Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

EarlzP said:

If you had worked long enough you would have paid into SS and would have been able to receive the SS benefits, you are not supporting anyone, people who paid into SS are entitled to their SS benefits.

Click to expand...

Sorry, EarlZ, but what about the deadbeats who've never worked a day in their life and are living off what I pay in income tax? I'm well aware of why I'm not drawing Social Security, Earl, and I don't think you heard me whining. I'm not a liberal.

And, of course, Social Security recipients are entitled to what they get. Right up until the minute the government decides not to honor the agreement. Then, they're screwed. Of course, a lot of Americans want to deny SS benefits to foreigners who worked and paid into SS, too.

Binky said:

If you think drawing "hundreds" (prob'ly 400-500) is enough for them to live off for a month, then try doing it. You will quickly learn that no matter what your age, the bills keep rolling in. So $500 a month is a pitance. Even if they are living in their childs home, there is still money needed for personal care, food, clothing, and possibly chipping in for heat and electric. So a mere few hundred isn't going to go very far.

Click to expand...

I know, but that's all they get. People on SSI get less than $700 a month. Currently, SS is not being adjusted for cost of living increases. But the point is, they paid even less into the system to begin with.

SSI is $674 for individuals and $1011 for couples but I'm not sure states don't add to that. I know people on SSI who were drawing more than that. They are also eligible for Medicaid, Section 8 housing, and other government benefits. I live in Mexico and we get a few people on SSI because the cost of living here is cheaper.

The problem with Social Security is Washington. SS was started to supplement peoples retirement so they didnt fall into poverty and have the govt pay for them anyway. Then it got all prostituted.
If 2 psychologists say your nuts at 30 yrs old you can get disability SS for the rest of your life and after 2 yrs you can get medicare. If your an alcholic at 25 and hire binder and binder...you will get disability social security and again after 2 yrs you can get medicare. if you have aids you can disablitly SS...and on and on and on ...some states its much easier to get disability social secuirty than others...Id bet half of west virginia is on disability social secuirty and they still cut down trees and go hunting and fishing.

NO ONE is addressing the real problem with social security and that is disability social security...For those that dont know Disability social security is based on what you wouild recieve at age 65. Heres one of my favorites...If a man is married 8 times to 8 women for over 9 mths each...ALL 8 of his x wives collect his social security whether they worked or not.....now lets get into why these people are getting SS...because if they dont the govt will pay through the nose to take care of them anyway and they knew it....what do you do with 8 X wives that never worked and are now old ladies..get the picture folks ???
The teaparty doesnt mention the problems with SS that everyone knows..because they do not want to fix them..the morons want to abolish it like they believe it wont cost them more in the long run....

i am a senior and I got SS card when I was 12 and paid into the system my whole life without any compaints.

If you think I am a Lazy Parasite say it to my face and you can kiss my ass,

I am 6' 200 plus and can take anyone down and out and have never lost a fight in my life so bring it on.

This thread pisses me off.

Councilman said:

i am a senior and I got SS card when I was 12 and paid into the system my whole life without any compaints.

If you think I am a Lazy Parasite say it to my face and you can kiss my ass,

I am 6' 200 plus and can take anyone down and out and have never lost a fight in my life so bring it on.




This thread pisses me off.

Click to expand...

I dont let it bother me...doesnt piss me off....I worked my entire life since a young kid...never got anything free, never was on the dole...now that im retired I have snotnoses telling me basically im a pos because I collect what I paid into all my life....to quote you sir...they can KISS MY ASS

Id bet a donut that the 16 that voted were parasites are teaparty supporters that cheer everytime one of the teaparty scumbags like Chris Piggy in Jersey screws a working class person....they will lose in the end

Jetboogieman said:

So are seniors who payed into social security all their lives and now live off of it in old age, lazy good for nothing leftist parasites?

Click to expand...

No, but there is a disconnect here.
The money was paid in to the system's general revenues and spent on those same people near immediately after the taxes were paid, they are obviously owed nothing, if we're really counting dollars in and dollars out.

Jetboogieman said:

So are seniors who payed into social security all their lives and now live off of it in old age, lazy good for nothing leftist parasites?

Click to expand...

Some are - absolutely.

Some aren't - absolutely.

Much in the same way some welfare and other recipients are or are not lazy leeches on society.

Harry Guerrilla said:

No, but there is a disconnect here.
The money was paid in to the system's general revenues and spent on those same people near immediately after the taxes were paid, they are obviously owed nothing, if we're really counting dollars in and dollars out.

Click to expand...

\

I didnt choose to pay into social security, I was forced to pay it for 43 yrs. I dont consider myself a parasite because I collect it...and whoever considers me a parasite can kiss my ass...twice

lpast said:

\

I didnt choose to pay into social security, I was forced to pay it for 43 yrs. I dont consider myself a parasite because I collect it...and whoever considers me a parasite can kiss my ass...twice

Click to expand...

I understand and I don't have a choice to pay into it either, it's not right.

I don't call people parasites.
It doesn't do anything to help anyone.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I understand and I don't have a choice to pay into it either, it's not right.

I don't call people parasites.
It doesn't do anything to help anyone.

Click to expand...

The question is still there harry...what do you do with the people that never make enough to support their old age...or pay for their health insurance...what do you do with the sick and the disabled that have no money...no social security no medicare....I just cant get any answer except thats their problem....nope doesnt work like that...this isnt north korea or africa or any other country that lets their people die where they fall...were not socialized like cuba who does take care of their own somewhat....So tell me what happens to them and who pays...

lpast said:

The question is still there harry...what do you do with the people that never make enough to support their old age...or pay for their health insurance...what do you do with the sick and the disabled that have no money...no social security no medicare....I just cant get any answer except thats their problem....nope doesnt work like that...this isnt north korea or africa or any other country that lets their people die where they fall...were not socialized like cuba who does take care of their own somewhat....So tell me what happens to them and who pays...

Click to expand...

Well: if you're not planning for it then you don't get the priviledge of it - in my view.

:shrug:

lpast said:

The question is still there harry...what do you do with the people that never make enough to support their old age...or pay for their health insurance...what do you do with the sick and the disabled that have no money...no social security no medicare....I just cant get any answer except thats their problem....nope doesnt work like that...this isnt north korea or africa or any other country that lets their people die where they fall...were not socialized like cuba who does take care of their own somewhat....So tell me what happens to them and who pays...

Click to expand...

Most of those people want to contribute. And they try as hard as they can to do that. We might always not understand. But these people that you are talking about want to and will try to do the best, they more so than the common person.

evanescence said:

I know, but that's all they get. People on SSI get less than $700 a month. Currently, SS is not being adjusted for cost of living increases. But the point is, they paid even less into the system to begin with.

Click to expand...

It is adjusted for cost of living. The highest possible benefit is 2,366 a month.

Patrickt said:

SSI is $674 for individuals and $1011 for couples but I'm not sure states don't add to that. I know people on SSI who were drawing more than that. They are also eligible for Medicaid, Section 8 housing, and other government benefits. I live in Mexico and we get a few people on SSI because the cost of living here is cheaper.

Click to expand...

The benefit is dependent on what you pay in. It is not a fixed or flat amount.

lpast said:

The question is still there harry...what do you do with the people that never make enough to support their old age...or pay for their health insurance...what do you do with the sick and the disabled that have no money...no social security no medicare....I just cant get any answer except thats their problem....nope doesnt work like that...this isnt north korea or africa or any other country that lets their people die where they fall...were not socialized like cuba who does take care of their own somewhat....So tell me what happens to them and who pays...

Click to expand...

Those who are poor and elderly should get their benefits. Those who are still prospering should be cutoff. They don't need it and it is insane that poor young people are being taxed to support them.

I don't understand the basis or justification behind a mandatory insurance plan run by an inefficient third party. Why should individual citizens be forced to contribute in a wasteful "insurance" program? Whether they receive their earnings now as they please or in the future should all be based on their own personal preferences and will. The only certifiable solutions to the insolvency of this system is a market-based approach to retirement investments. Citizens could create a whole lot more out of their savings if given the authority to do so.

If we look at the social programs in place now, we see that (based primarily on the burdens of SS and medicare obligations), we spend far more our senior citizens than we do our children. The disparity is close to 6:1. This is despite the fact that the elderly often make up a higher income bracket. As we now pay more into programs that favor the welfare of people who have already spent their entire lives working and saving for their retirement, we soon will be forced to take a number of controversial and unfair reforms to maintain the current system. These reforms include reducing the benefits for future retirees and/or implementing trillion-dollar tax increases and/or extending the age at which beneficiaries receive payments. All of these reforms will essentially mean the younger generation will pay more and receive less.

In the 40s and 50s, when there was something like 35 working individuals for every 1 retiree, SS and medicare were not viewed as a fiscal crisis. Now that the demographic shifts predict a worker-retiree ratio of 3:1, it is simply unsustainable in its current structure. Privatization of SS, at some level, is inevitable.

ElijahGalt said:

I don't understand the basis or justification behind a mandatory insurance plan run by an inefficient third party.

Click to expand...

It was the only viable alternative the Republicans could come up with to single payer system:

"I still don't see what the objection is to the idea that people should not be allowed to run around without at least some basic health insurance," said Mark Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

Emphasizing personal responsibility, Pauly and other conservatives have argued that the uninsured incur medical bills as other Americans do; the tab is just picked up by someone else.

In 1991, Pauly wrote an influential plan for universal health coverage that relied on an insurance mandate to prevent people from "shifting costs to others." At the time, Washington was gearing up for a major debate over rising healthcare costs and covering the uninsured that would culminate in President Clinton's failed 1993 healthcare initiative.

Liberals, reluctant to leave the problem to the private sector, were pushing to create more government health insurance programs like Medicare or to require employers to offer health benefits.

"We were thinking, if you wanted to achieve universal coverage, what was the way to do it if you didn't do single payer?" said Paul Feldstein, a health economist at UC Irvine, who co-wrote the 1991 plan with Pauly.

Feldstein and Pauly compared mandatory health insurance to requirements to pay for Social Security, auto insurance or workers' compensation.

So too did the Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler, who in 1989 wrote a health plan that also included an insurance requirement.

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car," Butler told a Tennessee health conference."



http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529

lpast said:

The question is still there harry...what do you do with the people that never make enough to support their old age...or pay for their health insurance...what do you do with the sick and the disabled that have no money...no social security no medicare....I just cant get any answer except thats their problem....nope doesnt work like that...this isnt north korea or africa or any other country that lets their people die where they fall...were not socialized like cuba who does take care of their own somewhat....So tell me what happens to them and who pays...

Click to expand...

Honestly you're not listening.
That's been the problem all along.

You guys have been taking the political hyperbole and have been repeating it as if it were truth.
The arguments for privatization and partial privatization have nearly always been for far future retirees and not for the near future retirees.

Current benefits need to be means tested and tapered off, with the institution of conservatively managed personal accounts, with the option for some people to take on more risk.

Catawba said:

It was the only viable alternative the Republicans could come up with to single payer system:

"I still don't see what the objection is to the idea that people should not be allowed to run around without at least some basic health insurance," said Mark Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

Emphasizing personal responsibility, Pauly and other conservatives have argued that the uninsured incur medical bills as other Americans do; the tab is just picked up by someone else.

In 1991, Pauly wrote an influential plan for universal health coverage that relied on an insurance mandate to prevent people from "shifting costs to others." At the time, Washington was gearing up for a major debate over rising healthcare costs and covering the uninsured that would culminate in President Clinton's failed 1993 healthcare initiative.

Liberals, reluctant to leave the problem to the private sector, were pushing to create more government health insurance programs like Medicare or to require employers to offer health benefits.

"We were thinking, if you wanted to achieve universal coverage, what was the way to do it if you didn't do single payer?" said Paul Feldstein, a health economist at UC Irvine, who co-wrote the 1991 plan with Pauly.

Feldstein and Pauly compared mandatory health insurance to requirements to pay for Social Security, auto insurance or workers' compensation.

So too did the Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler, who in 1989 wrote a health plan that also included an insurance requirement.

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car," Butler told a Tennessee health conference."



Health Insurance Requirement | Healthcare law: Requirement to buy insurance was long a GOP concept - Los Angeles Times

Click to expand...

Those statements negate the fact that, as of today, Medicare recipients enjoy costly treatment and unlimited buffet-style health care that is largely financed entirely by current working individuals. The recipients, themselves, receive far more in benefits than what was originally put in. See the rising high cost of health care and compare it to the amount paid into the system decades prior. Both medicare and SS are simply unsustainable based on the changing demographic shifts. You may think that it is still possible to see the same returns when only 3 workers instead of 35 are paying for the health care of 1 retiree. However, the incredible rising cost of such treatment and care for one medicare recipient is a financial obligation that 3 workers cannot simply fulfill.

In truth, Americans today are obligated to repair the young man's Porsche, even with the mandated government insurance program. Unfortunately, America can no longer afford to bail out even the well-insured.

I've heard the comparison to auto insurance made before. The original purpose of auto insurance mandates was not to ensure the welfare of the accident victim, but to reduce the high number of lawsuits resulting from uninsured motorists. These lawsuits generally cost the taxpayer (a third party) far more than is necessary or convenient. I'm generally not opposed to legislation that attempts to protect unaffected third parties from swallowing the costs of other people's mistakes and misfortunes. You can't use the taxpayer as an instrument of campaign for universal health care. Though the costs are currently swallowed by unaffected third party taxpayers, a system which subsidizes health insurance for all and which is financed exclusively by the taxpayer is only amplifying the burden on the unaffected third-party. The bottom line is your lifestyle and the consequences of such a lifestyle is none of my business, nor is it reason to demand my obligation.

FYI. Vance Mack's anecdotal evidence is pretty accurate. Is it the majority of folks who are on SS and Medicare? No. But the numbers are pretty significant. The problem with these folks is there is neither any motivation to come off, nor is their adequate treatment provided. When you have a heroin addict, sending them to rehab for 30 days is a failure in the making. Guess what? You'll end up sending them to rehab for 30 days 6 MORE times after a couple of ER visits for ODs... or after they spend time in jail for some sort of criminal activity. All at the taxpayers expense. No one wants to make the hard choices to solve the problem; folks just want to band-aid it or pretend it doesn't exist. This is why I support drug/alcohol screens for folks on SS/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid. If you have a drug/alcohol problem and you WANT help, I support the government supporting this kind of help, in a rehab that can actually do this. Not some 30 day detox. If they don't want help... that's fine, too. But if that's the case, they get NO SS/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid. And, I do not support unlimited rehab visits, either. These folks are not the majority of people, not even close, but they are milking the system with issues that could be dealt with, if they choose. And if they do, I support government assistance. And if they don't they should get NONE.

I've presented this plan before and it is part of my overall plan to resolve the nation's health care issues and create more financial stability.

What part of SS being an investment is hard for some people to understand? People put money into this system, largely against their will but also with the promise that it would be some support for later on. It was given with the knowledge that we are a hard working society and we want to take care of our elderly, after they have put in their work.

SS has been eroded because successive administrations and congress members have voted to take money out of it for diversion to other projects. The money should have been made sacrosanct from the start. If a bank did this to your investment and couldn't cover the return funds, the bank would get sued or they would go under as every member would withdraw its investments. Yet it's okay for government to do it, and sometimes for completely arbitrary purposes.

People are entitled to this money. I agree reforms are needed - such as not letting the government touch this money - but the money MUST be there when they retire, as promised. It's not selfish or "liberal" to require this. It's getting what you are already owed - it's YOUR money. That's why it's called an entitlement payment. You are entitled to get it, and they are required to give it to you.

As for welfare and other social services... those are more up for debate. I find myself agreeing more and more with drug testing. But I agree with CC that the rehab offered must be effective, otherwise people will be put through a harrowing ordeal that is not ultimately helping them.

Temporal said:

What part of SS being an investment is hard for some people to understand? People put money into this system, largely against their will but also with the promise that it would be some support for later on. It was given with the knowledge that we are a hard working society and we want to take care of our elderly, after they have put in their work.

SS has been eroded because successive administrations and congress members have voted to take money out of it for diversion to other projects. The money should have been made sacrosanct from the start. If a bank did this to your investment and couldn't cover the return funds, the bank would get sued or they would go under as every member would withdraw its investments. Yet it's okay for government to do it, and sometimes for completely arbitrary purposes.

People are entitled to this money. I agree reforms are needed - such as not letting the government touch this money - but the money MUST be there when they retire, as promised. It's not selfish or "liberal" to require this. It's getting what you are already owed - it's YOUR money. That's why it's called an entitlement payment. You are entitled to get it, and they are required to give it to you.

As for welfare and other social services... those are more up for debate. I find myself agreeing more and more with drug testing. But I agree with CC that the rehab offered must be effective, otherwise people will be put through a harrowing ordeal that is not ultimately helping them.

Click to expand...

This does not consider the insolvency of the entitlement systems, nor does it justify taking the earnings out of the pocket of workers for a faulty investment that can be done by the workers themselves. We're simply paying the overhead costs of a middle man to ensure a standard retirement account (a standard retirement plan which is the worst compared to any other private IRA or 401K). The idea of a lockbox hasn't been true since the 1960s, and is frankly irrelevant in the face of massive demographic changes. You ask why is it so hard for some people to understand the idea of SS as an investment. I ask why is it hard to understand the fact that three workers cannot comfortably pay for the entitlements of one retiree?

An investment savvy banker or accountant would surely not rely on an "investment" called social security, if it ever is considered an investment. The money taken out of a worker's paycheck over the entire course of their working life can be doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled with the compounded interest that defines the private retirement plans.

Consider the amount I pay (and my employer pays) for my social security from the age of 20 to the age of 65. Then, consider how much I will likely see in returns from this sort of system (remind yourself that in due time, I will receive substantially less in the future while paying more in the present as opposed to current recipients). Then, take that investment and compare it to your average mutual fund account over the same time period. If I started at 20 with an IRA or a mutual fund, I could likely be a millionaire when I retire. Yet, after all the contributions made to the SS "trust fund," I'll likely see a measly 20-25K a year payment from the government. There's no serious compounded interest in a social security investment. It's just a wasted entitlement.

CaptainCourtesy said:

FYI. Vance Mack's anecdotal evidence is pretty accurate. Is it the majority of folks who are on SS and Medicare? No. But the numbers are pretty significant. The problem with these folks is there is neither any motivation to come off, nor is their adequate treatment provided. When you have a heroin addict, sending them to rehab for 30 days is a failure in the making. Guess what? You'll end up sending them to rehab for 30 days 6 MORE times after a couple of ER visits for ODs... or after they spend time in jail for some sort of criminal activity. All at the taxpayers expense. No one wants to make the hard choices to solve the problem; folks just want to band-aid it or pretend it doesn't exist. This is why I support drug/alcohol screens for folks on SS/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid. If you have a drug/alcohol problem and you WANT help, I support the government supporting this kind of help, in a rehab that can actually do this. Not some 30 day detox. If they don't want help... that's fine, too. But if that's the case, they get NO SS/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid. And, I do not support unlimited rehab visits, either. These folks are not the majority of people, not even close, but they are milking the system with issues that could be dealt with, if they choose. And if they do, I support government assistance. And if they don't they should get NONE.

I've presented this plan before and it is part of my overall plan to resolve the nation's health care issues and create more financial stability.

Click to expand...

I certianly like this plan and see the merits of it.. I do however have a few questions??

What if the person in question has no drug or alcohol history?? Would they still have to submit to testing??

What about patients of medical treatment, that are on medications for life?? Some people are on pain killers for life, others are on blood thinners, some are on heart medications?? Would these people have to submit??

Does the reason someone is on SS or medicare or medicaid have any bearing on on these tests?? Someone with down syndrome perhaps?? Severly Autistic?? Any other affliction??

The issue that seems to be missed is that most and most by a tremendous margin are on SS and medicare or medicaid for a reason.. Not because they want to be.. It seems unfair to require drug screens and alcohol tests that most likely many of these people will fail anyways because of the meds they are on..

Another thought that is never considered is what exactly makes someone unable to work?? Let's consider for a moment someone that is on blood thinners but otherwise for the most part healthy.. Depending on how high the INR has to be, but for this discussion we well say between 2.5 and 3.5, which is pretty high.. A simple nose bleed can become deadly rather quickly.. A simply papercut could also become a serious issue.. No medical insurance company is going to touch them with a 50 foot pole.. Most employers won't higher them because of the possible liability.. Even to be a greeter at a Walmart..

So?? What happens to such a person?? This isn't really to you CC, but it sickens me to see the number of people here that simply think people are lazy and want to be on SS.. I am sure there is some fraud out there.. There is fraud in anything.. But I never hear anyone condemn banks or bank customers because some people rob banks..

Everyone needs to stop and consider why people are on SS and medicare.. It is either because they are old and retired or forced out of the work force..

Again, that wasn't to you CC.. I am just trying to make a point here..

Another note people might want to consider..

Daily Kos: $22 trillion Social Security surplus revealed on C-SPAN

DemonMyst said:

Another note people might want to consider..

Daily Kos: $22 trillion Social Security surplus revealed on C-SPAN

Click to expand...

That $22 trillion is not in cash, nor is it in value added income producing assets.
It is in special government bonds, where the money is borrowed by Congress to spend as they wish.

It is a false surplus.