Are you willing to give up you social security to end the new deal?

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
Who on the left told you SS was a "contract"? What a silly thing to say.
And you believed that?

The left uses it all the time, and note the quotation marks. But then your saying the government shouldn't have to honor it's obligations?

Iriemon · Oct 16, 2006

Stinger said:
The left uses it all the time, and note the quotation marks. But then your saying the government shouldn't have to honor it's obligations?

I haven't heard the left say that, I've only heard the right (like you) say it create a strawman argument.

Stinger · Oct 16, 2006

Iriemon said:
I haven't heard the left say that..........

Oh that proves it.

doughgirl · Oct 17, 2006

kandahar you dont live in a border state do ya? :rofl

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Kandahar said:
You keep avoiding the question: If your goal is to keep people out of poverty, we already have poverty-based government assistance. Why do we need a universal entitlement that pays people just for being old?

I thought I had answered that, but there really isn't much difference in our positions. The issue is whether as a policy we should have some age where we say you don't have to work anymore based on age.

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Stinger said:
Oh that proves it.

As much as your say so does.

Stinger · Oct 17, 2006

Iriemon said:
I thought I had answered that, but there really isn't much difference in our positions. The issue is whether as a policy we should have some age where we say you don't have to work anymore based on age.

Do you really think government should be able to blackmail us with our SS money into working as long as IT thinks we should?

I have to say that is a very dangerous proposition although to an extent it is already in place. When I entered the system an most of my working and investing life it has been 65, now government should be able to tell me when I can retire by withholding my SS benifits?

Stinger · Oct 17, 2006

Iriemon said:
As much as your say so does.

FEBRUARY 16, 2000

NEWSMAKER Q&A

The OMB's Jack Lew: ``Social Security Is a Social Contract''
Clinton's budget boss talks about financing the trust fund, Medicare reform, and tax policy

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2000/nf00216c.htm?scriptFramed

Do you consider it an insurance program?

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Stinger said:
FEBRUARY 16, 2000

NEWSMAKER Q&A

The OMB's Jack Lew: ``Social Security Is a Social Contract''
Clinton's budget boss talks about financing the trust fund, Medicare reform, and tax policy

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2000/nf00216c.htm?scriptFramed

You found one, though describing it as a "social contract" is a little different from the legal sense. Here's one from the other side:

I believe Social Security is a contract with ourselves and we will keep the promises that have been made

http://conaway.house.gov/issues/socialsecurity.asp

And from Fox:

Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153704,00.html

Do you consider it an insurance program?

A form of social insurance. Like traditional forms of insuarnce, you pay premiums for certain benefits that you will be entitled to if certain events occur (you become disabled, die, or live beyond the retirement age). If the events do not occur you do not get benefits.

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Stinger said:
Do you really think government should be able to blackmail us with our SS money into working as long as IT thinks we should?

Of course not. I think people should save money in 401ks or however and then they can retire when they want.

I have to say that is a very dangerous proposition although to an extent it is already in place. When I entered the system an most of my working and investing life it has been 65, now government should be able to tell me when I can retire by withholding my SS benifits?

IMO you should not rely solely upon SS to plan your retirement, but you should save and invest and build up other sources of retirement funds.

As to whether the Govt "should" be able to dictate when SS benefits become payable, I agree with you that to the extent that folks need and have relied upon SS to provide for their retirement, there is a sense that it is unfair to change the rules particular for those who are at or near retirement. These issues have to be balanced against what the country can afford; which is more problematic since the SS trust fund has been stolen to finance deficits and the exploding debt will limit the Govt's resources.

One issue where I do agree with Bush is the concept of the amount of benefits and the growth of benefits. The amount of pension benefit is not set in stone, and has been tapped to the growth of wages. As a result, adjusted for inflation, SS benefits are richer than they used to be. SS should not be a vehicle to provide a luxurious retirement; the nation can't afford that. Pegging the benefits to inflation rather than wages makes a lot of sense to me.

Stinger · Oct 17, 2006

Iriemon said:
You found one, though describing it as a "social contract" is a little different from the legal sense. Here's one from the other side:

It's government and it is codified. But none the less point proven. So now you seem OK with government reniging on the "contract"

A form of social insurance....

And insurance is a contract.

earthworm · Oct 17, 2006

dragonslayer said:
There is nothing to give up. I paid into social security every month that I worked. I am not getting a dole, I am only getting what I paid for. I worked from 1960 to the day I retired in 2004. I was never unemployed. Every drop of Social Security that I get, I earned and paid for. Bush wants to use the social security fund that amounts to many billion to pay for his little private war. I say Bu___ Sh_t. to Bush. The financial Crisis comes from Bush War, and him wanting to give give the medicare fund to his corporate buddies.
Tell Bush to get our troops out of Iraq and let the Iraqis fight their civil war which he started. Sadam had that country under control until Bush and the Oil Companies invaded. There were no terrorist from Iraq killing Americans until Bush invaded.

I agree almost fully with the Dragonslayer.
I don't know about those who wish to roll back advances made by the middle class.
I wonder if they would change their attitude if they had to live paycheck to paycheck for 45 to 50 years.

Stinger · Oct 17, 2006

Iriemon said:
Of course not. I think people should save money in 401ks or however and then they can retire when they want.
IMO you should not rely solely upon SS to plan your retirement, but you should save and invest and build up other sources of retirement funds.

I don't but it is an intregal part of it and if government can just change the rules at it's whim then they can blackmail me into having to work longer until I retire. They take a good chunk of money away from me every paycheck, money I would love to see in my 401k plan so I am not at the mersey of government.

But what about the poor people you so defend who can't put money into a 401k they are left with nothing but government dictating to them when they can retire.

These issues have to be balanced against what the country can afford; which is more problematic since the SS trust fund has been stolen to finance deficits and the exploding debt will limit the Govt's resources.

Welcome to government. Yet you still support a government mandate retirement system.

Pegging the benefits to inflation rather than wages makes a lot of sense to me.

On that we agree. But it doesn't matter a hll of beans if government can just keep moving the goal post. Catch-22.

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Stinger said:
It's government and it is codified. But none the less point proven. So now you seem OK with government reniging on the "contract"

Are you arguing SS is a contract? I never signed a contract, did you? And in fact when I got my SS report it specifically provided the benefits were estimates and not guaranteed and subject to change.

And insurance is a contract.

Private insurance is. SS is not.

Iriemon · Oct 17, 2006

Stinger said:
I don't but it is an intregal part of it and if government can just change the rules at it's whim then they can blackmail me into having to work longer until I retire. They take a good chunk of money away from me every paycheck, money I would love to see in my 401k plan so I am not at the mersey of government.

I'd love the Govt to not waste money on mistaken wars and would love to see that money in my 401k plan. Que sera.

But what about the poor people you so defend who can't put money into a 401k they are left with nothing but government dictating to them when they can retire.

That's the breaks.

Welcome to government. Yet you still support a government mandate retirement system.

Sure I support social insurance. I don't want to see hordes of the aged and infirm living in the streets. Do you?

On that we agree. But it doesn't matter a hll of beans if government can just keep moving the goal post. Catch-22.

Its the Republicans that want to eliminate the system

Stinger · Oct 19, 2006

Iriemon said:
Are you arguing SS is a contract? I never signed a contract, did you? And in fact when I got my SS report it specifically provided the benefits were estimates and not guaranteed and subject to change.

I signed up for SS when I was 16 and they gave me my card. Signed the form they gave me. Clintons former OMB head said it was a contract. But again you support the Government renigging on it's "agreement" with me, I voted for what the politicians said I would get and now they can just say "nope"? And that is suppose to be a good deal for me? What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now? [/quote]Private insurance is. SS is not.[/quote] So SS is not insurance?

Navy Pride · Oct 19, 2006

[B said:
Hoot]The easiest solution is to simply raise the cap on which social security taxes are levied. Of course, the rich Bush supporters want nothing to do with that. [/B]

Someone who makes 1 million a year might have to pay $57,000 into S.S, something they could easily afford.

Right now, 14% of elderly women are living in poverty...take away that S.S. check and we're looking at close to 50%! This is America...we're supposed to be better than that.

The easiest solution...STOP RAIDING THE S.S. TRUST FUND!!!

That is always the solution by the left....Raise taxes on someone else.....Income redistribution.....

Iriemon · Oct 19, 2006

Navy Pride said:
That is always the solution by the left....Raise taxes on someone else.....Income redistribution.....

It is income redistribution -- from those who work to the trust fund babies.

Republican income redistribution.

Iriemon · Oct 19, 2006

Stinger said:
I signed up for SS when I was 16 and they gave me my card. Signed the form they gave me. Clintons former OMB head said it was a contract. But again you support the Government renigging on it's "agreement" with me, I voted for what the politicians said I would get and now they can just say "nope"? And that is suppose to be a good deal for me? What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now?

Private insurance is. SS is not.

Click to expand...

So SS is not insurance?

I thought you were a support of ditching SS for private accounts? If you want to preserve the SS system, my reccommendation is to vote Democrat; Republicans want to destroy it.

Private insurance is great. What if you insurance company goes TU? what do we do with the people that don't have private insurance?

SS is social insurance.

Stinger · Oct 19, 2006

Iriemon said:
I thought you were a support of ditching SS for private accounts? If you want to preserve the SS system, my reccommendation is to vote Democrat; Republicans want to destroy it.

Yes, I thought you were in favor of keeping it even if it means it will not forefil it's promise.

Private insurance is great. What .......................?

I asked you first

"What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that
underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now?"

what do we do with the people that don't have private insurance?

You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.

SS is social insurance.

So answer my question above.

Stinger · Oct 19, 2006

Iriemon said:
It is income redistribution -- from those who work to the trust fund babies.

Republican income redistribution.

Actually, as your post demonstrate, it is satisfying a jealousy.

Iriemon · Oct 19, 2006

Stinger said:
Yes, I thought you were in favor of keeping it even if it means it will not forefil it's promise.

I'm in favor of social insurance, not the current SS system.

I asked you first

sorry, I thought you were asking rhetorically.

What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now

If the insurance contract didn't allow them to do that, I'd probably sue them.

You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.

Unfortunately, that won't resolve the problem.

Iriemon · Oct 19, 2006

Stinger said:
Actually, as your post demonstrate, it is satisfying a jealousy.

Damn right I'm jealous when I have to pay higher taxes so that someone who did nothing more than have the talent to pick the right womb inherits a billion doesn't have to pay a dime in taxes on it.

Stinger · Oct 19, 2006

Iriemon said:
I'm in favor of social insurance, not the current SS system.

Well insurance is a contract, I pay so much and in return get so much coverage. If the company wants to change it I can go elsewhere but when it comes time to collect they must pay according to the terms under which I paid.

If the insurance contract didn't allow them to do that, I'd probably sue them.

And your justification for allowing the government to do it?

me>> You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.

Unfortunately, that won't resolve the problem.

Sorry but that's just an excuse. You get others to do by setting examples.

Navy Pride · Oct 19, 2006

Simon W. Moon said:
Years back I saw a factoid that said there're more folks from my generation, X, who believe in alien abductions than who believe they will get anything from SS.

Not sure what to make of that.

I receive SS today but when I was in the workforce I never expected to get it so I planned my retirement accordingly.....

I suggest all young people do the same.....