Ok, You Can Shut UP About Social Security and Medicare

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Social security is an insurance company..

No, it isn't. It is an inefficient government owned bureaucracy that now pays out more money than it takes in. It's a Ponzi scheme which will eventually dry up if changes aren't made to it.

See, now this is one more lie spawned from ignorance. SS did not pay out more than it took in, which keeps getting repeated.

It paid out the payroll tax from the year plus it drew on some of the year's interest income that it made off the treasuries in the Trust Fund.

You now have 5 seconds to forget you just learned that, so you can happily go back to repeating your lie tomorrow.

No, you're the one who is lying and I've already provided you with a link showing that.

 

[healthmyths]

Cons are anxious to turn over that Social Security money to their buds on Wall Street. Imagine the finance charges they can skim off that big bunch of money.

AGAIN cliched, misperceptions!!

Do you have such high DISRESPECT and DISREGARD for your local bank and it's employees that you see them as "SKIMMING".. SCAMMING???

The plan if you weren't so stupid is to let the individual determine where to better put their payroll deductions! NOT the government. NOT the people that spend tax dollars funding Chinese prostitute drinking habit studies!
NOT the people that spending my payroll taxes Studying pig poop.
The EPA awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure !

I would rather trust my local bank employees to wisely invest in my community with my payroll deductions earning an average over 40 years of 3% thus
accumulating for ME to determine how to spend the $500,000 that accumulates and IS MINE! NOt the govt. that spent
$1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu” of male prostitutes in Hanoi & Ho Chi Minh City,

I'd rather have the $500,000 that will after I buy a $350,000 annuity guaranteeing me $1,800 per month for the rest of my life leaving $150,000 for health expenses and if I spend it great! If I don't it goes to my son!
I'd rather my son get that money then $5.6 million in 2011 to support “pressing cultural preservation needs” in dozens of foreign countries!

AND I don't think you are THAT stupid that YOU wouldn't want that too!

BUT If I wanted to put into the "risky stock market that over 70 years averaged 6% return accumulating then almost $1 million THAT's MY decision!
I'd rather risk that then having Uncle Sam dole out
$750,000 to restore a 16th-century tomb complex in India,
$700,000 to conserve ruins in Tanzania,
$600,000 for the “temple of the winged lions” in Jordan and
$450,000 for the conservation of a 10th century temple in Cambodia. Those were just the big ticket projects.
Hundreds of thousands more went to smaller causes throughout the world.

 

[Harry Dresden]

RW'ers that try and accuse elderly people of being "on the government dole" and "welfare recipients

horse shit

lying is your forte apparently

Berry that is the way some of the rhetoric by some of the more far right posters here have looked......to me anyway.....i commented a couple times and was ignored.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thread cleaned....please refrain from the off topic bickering and insults. Thank you!

did you use a good disinfectant?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Cons are anxious to turn over that Social Security money to their buds on Wall Street. Imagine the finance charges they can skim off that big bunch of money.

no doubt the same "buds" the Democrats have.....

 

[hortysir]

Cons are anxious to turn over that Social Security money to their buds on Wall Street. Imagine the finance charges they can skim off that big bunch of money.

no doubt the same "buds" the Democrats have.....

better return on one's investment

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it isn't. It is an inefficient government owned bureaucracy that now pays out more money than it takes in. It's a Ponzi scheme which will eventually dry up if changes aren't made to it.

See, now this is one more lie spawned from ignorance. SS did not pay out more than it took in, which keeps getting repeated.

It paid out the payroll tax from the year plus it drew on some of the year's interest income that it made off the treasuries in the Trust Fund.

You now have 5 seconds to forget you just learned that, so you can happily go back to repeating your lie tomorrow.

FACTS not suppositions! FACTS not hyperbole!

Despite the interest payments that Social Security receives on the Trust Fund,
the Social Security Administration projects that the Trust Fund will start declining in value in 2013.[48]

No you are factually incorrect:

This is directly from the Trustee's report:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.

The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow.

The proof is enlarged for your benefit; something else you can blithely ignore.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[alan1]

Nobody's going to force you to take it when your time comes.

Stick by your principles and opt out.

Who knew I could opt out of contributing. Please explain to me how that works.

 

[alan1]

I get tired of RW'ers that try and accuse elderly people of being "on the government dole" and "welfare recipients" when all they are doing is collecting benefits that they've paid into all their lives.

Conservatives want to get rid of Social Security all together, we get that. Newt Gingrich made that clear when he said he wanted Medicare to "wither on the vine". Oh, they pretend to care and say they want to "save" it. But what they really want to do is destroy the only programs that keep MILLIONS of elderly out of poverty, so you really ain't fooling anyone.

But guess what? Social Security and Medicare are here to stay and to the conservatives that don't like that I say "**** you very much".

Solved: 10 Social Security Mysteries

Mystery #1: Will Social Security be there for me? Social Security can pay 100% of all promised benefits until 2033. After 2033 it can pay about 75% of promised benefits. There are numerous options to extend solvency indefinitely with a mix of tax increases and/or benefit cuts. If you're a pessimist, subtract 25% from your SSA benefit estimate.

Mystery #2: Is Social Security a good deal? Social Security is a complete package of worker benefits, including retirement, disability and life insurance. The average worker earning $43,000 with a non-working spouse would need to save over $700,000 to duplicate their retirement payments, plus buy additional disability and life insurance. The Social Security Administration's administrative overhead is a low 0.8%. Social Security payments are at least 15% tax-free.

Mystery #7: Can family members receive Social Security after I die? Yes. Payments to your survivors are possible whether you die before or after your own Social Security eligibility.

.Your widow(er) or surviving former spouse can be paid up to 100% of your payment if they are at least FRA, or a reduced amount as early as age 60.
. .Your widow(er) can be paid 75% at any age, if caring for your child under 16.
. .Your unmarried child can be paid 75% if they are under 18, under 19 and in high school, or any age if totally disabled since youth.
. .Your parent over 62 can be paid if they were dependent upon you.

Solved: 10 Social Security Mysteries - Yahoo! Finance

So the bottom line is.....It is an "entitlement program" because we are entitled to collect something we paid into all our lives. Nobody's interested in your ******* vouchers, privitatization or any other bullshit way you come up with to take away something I've earned the right to collect.

Would you support removing disability claims (collectors) from the social security network until said disabled person reached 65?

 

[squeeze berry]

RW'ers that try and accuse elderly people of being "on the government dole" and "welfare recipients

horse shit

lying is your forte apparently

Berry that is the way some of the rhetoric by some of the more far right posters here have looked......to me anyway.....i commented a couple times and was ignored.....

I know, but at least they won't call you a racist for disagreeing

 

[The2ndAmendment]

As an avid scholar on the Constitution, even the Founding Fathers considered a rudimentary version of Social Security, enabling senior citizens to live as independent as possible otherwise.

Btw, this is coming from a young 22 year old person (me) who is ready to strip practically every other provision of the welfare state.

However, seeing that is was ultimately not considered by the Founding Fathers, I am curious to see why they excluded it. Perhaps they viewed it as a vehicle for increased dependency on government and decreased dependnacy on family. Actually, my curious has been peaked, I'm going to research how old people managed to survive before Social Security.


EDIT:
Good link on how people were living before Social Security. Good way to get started.

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77029