It's that time of year, acknowledge the white elephant in the room... - Page 2

TankRizzo · 03-26-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

thank the fuck christ, good post

people cry about SS EVERY FUCKING YEAR, year my grandfather still is getting his checks, and the problem is always decades away, in the next 10 years, we'll reorganize it slightly and the problem won't be solved but it'll be pushed off for another 20 years, we'll do this for the rest of my life and everyone will be fine

It's a GOP talking point

We're going to have to start paying back money that was borrowed in 8 years and the projections lead to the program being bankrupt. I hardly see how it's not a problem.

Also, how is it a republican talking point? Hillary is the only one who I've heard has even thought about addressing the problem (although I'm sure I don't want to hear her solution). How is the republican party gaining from this???

Thorgrim · 03-26-2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

We're going to have to start paying back money that was borrowed in 8 years and the projections lead to the program being bankrupt. I hardly see how it's not a problem.

Also, how is it a republican talking point? Hillary is the only one who I've heard has even thought about addressing the problem (although I'm sure I don't want to hear her solution). How is the republican party gaining from this???

They've ALWAYS been saying that, this is seriously like the 10th "social security crisis" and my god we've been talking about it for the past 3 years, and we haven't done one god damn thing, and no one cares, because deep down they know it doesn't matter

The GOP hates SS, it's one of the most successful new deal plans and it's one of liberalisms biggest successes (if you're disagreeing, you didn't vote for Gore, like most of the country did...which why you are out of touch on this issue)

WickedLou9 · 03-26-2008, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

So it's a reverse lottery then? We all pay in and if we fucked up then when we hit 65 we get to collect?

For the life of me I can't figure out how to avoid this. If they get hammered at 40 and don't have money at retirement then we give them some. But if they make it to 63 and then blow it all we say "HAHA FUCK YOU!" and let them rot?

The reason we have the problem we do now is exactly because we wont' let someone rot. How can you make a system that keeps people from blowing their money if we're not going to tell someone to fuck off when they do blow it?

It's definately not simple. But I think we need to move away from SS being a government forced retirement plan. For those of us capable of funding our own retirements I think we should not be allowed to take government money. It's not right for someone who has millions and millons of dollars saved up to be taking a pitiful little check from social security. They don't care about it, it's nothing to them, it could be put to better use. If we could somehow make it need based we could decrease the tax burden on everyone else and make sure that the people who actually need the money get it. Maybe the payment system could be graduated or something. I don't pretend to know all the answers to this. If I had all the answers I would be running for US senate right now.

TankRizzo · 03-26-2008, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They've ALWAYS been saying that, this is seriously like the 10th "social security crisis" and my god we've been talking about it for the past 3 years, and we haven't done one god damn thing, and no one cares, because deep down they know it doesn't matter

The GOP hates SS, it's one of the most successful new deal plans and it's one of liberalisms biggest successes (if you're disagreeing, you didn't vote for Gore, like most of the country did...which why you are out of touch on this issue)

How is it a great success? You act like people collecting SS are living on easy street. It's not anywhere near enough for people who "need" it and it's a joke for those who don't.

hsmith · 03-26-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

How is it a great success? You act like people collecting SS are living on easy street. It's not anywhere near enough for people who "need" it and it's a joke for those who don't.

And he forgets to mention, every time they "save it" they 1) reduce benefits, 2) move up the age 3) raise taxes

yeah, you really save it when you diminish it

Thorgrim · 03-26-2008, 04:47 PM

its safety net that non-white-privileged-look-down-on-the-poor need

when will some people realize, THEY DON'T WANT ANY RISK, I don't care how much it "could" help them

And it IS enough for many people...many many people live off SS check to check, and would living in the gutters without it...just because YOU THINK it's not enough doesn't make it so

McCain will not make this an election issue because he is not as out of touch as some people are

7960 · 03-26-2008, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's definately not simple. But I think we need to move away from SS being a government forced retirement plan. For those of us capable of funding our own retirements I think we should not be allowed to take government money. It's not right for someone who has millions and millons of dollars saved up to be taking a pitiful little check from social security. They don't care about it, it's nothing to them, it could be put to better use. If we could somehow make it need based we could decrease the tax burden on everyone else and make sure that the people who actually need the money get it. Maybe the payment system could be graduated or something. I don't pretend to know all the answers to this. If I had all the answers I would be running for US senate right now.

so the cliffs version is "we go from everyone pays in so everyone collects" to "everyone pays in so a few people can collect"

so double-cliffs version is http://www.google.com/search?q=from+...S176US207&aq=t

northhunter · 03-26-2008, 05:42 PM

I almost, yes almost feel bad mentioning that I no longer have to pay in to social security. When the county agency I work for merged with another county about 10 years ago we opted out. Now each employee can invest that money as they choose within the plan voted on by the employees union. I like the personal control we have and of course knowing we can't go broke like SSI can helps too. Let me correct that, I suppose if you made high risk investments you could go broke, but I don't have that worry.
Because I had some time ago completed my "40 quarters" the ammount of years worked to earn regular SSI retirement I'll get that too when I reach retirement age. Too bad everyone can't have the same choice we had but the reasoning, or so we were told is that we have a retirement plan seperate from SSI. That is what made us eligable for the opt out.

A_C_E · 03-26-2008, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

We're going to have to start paying back money that was borrowed in 8 years and the projections lead to the program being bankrupt. I hardly see how it's not a problem.

Also, how is it a republican talking point? Hillary is the only one who I've heard has even thought about addressing the problem (although I'm sure I don't want to hear her solution). How is the republican party gaining from this???

That's because the projections are all COMPLETELY wrong.

They undershoot the amount of money that will be paid into the system by roughly 3500%.

Unless the trend GDP growth over the past 130 years all of a sudden changes for no reason.

A_C_E · 03-26-2008, 07:39 PM

Also, we don't really need to "pay back" any loans.

The only borrowing that's gone on as far as the SS Trust Fund goes is the government borrowing from itself. It's nothing more than creative accounting. Anything thought otherwise regarding SS debt is just smokescreens and sensationalism.

WickedLou9 · 03-26-2008, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

so the cliffs version is "we go from everyone pays in so everyone collects" to "everyone pays in so a few people can collect"

so double-cliffs version is from each according to his ability to each according to his need - Google Search

Hey, I said: "call me a socialist, but..."
We already have programs like this for food stamps, welfare, education assistance, etc. Despite the stigma you have attached to this sort of red commie stuff, you and I would both be better off because we could use our own money and invest it however we want. Those with the means would be able to make more money in the private market and those that need the money would get it. It's much better than the system we have now. What would you advocate? eliminating the system altogether? and what of those people too old to re-enter the work force but who have exhausted thier savings by age 80? Should we let them die on the streets?
When it all boils down, my solution is smaller, results in lower taxes and more investment in the free market. Maybe it has some socialist leanings but it's rooted in the desire to allow more control over ones own personal finances.