Damn right i’m entitled and not a victim

[squeeze berry]

My sons calculus professor in a SUNY college, 4 years ago, spent an entire session DICTATING the virtues of an Obama presidency and the evils of a McCain presidency....I say dictating becuase no one was allowed to respond to what he said.
What TM teaches is not an issue. The fact that one who is so jaded and so out there having the right to speak to our children without supervision is what is concerning.

That concerns me too. But I pray it's not Grammar/spelling she is teaching, if anything.

She probably works in a day care center and refers to herself as a "teacher".

more like she lives in an old folks home and takes her teeth out at night

 

[Borillar]

If you worked 50 yrs, then your about 6 years older than me....
I won't be losing anything....nothing will change for people close to retirement (over 55).
So your rant is a bunch of BS.

Besides, if you don't think SOMETHING needs to be done with SS then your nuts! If it weren't for our government "borrowing" so much of it, giving it out to people who didn't put into it, using it to fund Obamacare, we wouldn't be in this spot. Something has to be done or there won't be anything there in a few years!

Stop your whining.....

So, what if you're in your early 50's and been putting into the system for 30 - 40 years? Tough shit? If you want to fix SS and Medicare, just lift the 100K contribution limit.

it doesn't affect people 55 and older...NOW. Then it will "slowly" change as they go down in age.

Sure, they could raise the contribution amount...but how many people can actually afford to put more in?? If i were younger i would want that money in my own pocket to invest in what I want for my retirement. Either way, SS can not be left alone, it's not going to last and THAT's because of our Govt spending....ALL of our govt!

Well, I'd say that folks making more than 110K can afford to put more in. If 100 % of my income is taxable for SS and Medicare, I don't see why it shouldn't also be the case for millionaires and billionaires. They'll still be able to afford cheese for their whoppers.

If you want to cut government spending, fine. Start with the TSA and DHS. Lots of waste in military/industrial complex spending too. Cut out corporate giveaways, tax loopholes, non humanitarian foreign aid.

 

[Lovebears65]

sure youre entitled to it but if OUR GOV did not spend like there was no tomorrow this might not be an issue the kept taking out the money. Now not as many people are working to keep up with the people who need SS. It is a fact a fact we have to address .... if you are 55 or older you wont have to worry about it .. It is everyone else who will.

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
Unless Romney makes me a victim by turning my Medicare to a voucher program and privatizing my Social Security.

I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs and put my self through college without any help but a full time job and raised three kids in the process. I paid into the system, paid into two wars I did not support, paid into a welfare system I never used, paid into unemployment insurance and never had to use and now my Social Security insurance policy entitles me to Social Security and Medicare, $10 in food stamps, (that Romney want to begrudge me?) a discount on my prescriptions.

My dad invested his future into social security and never lived to collect after working 40 years. He was not able to pass his insurance policy on to his survivors, but Romney’s dad investment was pass on to him and gave him a head start. African slaves worked and built the country and the toils of their labor was not pass on the survivors to give them a head start.

Social Security is one investment that is not pass on to surviving relatives in the form of stock.

Damn right I am entitled, but I am not a victim yet but Romney has all intentions to make me one if he is elected to look out for my interest. A big no thanks Romney.

 

[WillowTree]

Once again....No one "pays into" social security. It is a TAX. Period.
And the word is C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N....Not "childern"...
You SHOULD NOT be worried about Social Security. You SHOULD HAVE plenty of money put away for your retirement.
In fact, SS payments should be Means tested. For example, if a person has a pension on which they can live comfortably, they don't receive SS benefits.
I get really pissed when a retiree with a nice cushy pension, two homes or one plus a vacation home and lives like a king starts bitching about Social Security.

Bullshit, it's money forced from your check with the promise that it will add to your pension when you become of age. And secondly, if it is as you say a "tax" then it's unconstitutional to "means test" and force someone to pay into the system and then prevent them from drawing. The constitution says we will be treated fairly so bitch all you want. If you don't want people drawing from your ss pool then give them the option to opt out.

No one "pays into" the system. The federal government deducts a certain percentage of wages. The government then adds that money to the general fund for government operations. That makes SS a TAX.
If each worker had their own personal SS account, then those workers would be "paying into" the system. As a TAX, there is no "promise".
Now you can show where it is unconstitutional to Means Test SS or any other benefit.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a guarantee of "fairness".

Section 8 States.


and there are not "buts"


Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's doesn't say you can "means test" asswipe.

 

[WillowTree]

So, what if you're in your early 50's and been putting into the system for 30 - 40 years? Tough shit? If you want to fix SS and Medicare, just lift the 100K contribution limit.

it doesn't affect people 55 and older...NOW. Then it will "slowly" change as they go down in age.

Sure, they could raise the contribution amount...but how many people can actually afford to put more in?? If i were younger i would want that money in my own pocket to invest in what I want for my retirement. Either way, SS can not be left alone, it's not going to last and THAT's because of our Govt spending....ALL of our govt!

Well, I'd say that folks making more than 110K can afford to put more in. If 100 % of my income is taxable for SS and Medicare, I don't see why it shouldn't also be the case for millionaires and billionaires. They'll still be able to afford cheese for their whoppers.

If you want to cut government spending, fine. Start with the TSA and DHS. Lots of waste in military/industrial complex spending too. Cut out corporate giveaways, tax loopholes, non humanitarian foreign aid.[/QUOTE]

There ya go. A fair flat tax. No exceptions, No excuses, No exemptions.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, what if you're in your early 50's and been putting into the system for 30 - 40 years? Tough shit? If you want to fix SS and Medicare, just lift the 100K contribution limit.

it doesn't affect people 55 and older...NOW. Then it will "slowly" change as they go down in age.

Sure, they could raise the contribution amount...but how many people can actually afford to put more in?? If i were younger i would want that money in my own pocket to invest in what I want for my retirement. Either way, SS can not be left alone, it's not going to last and THAT's because of our Govt spending....ALL of our govt!

Well, I'd say that folks making more than 110K can afford to put more in. If 100 % of my income is taxable for SS and Medicare, I don't see why it shouldn't also be the case for millionaires and billionaires. They'll still be able to afford cheese for their whoppers.

If you want to cut government spending, fine. Start with the TSA and DHS. Lots of waste in military/industrial complex spending too. Cut out corporate giveaways, tax loopholes, non humanitarian foreign aid.

So people making over the limit should pay more in and not be able to take more out?

 

[P@triot]

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs

Damn right I am entitled,

If you worked for "50 years" then you have ZERO excuse for not having a nest-egg. If you spent irresponsibly like a drunk sailor, then you get what you deserve. Stop expecting the American taxpayer to bail you out from your own mistakes.

 

[Caroljo]

So, what if you're in your early 50's and been putting into the system for 30 - 40 years? Tough shit? If you want to fix SS and Medicare, just lift the 100K contribution limit.

it doesn't affect people 55 and older...NOW. Then it will "slowly" change as they go down in age.

Sure, they could raise the contribution amount...but how many people can actually afford to put more in?? If i were younger i would want that money in my own pocket to invest in what I want for my retirement. Either way, SS can not be left alone, it's not going to last and THAT's because of our Govt spending....ALL of our govt!

Well, I'd say that folks making more than 110K can afford to put more in. If 100 % of my income is taxable for SS and Medicare, I don't see why it shouldn't also be the case for millionaires and billionaires. They'll still be able to afford cheese for their whoppers.

If you want to cut government spending, fine. Start with the TSA and DHS. Lots of waste in military/industrial complex spending too. Cut out corporate giveaways, tax loopholes, non humanitarian foreign aid.

I don't think it's a good idea to cut out anything that is in place for our protection. I don't agree entirely with DHS, but i don't believe we should cut back anything to do with out military...we have too many people out there that hate us and want us dead.

 

[Meister]

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
Unless Romney makes me a victim by turning my Medicare to a voucher program and privatizing my Social Security.

I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs and put my self through college without any help but a full time job and raised three kids in the process. I paid into the system, paid into two wars I did not support, paid into a welfare system I never used, paid into unemployment insurance and never had to use and now my Social Security insurance policy entitles me to Social Security and Medicare, $10 in food stamps, (that Romney want to begrudge me?) a discount on my prescriptions.

My dad invested his future into social security and never lived to collect after working 40 years. He was not able to pass his insurance policy on to his survivors, but Romney’s dad investment was pass on to him and gave him a head start. African slaves worked and built the country and the toils of their labor was not pass on the survivors to give them a head start.

Social Security is one investment that is not pass on to surviving relatives in the form of stock.

Damn right I am entitled, but I am not a victim yet but Romney has all intentions to make me one if he is elected to look out for my interest. A big no thanks Romney.

You might want to get the actual facts on Romney's/ Ryan's medicare and S/S instead of what comes out of the liberal echo chamber.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
Unless Romney makes me a victim by turning my Medicare to a voucher program and privatizing my Social Security.

I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs and put my self through college without any help but a full time job and raised three kids in the process. I paid into the system, paid into two wars I did not support, paid into a welfare system I never used, paid into unemployment insurance and never had to use and now my Social Security insurance policy entitles me to Social Security and Medicare, $10 in food stamps, (that Romney want to begrudge me?) a discount on my prescriptions.

My dad invested his future into social security and never lived to collect after working 40 years. He was not able to pass his insurance policy on to his survivors, but Romney’s dad investment was pass on to him and gave him a head start. African slaves worked and built the country and the toils of their labor was not pass on the survivors to give them a head start.

Social Security is one investment that is not pass on to surviving relatives in the form of stock.

Damn right I am entitled, but I am not a victim yet but Romney has all intentions to make me one if he is elected to look out for my interest. A big no thanks Romney.

Your story sounds a bit like mine but, according to the rw's and to King Romney, you're nothing but useless chaff to be thrown out with the day's trash.

You and both chose the wrong parents. MitWit's dad gave him enormous money to start out on. You and I were so damn dumb that we made it on our own.

Only rw's idiots would say that SS in a "ponzi" scheme. they can't think for themselves so they just regurg what they're told by fux and the other dittoheads.

Then there's the incredibly STOOOPID statement that if you're over 55, MitWit's (and LyanRyan's) lies won't touch you. And, even if the rw's idiocy were correct, since when is it okay for us to steal from the next generation? Isn't that what the LYING and HYPOCRITICAL rw's are saying they're against?

No use arguing with rw's. They have o use for FACTS and care only about what fux/beck/lushbo tells them. They are happily cutting off their own noses but the worst is, they're killing their kid's futures AND THEY KNOW IT.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh look, the old shitbag is telling the lies she was told by Obamination supporters.

Ooo, you forgot to say Romney is going to kill you when you reach 70....that is a double secret secret.

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
Unless Romney makes me a victim by turning my Medicare to a voucher program and privatizing my Social Security.

I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs and put my self through college without any help but a full time job and raised three kids in the process. I paid into the system, paid into two wars I did not support, paid into a welfare system I never used, paid into unemployment insurance and never had to use and now my Social Security insurance policy entitles me to Social Security and Medicare, $10 in food stamps, (that Romney want to begrudge me?) a discount on my prescriptions.

My dad invested his future into social security and never lived to collect after working 40 years. He was not able to pass his insurance policy on to his survivors, but Romney’s dad investment was pass on to him and gave him a head start. African slaves worked and built the country and the toils of their labor was not pass on the survivors to give them a head start.

Social Security is one investment that is not pass on to surviving relatives in the form of stock.

Damn right I am entitled, but I am not a victim yet but Romney has all intentions to make me one if he is elected to look out for my interest. A big no thanks Romney.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bullshit, it's money forced from your check with the promise that it will add to your pension when you become of age. And secondly, if it is as you say a "tax" then it's unconstitutional to "means test" and force someone to pay into the system and then prevent them from drawing. The constitution says we will be treated fairly so bitch all you want. If you don't want people drawing from your ss pool then give them the option to opt out.

No one "pays into" the system. The federal government deducts a certain percentage of wages. The government then adds that money to the general fund for government operations. That makes SS a TAX.
If each worker had their own personal SS account, then those workers would be "paying into" the system. As a TAX, there is no "promise".
Now you can show where it is unconstitutional to Means Test SS or any other benefit.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a guarantee of "fairness".

Section 8 States.


and there are not "buts"


Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's doesn't say you can "means test" asswipe.

Ok...Did I call YOU names? If you want to go down that road let me know how deep you want to be buried. I am not taking any shit off you. Get it?
Now, you want to have a discussion or a brawl. Choice is yours.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bullshit, it's money forced from your check with the promise that it will add to your pension when you become of age. And secondly, if it is as you say a "tax" then it's unconstitutional to "means test" and force someone to pay into the system and then prevent them from drawing. The constitution says we will be treated fairly so bitch all you want. If you don't want people drawing from your ss pool then give them the option to opt out.

No one "pays into" the system. The federal government deducts a certain percentage of wages. The government then adds that money to the general fund for government operations. That makes SS a TAX.
If each worker had their own personal SS account, then those workers would be "paying into" the system. As a TAX, there is no "promise".
Now you can show where it is unconstitutional to Means Test SS or any other benefit.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a guarantee of "fairness".

Section 8 States.


and there are not "buts"


Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's doesn't say you can "means test" asswipe.

Nice try at misconstruing Section 8 for your own reasons.
Means Testing has been suggested many times but has been met with opposition. Mainly from Senior Citizen advocacy groups such as AARP.
If it were illegal, the point would be moot and not suggested.

 

[Clementine]

Social Security was meant to be a true entitlement because we all paid into it and our employers matched it. Most of us will never get back what we paid in because the Dems didn't keep their promise of putting the money in a lockbox. The government was permitted to borrow from surplus funds as long as they paid it back with interest. They currently owe over a trillion dollars.

It was Dems who taxed it and robbed the fund for other things. They allowed people who never paid in to collect from it. That is when it became a Ponzi scheme because those working now paid their way and the way it's going, there won't be enough people paying in to keep up with those who retired.

If the money we and our employers put in was kept safe, the money would be there when we retire. Didn't quite work out that way.

Obama actually threatened people that they may not receive their Social Security checks when the debt ceiling debate was on. Obama was full of shit because Social Security isn't part of their budget since the money is in a separate account, which was meant to be safe from the clutches of politicians. He also threatened that active military and retired military might not get their checks. Of course, active military would receive backpay eventually, but retirees would just be out of luck. Try that with public unions and see how fast they riot.

The only people who weren't losing sleep over the thought of not receiving their checks were the welfare people.

Welfare is not an entitlement and never will be. It is charity and we contribute by force. No one is entitled to the earnings of other people, yet millions claim they are entitled.

The left chose to use the term "entitlements" for welfare and other government programs and somehow lumped them in with the real entitlements. It's important to know the difference.

If you paid into Social Security, you are entitled to your money when you retire. If you've never worked and are collecting any kind of social security benefit, you're just lucky because you are getting something you didn't earn.

There are a lot of people who feel entitled to other people's money and they are the ones that Obama is talking about when he wants to redistribute wealth. They think that wealth is finite and that the ones at the top already took it all, or maybe they think the government gave more to some, and they want it doled out equally.

Obama's policies are not about equal opportunity, it's about equal outcome regardless of individual effort.

 

[Erand7899]

DAMN RIGHT I’M ENTITLED AND NOT A VICTIM
Unless Romney makes me a victim by turning my Medicare to a voucher program and privatizing my Social Security.

I worked 50 years and sometime two jobs and put my self through college without any help but a full time job and raised three kids in the process. I paid into the system, paid into two wars I did not support, paid into a welfare system I never used, paid into unemployment insurance and never had to use and now my Social Security insurance policy entitles me to Social Security and Medicare, $10 in food stamps, (that Romney want to begrudge me?) a discount on my prescriptions.

My dad invested his future into social security and never lived to collect after working 40 years. He was not able to pass his insurance policy on to his survivors, but Romney’s dad investment was pass on to him and gave him a head start. African slaves worked and built the country and the toils of their labor was not pass on the survivors to give them a head start.

Social Security is one investment that is not pass on to surviving relatives in the form of stock.

Damn right I am entitled, but I am not a victim yet but Romney has all intentions to make me one if he is elected to look out for my interest. A big no thanks Romney.

Yes, you are a victim. Not of the welfare system, but of the misinformation system that you get your "truth" from.

I imagine that you are aware, that neither Romney, nor Obama is campaigning in most of the states of this union. Why? Because those states will not affect the election. Does that mean that neither Romney, nor Obama gives a damn about the people in those states? No, it means that both candidates are not going to waste time or money on states where the outcome is fairly certain.

But, when Romney says he is not going to waste time and money attempting to convince the 47% who will most likely vote for Obama anyway, you feel slighted. And, you are one of those people who will vote for Obama, come hell or high water. Give it a rest.

 

[WillowTree]

No one "pays into" the system. The federal government deducts a certain percentage of wages. The government then adds that money to the general fund for government operations. That makes SS a TAX.
If each worker had their own personal SS account, then those workers would be "paying into" the system. As a TAX, there is no "promise".
Now you can show where it is unconstitutional to Means Test SS or any other benefit.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a guarantee of "fairness".

Section 8 States.


and there are not "buts"


Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's doesn't say you can "means test" asswipe.

Nice try at misconstruing Section 8 for your own reasons.
Means Testing has been suggested many times but has been met with opposition. Mainly from Senior Citizen advocacy groups such as AARP.
If it were illegal, the point would be moot and not suggested.

Bullshi. Everything can be contested as swipe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Section 8 States.


and there are not "buts"


Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's doesn't say you can "means test" asswipe.

Nice try at misconstruing Section 8 for your own reasons.
Means Testing has been suggested many times but has been met with opposition. Mainly from Senior Citizen advocacy groups such as AARP.
If it were illegal, the point would be moot and not suggested.

Bullshi. Everything can be contested as swipe.

Ohh So it's not unconstitutional to Means Test, you just claim it can be contested..Yeah, ok.

 

[jasonnfree]

We were in a heck of a spot before Obamacare.

If you worked 50 yrs, then your about 6 years older than me....
I won't be losing anything....nothing will change for people close to retirement (over 55).
So your rant is a bunch of BS.

Besides, if you don't think SOMETHING needs to be done with SS then your nuts! If it weren't for our government "borrowing" so much of it, giving it out to people who didn't put into it, using it to fund Obamacare, we wouldn't be in this spot. Something has to be done or there won't be anything there in a few years!

Stop your whining.....

 

[WillowTree]

Your first damn mistake is in thinking thatAARP is an advocacy group for seniors. It is a wolly owned democratic think tank.

 

[jasonnfree]

You do know that the wealthy and corporations are know to freeload also, don't you? In fact, it looks like Romneys company had the taxpayers bailout them out.

GOP worries about pension agency that gave a $44M bailout to a Bain-run company

Social Security was meant to be a true entitlement because we all paid into it and our employers matched it. Most of us will never get back what we paid in because the Dems didn't keep their promise of putting the money in a lockbox. The government was permitted to borrow from surplus funds as long as they paid it back with interest. They currently owe over a trillion dollars.

It was Dems who taxed it and robbed the fund for other things. They allowed people who never paid in to collect from it. That is when it became a Ponzi scheme because those working now paid their way and the way it's going, there won't be enough people paying in to keep up with those who retired.

If the money we and our employers put in was kept safe, the money would be there when we retire. Didn't quite work out that way.

Obama actually threatened people that they may not receive their Social Security checks when the debt ceiling debate was on. Obama was full of shit because Social Security isn't part of their budget since the money is in a separate account, which was meant to be safe from the clutches of politicians. He also threatened that active military and retired military might not get their checks. Of course, active military would receive backpay eventually, but retirees would just be out of luck. Try that with public unions and see how fast they riot.

The only people who weren't losing sleep over the thought of not receiving their checks were the welfare people.

Welfare is not an entitlement and never will be. It is charity and we contribute by force. No one is entitled to the earnings of other people, yet millions claim they are entitled.

The left chose to use the term "entitlements" for welfare and other government programs and somehow lumped them in with the real entitlements. It's important to know the difference.

If you paid into Social Security, you are entitled to your money when you retire. If you've never worked and are collecting any kind of social security benefit, you're just lucky because you are getting something you didn't earn.

There are a lot of people who feel entitled to other people's money and they are the ones that Obama is talking about when he wants to redistribute wealth. They think that wealth is finite and that the ones at the top already took it all, or maybe they think the government gave more to some, and they want it doled out equally.

Obama's policies are not about equal opportunity, it's about equal outcome regardless of individual effort.