Get rid of Social Security now?

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...
Well, shit, man, why do that to me? If you dock me $200 I'll still be okay. But if you cancel my entire Social Security allotment I'll be pinching pennies and be eating a lot of Ramen noodles and oatmeal. I'm not rich. I'm just comfortable. The thing is I'm not greedy.

One guy pays 12% of 7 figures for their working life and gets NOTHING.
Because he doesn't need the supplement.

Another pays 12% of squat and gets a 60% of his salary pension.. No -- that wouldn't be welfare.
Who gets 60% of his salary as a monthly Social Security allotment? You really have been indoctrinated by corporatist propaganda. Whoever needs the full allotment should get it -- and that's not welfare. It's Social Security. Welfare is something else.

Welfare is not an insurance program that one contributes to all of his working life. If you have a beef with some welfare program that's a separate issue and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
 
Last edited:
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...
Well, shit, man, why do that to me? If you dock me $200 I'll still be okay. But if you cancel my entire Social Security allotment I'll be pinching pennies and be eating a lot of Ramen noodles and oatmeal. I'm not rich. I'm just comfortable. The thing is I'm not greedy.

One guy pays 12% of 7 figures for their working life and gets NOTHING.
Because he doesn't need the supplement.

Another pays 12% of squat and gets a 60% of his salary pension.. No -- that wouldn't be welfare.
Who gets 60% of his salary as a monthly Social Security allotment? You really have been indoctrinated by corporatist propaganda. Whoever needs the full allotment should get it -- and that's not welfare. It's Social Security. Welfare is something else.

Welfare is not an insurance program that one contributes to all of his working life. If you have a beef with some welfare program that's a separate issue and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Can't do the math can ya?? If $1100/mo is 60% --- then 100% would be 1833/mo. That's anybody who was was making 22K/year is getting 60% of salary in monthly SS check.. We clear?

I don't care how much you suffer -- because you don't really care about casting burdens on me do ya? And you're bragging about all your sources of income -- so OBVIOUSLY there's a lot of folks more needy than you.. You've been means tested and you fail.. Thanks for 12% of your working life salary, deal with it...
 
Social Security was 1 year away from insolvency in 1983;

it was fixed without resorting to some insane rightwing extremist scheme.

Yeah it's extreme to want people to control 15% of their lifetime income and retire wealthy and it's perfectly rational to take 15% of one's lifetime income and give them barely enough on which to subsist in retirement.
 
Can't do the math can ya?? If $1100/mo is 60% --- then 100% would be 1833/mo. That's anybody who was was making 22K/year is getting 60% of salary in monthly SS check.. We clear?
So you're saying that based on a 60% projection a $100k annual salary will qualify one to receive $60k a year from Social Security. Do you really believe that? If so I will let it go at that and consign you to your inevitable future disappointment

I don't care how much you suffer -- because you don't really care about casting burdens on me do ya? And you're bragging about all your sources of income -- so OBVIOUSLY there's a lot of folks more needy than you.. You've been means tested and you fail.. Thanks for 12% of your working life salary, deal with it...
I'm not suffering, nor am I bragging. I've merely laid out my situation as an academic example. And if my example, which is rather ordinary, seems like something to brag about you must be making minimum wage -- in which case I pity you in spite of the bitterness your right-wing orientation has infected you with.

And if you feel I am casting a burden on you don't you think it's fair considering the burden your parents or grandparents imposed on me? Or would you prefer to ignore that part?
 
Can't do the math can ya?? If $1100/mo is 60% --- then 100% would be 1833/mo. That's anybody who was was making 22K/year is getting 60% of salary in monthly SS check.. We clear?
So you're saying that based on a 60% projection a $100k annual salary will qualify one to receive $60k a year from Social Security. Do you really believe that? If so I will let it go at that and consign you to your inevitable future disappointment

I don't care how much you suffer -- because you don't really care about casting burdens on me do ya? And you're bragging about all your sources of income -- so OBVIOUSLY there's a lot of folks more needy than you.. You've been means tested and you fail.. Thanks for 12% of your working life salary, deal with it...
I'm not suffering, nor am I bragging. I've merely laid out my situation as an academic example. And if my example, which is rather ordinary, seems like something to brag about you must be making minimum wage -- in which case I pity you in spite of the bitterness your right-wing orientation has infected you with.

And if you feel I am casting a burden on you don't you think it's fair considering the burden your parents or grandparents imposed on me? Or would you prefer to ignore that part?

WOW!! Unresponsive -- off on tangents AND a loser mentality.. This is why the Dem policies are building a nation full of beggars and whiners..

The simple math I gave you was to back up my assertion you didn't believe that when you means test and raise caps and turn SS from Universal Entitlement into welfare that the little guy gets a 60% pension while someone else gets NOTHING for 12% of their working income all their lives.

My parents and grandparents are NOT your problem. Math and logic seem to be your biggest nemesis..
 
Can't do the math can ya?? If $1100/mo is 60% --- then 100% would be 1833/mo. That's anybody who was was making 22K/year is getting 60% of salary in monthly SS check.. We clear?
So you're saying that based on a 60% projection a $100k annual salary will qualify one to receive $60k a year from Social Security. Do you really believe that? If so I will let it go at that and consign you to your inevitable future disappointment

I don't care how much you suffer -- because you don't really care about casting burdens on me do ya? And you're bragging about all your sources of income -- so OBVIOUSLY there's a lot of folks more needy than you.. You've been means tested and you fail.. Thanks for 12% of your working life salary, deal with it...
I'm not suffering, nor am I bragging. I've merely laid out my situation as an academic example. And if my example, which is rather ordinary, seems like something to brag about you must be making minimum wage -- in which case I pity you in spite of the bitterness your right-wing orientation has infected you with.

And if you feel I am casting a burden on you don't you think it's fair considering the burden your parents or grandparents imposed on me? Or would you prefer to ignore that part?

WOW!! Unresponsive -- off on tangents AND a loser mentality.. This is why the Dem policies are building a nation full of beggars and whiners..

The simple math I gave you was to back up my assertion you didn't believe that when you means test and raise caps and turn SS from Universal Entitlement into welfare that the little guy gets a 60% pension while someone else gets NOTHING for 12% of their working income all their lives.

My parents and grandparents are NOT your problem. Math and logic seem to be your biggest nemesis..
Meaningless bloviation.

You're done.
 
Social Security was 1 year away from insolvency in 1983;

it was fixed without resorting to some insane rightwing extremist scheme.

And its BEEN insolvent since 2010.. Obama's reaction? Steal from the Soc Sec premiums so that you can say that EVERYBODY got an Obama tax break.. Helped it go insolvent 6 yrs ahead of schedule.. Who's picking up the slack? Those 57% who are still paying income tax. Robin Hood redistribution and cynical disregard for the health of the VERY PROGRAM that Dems hold dear. Just like the cynical move to count $600Bill of Medicare reductions as paying for their NEW UNIVERSAL healthcare fiasco..

Only the party of victims can get away those kinds of thefts...
 
AARP says SS going bankrupt is the #1 USA myth.

When a "pay as you go" system like soc sec runs a deficit like it has been since 2010 -- It's insolvent.. Like --- right now... AARP is full of crap...

$45BILL shortfall in 2011.. All had to be covered by the General Fund. This ADDS to the debt that Obama is running up yearly.

If it was a company -- it would be MORE than just bankrupt..
 
If the consanguinity had their way, ss would have been gone when the Econ dropped. Then what.
 
We the People are not sheep.

Those who believe in libertarianism are the quintessential sheep: they will believe anything.

Ah, typical libertarian nonsense: the masses being guarded by the society of equal (warlords).

I suppose being guarded by corrupt politicians is better.

At least to sheep

Please use a "Big L" when describing the more extreme Libertarians. I hold libertarian leanings, but they revolve mostly around a strict interpretation of the consitution when it comes to states vs. the federal government, followed by the use of a states own consitution to see what powers it devolves to more local authorites.
 
Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Trustees Report Summary

Frankly, when our Govt. uses Social Security for what it was not intended , and that is a "General Fund" to borrow from for everything from F-35's, to golf course upkeep, it's not surprising that some would think Social Security is the problem rather than both parties who have used the program for other than what it was intended for. One other thing that comes to mind here, Social Security is one of the largest debt holders if US debt , and at the moment to make the case that Social Security is the problem when at the same time your the one who is making it the problem is nonsense.

Some other issues come to mind here as well, Social Security was set up as a program to provide a "stable" benefit, not subject to the whims of the market, or state run pensions, a person can count on when they retire. Frankly I find it amusing that some would advocate getting rid of Social Security when all it takes is a little time and research to understand , that without it to sheer cost and economic impact without it would offset any gains made. Without Social Security this nation more than half the Seniors in this nation lived in poverty and more than 75% of them lived without any form of health insurance, you think your health insurance is high now? Get rid of Social Security and Medicare and watch what happens. It makes a lot more sense to actually fix these programs so that they are there for the generations that follow, and properly fund them and stop using them as credit cards.
 
"Natural News" clearly demonstrates that you and Paulitician are among those so easily influenced by others.

Interesting article.

We the People are not sheep.

Study proves 95% of people really are sheeple
Those who believe in libertarianism are the quintessential sheep: they will believe anything.

Excuse me but since libertarians are in the minority and most of you bleaters aren't it seems to me that you sheep are the gullible ones

And FYI I don't label myself as a libertarian or any other species of political pigeon hole thinkers like you.
 
Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Trustees Report Summary

Frankly, when our Govt. uses Social Security for what it was not intended , and that is a "General Fund" to borrow from for everything from F-35's, to golf course upkeep, it's not surprising that some would think Social Security is the problem rather than both parties who have used the program for other than what it was intended for. One other thing that comes to mind here, Social Security is one of the largest debt holders if US debt , and at the moment to make the case that Social Security is the problem when at the same time your the one who is making it the problem is nonsense.

Some other issues come to mind here as well, Social Security was set up as a program to provide a "stable" benefit, not subject to the whims of the market, or state run pensions, a person can count on when they retire. Frankly I find it amusing that some would advocate getting rid of Social Security when all it takes is a little time and research to understand , that without it to sheer cost and economic impact without it would offset any gains made. Without Social Security this nation more than half the Seniors in this nation lived in poverty and more than 75% of them lived without any form of health insurance, you think your health insurance is high now? Get rid of Social Security and Medicare and watch what happens. It makes a lot more sense to actually fix these programs so that they are there for the generations that follow, and properly fund them and stop using them as credit cards.

Thanks for punctuating the real problem. Not only is there nothing of value in the Trust Fund, but the lies about the "health" of the program are still rampant promulgated by the usual suspects....

But be careful about comparing the accounting IOUs in Soc Sec to REAL US DEBT holders. Real Treasury Bonds have to be honored or the consequences are dire.. Soc Sec has no bar for what you deftly called STABLE benefits. And as the crisis unfolds, the politicians are gonna go FIRST to altering the program -- rather than honor those IOUs as true debt instruments.

Tell ya what.. I'd be for a Universal Retirement Insurance plan with DEFINED benefits and flexible retirement rules.. But that's not what we had and it's not where the Dems are gonna try to take it. The working poor are the ones that have back breaking jobs. Asking THEM to work another couple years is JUST AS cynical as asking a large percentage to go without ANY benefit from the program.. Bipartisian compromise like solutions will be the WORSE solution possible....
 
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.

There is no program designed by Democrats that could possibly be secure for a long time to come.

How much damage to the security of Social Security do you think is occurring by Obama and the Democrats rebating a large portion of Social Security taxes for people to spend?

When a Republican suggested that people ought to be able to keep a portion of their Social Security taxes and invest the money in 401Ks, you loons screamed that doing so would kill social security, and the people would lose their money in a market crash.

But, when Obama hands it back and says spend it, there is not even a whimper from you loons. Are you really that dumb?
 
"Natural News" clearly demonstrates that you and Paulitician are among those so easily influenced by others.

Interesting article.

We the People are not sheep.

Study proves 95% of people really are sheeple
Those who believe in libertarianism are the quintessential sheep: they will believe anything.

Excuse me but since libertarians are in the minority and most of you bleaters aren't it seems to me that you sheep are the gullible ones

And FYI I don't label myself as a libertarian or any other species of political pigeon hole thinkers like you.

Nice try but again 95% of you sheep are mindless drones of the current republicrat system
 

Forum List

Back
Top