• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

xpiher said:
I think it funny you put me in the same category as repubs. I support social welfare programs and a livable wage, just like Hayek.

SS is simply just useless. There isn't any reason why a private company cannot do the something thing that the government fails to do...
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that they won't. They're profit driven, and would inevitably find a way to screw the little people so long as it increased their revenues and they can get away with it in Capitalist America, where Big Business Knows Best!

xpiher said:
401ks follow you even when you aren't employed. Most of the middle class that lost their jobs have almost completely exhausted, if not exhausted, their entire life savings while looking for work. The problem with SS tax is that the government has done the same thing, and will do it again even if it was illegal.
Click to expand...

This is fairly true, sadly enough. However, turning to Big Business is not the answer. Reformation (not reduction) is the answer.
 
Last edited:
ItsAProcess said:
Besides the fact that they won't. They're profit driven, and would inevitably find a way to screw the little people so long as it increased their revenues and they can get away with it in Capitalist America, where Big Business Knows Best!



This is fairly true, sadly enough. However, turning to Big Business is not the answer. Reformation (not reduction) is the answer.
Click to expand...

The point is, if the rule of law persisted, then the big banks screwing the little guy would be forced to pony up the dough and then some for participating in fraud.
 
xpiher said:
The point is, if the rule of law persisted, then the big banks screwing the little guy would be forced to pony up the dough and then some for participating in fraud.
Click to expand...
Since when does that happen, in Capitalist America?

Big Business doesn't have to follow such plebian things as laws. They're above such concerns that are meant for the "little people". Methinks someone is far, faaar too much of an optimist about Big Banks and Big Business.
 
quote xpiher

SS is simply just useless.
Click to expand...

Its been working quite well since 1935 just needs a tweaking to get it on track for another seventy five years.



There isn't any reason why a private company cannot do the something thing that the government fails to do, prevent people from taking the money out.
Click to expand...

SURE …hand it off to Goldman Sachs, thata take care of it. :roll:


You can easily have a contract with a bank that x amount of dollars will be taken from your check and put into a fund that is inaccessible, by anyone, until you are age 65.
Click to expand...

Ole Gawd spare me the strawman.:2brickwal


Unlike the gov, you could sue the bank to get the money should it "vanish"
Click to expand...

Eh…what caused the financial crises that were pulling out of now?… Sherlock, I think it were the banks. Thank you mister Watson.:thumbs:
 
donc said:
Its been working quite well since 1935 just needs a tweaking to get it on track for another seventy five years.





SURE …hand it off to Goldman Sachs, thata take care of it. :roll:




Ole Gawd spare me the strawman.:2brickwal




Eh…what caused the financial crises that were pulling out of now?… Sherlock, I think it were the banks. Thank you mister Watson.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

You need to study more economics. Banks acted with in the confines of the laws and were in fact encouraged to make bad deals by the fed and the government. If the bank is actually forced to follow contracts, then those who made millions off of fraud would lose millions in order to compensate loss. Also, America hasn't be a capitalistic country for some time.
 
xpiher said:
Banks acted with in the confines of the laws and were in fact encouraged to make bad deals by the fed and the government. If the bank is actually forced to follow contracts, then those who made millions off of fraud would lose millions in order to compensate loss. .
Click to expand...

Were talking about Social Security, not the strawman that you want to talk about. The banks.
 
donc said:
Were talking about Social Security, not the strawman that you want to talk about. The banks.
Click to expand...

Its not a straw man. You, or someone else, said that SS should stay because people would have any savings left after an economic crisis. Through contracts, the banks could be legally obligated to actually hold the funds just like the government is; however, unlike with the government, you would actually be able to get your money back should the bank spend it.
 
xpiher said:
Its not a straw man. You, or someone else, said that SS should stay because people would have any savings left after an economic crisis. Through contracts, the banks could be legally obligated to actually hold the funds just like the government is; however, unlike with the government, you would actually be able to get your money back should the bank spend it.
Click to expand...

Why screw with the banks when the Social Security trust fund is owed the money from the United States Government, plus interest.
 
donc said:
Why screw with the banks when the Social Security trust fund is owed the money from the United States Government, plus interest.
Click to expand...
Because there is no there, there.
With SS you do not own an asset. The Congress giveth. The Congress taketh away.
The money was frittered away to build monuments to Senator Byrd in West Virginia.
 
Misterveritis said:
Because there is no there, there.
With SS you do not own an asset. The Congress giveth. The Congress taketh away.
The money was frittered away to build monuments to Senator Byrd in West Virginia.
Click to expand...



Then in your world it’s ok to stiff China for the load of dough that they loaned us for our wars?
 
donc said:
Then in your world it’s ok to stiff China for the load of dough that they loaned us for our wars?
Click to expand...

Screw those honky commie slant eyed devils! /sarcasm.

In all seriousness, China is the biggest threat to our status as The Major World Power.

Anything we can do to keep them and their abuse of human rights down is a good thing, in my mind.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
Then in your world it’s ok to stiff China for the load of dough that they loaned us for our wars?
Click to expand...
What? Help me to follow your, uh, oh, er, "reasoning". I say that there is no money in that social security locked box. There are only completely worthless IOUs. And somehow that leads you to believe that I am saying don't pay our debts?

Kooky.
 
donc said:
I believe I read in a US News and Report that approximately 28 percent of 401(k) participants had an outstanding loan in 2010.

I believe that the author was Aon Hewitt.




Your right, “401(k)s are things people with jobs have “ but the latest jobs report by the bls has the number of unemployed at 13.9 million and the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent and 28% of that number comes to pretty close to four million many of whom have 401(k)s. Now why do you think that unemployed Americans would be tapping their 401(k)s?

I’m thinking that it’s a pretty desperate act, considering the price that they pay; check this link out.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but you didn't really answer any of my questions from post #148.
 
Misterveritis said:
What? Help me to follow your, uh, oh, er, "reasoning". I say that there is no money in that social security locked box. There are only completely worthless IOUs. And somehow that leads you to believe that I am saying don't pay our debts?

Kooky.
Click to expand...


Who do we owe most of the money that we used to pay for our wars?I would say its China.Now who issued the IOU,s that's setting in the so-called lock box of SS?

The United States Government,the same ones that borrowed the dough from China.

So, if its OK to pay China the money borrowed, why isn't it OK to pay our own citizens what they worked for and was promised them?:2wave:
 
donc said:
Who do we owe most of the money that we used to pay for our wars?I would say its China.Now who issued the IOU,s that's setting in the so-called lock box of SS?

The United States Government,the same ones that borrowed the dough from China.

So, if its OK to pay China the money borrowed, why isn't it OK to pay our own citizens what they worked for and was promised them?:2wave:
Click to expand...
Great point. More than 14 trillion dollars in IOUs. Where do you suppose the money will come from?
 
Misterveritis said:
Great point. More than 14 trillion dollars in IOUs. Where do you suppose the money will come from?
Click to expand...

National Sales tax of 6%? Or tax hikes and spending cuts.
 
Quote

Neomalthusian

Interesting, but you didn't really answer any of my questions from post #148.
Click to expand...

From your post #145…(What is your point donc?)

Which I responded, In post #147, directing you to… Read post #137, thru post #144.



Which you responded in post #148, with these two questions on insurance… in a SS thread.


1) Just generally speaking, should people who want and need a type of insurance pay for said insurance? (this one's easy)

2) Should people who do not and will not need a type of insurance be required to pay for said insurance anyway? If so, why?

Followed by these two questions. In response to a scenario that I used to set up my main point, (which of course you ignored) which was, and still is.

(We take the cap off at $300 k and start paying the money that uncle sugar borrowed out of it.)
Click to expand...


(Is it really true that the folks borrowing against their retirement funds are doing so to feed their hungry children? Can you cite support of this claim anywhere?)


if you want to talk about insurance I suggest that you start a thread on it.If your into digging into archives, we have plenty of old bones buried in the archives that you can bring back to life.


Are you can strain the brain cell, with any luck at all you may possibly come up with an intelligent reply. Not likely but anything’s possible.:2wave:
 
Misterveritis said:
No. It may even be too late to grow the economy by a combination of deep spending cuts and steep tax rate cuts.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy unless those tax cuts result in actual demand increase. The type of the tax cuts being purposed are not the type that actual stimulate demand. All those type of tax cuts will result in is increase CEO bonuses because more profits will be had.

We also must come to terms with the fact that the opposite of laffer curve is true. That when revenues drop to a negligable level, the government becomes ineffective even in the sectors were nearly everyone agrees the government should be involved in and this in return causes deficit to grow and endanger the economy.
 
Misterveritis said:
Great point. More than 14 trillion dollars in IOUs. Where do you suppose the money will come from?
Click to expand...

Kinda looks like we have twenty five years to find the fix, then they more than likely will say cut the cap.:2wave:


<Even without any changes, Social Security payroll taxes could pay 100 percent of benefits for the next 25 years, and 75 percent to 80 percent of benefits for decades thereafter.>

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/social_security_75th.pdf
 
donc said:
Which you responded in post #148, with these two questions on insurance… in a SS thread.
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you take issue with this? I'll repeat the questions for you.

1) Just generally speaking, should people who want and need a type of insurance pay for said insurance? (this one's easy)
2) Should people who do not and will not need a type of insurance be required to pay for said insurance anyway? If so, why?


if you want to talk about insurance I suggest that you start a thread on it.
Click to expand...

In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. So I repeat my two questions above about insurance, in response to your suggestion that the rich, who will not need this insurance, be required to pay into it.

Are you can strain the brain cell...
Click to expand...

Ah, what?
 
Quote Neomalthusian

Just generally speaking, should people who want and need a type of insurance pay for said insurance? (this one's easy.
Click to expand...

Most people pay it its called Social Security.


Should people who do not and will not need a type of insurance be required to pay for said insurance anyway? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
donc said:
Most people pay it its called Social Security.

Yes.
Click to expand...

Are you a defiant 14-year old or do you have a hard time understanding what you read?

1) JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, should people who want and need a type of insurance pay for that insurance they want/need? I'm going to just assume your answer is yes. You want insurance coverage, you choose to pay for insurance coverage, you get insurance coverage.

2) Should people who do not and will not need a type of insurance be required to pay for said insurance anyway? IF SO, WHY?

Your answer is "yes." D- for answering half the question and with no explanation. I'll be calling your parents about the next parent teacher conference to discuss your poor participation and see if we can get you in to see a school counselor and psychologist. Maybe you need an IEP.

You are suggesting that people who do not want or need coverage of a type of insurance scheme should pay for the coverage anyway. This is hardly a contract, there is no consent, no agreement to the terms. They receive something they don't want and are required to pay for it. Would someone who does not own a car be happy about having to pay for car insurance? Of course not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom