Which Republican is giving up Medicare & SS on retirement?

[LordBrownTrout]

I've yet to meet a Republican who didn't take Social Security & Medicare after retirenent?

I have seen a lot complain about such programs none the less.

Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

No not all. Why would I let the govt take and keep my money? Why would I give that up? I don't agree with the govt keeping my money when I could take that money and invest it for myself and family.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I've yet to meet a Republican who didn't take Social Security & Medicare after retirenent?

I have seen a lot complain about such programs none the less.

Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

/----/ We paid for it our entire lives, why the hell would we give it up? Do you walk into the grocer, buy a cart full of groceries, pay for it then walk away without taking them home?

Uh, anyone who is against something should avoid it, not get it.

It's called hypocrisy.

Not my fault you want to look at your cake & eat it too.

/----/ BWHAHAHAHAHA Try and avoid the SS deductions. Go ahead and let us know how that works.

Republican logic.

Gimme gimme. Entilements that I hate.

Like why buy food you hate & then get it. & feel you must eat it all & complain about.

You are a truly SPECIAL kind of stupid, boy.

 

[francoHFW]

Think most are not being honest, only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt. what do we do with the other 80% when they cant work any more? I have family members that Think that if they did not have to pay into SS they would be saving it, funny though that there in there late 40s and early 50s & haven't saved a dime on there own. some people are savers, some people spend every penny they get, some spend every penny & charge even more. thanks in part to SS I did not have to care for my ageing parents,& could focus on my own retirement. how would these family members have been able with no savings to care for there parents if SS was gone? its a safety net, we need it.

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

Total b******* Republican propaganda, super dupe. link to this huge spending?

 

[Jarlaxle]

/-----/ ????]

Very simple... The collection of taxes for Social Security and Medicare is THEFT, pure and simple. Both programs are unconstitutional and immoral. Then, some number of years later the thief (the Government) steals money from other people to pay you back fr whst they stole from you via those two programs (SS & Medicare).

I don’t and won’t take stolen money or the proceeds of stolen money. I’d rather die with a clear conscience.[/QUOTE

/----/ Ever think we're complaining about the piss poor way the money is being managed?

Yeah like in Sweden where healthcare is all paid for & yet not only does it cost their government slightly less per person. When you look at out of pocket too. Then it becomes obvious our system is broken.

For every 1 dollar Americans spend Sweden pays about 60 cents on healthcare & yet Sweden lives longer.

Pay more & live less time is the US motto on healthcare.

Because Republicans are very, very stupid.

Medicare for all actually makes more sense.

Then move to Sweden ,or shut your pie hole Einstein.

I don't really care what you do with that, but don't expect to not look hypocritical complaining about what you take.

/----/ Ever think we're complaining about the piss poor way the money is being managed?

Yeah like in Sweden where healthcare is all paid for & yet not only does it cost their government slightly less per person. When you look at out of pocket too. Then it becomes obvious our system is broken.

For every 1 dollar Americans spend Sweden pays about 60 cents on healthcare & yet Sweden lives longer.

Pay more & live less time is the US motto on healthcare.

Because Republicans are very, very stupid.

Medicare for all actually makes more sense.

So why are we the only rich country without a healthcare system, or for that matter good day care paid parental leave living wage good vacations good infrastructure cheap college and training, an ID card that would end illegal immigration and work, or taxes on the rich that are higher than the middle class? Answer the scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you... Great job.

/——/ Asked and answered 1,000 times since the 2000 elections. Grow a brain and come up with something new.

Can't...he is a spambot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm more Polish minded than you & Bear.

dare i ask?

~S~

He has been huffing furniture polish?

 

[Camp]

Think most are not being honest, only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt. what do we do with the other 80% when they cant work any more? I have family members that Think that if they did not have to pay into SS they would be saving it, funny though that there in there late 40s and early 50s & haven't saved a dime on there own. some people are savers, some people spend every penny they get, some spend every penny & charge even more. thanks in part to SS I did not have to care for my ageing parents,& could focus on my own retirement. how would these family members have been able with no savings to care for there parents if SS was gone? its a safety net, we need it.

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Think most are not being honest, only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt. what do we do with the other 80% when they cant work any more? I have family members that Think that if they did not have to pay into SS they would be saving it, funny though that there in there late 40s and early 50s & haven't saved a dime on there own. some people are savers, some people spend every penny they get, some spend every penny & charge even more. thanks in part to SS I did not have to care for my ageing parents,& could focus on my own retirement. how would these family members have been able with no savings to care for there parents if SS was gone? its a safety net, we need it.

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

 

[francoHFW]

/-----/ ????]

Very simple... The collection of taxes for Social Security and Medicare is THEFT, pure and simple. Both programs are unconstitutional and immoral. Then, some number of years later the thief (the Government) steals money from other people to pay you back fr whst they stole from you via those two programs (SS & Medicare).

I don’t and won’t take stolen money or the proceeds of stolen money. I’d rather die with a clear conscience.[/QUOTE

Yeah like in Sweden where healthcare is all paid for & yet not only does it cost their government slightly less per person. When you look at out of pocket too. Then it becomes obvious our system is broken.

For every 1 dollar Americans spend Sweden pays about 60 cents on healthcare & yet Sweden lives longer.

Pay more & live less time is the US motto on healthcare.

Because Republicans are very, very stupid.

Medicare for all actually makes more sense.

Then move to Sweden ,or shut your pie hole Einstein.

/----/ Ever think we're complaining about the piss poor way the money is being managed?

Yeah like in Sweden where healthcare is all paid for & yet not only does it cost their government slightly less per person. When you look at out of pocket too. Then it becomes obvious our system is broken.

For every 1 dollar Americans spend Sweden pays about 60 cents on healthcare & yet Sweden lives longer.

Pay more & live less time is the US motto on healthcare.

Because Republicans are very, very stupid.

Medicare for all actually makes more sense.

So why are we the only rich country without a healthcare system, or for that matter good day care paid parental leave living wage good vacations good infrastructure cheap college and training, an ID card that would end illegal immigration and work, or taxes on the rich that are higher than the middle class? Answer the scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you... Great job.

/——/ Asked and answered 1,000 times since the 2000 elections. Grow a brain and come up with something new.

Can't...he is a spambot.

What a bunch of crap, another conspiracy theory for ignorant dupes only...

 

[jasonnfree]

Think most are not being honest, only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt. what do we do with the other 80% when they cant work any more? I have family members that Think that if they did not have to pay into SS they would be saving it, funny though that there in there late 40s and early 50s & haven't saved a dime on there own. some people are savers, some people spend every penny they get, some spend every penny & charge even more. thanks in part to SS I did not have to care for my ageing parents,& could focus on my own retirement. how would these family members have been able with no savings to care for there parents if SS was gone? its a safety net, we need it.

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

Right, take advice from bush jr. of letting 9-11 happen on his watch fame, non existent wmd fame, and of course with being prez for several years before the big collapse in 2008 fame.

 

[francoHFW]

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

All I can say is, elderly used to be 65% poor, and that is much lower since Social Security retirement and disability. It's only civilized, but of course you Republicans are barely that. Just full of crap and moaning and allowing yourself to be screwed over by your lying thieving Heroes LOL

 

[Camp]

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

Your funds can not draw interest if they are being spent to support people collecting SS benefits. SS is noq and never has been an investment program. Private investment firms have campaigned and lobbied for you to believe SS should be an investment program. SS is an insurance program. You collect benefits if you become disabled. Your children collect benefits if you die.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

Your funds can not draw interest if they are being spent to support people collecting SS benefits. SS is noq and never has been an investment program. Private investment firms have campaigned and lobbied for you to believe SS should be an investment program. SS is an insurance program. You collect benefits if you become disabled. Your children collect benefits if you die.

I know what it is and everyone should have a choice to opt in or out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Think most are not being honest, only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt. what do we do with the other 80% when they cant work any more? I have family members that Think that if they did not have to pay into SS they would be saving it, funny though that there in there late 40s and early 50s & haven't saved a dime on there own. some people are savers, some people spend every penny they get, some spend every penny & charge even more. thanks in part to SS I did not have to care for my ageing parents,& could focus on my own retirement. how would these family members have been able with no savings to care for there parents if SS was gone? its a safety net, we need it.

only 20 % of the country have retirement savings & little debt

When the government takes 15.3% of your lifetime earnings, it does
make it harder to save outside of Social Security, don't you agree?

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Which is something that never should have happened.

SS was a fund where you withdrew money IF you made it to retirement which at the time, most people didn't. Our lifespan was not quite as lengthy as it is today.

Now they are scrambling to figure out a way to make it work because it's slowly going broke. As baby boomers retire, that will speed up.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I'm certainly no Liberal actually every single poster on this thread is more Liberal than me.

You are stupid one track minded brutes who see just Republicans vs Democrats.

Hey dumb dumbs most of the World is Conservative, Collectivist & pro Socialism compared to you bozos.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and you're still an arrogant collectivist knuckle dragger.....I doubt a real despotic strongman like Pinochet would have spared you.

Individualists are knuckle draggers, I doubt they're much of Humans.

I mean anyone who thinks society is just "Theirs" & can't think of "Greater good" of a "Society" or about how their "Society" and "Environment" is impacted by collective actions is probably severely stupid & severely lacking empathy.

Individualism has NO VALUE, it's ONLY VALUE is to disappear.

I mean anyone who can't figure out there's a society around them, and people suffering in it besides them, and can't figure out their society is being harmed by collective groups like say Illegals, or Islamic refugees, is definitely "PURE RACIAL TRASH"

Individualists are outliers of Civilization.



Contrary to your opinions the Europeans who killed the most are the most Individualist, being the British Empire, they're also the most Capitalist & pro-Jewish too.


This is a fact being heavily kept back from the public heavily, because most Americans are British, Individualist, pro-Jewish, Capitalist SAVAGES.

It simply hits too close to home.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If you include what your employer matches, SS is the largest deduction out of your paycheck every week. Putting that into a conservative growth fund would net you a lot more than SS will give you back in a normal lifetime.

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

All I can say is, elderly used to be 65% poor, and that is much lower since Social Security retirement and disability. It's only civilized, but of course you Republicans are barely that. Just full of crap and moaning and allowing yourself to be screwed over by your lying thieving Heroes LOL

No, it had its time. Now, one should be able to opt in or out. Im not calling for it to be completely thrown out. Some people need it. They don't have the means to make investments.

 

[percysunshine]

I've yet to meet a Republican who didn't take Social Security & Medicare after retirenent?

I have seen a lot complain about such programs none the less.

Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

So, you would agree to a system where people could opt out?

People have been paying the tax for their entire life. Every paycheck has a deduction. So fair is fair. Give the paid in money back to anyone who wants it, and then no SS/Medicare benefits for them hence.

Seems simple and fair.

But guess what...fair is not the real issue.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Obama's stimulis package was BS & Trump's tax cuts were BS.

Both added on a ton of debt & did nothing to help the real wages grow much.

Wages in the US grew at their fastest pace for nine years last month, the latest official figures show.

The US Labor Department said wages grew at an annual rate of 3.1% in October, accelerating from a rate of 2.8% the month before.

The economy also added 250,000 jobs last month, beating expectations, while the jobless rate remained at 3.7%.

US wage growth hits nine-year high

Inflation is going up quicker than wages are, opps.

Inflation hurts our oldest members the most.

Thats why Social security & medicare are so important

Not my income.
So where did you **** up?

Typical Individualist logic.

I support greater society & civilzation which is called Collectivist you are an Individualist which means you think the society is just YOU.

I'm convinced that Individualists are hardly Human & therefor can't think, or feel what true Humans do.

You want to be a drone, have at it. If you want to live free, drop the nonsense about the collective and march to your own drummer.

You apparently believe that man exists to serve society, while I believe that society exists to serve man. The only time that man has an obligation to serve the society is when the society needs to protect itself from internal and/or external threat.

Keep in mind that there is little thrill in victory unless there also exists the agony of losing. Life is worth living. Live it with all the gusto you can muster..

Society comes first, what's best for society is what's best for us.

Individualism is more about getting yours, and not behaving like anyone else matters but yourself.

It's a ridiculous, Sub-Human outlook.

I do completely hate Individualists.


I value society, something Autistic defective Individualists do not.

I mean what could drive someone to think the poor shouldn't be taken care of, even if helping the poor benefits everybody overall????

What can drive people to think their society to drive them to think other societies, or their own societies have NO VALUE & are just disposable.


There's a big World impacted by actions of collective actions, I understand Individualists are basically Autistic & don't have any feelings, or insight.

But, it's not my fault I'm more Human than you.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush tried to talk Dem's into investing some of OUR SS money and Democrats threw a conniption fit. Fact is Democrats used OUR SS money as a piggy bank, they "borrowed" OUR money, $2 trillion dollars of it and spent every last dime. They gave us worthless IOU's they can't pay back. If that happened in any private pension fund they would all be in prison.

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

All I can say is, elderly used to be 65% poor, and that is much lower since Social Security retirement and disability. It's only civilized, but of course you Republicans are barely that. Just full of crap and moaning and allowing yourself to be screwed over by your lying thieving Heroes LOL

No, it had its time. Now, one should be able to opt in or out. Im not calling for it to be completely thrown out. Some people need it. They don't have the means to make investments.

everybody needs it because you never know and it turns out you people are idiots. Republicans are against everything democratic I even when it's a great success and they love it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

One of the reasons Democrats never tried to increase contributions is because they know America will turn against SS and Medicare. These federal programs give them the power of control. Dependency has always been the Democrat strategy, and losing control over the two largest entities would strip them of nearly all power.

If I pass away before retirement, my nephew and niece get everything I worked for. They get my IRA, my bank accounts, my home and rental property, my big screen television, my valuable musical instruments. What they won't see is one red cent of what I put into Social Security. That fund dies with me, and all that money I contributed will go to strangers I've never met before instead of my family.

You may have a point. Folks without children and or a spouse miss out on the insurance benefits of Social Security. However, those with children and a spouse can and do reap huge insurance benefits and often prevent families from having to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the idea that your contributed funds are stashed away waiting for something to happen to you is false. Funds you contribute are going to the folks who are collecting benefits today.

Thats irrelevant. That money could be drawing interest and its not. I can't even pass it on to my children or....whoever.

All I can say is, elderly used to be 65% poor, and that is much lower since Social Security retirement and disability. It's only civilized, but of course you Republicans are barely that. Just full of crap and moaning and allowing yourself to be screwed over by your lying thieving Heroes LOL

No, it had its time. Now, one should be able to opt in or out. Im not calling for it to be completely thrown out. Some people need it. They don't have the means to make investments.

everybody needs it because you never know and it turns out you people are idiots. Republicans are against everything democratic I even when it's a great success and they love it.

No, everybody doesn't need it. Every one should be able opt in and out of this ponzi scheme.

 

[Flopper]

I've yet to meet a Republican who didn't take Social Security & Medicare after retirenent?

I have seen a lot complain about such programs none the less.

Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

Why should they? Both the employee and employer has paid into the system for years. It would be stupid to reject benefits.