How to fix SS Trump style

[kaz]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Taking money from one person and giving it to another isn't "insurance." Neither is sending someone money for being old. Actually in no way is it "insurance." You're just regurgitating Democrat talking points

My auto insurance takes money from me, and gives it to someone else. It is called float.

 

[kaz]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Taking money from one person and giving it to another isn't "insurance." Neither is sending someone money for being old. Actually in no way is it "insurance." You're just regurgitating Democrat talking points

My auto insurance takes money from me, and gives it to someone else. It is called float.

Your auto insurance premiums go into an investment pool. If you have a covered loss, you get paid from that pool

Your social security contributions are spent immediately by government. There is no pool. Government saved nothing, there is no pool. It takes money from your children and gives it to you.

Those are entirely different things, there is not even an analogy between them

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

 

[kaz]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

 

[Mr Natural]

No mention of raising the income cap to a realistic level.

Why does that not surprise me?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

If SS were welfare I would agree with you. The problem is explaining how benefits that you have to contribute to receive qualify as welfare. The first recipients made out well. Today workers expect to lose money. How are benefits that you have to over-pay to receive qualify as welfare.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

No mention of raising the income cap to a realistic level.

Why does that not surprise me?

Tell me about the meaning of 'realistic'. Today the cap is about about 118K. If we had increased the cap at the rate of inflation since 1983, it would be roughly 85K. So the cap has been increasing 50% higher than inflation, and it isn't realistic to you.

 

[miketx]

I never saw so many experts who don't know shit.

 

[bendog]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

If SS were welfare I would agree with you. The problem is explaining how benefits that you have to contribute to receive qualify as welfare. The first recipients made out well. Today workers expect to lose money. How are benefits that you have to over-pay to receive qualify as welfare.

If you cost factored the survivor benefits of workers who die before retirement age and disability benefits, I don't think people are "losing money."

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

If SS were welfare I would agree with you. The problem is explaining how benefits that you have to contribute to receive qualify as welfare. The first recipients made out well. Today workers expect to lose money. How are benefits that you have to over-pay to receive qualify as welfare.

If you cost factored the survivor benefits of workers who die before retirement age and disability benefits, I don't think people are "losing money."

Disability is a separate system. It is failing just like OAS but they are separate.

You may be right about the promises of SS collectively. That would include spousal benefits and children benefits. On the other hand, the system is largely a pay as you go, dollar in dollar out. It is very simple. If someone in that scenario makes money, then someone is losing it. The whole discussion about SS is about who is going to lose.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

That is your definition of welfare. Here is the version of Websters : " a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc" Here is my article on Social Security and the meaning of words :

The Dueling Myths of Social Security : FedSmith.com

"Today the debate about Social Security isn’t about the financial future of the system. It is about controlling the meaning of words. Victory in this environment is measured in repetition rather than reason. So the process reduces a sensible discussion to an emotional trigger of 140 characters or less."

 

[kaz]

If SS were welfare I would agree with you. The problem is explaining how benefits that you have to contribute to receive qualify as welfare. The first recipients made out well. Today workers expect to lose money. How are benefits that you have to over-pay to receive qualify as welfare.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Joe: Social security is not welfare. Yeah ...

 

[kaz]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

That is your definition of welfare. Here is the version of Websters : " a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc" Here is my article on Social Security and the meaning of words :

The Dueling Myths of Social Security : FedSmith.com

"Today the debate about Social Security isn’t about the financial future of the system. It is about controlling the meaning of words. Victory in this environment is measured in repetition rather than reason. So the process reduces a sensible discussion to an emotional trigger of 140 characters or less."

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

But social security isn't welfare. That's ridiculous

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

That is your definition of welfare. Here is the version of Websters : " a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc" Here is my article on Social Security and the meaning of words :

The Dueling Myths of Social Security : FedSmith.com

"Today the debate about Social Security isn’t about the financial future of the system. It is about controlling the meaning of words. Victory in this environment is measured in repetition rather than reason. So the process reduces a sensible discussion to an emotional trigger of 140 characters or less."

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

But social security isn't welfare. That's ridiculous

You are the epitome of the article. You are changing the meaning of words, and acting as though the more you type the new meaning the righter you are. You don't have an argument. You are using 'welfare' as an emotional trigger.

 

[kaz]

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I didn't say it was well run. I am saying that the system operates like I-Don't-Want-To-Live-With-My-Inlaws insurance. Absent SS, you would have a large increase in your welfare rolls.

I disagree with you. It does not ensure your children will pay anything. We contribute today on the basis that future generations will do the same. There is no guarantee, though.

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

You, we need social security or we'd have to pay more welfare ...

That is your definition of welfare. Here is the version of Websters : " a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc" Here is my article on Social Security and the meaning of words :

The Dueling Myths of Social Security : FedSmith.com

"Today the debate about Social Security isn’t about the financial future of the system. It is about controlling the meaning of words. Victory in this environment is measured in repetition rather than reason. So the process reduces a sensible discussion to an emotional trigger of 140 characters or less."

Welfare - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

Social security - government takes someone else's money and gives it to you

But social security isn't welfare. That's ridiculous

You are the epitome of the article. You are changing the meaning of words, and acting as though the more you type the new meaning the righter you are. You don't have an argument. You are using 'welfare' as an emotional trigger.

Other way around. I am pointing out that taking money from one person and giving it to another is welfare. Exactly what Social Security is, welfare. Money is taken from your children and given to you. The money you paid was spent as it came in like every other tax you paid.

That you think that when you paid social security taxes and it was spent as other taxes you paid were, as it came in, yet someone social security is different is you being emotional, Holmes, not me. And then you think when money is taken from someone else and given to you using the same name with zero of the money you saved included, just like any other welfare payment, is again somehow different, is you being emotional again

 

[Timmy]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

 

[miketx]

So many stupid liberals....

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

 

[Timmy]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

Sure it is . There is ssi and ssdi for people who become or are disabled .