefits.

The absence of government run safety nets does not mean there will be an absence of safety nets.

If people want a safety net (Retirement insurance?) they would be free to purchase it. If they don't, they are free to do what they want with their money instead of having 15% taken out of every paycheck.

I think there are two problems with that:
1) Young people have shown little willingness to save for retirement even though most claim the safety net won't be there. If they really think the safety net isn't going to be there shouldn't they be socking away money during the years compounding interest is going to do the most work for them? To me this shows an inherent inability to long term plan necessitating a safety net to coddle the masses of financially ignorant. You could say 'their fault - let them fail' but you have to realize its ~70% of the country that isn't saving enough for retirement. Good luck with a vote that will result in 70% of the country having to bear the responsibility of their financial ineptitude.

2) Who is the 'retirement insurance' going to be through? Some company? A company that could go bankrupt? Annuities aren't exactly new but they don't have the same backing that SS does (No 'full faith and credit' here). In any good portfolio you diversify to avoid risk. IMO SS diversifies against the bankruptcy risk* while an annuity would diversify against a legislative act removing/diminishing your SS payout. Also there are many types of annuities that offer really piss poor plans. If most Americans can't be bothered with the much easier task of saving for retirement do you think most of them would be able to pick a good annuity or retirement insurance plan?

*While I am not aware of any annuities that have gone completely bankrupt I believe there have been examples where payments were temporarily reduced or stopped due to bankruptcy or liquidity issues

 

[HomerJS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlblduvPeCs

Social security is stealing from the young to give to the poor. It is robbing the younger generations especially since there will be nothing left for them. People shoudl be able to plan there own future and save by themselves not the government stealing from them.

People need to be self reliant instead of on the government. As well Social security is bankrupting this country and is wrong.

Do you agree that social security must be ended?

Only for Muslims!

 

[Meghan54]

"Social security has nothing to do with the deficit."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI&feature=player_embedded