• 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!

Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

Are seniors that use SS one of these...

  • Terrorists

    Votes: 10 55.6%

  • Leftists

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Lazy

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Parasites

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
Bodhisattva said:
Sure you can, if you are a pot smoking drinker that never had to work and consequently never figured out how to, or the need for, planning. If you live for today, tomorrow is not a concern. Intelligence is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry bod then hes a bum and didnt deserve it
 
VanceMack said:
I personally dont think they should eliminate SS. I do think it should be radically modified. I understand there are people that CANT prepare for a retirement. I also get there are people that WONT. More than anything else i believe people have simply come to accept...they dont HAVE to...why bother...thats what SS is for. Bad message...but since that message is there...then they ought to use it as a strength. Offer people that have been more fiscally successful the opportunity to invest all some or none of their contributions. Offer individuals the opportunity to donate more to their own social security. Offer one time buyouts of direct investment for those that wont need SS. Adjust retirement age up slightly (over time). There are LOTS of things that can be done to make SS more effective, more secure, more efficient.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this post....the problem is corporate interests and the rich want everyone in 401ks so they can use and manipulate those hundreds of billions of dollars....in the last 9 days working class peoples 401ks have lost 17% of their value...how would you like to be 65 and wanting to retire right now today....401ks are a HUGE RISK and many people have lost everything with 401ks....and the rich wallstreeters love it, they are obsessed with getting their hands on all the money in social security....screw them
 
Polotick said:
But take a long hard look at who you would be handing those trillions of dollars to. A long hard look.

So now let's look at one other thing. SS buys T-Bills. This is what puts money in the general fund. If you turn it over to Wall Street then you are also removing trillions from the US operating budget. I couldn't imagine any other single move causing more damage to a weakened and unstable economy.

Many times to find subtle facts you have to peel an onion.
Click to expand...

There is no one I would be less likely to trust with my "trillions" than politicians. When I worked we cancelled our pension because the politicians were criminally mismanaging the money. We went with a 401k instead. It was a much better deal. Why are so many pension plans underfunded uncluding SS? Corrupt politicians. You have more confidence in politicians than you do in yourself.

Wow! The purpose of SS is not to put more money in the general fund, is it? SS buys T-Bills. Well, isn't that sweet. Low return T-Bills are a good reason not to have SS. My money bought stocks and bonds in private business and grew the economy, made real jobs for people.

I've never once found a fact in an onion. Nonsense is still nonsense even if you try to hide it in an onion.
 
Patrickt said:
There is no one I would be less likely to trust with my "trillions" than politicians. When I worked we cancelled our pension because the politicians were criminally mismanaging the money. We went with a 401k instead. It was a much better deal. Why are so many pension plans underfunded uncluding SS? Corrupt politicians. You have more confidence in politicians than you do in yourself.

Wow! The purpose of SS is not to put more money in the general fund, is it? SS buys T-Bills. Well, isn't that sweet. Low return T-Bills are a good reason not to have SS. My money bought stocks and bonds in private business and grew the economy, made real jobs for people.

I've never once found a fact in an onion. Nonsense is still nonsense even if you try to hide it in an onion.
Click to expand...

Historically the safer investments are always lower yield. It comes with the territory. Putting your money in the hands of those who brought us a global financial crisis is high risk. Have you stopped to think that when Wall Street mismanages those funds then it will still be the government that has to pay for the disabled and the seniors?

How would you feel if your monthly benefit dropped 20% because the market had a bad month, but your broker still got a six figure bonus?

Nonsense is still nonsense and it's almost always hidden in an onion.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for providing yet more unsubstantiated opinion there Mr. internet guy!

The Ryan plan provides an opt out which reduces the fund that has made SS one our most successful programs, and "The plan, by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would reduce benefits by gradually raising the retirement age and gradually trimming benefits for the top 70 percent of earners."

"Together, the two provisions would slice initial benefits by about a quarter for middle-income Americans who turn 65 in 2050, according to the analysis."
Republican Rep. Ryan's Social Security plan would cut benefits for high earners


"Republicans’ Spending Cap Proposal Means Cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid"
Republicans' Spending Cap Proposal Means Cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid | West Orlando News Online 2011® Central Florida News, Info, Sports


"Republicans are now going where voters warned them not to go: A “voluntary” privatized version of the 2005 program called the Savings Account For Every American Act. (Where do they get these names?)"

"The legislation, introduced last Friday by Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, the chief Social Security Chicken Little, would allow wage earners to immediately opt out of Social Security in favor of a private “S.A.F.E.” account."
The New GOP Plan To Destroy Social Security | The Moderate Voice


"As part of the debt ceiling battle, Speaker Boehner introduced a plan that would cut $1.5 trillion from Social Security and Medicare."
Republican budget plan slashes Medicare, Social Security, creates poverty

"Republican Leader Eric Cantor (VA-07) said that “we have to come to grips” with the fact that Social Security “cannot exist” any longer. House Republicans have begun pushing forward on budget proposals that include privatization of Social Security on Wall Street and cuts to benefits for senior citizens. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner called for cuts to benefits."
Republican Leader Eric Cantor Says He Opposes Keeping Social Security Around | American Patriot Today
Click to expand...

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.
 
lpast said:
I agree with most of this post....the problem is corporate interests and the rich want everyone in 401ks so they can use and manipulate those hundreds of billions of dollars....in the last 9 days working class peoples 401ks have lost 17% of their value...how would you like to be 65 and wanting to retire right now today....401ks are a HUGE RISK and many people have lost everything with 401ks....and the rich wallstreeters love it, they are obsessed with getting their hands on all the money in social security....screw them
Click to expand...

Me? Im opposed to the 401k idea (with an exception). I think the investments for social security ought to be 1, limited, 2 voluntary, 3 tied into secure long term investments. The exception...if an individual is within say 10 years of retirement age (should be moved to 70) and has demonstrated a consistent earnings of 250k or more for a minimum of 5 years then they should be able to opt out (with penalty) of the system entirely and invest however they want (with the understanding that done is done...if they lose it all they lose it and they are not entitled to further SS benefits. I think it is HEALTHY to start treating adults like adults.
 
UtahBill said:
I used to live next to Sun City, they are terrible drivers, terror on wheels....
Click to expand...

Come on Bill be honest.

Anybody from Utah has aproblem driving.
 
Mason66 said:
Come on Bill be honest.

Anybody from Utah has aproblem driving.
Click to expand...

actually, putting is my weakness.....
Last time I played, I beat my friend's son by 1 stroke. But, he was 7 at the time....I was 22....:2razz:

I have been a driver in TX, VA, CA, WA, ID, AZ, and now UT.
I think the Norfolk, VA drivers were the worst, tend to drive too fast, followed by Bremerton, WA drivers, who drive too slow, and ignore stop signs.....
 
UtahBill said:
actually, putting is my weakness.....
Last time I played, I beat my friend's son by 1 stroke. But, he was 7 at the time....I was 22....:2razz:

I have been a driver in TX, VA, CA, WA, ID, AZ, and now UT.
I think the Norfolk, VA drivers were the worst, tend to drive too fast, followed by Bremerton, WA drivers, who drive too slow, and ignore stop signs.....
Click to expand...

I lived in Las Vegas for 10 years. There were drivers from all 50 states plus Canada and beyond.

By far the cars with the Utah plates were the ones causing the most problems.
 
American said:
No, the reason for privatizing SS is to allow more choice and to take the money out of the hands of Congress.
Click to expand...

In 76 years, the government has never failed to make their SS payments. Are you seriously claiming Wall street is a safer bet?
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only revamping SS requires is to raise the FICA cap, repay the money owed it by the general fund, and lock the funds from future use for anything but SS, and your lame ass opinions devoid of facts to back them do nothing to change that reality.
 
Catawba said:
In 76 years, the government has never failed to make their SS payments. Are you seriously claiming Wall street is a safer bet?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If Wall Street could just take your money by force, would you be more trusting of them? My money is in a 401k. Yes, my account value goes up and down as the market fluctuates. Of course, Social Security has no value and the government has no legal obligation to pay you a damn thing.
 
Patrickt said:
Absolutely. If Wall Street could just take your money by force, would you be more trusting of them? My money is in a 401k. Yes, my account value goes up and down as the market fluctuates. Of course, Social Security has no value and the government has no legal obligation to pay you a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Where would your money be right now if tax payer dollars where not used to bail out wall street? Wall street is the largest ponzi scheme ever imaginable and should be shut down before it takes the whole world down with it.

The government took our SS money and used it to finance the tax breaks for the rich but they left U. S. Government securities

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.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your information from but it looks like your source is not credible
 
Patrickt said:
Absolutely. If Wall Street could just take your money by force, would you be more trusting of them? My money is in a 401k. Yes, my account value goes up and down as the market fluctuates. Of course, Social Security has no value and the government has no legal obligation to pay you a damn thing.
Click to expand...

No one is taking my money for SS by force. It is what our country agreed on collectively and has been upheld by the Supreme Court under both parties for the last 76 years, and they have never missed a single payment in all of that time.

There is no Social Security crisis. To learn more, see:

- Top 5 Social Security Myths -
 
Patrickt said:
Absolutely. If Wall Street could just take your money by force, would you be more trusting of them? My money is in a 401k. Yes, my account value goes up and down as the market fluctuates. Of course, Social Security has no value and the government has no legal obligation to pay you a damn thing.
Click to expand...

but there would be hell to pay if just one of our congressional crooksters proposed such a thing.
It would be worse than the govt deciding to prosecute ALL the Wall Street crooks instead of just a token few.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Polotick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EarlzP said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
EarlzP said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/
 
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.
 
UtahBill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Given the lack of legitimate and responsible options, I decline to give legitimacy to your poll.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom