Why should people be given a choice on SS ?

[Genx87]

because even at just above poverty, its still livable, something is better than nothing, and to you second sentence, if the pubs hadn't blow through the surplus and put us in an indefinate state of military spending expansion, this would be a non-issue, but that digressing

In 40 years when it goes below the poverty line then what?

because i worked my ass off in high school, i got an academic/athletic scholarship, i have a college degree, i have no debt at all, i own my car, i have about 10-11k in stocks, this is what education get you if you respect it, can you say the same about yourself, againt i'm digressing

1. Althetic scholarship - Check, played football\track
2. Debt - Car payment is all
3. Stocks? - a little over 40K at this point and rising
4. College degree? Check, Bachelors of Science in MIS

I can say the same about myself. :thumbsup:

that was 140 years ago, parties change, the major racist element of the slavery/ democratic party have moved to your republican party, look at trent lott and strom thurmond

Huh? The democrats have a former KKK member in their ranks.

And McCarthy was 50 years ago. Thank you for making my point.

i brought up mcCarthyism because you gopies cannot answer my simple question, i have yet to see a thread where one of you brownshirt answers that question, "HOW DID MCCARTHY COME TO POWER, WHY DID HE FALL" then you'll realise whats wrong with the fringes of your party that are currently running the country

look at the parrallels between your "election boot observers and right to challenge voting credentials and the civil rights movement, you will seem some simmilarities, history is repeating itself whether you want to admit it or not

Maybe we dont answer the question because this is a thread about "Social Security" and not "How did McCarthy come to power"???

Come back with something critical or constructive about Social Security. If you want to discuss McCarthy at least have the decency to create your own thread and not crap this one.

come back to me when you are 75, and hypothetically, with a zero balance savings due to failure to invest properly ? How will you handle a situation like that ?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? We have already explained to you if the a program like the thrift program goes belly up chances are real high the govt has collapsed.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm

I'm sorry, but even though you maybe a financial whiz, I assume the majority of this nation are not quite as investment savvy as you. Would you agree ?

In all honesty, yes. But it's not my right to tell other people how to live their lives. To me, it's similar to the First Amendment; even if some people are abusing it (in my personal opinion) by distributing Nazi Party materials, I can't just revoke their speech rights for not using them 'wisely'.

Either way, even for a investment tycoon such as yourself, the market is an undeniable risk.

Life=risk; big deal. If someone doesn't like risk, there's always T-bills. Small risk, small return. That's why I have some money there.

You may thing that risk is small...but I beleive that ANY risk with such an importat system is too much of a gamble to take.

I would prefer a system that basically just took my SS moneys, locked them up, and gave them back when I retire. Obviously the system has been abused, and must be repaired, but it doesn't change what I envision as the perfect scenario.

Hey, guess what - if you want to stick with SS, that's fine, I have no problem with your decision! That's your right! I don't make decisions for you, and I don't know why you think you need to do so for me.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Are you being obtuse on purpose? We have already explained to you if the a program like the thrift program goes belly up chances are real high the govt has collapsed.

How can you be so sure about this theory of yours ? Even if the chances are "real high", they are still far from guaranteed.

so...like I said before, any risk is a huge risk, to me.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm

I'm sorry, but even though you maybe a financial whiz, I assume the majority of this nation are not quite as investment savvy as you. Would you agree ?

In all honesty, yes. But it's not my right to tell other people how to live their lives. To me, it's similar to the First Amendment; even if some people are abusing it (in my personal opinion) by distributing Nazi Party materials, I can't just revoke their speech rights for not using them 'wisely'.

Either way, even for a investment tycoon such as yourself, the market is an undeniable risk.

Life=risk; big deal. If someone doesn't like risk, there's always T-bills. Small risk, small return. That's why I have some money there.

You may thing that risk is small...but I beleive that ANY risk with such an importat system is too much of a gamble to take.

I would prefer a system that basically just took my SS moneys, locked them up, and gave them back when I retire. Obviously the system has been abused, and must be repaired, but it doesn't change what I envision as the perfect scenario.

Hey, guess what - if you want to stick with SS, that's fine, I have no problem with your decision! That's your right! I don't make decisions for you, and I don't know why you think you need to do so for me.

all I can say is that it is extremely selfish, IMHO, to burden the rest of society with your own selfish choices. Whether you want to beleive it or not, your investments may fail. I want to be insured against that. I want to protect myself from you, basically. I also want to protect society from my mistakes, as well.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm
Simple fact is that we cannot trust the majority of the people to invest wisely/properly.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant either way.

Why can't we just remove the caps on SS contributions ?

If you want to pay more, I'm not going to stop you. But as for me, I'd like more of a say in where my money goes.

Why can't we just enact legislation that keeps our governments hands off our SS money ?

That's like letting the convicts run the prison. You expect Congress to pass a law telling Congress not to rob the SS fund!?! Maybe you aren't smart enough to control your own money after all. Better send it to me.

Why can't we just repeal the Bush tax cuts to help pay down our debt and allow SS to regain its value ?

Why don't we just start cutting some of these programs we can't afford?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm
all I can say is that it is extremely selfish, IMHO, to burden the rest of society with your own selfish choices . Whether you want to beleive it or not, your investments may fail. I want to be insured against that. I want to protect myself from you, basically. I also want to protect society from my mistakes, as well.

I asked you before to show when I've ever been a burden on you, or anyone other than my parents. I suggest you either answer, or apologize. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm
all I can say is that it is extremely selfish, IMHO, to burden the rest of society with your own selfish choices . Whether you want to beleive it or not, your investments may fail. I want to be insured against that. I want to protect myself from you, basically. I also want to protect society from my mistakes, as well.

I asked you before to show when I've ever been a burden on you, or anyone other than my parents. I suggest you either answer, or apologize. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

don't take any of this personally, please. It is the collective "you" , as in the entire US, that I am directing those comments to. We both agree that the majority of this country has no idea how to properly invest, though they still may give it a shot.

 

[cwjerome]

"Why should people be given a choice on SS ?"

Why should people be given a choice on anything?

Polm, you might want to sneak in some principles along with your pragmaticism.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Why should people be given a choice on SS ?"

Why should people be given a choice on anything?

Polm, you might want to sneak in some principles along with your pragmaticism.

everything has it's appropriate place...even choice. I'm not one to apply the same opinion on freedoms to all situations.

I'm typically pro choice when the outcome only affects the chooser. I am typically against choice when the outcome negatively impacts others in an obvious and direct way.

again, I am still not sure about the SS thing. There are good points from both sides. I just want to make sure that my choices, or the choices of others, don't affect the rest of society in a more negative way.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: polm
all I can say is that it is extremely selfish, IMHO, to burden the rest of society with your own selfish choices . Whether you want to beleive it or not, your investments may fail. I want to be insured against that. I want to protect myself from you, basically. I also want to protect society from my mistakes, as well.

I asked you before to show when I've ever been a burden on you, or anyone other than my parents. I suggest you either answer, or apologize. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

don't take any of this personally, please. It is the collective "you" , as in the entire US, that I am directing those comments to. We both agree that the majority of this country has no idea how to properly invest, though they still may give it a shot.

Look, I know you mean well and all; no good person likes to see others suffer, but other adults are not your (or my) responsibility. People need to take responsibility for themselves, and I think a nanny-state type of government just breeds dependence. I also believe in charity towards victims of tragedy and circumstance, but support of charity should be strictly voluntary.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, CsG, except you left out the most important part-

"Basically, what you and the Bush Admin are saying is that we can't trust the govt to fulfill their obligations because the people running the govt are corrupt, and borrowing us into an inescapable hole. But wait a sec... who's running the govt?"

Is this a symptom of some form of denial by omission induced by belief in faith-based uber right agitprop?

What is there to back up private investments, other than the value of corporate assets? Typically, creditors only get a nickel on the dollar in corporate bankruptcy, stockholders get nada... and there's no additional recourse whatsoever.

No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account.
Sheesh, if you'd take a moment to take off your little storm trooper helmet - you might just have understood this reality instead of flailing wildly in you quest to blame the right.

CsG

 

[Genx87]

How can you be so sure about this theory of yours ? Even if the chances are "real high", they are still far from guaranteed.

so...like I said before, any risk is a huge risk, to me.

So you are being obtuse. Lets just say the chances of the thrift fund collapsing and SS not being paid back by the Govt are the same.

If any risk is a huge risk to you then I suggest digging a hole in the ground and only breathing sterilized air and drinking sterilized water. Any risk is a huge risk to you.

all I can say is that it is extremely selfish, IMHO, to burden the rest of society with your own selfish choices. Whether you want to beleive it or not, your investments may fail. I want to be insured against that. I want to protect myself from you, basically. I also want to protect society from my mistakes, as well.

Oh the irony of this statement.

 

[StageLeft]

That's why you don't let people ACTUALLY CONTROL where their money goes. People are far too stupid, which is why we have this entire SS mess in the first place. They should have some few options of approved funds or something like that, and the fund managers choose where it goes in. Hell, just set them up with an S&P 500 index. Actually letting people control where their money goes for this would be lunacy. Most people just don't have the brains/discipline to handle it, as evidenced well by the fact that so many people rely so heavily on SS in the first place (they're too stupid to plan for retirement sufficiently).

SS needs a major overhaul, starting with vastly cutting back the number of people who qualify for it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

SS needs a major overhaul, starting with vastly cutting back the number of people who qualify for it.

While that would go a long way toward making it fiscally solvent, how is that even close to fair?!? It wasn't sold as (yet another) welfare program, but means-testing would essentially make it welfare for seniors. If the feds are making everyone pay in, they can't just say "Hey, we're running out of money, so those of you who were smart enough to start private accounts are just going to have to give up any SS benefits for which you might've paid!"

 

[Jhhnn]

From CsG-

"No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account."

Whatever would make you believe that the Government's financial situation is precarious, CsG? Headlines like these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41395-2005Mar16.html

And, of course, neither you nor the current Repub Leadership want to talk about what to do in 2018, or sooner, if SS revenues are siphoned off into private accounts... It'll be tough to just borrow more money, after the Repubs max out our credit line...

Tell me, explain it all very carefully, what private accounts and more debt now will do to alleviate those cashflow problems... Explain how people who've paid extra into SS for the previous 35 years, creating a surplus, should settle for reduced benefits? Because they were dumb enough to vote Republican?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account."

Whatever would make you believe that the Government's financial situation is precarious, CsG? Headlines like these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41395-2005Mar16.html

And, of course, neither you nor the current Repub Leadership want to talk about what to do in 2018, or sooner, if SS revenues are siphoned off into private accounts... It'll be tough to just borrow more money, after the Repubs max out our credit line...

Tell me, explain it all very carefully, what private accounts and more debt now will do to alleviate those cashflow problems... Explain how people who've paid extra into SS for the previous 35 years, creating a surplus, should settle for reduced benefits? Because they were dumb enough to vote Republican?

:roll:
No where did I state the Government's "financial situation is precarious" so take your strawmen elsewhere. Kthx

Tell me why people shouldn't have a say in how THEIR SS "contributions" are handled. Do you think SS is a retirement plan or is it welfare? It can't be both - yet it seems some of you play both sides to whine about changes to SS. Define what SS is intended to do instead of switching goalposts when you feel it's convenient.

CsG

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account."

Whatever would make you believe that the Government's financial situation is precarious, CsG? Headlines like these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41395-2005Mar16.html

And, of course, neither you nor the current Repub Leadership want to talk about what to do in 2018, or sooner, if SS revenues are siphoned off into private accounts... It'll be tough to just borrow more money, after the Repubs max out our credit line...

Tell me, explain it all very carefully, what private accounts and more debt now will do to alleviate those cashflow problems... Explain how people who've paid extra into SS for the previous 35 years, creating a surplus, should settle for reduced benefits? Because they were dumb enough to vote Republican?

Tell me why people shouldn't have a say in how THEIR SS "contributions" are handled.
CsG

Those who have paid the least into this system, like you, bitch the loudest. You might get the cracker, polly, but you won't get to opt any money out of SS. Get used to it.

Please explain to us why people should have a say in how their SS contributions are handled? God forbid but what if you lost your ability to work? Would you be pissed about those paultry SS deductions then? Going to burn that check every month when it comes? I am sure your wife makes money too but play along, you catch my drift. What kind of program should we have in place and how should we pay for it should something terrible happen to bread winners if this stupid SS ductions are making you so upset? I know I don't plan on SS being around when we reach age 65. We have planned for our future outside of the SS system. I am sure a smart guy like you has done the same. I think we need to overhaul SS, not allow people to pay less into it just because they know how to manage their money better. That really isn't the point, is it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account."

Whatever would make you believe that the Government's financial situation is precarious, CsG? Headlines like these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41395-2005Mar16.html

And, of course, neither you nor the current Repub Leadership want to talk about what to do in 2018, or sooner, if SS revenues are siphoned off into private accounts... It'll be tough to just borrow more money, after the Repubs max out our credit line...

Tell me, explain it all very carefully, what private accounts and more debt now will do to alleviate those cashflow problems... Explain how people who've paid extra into SS for the previous 35 years, creating a surplus, should settle for reduced benefits? Because they were dumb enough to vote Republican?

Tell me why people shouldn't have a say in how THEIR SS "contributions" are handled.
CsG

Those who have paid the least into this system, like you, bitch the loudest. You might get the cracker, polly, but you won't get to opt any money out of SS. Get used to it.

Yeah, fsck the people who will see nothing from the scam called SS because the old farts want to double dip. How nice.:roll:

Now try answering the question.

CsG

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"No, it's that the people who are whining about the "risk" and losing everything have to realize that the current system is built on imaginary monies and poses just as much risk if not more than investing a small portion of one's contributions(tax) in a person investment account."

Whatever would make you believe that the Government's financial situation is precarious, CsG? Headlines like these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41395-2005Mar16.html

And, of course, neither you nor the current Repub Leadership want to talk about what to do in 2018, or sooner, if SS revenues are siphoned off into private accounts... It'll be tough to just borrow more money, after the Repubs max out our credit line...

Tell me, explain it all very carefully, what private accounts and more debt now will do to alleviate those cashflow problems... Explain how people who've paid extra into SS for the previous 35 years, creating a surplus, should settle for reduced benefits? Because they were dumb enough to vote Republican?

Tell me why people shouldn't have a say in how THEIR SS "contributions" are handled.
CsG

Those who have paid the least into this system, like you, bitch the loudest. You might get the cracker, polly, but you won't get to opt any money out of SS. Get used to it.

Yeah, fsck the people who will see nothing from the scam called SS because the old farts want to double dip. How nice.:roll:

Now try answering the question.

CsG

See above. There is no need to answer your question. You have never had a say in how contributions are handled so I don't need to explain to you why you SHOULD have a say in 2005. I would like some of the money I have dumping into my TIAA-CREF but hell, they don't seem to think I am capible in having a say in how my contributions are handled either until I turn 65 or die. Life isn't fair like that. Personally, I would spend more of my time and energy padding my retirement than pissing and moaning about SS taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh, ever the disingenuous Csg. First, we get the claim that the SS trust is imaginary money, and maybe more risky than private investment, yet he never claimed that the govt's financial situation was precarious... In your own words, Csg, "can't have it both ways".

SS is neither a "retirement plan" nor "welfare"- it's insurance, and is clearly defined as such. It's an important part of the traditional three legged stool used to define prudent planning for retirement- savings, investments, and SS.

Not that you, or the current Repub leadership have any intention of actually addressing the real "SS crisis", but could you please tell us how private accounts address the 2018 issue, or how fiscal thievery today somehow averts that looming problem? Can you even type out the numbers, 2-0-1-8?

Just because your ideological eskimo snow goggles won't let you see thru more than a very small slit, limiting your perception of reality, doesn't mean that others don't see more, or that reality is as narrow as you'd choose to define it...

Attempting to "Save SS" without addressing mounting and dangerous federal debt is perhaps the most amazing flabbergast ever attempted by the Repubs, their crowning glory, possibly the most cruel and callous hoax anybody has ever attempted to perpetrate on the American people. It's shameful, and your defense of it either willful blindness or willing complicity- can't have it both ways, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh, ever the disingenuous Csg. First, we get the claim that the SS trust is imaginary money, and maybe more risky than private investment, yet he never claimed that the govt's financial situation was precarious... In your own words, Csg, "can't have it both ways".

SS is neither a "retirement plan" nor "welfare"- it's insurance, and is clearly defined as such. It's an important part of the traditional three legged stool used to define prudent planning for retirement- savings, investments, and SS.

Not that you, or the current Repub leadership have any intention of actually addressing the real "SS crisis", but could you please tell us how private accounts address the 2018 issue, or how fiscal thievery today somehow averts that looming problem? Can you even type out the numbers, 2-0-1-8?

Just because your ideological eskimo snow goggles won't let you see thru more than a very small slit, limiting your perception of reality, doesn't mean that others don't see more, or that reality is as narrow as you'd choose to define it...

Attempting to "Save SS" without addressing mounting and dangerous federal debt is perhaps the most amazing flabbergast ever attempted by the Repubs, their crowning glory, possibly the most cruel and callous hoax anybody has ever attempted to perpetrate on the American people. It's shameful, and your defense of it either willful blindness or willing complicity- can't have it both ways, right?

:roll: Please show where I stated "claimed that the govt's financial situation was precarious" - that's right - I didn't. Now quit lying and STFU.

SS isn't insurance. You may want to claim it is. It may have once been a somewhat bastardized form of insurance -but as it is today - it is no where near insurance.
First - Insurance is a tool to lesson one's liability(risk). Insurance is voluntary - and SS is not a voluntary thing. It is a TAX. Insurance also needs to be backed by assets - SS has fake IOUs. But hey, it's the gov't so they don't have to follow the law - right?
Insurance is for an individual entity(account holder) - who is an acct holder in SS as it is today? That's right - no one.
You can try to nicey nice it up all you want but the FACT remains that SS is no where near insurance.

The only thing shameful is your pie in the sky view of SS. It is either welfare or a retirement system - it can't be both to be effective(which it is not today). If you want to make it welfare - fine. Lets mold the system to reach those who need help.(means testing and the whole works) But if it's a retirement system -then people need ownership of their contributions.

You can whine about it's cost all you want but remember - if it were up to me -the whole damn system would be scrapped. But hey, keep spewing on and on about those EVAL republicans.
Don't forget to click on the link in my sig - it seems to fit you

CsG

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
SS isn't insurance.
CsG

Ehh. Wrong answer. SS = Insurance 401K's = Retirement

Save for one, quit moaning about the other.

if it were up to me -the whole damn system would be scrapped

What do you compassionate conservatives propose we should do with those who collect SS due to the inability to work or due to the death of their parents before age 18? Are you willing to have taxes deducted from your paychecks to support a social system that takes care of these people? If so, how much or rather.... how little

I don't know why we are all spinning our wheels on this, it isn't going to pass.

Don't forget to click on the link in my sig - it seems to fit you

Is that cartoon a mirrored image? Bush should be holding the sword in his right hand. :roll:

 

[Jhhnn]

2-0-1-8, CsG! 2-0-1-8!

Can't even acknowledge the existence of the real fiscal crunch, can you? Or who's responsible, either- your cut taxes and borrow more money pals at the head of the Repulican Party.

And this, the usual and deceptive rightwing frame-

"But if it's a retirement system -then people need ownership of their contributions. "

Non-sequiter. I have a defined contribution pension plan thru my union and employer, over which I have no control, no "ownership" in the terms you're using. More people should have the same. Be jealous, be very, very jealous...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
2-0-1-8, CsG! 2-0-1-8!

Can't even acknowledge the existence of the real fiscal crunch, can you? Or who's responsible, either- your cut taxes and borrow more money pals at the head of the Repulican Party.

And this, the usual and deceptive rightwing frame-

"But if it's a retirement system -then people need ownership of their contributions. "

Non-sequiter. I have a defined contribution pension plan thru my union and employer, over which I have no control, no "ownership" in the terms you're using. More people should have the same. Be jealous, be very, very jealous...

Ah yes, the same old obtuse Jhhnn. Anyway, "2018" is not the point -the point is what the function of SS is. The OP wants to know why we should have a choice, but without defining it's function - one can't answer that(or will use whichever is convenient for their agenda of the hour like you.)
Control? No - you may not have control(who does:roll: - but it was a nice try anyway), but any contributions you make are credited to you. I have no doubt that someone like you who needs a union to do their bidding - wants the gov't to hold his hand through life. Disgusting.

Define what SS's purpose is - then we'll discuss which changes need made. No more moving goal posts.

CsG

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
While that would go a long way toward making it fiscally solvent, how is that even close to fair?!? It wasn't sold as (yet another) welfare program, but means-testing would essentially make it welfare for seniors. If the feds are making everyone pay in, they can't just say "Hey, we're running out of money, so those of you who were smart enough to start private accounts are just going to have to give up any SS benefits for which you might've paid!"

Actually, from what I know it was in part billed as an INSURANCE against not having money when you retire. I'm not positive on that. But look at medicaid...I pay money into it, but I'll only ever need anything for it if I'm too poor for something else. Otherwise it's a tax, basically, much like money I pay that goes into welfare (that I'll never use).

It's not fair, but whatever gets less money stolen from my paycheck and put in this JOKE of a retirement fund is good. If, instead of 12% put in, I could put in only 6%--but I never qualify for it ultimately--where do I sign up? I'll invest the other 6% myself and get far better returns anyway.