Beating Social Security

[PoliticalChic]

Social Security is an "insurance" program (safety net) - not an "investment" program. Social Security is also referred to as Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

I consider you to be proof of reincarnation. No one could possibly get to be so stupid in just one lifetime.

There isn't enough time nor space, outside of infinity, to fill in all of the things you don't know.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....have you heard of the Constitution?...states what the federal government can do.

Insurance is not a part of its authority.


On the bright side, you bear witness to the following:
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

 

[francoHFW]

It is law now, and deemed constitutional, dingbat. Raise the limit and pace it to inflation. DONE.

 

[nuhuh]

She continues to argue even after all of her talking points have been debunked.

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security is an "insurance" program (safety net) - not an "investment" program. Social Security is also referred to as Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

I consider you to be proof of reincarnation. No one could possibly get to be so stupid in just one lifetime.

There isn't enough time nor space, outside of infinity, to fill in all of the things you don't know.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....have you heard of the Constitution?...states what the federal government can do.

Insurance is not a part of its authority.


On the bright side, you bear witness to the following:
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

Duh, maybe you should tell COTUS and SCOTUS about your epiphany. Better yet - start explaining your "logic" to old people and nursing homes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

 

[Lakhota]

She continues to argue even after all of her talking points have been debunked.

Yep, and it's sadly hilarious to watch someone waste so much time beating a dead horse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is law now, and deemed constitutional, dingbat. Raise the limit and pace it to inflation. DONE.

"...deemed constitutional..."

Except that it's not.

Do you read English?

If so....find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Spoiler Alert!!!

Bad news to follow: pantywaist Liberals, better run and hide!

" Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




10. Let me clarify that: courts have stated that if it decides not to....the government doesn't have to pay you your Social Security benefits.....AT ALL!

“Retirement programs are not legal obligations.”

The seemingly obvious response might be “Now they tell us”, but that would be a bit overdone. Indeed, though American-style liberals and other water carriers for the welfare state would rather we not know this, we have no legal right to the dollars we hand over to the federal government in the form of Social Security payments. We never have had any legal right, and Horney should be credited for telling the truth.

...the minute your employer withholds your Social Security taxes,the money is no longer yours. Deal with it.... the government has no legal obligation to us, argue that absent Social Security’s steady hand Americans might fritter away their retirement dollars.

Social Security is not a retirement plan, rather it’s a hopeful Ponzi scheme from which we can hope to receive regular payments for having paid into the system during our working years.."
The Ugly Truth About Social Security Is Revealed

 

[Timmy]

SS is a safety net . Much needed. Most americans save zero for retirement and companies offer it less n less.

Without SS the streets would be littered with homeless old and disabled people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

SS is a safety net . Much needed. Most americans save zero for retirement and companies offer it less n less.

Without SS the streets would be littered with homeless old and disabled people.

Let's pretend that this is a nation of laws.

Since the Constitution doesn't allow programs such as Social Security enacted by the federal government.....

.....why haven't the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/socialists offered a constitutional amendment....the only lawful way of altering the Constitution.....for said purpose?



Now for a trip down Memory Lane:
"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." "Common Sense," Thomas Paine.

 

[Camp]

Social Security will never default or go bankrupt. The old timers and those within a few years of being old timers will not let it. They will demand steps be taken to save it and keep it working. If they have to they will demand all the gold in Fort Knox be sold, National Forest be subdivided into residential lots, the Smithsonian put all the nations collectibles on E-bay and whatever else it takes. Probably won't take all that. A Reagan era type fix will work, but those options are there.

 

[Timmy]

The constitution doesn't prevent a program like SS.

The con is not some magic oracle Ya know .

SS would be fine if it wasn't raided and fucked wh for decades .

 

[TooTall]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Social Security was one year away from insolvency in 1983 when Ronald Reagan fixed it. That 'fix' will turn out to last about 50 years,

and all the government needs to do now is put in another comparable adjustment that will sustain SS for another 50 years.

That is true, and it would raise the taxes on the working poor. Not a good idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The constitution doesn't prevent a program like SS.

The con is not some magic oracle Ya know .

SS would be fine if it wasn't raided and fucked wh for decades .

"The constitution doesn't prevent a program like SS."
Yeah, it does.


If you'd rather not sound like a fool.....try to find the authority in Article 1, section 8.

The federal government has no such authority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So....the experiment has been performed, and it works.



a. Can you see that the difference is not merely financial? It is a difference in respect for the people, for self-reliance, and individual responsibility. It allows people to grow and plan for the exigencies of life......


b. Leftist governments infantilize their populace. When political operatives advocate doing something ‘for the children” one can see the tendency to make children out of the citizenry. “Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” Cult of the Presidency


c. “…Denton Walthall, who asked a question in the second presidential debate in 1992. …Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates "to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/10/beware_of_ponytail_guy.html

 

[TooTall]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

I get about twice as much from my 401K than from my SS and I was in the high income bracket most of my working career.

 

[Lakhota]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

Once again you fail to account for what you do to transition 200 million people off of Social Security. Where does the money to pay these people come from if everyone is putting money into personal accounts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One valuable quality of Social Security is that it is there until you die and is indexed to inflation

Giving people a $500,000 nest egg when they retire and telling them it has to last the next 30 years is not necessarily the best plan. People can overspend at the beginning, put the money in bad investments, old people are notorious for being swindled out of their nest egg

Social Security has worked for 75 years, Americans depend on it
I would not mess with the basic structure. If you want retirement savings, you can still set up a 401K tax free and have the best of both worlds

Social Security is only one part of a person's retirement. You want to put your IRA in pets.com, go for it.

I get about twice as much from my 401K than from my SS and I was in the high income bracket most of my working career.

You're supposed to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironically,

Ronald Reagan all but guaranteed that conservatives will never be able to fulfill their dream of destroying Social Security.