An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

[JWBooth]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

Funny shit, the notion that there is a lock box with SS funds in it. SS funds are indistinguishable from the general fund and have been so since LBJ.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You really need to watch the name calling. You don't know me or much of anything else so keep your idiotic assumptions to yourself. For some unknown reason you assume that I'm in favor of a system that forced my participation. Somehow you seemed to have jumped to that conclusion because I expect the Nation to honor the debts it makes to it's citizens. Those of us on Social Security earned those benefits acehole. Maybe if your leftist grandparents hadn't stolen a substantial portion of all the money I earned before I ever saw it I would have had the opportunity to invest in the things you think I should. Maybe if your leftist grandparents hadn't drafted me and sent my sorry ass to Vietnam on slave wages I would have had more reason to believe I might have a future to plan for someday. Why are you so far left as to think you are entitled to what I have earned? You aren't.

 

[9thIDdoc]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

Funny shit, the notion that there is a lock box with SS funds in it. SS funds are indistinguishable from the general fund and have been so since LBJ.

Yes real funny. And (guess what) that same general fund is liable to pay SS debt.

 

[kyzr]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

Funny shit, the notion that there is a lock box with SS funds in it. SS funds are indistinguishable from the general fund and have been so since LBJ.

Not LBJ, it was during Bill Clinton's term and they called a "unified budget".

 

[martybegan]

Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.

Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.

Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.

Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.

Outside of government, unions are pretty much a thing of the past. They will never come back either.

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

 

[martybegan]

I am saying Trade unions are viable.

Try to keep up.

Here is a copy and paste of your post. Do you NOT say "not unions"?

"Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe."

So, try to keep up.

How are trade unions viable when membership has dropped below 15%?

If you are going to be OCD on syntax find someone else to discuss with.

They work in the larger cities, and construction companies should welcome them because they take care of all fringes for them.

 

[whitehall]

There is no "locked box" and there never was one. Politicians started stealing from Social Security FICA taxes as soon as they were confiscated. LBJ made it "legal" when he officially authorized FICA to be dumped into the general fund.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A global currency is almost upon us. There will be no SS.

 

[kyzr]

A global currency is almost upon us. There will be no SS.

I need a link or two for that crap. If SS fails there will be heads on pikes all around DC.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What you are suggesting is that we keep a program not properly funded, and instead, make people work longer than they were promised they didn't have to. I was told from the beginning that at the age of 65, I could collect from the program I supported all of my life.

And what you are suggesting is that we keep a program that steals more and more from younger and younger generations rather than prepares people to be more personally responsible.

So typical of the FAR-LEFT. Everything is either totally black or totally white. No one is even suggesting that your benefits, instead of starting at 66, will now start at 70.

And I explained to you that it already happened. They set my retirement age at 67. The problem is that it didn't solve anything, and they increased it several years ago. So if you're talking about raising the retirement age, then it has to be 68 or older, and I don't think raising it one more year is going to do a hell of a lot.

I don't think it's a leftist position for a citizen to expect government to keep their promise to us; to not change the rules in the middle of the game. I spent a lifetime working and contributing to SS which supported all the people who were retired during that time. I'm just saying now that we are on the other side of that playing field, we should expect the same of people working today.

They should increase the contributions, and if the people working today are unhappy with it, to petition their politicians for a better system while phasing out of this one. GW had a good idea which was to allow workers to take a small percentage of that SS money and put it away for themselves in an IRA account. Another idea is to lift the ceiling on what you can deposit to your IRA account. Unless a married person was totally supported by their spouse, when he or she dies, they should not have the spouse collect on their late husbands or wives account. They have their own SS account and keep them separate. When you die, so do the payments.

There are many ways to address this problem, but trying to force people to do jobs they can no longer do safely because of age and physical inabilities is not the answer because one size does not fit all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.

Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.

Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.

Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.

Outside of government, unions are pretty much a thing of the past. They will never come back either.

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

Maybe, but that's because such a industry can't be moved out of the country. For other industries, that's exactly what happened. While unions got greedier and greedier, American consumers got cheaper and cheaper. The only way an American company could compete with overseas products is to get away from the unions either by moving out of state or out of the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.

Wrong.

One thing Social Security was never designed to be
Providing a financial floor for retired workers and protecting the disabled and survivors are the primary purposes of Social Security. What it was never intended to do was act as a primary source of income for retirees.

Social Security's 3 Purposes, and the 1 Thing It Was Never Intended For | The Motley Fool

America's most important social program is tasked with providing a financial backdrop for tens of millions of Americans.

www.fool.com

I believe you are the one who is wrong here. If you are no longer working (which is what I always thought "retirement" meant) where exactly do you expect "other income" to come from? Most people I know live paycheck to paycheck if they're lucky. Why would people who are already wealthy need more income? Providing money to live on when a person can no longer work is exactly what SS was intended to do. People who have an "other income" option don't need it.

I think you have to plan ahead for retirement. I invested in real estate. Now I'm not working, and what I'm getting from the government isn't bad, but if only that alone, I wouldn't be living a comfortable lifestyle. But I spent 25 years as a landlord. I never took vacations during that time. I spent it here on my property catching up on stuff or tackling large jobs.

I took this route because I didn't know what retirement would mean down the road, cost of living, my medical costs and so forth would be compared to what I got from retirement. I was fortunate enough to have an employer that started an IRA for us over 20 years ago. It really paid off.

So now I get my government deposit, rent, and in an emergency, I can withdraw from my IRA account. I can still work part-time if I desire, but given my health problems, I'm going to wait until after this virus thing is past us before I consider that option. I'm at high risk of death if I catch this thing, and only go out for shopping or family gatherings.

 

[9thIDdoc]

SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.

Wrong.

One thing Social Security was never designed to be
Providing a financial floor for retired workers and protecting the disabled and survivors are the primary purposes of Social Security. What it was never intended to do was act as a primary source of income for retirees.

Social Security's 3 Purposes, and the 1 Thing It Was Never Intended For | The Motley Fool

America's most important social program is tasked with providing a financial backdrop for tens of millions of Americans.

www.fool.com

I believe you are the one who is wrong here. If you are no longer working (which is what I always thought "retirement" meant) where exactly do you expect "other income" to come from? Most people I know live paycheck to paycheck if they're lucky. Why would people who are already wealthy need more income? Providing money to live on when a person can no longer work is exactly what SS was intended to do. People who have an "other income" option don't need it.

I think you have to plan ahead for retirement. I invested in real estate. Now I'm not working, and what I'm getting from the government isn't bad, but if only that alone, I wouldn't be living a comfortable lifestyle. But I spent 25 years as a landlord. I never took vacations during that time. I spent it here on my property catching up on stuff or tackling large jobs.

I took this route because I didn't know what retirement would mean down the road, cost of living, my medical costs and so forth would be compared to what I got from retirement. I was fortunate enough to have an employer that started an IRA for us over 20 years ago. It really paid off.

So now I get my government deposit, rent, and in an emergency, I can withdraw from my IRA account. I can still work part-time if I desire, but given my health problems, I'm going to wait until after this virus thing is past us before I consider that option. I'm at high risk of death if I catch this thing, and only go out for shopping or family gatherings.

You need to remember that "planing ahead" is not always an option nor do things always (if ever) work out the way we planned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.

Wrong.

One thing Social Security was never designed to be
Providing a financial floor for retired workers and protecting the disabled and survivors are the primary purposes of Social Security. What it was never intended to do was act as a primary source of income for retirees.

Social Security's 3 Purposes, and the 1 Thing It Was Never Intended For | The Motley Fool

America's most important social program is tasked with providing a financial backdrop for tens of millions of Americans.

www.fool.com

I believe you are the one who is wrong here. If you are no longer working (which is what I always thought "retirement" meant) where exactly do you expect "other income" to come from? Most people I know live paycheck to paycheck if they're lucky. Why would people who are already wealthy need more income? Providing money to live on when a person can no longer work is exactly what SS was intended to do. People who have an "other income" option don't need it.

I think you have to plan ahead for retirement. I invested in real estate. Now I'm not working, and what I'm getting from the government isn't bad, but if only that alone, I wouldn't be living a comfortable lifestyle. But I spent 25 years as a landlord. I never took vacations during that time. I spent it here on my property catching up on stuff or tackling large jobs.

I took this route because I didn't know what retirement would mean down the road, cost of living, my medical costs and so forth would be compared to what I got from retirement. I was fortunate enough to have an employer that started an IRA for us over 20 years ago. It really paid off.

So now I get my government deposit, rent, and in an emergency, I can withdraw from my IRA account. I can still work part-time if I desire, but given my health problems, I'm going to wait until after this virus thing is past us before I consider that option. I'm at high risk of death if I catch this thing, and only go out for shopping or family gatherings.

You need to remember that "planing ahead" is not always an option nor do things always (if ever) work out the way we planned.

Trust me, nobody knows that better than I do. It reminds me of a speech by Mike Ditka years ago when he was a coach in football. He said "You never really lose until you quit trying."

 

[martybegan]

Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.

Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.

Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.

Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.

Outside of government, unions are pretty much a thing of the past. They will never come back either.

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

Maybe, but that's because such a industry can't be moved out of the country. For other industries, that's exactly what happened. While unions got greedier and greedier, American consumers got cheaper and cheaper. The only way an American company could compete with overseas products is to get away from the unions either by moving out of state or out of the country.

True, but the thing is industrial unions also mostly let the companies themselves handle the fringes, which was a mistake.

They big advantage you get from union controlled fringes for a given industry is cost certainty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.

Membership in trade unions has dropped since the turn of the last century. In 2000 it was about 16.33% and it was 14.57% in 2019.

Not at all unlike the buggy whip, the eight-track tape, and typewriter, they have outlived their purpose.

Not trade unions. Letting the workers handle their benefits is a great idea. Companies just pay in additional $$ per hour and the union handles pensions, health insurance, every fringe.

Outside of government, unions are pretty much a thing of the past. They will never come back either.

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

Maybe, but that's because such a industry can't be moved out of the country. For other industries, that's exactly what happened. While unions got greedier and greedier, American consumers got cheaper and cheaper. The only way an American company could compete with overseas products is to get away from the unions either by moving out of state or out of the country.

True, but the thing is industrial unions also mostly let the companies themselves handle the fringes, which was a mistake.

They big advantage you get from union controlled fringes for a given industry is cost certainty.

A late friend of mine would have disagreed with you today. He worked at the steel mills here in Cleveland. They did let the union handle their pension. Before the company closed up, they lost it all. I don't know the details, but according to my friend, the union virtually gave the company that money without a vote of the members.

He still did fine. A new steel company opened up and they used the former employees for their new employee pool. Before he died, he was making six figures with all the OT he worked.

If I were younger and offered a job with a pension, I would take it with a grain of salt be it ran by unions or the company. You'll probably never see it either way.

 

[Markle]

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

The value of employees to an employer has increased since unions were needed. If unions were valuable to employees, they would be popular today. They are not. Here's one reason why,

National Education Association General Counsel Bob Chanin stated in July 2009.

Chanin: "It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues...."



Pretty much says it all.

 

[martybegan]

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

The value of employees to an employer has increased since unions were needed.

Maybe so, but the value of a union taking over all the fringe costs of an employee might increase that value.

 

[mudwhistle]

There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

Shhhhhb it drives the left up the wall when you state the truth

So you support the new 7 trillion in debt under Trump?

People paid into S.S. and it is owed them. Do we really owe billionaires millions in stimulus?

I didn't know black folks was all billionaires.

 

[Markle]

Which is opposite of what should happen. Trade unions are still strong in the big cities.

The value of employees to an employer has increased since unions were needed.

Maybe so, but the value of a union taking over all the fringe costs of an employee might increase that value.

That makes no difference to me. They obviously have no value for workers.