• 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!

Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

  • Total voters
    29
TurtleDude said:
I love it when people who aren't paying top rates and don't own corporations try to extrapolate their own lack of knowledge to me

your rants about GE are wrong-here is a post from Old Reliable that might set you straight







you only pay 15%? LOL

and you are lying about the middle class carrying most of the freight

the top one percent paid 40% of the FIT and almost all the death tax
the top 5% pay more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined



the rich pay too many taxes and the evil of that is not merely unfairness but by them paying too much too many people have no interest in holding down spending because the rich subsidize them. The rich are forced to give -through the political process where ten slackers can out vote one productive taxpayer-the masses a credit card that the rich have to pay the bills on

if we want to get rid of the deficit we have to do more than raise revenues-which the rich cannot and will not do on their own. we have to stop politicians winning elections by spending spending spending. that works now because most voters don't think they will have to pay for that spending due to the progressive income tax
Click to expand...

Sorry turtle with all due respect your diatribe is not my gospel and its wrong
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
The teaparty does not want to fix social security and medicare....ultimately their goal is to get rid of it entirely.
Click to expand...

And my post that you quoted is tied to the tea party how? Also my limited knowledge of the Tea Party position (if there is such a thing) does not show anything that "does not want to "fix" these program.
 
TurtleDude said:
opinions are more valuable when a person has expertise. that is why doctors can provide opinion testimony in courts involving cases of medical malpractice and you could not
Click to expand...

But you claim you have an education and a degree but your posts show little to sometimes no sign at all that you have either. Are we talking about technical matters of medicine here? I think not.
 
X Factor said:
So, basically, you keep making an "America, love or leave it" type argument. I thought liberals hated that, and that "dissent is the greatest form of patriotism", blah, blah.:roll:
Click to expand...

Not at all. All I am saying is that by ones continual living here with full knowledge of the laws and government of the USA, they have given consent to be part of the social contract which is between citizen and government.

If one does not want to be part of that contract, one can exercise the very market freedom that some are always proclaiming and choose other options more to their liking.

I strongly support dissent. It helps build a better America. What we are talking about with Turtle is not dissent - it outright scorn and loathing for America, its government and much of its people and way of life. One can disagree and argue that blueberries make for a better pie than apples. One can suggest that sugar will improve the pies sweetness. One can disagree as to the type of crust on the pie. But at some point, there are some who hate the crust, the filling, all the ingredients and the taste. At some point you are not trying to make a better pie - you simply hate pie.
 
haymarket said:
Not at all. All I am saying is that by ones continual living here with full knowledge of the laws and government of the USA, they have given consent to be part of the social contract which is between citizen and government.

If one does not want to be part of that contract, one can exercise the very market freedom that some are always proclaiming and choose other options more to their liking.

I strongly support dissent. It helps build a better America. What we are talking about with Turtle is not dissent - it outright scorn and loathing for America, its government and much of its people and way of life. One can disagree and argue that blueberries make for a better pie than apples. One can suggest that sugar will improve the pies sweetness. One can disagree as to the type of crust on the pie. But at some point, there are some who hate the crust, the filling, all the ingredients and the taste. At some point you are not trying to make a better pie - you simply hate pie.
Click to expand...

More nonsense Haymarket believes that the concept of property rights does not exist as long as the mob votes to take what you have. Your hate of the rich is well documented your hate of what made America great is also well documented.

and I do despise how this country has changed to a nation of public teat sucklers-due to the dems needing to create lots of dependent sloths
 
haymarket said:
But you claim you have an education and a degree but your posts show little to sometimes no sign at all that you have either. Are we talking about technical matters of medicine here? I think not.
Click to expand...

must hurt knowing that the SAT scores of those who go into teaching are among the lowest of any group of college students.
 
lpast said:
Sorry turtle with all due respect your diatribe is not my gospel and its wrong
Click to expand...

nah your points are more of the populist drivel from what I have seen. a resentment of those who have done better based perhaps on a self loathing for failing to achieve?
 
X Factor said:
So, just so I understand your position, somebody pays into SS their whole working life. The more they earn, the more they pay in, thereby depriving them of that income that they earned, then, if they are financially responsible enough to not be entirely dependent on SS, when they retire they should actual get less or nothing? That about sum it up?
Yes. If people are going to be so stupid they're willing allow bureaucrats to take money from their paychecks and trust their promise that the money taken will be returned to them later, then they deserve to be robbed when later rolls around.

The Constituiton does not authorize the existence of Social Security or any similary Ponzi scheme. The government should never have been allowed to take money from people in that fashion and those people who went along with it deserve what happens, simply because they refused to stand up for the Constituiton.

That's as fair as it gets, they're paying the price for not being patriots.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rathi said:
The point of social security is to prevent seniors from falling into poverty. Fairness is a pipe dream. A means based test brings in the revenue will needed in the future to make that happen. If you don't want a means based test, how do you propose to get the extra revenue? Tax future taxpayers extra? That isn't fair either.
Click to expand...

Hello?

Means testing doesn't alter the revenues, it restricts the payouts.

Since Social Security has never been anything more than a specialized welfare scam, it's time to strip it of the mystique. Should Bill Gates get Social Security? Warren Buffet? President Clinton/Bush/Carter? The guy making a million bucks a year from real estate investments?

Why?
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that

1) that social security never would have passed even the FDR controlled congress if it was another income redistribution scheme
Click to expand...

It was never anything but a wealth redistribution scam.

2) why should wealthy people who pay most of the taxes have this scheme be yet another income redistribution scheme and violate their contractual rights
Click to expand...

Because they have those lovely concentric circles on their backs that only liberals can see.

3) if people cannot get benefits from this crap why should they be forced to support it
Click to expand...

Because the government has the guns, dude.
 
haymarket said:
It is also a complete betrayal of every libertarian who rails about the sainted principles of the contract.

But that would not be you. Principles and your own self interest of greed have nothing in common at all.

Means testing would strip SS benefits or reduce them for people who have saved and prepared for retirement - ie: the very thing that conservatives and right wingers like you foam at the mouth about that they should have been doing forever now. It rewards those who have not prepared for retirement by giving them the benefits promised to all and rewards the very folks that you constanly spew vitriol and venom at and about.

So its quite a giant hypocrisy sandwich you have bitten into turtle. Three decker at least. I suspect it will not go down too easy.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right.

Nothing should be done to reduce the mandated outlays of social security.

That this will ensure the system, and hence the nation, goes bankrupt decades sooner doesn't mean anything to you, so, clearly, the nation must not change anything, because you don't believe national economic collapse is anything but the most desirable thing on the planet.

don't worry that the poor will be the hardest hit when your precious collapse comes, you don't care about them, anyway.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You live here of your own free will.

You claim to be highly educated so you should know better than most about the laws and policies of our nation. You rail against all sorts of things about America and its government , things that you ourtirght hate and loathe and have no trouble saying so.

But still you stay.

And that applies to anyone who does not want to pay into Social Security or any other American program. That is how you get out of it. Either that, or stop working. That also works.

So now its on you.

There is no Berlin Wall confining you. You are here of your own free will and each day you participate in this nation of your own free will. You can withdraw that participation at any time you want to. Its all up to you.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are all nonsense. The "contract" the American people have with their government is called "The Constitution of the United States of America". The social security program is a direct violation of that contract. Thus your whining about "social contracts" is just silliness.
 
haymarket said:
If the GOP truly believes it, then they should follow up on it. They have a moral obligation to do so and a patriotic obligation as well. To do otherwise would be an act of craven political cowardice.
Click to expand...

both parties know the future if we continue on our current fiscal path. the GOP passed the 2012 House budget with deals with it - painfully, admittedly, but successfully. The President is the only one thus fat to put forth anything from the Democrats resembling a "plan", and his "plan" seems to be to raise taxes on a very few people (which won't give us extra revenues, and he probably knows that) safely after the next election in 2012 and to appoint a commission in 2014. and to accuse Republicans in the meantime of wanting to kill autistic kids and 50 million grandmothers. thus far the only "cowardice" i see comes from the D side of the aisle, as they refuse to deal with what they acknowledge to be an existential threat so that they can demagogue Republicans for making hard choices.

Republicans screw up. A lot. and they do things that are destructive. A lot. but the Ryan proposal is brave on their part- they are willingly exposing themselves to protect the country.
 
Ockham said:
I had to say "no", simple because I want to opt out of social security. I doubt I'm going to get anything out of it already since it's used as a slush fund account by the government. Second, why steal people's money by testing them and saying, "oh I'm sorry, you make too much money and your money, you know, that you already paid in for the past 45 years... yeah, we're keeping it all because you don't need it". Means testing is just a nice way of saying, we're going to **** you dry, steal the money you paid in for decades, and give it to someone else who WE (the gubmint) deem needs it more. Nah. Just let me opt out.
Click to expand...

Don't get discouraged, means testing will never happen. That would be a ton of political suicide. Politicians like being employed.
 
It's unfortunate that people go bonkers over this topic.
We could have a federally mandated but not federally administered retirement program, that would be as good or better than Social Security.

Wouldn't be difficult at all.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Your arguments are all nonsense. The "contract" the American people have with their government is called "The Constitution of the United States of America". The social security program is a direct violation of that contract. Thus your whining about "social contracts" is just silliness.
Click to expand...

Its too bad for you that the people who have both the power and authority say otherwise.

The Supreme Court says your line of reasoning has FAILED.

The last person who posted views identical to yours, a style similar to yours and a location just like yours had the name of a serial killer and seems to have vanished. Is that a coincidence?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Its too bad for you that the people who have both the power and authority say otherwise.

The Supreme Court says your line of reasoning has FAILED.
Click to expand...

lets hear your learned explanation as to why the Supreme court allowed this nonsense and rejected both the foundrers clear intent ant 130 years of precedent?
 
Ray Charles was far superior.
 
TurtleDude said:
lets hear your learned explanation as to why the Supreme court allowed this nonsense and rejected both the foundrers clear intent ant 130 years of precedent?
Click to expand...

Why settle or little ole me when you can go to the horses mouth and the primary source. This should help you get started on the path to historical research. it can be fun and rewarding. You should try it instead of relying on others .

Social Security Online History Pages
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why settle or little ole me when you can go to the horses mouth and the primary source. This should help you get started on the path to historical research. it can be fun and rewarding. You should try it instead of relying on others .

Social Security Online History Pages
Click to expand...

you do understand that this was a complete break with the precedent and a rejection of the tenth amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that this was a complete break with the precedent and a rejection of the tenth amendment
Click to expand...

take it up with the US Supreme Court. Your dispute is with them - not me.

oh wait! That has been done.

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