Social Security is ours not Congress

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

The purpose of Social Security like Obamacare is to make every American dependent on government, which is how they keep hold of our short hairs. They are the two most insidiously evil programs the American government ever perpetrated on it's on people ... for that reason ...

I don't think that Social Security has that purpose at all. It is a government program that is spinning out of control. There is no purpose, other than to make sure that it doesn't implode while the politicians are in office.

 

[kaz]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

The purpose of Social Security like Obamacare is to make every American dependent on government, which is how they keep hold of our short hairs. They are the two most insidiously evil programs the American government ever perpetrated on it's on people ... for that reason ...

I don't think that Social Security has that purpose at all. It is a government program that is spinning out of control. There is no purpose, other than to make sure that it doesn't implode while the politicians are in office.

Then why are two of the Democrat's most common duck calls that Republicans want to take away your healthcare and grandma's check? Clearly they are a leash

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Everyone calls it that. Even the people who created it.
What is it then? And who else agrees?

Apparently

Jake getting Welfare

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

We all agree on that, if Jake gets welfare, taxpayers are paying him money.

Now let's examine the cash flow for Social security:

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

OMG, it's identical! Clearly it's a different thing then ...

That isn't how Social Security works though.

It goes Taxpayer -> Social Security -> Jake
back to Taxpayer <- promised benefits
excess cash -> general fund -> bonds in the Trust Fund -> Jake

This works a lot like a private pension why isn't a private pension welfare? It works exactly like a private pension, the only meaningful difference is the price. Originally it was a lot lower than a private pension, and how is a lot higher. Why is that no private pension is saying just-put-the-money-back.

Bull shit. Social Security is paid into and out of the general fund. No money goes to social security or comes out of social security. The money coming in is spent as it comes in. The money going out is paid by taxes and borrowing like all other expenses. Learn what you're talking about before you post stupid shit.

It doesn't work anything like a pension., Those have trust funds, social security has none

If you want to help your kids, you will serve them best by learning facts and cease the ideology. Social Security has massive problems, one that you can't see because you don't invest the time to learn how the system works. But I have wasted enough time in this exchange.

You were wrong on every point you made.

Today's taxpayers pay welfare
Today's taxpayers pay social security

You can't argue those two facts or explain what the difference is because there is none. Social Security = welfare, it's undeniable

Since you put it in those words....


You have yet to explain if it is welfare how is it that 1/5 of the poorest seniors aren't eligible when Bernie Sanders collects $50K per year. Here is my definition of welfare : ": aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" That comes from Websters : Definition of WELFARE

What is your definition of "welfare"?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

The purpose of Social Security like Obamacare is to make every American dependent on government, which is how they keep hold of our short hairs. They are the two most insidiously evil programs the American government ever perpetrated on it's on people ... for that reason ...

I don't think that Social Security has that purpose at all. It is a government program that is spinning out of control. There is no purpose, other than to make sure that it doesn't implode while the politicians are in office.

Then why are two of the Democrat's most common duck calls that Republicans want to take away your healthcare and grandma's check? Clearly they are a leash

The most common dog whistle of the GOP is that they will protect the benefits of existing seniors.

Politicians say what it takes to get elected. That doesn't mean that it is true.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

Obama cut Social Security. It is a FACT. Why is it that you two dummies can't accept facts?

Two popular methods of claiming Social Security benefits are disappearing thanks to the budget deal worked out between Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the Senate is widely expected to follow suit.

“File-and-Suspend” and “File-and-Restrict” are both used by couples to boost the amount of Social Security they receive together. They were the unintentional results of a hastily-written piece of legislation called “Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act” passed in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

The main intention of this Act was to remove the penalty on individuals who were receiving Social Security benefits and income from a job. If your annual earnings from work exceed a certain amount, Social Security stops paying you some - and potentially all – of your benefits for the year. This law eliminated the benefit hold-back once an individual reached full retirement age (FRA).(1)

These are benefits that were never paid for. They were added fiat by Congress 15 years ago. They are gifts from future retirees to current ones, and good riddance. The reason that they are not cuts is because they will allow future retirees to collect full benefits.

 

[kaz]

Apparently

Jake getting Welfare

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

We all agree on that, if Jake gets welfare, taxpayers are paying him money.

Now let's examine the cash flow for Social security:

$$$ : Taxpayer >> general fund >> Jake

OMG, it's identical! Clearly it's a different thing then ...

That isn't how Social Security works though.

It goes Taxpayer -> Social Security -> Jake
back to Taxpayer <- promised benefits
excess cash -> general fund -> bonds in the Trust Fund -> Jake

This works a lot like a private pension why isn't a private pension welfare? It works exactly like a private pension, the only meaningful difference is the price. Originally it was a lot lower than a private pension, and how is a lot higher. Why is that no private pension is saying just-put-the-money-back.

Bull shit. Social Security is paid into and out of the general fund. No money goes to social security or comes out of social security. The money coming in is spent as it comes in. The money going out is paid by taxes and borrowing like all other expenses. Learn what you're talking about before you post stupid shit.

It doesn't work anything like a pension., Those have trust funds, social security has none

If you want to help your kids, you will serve them best by learning facts and cease the ideology. Social Security has massive problems, one that you can't see because you don't invest the time to learn how the system works. But I have wasted enough time in this exchange.

You were wrong on every point you made.

Today's taxpayers pay welfare
Today's taxpayers pay social security

You can't argue those two facts or explain what the difference is because there is none. Social Security = welfare, it's undeniable

Since you put it in those words....


You have yet to explain if it is welfare how is it that 1/5 of the poorest seniors aren't eligible when Bernie Sanders collects $50K per year. Here is my definition of welfare : ": aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" That comes from Websters : Definition of WELFARE

What is your definition of "welfare"?

I'm not arguing for pensions for working in Congress? While I oppose Congress being a career and believe there should be no pension for it for that reason, I'm not clear how you're comparing that with welfare. Maybe you can explain more clearly what you're arguing

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

That isn't how Social Security works though.

It goes Taxpayer -> Social Security -> Jake
back to Taxpayer <- promised benefits
excess cash -> general fund -> bonds in the Trust Fund -> Jake

This works a lot like a private pension why isn't a private pension welfare? It works exactly like a private pension, the only meaningful difference is the price. Originally it was a lot lower than a private pension, and how is a lot higher. Why is that no private pension is saying just-put-the-money-back.

Bull shit. Social Security is paid into and out of the general fund. No money goes to social security or comes out of social security. The money coming in is spent as it comes in. The money going out is paid by taxes and borrowing like all other expenses. Learn what you're talking about before you post stupid shit.

It doesn't work anything like a pension., Those have trust funds, social security has none

If you want to help your kids, you will serve them best by learning facts and cease the ideology. Social Security has massive problems, one that you can't see because you don't invest the time to learn how the system works. But I have wasted enough time in this exchange.

You were wrong on every point you made.

Today's taxpayers pay welfare
Today's taxpayers pay social security

You can't argue those two facts or explain what the difference is because there is none. Social Security = welfare, it's undeniable

Since you put it in those words....


You have yet to explain if it is welfare how is it that 1/5 of the poorest seniors aren't eligible when Bernie Sanders collects $50K per year. Here is my definition of welfare : ": aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" That comes from Websters : Definition of WELFARE

What is your definition of "welfare"?

I'm not arguing for pensions for working in Congress? While I oppose Congress being a career and believe there should be no pension for it for that reason, I'm not clear how you're comparing that with welfare. Maybe you can explain more clearly what you're arguing

Sanders and his wife collectively get $50 per year from Social Security. That is up and above whatever else he collects.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

Fallacy of false equivalency. You take a specific standard then fail when trying to expand it to all situations.

That is illogical. And foolish. Go to.

It is fun watching you and Kaz fighting, though. Continue.

Here is the meaning from the internet of fallacy of false equivalency :

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

Please feel free to explain how they are not logically the same.

In the case that you SS's purpose (which is unstated) reveals a broken character. I have said that ignoring the consequences of its impending failure exposes a broken character. Are you worried about the goals of the program, but not whether they achieve them?

You do not state what the purpose of the program is. Hence, it implies that there is a single accept 'purpose' for Social Security, and there really isn't.

 

[kaz]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

The purpose of Social Security like Obamacare is to make every American dependent on government, which is how they keep hold of our short hairs. They are the two most insidiously evil programs the American government ever perpetrated on it's on people ... for that reason ...

I don't think that Social Security has that purpose at all. It is a government program that is spinning out of control. There is no purpose, other than to make sure that it doesn't implode while the politicians are in office.

Then why are two of the Democrat's most common duck calls that Republicans want to take away your healthcare and grandma's check? Clearly they are a leash

The most common dog whistle of the GOP is that they will protect the benefits of existing seniors.

Politicians say what it takes to get elected. That doesn't mean that it is true.

So? Why don't you go find a Republican and bicker with them about your partisan crap, I don't give a shit

 

[kaz]

Bull shit. Social Security is paid into and out of the general fund. No money goes to social security or comes out of social security. The money coming in is spent as it comes in. The money going out is paid by taxes and borrowing like all other expenses. Learn what you're talking about before you post stupid shit.

It doesn't work anything like a pension., Those have trust funds, social security has none

If you want to help your kids, you will serve them best by learning facts and cease the ideology. Social Security has massive problems, one that you can't see because you don't invest the time to learn how the system works. But I have wasted enough time in this exchange.

You were wrong on every point you made.

Today's taxpayers pay welfare
Today's taxpayers pay social security

You can't argue those two facts or explain what the difference is because there is none. Social Security = welfare, it's undeniable

Since you put it in those words....


You have yet to explain if it is welfare how is it that 1/5 of the poorest seniors aren't eligible when Bernie Sanders collects $50K per year. Here is my definition of welfare : ": aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" That comes from Websters : Definition of WELFARE

What is your definition of "welfare"?

I'm not arguing for pensions for working in Congress? While I oppose Congress being a career and believe there should be no pension for it for that reason, I'm not clear how you're comparing that with welfare. Maybe you can explain more clearly what you're arguing

Sanders and his wife collectively get $50 per year from Social Security. That is up and above whatever else he collects.

Why? I have no idea what you're saying or what your point is

 

[gipper]

You just proved yourself ignorant. This should tell you something, but it probably won't.
Obama cuts social security...

"Brilliant" ........Your claim that Obama cutting SS is not a lie because you lied about it before????? What a complete asshole you must be......LOL

Both kaz and gipper try to make words means something they don't. Grizz got ousted on that last night.

SS is ours not Congress. Congress will touch it at its peril.

Obama cut Social Security. It is a FACT. Why is it that you two dummies can't accept facts?

Two popular methods of claiming Social Security benefits are disappearing thanks to the budget deal worked out between Congress and the White House. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the Senate is widely expected to follow suit.

“File-and-Suspend” and “File-and-Restrict” are both used by couples to boost the amount of Social Security they receive together. They were the unintentional results of a hastily-written piece of legislation called “Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act” passed in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

The main intention of this Act was to remove the penalty on individuals who were receiving Social Security benefits and income from a job. If your annual earnings from work exceed a certain amount, Social Security stops paying you some - and potentially all – of your benefits for the year. This law eliminated the benefit hold-back once an individual reached full retirement age (FRA).(1)

These are benefits that were never paid for. They were added fiat by Congress 15 years ago. They are gifts from future retirees to current ones, and good riddance. The reason that they are not cuts is because they will allow future retirees to collect full benefits.

Wrong...they were cuts. Clearly they were cuts. No longer can a spouse collect from their spouse's SS, while theirs continues to grow.

Do not get me wrong. I am fine with the changes made. My point is most Americans do not know these cuts were made by a D POTUS, because the MSM purposely failed to inform them. So much for SS being untouchable.

...and since when were SS benefits 'paid for?'

 

[tyroneweaver]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

The moment we knew jake was destined for greatness.

 

[Contumacious]

Pay close attention

1- There is NO trust fund

2- the responsibility to save for your old age is yours not Congress

3- "Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time."

.

 

[nat4900]

However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time."

For the LAST fucking time.......you and other morons are MISinterpreting (or have no clue about) the Nestor decision.

Check with a grown up.....

 

[gipper]

However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time."

For the LAST fucking time.......you and other morons are MISinterpreting (or have no clue about) the Nestor decision.

Check with a grown up.....

...and yet you admitted not knowing Obama cut social security. One should not ridicule others, when one is ignorant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

Fallacy of false equivalency. You take a specific standard then fail when trying to expand it to all situations.

That is illogical. And foolish. Go to.

It is fun watching you and Kaz fighting, though. Continue.

Here is the meaning from the internet of fallacy of false equivalency :

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

Please feel free to explain how they are not logically the same.

In the case that you SS's purpose (which is unstated) reveals a broken character. I have said that ignoring the consequences of its impending failure exposes a broken character. Are you worried about the goals of the program, but not whether they achieve them?

You do not state what the purpose of the program is. Hence, it implies that there is a single accept 'purpose' for Social Security, and there really isn't.

Your fallacy falls on your attempt to evade a broken moral character if you condemn SS. If you want to make sure the money gets put back in, I am with you. To condemn the program itself is base.

You are not as base or gipper, though.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time."

For the LAST fucking time.......you and other morons are MISinterpreting (or have no clue about) the Nestor decision.

Check with a grown up.....

Actually that is what he 9 justices said.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some are bitching about how the taxes are gathered and deposited. Nothing wrong about that: fix it. To bitch about SS and its purpose, however, reveals an individual's broken moral character.

That means if you don't agree with me you have a broken moral character. The irony of that post is staggering.

You have the misguided idea that all we have to do is put the money back, and the problem is solved. To not question the entire program reveals a broken common sense. To stand by asking no questions about the program and say that the consequences are not important because they do not fall on me reveals a broken moral character.

Fallacy of false equivalency. You take a specific standard then fail when trying to expand it to all situations.

That is illogical. And foolish. Go to.

It is fun watching you and Kaz fighting, though. Continue.

Here is the meaning from the internet of fallacy of false equivalency :

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

Please feel free to explain how they are not logically the same.

In the case that you SS's purpose (which is unstated) reveals a broken character. I have said that ignoring the consequences of its impending failure exposes a broken character. Are you worried about the goals of the program, but not whether they achieve them?

You do not state what the purpose of the program is. Hence, it implies that there is a single accept 'purpose' for Social Security, and there really isn't.

Your fallacy falls on your attempt to evade a broken moral character if you condemn SS. If you want to make sure the money gets put back in, I am with you. To condemn the program itself is base.

You are not as base or gipper, though.

That simply means that I don't agree with you which isn't a sign of or an absence of moral character. The program itself is responsible for the movement of money. So if you feel that money needs to be 'put back in', then you are the one who is criticizing the problem.

 

[Contumacious]

Pay close attention

1- There is NO trust fund

2- the responsibility to save for your old age is yours not Congress

3- "Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time."


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Critical thinking leads to some unhappy truths about SS. However, the fixes are fairly easy to do.