Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security should be converted into a safety net, and not a forced government retirement plan.

That was the intent when they created the program. SS was there IF you could live that long and could no longer work. As the vote buying process often goes with the left, it slowly became a retirement program and yet another government dependency.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And there is the Republican attitude towards social security.

Kill it.

Always has been

Right, because one Republican speaks for all Republicans.

 

[Lesh]

Right, because one Republican speaks for all Republicans.

You’re spouting the company line my friend

 

[Jarlaxle]

And there is the Republican attitude towards social security.

Kill it.

Always has been

As it should be. It's a giant Ponzi scheme.

 

[Lesh]

As it should be. It's a giant Ponzi scheme.

Well it's funding my retirement and that of my wife


and our parents before us and their parents before them

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well it's funding my retirement and that of my wife


and our parents before us and their parents before them

Yes, the ones that get into Ponzi schemes early do pretty well.

Of course...if you hadn't poured money into social security, you could easily have MUCH more money now.

 

[Lesh]

Yes, the ones that get into Ponzi schemes early do pretty well.

Of course...if you hadn't poured money into social security, you could easily have MUCH more money now.

Early? It began in 1937 dope

 

[kaz]

Morons? Funny, the things you have said have either been ridiculous or off-topic insults. Neither matter to me.

I would disagree with any attempt to raise the age for social security and medicare.

Lesh @g

And there is the Republican attitude towards social security.

Kill it.

Always has been

Name Republicans who want to kill social security, liar. You're just lying ... again ...

 

[kaz]

Early? It began in 1937 dope

Don't quit your day job, Don Rickles. Seriously, you suck at comedy. I mean you shit bricks. It's embarrassing just to watch you

 

[kaz]

When a select group of informed citizens select the leadership, we are moving away from a democratic form of goverment to one where leaders are selected and ruled by those with political knowledge. When you do this, those you exclude from voting join the disenfranchised who become bystanders who are neither supportive nor loyal to the government.

​

You can't reply to what I actually posted to save your life, can you? Be honest ...

 

[WinterBorn]

Lesh @g


Name Republicans who want to kill social security, liar. You're just lying ... again ...

Social Security is still available now. I'm already signed up. The gov't came to me and asked if I wanted to collect.

 

[g5000]

Lesh @g


Name Republicans who want to kill social security, liar. You're just lying ... again ...

Rand Paul.

 

[dblack]

Lesh @g


Name Republicans who want to kill social security, liar. You're just lying ... again ...

It's libertarians who want to end it. Republicans loves them some big government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is still available now. I'm already signed up. The gov't came to me and asked if I wanted to collect.

View attachment 605782

Our generation is not in any trouble and perhaps the next or part of the next. But if we don't address this problem now, the generation after that is in big trouble.

 

[Lesh]

Our generation is not in any trouble and perhaps the next or part of the next. But if we don't address this problem now, the generation after that is in big trouble.

Dude...you have no idea what the situation will be by then.

jesus

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude...you have no idea what the situation will be by then.

jesus

People closer to the facts know. That's why they want to keep increasing the age to collect.

 

[Flopper]

If your version of democracy is allowing people to vote money out of the pockets of other people, no I don't. Outside of payroll taxes (which you get back when and if you retire plus local services) half of our country pays no federal income tax that funds most of our welfare programs.

Voting was very important to people of yesteryear which is why they offered resistance. Today if you don't have the rudimentary understanding of our government, country or policies, chances are you're not very interested in voting either. If you are interested, then you can put a little effort to understand these things, and it's never been easier to do since the invention of this internet. You have access to hundreds of opinions and reporting at your fingertips in the comfort of your own home. If you don't have that luxury, then you can get it from the comfort of you local library. Nobody is shut out unless they don't care enough to be let in.

"When people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of our Republic."
Benjamin Franklin

What really bugs you is the idea of shutting out politically ignorant people because most all of them vote Democrat.

My version of democracy is allowing people to vote.

In a democratic republic such as ours every adult should have the right to vote regardless of their knowledge, race, class, wealth, or party. It is a central tenet of democracy that those that are governed have the right to choose who governs them.

What you are proposing is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, USSR, Fascist Italy, and in ancient Rome, suppress the vote of those that do not vote the way you want them to vote because they lack the breeding, purity of race, the intelligence, or the proper education to select their leaders and address issues of national concern.

Tests to qualify for voting, single party offerings, making it more difficult for the targeted group to vote, intimidation, and misinformation have been time worn tactics.

I believe the failings in the country is not due to the people but the system that has evolved in Washington, the seniority system in congress, the filibuster, lack of election laws to limit contributions, better controls on lobbying, etc...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My version of democracy is allowing people to vote.

In a democratic republic such as ours every adult should have the right to vote regardless of their knowledge, race, class, wealth, or party. It is a central tenet of democracy that those that are governed have the right to choose who governs them.

What you are proposing is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, USSR, Fascist Italy, and in ancient Rome, suppress the vote of those that do not vote the way you want them to vote because they lack the breeding, purity of race, the intelligence, or the proper education to select their leaders and address issues on national concern.

Tests to qualify for voting, making it more difficult for the targeted group to vote, intimidation, and misinformation have been time worn tactics.

I believe the failings in the country is not due to the people but the system that has evolved in Washington, the seniority system in congress, the filibuster, lack of elections laws to limit contributions, better controls on lobbying, etc...

Correct when you wrote that such tests would exclude people: people that don't know WTF they're even voting on. That's the idea behind the tests. Sp what country ever had testing for political knowledge only? I'm not talking about poll taxes or literacy tests, just political knowledge?

 

[Flopper]

That was the intent when they created the program. SS was there IF you could live that long and could no longer work. As the vote buying process often goes with the left, it slowly became a retirement program and yet another government dependency.

It may seem social security has transitioned to a retirement program but the method of calculation benefits has not changed in at least 60 years. Social Security benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are adjusted or “indexed” to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Then Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most.

In 1940, the average check was $28 and today $1503. You might think the people in S.S have lost their mind. However, in 1940 total yearly lifetime earnings only covered the last 6 years back to 1934. Today it covers up to 35 years. Another factor of course is cost of living. It has increased by a factor of 22 times since 1940.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It may seem social security has transitioned to a retirement program but the method of calculation benefits has not changed in at least 60 years. Social Security benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are adjusted or “indexed” to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Then Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most.

In 1940, the average check was $28 and today $1503. You might think the people in S.S have lost their mind. However, in 1940 total yearly lifetime earnings only covered the last 6 years back to 1934. Today it covers up to 35 years. Another factor of course is cost of living. It has increased by a factor of 22 times since 1940.

One of the largest increases were this year. They raised my SS over a hundred bucks a month this year alone. Again, I'm doing okay. I have SS, my rental income, and an IRA I plan not to touch so I can pass that along to family in the event things don't workout for me very well. But that doesn't mean I don't have concerns for people behind me which is why I feel drastic changes are needed to the program today.