The compromise on SS that both sides should be able to agree on.

[bripat9643]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

How does that satisfy the Republican position that it's a Ponzi scheme? Do you imagine that people will be satisfied with only half of their money being stolen?

 

[bripat9643]

The same way we paid for the trillions used to bail out Wall Street.

So, steal more money because we robbed you in the past?

 

[pknopp]

So, steal more money because we robbed you in the past?

If it's good for some, it's good for all.

 

[22lcidw]

Cuz people don’t want old people dying in the streets and clogging up street corners and hospitals just because they didn’t save.

The United States still has some wealth. So, they will slowly make the checks received worth less through inflation or false CPI figures yearly. So those who are marginally independent will start to move back in with their children or other relatives. Then it will be more and more as the nation gets poorer. The people who paid in have been paying 15% of their wages including the employer kick in since the mid 1980's. This is not 2 or 3 % of total wages. Include putting the money that is taxed as social security assets in the federal general fund and there is a problem. The government needs to be realistic about the yearly growth also when they raise taxes or whatever they do. Social Security was supposed to be good until the 2070's.

 

[bripat9643]

Cuz people don’t want old people dying in the streets and clogging up street corners and hospitals just because they didn’t save.

Let the people who don't want that pay the bills of old people. Let their children pay their bills.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's good for some, it's good for all.

It's only good for the people receiving the swag, dumbass.

 

[pknopp]

It's only good for the people receiving the swag, dumbass.

Many didn't benefit from the trillions pumped into Wall Street. Everyone gets S.S. (as long as they live that long)

 

[Flash]

Cuz people don’t want old people dying in the streets and clogging up street corners and hospitals just because they didn’t save.

If they don't want to be poor in their old age then they should save money for retirement. It ain't rocket science.

It is called personal responsibility. Something you stupid Moon Bats are always confused about.

Trusting the government to take care of you is damn stupid. Only an idiot would do that.

You are an idiot, aren't you?

 

[pknopp]

If they don't want to be poor in their old age then they should save money for retirement. It ain't rocket science.

It is called personal responsibility. Something you stupid Moon Bats are always confused about.

Trusting the government to take care of you is damn stupid. Only an idiot would do that.

You are an idiot, aren't you?

If you don't understand you can lose money on your investments............................

 

[Flash]

If you don't understand you can lose money on your investments............................

Sure, just like you can lose money that is collected for SS when the filthy ass government spends the money on something else. Like welfare for Illegals or unemployment compensation or disability payments to fraudulent claims or EV power stations or whatever the idiots in government thinks are more important.

The government is already in debt more than the GDP so what happens when it goes bankrupt? It is already getting close to having to pay a trillion dollars a year just in interest payment and the sonofabitches are out grwoing the size of government even more and borrowing even more money.

The schools districts in Galveston that were able to opt out of SS were able to get more than double the amount of retirement money than they would have got out of SS.

I trust American businesses a lot more than I trust the knucklehead bureaucrats in the frigging government. If you trust the government then you are an idiot.

How about you not being a fucking sorry ass piece of shit and do your own retirement planning instead of having the government weenies do it for you?

 

[kyzr]

You have it wrong.
What is necessary is for people to plan for their retirement.
If they don't do it then that is their problem.
It is called personal responsibility. Something Liberals never seem to understand.

SS works fine.
Even if its not "fixed" people get 78% of promised benefits.
SS is here to stay, so fix it.

 

[citygator]

If they don't want to be poor in their old age then they should save money for retirement. It ain't rocket science.

It is called personal responsibility. Something you stupid Moon Bats are always confused about.

Trusting the government to take care of you is damn stupid. Only an idiot would do that.

You are an idiot, aren't you?

I don’t want to see your stupid ass on my sidewalk. Let’s face it. You’re barely making it by. I like knowing you are going to have some minimal subsistence in your future. It’s selfish of me but you will stink up the place.

I know you think you’ll live off your measly savings but you won’t. It’s nothing and you won’t magically inflate it by the time you retire.

 

[Flash]

SS works fine.
Even if its not "fixed" people get 78% of promised benefits.
SS is here to stay, so fix it.

Social Security was always a dumb idea.

Right now there is a good portion of the money collected for Social Security going for friggin welfare in the form of disability payments. A tremendous number of the disability claims are fraudulent. The Negroes and Latinos (including Illegals) have learned how to scam the system and the stupid government lets them get away with it.

You are a sorry individual if you depend upon the government to provide for your retirement.

You can pay in hundreds of thousands of dollars in your work career and if you die young nobody gets jackshit, except maybe those shitheads scamming for disability.

 

[Lesh]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

What the fuck

Read those two positions

One (the GOP) position is that it is bullshit and the other more rational one (the Dems) is that it is neccessary and functional with minor fixes.

And your solution is to take the GOP side? Because that "in nutshell" is what you have done.

Really?

 

[citygator]

Social Security was always a dumb idea.

Right now there is a good portion of the money collected for Social Security going for friggin welfare in the form of disability payments. A tremendous number of the disability claims are fraudulent. The Negroes and Latinos (including Illegals) have learned how to scam the system and the stupid government lets them get away with it.

You are a sorry individual if you depend upon the government to provide for your retirement.

You can pay in hundreds of thousands of dollars in your work career and if you die young nobody gets jackshit, except maybe those shitheads scamming for disability.

Shows what you know. Hispanics have a lower rate of disabled on SS than whites. try google sometime before you post racist thoughts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

Because the entire idea is stupid?

As a teacher, I had a 403(b) account, which is very similar to a 401(k) for those who are unfamiliar with them. My funds were invested by professionals in stocks and bonds. Over the past 20 odd years, I have seen the amount i invested grow significantly. My tiny investment grew to over $40K. I was eligible to withdraw my funds with no tax penalty almost 2 years ago,

Since my health has taken a turn for the worst, last year I decided to withdraw both accounts in their entirety. I requested the paperwork to withdraw the accounts several months ago, waiting for a time when I thought the market might return to its former glory. Needless to say, that didn't happen. Since I can no longer perform my job, I withdrew both accounts. Thanks to Biden's wonderful economy, I lost nearly 10K in the past 6 months.

My social security has only increased, slight it has been, but I have never lost money like in my 403(b)s. Is this what you want for your social security recipients in the future?

BTW, I am not eligible for disability because I had to work 5 full years since retiring from teaching. I came up a year short!

If not for my social security and real estate, I would be living on $30K to last me the rest of my life.

 

[Flash]

I don’t want to see your stupid ass on my sidewalk. Let’s face it. You’re barely making it by. I like knowing you are going to have some minimal subsistence in your future. It’s selfish of me but you will stink up the place.

I know you think you’ll live off your measly savings but you won’t. It’s nothing and you won’t magically inflate it by the time you retire.

The payback of the hundreds of thousands of dollars my wife and I were forced to paid in and our employers were forced to match only accounts for 16% of our retirement. Of course nowadays that is not much more than Biden's massive inflation, is it?

If the government hadn't forced us to pay that money and we would invested it like we invested the rest of our money it would be a lot more.

The government sucks and you stupid Libtards love the governent more than life itself, don't you? Sorry sonofabitches.

 

[pknopp]

Sure, just like you can lose money that is collected for SS when the filthy ass government spends the money on something else.

Only if you are willing for the country to default on it's obligations. To be a dead beat country. If that is what you want...........................

Like welfare for Illegals or unemployment compensation or disability payments to fraudulent claims or EV power stations or whatever the idiots in government thinks are more important.

The government is already in debt more than the GDP so what happens when it goes bankrupt? It is already getting close to having to pay a trillion dollars a year just in interest payment and the sonofabitches are out grwoing the size of government even more and borrowing even more money.

The schools districts in Galveston that were able to opt out of SS were able to get more than double the amount of retirement money than they would have got out of SS.

I trust American businesses a lot more than I trust the knucklehead bureaucrats in the frigging government. If you trust the government then you are an idiot.

How about you not being a fucking sorry ass piece of shit and do your own retirement planning instead of having the government weenies do it for you?

I have my own retirement. It's not about me. It's about you arguing the country should just default on it's obligations.

But all of that is irrelevant. The government created a program it is then required to operate or default. There is no obligation to bail out bad investments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The same way we paid for the trillions used to bail out Wall Street.

Uh, Wall Street repaid that money, with interest.

 

[pknopp]

Uh, Wall Street repaid that money, with interest.

No they didn't. They repaid *some* of it. I've covered this many times.