Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing to rebut except meaningless mumbles. Really you guys are only worth as useful idiots to those directing you.

Skull and Odd are merely mumbling.

If you can refute my claims feel free to try little sheep.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Politico and Grunt11B join as colleagues with the others as useful idiots to the libertarian and or far right.

Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then what happens to the people who depend on it? If you say no, then do you disagree with your leaders and if you do, then why you support them?

Being that Obama care will become law I dont see any reason to keep medicare and medicaid around. Everybody could be lumped into the obamacare system and nothing would change other than getting rid of two programs that are bloated. Unless of course the intention is to over bloat the economy and sink it, which is what the intent is with all of these programs.
If Obama pushed his healthcare by saying "I will replace medicare and medicaid with this new health program that will cover everybody" I might not have been against it so much because it would not have changed the cost to the program, it may have actually saved some money by eliminating the two programs for the sake of the one. But to just add another program to an already huge list of government failures was senseless, unlesss it was done with malicious intent "Which it was".

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nothing to rebut except meaningless mumbles. Really you guys are only worth as useful idiots to those directing you.

Skull and Odd are merely mumbling.

If you can refute my claims feel free to try little sheep.

So because you couldn't handle your own money everyone else has to be fleeced by the fucking government?

And feel free to show me where anything in my example was wrong if you can.

BTW you can 't but you'll never admit that people could actually do better without the fucking government mishandling 15% of their life time income.

 

[GHook93]

Reform Social Security to the Chilean model. The model that is the most rapidly growing in the world. The model that took Chile from bankruptcy to the third most healthy economy (not largest, but healthest) in the West hemisphere, while providing Chilean retirees 10 fold more at retirement!

Medicaid/Medicare - The entire health insurance industry needs to be redone. But providing healthcare for our elderly is a must and ditto for the needy!

Chilean Model of Social Security | FreedomWorks
Chile transitioned from an unsustainable public pensions program to an incredibly successful private program by ushering new workers into it. The new system is based on individual decision making. Entering into the work force, workers were given a private pension fund that requires them to contribute 10 to 20 percent of their income. The amount put into the fund depends on the age the employee wants to retire.

At retirement, the private fund is transferred into an annuity with an insurance company. The individual is given the choice to decide what insurance company to work with and what plan best fits the circumstances. If the individual is not satisfied with the company or plan, they have the freedom to change companies. This also allows competition between insurance companies, which would lead to better service and greater returns over time.

Chile set up transitional rules for insurance companies to ensure safety. Due to the radical nature of the privatization, the government wanted to direct companies into safe investment agreements in order to prevent the loss of large sums of money. Risky investments increase the chances of system failure. “If the system had failed in the first years, we would never have been able to try it again,” said Jose Pinera, Chile’s minister of labor. However, these rules provided the roots for a continual, successful retirement system. As insurance companies continue to grow more secure, they will have more freedom to broaden investment.

For those who were already paying into the public system, they were given a choice to stay public or to enter the private system. The major cost created by the transition is the money Chile loses from the people switching to the private system. The cost was financed by the selling of state-owned enterprises that would provide for those who stayed on the public pension system. Due to the success of the privatization, around 93 percent Chilean workers switched to the new program. The public pension program will be completely eliminated the day the last person in the system passes away.

The system has had immensely positive effects:

• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinions mean nothing if you can't support them. I don't have to refute opinions.

Nothing to rebut except meaningless mumbles. Really you guys are only worth as useful idiots to those directing you.

If you can refute my claims feel free to try little sheep.

So because you couldn't handle your own money everyone else has to be fleeced by the fucking government?

And feel free to show me where anything in my example was wrong if you can.

BTW you can 't but you'll never admit that people could actually do better without the fucking government mishandling 15% of their life time income.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Opinions mean nothing if you can't support them. I don't have to refute opinions.

Nothing to rebut except meaningless mumbles. Really you guys are only worth as useful idiots to those directing you.

So because you couldn't handle your own money everyone else has to be fleeced by the fucking government?

And feel free to show me where anything in my example was wrong if you can.

BTW you can 't but you'll never admit that people could actually do better without the fucking government mishandling 15% of their life time income.

Since when are income projections opinion?

If they were then my Social Security statement and the income projection it provides ( as pathetic as it is) would be an opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You make a statement that 15% of our income (actually it is only half of that, the employer has the other half, unless you are self employed) is mishandled. DEFEND your opinion with stats and analysis and rationale and etc, please. Useful tools, all of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You make a statement that 15% of our income (actually it is only half of that, the employer has the other half, unless you are self employed) is mishandled. DEFEND your opinion with stats and analysis and rationale and etc, please. Useful tools, all of you.

You twit.

SS contributions total 15% of one's income and the employer contribution is figured in to the equation when one hires someone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a useful tool and fool.

Make an argument, not just a silly opinion comment then expect others to refute it.

You make a statement that 15% of our income (actually it is only half of that, the employer has the other half, unless you are self employed) is mishandled. DEFEND your opinion with stats and analysis and rationale and etc, please. Useful tools, all of you.

You twit.

SS contributions total 15% of one's income and the employer contribution is figured in to the equation when one hires someone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are a useful tool and fool.

Make an argument, not just a silly opinion comment then expect others to refute it.

You make a statement that 15% of our income (actually it is only half of that, the employer has the other half, unless you are self employed) is mishandled. DEFEND your opinion with stats and analysis and rationale and etc, please. Useful tools, all of you.

You twit.

SS contributions total 15% of one's income and the employer contribution is figured in to the equation when one hires someone.

I did make an argument in my first post.

So for you little sheep I'll do it again.

A 22 year old just out of college gets a job making 45K a year. He works that job for 45 years never getting a raise.

Now if he saves the 15% of his income he would be saving 6750 a year or 563 a month for 45 years he would have:

At 6% average growth 1.64 million

At 7% average growth 2.3 million

At 8% average growth 3.3 million

Before you say those returns are too optimistic you should know that the sock market has averaged in the long term, 40 to 50 years, about 10% so you see my estimates are quite conservative.

Now just so you can see what kind of income that will provide let's say that in retirement he lives on 5K month ( More than he did while he was working not less)

1.64 million earning 3% with 5K a month income would last 58 years he could live on more or he could leave what's left to his wife and kids

2.3 million would last basically forever because you would be earning more than you took out every year.

Now your maximum SS benefit is 2500 a month. And the person in my example would only receive about 1400 a month

in both examples the total contribution was 303,750

SS will only pay you a maximum 2500 a month and it will most likely be less, my examples pays 5000 a month or substantially more and allow you to leave a sizable inheritance to your family.

Now tell me if you gave two financial planners 303,750 and one of them managed your money and ended up with a retirement income of 5000 a month with money to spare and the other only gave you a retirement income of 1400 a month with no money to leave as inheritance would you not say that the latter mishandled your money?

 

[hipeter924]

There are plenty of alternatives but the two big ones are:
1) Establish a national health service and cut health-care costs; while building up a social security infrastructure to put people into work and training, like in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
2) Shut it all down, save the money and let the market deal with it. You couldn't kill the food stamps however, as that would create riots and chaos just like you have in third world nations; where people starve to death on the streets.

 

[hipeter924]

You are a useful tool and fool.

Make an argument, not just a silly opinion comment then expect others to refute it.

You twit.

SS contributions total 15% of one's income and the employer contribution is figured in to the equation when one hires someone.

A 22 year old just out of college gets a job making 45K a year. He works that job for 45 years never getting a raise.

No one in the real world stays in one job for 45 years, more like you change jobs either because you no longer suit that company; or because you want a better salary or lifestyle. Then factor in student debt; and a student out of college is more like earning 20,000; that is excluding living costs. Take out living costs (and health insurance) and that is 2,000 earned a year.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are a useful tool and fool.

Make an argument, not just a silly opinion comment then expect others to refute it.

A 22 year old just out of college gets a job making 45K a year. He works that job for 45 years never getting a raise.

No one in the real world stays in one job for 45 years, more like you change jobs either because you no longer suit that company; or because you want a better salary or lifestyle. Then factor in student debt; and a student out of college is more like earning 20,000; that is excluding living costs. Take out living costs (and health insurance) and that is 2,000 earned a year.

It's an example you dolt. And student debt or any other bill for that matter has no bearing on Social Security contributions now do they?

It is meant to show you sheep how even a person making an average income can become financially independent if they were allowed to control their own money rather than the government forcing them to sacrifice their financial independence.

Maybe you should slow down when you read. It's OK if you have to follow along with your finger and move your lips.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If everybody lived like that in a world that did not change, Skull, perhaps.

But your illustration is merely an illusion of your mind, and the thinking folks on the Board will move right along and leave you behind with your thoughts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you can't refute the points then.

I didn't think so.

A world where the government does not sabotage the financial future of its citizens just isn't in your pigeonhole paradigm is it?

You refer to yourself as a "thinking person" yet you never question the government's machinations. People who really think always question authority.

 

[Too Tall]

Just give everyone a one time choice to opt in or out of these programs.

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

If they left it alone it should be back up almost where it was before the crash.

The assumption is that when the stock market 'crashes' retirees lose everything. Wrong! I am a retiree with a hunk of money in the market and watched its value nose dive in 2008-2009. Since I only take out the minimum required distribution (MRD) that is required by the law, and George Bush gave me two years grace that I didn't have to take the MRD, I was able to watch the market recover without losing my initial investment.

That happens every time the market falls and the business cycle comes into play. The recovery is taking a lot longer this time due to the incompetence in the White House.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Social security is nothing but mandated dependence on government.

How many times do I have to show you people that even only earning the median income of about 45K that anyone if allowed to keep the 15% of their lifetime income confiscated by the government could retire a millionaire and also leave the beginnings of true generational wealth to his family?

Here we go again

A 22 year old just out of college gets a job making 45K a year. He works that job for 45 years never getting a raise.

Now if he saves the 15% of his income he would be saving 6750 a year or 563 a month for 45 years he would have:

At 6% average growth 1.64 million

At 7% average growth 2.3 million

At 8% average growth 3.3 million

Before you say those returns are too optimistic you should know that the sock market has averages in the long term, 40 to 50 years, about 10% so you see my estimates are quite conservative.

Now just so you can see what kind of income that will provide let's say that in retirement he lives on 5K month ( More than he did while he was working not less)

1.64 million earning 3% with 5K a month income would last 58 years he could live on more or he could leave what's left to his wife and kids

2.3 million would last basically forever because you would be earning more than you took out every year.

Now your maximum SS benefit is 2500 a month.

Tell me which would you rather have?

And please realize that this example is only the money taken for SS if you were to add another 5 to 20% to your savings you could retire even richer and leave a real legacy to your family.

It's no wonder the fucking government wants to force economic bondage on us because if we had the option outlined above people wouldn't need the fucking government now would they?

Your hypothetical 22 year old gets a job for 45k? Since the mean income in the US in 2005 was a bit less than 45k

see: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can infer that half of all Americans will make less than this person. We must also infer he is unmarried and has no children (any idea what the cost is to raise one child?) and has no college debt. He bought a home in 2005 which was one of the few to remain above water, will never experience a major accident or illness and was smart enough to save as you suggested, yet somehow invested with such wisdom that his retirement account thrived even as most others suffered devastating loses in the Great Recession (2007-2009).

 

[Seawytch]

Without SS, elderly in poverty. With SS fewer elderly in poverty...by a considerable amount. Case closed.

 

[sealybobo]

The zero number of responses you got is telling.

These programs are socialism. Conservatives like to spout off about how socialism is the devil himself,

but they also know that to oppose these socialist programs outright puts them in a looney extremist minority.

Such a dilemma...

Yup. I'm on another thread and Republicans refuse to admit they want to end social security. They keep saying "PROVE IT".

1. My whole life they've been telling us not to count on it being there when we retire
2. They've said they hate socialism. SS is socialism for all of us when we get old.
3. Rick Scott said he wants to end the program and right now he's trying to take control of the Senate away from Mitch McConnell and usher in a new more conservative era. In other words less socialism like ss.
4. This is just like abortion. They won't admit their ultimate goal is to do away with it.

 

[sealybobo]

Social security is nothing but mandated dependence on government.

How many times do I have to show you people that even only earning the median income of about 45K that anyone if allowed to keep the 15% of their lifetime income confiscated by the government could retire a millionaire and also leave the beginnings of true generational wealth to his family?

Here we go again

A 22 year old just out of college gets a job making 45K a year. He works that job for 45 years never getting a raise.

Now if he saves the 15% of his income he would be saving 6750 a year or 563 a month for 45 years he would have:

At 6% average growth 1.64 million

At 7% average growth 2.3 million

At 8% average growth 3.3 million

Before you say those returns are too optimistic you should know that the sock market has averages in the long term, 40 to 50 years, about 10% so you see my estimates are quite conservative.

Now just so you can see what kind of income that will provide let's say that in retirement he lives on 5K month ( More than he did while he was working not less)

1.64 million earning 3% with 5K a month income would last 58 years he could live on more or he could leave what's left to his wife and kids

2.3 million would last basically forever because you would be earning more than you took out every year.

Now your maximum SS benefit is 2500 a month.

Tell me which would you rather have?

And please realize that this example is only the money taken for SS if you were to add another 5 to 20% to your savings you could retire even richer and leave a real legacy to your family.

It's no wonder the fucking government wants to force economic bondage on us because if we had the option outlined above people wouldn't need the fucking government now would they?

M14 Shooter is a Republican and he says Republicans don't want to do away with social security. Is he right?