Privatize % of SS ?

[Oddball]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Nope, because that's not how the system is set up. And it's also not set up to "borrow from" or pay anything out to anyone unless they're at retirement age.

I suppose that if people could "opt out" or "do their own investing" many would do it knowing that if they squandered their retirement savings they could simply collect welfare.

So we need a granddaddy of a welfare program, to make sure that people don't go on welfare.

Hoooboooie.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Please.. PLEASE.. give me my money, let me opt out.

 

[DaGoose]

Or better than the finiancial sector does?
Junk mortgage packages? Rated AAA with no history to support that rating?

Now they have things so hosed they can't even forclose?

Either way, IF this idea is on the table, leave it to the individual taxpayer to decide what is best for THEIR money. Leave it with the Fed or take their own chances in the market. Right?

Their money outside of the SS contributions is already on the table. They have several tax deferred options and such.
Most/many would opt out if they could, blow the money and then whine like hell when they got older and had nothing at all to fall back on. And expect the govt to support their ass.
that is the reality of human beings.

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

 

[Sallow]

Yes...It's illustrating the absurd by being equally absurd.

Nothing absurd about SSI. It's functioned very well for decades.

Nobody's talking about whether or not it has "functioned" for decades.

Try again.

Actually..you try again.

You argued that SSI was absurd.

Prove it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes...It's illustrating the absurd by being equally absurd.

Nothing absurd about SSI. It's functioned very well for decades.

Nobody's talking about whether or not it has "functioned" for decades.

Try again.

Harry Reid said on national TV that it is completely solvent and NO PROBLEM. There ya go.

 

[DaGoose]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Nope, because that's not how the system is set up. And it's also not set up to "borrow from" or pay anything out to anyone unless they're at retirement age.

I suppose that if people could "opt out" or "do their own investing" many would do it knowing that if they squandered their retirement savings they could simply collect welfare.

So we need a granddaddy of a welfare program, to make sure that people don't go on welfare.

Hoooboooie.

And in your infinite wisdom you are equating Social Security with welfare how?

 

[VaYank5150]

Either way, IF this idea is on the table, leave it to the individual taxpayer to decide what is best for THEIR money. Leave it with the Fed or take their own chances in the market. Right?

Their money outside of the SS contributions is already on the table. They have several tax deferred options and such.
Most/many would opt out if they could, blow the money and then whine like hell when they got older and had nothing at all to fall back on. And expect the govt to support their ass.
that is the reality of human beings.

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Their money outside of the SS contributions is already on the table. They have several tax deferred options and such.
Most/many would opt out if they could, blow the money and then whine like hell when they got older and had nothing at all to fall back on. And expect the govt to support their ass.
that is the reality of human beings.

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

 

[Oddball]

Nope, because that's not how the system is set up. And it's also not set up to "borrow from" or pay anything out to anyone unless they're at retirement age.

I suppose that if people could "opt out" or "do their own investing" many would do it knowing that if they squandered their retirement savings they could simply collect welfare.

So we need a granddaddy of a welfare program, to make sure that people don't go on welfare.

Hoooboooie.

And in your infinite wisdom you are equating Social Security with welfare how?

Let's see...

Money expropriated from you, at gunpoint if necessary, used to feather the nests of people who did nothing to earn it....That's welfare.

 

[Oddball]

Their money outside of the SS contributions is already on the table. They have several tax deferred options and such.
Most/many would opt out if they could, blow the money and then whine like hell when they got older and had nothing at all to fall back on. And expect the govt to support their ass.
that is the reality of human beings.

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

If you look very carefully, that's the general attitude that underpins the vast bulk of Fabian socialist/progressive "thought".

Welcome to the libertarian club, pal.

 

[DaGoose]

So we need a granddaddy of a welfare program, to make sure that people don't go on welfare.

Hoooboooie.

And in your infinite wisdom you are equating Social Security with welfare how?

Let's see...

Money expropriated from you, at gunpoint if necessary, used to feather the nests of people who did nothing to earn it....That's welfare.

So now you can explain how people who work their whole lives paying in "do nothing" to earn Social Security.

 

[Sallow]

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

No it isn't.

 

[WillowTree]

Privatize all of it.

 

[VaYank5150]

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

No it isn't.

Obviously, "too stupid to breathe" was for affect, but literally, isn't that your arguement? That the Federal Government needs to protect us from ourselves, so you are all for them taking our money?

 

[Oddball]

And in your infinite wisdom you are equating Social Security with welfare how?

Let's see...

Money expropriated from you, at gunpoint if necessary, used to feather the nests of people who did nothing to earn it....That's welfare.

So now you can explain how people who work their whole lives paying in "do nothing" to earn Social Security.

You pay in your whole life for food stamps and you don't get them, just because a happenstance of the calendar.

Just because you have a completely separate program called "Social Security" doesn't mean it's not ultimately a handout.

 

[Sallow]

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

If you look very carefully, that's the general attitude that underpins the vast bulk of Fabian socialist/progressive "thought".

Welcome to the libertarian club, pal.

Personally I deem the eliminationist/right wing anarchist club you seem to belong to as far less desirable.

But heck..if Somalia is what you want..it already exists.

 

[DaGoose]

Their money outside of the SS contributions is already on the table. They have several tax deferred options and such.
Most/many would opt out if they could, blow the money and then whine like hell when they got older and had nothing at all to fall back on. And expect the govt to support their ass.
that is the reality of human beings.

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"

As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.

This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

No it isn't.

Obviously, "too stupid to breathe" was for affect, but literally, isn't that your arguement? That the Federal Government needs to protect us from ourselves, so you are all for them taking our money?

Whether you want to believe it or not there are people too dumb or poor or who, through no fault of their own loses everything. And for them SS, which in reality is a type of insurance plan is a saving grace.

And guess what? For that it's working as planned.

"Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty. Without Social Security, according to the latest available Census data (for 2008), 19.8 million more Americans would be poor."

Social Security Keeps 20 Million Americans Out of Poverty: — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Sallow]

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. It's the old "you're too stupid to breath" notion.

No it isn't.

Obviously, "too stupid to breathe" was for affect, but literally, isn't that your arguement? That the Federal Government needs to protect us from ourselves, so you are all for them taking our money?

It's not meant to protect us from ourselves..it's meant to provide an income just in case it's needed.

Before SSI, when you reached 50..you were expected to die quickly and quietly; if you weren't able to deal financially with being "dismissed".

 

[DaGoose]

Let's see...

Money expropriated from you, at gunpoint if necessary, used to feather the nests of people who did nothing to earn it....That's welfare.

So now you can explain how people who work their whole lives paying in "do nothing" to earn Social Security.

You pay in your whole life for food stamps and you don't get them, just because a happenstance of the calendar.

Just because you have a completely separate program called "Social Security" doesn't mean it's not ultimately a handout.

Now that has to rank among the most ignorant statements of all time. Anytime you get back something you paid in on cannot, by any means, be considered a "handout".

 

[Granny]

Absolutely not.

SSI is the ultimate safety net, designed to make sure that if you screw up..you still can salvage your life in your "Golden" years.

It should never ever be messed with.

How do you come to the ultimate safety net conclusion? It's been "messed with" for years by Congress (both parties) "borrowing" from the SS trust and spending it on whatever other projects their little hearts desired ... and those "loans" have never been repaid to SS.

Add to that the fact baby boomers (our largest generation) produced fewer children of their own who would ultimately enter the workforce - and that has resulted in less money going into SS funds.

And there are other factors in play that have had and still have an effect on SS funds.