Damn right i’m entitled and not a victim

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Assuming you have worked all those years, you surely have built up quite a nest egg. My parents told me that to never rely on SS for your retirement years. It's just a small check.
I did my research. SS was NEVER intended to be something on which to retire. It is and always has been a supplement.
Many older people think of SS as an untouchable sacred cow. I got into a heated discussion about the matte with one of my uncles. He actually got pissed off when I told him SS was a bad concept and should be scuttled and redone. His like the reactions of many others was "don't you dare touch my social security"..The thing is he like many others in his generation were told to believe their government would take care of them in their golden years. The truth is the federal government has been robbing SS money and replacing it with IOU's. The thinking was the federal govt could spend the money deducted from our checks and it would be replaced by future generations. Well, with the economy in the shitter and baby boomers about to retire en masse, there is not nearly enough money to cover the flood of new recipients. There is no SS Trust Fund. In fact, due ot the way the federal government spends and takes money from areas which were supposed to be untouchable, has turned all of the items (SS , Medicare, etc) into TAXES. The government simply uses the deducted money for it's own purposes.
The concept or notion that we "pay into" these things is patently false. We are TAXED. Period.
There is no "account" for us.
No one has a Social Security Insurance policy....What are you talking about?
Here's what I would do if I were in the position of having a say..
Blow up Social Security. Get rid of it...Medicare....GONE..
Now, The new setup....
Workers would have the OPTION of choosing a percentage ( minimum of 3%) of their PRE TAX wage to be placed in an UNTOUCHABLE account. The account would bear interest at a rate of prime plus 1% compounded yearly. Upon the worker's retirement the funds would be ALL there. Not one red cent is to be touched by anyone. No government official no presidential executive order. Nothing. The money belongs to the person who put it there.
Employer's share....The employer(s) would be responsible for one half of the rate the employee rate..So if the worker has 4% of his or her pay withheld for the benefit, the employer pays an additional 2% toward the fund.
All of the money goes into an interest bearing account to be drawn upon by the worker upon retirement. TAX FREE..We should NOT be taxing our senior citizens for their retirement.
Now, if the worker passes away, a beneficiary is selected. They cannot receive benefits until THEIR retirement. The concept here is this is just like an insurance policy. The government should not get a bite at this apple.
The bottom line is this. I am SICK and tired of government stealing OUR money and not replacing it.
This and the reasons mentioned above are why the current SS system is broken.

That kind of plan works well for younger people who have not paid 30-40-50 years, or more, into a fund administered by government. The people who were given NO CHOICE about paying into a fund that has been touted as their fall-back fund when they retired from the work force...by the same government that forced them to pay into the fund. According to that pissy letter they send out every year, I have over $150,000 held "on account" for me. Pay me what is mine and I will gladly care for my own retirement, thank you very much. And therein lies an enormous problem, most of your 'baby boomers' have been forced to pay into an account that they are now told is an "entitlement" that needs to be eliminated. Imagine the kind of money I would have had if I had been allowed to establish my own investment fund/savings program? Another rub, both my parents died before they were 60. Both paid into SS but neither collected even on small percentage of what they paid into it. Where'd that money go?
So there are millions of Americans who now stand to suffer because of the government's ponzi scheme.
SS is certainly not an entitlement for those of us who have been forced to pay into it for many years. Whether it is now considered a tax is irrelevant to those of us who have been cheated of the opportunity to provide for our old age.

 

[gallantwarrior]

People like the OP somehow "miss" that Social Security as it now exists will soon become insolvent if it isn't fixed which is what some politicians with spines, like Paul Ryan, have gone way out on a political limb to attempt to do.

Contrast that with the political cowardice of Barack Obama who attacks others for trying to fix something that he won't touch even though it's quite apparent SOMETHING has to be done. Leaders make the tough calls and Barack Obama is NOT a leader.

Obama and other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle will not touch SS because it is a political nuclear bomb.
I have one solution if SS is left intact. Eliminate the federal pension system and have all of the well over two million federal employees contribute to the SS system.

That's an excellent point, too. Federal employees are, for the most part, exempt from paying into the SS fund. They have an actual retirement program they contribute to. You want to talk about entitlements? How about they are using their tax-payer funded salaries to pay into a fund that is matched with taxpayer funds.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey IDIOT.. If you worked 50 years, you must be at least 66 years old which means Romney's plans don't even affect you. FAUX OUTRAGE NOTED.

I am 73 years old and it will affect my childern and grand children and some have already paid into Social Security as it will not be there for them when they become of age. And anything that affects my childern and grand children it affect me.

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.

Only according to a recent SCOTUS decision are government mandated contributions considered a 'tax'. The program was not sold as a tax. It was sold as a retirement program. Most people I know who are now faced with not having SS have been coerced their entire working life to pay into that 'retirement' fund, with no choice to opt out. Means testing is just another progressive idea as to how to make the 'rich' contribute a more 'fair' share than other people.

SS is broken. It needs to be fixed. Perhaps one of the 'fixes' might include requesting those well enough off to survive without SS payments to voluntarily surrender their stipend.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You!re just too damn bossy. You don't get to get away with telling people who have spent their entire working lives having money forced from them in exchange for a promise that the government owes them nothing. That!s what makes you an as swipe.

I never said the government owes them nothing. Never implied it either.
Get your fucking facts straight.

I just reported your post asswipe. You are never allowed to say the "C" word outside of the Flame zone. Now go fuck yourself with your broomstick.

Yeah..Cause you lost this battle. Don't go thinking you can out insult me. As you can see, I don't give a shit. There are no rules in a street fight.
You are an unadulterated mental deficient who lacks the capability of debate without getting frustrated resulting in the hurling of insults.
So now go get your shine box.
Why are their tits on your knees? Oh that's right. Inbreeding.
You wanna keep going there, test tube baby?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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".

Gosh, tell that to the libtards and the current administration.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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 agree with those cuts, too. Each and every government-funded program should be reviewed in respect to the stated goals of the program and the verifiable degree to which they have achieved the stated goals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am 73 years old and it will affect my childern and grand children and some have already paid into Social Security as it will not be there for them when they become of age. And anything that affects my childern and grand children it affect me.

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.

Only according to a recent SCOTUS decision are government mandated contributions considered a 'tax'. The program was not sold as a tax. It was sold as a retirement program. Most people I know who are now faced with not having SS have been coerced their entire working life to pay into that 'retirement' fund, with no choice to opt out. Means testing is just another progressive idea as to how to make the 'rich' contribute a more 'fair' share than other people.

SS is broken. It needs to be fixed. Perhaps one of the 'fixes' might include requesting those well enough off to survive without SS payments to voluntarily surrender their stipend.

My suggestion for Means Testing is born out of the frustration of hearing people who are well off due to large pensions and other benefits whining about their precious social security.
The reason I declare it a tax is simply because for all intents and purposes, it is a tax. Look, if SS were a benefit, would not the money collected be protected from the general fund? Would not the money collected be set aside for each contributor to collect upon retirement?
Instead, the SS money has been raided and siphoned off to be used as government sees fit. The money replaced with worthless IOU's.
You are looking at this backward. I do not want to contribute to a system( ok, be coerced to surrender wages) where supposedly I am supposed to have it waiting for me upon retirement only to find out I have to rely on CURRENT workers to be coerced into paying for MY retirement. I would rather participate in a system where MY money comes back to me. Not someone else's.
The problem here is many Americans do not realize it is not THEIR money they are getting back. That money is LONG GONE. It is off the backs of people currently working that are paying the retirees. That's wrong. Period.

 

[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".

Gosh, tell that to the libtards and the current administration.

Why would I want to get shot at?

 

[Newby]

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.

Only according to a recent SCOTUS decision are government mandated contributions considered a 'tax'. The program was not sold as a tax. It was sold as a retirement program. Most people I know who are now faced with not having SS have been coerced their entire working life to pay into that 'retirement' fund, with no choice to opt out. Means testing is just another progressive idea as to how to make the 'rich' contribute a more 'fair' share than other people.

SS is broken. It needs to be fixed. Perhaps one of the 'fixes' might include requesting those well enough off to survive without SS payments to voluntarily surrender their stipend.

My suggestion for Means Testing is born out of the frustration of hearing people who are well off due to large pensions and other benefits whining about their precious social security.
The reason I declare it a tax is simply because for all intents and purposes, it is a tax. Look, if SS were a benefit, would not the money collected be protected from the general fund? Would not the money collected be set aside for each contributor to collect upon retirement?
Instead, the SS money has been raided and siphoned off to be used as government sees fit. The money replaced with worthless IOU's.
You are looking at this backward. I do not want to contribute to a system( ok, be coerced to surrender wages) where supposedly I am supposed to have it waiting for me upon retirement only to find out I have to rely on CURRENT workers to be coerced into paying for MY retirement. I would rather participate in a system where MY money comes back to me. Not someone else's.
The problem here is many Americans do not realize it is not THEIR money they are getting back. That money is LONG GONE. It is off the backs of people currently working that are paying the retirees. That's wrong. Period.

But it's equally as wrong that people paid into it all of their lives with the promise of it being there at retirement, and it's not. Those same people that are paying for other's retirement right now will be living off of the next generation, and so it will go until it's fixed or stopped.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

There's a tremendous amount of waste and abuse in the military. It is unfortunate that our elected representatives can only see where they would cut the meat and muscle and not the fat. Too many of their buddies and big contributors benefit from the fraud, waste, and abuse of funds as perpetrated by the "military/industrial complex", if you will.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

It was never intended to be a savings program and it was never expected that most people would get "back" what they put into it. It doesn't work that way and never has. You do know, don't you, that YOUR Social Security taxes do NOT go to fund YOUR retirement. It funds those who are retired now, just as the taxes paid in by your children will fund yours.

That's how it was sold to the people. The public was told that by paying into SS, they were insuring security for their future. They never share the fine print.

They were supposed to take the money, with the money your employer matched and keep it in an interest earning account. When it started, of course some people were near retirement, but if they had handled the money well, we all would get out of it what we paid in. To allow anyone to collect without having contributed to the fund, such as immigrants and even illegal aliens (like Obama's aunt) there is no way to keep up. It is simply a Ponzi scheme. The Dems get defensive when you call it what it is, which is another failed government program that is unsustainable in the long run.

If you think Social Security is in danger with people still paying a big chunk of their wages into it, imagine what a nightmare healthcare will be when millions jump on and expect the other half to foot the bill for that, too.

Socialism itself is unsustainable, yet there are always those who think they can make it work.

The first few years after the fund was established, people received lump sum payouts because they would not have contributed enough to warrant anything more. I believe the first guy to receive his SS payout got far less than a dollar (.17) the day after the SS Act was signed.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Very good. Then when you have spent every dime you paid into these programs, and if you continue to live, you will not get another dime.

Your children and grandchildren WILL be affected by your unreasoning greed that you exhibit in this thread.

I hope they remember you by it and piss on your grave when they come to realize that you had the key to helping them, but chose yourself over them.

What a bunch of shit. She is 76 years old and played by the rules. She wasn't given a choice. What the hell you want her to do now? Suck air?

She gets ONLY the money she paid into the program. Not a dime more.

If she lives beyond that point, that is her problem. That is what HER greed will get her.

Rather than being part of the solution, she has decided to cement her position with big government to the detriment of everyone else.

As I said, in 50 years, when her kids and grand kids have nothing, I hope the remember her properly.

You know, I would have no problem if they paid me the money "held on account" for me in one lump sum. I won't even wait until I retire, again. I'm quite sure I can make something to tide me through my doddering years without government assistance. Of course, I'll do without the government interference as well.

 

[WillowTree]

I never said the government owes them nothing. Never implied it either.
Get your fucking facts straight.

I just reported your post asswipe. You are never allowed to say the "C" word outside of the Flame zone. Now go fuck yourself with your broomstick.

Yeah..Cause you lost this battle. Don't go thinking you can out insult me. As you can see, I don't give a shit. There are no rules in a street fight.
You are an unadulterated mental deficient who lacks the capability of debate without getting frustrated resulting in the hurling of insults.
So now go get your shine box.
Why are their tits on your knees? Oh that's right. Inbreeding.
You wanna keep going there, test tube baby?

No buddy you lost the fight. And I don't give a shit if you call be the c word. Better liberals than you have done so, you just have to take your sorry liberal ass down to the flame zone to do it. And I'll laugh at you all the while. Asswipe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Only according to a recent SCOTUS decision are government mandated contributions considered a 'tax'. The program was not sold as a tax. It was sold as a retirement program. Most people I know who are now faced with not having SS have been coerced their entire working life to pay into that 'retirement' fund, with no choice to opt out. Means testing is just another progressive idea as to how to make the 'rich' contribute a more 'fair' share than other people.

SS is broken. It needs to be fixed. Perhaps one of the 'fixes' might include requesting those well enough off to survive without SS payments to voluntarily surrender their stipend.

My suggestion for Means Testing is born out of the frustration of hearing people who are well off due to large pensions and other benefits whining about their precious social security.
The reason I declare it a tax is simply because for all intents and purposes, it is a tax. Look, if SS were a benefit, would not the money collected be protected from the general fund? Would not the money collected be set aside for each contributor to collect upon retirement?
Instead, the SS money has been raided and siphoned off to be used as government sees fit. The money replaced with worthless IOU's.
You are looking at this backward. I do not want to contribute to a system( ok, be coerced to surrender wages) where supposedly I am supposed to have it waiting for me upon retirement only to find out I have to rely on CURRENT workers to be coerced into paying for MY retirement. I would rather participate in a system where MY money comes back to me. Not someone else's.
The problem here is many Americans do not realize it is not THEIR money they are getting back. That money is LONG GONE. It is off the backs of people currently working that are paying the retirees. That's wrong. Period.

But it's equally as wrong that people paid into it all of their lives with the promise of it being there at retirement, and it's not. Those same people that are paying for other's retirement right now will be living off of the next generation, and so it will go until it's fixed or stopped.

Correct! I support tear down and rebuild for SS.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just reported your post asswipe. You are never allowed to say the "C" word outside of the Flame zone. Now go fuck yourself with your broomstick.

Yeah..Cause you lost this battle. Don't go thinking you can out insult me. As you can see, I don't give a shit. There are no rules in a street fight.
You are an unadulterated mental deficient who lacks the capability of debate without getting frustrated resulting in the hurling of insults.
So now go get your shine box.
Why are their tits on your knees? Oh that's right. Inbreeding.
You wanna keep going there, test tube baby?

No buddy you lost the fight. And I don't give a shit if you call be the c word. Better liberals than you have done so, you just have to take your sorry liberal ass down to the flame zone to do it. And I'll laugh at you all the while. Asswipe.

If you didn't care then why did you scurry to the office and tell the principal?
Dude, I am about as liberal as the late William F Buckley. Know your role and shut your smelly pie hole.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.....

I'm 65 and the point is that it isn't about ME. I don't want to see his plan implemented for other people who come behind me because it will be worse than what is in place now.

People do not save money well for the most part and vouchers, privitization, etc. won't work.

Among other things, there will be many more people in poverty when they reach retirement and the discover they haven't planned or saved well or their savings/investments get wiped out due to events beyond their control, including having to dig into them to pay off some major expense, etc.

SS is far from perfect but at least it is a guarantee that retirees will have something in their old age.

it isn't all about us (me). It is also about others. And being ageist is not acceptable either!

Yet another prong of the plot to socialize the populace: Destroy the family. Once upon a time, when people grew elderly their family would take care of them, no need for the old folks to suffer in poverty.

 

[WillowTree]

I am 73 years old and it will affect my childern and grand children and some have already paid into Social Security as it will not be there for them when they become of age. And anything that affects my childern and grand children it affect me.

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.

Only according to a recent SCOTUS decision are government mandated contributions considered a 'tax'. The program was not sold as a tax. It was sold as a retirement program. Most people I know who are now faced with not having SS have been coerced their entire working life to pay into that 'retirement' fund, with no choice to opt out. Means testing is just another progressive idea as to how to make the 'rich' contribute a more 'fair' share than other people.
SS is broken. It needs to be fixed. Perhaps one of the 'fixes' might include requesting those well enough off to survive without SS payments to voluntarily surrender their stipend.

Now here is a man who speaks with intelligence. Right after the great depression SS was started.The Social Security Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. And Yes, means testing is a liberal asswipes way of conducting class wafare. The only way it's going to be fixed is to stop spending those funds on other government programs, extending the age and by increasing or eliminating the cap, and then of course people actually have to be working to contribute to the fund so vote Romney. Remember the asswipe obammy reduced payroll deductions for ss and medicare and everyone went thus ensuring it would run out faster than ever. good job liberal dummies.

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah..Cause you lost this battle. Don't go thinking you can out insult me. As you can see, I don't give a shit. There are no rules in a street fight.
You are an unadulterated mental deficient who lacks the capability of debate without getting frustrated resulting in the hurling of insults.
So now go get your shine box.
Why are their tits on your knees? Oh that's right. Inbreeding.
You wanna keep going there, test tube baby?

No buddy you lost the fight. And I don't give a shit if you call be the c word. Better liberals than you have done so, you just have to take your sorry liberal ass down to the flame zone to do it. And I'll laugh at you all the while. Asswipe.

If you didn't care then why did you scurry to the office and tell the principal?
Dude, I am about as liberal as the late William F Buckley. Know your role and shut your smelly pie hole.

You're as liberal as the day is long and I don't have to shut my pie hole, now why don't you runt down to the fflame zone and call me a c some more? Liberal asswipe.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey IDIOT.. If you worked 50 years, you must be at least 66 years old which means Romney's plans don't even affect you. FAUX OUTRAGE NOTED.

I am 73 years old and it will affect my childern and grand children and some have already paid into Social Security as it will not be there for them when they become of age. And anything that affects my childern and grand children it affect me.

Social security will not be there for your grandchildren no matter whether democrats or republicans are in charge. That's the one thing everyone agrees on. The fund will be bankrupt in a few years no matter who is at the helm.

obama wants to fold social security into welfare, like obamacare will eventually fold medicare into obamacare. Romney wants to give people the option of investing their money into their own retirement programs. In other words, give everyone the same option that public employees get. People who work for the government don't pay into the social security system now at all. They pay into PERS or the Public Employee Retirement System. I have a friend who is a retired cop. His social security check is $39.00 a month which represents what he paid into the system when he was a kid working as a box boy at the supermarket and when he was in the Army. His PERS check is $7,000 a month. We should all have the option of being able to invest our own money.

And given that option, if they fail to invest in our own retirement...well, just sucks to be us, then. The current situation with SS is a prime example of what happens when people place their faith (and their money) in government to provide adequately. Individual responsibility can bring great rewards, or it can destroy a person. But the choices and their consequences lie solely in the hands of the person making the choice.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

What I bolded in red is exactly the reason to privatize the system, you made a great argument for privatizing it. What most of us want is to be able to pass on what we pay in to our benefactors should we not live to collect it. It should be an investment, not a bottomless pit that the government gets to rob for their pet projects and to buy votes or to use as a scare tactic to garner votes. So, good job, you listed great reasons for why it needs to be majorly revamped and privatized.

You're not allowed to show fiscal constraint to a liberal.. They are the "Entitled" culture.. Phones, food stamps, electric bills, college, rent.. you name it, they're entitled and will fight tooth and nail to hang on to the gubmint cheese.

They are cheaply bought because they will vote for anyone who promises them the sun, the moon, and the stars, too.