Why are Libs/Dems Set Against Social Security Reform?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


How about this: If you end up losing it ALL in the stock market (which is EXTREMELY unlikely if you have a well diversified portfolio) you keep working to support yourself. If you CAN'T work, your family and friends can do what they can to keep you afloat. There's no need to go seeking justifications for further excuses to steal from some to give to others.

Jason

"Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."

How do you define begging "family and friends" to "stay afloat"? I define it as, "to steal from some to give to others".

And just to be clear, under Bush's plan you won't have a choice on diversification of your portfolio. You get to choose which fund. Not how the fund is managed. And "your" money is limited to the amount OVER AND ABOVE your normal Social Security benefit.

I've read that the average U.S. worker would wind up with about $22,000 at retirement IF the market keeps chugging along as it has in the past. Not taking into account small blips on the market screen like say, 2001 through 2004. And you know what they always say, "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

They say that for a very good reason.

And one more question keeps bothering me. If Bush was so accutely aware of a the impending "crisis" in Social Security, why did he give away the surplus rather than pay off some of those "IOU"s he keeps talking about?

Bush may make his plan sound like it's an improvement but when you check the details Bush's plan does far more harm than good. Social Security needs some tweaking but it certainly doesn't need to be dismantled in the name of "fixing" it. No one is falling for Bush's scam.

Well, almost no one.

Why doesn't Bush have a true bi-partisan commission sit down and honestly investigate the best ways to adjust Social Security instead of destroying it? They could discuss some real answers. Like eliminating the cap on FICA earnings.

How can we "check the details" when to date THERE ARE NO DETAILS PUBLISHED?! You're being COMPLETELY irrational on that point.

As for the plans with regards to choosing "funds" rather than individual stocks, that's true from what I've read and gathered, which makes it not much different from, say, a 401K, which *completely* outperforms Socialist Security. I'm only 30 and my 401k is *already* far beyond what my SS statements are, and that *includes* the last 3 years of mediocre markets.

As for Bush not getting a "bi-partisan commission", who knows why he doesn't? Better yet, why not get a NON-PARTISAN commission, perhaps comprised of, maybe, economists and financial market experts, and have *them* come up with a plan. I mean honestly, man, when the government wants a new strike fighter designed do they go to Congress or the President and ask for a design? Hell no! They go to the experts: Lockheed, Boeing, Grauman and others. Now *that* would be the smart thing to do.

In any case, I have no intention of relying on SS, and as long as I don't NEED to collect it when I get to that age, I *won't* collect it.

Jason
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: aidanjm
You might as well ask the question, why are conservatives/ Republicans dead set determined to dismantle Social Security (or other welfare safety net provisions and services)???
Because Jesus said, "F*ck the poor."

I thought it was, "F*ck the young."
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just know if Clinton were saying the same as Bush right now, the Dems would be on their feet!

What is so wrong will allowing me to invest in my own retirement account? It's BS I have to put $15K a year into the system and won't get sheit out of it!

newsflash. society & government is not just about catering to YOUR wants and needs. social security is a program that only works when it is compulsory and everyone is involved. find a way to accept that, deal with your bitterness, and move on.

I would argue that ANY program which requires "compulsory participation" is inherently flawed, probably constitutionally illegal and certainly IMMORAL.

It is NOT OK to force others to pay for things YOU want.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: aidanjm
You might as well ask the question, why are conservatives/ Republicans dead set determined to dismantle Social Security (or other welfare safety net provisions and services)???
Because Jesus said, "F*ck the poor."

I thought it was, "F*ck the young."

I thought he said "don't fvck anyone, but if you can't help yourself, get married." :)

Jason
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


You still haven't explained how he's "trying to destroy it". In fact, BUSH still hasn't explained how he's trying to destroy it. This is just more of your reactionary claptrap. I'm all for slamming Bush if his plan seems like it will fvck up SS, but until we actually SEE what the plan is, how can we do that with legitimacy?

The answer: We CAN'T

Jason

He's trying to destroy it by suggesting a "plan" which, by his own admission, does NOTHING to "fix" Social Security and indeed will cause another $2 trillion in debt to be incurred by an administration that already holds the record on debt.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


How can we "check the details" when to date THERE ARE NO DETAILS PUBLISHED?! You're being COMPLETELY irrational on that point.

As for the plans with regards to choosing "funds" rather than individual stocks, that's true from what I've read and gathered, which makes it not much different from, say, a 401K, which *completely* outperforms Socialist Security. I'm only 30 and my 401k is *already* far beyond what my SS statements are, and that *includes* the last 3 years of mediocre markets.

As for Bush not getting a "bi-partisan commission", who knows why he doesn't? Better yet, why not get a NON-PARTISAN commission, perhaps comprised of, maybe, economists and financial market experts, and have *them* come up with a plan. I mean honestly, man, when the government wants a new strike fighter designed do they go to Congress or the President and ask for a design? Hell no! They go to the experts: Lockheed, Boeing, Grauman and others. Now *that* would be the smart thing to do.

In any case, I have no intention of relying on SS, and as long as I don't NEED to collect it when I get to that age, I *won't* collect it.

Jason

I've read details of Bush's plan. The chimp has been leaking them in hopes of lighting a fire under the dead carcass of his proposal to destroy Social Security.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The commission should be bi-partisan because, just in case you haven't noticed, the U.S. government is comprised of two main parties. If it makes you feel better add an independent. No thanks to your "experts" if Bush is picking them. We've all seen what his experts look like. Ideologues who throw science out the window to pander to Bush's agenda.

And in another 35 years or so you'll be grabbing every penny you can get your hands on just like everyone else -- no matter how much is in your precious 401K.

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


You still haven't explained how he's "trying to destroy it". In fact, BUSH still hasn't explained how he's trying to destroy it. This is just more of your reactionary claptrap. I'm all for slamming Bush if his plan seems like it will fvck up SS, but until we actually SEE what the plan is, how can we do that with legitimacy?

The answer: We CAN'T

Jason

He's trying to destroy it by suggesting a "plan" which, by his own admission, does NOTHING to "fix" Social Security and indeed will cause another $2 trillion in debt to be incurred by an administration that already holds the record on debt.

You have a link for where he told us all exactly what the plan is and at the same time explicitly stated that it will do "Nothing" to fix the problem? I mean, if plans are available for review and you've managed to find their detailed documentation, I'd love to see them. Please?

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


How can we "check the details" when to date THERE ARE NO DETAILS PUBLISHED?! You're being COMPLETELY irrational on that point.

As for the plans with regards to choosing "funds" rather than individual stocks, that's true from what I've read and gathered, which makes it not much different from, say, a 401K, which *completely* outperforms Socialist Security. I'm only 30 and my 401k is *already* far beyond what my SS statements are, and that *includes* the last 3 years of mediocre markets.

As for Bush not getting a "bi-partisan commission", who knows why he doesn't? Better yet, why not get a NON-PARTISAN commission, perhaps comprised of, maybe, economists and financial market experts, and have *them* come up with a plan. I mean honestly, man, when the government wants a new strike fighter designed do they go to Congress or the President and ask for a design? Hell no! They go to the experts: Lockheed, Boeing, Grauman and others. Now *that* would be the smart thing to do.

In any case, I have no intention of relying on SS, and as long as I don't NEED to collect it when I get to that age, I *won't* collect it.

Jason

I've read details of Bush's plan. The chimp has been leaking them in hopes of lighting a fire under the dead carcass of his proposal to destroy Social Security.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The commission should be bi-partisan because, just in case you haven't noticed, the U.S. government is comprised of two main parties. If it makes you feel better add an independent. No thanks to your "experts" if Bush is picking them. We've all seen what his experts look like. Ideologues who throw science out the window to pander to Bush's agenda.

And in another 35 years or so you'll be grabbing every penny you can get your hands on just like everyone else -- no matter how much is in your precious 401K.

Well I agree that I wouldn't want Bush to hand pick the experts, and you're right, he DOES pick ideologues to push his Christian agenda (though to be fair, *every* president does this when commissioning reports. They know the RESULTS they want already, and they CHOOSE those who will give them such results.) Therefore the most LOGICAL option is to appoint known, well-regarded NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE market experts to design the system.

NO, we should NOT have either party explicitly represented in the design of a replacement for SS. We should have FINANCE EXPERTS ONLY. Give them a set of goals to meet and let them figure out how to accomplish those goals, then take their plan and run with it.

Democrat and Republican Congresspersons and the President have NO BUSINESS designing a retirement system for ANYONE.

Jason
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: conjur
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952



heh heh


What a great quote. I'm a Democrat, but I deeply regret the near extinction of the reasonable, genuine, conservative Republican.

Some how I doubt Eisenhower would approve of the dems not proposing any plan to fix SS and rejecting every idea put forward on the subject.

I think Eisenhower made it crystal clear, in his own words, just what he would and wouldn't approve of.



Tell me again where Bush plans to abolish SS? Tell me again how dems plan to save SS from collapse due to demographics?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Bush plans to abolish Social Security by creating record budget deficits, then creating a "plan" that takes money from Social Security which will have to be funded by another $2 trillion in "loans" that will add to the Bush deficits until it's impossible to fund the program any longer. Killing Social Security is the fondest dream of Bush and the Texas oil millionaires Eisenhower referred to.

Eisenhower, now there was a true Republican.

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really wish you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.

One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.

You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


You still haven't explained how he's "trying to destroy it". In fact, BUSH still hasn't explained how he's trying to destroy it. This is just more of your reactionary claptrap. I'm all for slamming Bush if his plan seems like it will fvck up SS, but until we actually SEE what the plan is, how can we do that with legitimacy?

The answer: We CAN'T

Jason

He's trying to destroy it by suggesting a "plan" which, by his own admission, does NOTHING to "fix" Social Security and indeed will cause another $2 trillion in debt to be incurred by an administration that already holds the record on debt.

You have a link for where he told us all exactly what the plan is and at the same time explicitly stated that it will do "Nothing" to fix the problem? I mean, if plans are available for review and you've managed to find their detailed documentation, I'd love to see them. Please?

Jason

Take the time to read through one of the myriad threads on Social Security here. The info has been posted already. I'm not going through the trouble of finding it for you again since you're obviously too lazy to read it anyway.

:)

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.



 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.



I am not sure how our generation is going to steal from ourselfs? After all we will still be our kids parents .....
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.



I am not sure how our generation is going to steal from ourselfs? After all we will still be our kids parents .....

What about those people below 55 who will have their benefits cut if we can believe what Bush said in his news conference this week? Aren't they getting robbed? Weren't they forced to pay into the system and now they're being told the system can't afford to pay them?

Didn't anyone in the Bush administration see this "crisis" coming when they insisted on emptying the Treasury with their budget busting tax cuts?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.



I am not sure how our generation is going to steal from ourselfs? After all we will still be our kids parents .....

What about those people below 55 who will have their benefits cut if we can believe what Bush said in his news conference this week? Aren't they getting robbed? Weren't they forced to pay into the system and now they're being told the system can't afford to pay them?

You mean those same people that will have only 70% of their benefits paid out if nothing is done..... My generation is going to get screwed and my kids and grandkids are going to get screwed worse by SS. But I guess we should follow your advice and continue a bad system.


Didn't anyone in the Bush administration see this "crisis" coming when they insisted on emptying the Treasury with their budget busting tax cuts?

Clinton saw the crisis coming too...
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.



I am not sure how our generation is going to steal from ourselfs? After all we will still be our kids parents .....

What about those people below 55 who will have their benefits cut if we can believe what Bush said in his news conference this week? Aren't they getting robbed? Weren't they forced to pay into the system and now they're being told the system can't afford to pay them?

You mean those same people that will have only 70% of their benefits paid out if nothing is done..... My generation is going to get screwed and my kids and grandkids are going to get screwed worse by SS. But I guess we should follow your advice and continue a bad system.


Didn't anyone in the Bush administration see this "crisis" coming when they insisted on emptying the Treasury with their budget busting tax cuts?

Clinton saw the crisis coming too...

And Clinton left Bush with a surplus that could have been used to repay Social Security but instead Bush decided to whack up the pot with his friends who donated so generously to help him steal the 2000 election.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond

And the plan won't "collapse" due to demographics. I really with you and Bush would stop repeating that outright lie.


Social security started out with 20 workers to each retiree
soon it will be 2 works per each retireee


Tell me how this demographic does not affect social security and how it is a lie.




One more time, Social Security will pay seventy percent of benefits even if nothing at all is done.



It will also require payroll taxes to be about 20% payroll tax on my kids and grandkids to pay out at 70%. A raw deal for all involved. But you got yours, what do you care?



You know what the funniest part of all of this is? Whether you get your private accounts or not. Whether there is a plan put in place that actually "fixes" Social Security or not. In 35 years you'll whoever is in power will be trying to rob you all over again, just like you're trying to rob us.

How are you going to be robbed again? Those who are over 55 will not have their benefits changed.

I don't agree with the idea that as long as my benefits aren't affected I shouldn't care about anyone else being short changed.

You people keep crying about some theoretical theft from "our children" but you aren't at all concerned with the real theft you're attempting against their parents.



How exactly are we stealing from our parents, by not changing their benefits from SS.

But you are not going to answer this one either....

If you would read what I wrote you'd have your answers.

I didn't say you're stealing from your parents. I said you people keep saying we're stealing from our children but you're trying to steal from THEIR PARENTS.



I am not sure how our generation is going to steal from ourselfs? After all we will still be our kids parents .....

What about those people below 55 who will have their benefits cut if we can believe what Bush said in his news conference this week? Aren't they getting robbed? Weren't they forced to pay into the system and now they're being told the system can't afford to pay them?

You mean those same people that will have only 70% of their benefits paid out if nothing is done..... My generation is going to get screwed and my kids and grandkids are going to get screwed worse by SS. But I guess we should follow your advice and continue a bad system.


Didn't anyone in the Bush administration see this "crisis" coming when they insisted on emptying the Treasury with their budget busting tax cuts?

Clinton saw the crisis coming too...

And Clinton left Bush with a surplus that could have been used to repay Social Security but instead Bush decided to whack up the pot with his friends who donated so generously to help him steal the 2000 election.



Somehow you think there would not have been a recession after the dot com bubble and 911. You are delusional and the debt still expanded under clintons term. The last time our debt contracted was almost 40 years ago and that was a blip. The surplus was spent...

Care to address the other points about the current state of SS. It appears you only want to run from that.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
The "dot.com bubble" you people are so fond of blaming everything you don't blame 9/11 for has nothing to do with the fact that Bush pushed through a huge tax cut aimed mainly at his contributors.

If Bush was so acutely aware of the impending "crisis" in Social Security, why did he go and do a fool thing like that???

I've addressed every point you brought up. It appears you only want to ignore that. As well as the above question.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
The "dot.com bubble" you people are so fond of blaming everything you don't blame 9/11 for has nothing to do with the fact that Bush pushed through a huge tax cut aimed mainly at his contributors.


A recession was coming, to deny it is delusion, and apparently you are.


If Bush was so acutely aware of the impending "crisis" in Social Security, why did he go and do a fool thing like that???


I guess he should have taxed our way into prosperity. We know how well that works...



I've addressed every point you brought up. It appears you only want to ignore that. As well as the above question.


You have yet to address how my kids payin 20% payroll taxes for my retirement at only a 70% payout is a good for both generations. And that is if nothing is done .

But you are going torun from this as well.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
The "dot.com bubble" you people are so fond of blaming everything you don't blame 9/11 for has nothing to do with the fact that Bush pushed through a huge tax cut aimed mainly at his contributors.


A recession was coming, to deny it is delusion, and apparently you are.


If Bush was so acutely aware of the impending "crisis" in Social Security, why did he go and do a fool thing like that???


I guess he should have taxed our way into prosperity. We know how well that works...



I've addressed every point you brought up. It appears you only want to ignore that. As well as the above question.


You have yet to address how my kids payin 20% payroll taxes for my retirement at only a 70% payout is a good for both generations. And that is if nothing is done .

But you are going torun from this as well.

Your kids won't have to if a genuine effort is made to "fix" Social Security now. It was done in 1983 already but someone spent the money.

Now considering that the past three Republican presidents are responsible for the highest deficits in our nation's history just who do you think that someone could be?

If you're so worried about your kids you should insist that the cap on FICA earnings be eliminated. Then the system will be fixed. ;)

And Bush won't get to destroy Social Security.

There is very little left of the programs that actually help working Americans. At least most Americans are smart enough to demand Bush keep his thieving hands off of Social Security.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
PS The surplus was already there. How do you call that taxing our way into prosperity?

You're just getting ridiculous now.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond


Your kids won't have to if a genuine effort is made to "fix" Social Security now. It was done in 1983 already but someone spent the money.

A yes the only effort you like is raising taxes. That has been done about 20 times already to fix social security. It has only resulted in more payroll taxes.


Now considering that the past three Republican presidents are responsible for the highest deficits in our nation's history just who do you think that someone could be?

Well both democrats and republicans are to blame, congress getting a huge chunk of the blame(which has been largely held by democrats). But there is enough blame to go around.




If you're so worried about your kids you should insist that the cap on FICA earnings be eliminated. Then the system will be fixed. ;)

Actually that will only fix about 1/2 the funding the problems. But we have been down that road, and you still claim otherwise.




And Bush won't get to destroy Social Security.
nor is he trying

There is very little left of the programs that actually help working Americans. At least most Americans are smart enough to demand Bush keep his thieving hands off of Social Security.

Most of the $2.5T budget is filled with handouts to people and business alike, so I have no iidea what you are talking about.



But Basing on what you said, You think my kids paying 20% payroll taxes for my reduced SS benefits is a good idea. But hey, at you got yours....