• 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!

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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON – Democrats continued to take shots at Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) days after he made remarks questioning the future of Social Security, as the GOP majority leader insisted his words were over-interpreted.

On a conference call Thursday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-IL) told reporters that Cantor's remarks were "stunning" and "so completely out of touch" with ordinary Americans.

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. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

NOTE 1: Just engaging in a little hyperbole here, to counteract the bat**** crazy hyperbole of Eric Cantor. I know that it will never come to this because most Republicans aren't bat**** crazy, like a few of them are. Thank God for reasonable people on both sides of the aisle. LOL.

NOTE 2: What the hell was Cantor thinking when he said what he said? Whatever drugs he was on, give me a six pack. They must be pretty damn good. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Being retired I believe there are enough of us out here to make sure this never happens in our life times. I started paying into SS a very long time ago and I have only recently retired and plan to get some of my contributions back before I give up this life.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

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.

i believe that would be every congress since the 1970's. Long story short, your money was stolen first to pay for the Great Society, then revamping the military, and then the bailouts.

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)

what? dude, that already happened. Social Security money has been getting spent for decades on pet projects.

it WILL be class warfare, and I, like many other seniors, won't take it sitting down.

well, as a young person, i have no intention of letting the baby boomers finally achieve their apparent goal of destroying this country.

NO, i am not willing to declare bankruptcy so that you can force me to guarantee you that which you should have been saving for all along.

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?

close Ryan's and Quincy's. Denied your food source, you will weaken and negotiate :D

NOTE 1: Just engaging in a little hyperbole here, to counteract the bat**** crazy hyperbole of Eric Cantor. I know that it will never come to this because most Republicans aren't bat**** crazy, like a few of them are. Thank God for reasonable people on both sides of the aisle. LOL.

it's not crazy. it's mathematics. Social Security (and Medicare too) will not survive as we know it. either they will go, or the country will go, followed by them going anyway. our unfunded liability for these two programs alone is larger than WORLD GDP. even if we WEREN'T already up to our eyeballs in debt, we just plain can't afford it.

REALITY: we have probably until about 2020 to seriously reform our entitlement system. after that, we're going to have to be throwing old people out into the cold, no hyperbole.

NOTE 2: What the hell was Cantor thinking when he said what he said?

he was probably thinking of the actual numbers involved. Republicans have said they will offer entitlement reform as part of their budget; given that most of the American populace is uneducated (as you apparently are) about the realities of this situation, it's a breathtakingly brave (though desperately necessary) move.
 
Last edited:
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Being retired I believe there are enough of us out here to make sure this never happens in our life times

the numbers are pretty much solid on this. it will happen in your lifetime. the question is do you want it to happen now so that current retirees aren't effected, or do you want it to happen ten years from now where we have the unpleasant options of declaring government bankruptcy (destroying the world economy), hyperinflation (destroying the world economy), or simply cutting off the vast majority of entitlement recipients (if indeed we keep any).

hey, old people vote. if ya'll are really willing to trade another decade of living in blissful denial for destroying your country and enslaving your children and grandchildren, ya'll are free to try.

but i have two young sons whom i love with all my heart and i will fight you to the bone scraping last.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Being retired I believe there are enough of us out here to make sure this never happens in our life times. I started paying into SS a very long time ago and I have only recently retired and plan to get some of my contributions back before I give up this life.

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

You leftists persist in refusing to address the fact that FDR's Ponzi scheme is coming to an end. ALL pyramid schemes fall eventually. The issue isn't that the Ponzi scheme is collapsing, no. The issue is that you people not only refuse to even admit this, but you're also stealing the money and using it elsewhere, thus making the problem even worse, then you people compound the problem by declaring that Clinton had a balanced budget when he never did. He was playing Ken Lay games with Social Security.

Those of us on the right who have been watching since long before the start of the avalanche have been pushing for privatized social security with it's eventual phase out, "eventual" meaning over fifty years or so, and the implementation of a solid healthy, market based private investment plan in which the retiree owns his account and which is, of course, his money, not the government's.

Those last last five words are the reason the left still refuses to consider any form of social security reform.

The whiner complaining that he's put into the program and wants his money back is fooling himself if he believes he'll not get it back. Repayment of capital has never been the problem SS. That's typically done in the first couple of years. It's the freeloading he expects to do for the following thirty that causes all the problems.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

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.

Ah, quit yer bitchin', it was the college brats that voted for Obama, voted for Kerry, voted for Albore, voted for Clinton, and voted for all the lesser Democrats and thus made any effort to do even marginal reforms to that Ponzi scheme impossible.

Lot's and lot's of Mayor Snorkum's peers, and the good Mayor himself, have voted consistently against candidates pushin the leftist line, and that includes the Mayor's refusal to vote for Bush.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Ah, quit yer bitchin', it was the college brats that voted for Obama, voted for Kerry, voted for Albore, voted for Clinton, and voted for all the lesser Democrats and thus made any effort to do even marginal reforms to that Ponzi scheme impossible.

Great ideas like privatizing it... just before massive shocks to our economy, that wouldve been pleasant.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Great ideas like privatizing it... just before massive shocks to our economy, that wouldve been pleasant.

which, of course, would still have left low-income retirees better off than social security as it stand today.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

the numbers are pretty much solid on this. it will happen in your lifetime. the question is do you want it to happen now so that current retirees aren't effected, or do you want it to happen ten years from now where we have the unpleasant options of declaring government bankruptcy (destroying the world economy), hyperinflation (destroying the world economy), or simply cutting off the vast majority of entitlement recipients (if indeed we keep any).

hey, old people vote. if ya'll are really willing to trade another decade of living in blissful denial for destroying your country and enslaving your children and grandchildren, ya'll are free to try.

but i have two young sons whom i love with all my heart and i will fight you to the bone scraping last.

Or we could employ a rational taxation system, coupled with publicly funded elections, which would allow us to actually elect effective people who would then be beholden to us

Who would then be free to do what we elect them to do. Instead of spending half their time getting enough money to run, and the other half paying those debts back.

Then we could all be friends instead. :2wave:

Just a simple spitball of another possible option that could work, based on my extremely jaded opinion of human nature.

There's WAY too much consensus in WAY too many conservative arguments. Consensus is NOT normal human behavior.

Just sayin'.:2wave:
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Or we could employ a rational taxation system

well i'm 100 percent in favor of that; which is one reason i like the ryan budget, as it moves us in a more rational direction. but what we have now is a nightmare behemothof a code that costs us over 300 billion a year just to comply with. that's indefensible.

, coupled with publicly funded elections, which would allow us to actually elect effective people who would then be beholden to us

okay... not really sure how this ties into our debt crises; except that it adds another expense objectively making it worse.

Who would then be free to do what we elect them to do. Instead of spending half their time getting enough money to run, and the other half paying those debts back.

Then we could all be friends instead. :2wave:

no...... you would simply provide a new baseline instead. politicians now spend their time assuming the public funds and then raising money for "like minded groups" that will run ads on their behalf.

until you get politics out of money, you won't get the money out of politics.

Just a simple spitball of another possible option that could work, based on my extremely jaded opinion of human nature.

There's WAY too much consensus in WAY too many conservative arguments. Consensus is NOT normal human behavior.

Just sayin'.:2wave:

there is a generally American consensus that not raping children is good. obviously your jaded sense tells you Americans are wrong in this? or perhaps they (and by extension, conservatives) are on to something?

as for consensus within the Conservative Camp; there is anything but. I see plenty of consensus on the Democrat side. One Solution: Raise Taxes. on the Republican side you have a wealth of competing ideas, from fair taxes to flat taxes to two-tiered taxes to simplified taxes...
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

which, of course, would still have left low-income retirees better off than social security as it stand today.

Not that I have too many cards coming into this discussion. But how exactly is what you said above true?
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Not that I have too many cards coming into this discussion. But how exactly is what you said above true?

quoting my OP of the Social Security Fix thread:



Allow workers to opt into a partially privatized system, where of their 7.65% FICA expenditures, 5% goes into a private TSP-style account; and the Employers match follow the same. the remaining 2.65% (or, when you count the match, 5.3%) will go straight into SS, but it will be revenue for which SS will never see a liability. the cost for opting out is that part of your pay continues to go to pay for others, but the upside is that you get a combined total of 10% of your annual income going into a retirement account that belongs to you, and grows tax-free. Social Securities' revenues will instantly drop, but nowhere near as severely as their liabilities. To ensure solvency in the adjustment period (and to make it politically palatable); lift the cap. We can lift the cap on only the worker (and not the employer) if we want to encourage job-creation; or lift it on both if we need the revenue to ensure solvency, or if that's the only way to get the thing passed; here is room for compromise wiggling. Higher paid workers will see more of their money leave in the form of taxes, but those making less than $604,000 will get back even more in the form of ownership of personalized accounts (assuming the employer cap isn't lifted, and that's not figuring for the added benefit of those accounts growing tax-free), and so they will be willing to make the trade. Perhaps another compromise point would be to raise the cap to $604K. Poorer workers can either spend their lifetime building far more wealth than they ever would have seen under Social Security if they are younger, or keep the guaranteed program benefits if they are older.

ta-da! the American people and the Government are left better off.

how much better off?

welllll, let's do a quick example:

Joe graduates High School and goes to work, making 25,000 a year. Not anyone's idea of incredible pay, but there you are. Joe gets' a 2% raise every year to account for his increasing talent, experience, etc. The 10% of his income goes into a mix of funds that matches the S&P 500 Combined Annualized Growth average since 1982: 7.98% (after you account for inflation). If Joe retires nice and early at 62; his retirement fund will be worth $1,030,110, and if placed into an annuity / conservative account that generates a 5% annual return, his monthly benefit will be $4,292. That would be slightly less than his last monthly paycheck of $4,979; but still quite livable. If Joe works until he's 65, his monthly benefit will climb above his monthly income to $5,473; and if he decides (as most of us probably will) to delay retirement to 68, he's looking at a monthly retirement check of $6,966.

And remember, Joe isn't exactly one of society's higher paid workers.

But he also had the advantage of time. Let's say instead Joe went to two years of college, and got an associates before entering the workforce to earn that 25,000; and let's say that instead of 2%, Joe turns out not to learn new skills that well, and his annual raise above inflation is actually 0.5%. We're stacking the deck a little against ole Joe, but he still seems to come out okay; his monthly benefit at age 62 is $3,050; at age 65 it's $3,875; and at age 68 it's $4,915. It's worth noting that under this model, the most Joe ever made was $31,672 in a given year; and that his monthly retirement benefits at age 65 represents a $1,200 monthly pay increase over his monthly income. Even if Joe retires early at 62 he will have more in income off of his account than he would from working; and the longer he chooses to keep working, the greater, obviously, his return is.

AND ALL THIS WITHOUT COSTING OLE JOE A SINGLE RED CENT. since the money was cash he was losing to taxes in the first place, his take-home pay wasn't reduced one iota; but because we partially privatized social security, Low Income Worker Joe can retire a millionaire.

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.


BUT WAIT!!! WHAT IF THE MARKET TANKS!!!

Markets recover. If the market tanks right as Joe was planning on retiring, he can work for an extra year while it rights itself, or simply choose to draw less from the account in order to leave more in there to ride the upswing. OR, if Joe makes the worst decision possible, at the worst time possible and withdraws all of his money while the market is at the low point on the trough (say, a 40% drop, similar to what we just saw), to purchase a 5% annuity... then his monthly income in our worse-case scenario at age 65 will still be more than twice what he could have expected from Social Security.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

mind you, the new numbers now being available; the actual CAGR of the S&P 500 after adjusting for inflation is 8.13%; so those numbers can actually be adjusted a bit higher. but the point remains the same. never underestimate the power of compound interest.
 
Last edited:
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

sleep-computer-460_1205647c.jpg
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

the punchline: partial privatization of social security will force poor people to save and invest; causing them to be financially independent at retirement. even if the market crashes the return is better than Social (in)Security's.

and so the question becomes: given that it is possible to turn our low income workers into financially independent retirees; why would we instead choose the route of economically harmful and revenue neutral tax hikes?
 
Last edited:
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

*Nod's head.*
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

*Nod's head.*

so you tell me: which would you prefer? to turn the poor into financially independent retirees, or keep them dependent upon (smaller) government handouts financed by economy-harming tax rates?
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

so you tell me: which would you prefer? to turn the poor into financially independent retirees, or keep them dependent upon (smaller) government handouts financed by economy-harming tax rates?

Your assuming that poor people will have the money to invest in the biggest ponzi scheme to ever come into being, I am referring to Wall Street and the stock market, so we can bail Wall Street out with our taxes and watch quietly as our social security is eliminated.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

Your assuming that poor people will have the money to invest in the biggest ponzi scheme to ever come into being, I am referring to Wall Street and the stock market, so we can bail Wall Street out with our taxes and watch quietly as our social security is eliminated.

....


go read post 13, and get back to us.
 
Re: Schakowsky tears into Cantor for saying Social Security ‘cannot exist’ in a futur

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

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. :mrgreen:

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 :roll:

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom