Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 131

Thread: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a future Am

  1. #21
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    So you want yours and the rest of the country be damned. Got it.


    YOU old er folks never kept a good reign on the politicians, the signs of SS being raided, ripped, and ruined were there for all to see... you didn't care.

    And thus we, the ones paying for your error don't care bout YOU.

    Its your kind of attitude thats going to send the teaparty right down the toilet....remember something youngin babyboomers us old bastards are the largest voting block in this country.
    I went to 4 teaparty rallies in my area and supported them WHOLEHEARTEDLY and at those rallies, I didnt see any yuppies or silk tshirts or 150.00 sneaker wearing dudes and dudettes, or rolex wearing hotshots, I saw mostly gray haired working class americans fed up Nancy Pelosi and Obama pissing money away and giving CORPORATIONS billions because their CEOs were failures or thieves or both. Those baby boomers werent buying into this reverse Robin Hoodism where the teaparty gives to the rich and take from the middleclass and lower middleclass.
    You will soon see support for the teaparty starting to erode, babyboomers were the biggest supporters of the teaparty AT FIRST and are changing their minds LIKE ME in bucket loads everyday and trust this MrV those people that you say you dont care about...will outvote you and yours every time on every issue and will do it for the next 15yrs..Stay tuned this is just starting.

  2. #22
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    lpast:

    1. nothing changes for anyone over the age of 55

    2. there are no changes to Social Security in the 2012 budget itself. it calls for the President and Congress to examine how to make it fiscally sustainable.

    3. if we don't do this now, the inevitable result will be the utter and complete ending of these programs in a few short years. pick your poison.


    but yes you are probably right that this is just starting. of all our history, the baby boomers are probably the most self-absorbed and selfish generation. i would be completely unsurprised if they were willing to destroy the country in order to 'get theirs'.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-07-11 at 10:14 AM.

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,938

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Here is the way I see it - If Republicans gain enough control to eliminate Social Security, then they had better damn well give me the money back that they have been taking from me for almost 50 years. If they don't, then I can damn well guarantee that senior citizens, refusing to be floated out to sea on icebergs, will declare war on the robber barons who stole their money. These are the very same assholes who smack the Democrats over statements of "redistribution of wealth", and "class warfare". If they steal the money of senior citizens, THEY will be the ones who are redistributing wealth (from old folks to corporate cronies), it WILL be class warfare, and I, like many other seniors, won't take it sitting down. You will see protests and civil disobedience the likes you have never imagined in your wildest "tea induced" hallucinations. What will you do then? Shoot us all down, in front of the entire world? Because that is the only way you will be able to stop it. Old people who have nothing to lose will be your worst nightmare.
    Well, I'm glad your selfishness and me-first mentality comes to light Dana.

    Social Security, simply put, CAN NOT continue to exist in the way that it stands today. Not unless you care so much about "getting yours" that you don't care the impact it has on the country.

    Now the best option in my opinion isn't just to stop it dead on, cold turkey, tomorrow. There are some individuals who are already on it, or who are close to retirment, that have paid for 30 to 40 years that definitely should be kept on the program (Though I think for those people the age it goes into affect should be upped).

    But some group, at some point, IS going to get the middle finger. Welcome to the harsh realities of life and its people like you focused singularly on themselves and the "gimme gimme gimmie poppa government" mentality that make it impossible for any kind of reform to entitlements to ever get done. Its people like you that are the reason you've been having your money "stolen" for the past 10 years or so rather than having the system reformed already.

    The "hyperbole" of Cantor? You're trying to compare the idiotic ****ing crap you spewed to THIS comment:

    although "we've got to protect today's seniors," "we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."
    OOOOOOO look at the horrible Hyperbole. Yes, that is "bat**** crazy" on the level of this sterling presentation:

    they don't, then I can damn well guarantee that senior citizens, refusing to be floated out to sea on icebergs, will declare war on the robber barons who stole their money
    You will see protests and civil disobedience the likes you have never imagined in your wildest "tea induced" hallucinations
    will you do then? Shoot us all down, in front of the entire world? Because that is the only way you will be able to stop it. Old people who have nothing to lose will be your worst nightmare.
    Yes Dana. Cantor's "bat****" hyperbole of saying...shocker...that Social Security in the end can not exist if we're going to have a fiscally sound America is definitely on par with the crap you spewed

    Social Security is a broken program founded during a significantly different time with significantly different factors and variables playing into it. Its continuation in its present form will continue to grow to become a larger and larger portion of our budget (already standing equal with defense in and of itself) and making any hope of fiscal responsability in the future be possible.

    Take your hollow bitching about "corporate cronies" elsewhere, you're not less guilty of pure and unquestionable greed than they are.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,938

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Oh and unlike other threads where people bitch about something and then vanish when asked "then what would you suggest", I'll actually put forth what I think should happen other than just letting SS continue on as it always has.

    What we need to do is a teired approach to this. Set a cut off age right now, I'd probably say 45 or 50. Everyone at or above that age continues to pay Social Security taxes and will get Social security.

    Subtract 15 years from that. Anyone within that range of ages has a choice. They can continue to pay for Social Security and draw from it when they reach the appropriate age OR they can choose to opt out of the system entirely.

    Everyone younger than that age is removed from the system entirely, regardless of choice.

    Then you do a few things across the board.

    You raise the retirement age for that top group by 3 years (making it generally 65 years old).

    Raise the retirement age for the next group by 6 years (making it generally 68 years old).

    Impliment a workforce wide 1% tax that goes into a seperate account from the general fund that is used ONLY to suppliment Social Security payouts. This tax would have a sunset on it where it would vanish at the point in which the final Social Security recipient dies. Any unused moneys in that account at that point would be rolled out to pay down the debt.

    Allow for people to set up federal retirement accounts that could take a percentage of your pay check pre tax. If you withdraw money from it after you've reached a certain age you would be able to withdraw the money tax free (but would be subject to normal taxes if you took it out before hand).

    This takes care of those that have been paying into the system the longest and would have the shortest amount of time to prepare. It would give those in the middle the chance to make a choice based on their own living condition. Those younger would not be given a choice but would have been paying into it the least amount of years and would have the most time to begin their own savings for retirement. Thus we would eventually end this extremely financially dragging program while still equitably taking care of those who'd have no other means of taking care of themselves.

    And guess what...

    You could describe my whole plans theory by summing it up that we need to take care of our senior citizens but we must come to grips that we can not maintain Social Security if we want America to be the America we want to be fiscally.

    How's that for some bat**** hyperbole

  5. #25
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    force people to pay in a certain percent so that they can't later throw themselves onto the welfare system, and i'm in.

  6. #26
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ....


    go read post 13, and get back to us.
    I paid into SS for years and expect to collect SS until the day I no longer need it, you can label my expectation any way you want to but I have invested with the guarantee of a return on that investment. The Wall Street stock market ponzi scheme will eventually fail and unlike the last time won't be saved by the tax payer dollar that's when the blood sucking leeches will start jumping out of tenth floor windows.

    Their is only one way to save our economy and that is through the creation of employment opportunities, stealing from SS, medicare ect are only delaying the inevitable collapse of our economy while the haves steal as much as they can.

    OR, if he didn't want the 'risk' of the marketplace, he could have chosen to stay with regular social (in)security. average monthly payout: about $1,100 dollars. or, roughly 1/3rd of what Joe made in our worse case scenario at age 65.

  7. #27
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    lpast:

    1. nothing changes for anyone over the age of 55

    2. there are no changes to Social Security in the 2012 budget itself. it calls for the President and Congress to examine how to make it fiscally sustainable.

    3. if we don't do this now, the inevitable result will be the utter and complete ending of these programs in a few short years. pick your poison.


    but yes you are probably right that this is just starting. of all our history, the baby boomers are probably the most self-absorbed and selfish generation. i would be completely unsurprised if they were willing to destroy the country in order to 'get theirs'.

    The point of my post was to contrast his WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOU statement.
    With me this isnt about changes to Social Security you guys keep MISSING THE POINT entirely. Im going to try and explain my position
    I know theres a need to change social security and I would be all for cuts in social security including for us already on it. The pain has to be shared, however that is NOT what I see being done by the teaparty.
    Walker, Christie, Kasich, Scott all teaparty supported govs the first thing all of them did getting into office is give TAX CUTS TO THE RICH, then they attacked the working class...Paul Ryans proposal lowers the tax rate on the rich from 35% to 25% thats 25% reduction in taxs for the RICHEST AMERICANS and CORPORATIONS while proposing to TAKE from social security medicare and medicaid and meals on wheels for seniors and school meals,
    So lets see, extend bush's tax cuts, have all the govs give tax cuts to the rich and corporations then have the fed govt give another 25% tax cuts on top of that then rape public workers, social security recipients and medicare and you CPWILL want to make the statement that babyboomers are selfish ? whats selfish is this 30-40 year old teaparty thang that wants to pull reverse robin hoodism on america take from the middle class and the poor and workers and give to the rich, your the GREEDY ones who want MOAR and MOAR and dont give a damn about anyone else in the process...
    The teaparty effectively in its beginning gained the support of everyone not from their taking from the working class and giving to the rich thing, but for its stance on tarps and buyouts and stimulus that went to the richest americans and corporations while giving their CEOs huge paydays...thats what got the teaparty going not this rape of the working class.
    If the teaparty was truly interested in lowering debt, they would not be pairing, one right after another tax cuts while taking from the ones that can least afford it and trying to tell us WERE BROKE. If the govts broke dont give tax cuts until its solvent.
    Trust this CPwill theres more and more people waking up to the ruse that was pulled on them by the teaparty.
    Keep this in mind...the republican party couldnt elect a dogcatcher to office without...WORKING CLASS REPUBLICANS like me and babyboomer republicans.
    There isnt enough of the rich hotshots.

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    lpast:

    1. nothing changes for anyone over the age of 55

    2. there are no changes to Social Security in the 2012 budget itself. it calls for the President and Congress to examine how to make it fiscally sustainable.

    3. if we don't do this now, the inevitable result will be the utter and complete ending of these programs in a few short years. pick your poison.


    but yes you are probably right that this is just starting. of all our history, the baby boomers are probably the most self-absorbed and selfish generation. i would be completely unsurprised if they were willing to destroy the country in order to 'get theirs'.
    We should have left the modern day carpet baggers aka tea baggers/republicans go down with wall street, it was a mistake to bail wall street and the new mafia aka banks out.

  9. #29
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    We should have left the modern day carpet baggers aka tea baggers/republicans go down with wall street, it was a mistake to bail wall street and the new mafia aka banks out.
    You can blame Obama for that, as well as Bush. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. They all work against the interests of ordinary Americans, and for those of the bankster class.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #30
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    I paid into SS for years and expect to collect SS until the day I no longer need it
    if you were paid for services with a check, only to be told the check had bounced, would you blame the bank teller? or the guy who wrote you a bad check?

    right now, we're the teller. there is no money, man.

    you can label my expectation any way you want to but I have invested with the guarantee of a return on that investment.
    actually no you haven't; you have no guarantee whatsoever of getting social security benefits. the Supreme Court was quite explicit on that.

    The Wall Street stock market ponzi scheme will eventually fail and unlike the last time won't be saved by the tax payer dollar that's when the blood sucking leeches will start jumping out of tenth floor windows.
    the wall street you are referring to is actual investment in actual assets and the American people. social security, in contrast, is by definition a ponzi scheme; and it is failing before our eyes. we have reached the point where it is no longer possible to bring in enough new suckers.

    Their is only one way to save our economy and that is through the creation of employment opportunities
    which is why i'm glad the Republican budget does that.

    stealing from SS
    the Republican budget does not touch social security.

    , medicare
    the republican budget saves medicare from the current collapse that it is headed towards

    only delaying the inevitable collapse of our economy while the haves steal as much as they can.
    it's nowhere near inevitable. we just have to fix a massive debt crises; which the Republican 2012 budget goes pretty far towards accomplishing.

    OR, if he didn't want the 'risk' of the marketplace, he could have chosen to stay with regular social (in)security. average monthly payout: about $1,100 dollars. or, roughly 1/3rd of what Joe made in our worse case scenario at age 65.
    i find it ironic you left this part in.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •