the spenders cant spend

[Rat in the Hat]

@ TM driving her post count.

 

[Truthmatters]

SS doesn't need reform. It's needs to be abolished.

Right, well, sorry. That's not something anybody is gonna go for. When it comes down to it, no matter how irresponsible somebody has been, we're still gonna ensure a minimum standard of living. So let's be reasonable. Maybe you'd like it abolished, fine, but does that mean you're gonna oppose anything until you get everything you want? Or are you going to say "this is still shit, but it's much less bad than what we've currently got"?

You want to reform a ponzi scheme? OK, make it optional instead of mandatory.

why do you want the vast majority of Americans to be poor in old age?

 

[Truthmatters]

what was the state of American elderly before SS?

 

[kwc57]

it was a way that the monied people could contribute less to the retirement of the American people.


They want to kill SS and end pensions.


That is what has been going on here.


The republican party has been working on this for decades.


They want the American people poor and desperate.

that makes them plyable.


what it has done is made them unable to spend.

Right, so reform it. Maybe consider our Super framework.

What do you mean "what it has done is made them unable to spend"?

and every time we try the republicans block the progress because they want it dead NOT fixed.


The republicans have attacked the middle and lower classes for decades now and that is why are income has not risen.


They did the housing crash to make money and got a shit load from it.

they also made the people alot poorer and now they have no way to spend extra money because they have no "extra" money.



The right wants it this way.

they want the people desperate and plyable

Another one.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/228552-the-spenders-cant-spend-3.html#post5442204

 

[syrenn]

Economy's real problem? The spenders can't spend. - CSMonitor.com


The earnings of the great American middle class fueled the great American expansion for three decades after World War II. Their relative lack of earnings in more recent years set us up for the great American bust.

Starting around 1980, globalization and automation began exerting downward pressure on median wages. Employers began busting unions in order to make more profits. And increasingly deregulated financial markets began taking over the real economy.

The result was slower wage growth for most households. Women surged into paid work in order to prop up family incomes – which helped for a time. But the median wage kept flattening, and then, after 2001, began to decline.

Households tried to keep up by going deeply into debt, using the rising values of their homes as collateral. This also helped – for a time. But then the housing bubble popped.

The Fed’s latest report shows how loud that pop was. Between 2007 and 2010 (the latest data available) American families’ median net worth fell almost 40 percent – down to levels last seen in 1992. The typical family’s wealth is their home, not their stock portfolio – and housing values have dropped by a third since 2006.

 

[Truthmatters]

you people have no facts to back your shit do you

 

[Truthmatters]

what was the state of American elderly before SS?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right, well, sorry. That's not something anybody is gonna go for. When it comes down to it, no matter how irresponsible somebody has been, we're still gonna ensure a minimum standard of living. So let's be reasonable. Maybe you'd like it abolished, fine, but does that mean you're gonna oppose anything until you get everything you want? Or are you going to say "this is still shit, but it's much less bad than what we've currently got"?

You want to reform a ponzi scheme? OK, make it optional instead of mandatory.

why do you want the vast majority of Americans to be poor in old age?

Logical fallacy. I don't. That has nothing to do with SS. There are not two options to people planning for retirement and old age. Only in your mind is it either social secuurity, or poor old people.

Furthermore, why do you hate the general welfare clause of the constitution? The social security act is in violation of the constitution. Plain and simple.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

what was the state of American elderly before SS?

You tell us.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope its not.


and yes SS has kept the eldery from the scourge of poverty

 

[Truthmatters]

Social Security and Poverty Among the Elderly - Embargoed Press Release - 4/8/99


Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nope it's not what?

The social security act is in direct violation of the constitution. That's why the first circuit court of appeals found in unconstitutional in two separate cases. It violates the general welfare clause, and it also over steps congressional authority into territory left to the states by the constitution.

 

[Truthmatters]

what did the Scotus say you moron

 

[Truthmatters]

The right wants the American people poor and plyable

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't care what a bias report has to say.

What about the folks who pay into social security, but never reach retirement age? Is it fair that they pay for something they never get the benefits from? That's why it violates the general welfare clause. It's unconstitutional. Period.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

what did the Scotus say you moron

You mean the supreme court that FDR stacked in his favor to pass these unconstitutional laws?

 

[syrenn]

 

[Truthmatters]

So you dont like the scotus huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Social Security and Elderly Poverty

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp87.pdf