But there's no reasoning with the elderly on...

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
You people are truly despicable. A generation of ungrateful, greedy, offensive thieves.

I agree. You people who are double dipping should be ashamed of yourselves. I mean you want to whine about paying in all you life, but yet you want to ignore that YOU have already spent the money on yourselves.

CsG

How the hell you people figured out that a generation spent their own Social Security is beyond me. Do you think they decided U.S. policy? Do you think my parents paid in more than a small fraction of their benefit?

My generation and the baby boom generation paid their share so thier parents wouldn't live their last years in abject poverty -- as was the case prior to Social Security. And will be again if you pikers get your way.

The people who spent that money are the big budget busters. Reagan/Bush/Bush. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised. We all paid. Then Ronnie began spending it all. Now Georgie gave away the surplus he inherited from President Clinton.

Did you have any say over the $300 billion and growing Bush wasted in Iraq? What makes you think anyone else had a say?

Don't be ridiculous.

In the meantime, keep those cards and letters coming.

If you have trouble making ends meet, do what I did. Get a second job.

I'll be thinking of you when the direct deposit comes in every month.

 

[Genx87]

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: BBond
How the hell do you call paying into Social Security all your life and expecting the benefits promised as "begging"?

You people are truly despicable. A generation of ungrateful, greedy, offensive thieves.

If I remember correctly, you are over 60? Why are you so vehemently opposed to changing the nature of SS?

Secondly, the baby boom generation born after '52 are the only ones who have the right to really oppose reform. Even though they have been paying into SS fund for ~30 years, they have tolerated politicians appropriating SS income to fund general economic growth in the budget. This is why I am not too sympathetic to their arguements.

Besides, the baby boomers can't blame generation x for any of their troubles because generation x hasn't yet obtained real power.

I'm against changing Social Security because I know what the real goal is. There are a few tweaks needed to keep the most successful retirement insurance system in our history completely stable. But you people aren't satisfied with a simple fix because your true goal is to destroy Social Security.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

I don't agree with this. The cap at the first $87,500 of income is necessary. Is it reasonable to expect an individual to pay more than $10937.5 per year into an insurance fund? Please remember that people also have other retirement programs as well: 401k, pensions, etc.
There is a point where payments into SS become excessive. I can understand how it is easy to demand other people to give up more of their income to pay taxes, but it is really unfair to them.

The people who will be paying more than $10937,50 per year are the same people who spent the money in the first place. And the same people who emptied the treasury after they funded their boy's theft of election 2000.

You are directing your anger at the wrong people. People making over 87,500 per year are not just Republicans. Congress is the entity that approved the budgets, and we know that representative democracy is not entirely representative of the people. Budget surpluses were spent on increased social programs, increased defense, and war. Keynesian theory said that surplus money should be held to increase spending in a recession, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: BBond
How the hell do you call paying into Social Security all your life and expecting the benefits promised as "begging"?

You people are truly despicable. A generation of ungrateful, greedy, offensive thieves.

If I remember correctly, you are over 60? Why are you so vehemently opposed to changing the nature of SS?

Secondly, the baby boom generation born after '52 are the only ones who have the right to really oppose reform. Even though they have been paying into SS fund for ~30 years, they have tolerated politicians appropriating SS income to fund general economic growth in the budget. This is why I am not too sympathetic to their arguements.

Besides, the baby boomers can't blame generation x for any of their troubles because generation x hasn't yet obtained real power.

I'm against changing Social Security because I know what the real goal is. There are a few tweaks needed to keep the most successful retirement insurance system in our history completely stable. But you people aren't satisfied with a simple fix because your true goal is to destroy Social Security.

You think keeping the status quo wont destroy SS?

It is like talking to somebody on the train tracks. They know the train is coming but they fear if they leave the tracks they may get lost.

 

[irwincur]

The older generation has seen what the market can do to investments.

That has to be a joke, right?


Give me one ten year period where the 'market' lost money. How about a five year period. OK. Then move your tiny brain out of the 'stock market is the only market mentality' and tell me the last two year period where bonds lost money.

SS is at best a guaranteed 1% return when adjusted for inflation. Technically you could put your money into a standard 1.5% savings account at a local bank and beat it - with less risk. Sorry, but I would much rather have the 11% average gains that the stock market returns and take a bit of risk.

That is also why you diversify, and why as you age you move money to less risky investment vehicles - like bonds.




However, I am guessing that you have not bothered to ever take a fiance class of any sort - so I would expect ignoarance of the 'market'.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Eliminate the cap in FICA taxes until the system reaches parity. Problem solved.

Why can't this younger generation figure that out?

I don't agree with this. The cap at the first $87,500 of income is necessary. Is it reasonable to expect an individual to pay more than $10937.5 per year into an insurance fund? Please remember that people also have other retirement programs as well: 401k, pensions, etc.
There is a point where payments into SS become excessive. I can understand how it is easy to demand other people to give up more of their income to pay taxes, but it is really unfair to them.

The people who will be paying more than $10937,50 per year are the same people who spent the money in the first place. And the same people who emptied the treasury after they funded their boy's theft of election 2000.

You are directing your anger at the wrong people. People making over 87,500 per year are not just Republicans. Congress is the entity that approved the budgets, and we know that representative democracy is not entirely representative of the people. Budget surpluses were spent on increased social programs, increased defense, and war. Keynesian theory said that surplus money should be held to increase spending in a recession, which is exactly what happened.

Bush's irresponsible tax cuts along with scandals like Enron created the recession. And the money Bush handed to his contributors after he stole election 2000 didn't increase spending. The greedy bastards held onto it because they knew the next phase, dismantling Social Security, was coming.

I'm not directing anger at anyone. I'm not angry. I want to see the people who spent the money pay it back.

What could be more American than that? Personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: BBond
How the hell do you call paying into Social Security all your life and expecting the benefits promised as "begging"?

You people are truly despicable. A generation of ungrateful, greedy, offensive thieves.

If I remember correctly, you are over 60? Why are you so vehemently opposed to changing the nature of SS?

Secondly, the baby boom generation born after '52 are the only ones who have the right to really oppose reform. Even though they have been paying into SS fund for ~30 years, they have tolerated politicians appropriating SS income to fund general economic growth in the budget. This is why I am not too sympathetic to their arguements.

Besides, the baby boomers can't blame generation x for any of their troubles because generation x hasn't yet obtained real power.

The same generation who brought you 401k's and IRA's. Your welcome. Now you can piss vinegar on us.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87


And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

PS

We didn't get a chance to vote. We were forced to pay the increase whether we liked it or not.

Just like you will be.

Keep those cards and letters coming.

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: BBond
How the hell do you call paying into Social Security all your life and expecting the benefits promised as "begging"?

You people are truly despicable. A generation of ungrateful, greedy, offensive thieves.

If I remember correctly, you are over 60? Why are you so vehemently opposed to changing the nature of SS?

Secondly, the baby boom generation born after '52 are the only ones who have the right to really oppose reform. Even though they have been paying into SS fund for ~30 years, they have tolerated politicians appropriating SS income to fund general economic growth in the budget. This is why I am not too sympathetic to their arguements.

Besides, the baby boomers can't blame generation x for any of their troubles because generation x hasn't yet obtained real power.

I'm against changing Social Security because I know what the real goal is. There are a few tweaks needed to keep the most successful retirement insurance system in our history completely stable. But you people aren't satisfied with a simple fix because your true goal is to destroy Social Security.

Now this is just plain silly. Social programs in the US are necessary to promote economic growth. Prior to the Social Security Act, the elderly were the poorest demographic. Now they are the wealthiest.

I strongly believe that some degree of socialism(quality public schools, basic health care, unemployment benefits, and a general safety net) is required to maintain a free democratic society. I do feel it is prudent to look for a way to make sure these social welfare programs will remain solvent until the end of the republic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

I am admitting you are an ignorant sheeple.

Big difference.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

I am admitting you are an ignorant sheeple.

Big difference.

Thanks. Now I know I gotcha'.



Keep those cards and letters coming.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

I am admitting you are an ignorant sheeple.

Big difference.

Thanks. Now I know I gotcha'.



Keep those cards and letters coming.

Havent sent you a single card. Not worth the 37 cents for postage.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

I am admitting you are an ignorant sheeple.

Big difference.

Thanks. Now I know I gotcha'.



Keep those cards and letters coming.

Havent sent you a single card. Not worth the 37 cents for postage.

You don't have to. I have direct deposit.

Keep those cards and letters coming.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Social Security was "fixed" in 1983. FICA was raised

rotflmao

Your boy Reagan insisted. Laugh all you like.

I know my FICA taxes went up high enough to make a second income necessary in my case. But I plan ahead.

And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

So you're finally admitting Reagan was a lying POS?

Under the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is the sole branch with the authority to collect and spend revenues. So while you may continue to whine on and on about Reagan, please note that your whining, like most other things you say, has no basis in reality. Reagan can only be faulted for not vetoing excessive spending, but he did not originate it; Congress did. And Congress spends money excessively, regardless of the party in charge. We see a GOP Congress spending uncontrollably now, as we saw a Dem Congress spending uncontrollably then.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Mursilis


Under the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is the sole branch with the authority to collect and spend revenues. So while you may continue to whine on and on about Reagan, please note that your whining, like most other things you say, has no basis in reality. Reagan can only be faulted for not vetoing excessive spending, but he did not originate it; Congress did. And Congress spends money excessively, regardless of the party in charge. We see a GOP Congress spending uncontrollably now, as we saw a Dem Congress spending uncontrollably then.

Were you alive in 1983? How old were you?

My TV back then showed me Reagan, day in and day out, insisting that Congress MUST FIX SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87


And you bought it(if he actually said that).

Good little sheeple you are.

PS

We didn't get a chance to vote. We were forced to pay the increase whether we liked it or not.

Just like you will be.

Keep those cards and letters coming.

Give them an inch and they want a mile. I think that until a good plan is presented that nothing can or will be changed. It would be political suicide.

But keep those cards and letters coming

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis


Under the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is the sole branch with the authority to collect and spend revenues. So while you may continue to whine on and on about Reagan, please note that your whining, like most other things you say, has no basis in reality. Reagan can only be faulted for not vetoing excessive spending, but he did not originate it; Congress did. And Congress spends money excessively, regardless of the party in charge. We see a GOP Congress spending uncontrollably now, as we saw a Dem Congress spending uncontrollably then.

Were you alive in 1983? How old were you?

My TV back then showed me Reagan, day in and day out, insisting that Congress MUST FIX SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

Judging by your past tangents. I would trust somebody elses opinion over your brainwashed eyes.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis


Under the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is the sole branch with the authority to collect and spend revenues. So while you may continue to whine on and on about Reagan, please note that your whining, like most other things you say, has no basis in reality. Reagan can only be faulted for not vetoing excessive spending, but he did not originate it; Congress did. And Congress spends money excessively, regardless of the party in charge. We see a GOP Congress spending uncontrollably now, as we saw a Dem Congress spending uncontrollably then.

Were you alive in 1983? How old were you?

My TV back then showed me Reagan, day in and day out, insisting that Congress MUST FIX SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

I don't doubt your TV tells you all sorts of things, and that explains quite a bit. You might consider turning it off, but hey, it's your life.
Just for your clarification:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis


Under the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is the sole branch with the authority to collect and spend revenues. So while you may continue to whine on and on about Reagan, please note that your whining, like most other things you say, has no basis in reality. Reagan can only be faulted for not vetoing excessive spending, but he did not originate it; Congress did. And Congress spends money excessively, regardless of the party in charge. We see a GOP Congress spending uncontrollably now, as we saw a Dem Congress spending uncontrollably then.

Were you alive in 1983? How old were you?

My TV back then showed me Reagan, day in and day out, insisting that Congress MUST FIX SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

I don't doubt your TV tells you all sorts of things, and that explains quite a bit. You might consider turning it off, but hey, it's your life.
Just for your clarification:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Are you denying that Reagan insisted on fixing Social Security.

'Cause if you are and you click on that link you'll see that my TV was right and you're wrong.

 

[BBond]

Bwahahahaha

Check THIS out!

1. Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Social Security System --May 21, 1981

Dear :-------:

Over the past several weeks, all Americans have been proud of the bipartisan spirit that we have created in working on the nation's economic recovery. Today I am writing to you to ask that we now bring that same spirit to bear on another issue threatening our public welfare.

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.

Last week, Secretary Richard Schweiker presented a series of Administration proposals that we believe are sound, sensible solutions, both in the short and long term. We recognize that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have alternative answers. This diversity is healthy--so long as it leads to constructive debate and then to an honest legislative response.

As Secretary Schweiker has pointed out on several occasions, we believe that all of us owe an obligation to our senior citizens to work together on this issue. This Administration is not wedded to any single solution; this Administration welcomes the opportunity to consult with Congress and with private groups on this matter. Our sole commitment--and it is a commitment we will steadfastly maintain--is to three basic principles:

--First, this nation must preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans.

--Second, we must hold down the tax burden on the workers who support Social Security.

--Finally, we must eliminate all abuses in the system that can rob the elderly of THEIR RIGHTFUL LEGACY. (emphasis added)

It is clear that the half-actions of the past are no longer sufficient for the future. It is equally clear that we must not let partisan differences or political posturing prevent us from working together.

Therefore, I have today asked Secretary Schweiker to meet with you and other leaders of the Congress as soon as possible to launch a bipartisan effort to save Social Security. I have also asked him to make the full resources of his department available for this undertaking. And of course, you can count on my active support of this effort.

None of us can afford to underestimate the seriousness of the problems facing Social Security. For generations of Americans, the future literally rests upon our actions. This should be a time for statesmanship of the highest order, and I know that no one shares that desire more strongly than you.

With every good wish,

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

 

[BBond]

Or this...

2. Letter to Congressional Leaders About the Social Security System --July 18, 1981

The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.

At the same time, I deplore the opportunistic political maneuvering, cynically designed to play on the fears of many Americans, that some in the Congress are initiating at this time. These efforts appear designed to exploit an issue rather than find a solution to the urgent Social Security problem. They would also have the unfortunate effect of disrupting the budget conference and reversing the actions of a majority of both Houses of the Congress. Such a result would jeopardize our economic recovery program so vital to the well-being of the Nation.

In order to tell the American people the facts, and to let them know that I shall fight to preserve the Social Security System and protect their benefits, I will ask for time on television to address the Nation as soon as possible.

During this address, I will call on the Congress to lay aside partisan politics, and join me in a constructive effort to put Social Security on a permanently sound financial basis as soon as the 97th Congress returns in September.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan