• 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!

Social Security ,how and why did the right turn SS into a entitlement.

Winchester said:
Not that grand of a bargain. Slightly increase the payroll tax and extend the full retirement age a few more years (just like they did shortly after I started working)... and the can is kicked down the road for another generation.
Click to expand...

The only way to fairly address the issue is to cut benefits to current and near-term retirees, not just distant future retirees. If your agenda is to NEVER, EVER touch the current retirees, then we might as well do nothing to the program and let it die on the vine, because that's in effect the same thing.
 
Mr Person said:
I don't think they "turned it into" an entitlement. It isn't - it's your money.


They just started calling it that to demonize it as part as what appears to be a plan to make sure that the government does not provide for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Neomalthusian said:
No it isn't. Why do people delude themselves about this all the time?
Click to expand...



I really hope you did not think it was clever to take the angle you did (or at least, the only one you could have).

I made an undeniable point: you pay in, you get back later.

You made a stupid and intellectually dishonest point (well, implied it. You couldn't be bothered to actually type it out): they do not literally take cash money from you, put it in a vault, and then give your well-aged dollar bills back in 30-40 years (because duh). Instead, new payees repay the old payees.

Anything else would be the dumbest possible system for SS. Yes, you are getting back the money paid in. Saying anything else requires, as I regret having to explain, making a stupid and intellectually dishonest point.




There are two main reasons there are problems.

1. It was not treated like a "lock box", instead, it was just mixed in with general funds. If they couldn't touch it and put it in a mix of things like index funds and foreign bonds, there would likely not be a problem.

2. Post-WWII demographic boom.

Neither problem makes my statement wrong.
 
jbander said:
post 8 is for you also. Just write down the fact that if you read any of my threads , your party will be called the hate party and of course if you don't like it and only want to talk about that, other then the facts I'm contributing then go someplace else. If you keep it up your gone.
Click to expand...

I will post what I like where I like, if the mods have a problem with it, they will make the call, not you. But heres the problem, since you referred in your OP to republicans as the party of hate and labelled them as evil, I have every right to respond to that stupid claim as I do to anything else you posted. If you don't want your own thread diverted from whatever topic you would like to discuss, perhaps you wont divert it yourself with foolish attacks.
 
Fletch said:
I will post what I like where I like, if the mods have a problem with it, they will make the call, not you. But heres the problem, since you referred in your OP to republicans as the party of hate and labelled them as evil, I have every right to respond to that stupid claim as I do to anything else you posted. If you don't want your own thread diverted from whatever topic you would like to discuss, perhaps you wont divert it yourself with foolish attacks.
Click to expand...
Yup Libertarian= Anarchists for the wealthy, you fit the mold. I don't think you understand how these groups run. I can turn you off anytime I want. So if you are sticking to not responding and instead doing the your dumb and I don't like you routine your gone, it is up to you.
 
jbander said:
can you do the math, read the post.
Click to expand...

I don't need to do any math to know that the Ponzi scheme known as SS is NOT double funded. It's not even fully funded and will fail in a few years. You and your ilk shouldn't have raided the lock box. There's nothing in it but IOU's, literally. Look it up. :roll:
 
RetiredUSN said:
First of all, Bush wanted a option for taxpayers to put a portion of their SS money into private retirement accounts.

The democrats raised hell about it.
Click to expand...
Because that makes it accessible to the people that control what he and you think and say. In SS they can only put it into Government securities which drives the market the same but doesn't make it accessible to your controllers in the same way. Why would they need to, now in a working lifetime the money they contribute is multiplied by a factor of 5 and add in the fact that 30 % of people die before they are 65 and it adds up to way more then is needed for ever and ever and they could massively increase SS if they wanted to because they have all the money they need to do just that. It's only the blind right that thinks otherwise.
 
jbander said:
Start from the beginning, why did The hate party turn it into a entitlement. They want it for their people ,who control them and their party and who tells them what to think , how to think and what to say. The uber wealthy.

Just a few points, Not one dime of this is from the government funds, We paid in 15% of our income. We own it the same as putting it into a bank. If we made as little as 30k a year during our lifetime we would have $220,000.00 in our SS account. put into American bonds, the only place it legally can be put and at 5% (it's actually a little more) It would become $892,919.00 . if you took 15% a year that would be $26,787 per year and would last till your 95. The caper 30% die before they get to the age of 65. and the average income per household is $73,000.00 now. They call it a entitlement and want it all to give to the wealthy. This is what the hate party wants for the is country. They are simply evil. It's up to everyone here to stop them.
Click to expand...

Your SS contributions do not sit in "your account" they are spent to fund current retirees, their survivors and the disabled. If you made $30K/year 40 years ago (with an average hourly wage of $4.50) then you were doing very well, indeed. You would be better off using median individual (now about $43K), rather than household average, income since the household average income is boosted by those well above the SS income cap and is often split among separate SS accounts. You also ignored the disability insurance aspect of SS and the COLA adjustments made to retirement benefits.
 
RetiredUSN said:
First of all, Bush wanted a option for taxpayers to put a portion of their SS money into private retirement accounts.

The democrats raised hell about it.
Click to expand...

Social Security shouldn't depend on the stock market...as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Your SS contributions do not sit in "your account" they are spent to fund current retirees, their survivors and the disabled. If you made $30K/year 40 years ago (with an average hourly wage of $4.50) then you were doing very well, indeed. You would be better off using median individual (now about $43K), rather than household average, income since the household average income is boosted by those well above the SS income cap and is often split among separate SS accounts. You also ignored the disability insurance aspect of SS and the COLA adjustments made to retirement benefits.
Click to expand...

The fact that current working force contributes to SS to pay for present beneficiaries is exactly why calling SS a Ponzi scheme is 100% correct.

Of course, government run Ponzi schemes aren't subject to legal enforcement by the government. So who's playing whom for a fool?
 
Moot said:
Social Security shouldn't depend on the stock market...as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis.
Click to expand...


No

Bush proposed that the individual could use some of the money that they paid into SS, to be placed into private accounts as a option.

The SS system would not have to depend on anything.

Also, we are already talking about deducting the amount of monthly payments to SS recipients anyways?
 
jbander said:
Because that makes it accessible to the people that control what he and you think and say. In SS they can only put it into Government securities which drives the market the same but doesn't make it accessible to your controllers in the same way. Why would they need to, now in a working lifetime the money they contribute is multiplied by a factor of 5 and add in the fact that 30 % of people die before they are 65 and it adds up to way more then is needed for ever and ever and they could massively increase SS if they wanted to because they have all the money they need to do just that. It's only the blind right that thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

Gibberish much?
 
jbander said:
Yup Libertarian= Anarchists for the wealthy, you fit the mold. I don't think you understand how these groups run. I can turn you off anytime I want. So if you are sticking to not responding and instead doing the your dumb and I don't like you routine your gone, it is up to you.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't care if you put me on ignore or not. To you I am hate-filled and evil, so why would I care what you think or what you do.
 
countryboy said:
I don't need to do any math to know that the Ponzi scheme known as SS is NOT double funded. It's not even fully funded and will fail in a few years. You and your ilk shouldn't have raided the lock box. There's nothing in it but IOU's, literally. Look it up. :roll:
Click to expand...
and country boy you don't have a clue. Not even a inkling of the truth. Whats your argument, that SS from the beginning by law could only be put into government securities or do you argue that the average government security has given off 5% on average over the years, or are you arguing that 30% of the population dies before they are 65. OK this is the way that the lie that all people from the right are told how to think.
if you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to$220,500. They have to go by law into Gov Securities. the average all through the years has been a return of 5%, multiply that over a working life of lets say 49 years you would have just short of $900,000.00. add in the 30 % who died before 65 and it would equal $1,170,000.00(that's you receiving the lost 30%) now. I don't know the numbers over the years for average household income but I know it is $ 73,000.00 now. If that number was used then at the end of the working lifetime you would have 2 million 850 thousand and if you only took the average income over the years of 5% and never took a penny of the principle. you would get just shot of $12,000.00 a month. You have suckered to the right wing ponzi scheme of the ages. Go ahead tell me where I'm wrong. I handed all the math to you , show us how smart you are , pull it a part. There is a way to maybe pull it apart to a degree but it won't help your argument. The right needs suckers to operate with their endless lies.
 
Fletch said:
Look, I don't care if you put me on ignore or not. To you I am hate-filled and evil, so why would I care what you think or what you do.
Click to expand...
Fine it doesn't change one thing , you don't contribute your gone.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Gibberish much?
Click to expand...
You can't argue the facts so you attack me , that won't work , if that's all you have you are gone. Do you understand that.
 
RetiredUSN said:
No

Bush proposed that the individual could use some of the money that they paid into SS, to be placed into private accounts as a option.

The SS system would not have to depend on anything.

Also, we are already talking about deducting the amount of monthly payments to SS recipients anyways?
Click to expand...
Only the puppets of the right wing think SS is in trouble because they are told how and what to think, and it is 100% lie.
 
jbander said:
You can't argue the facts so you attack me , that won't work , if that's all you have you are gone. Do you understand that.
Click to expand...

:2rofll: Wow
 
I'll make this simpler the average person in this country pays in "According to the institute's data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits.Feb 1, 2013" Politifacts from a study from The Urban Institute-------------Here are the big numbers from the right but still trying to sell the lie"According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.
" Whats missing 5% increase in value every year over a working lifetime and the 30% who died before they were 65. So you are getting lied to in the biggest way possible.
 
RetiredUSN said:
No

Bush proposed that the individual could use some of the money that they paid into SS, to be placed into private accounts as a option.

The SS system would not have to depend on anything.

Also, we are already talking about deducting the amount of monthly payments to SS recipients anyways?
Click to expand...
Stupidest president in our history, he would suggest that.
 
Mr Person said:
I really hope you did not think it was clever to take the angle you did (or at least, the only one you could have).

I made an undeniable point: you pay in, you get back later.
Click to expand...

It's still an entitlement, but who cares, it's semantics. The problem is that it's guaranteed to return less for greater cost to future retirees than current ones. That problem will either be fixed or it won't. I recommend fixing it. Fixing it requires a grand bargain.

Instead, new payees repay the old payees.
Click to expand...

It's not repayment. It's no more "your money" than any other public dollar is "your money." I mean yeah, it is, in a sense, but so is all other public funds. Laws and appropriations bills decide how the money is spent. So far it's been spent giving seniors pension-like payments past a certain age. It doesn't have to be this way forever and it won't be. We know its funding problems and unless there is a benefit cut to current retirees paired with the tax increases to future retirees, one generation is being granted special privilege for no good reason.

Yes, you are getting back the money paid in.
Click to expand...

No you're not, and you just acknowledged you're not. You're the one being intellectually dishonest because you know it's not "your money," but you keep going back to that comment.
 
jbander said:
Ok conservative if you can't admit to the fact that 30 % never get paid because they are dead and their money invested as the ss law prescribe into Government debt. Then we will take 80% of the money and give it as needed. Because by your lying opinion you can only count what you put in and excluding everything else, well my friends the everything else is the 80%. SS is massively over funded. If your told anything different it's a lie. This is what the hate party wants for this country/
Click to expand...

Is there a love party? If so, which party is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom