Get rid of Social Security now?

[flacaltenn]

The "stealing" began with the change of law in the sixties, and both parties have done it ever since. Legally.

Progressive taxation is "welfare" transfer? Really?

See, you give opinions and pretend they are facts. They are not.

So you ARE completely oblivious to the NEW theft that Obama invented. I thought you might be since MOST of America hasn't caught on yet. This "payroll tax holiday" of his is stealing $BILLs from the FICA premiums at a time when the SS Fund has gone into deficit.

THAT A FACT ----------- JACK....

PS -- I'm not buying YOUR fact that the $TRILLs STOLEN from SS surplus was a LEGAL heist. They LIED about the Trust Fund and they took all that money MOSTLY from the working poor.. Go ahead -- make excuses for the criminals..

And a UNIVERSAL program that PRETENDS to be for ALL Americans cannot pass the smell test if SOME are getting a HUGE negative return. That's NOT a progressive tax and the FICA premiums are NOT MEANT to be progressive. When you have the "rich" or even just the INCOME TAX paying 57% carrying these programs --- they go from Universal ENTITLEMENTS to WELFARE..

THAT'S ANOTHER FACT ----------- JACK...

 

[martybegan]

I predict government will nationalize our IRA and 401k retirement accounts because the country will be so friggin broke they will have no choice.They will confiscate all our retirement accounts and will pay us what they feel is enough for us to live on month by month.

And I'm sure the Democrat party will not have a problem with this.

As it is now your IRA, 401 etc belong to the fucking government already.

The government tells you when you can use the money, how much you have to take out every year and penalizes you if you don't listen

That is return for deferred taxes, and you can break the rules if you feel like, you just have to pay penalties (tax related) to do different than what you originally agreed to.

I dont see the government able to confiscate private retirement accounts, and if they ever get that power, we will have much bigger worries than our 401ks

 

[hazlnut]

Perry was right..

 

[Lakhota]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

Republicans desperately want to get their hands on that Social Security money and move it into the private sector. They also desperately want to move public lands into the private sector.

Sadly, it could happen, because Romney and Ryan are proving just how gullible Americans can be.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

It wasn't INTENDED as welfare, shouldn't be considered welfare, but perhaps the Dems are right that we should transition it to a means-tested welfare program instead of UNIVERSAL coverage. FDR will punish them for that.... And I will never trust the Feds to manage ANY UNIVERSAL program ever again...

Because Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, there is no reason why some sort of means test should not be imposed. In the same way as auto insurance is costly but pays no benefits unless there is a qualifying reason, those whose income clearly negates the need for a Social Security supplement should not receive one. And the amount of one's monthly Social Security allotment should be based on the level of need. In my own example, if my monthly allotment were reduced by $200 it wouldn't hurt me at all. And if I were wealthy there would be no reason for me to receive an allotment at all.

And regardless of how the corporatist propaganda likes to frame it, that is not "welfare" by any creative definition. It is a sensible program of insurance against being destitute when one is too old to work.

 

[flacaltenn]

I predict government will nationalize our IRA and 401k retirement accounts because the country will be so friggin broke they will have no choice.They will confiscate all our retirement accounts and will pay us what they feel is enough for us to live on month by month.

And I'm sure the Democrat party will not have a problem with this.

As it is now your IRA, 401 etc belong to the fucking government already.

The government tells you when you can use the money, how much you have to take out every year and penalizes you if you don't listen

That is return for deferred taxes, and you can break the rules if you feel like, you just have to pay penalties (tax related) to do different than what you originally agreed to.

I dont see the government able to confiscate private retirement accounts, and if they ever get that power, we will have much bigger worries than our 401ks

Naaawwww. THAT could never happen...

Stealing Pensions - Investors.com


Social Security: Europe is trying to dig out of its budget hole by seizing private pensions. It's a last-ditch effort to preserve socialism at the expense of the very assets that would sustain its future growth.

In Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Ireland and France, big government, a demographic death spiral and weak tax revenues have left fiscal coffers in trouble. Unwilling to stand up to voters — or rioters — most governments have little taste for doing the right thing: cutting their budgets.

So, they're going after pensions to make up for shortfalls. Public and private pensions co-exist in European countries. In some cases, public ones resemble our own Social Security, stressing budgets.

But instead of privatizing pensions, as Chile did in 1980 — which would have turned these obligations into assets — three former stars of European emerging markets have come up with heavy-handed incentives to turn private savings public. It's a step backward.

In November, Hungary's parliament ordered its nationals to fork over $14 billion in private pensions to the state, effectively nullifying the country's 1997 pension reform. Anyone who balks loses his right to a public pension, but not his obligation to pay into it anyway.

Bulgaria's parliament named its price first — $300 million — and told workers to pay that from private savings or else. The Christian Science Monitor notes that had trade unions not protested it, the amount would have been five times larger. But they still lost.

Poland's parliament, in a move strongly opposed by the NSZZ Solidarnosc union, cut contributions to private accounts by a third, diverting that money to the public system at a cost of $2.3 billion a year.

 

[WillowTree]

[...]

It wasn't INTENDED as welfare, shouldn't be considered welfare, but perhaps the Dems are right that we should transition it to a means-tested welfare program instead of UNIVERSAL coverage. FDR will punish them for that.... And I will never trust the Feds to manage ANY UNIVERSAL program ever again...

Because Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, there is no reason why some sort of means test should not be imposed. In the same way as auto insurance is costly but pays no benefits unless there is a qualifying reason, those whose income clearly negates the need for a Social Security supplement should not receive one. And the amount of one's monthly Social Security allotment should be based on the level of need. In my own example, if my monthly allotment were reduced by $200 it wouldn't hurt me at all. And if I were wealthy there would be no reason for me to receive an allotment at all.

And regardless of how the corporatist propaganda likes to frame it, that is not "welfare" by any creative definition. It is a sensible program of insurance against being destitute when one is too old to work.

Udder Bullshit. That's just fucking stealing or as the democrats would say "wealth redistribution."

 

[flacaltenn]

[...]

It wasn't INTENDED as welfare, shouldn't be considered welfare, but perhaps the Dems are right that we should transition it to a means-tested welfare program instead of UNIVERSAL coverage. FDR will punish them for that.... And I will never trust the Feds to manage ANY UNIVERSAL program ever again...

Because Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, there is no reason why some sort of means test should not be imposed. In the same way as auto insurance is costly but pays no benefits unless there is a qualifying reason, those whose income clearly negates the need for a Social Security supplement should not receive one. And the amount of one's monthly Social Security allotment should be based on the level of need. In my own example, if my monthly allotment were reduced by $200 it wouldn't hurt me at all. And if I were wealthy there would be no reason for me to receive an allotment at all.

And regardless of how the corporatist propaganda likes to frame it, that is not "welfare" by any creative definition. It is a sensible program of insurance against being destitute when one is too old to work.

Explain in whatever cosmic language you prefer -- how MEANs testing a program that EVERYONE is required to contribute to is NOT welfare...

 

[Cecilie1200]

when you drown something you kill it

He didn't say he was going to drown it in a bath tub did he?

No he said he wants it small enough to be able to drown it in a bathtub.

Don't you understand the language?

You forget who you're talking to?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The payroll tax was passed by Congresses, son. It's legal.

"They" are both parties, not Obama by his own little lonesome.

And progressive taxation is not "welfare" transfer.

You are simply stupid. Your opinions are not facts.

The "stealing" began with the change of law in the sixties, and both parties have done it ever since. Legally.

Progressive taxation is "welfare" transfer? Really?

See, you give opinions and pretend they are facts. They are not.

So you ARE completely oblivious to the NEW theft that Obama invented. I thought you might be since MOST of America hasn't caught on yet. This "payroll tax holiday" of his is stealing $BILLs from the FICA premiums at a time when the SS Fund has gone into deficit.

THAT A FACT ----------- JACK....

PS -- I'm not buying YOUR fact that the $TRILLs STOLEN from SS surplus was a LEGAL heist. They LIED about the Trust Fund and they took all that money MOSTLY from the working poor.. Go ahead -- make excuses for the criminals..

And a UNIVERSAL program that PRETENDS to be for ALL Americans cannot pass the smell test if SOME are getting a HUGE negative return. That's NOT a progressive tax and the FICA premiums are NOT MEANT to be progressive. When you have the "rich" or even just the INCOME TAX paying 57% carrying these programs --- they go from Universal ENTITLEMENTS to WELFARE..

THAT'S ANOTHER FACT ----------- JACK...

 

[Peach]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

We know what has happened since the CONs got their "industry self policing": contaminated drugs, and five story concrete structures collapsing in cities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll make the government a deal: replace the "assets" in my Social security account with stock in Berkshire Hathaway and I will forego any additional payments after I retire, just give me ownership of those assets and that concludes our financial arrangement.

Deal?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

 

[Peach]

I'll make the government a deal: replace the "assets" in my Social security account with stock in Berkshire Hathaway and I will forego any additional payments after I retire, just give me ownership of those assets and that concludes our financial arrangement.

Deal?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

I gather YOU constructed the roads you drive, and the phone lines you find imitation sexy pictures on? Get your hands back in the dirt, and quit using my water lines, I pay more taxes than YOU do, so I own 'em CON.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

It wasn't INTENDED as welfare, shouldn't be considered welfare, but perhaps the Dems are right that we should transition it to a means-tested welfare program instead of UNIVERSAL coverage. FDR will punish them for that.... And I will never trust the Feds to manage ANY UNIVERSAL program ever again...

Because Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, there is no reason why some sort of means test should not be imposed. In the same way as auto insurance is costly but pays no benefits unless there is a qualifying reason, those whose income clearly negates the need for a Social Security supplement should not receive one. And the amount of one's monthly Social Security allotment should be based on the level of need. In my own example, if my monthly allotment were reduced by $200 it wouldn't hurt me at all. And if I were wealthy there would be no reason for me to receive an allotment at all.

And regardless of how the corporatist propaganda likes to frame it, that is not "welfare" by any creative definition. It is a sensible program of insurance against being destitute when one is too old to work.

Explain in whatever cosmic language you prefer -- how MEANs testing a program that EVERYONE is required to contribute to is NOT welfare...

I did explain it. But you don't wish to understand it.

The purpose of Social Security, which typically pays out considerably more than is paid in, is to prevent impoverishment in old age or to provide the supplementary means required to enjoy basic comforts during retirement. One who manages to acquire sufficient wealth to ensure a luxurious retirement clearly has no need to draw a supplementary allotment, or the full supplementary allotment.

As mentioned above, in my own example a $200 reduction in my Social Security allotment, if necessary to stabilize the program, wouldn't negatively affect me because I enjoy a generous pension and I have a stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. And even with a reduced allotment I would still derive more from the program than I've paid into it -- as would most recipients.

Again, Social Security is insurance, not an investment or savings program. A means test wouldn't hurt anyone but would simply ensure uninterrupted performance into the future. And it isn't welfare because it is fueled by payroll contributions -- much like health insurance.

If you're lucky you'll never need it. But if you need it, it's there.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, there is no reason why some sort of means test should not be imposed. In the same way as auto insurance is costly but pays no benefits unless there is a qualifying reason, those whose income clearly negates the need for a Social Security supplement should not receive one. And the amount of one's monthly Social Security allotment should be based on the level of need. In my own example, if my monthly allotment were reduced by $200 it wouldn't hurt me at all. And if I were wealthy there would be no reason for me to receive an allotment at all.

And regardless of how the corporatist propaganda likes to frame it, that is not "welfare" by any creative definition. It is a sensible program of insurance against being destitute when one is too old to work.

Explain in whatever cosmic language you prefer -- how MEANs testing a program that EVERYONE is required to contribute to is NOT welfare...

I did explain it. But you don't wish to understand it.

The purpose of Social Security, which typically pays out considerably more than is paid in, is to prevent impoverishment in old age or to provide the supplementary means required to enjoy basic comforts during retirement. One who manages to acquire sufficient wealth to ensure a luxurious retirement clearly has no need to draw a supplementary allotment, or the full supplementary allotment.

As mentioned above, in my own example a $200 reduction in my Social Security allotment, if necessary to stabilize the program, wouldn't negatively affect me because I enjoy a generous pension and I have a stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. And even with a reduced allotment I would still derive more from the program than I've paid into it -- as would most recipients.

Again, Social Security is insurance, not an investment or savings program. A means test wouldn't hurt anyone but would simply ensure uninterrupted performance into the future. And it isn't welfare because it is fueled by payroll contributions -- much like health insurance.

If you're lucky you'll never need it. But if you need it, it's there.

Well shit man.. Forget losing $200.. Lets' declare YOU not needy of a "supplement" and see if you don't understand the meaning of welfare then... What with all your LOOT and Savings Bonds and such.. What a load...

One guy pays 12% of 7 figures for their working life and gets NOTHING. Another pays 12% of squat and gets a 60% of his salary pension.. No -- that wouldn't be welfare..

I know it's not UNIVERSAL anything like it was intended either.

We won't get fooled again...

 

[Cecilie1200]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rewed-generation-is-turning-to-paul-ryan.html

The younger generation will pull for Paul Ryan when they realize they will become the oxen in the field responsible for carrying the elderly in their bloated government programs.

I was up late the other night and all you saw were infomercials for medical crap where the announcer stated...."Medicare will pay for it all....just see your doctor." This wasn't for life threatening stuff.

Young people are catching on.

Poor baby! You think it was any more fun for our older generation to be forced to pay into the program? You think you are more entitled to take home your whole paycheck than we were. And I'll bet that when you were a child you thought you were entitled to food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc. etc. Try to pretend you are an adult.

More entitled? No. Smart enough to see what you obviously didn't and don't? Apparently.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

Any links supporting these claims?

It's an opinion and a sensible one.

So-called Republicans, who are in fact emerging fascists, such as Romney and Ryan will definitely try to privatize Social Security, which will destroy the extraordinarily beneficial program and turn it into a cash cow for them and their corporatist cronies. But the effects of doing so will provoke the political revolution which is desperately needed to bring about the changes which will restore the middle class to its pre-Reagan status.

In other words, things need to get worse before they can get better.

Opinions are easily recognizable by the phrase 'in my opinion' or 'I think'. Neither was present in the OP, which makes it a statement of fact, therefore requiring proof it does have, which makes it a lie.

Since you say they 'will' do these things, rather than 'I think they will', the same applies to you. Prove it or shut your flapping cakehole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll make the government a deal: replace the "assets" in my Social security account with stock in Berkshire Hathaway and I will forego any additional payments after I retire, just give me ownership of those assets and that concludes our financial arrangement.

Deal?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

I gather YOU constructed the roads you drive, and the phone lines you find imitation sexy pictures on? Get your hands back in the dirt, and quit using my water lines, I pay more taxes than YOU do, so I own 'em CON.

The only thing you're gathering is prescriptions for psych meds, dipshit. We've already discussed to death your piss-ignorant inability to understand the difference between 'government has a purpose' and 'government is wonderful and should do everything', and I for one am not interested in revisiting the lost cause of talking sense into the howling vacuum between your ears, so stop wasting my time and screen space by injecting your attempts to set respect for women back 100 years into the conversation.

 

[MikeK]

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

I gather YOU constructed the roads you drive, and the phone lines you find imitation sexy pictures on? Get your hands back in the dirt, and quit using my water lines, I pay more taxes than YOU do, so I own 'em CON.

The only thing you're gathering is prescriptions for psych meds, dipshit. We've already discussed to death your piss-ignorant inability to understand the difference between 'government has a purpose' and 'government is wonderful and should do everything', and I for one am not interested in revisiting the lost cause of talking sense into the howling vacuum between your ears, so stop wasting my time and screen space by injecting your attempts to set respect for women back 100 years into the conversation.

Keepers at NYC's Bronx Zoo have installed plexiglas barriers beyond the bars of some cages in the primate exhibit because the monkeys there are known to defecate into their hands and throw it when something upsets them. The monkeys do this when they are frustrated because all that a monkey in a cage can do when he doesn't like something is throw shit.

Ignorance and stupidity are metaphorical cages. Personal insults and empty ad hominem comments are analogous to handfuls of shit to be tossed out in place of intelligent, reasoned, logical arguments.

I don't know what your problem is, maybe you need to change the batteries in your dildo, but since you are incapable of civil discussion I'm banishing you to my Ignore list along with the other uglies and poorly raised adolescents so I'll never be annoyed by your foul efforts at communication again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll make the government a deal: replace the "assets" in my Social security account with stock in Berkshire Hathaway and I will forego any additional payments after I retire, just give me ownership of those assets and that concludes our financial arrangement.

Deal?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that individuals are incapable of living their own lives or managing their own affairs without the all-knowing and benevolent government - and the liberals who worship it - to interfere . . . oops, I mean help run things correctly - to be defined as 'the way liberals think it should be run'.

Now drink your koolaid and stop being silly.

I wouldn't even trust the average person to have the sense to stop at a stop sign if there wasn't a government there to enforce it,

let alone trust them to live their lives in a safe sensible decent harmless manner with no government around at all.