Social Security: Years of screwing the poor workers

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

Thanks for the usual lameness, CSG. Boomers have taken good care of their elders through SS contributions, even paid it forward, built up a Trust surplus in excess of $2T, as prompted to do so by that semi-mythical demigod of the Rightwing, Ronald Reagan himself.

He cut top tier taxes even as he raised SS contributions on the rest of us, sponsored and approved huge deficits, too. His ideological heir, GWB, did us all even worse, cutting top tier taxes again and papering over the whole issue of federal revenues with even more borrowing, spending, war, terrar!, gay marriage, ownership society, values and whatever else titillated the fools into voting republican.

Which is why so-called "conservatives" are thrashing around helplessly- the current situation is of their making, their malignant baby, no matter how much they'd like to blame somebody, anybody, else. DNA confirms it- it's in the genes of their policy of plutocracy.

The only trickledown we'll ever get is the warm wet feeling of them pissing down our leg as they tell us it's raining...

 

[senseamp]

SS will be there if we want it there. I sure as hell am going to vote for politicians who'll give me mine.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Right-wing blather deleted, this is about your sig tag line

A Member of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

You are not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', you are a *dupe* of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

You can't be a member unless you are one of the powerful groups who are manipulating the dupes to serve their interests.

Rupert Murdoch is a member, Richard Mellon Scaife is a member, at least some WSJ editors are members, and many other right-wing media figures and power power brokers.

Read some of the many books on the actual history of the source of the quote - the right-wing figures who conspired against the President - for a list of who they were (and are).

You are not one of them, any more than someone who loves shopping at Wal-Mart is a member of the Walton family. You're just one who helps them.

...someone is off his meds again...

lol "right wing blather" is warning people to not count on SS and tell people that if you are under the age of 30 to save for your own retirement. IE being responsible for yourself. Apparently only right wingers seem to know that, GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

FFS Craig there are 10+ threads talking about record government deficit spending.

Everyone with a brain knows that SS is the world's biggest ponzi scheme and with the baby boomers begining to retire, we will see the ponzi fall apart within the next 10-20 years. The only differences between a typical ponzi scheme and SS is: we know it's a ponzi scheme; however, we are still forced into it. Think of the money Madoff would have lost if he could have put a gun to peoples heads to give him more money.

Government's only solution will be to tax more--which should mean people get more since SS is a forced retirement account, but won't because well that's government--and/or cut benifits. So are we better off saving our money in our name (away from politicians) and face a drop of 30% of the value in one of the worst recessions in America or pay more for SS and get far, far less (if anything)?

You're posting lies, that I don't think you know are lies. You are strident about them, which makes any interaction annoying.

You don't know what the hell a Ponzi scheme is, for a start. Why don't you point me to any of the countless people convicect for fraud in Ponzi schemes who paid out over 70 years?

Calling it a Ponzi scheme is dishonest hyperbole that great exaggerates some of the issues that arise from the demographic bubble of the baby boomers.

It's a lot more workable than you say. It's true that the government starting with Reagan has been very irresponsible and made it a lot harded to deal with in coming years.

The 'nugget of truth' in your largely false posting doesn't make you right. And your misrepresentation of the objections to your post, your straw man as if the criticism of your post is objecting to the suggestion that young people save for retirement, is simply dishonest on your part.

fine you can put your retirement plans in government control and I'll be responsible for myself. And we'll see who has the nicer retirement (if you can even retire after SS fails).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

Thanks for the usual lameness, CSG. Boomers have taken good care of their elders through SS contributions, even paid it forward, built up a Trust surplus in excess of $2T, as prompted to do so by that semi-mythical demigod of the Rightwing, Ronald Reagan himself.

He cut top tier taxes even as he raised SS contributions on the rest of us, sponsored and approved huge deficits, too. His ideological heir, GWB, did us all even worse, cutting top tier taxes again and papering over the whole issue of federal revenues with even more borrowing, spending, war, terrar!, gay marriage, ownership society, values and whatever else titillated the fools into voting republican.

Which is why so-called "conservatives" are thrashing around helplessly- the current situation is of their making, their malignant baby, no matter how much they'd like to blame somebody, anybody, else. DNA confirms it- it's in the genes of their policy of plutocracy.

The only trickledown we'll ever get is the warm wet feeling of them pissing down our leg as they tell us it's raining...

or rather... the truth of the matter is the boomers not only paid people to get old but they also spent the money on themselves - essentially double dipping. So yes, not only was the concept flawed, it was abused by the very people whining now about "don't touch my social security" crap. It needs to be changed to give people a stake in it OR needs to be scrapped. These endless give aways do nothing but create even more dependence on the gov't.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

Thanks for the usual lameness, CSG. Boomers have taken good care of their elders through SS contributions, even paid it forward, built up a Trust surplus in excess of $2T, as prompted to do so by that semi-mythical demigod of the Rightwing, Ronald Reagan himself.

He cut top tier taxes even as he raised SS contributions on the rest of us, sponsored and approved huge deficits, too. His ideological heir, GWB, did us all even worse, cutting top tier taxes again and papering over the whole issue of federal revenues with even more borrowing, spending, war, terrar!, gay marriage, ownership society, values and whatever else titillated the fools into voting republican.

Which is why so-called "conservatives" are thrashing around helplessly- the current situation is of their making, their malignant baby, no matter how much they'd like to blame somebody, anybody, else. DNA confirms it- it's in the genes of their policy of plutocracy.

The only trickledown we'll ever get is the warm wet feeling of them pissing down our leg as they tell us it's raining...

Oh look, another partisan liar who can't read the Constitution or figure out who approves taxs and appropriations.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read my lips, mursilis- or rather, read Ronnie's-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDjqy5_V2w

The part he didn't mention there was the cut taxes at the top part, or the cover it all with massive deficits...

GWB? Hey, given the biggest political windfall since Pearl Harbor and Repub majorities in the HOR and Senate from 2003-2007, he and cronies went on the biggest looting spree in the history of the world. It's just the truth- like it, lump it, fly it to the moon on a pogo stick, you can't change the fact that Rightwing shit is so weak it's drizzling out of their pantscuffs...

For those of you too deep in denial to figure it, I'll just give it to you straight- you've been screwed by the very people you trusted and idealized. Chumps.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

Thanks for the usual lameness, CSG. Boomers have taken good care of their elders through SS contributions, even paid it forward, built up a Trust surplus in excess of $2T, as prompted to do so by that semi-mythical demigod of the Rightwing, Ronald Reagan himself.

He cut top tier taxes even as he raised SS contributions on the rest of us, sponsored and approved huge deficits, too. His ideological heir, GWB, did us all even worse, cutting top tier taxes again and papering over the whole issue of federal revenues with even more borrowing, spending, war, terrar!, gay marriage, ownership society, values and whatever else titillated the fools into voting republican.

Which is why so-called "conservatives" are thrashing around helplessly- the current situation is of their making, their malignant baby, no matter how much they'd like to blame somebody, anybody, else. DNA confirms it- it's in the genes of their policy of plutocracy.

The only trickledown we'll ever get is the warm wet feeling of them pissing down our leg as they tell us it's raining...

or rather... the truth of the matter is the boomers not only paid people to get old but they also spent the money on themselves - essentially double dipping. So yes, not only was the concept flawed, it was abused by the very people whining now about "don't touch my social security" crap. It needs to be changed to give people a stake in it OR needs to be scrapped. These endless give aways do nothing but create even more dependence on the gov't.

Oh, so what you like that Reagan did, Reagan did but what you don't like that Reagan did, the people did. All that misuse of the SS trust fund? The people, not Reagan.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Oh look, another partisan liar who can't read the Constitution or figure out who approves taxs and appropriations.

I saved irony of the week, and now I'm glad, you earned it. It's another person who waves his 7th grade civis book lesson on budgets at people who actually have a clue.

As ignorant as many people are, it's still boggling at how many are stuck on the constitution's saying Congress is the only group with say on the budget, and haven't learned a thing about how the budgeting process actually works in terms of the weight the president carries in his creation of the first draft of the budget that's submitted to Congress.

There's a reason why the president's submitted budget is treated very seriously - even if in the most partisan times they try to say otherwise - and why spending follows it so closely.

When's the last time a presidential candidate or president said they planned to fund this or that program, and had the congress say in response, "wait, he can't spend money, we can!'

It's a balancing act - Congress can shut down presidential requests, and to a lesser extent fund programs the president opposes - but the president has a huge role.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

This is why the concept of SS is flawed. People have no "right" to another person's earnings.

Thanks for the usual lameness, CSG. Boomers have taken good care of their elders through SS contributions, even paid it forward, built up a Trust surplus in excess of $2T, as prompted to do so by that semi-mythical demigod of the Rightwing, Ronald Reagan himself.

He cut top tier taxes even as he raised SS contributions on the rest of us, sponsored and approved huge deficits, too. His ideological heir, GWB, did us all even worse, cutting top tier taxes again and papering over the whole issue of federal revenues with even more borrowing, spending, war, terrar!, gay marriage, ownership society, values and whatever else titillated the fools into voting republican.

Which is why so-called "conservatives" are thrashing around helplessly- the current situation is of their making, their malignant baby, no matter how much they'd like to blame somebody, anybody, else. DNA confirms it- it's in the genes of their policy of plutocracy.

The only trickledown we'll ever get is the warm wet feeling of them pissing down our leg as they tell us it's raining...

or rather... the truth of the matter is the boomers not only paid people to get old but they also spent the money on themselves - essentially double dipping. So yes, not only was the concept flawed, it was abused by the very people whining now about "don't touch my social security" crap. It needs to be changed to give people a stake in it OR needs to be scrapped. These endless give aways do nothing but create even more dependence on the gov't.

Oh, so what you like that Reagan did, Reagan did but what you don't like that Reagan did, the people did. All that misuse of the SS trust fund? The people, not Reagan.

You see, your problem seems to be your need to blame it on one guy and ignore the rest. What Reagan did to SS was done to help it be solvent by raising retirement ages and increasing the payroll rate. You can continue to whine though and ignore all the other changes made but ultimately the people voted themselves the money and now want it a second time just because they are old. Also, another problem you have is that you refuse to see the inherent flaws in what is arguably just an old age payment by the gov't. It's foundation being flawed, politicians messing with the system, and people(the voting public) whining about their "money" as if they are entitled to other people's money.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You see, your problem seems to be your need to blame it on one guy and ignore the rest. What Reagan did to SS was done to help it be solvent by raising retirement ages and increasing the payroll rate. You can continue to whine though and ignore all the other changes made but ultimately the people voted themselves the money and now want it a second time just because they are old. Also, another problem you have is that you refuse to see the inherent flaws in what is arguably just an old age payment by the gov't. It's foundation being flawed, politicians messing with the system, and people(the voting public) whining about their "money" as if they are entitled to other people's money.

Point 1: No, I don't 'only blame it on one guy'.

What I do is to dispell the false claim that Reagan was not at fault, including primarily at fault.

The first problem we face in discussing this is when you base your statements not on any history, but on ideology of how you would like Reagan to have behaved.

I'm no expert on Reagan, but I've looked at him enough to have some idea on some of these issues. I've read the first-hand account of some of his top advisors, for example, about 'how things went down' (a poor choice of words regarding his deficit policies, which went the other direction). For example, top budget officials say that when they informed him of the skyrocketing deficits his policies were causing, he was just in disbelief - a common pattern in his reaction to things that happened in his administration.

(Need I remind you of his infamous nationally televised address on arms for hostages in which he said his heart told him it didn't happen, but his head told him it did?)

His submitted budgets weren't responsible on the deficit. He didn't veto the budgets Congress passed. He didn't twist the arms of the Republicans to be responsible.

He was the creator of the device by which that money became available, and it was in his adminstration that from day one it was misused for spending off the budget books.

Obviously, as I have repeatedly said, there is blame to go around, not only Reagan, but Congress and the people for who they voted in as well, but he's the primary element.

Just as GWB *could* have done good had he stopped in Iraq after his policy successfully got the inspectors back in, Reagan *could* have had a good policy had the money he added a tax for been set aside as it was supposed to be, but he did not do that, and he's responsible for his leading role in what happened.

And all this is without even speculating about any ulterior, hidden motives - the right-wing 'strangle the government in debt' ideology that his policies fit so well.

Point 2: Yet another tired anti-SS rant that belongs in 1935, with those who said SS would fail almost immediately. You like poor old people, we disagree. It works well, when it isn't broken by the Republican party who want to destroy it, becasue the money is better made available to the wealthy who they represent, and because SS is a permanent thorn in their side that creates many loyal democrats, so they want it gone, as they have been trying to dosince it was vreated, except one period when Eisenhower called the anti-SS crowd 'nuts'.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The real question is where is your money the safest? in a gov program? private pension fund? in your mattress?

1. Government program SS - To this point they have the best track as they have never defaulted on owed benifiets, but as everyone has know forever it's future solvency is in doubt because of decades of including SS revenues in the general fund and stealing from ourselves by using the SS surplus's to fund ever larger deficit's

2. Private pensions are notorious for leaving retiree's high and dry, especially before current 401k rules. But even with 401k protection your private investments aren't guaranteed to return the investment that you expect as the current economic crisis demonstrates.

3. In your mattress - Under current economic circumstances this may seem like the best approach, but you quickly get left behind in times of economic growth and inflation.


IMO the answer is a combination of all three. We need SS or a similar program of last resort or we are inviting a social catastrophe

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The harsh reality is the overwhelming majority of people don't provide for enough in retirement. Everyone underestimates how long they will live, and underestimate the effects of inflation. Add to this catostrophic events like happened to my dad when he lost most of his public retirement fund at the end of his career, or like the current crisis we are in

So what you're saying is, someone's failure to plan gives them a right to take from others? Makes me feel like a fool - I'm putting away 10% of my income for retirement every year, money which I can't otherwise use for the nice things my neighbors are all buying - larger houses, big TVs, SUVs, nice vacations, etc. Maybe I should start enjoying that money right now, and just have the gov't bail me out when I retire!

That 10% you are ferreting away yearly will enable you to live comfortably when you include your SS while those who'll just live off of their SS will struggle. Also keep in mind that if we did away with SS all those who would depend on it to survive their old age will be SOL which would have to be dealt with by the Gov which would in turn raise your taxes much higher than what you are paying into SS eating away at your retirement funds which would lower the quality of your life.