So, who doesn't get the Social Security Situation?

[Tab]

Anyone absolutely not understand this at all?

Social Security as I see it is designed to be something to live on. Not extravegenatly, but not in poverty. It'd be a stupid idea just to live of social security, but you could.

I've heard that the goverment has some trust fund saved up for the "baby-boomer" generation.

I've also heard the "Social Security will run out in blah blah blah..." and that the numbers that Bush is using are rather pessimistic. He assuming the economy is going to suck.

Let's assume I do a PSA, who choses what company I invest in? What happens if the company ends up like enron? What if my returns are not that great? Yes, I still be putting money into the normal social security but won't that un-balance the system? Assuming my PSA failed.

-Thoughts for the day.

 

[aidanjm]

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

putthing the more money into the trust fund will just cause more taxes later or decreased benefits later. The trust fund is a shell game.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Let's assume I do a PSA, who choses what company I invest in? What happens if the company ends up like enron? What if my returns are not that great? Yes, I still be putting money into the normal social security but won't that un-balance the system? Assuming my PSA failed.

-Thoughts for the day.

It wouldn't be going into one company. You'd have to be a retard to put all of your money into one company. If a company that your money is invested in fails (like Enron), you still have your money from the dozens of other companies that you have invested in to fall back on. Unless the country starts to go into a gigantic depression, you're money's going to be pretty safe. If the country did go into a huge depression, Social Security would be eating sh!t too.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I get it alright. I do not see too many others that do though.

Social Security is doing exactly what it was designed to do. And the supposed funding problem of SS is a LIE.

Congress (Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal) has been SPENDING Social Security income on OTHER STUFF. There is no SS crisis. There is a "OMG, we have to put back the SS money we have been spending on pork all these years" crisis.

And just like the S&L scandal, we stupid work-for-a-living Americans are gonna let them ram the costs down our throats, instead of their pork-barrel-business-owning buddies' throats.

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
I get it alright. I do not see too many others that do though.

Social Security is doing exactly what it was designed to do. And the supposed funding problem of SS is a LIE.

Congress (Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal) has been SPENDING Social Security income on OTHER STUFF. There is no SS crisis. There is a "OMG, we have to put back the SS money we have been spending on pork all these years" crisis.

And just like the S&L scandal, we stupid work-for-a-living Americans are gonna let them ram the costs down our throats, instead of their pork-barrel-business-owning buddies' throats.

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

get it ? yes . .. that you understand nothing is absolutely clear.

the fact that legislators have been sticking their fingers into the SS barrel does not
translate into SS being a slush fund for needy politicians. better controls will be part
of the reform package but the savings, from this unwise borrowing, will be negligible.

while i don't believe their is a current crisis, the fact that the system needs dire
improvement is not a responsibility we need to pass along until we find ourselves
buried in the kind of full-blown calamity that even liberals cannot deny.

ofcourse, at that point, in midst of a disaster, liberals will truly shine, telling the
world just how smart they are to have predicted events ex post facto.

 

[irwincur]

I've heard that the goverment has some trust fund saved up for the "baby-boomer" generation.

There is no trust fund. This is a myth being passed around by some of the Democrats. The trust fund they mention is the general fund, money that all government services come from. So in essense, any money that comes into SS goes into the general fund because the brillaint solcialists of the day never realized that they should actually create a seperate fund to protect the income.

They also failed to realise that SS would only work if the worker to collector ration remained high.



MYTH #3: The Social Security trust fund contains assets that make Social Security secure for the next 40 years.

Those who promote this myth argue that when the program's projected cash flow is combined with the amount of the bonds that will be in the trust fund, the system will have enough assets to pay full benefits through 2041.

FACT: The Social Security "trust fund" is, essentially, a system through which the government lends money to itself.

There is no pool of actual assets that is being reserved to pay the benefits of future retirees. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), in just 15 years, the government will have to come up with new money just to repay the bonds that will be called from the trust fund. Between 2017 and 2041, it will have to make up for a total funding deficit of nearly $6 trillion.

The Social Security system has led most people to believe that their Social Security payments are being held in an actual account in their names to pay their benefits. In reality, however, the Social Security trust fund contains nothing more than IOUs that will be cashable only after higher taxes are imposed on future workers or massive amounts of money are borrowed. While many workers thought that the system's annual surpluses were being used to build up a reserve for baby boomers, in fact, this money has been spent to fund other government programs or to reduce the government debt.

In the private sector, trust funds are used to invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. Assets are to be used only for specifically designated purposes, and the fund managers are held accountable if the money is mismanaged. Funds are managed in order to maximize earnings within a predetermined risk level. Investments are chosen that will provide cash at set intervals, allowing the trust fund to pay its obligations.

The Social Security trust funds are very different from those of the private sector. As described in a report from the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

The Federal budget meaning of the term "trust" differs significantly from the private sector usage.... [T]he Federal Government owns the assets and earnings of most Federal trust funds, and it can unilaterally raise or lower future trust fund collections and payments or change the purpose for which the collections are used.2
Furthermore, Social Security trust funds are "invested" exclusively in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, "when the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another."3

According to the OMB, this situation allows funds to appear on the books while they are, in reality, unavailable:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits.4
In short, the Social Security trust funds are really only an accounting mechanism. They show how much the government has borrowed from Social Security but do not provide any way to finance future benefits. - http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1613.cfm

 

[irwincur]

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

Would you care to point out where the top 1% of income earners got that much? That was the entire size of the tax cut, and if I recall, everyone that paid taxes got money... Not to mention the refunds given even to some that are not paying taxes.

Further proof that Kenned is a drunken idiot.

This whole liberal pile of crap argument about tax cuts is getting old. Every tax cut according to them benefits only the rich. Well, the fact is that the rich pay a higher proportion of taxes, they would get more back.

Is it fair that Bill Gates in essence pays the taxes of the poorest 30,000,000 citizens? Is it fair for those 30,000,000 to get more back them Bill Gates in event of a tax cut? Cuts are made based on percentages, so of course the rich get more back, BUT THEY PAY MORE.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

Would you care to point out where the top 1% of income earners got that much? That was the entire size of the tax cut, and if I recall, everyone that paid taxes got money... Not to mention the refunds given even to some that are not paying taxes.

Approximately half of Bush's tax cuts (in absolute dollar terms) will go to the wealthiest 1% of citizens. This is a widely quoted figure, I'm surprised you haven't encountered it before.

Tax Cuts Mostly Benefit the Wealthy

Over the Next Decade, More Than 50 Percent of Tax Cuts Will Go to the Very Richest Taxpayers. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income, whose annually earn more than $1 million, got tax cuts greater than $30,000 in 2003. By the end of the decade, more than half of the Bush Administration's tax reductions will go to the top 1 percent. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 1/8/03]

Bottom 60 Percent of Taxpayers Will Receive Only $350 in Tax Cuts Over Next 4 Years, Top 1 Percent Gets $96,634. The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will receive, on average, a total of $350 over the next four years, or less than $100 per year. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will receive, on average, a total of $96,634 in tax cuts over the next four years. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 6/13/03]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Further proof that Kenned is a drunken idiot.

This whole liberal pile of crap argument about tax cuts is getting old. Every tax cut according to them benefits only the rich. Well, the fact is that the rich pay a higher proportion of taxes, they would get more back.

Is it fair that Bill Gates in essence pays the taxes of the poorest 30,000,000 citizens? Is it fair for those 30,000,000 to get more back them Bill Gates in event of a tax cut? Cuts are made based on percentages, so of course the rich get more back, BUT THEY PAY MORE.

A progressive tax system requires that the wealthiest citizens pay higher rates of tax.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Troll said,

There is no trust fund. This is a myth being passed around by some of the Democrats. The trust fund they mention is the general fund, money that all government services come from. So in essense, any money that comes into SS goes into the general fund because the brillaint solcialists of the day never realized that they should actually create a seperate fund to protect the income.

Here's a thought . . . maybe previous generations of lawmakers thought future generations wouldn't spend EVERY friggin' dime of SS surpluses AND then some! Despite the idiocy of your rants you actually said something useful . . . the system is indeed brilliantly socialist. It's not designed to provide all things to all people. It's designed to provide just enough to everyone that no one suffers in abject poverty. And because EVERYONE contributed (some more than others), everyone gets something out of it.

At a time when the manufacturing jobs that created the American middle class are fading into oblivion, it makes no sense whatsoever to dismantle a system that will likely be the only thing between many Americans and a miserable quality of life/retirement.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
I get it alright. I do not see too many others that do though.

Social Security is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It absolutely IS doing what it's designed to do: Keep MILLIONS of poor VOTERS in an impoverished, DEPENDENT state so that the "defender" of their little "program" can always rely on their votes. SS is a CONTROL SCHEME in the political sense and a LEGALIZED ENSLAVEMENT scheme in the economic sense.

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

It absolutely is! It's the rich Socialists who want to keep as many people as possible DEPENDENT on the government so they can always rely on their votes to keep them in power.

SS does not now nor has it EVER kept people out of poverty; on the contrary, it keeps them DEEP in poverty.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

Would you care to point out where the top 1% of income earners got that much? That was the entire size of the tax cut, and if I recall, everyone that paid taxes got money... Not to mention the refunds given even to some that are not paying taxes.

Further proof that Kenned is a drunken idiot.

This whole liberal pile of crap argument about tax cuts is getting old. Every tax cut according to them benefits only the rich. Well, the fact is that the rich pay a higher proportion of taxes, they would get more back.

Is it fair that Bill Gates in essence pays the taxes of the poorest 30,000,000 citizens? Is it fair for those 30,000,000 to get more back them Bill Gates in event of a tax cut? Cuts are made based on percentages, so of course the rich get more back, BUT THEY PAY MORE.

I might also point out that the people who benefit MOST from tax cuts are the POOR. Years ago when I was still in school and working at a minimum wage nowhere job, I remember being astonished the first year I filed taxes. I had paid in about $1,000 federal, $300 state and then whatever for SS and medicare taxes. I was well below the minimum income, of course, and when tax time came I got back $3,000 from the federal government and $800 from the state (california).

Yeah, I got TRIPLE what I paid in back. It was then that I realized that the tax system is NOT fair and that the money I got back was money that was CLEARLY stolen from other tax payers. Did I send it back? Of course not, I was 18, relatively broke while going to school and I needed a new computer pretty badly. The money came in very handy, but I've always remembered that it wasn't right that I got it in the first place.

When everyone pays the same percentage rate and there are NO returns or refunds, and the government spends only as much as it takes in, then the tax system will be right. The redistribution of wealth is immoral.

Jason

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

putthing the more money into the trust fund will just cause more taxes later or decreased benefits later. The trust fund is a shell game.

Unless people stop reproducing the Social Security shortfalls are a only a cyclical problem caused by the baby boom after WW2. It isn't a permanent condition, and it doesn't require a drastic solution.

And I didn't see Kennedy on Meet the Press, but I doubt he said what he's reported saying here. I would guess he said that without the Bush tax cuts, the government would be in a better position to actually pay out it's obligations under the Social Security trust fund, which is very different from saying the tax cut money would just go to Social Security.

That's what is driving the current political issue, some politicians are treating projections based on unknowable information as facts, in an effort to never actually use the Social Security trust fund for Social Security. Because to do so they can't go on reckless spending and tax cut binges, like has happened under Bush.

In fact, without the Bush spending and tax cuts we would currently have a surplus, instead of a gigantic deficit. Of course some of the spending increases were necessary, for homeland security, but even with that we could have a relatively small deficit and be on track to surpluses.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: irwincur

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

Would you care to point out where the top 1% of income earners got that much? That was the entire size of the tax cut, and if I recall, everyone that paid taxes got money... Not to mention the refunds given even to some that are not paying taxes.

Further proof that Kenned is a drunken idiot.

This whole liberal pile of crap argument about tax cuts is getting old. Every tax cut according to them benefits only the rich. Well, the fact is that the rich pay a higher proportion of taxes, they would get more back.

Is it fair that Bill Gates in essence pays the taxes of the poorest 30,000,000 citizens? Is it fair for those 30,000,000 to get more back them Bill Gates in event of a tax cut? Cuts are made based on percentages, so of course the rich get more back, BUT THEY PAY MORE.

I might also point out that the people who benefit MOST from tax cuts are the POOR. Years ago when I was still in school and working at a minimum wage nowhere job, I remember being astonished the first year I filed taxes. I had paid in about $1,000 federal, $300 state and then whatever for SS and medicare taxes. I was well below the minimum income, of course, and when tax time came I got back $3,000 from the federal government and $800 from the state (california).

Yeah, I got TRIPLE what I paid in back. It was then that I realized that the tax system is NOT fair and that the money I got back was money that was CLEARLY stolen from other tax payers. Did I send it back? Of course not, I was 18, relatively broke while going to school and I needed a new computer pretty badly. The money came in very handy, but I've always remembered that it wasn't right that I got it in the first place.

When everyone pays the same percentage rate and there are NO returns or refunds, and the government spends only as much as it takes in, then the tax system will be right. The redistribution of wealth is immoral.

Jason

I don't understand how you got more money back than you payed in? Could you be more specific about the details. I thought that couldn't occur when you are a dependent.

 

[piasabird]

Kenedy forgot one very important Item Social Security has become part of the general fund and is raided on a regular basis. I am not for putting any extra funds into a system that is not protected under the law from the general funds. I want better accounting practices first.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
I get it alright. I do not see too many others that do though.

Social Security is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It absolutely IS doing what it's designed to do: Keep MILLIONS of poor VOTERS in an impoverished, DEPENDENT state so that the "defender" of their little "program" can always rely on their votes. SS is a CONTROL SCHEME in the political sense and a LEGALIZED ENSLAVEMENT scheme in the economic sense.

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

It absolutely is! It's the rich Socialists who want to keep as many people as possible DEPENDENT on the government so they can always rely on their votes to keep them in power.

SS does not now nor has it EVER kept people out of poverty; on the contrary, it keeps them DEEP in poverty.

Jason

I see how your arguement could apply to welfare, but not SS. Most people on SS, do quite well. In fact less , retired people are in poverty than the rest of the population. So, you're misinformed if you think they are deep in poverty. Also most people on SS vote republican.

I agree that SS should be privatized but it is not the collosal failure that wellfare has been and should not be accused of the same problems. SS is not plagued by the same level of blatant abuse and possible societal degeration that welfare suffers from. Its problems lie in the wat it is payed for. For SS its a matter of economics.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: irwincur

Edward Kennedy was interveiwed by that a$$hat Tim Russert on meet the press. Kennedy sez by taking the half-trillion in tax cuts given to the wealthiest 1% of citizens, and re-directing that money into social security, the so-called social security "crisis" could be pretty much eliminated.

Would you care to point out where the top 1% of income earners got that much? That was the entire size of the tax cut, and if I recall, everyone that paid taxes got money... Not to mention the refunds given even to some that are not paying taxes.

Further proof that Kenned is a drunken idiot.

This whole liberal pile of crap argument about tax cuts is getting old. Every tax cut according to them benefits only the rich. Well, the fact is that the rich pay a higher proportion of taxes, they would get more back.

Is it fair that Bill Gates in essence pays the taxes of the poorest 30,000,000 citizens? Is it fair for those 30,000,000 to get more back them Bill Gates in event of a tax cut? Cuts are made based on percentages, so of course the rich get more back, BUT THEY PAY MORE.

I might also point out that the people who benefit MOST from tax cuts are the POOR. Years ago when I was still in school and working at a minimum wage nowhere job, I remember being astonished the first year I filed taxes. I had paid in about $1,000 federal, $300 state and then whatever for SS and medicare taxes. I was well below the minimum income, of course, and when tax time came I got back $3,000 from the federal government and $800 from the state (california).

Yeah, I got TRIPLE what I paid in back. It was then that I realized that the tax system is NOT fair and that the money I got back was money that was CLEARLY stolen from other tax payers. Did I send it back? Of course not, I was 18, relatively broke while going to school and I needed a new computer pretty badly. The money came in very handy, but I've always remembered that it wasn't right that I got it in the first place.

When everyone pays the same percentage rate and there are NO returns or refunds, and the government spends only as much as it takes in, then the tax system will be right. The redistribution of wealth is immoral.

Jason

I don't understand how you got more money back than you payed in? Could you be more specific about the details. I thought that couldn't occur when you are a dependent.

I wasn't a dependent, I was living on my own and going to college full time during the day and working graveyard shift Maintenance at Wal Mart Helluva schedule! It's not at all uncommon to get back MORE than you paid in when you are low income. It gets worse if you're very low income and have children. I've got a buddy who until just about 6 months ago was working for minimum wage, making around $15,000 a year and going to school. He's got 2 kids and a wife who doesn't work. Last year he told me he paid in $1,500 (ballpark) and got back nearly $7,000. Not a bad haul, but completely immoral, and all sponsored by the proud supporters of "progressive taxation."

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
I get it alright. I do not see too many others that do though.

Social Security is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It absolutely IS doing what it's designed to do: Keep MILLIONS of poor VOTERS in an impoverished, DEPENDENT state so that the "defender" of their little "program" can always rely on their votes. SS is a CONTROL SCHEME in the political sense and a LEGALIZED ENSLAVEMENT scheme in the economic sense.

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

It absolutely is! It's the rich Socialists who want to keep as many people as possible DEPENDENT on the government so they can always rely on their votes to keep them in power.

SS does not now nor has it EVER kept people out of poverty; on the contrary, it keeps them DEEP in poverty.

Jason

I see how your arguement could apply to welfare, but not SS. Most people on SS, do quite well. In fact less , retired people are in poverty than the rest of the population. So, you're misinformed if you think they are deep in poverty. Also most people on SS vote republican.

I agree that SS should be privatized but it is not the collosal failure that wellfare has been and should not be accused of the same problems. SS is not plagued by the same level of blatant abuse and possible societal degeration that welfare suffers from. Its problems lie in the wat it is payed for. For SS its a matter of economics.

Well I agree that Welfare is an even bigger failure than SS, but the fact is that old retired folks aren't sitting comfy on SS alone. My grandfather worked for 40 years in 2 full time jobs (one military, one civilian) and now he works part time training people to drive motorhomes and he gets around $1100 a month from SS. He says that it's just *barely* enough to cover the medical expenses of himself and my grandmother as they get older. If he hadn't saved wisely and invested he wouldn't have a pot to piss in.

In California, at least, $1100 MIGHT cover your rent. If you've paid off your home you're sitting a little prettier, but not much.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: tss4

Its the rich against the poor, get it?

It absolutely is! It's the rich Socialists who want to keep as many people as possible DEPENDENT on the government so they can always rely on their votes to keep them in power.

SS does not now nor has it EVER kept people out of poverty; on the contrary, it keeps them DEEP in poverty.

Jason

I see how your arguement could apply to welfare, but not SS. Most people on SS, do quite well. In fact less , retired people are in poverty than the rest of the population. So, you're misinformed if you think they are deep in poverty. Also most people on SS vote republican.

I agree that SS should be privatized but it is not the collosal failure that wellfare has been and should not be accused of the same problems. SS is not plagued by the same level of blatant abuse and possible societal degeration that welfare suffers from. Its problems lie in the wat it is payed for. For SS its a matter of economics.[/quote]

Anyway, it applies to SS, too, when you factor in the millions of old people who DIDN'T plan for retirement other than their SS and are now absolutely living in poverty. All those guys are guaranteed votes to whoever shouts "I'll save you from the evil privatization!".

In all cases, creating programs that people depend on for their day to day lives is a very, very bad idea.

Jason

 

[Genx87]

Approximately half of Bush's tax cuts (in absolute dollar terms) will go to the wealthiest 1% of citizens. This is a widely quoted figure, I'm surprised you haven't encountered it before.

Do you realize the top 1% of this nation pays nearly 70% of the taxes? If they are getting back 50% of the money they they just lost 20%.

Here's a thought . . . maybe previous generations of lawmakers thought future generations wouldn't spend EVERY friggin' dime of SS

Here is another thought to ponder. When SS was created the avg lifespan of a person was ~61 years. Talk about a classic bait and switch. They played the odds that 50% of the people would never get benefits. Of course through modern medicine our lifespans have increased to nearly 78 years. The scam came back and bit them in the arse. Well actually it is biting us in our arse.

I dont think they ever put restraints on the system because they intended to use the money from day one with the thought people wouldnt be recieving benefits due to death anyways. It was more or less a hidden tax with a moral socialist happy face put on it.

It's not designed to provide all things to all people. It's designed to provide just enough to everyone that no one suffers in abject poverty.

You realize the avg monthly benefit is 955 bucks or about 11,500 a year? What is the poverty cutoff in this country? Now in 40 years when benefits are but by 20% tell us the democrats cry about poverty for the seniors isnt true? Only problem is their idea of sitting on this is what will truely bring it to poverty levels. And not to mention balloon our budget. You think 400 billion is a high deficit? Try taking the entire SS benefit payment out of tax revenues?



As for my view on this. I think there needs to be a plan to allow for partial privatization. SS at best will keep up with inflation. Basically I am giving the govt a tax free loan. Or in my case I am going to pay them 20% due to rediuced benefits.
Whatever system Bush comes up with needs to make this social bloat solvent forever.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87
[QDo you realize the top 1% of this nation pays nearly 70% of the taxes? If they are getting back 50% of the money they they just lost 20%.

Do you realize the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

Text

 

[Steeplerot]

It has been a conservative wet dream to ax SS since it started. *shrugs* I guess they all look forward to living off their liberal children who care enough to take care of the elderly when they are old.

 

[0roo0roo]

its already been tried
http://www.revolutionmag.com/newrev6/chile.html

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Genx87
[QDo you realize the top 1% of this nation pays nearly 70% of the taxes? If they are getting back 50% of the money they they just lost 20%.

Do you realize the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

Text

And over 80% of them are FIRST GENERATION rich. In other words, they EARNED IT!

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
It has been a conservative wet dream to ax SS since it started. *shrugs* I guess they all look forward to living off their liberal children who care enough to take care of the elderly when they are old.

Liberals who care about seniors, hehe..now THAT is funny!

Jason