View Poll Results: Are seniors that use SS one of these...

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Terrorists

    12 26.67%
  • Leftists

    5 11.11%
  • Lazy

    1 2.22%
  • Parasites

    27 60.00%
Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930
Results 291 to 300 of 300

Thread: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

  1. #291
    Professor

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

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    So by your links, there is concern over a privatized social security (do you even have a clue what percentage Bush proposed people that CHOOSe to invest entailed? or that it was strictly volutnary), that some politicians have proposed cuts for the highest wage earners (sounds like what we have heard many people HERE say about the rich and social security), and that people see privatization (not elimination) as a solution for the social security program. What exactly is Ryan or Cantors plan? I mean...beyond the scare tactics and sound bites that you throw out there that make people like Earl wet himself. More. In a system where we now have +20% unemployment and rising...who exactly is paying into that system? How does it remain solvent without some form of change?

    You have said absolutely NOTHING that i havent already said. SOME people believe the system needs reviewing. SOME believe that it needs revamping. SOME believe privatization is a more efficient means of not only securing but growing the program. You just keep using the same lame tired ass scare tactics.
    Who cares what percentage President Bush proposed once the fox is in the hen house the chickens are in trouble, lets put it another way once the horse is out of the barn it's over, you don't have to worry about me I am ready with a carton of pampers.

    SS is solvent all seniors have to do is to keep the barn door shut and the fox out of the hen house

    Trust Fund FAQs

    excerpt from above

    As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

    Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

  2. #292
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by Polotick View Post
    What gets me is those in favor of privatization of Social Security say the reason for doing so is that the current system is "too" safe and much more money can be made by turning it over to Wall Street. If this is the case, why do they always, usually in the same breath, say that benefits must be cut? According to them turning it over to Wall Street will make money fall out of the sky. And it probably would, for their buddies on the Street, that's why benefits would need to be cut, those guys sure don't work cheap.
    That is one of many reasons for privatization.
    Gains are typically greater on average, in a conservatively managed retirement account.

    Another reason, is that it won't be an unfunded liability, were initial low tax rates are used to collect resources for payment and then be spent on other things, requiring future tax rates to be higher on proceeding generations.

    It's plain out wrong to make the kids of old people pay more, when they have less resources and the parents are typically more wealthy.
    It's actually robbing the low income, to pay for the higher income.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #293
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Who cares what percentage President Bush proposed once the fox is in the hen house the chickens are in trouble, lets put it another way once the horse is out of the barn it's over, you don't have to worry about me I am ready with a carton of pampers.

    SS is solvent all seniors have to do is to keep the barn door shut and the fox out of the hen house
    That is dishonest.
    SS relys on special, non marketable government bonds to pay for benefits beyond what is actually collected through the SS tax itself.

    What does that mean?
    That future generations will be subject to higher taxation (more so than the benefiting generation) because the government misspent the money and did not save it for future SS benefits.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #294
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,687

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Who cares what percentage President Bush proposed once the fox is in the hen house the chickens are in trouble, lets put it another way once the horse is out of the barn it's over, you don't have to worry about me I am ready with a carton of pampers.

    SS is solvent all seniors have to do is to keep the barn door shut and the fox out of the hen house
    The discussion is not to ensure todays seniors get their checks...it is to secure the long term security of the program. With consistent and greater unemployment there are fewer and fewer paying into the system. What happens in 15 years? 20? 30?

    Of course the system needs reviewed. Times change. Life expectancy changes. Need changes.

    As for your 'who cares' comment RE personal choice and investment...thats precisely the problem...you...people like you...continue to ruin one good pair of Depends after the other over **** you know nothing about and dont bother to read about. Providing people the opportunity to VOLUNTARILY choose to invest a fraction of THEIR contribution caused people to have an absolute meltdown. Not that they knew what they were melting down over...but someone said you wuz supposed to be skeeered...and you happily obliged.

  5. #295
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    How to fix Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

    "ROBERT REICH: Social Security is not at all responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year, Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It invested the surpluses in Treasury bills -- in effect, lending them to the rest of the government.

    But now Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in. So to keep it going, it collects only what the rest of the government is obligated to pay it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.

    But why should there even be a problem 26 years from now? Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan's Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system far beyond then by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age.

    The answer is Greenspan's commission failed to predict how much income would become concentrated at the top. Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling that rises with inflation. That ceiling is now $106,800.

    Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of total income covered by Social Security. Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

    It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because income inequality has widened. Now a much larger portion of total income goes to the top -- almost twice the share they got back then.

    If we want to return to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Do that and Social Security's long-term problem is solved."

    http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/23/pm-how-to-fix-social-security/
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #296
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    By all means, raise the amount of wages subject to SS Payroll Tax.
    The employer half should continue as is, sent in to the SS coffers.
    The employee should be able to invest their half in getting out of debt, by using it to pay down their mortgage debt. Restrictions apply, such as no Home Equity loans or second mortgages allowed.
    7.5% of 180K is 13.5K. That much extra applied to the principle every year will pay off most houses quickly.
    For most of us, a "paid for" house is essential to retiring well.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #297
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    By all means, raise the amount of wages subject to SS Payroll Tax.
    The employer half should continue as is, sent in to the SS coffers.
    The employee should be able to invest their half in getting out of debt, by using it to pay down their mortgage debt. Restrictions apply, such as no Home Equity loans or second mortgages allowed.
    7.5% of 180K is 13.5K. That much extra applied to the principle every year will pay off most houses quickly.
    For most of us, a "paid for" house is essential to retiring well.
    I think paying off a mortgage is good sense for all, but will need to be undertaken with extra money earned by individuals. To take the employee's portion away would make the insurance pool to small and we would soon be right back where we are now.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #298
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Last Seen
    06-09-12 @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    90

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Given the lack of legitimate and responsible options, I decline to give legitimacy to your poll.

  9. #299
    Professor

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

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That is dishonest.
    SS relys on special, non marketable government bonds to pay for benefits beyond what is actually collected through the SS tax itself.

    What does that mean?
    That future generations will be subject to higher taxation (more so than the benefiting generation) because the government misspent the money and did not save it for future SS benefits.
    Your statement is untrue period!!! The SS benefits of my generation were paid for in advance in a deal reached by President R Reagan and A Greenspan in the early 80s, SS was the baby of the greatest President that ever lived the only President that was elected to office 4 times we could use FDR back today

  10. #300
    Professor

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

    Re: Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The discussion is not to ensure todays seniors get their checks...it is to secure the long term security of the program. With consistent and greater unemployment there are fewer and fewer paying into the system. What happens in 15 years? 20? 30?

    Of course the system needs reviewed. Times change. Life expectancy changes. Need changes.

    As for your 'who cares' comment RE personal choice and investment...thats precisely the problem...you...people like you...continue to ruin one good pair of Depends after the other over **** you know nothing about and dont bother to read about. Providing people the opportunity to VOLUNTARILY choose to invest a fraction of THEIR contribution caused people to have an absolute meltdown. Not that they knew what they were melting down over...but someone said you wuz supposed to be skeeered...and you happily obliged.
    First your personal attacks on me are not appreciated and certainly lack the civility required to participate in this forum, I am not the only one my generation is not the only generation to pay into SS and my generation should not be the only one to receive the benefits of the money they paid into SS. Whether a person paid in for 5 years or for over 40 years like I did it's still their money and attempting to take it away is criminal

    Unfortunately private retirement investments would be next to impossible for many people and at some point we would see those who did not have the money to invest living under bridges. SS may be in need of some changes to ensure it's solvency for future generations just like it needed to be revisited in the early 80s When then President Reagan and A Greenspan raised the payroll deduction to deal with the increased number of recipicants drawing on it as the baby boomer generation started retiring

    What we really need is a President with the same vision and love of the people that FDR had

Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930

Posting Permissions

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