No reasoning with the elderly on issue of Social Security

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 5/24/05 | Ruben Navarrette

[CSM]

Actually, you were going by what another poster said.....

[CSM]

NRST

[xrp]

Anytime. Your right to my money ENDS when it detracts from my ability to provide a good quality of life for my family.

[Doctor Stochastic]

inter alia

[chronic_loser]

It's really about "we're used to the idea of getting hand-outs", 1st proffered by that god called FDR.

Greatest gen, my butt. 1st gen to start milking the system. As well as to teach the younger 1s it's all OK and normal and a RIGHT.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have to disagree. This was a generation who did not mind (or at least did not bitch about) making horrific sacrifices for good. I know my mom would. It is just that they still view government as a protector and providor, rather than a leech and a thief. I have a feeling that most of them would be willing to sacrifice AGAIN for the next gen if they thought it was just "one more" they had to make for the long term stability of the kids. The problem is that they have a misplaced trust. Kinda like feeling sorry for the poor beggar on the sidewalk and giving him money, when that poor beggar is actually the one dealing crack to your kid. Motivations, however noble, are no substitute for being wide awake.

[tnlibertarian]

I'm 55 years old and I've personally had over $200K taken out of may pay over the last 20 years for Social Security -- double that if you count the amount my employers have paid on my behalf.

I don't want to pick nits, but the above is impossible. FICA is, what, 6% up to $90,000 right now? $5400 max. $10,800 if you include your 'empolyer's' portion. And it was less than $90,000 max for most of the last twenty years, meaning an average (probably) of less than $10k/year for both portions. Your and your employer's tax for the last 20 years can't be $200k, much less yours alone.

I am not saying that SS doesn't need to be changed, it does. But arguing with false numbers doesn't help.

[CSM]

Except it is the only one gaining sponsorship for legitimate legislation.

[hosepipe]

The "Elderly" are the largest single socialist voting block in America.. The ones that should know "don't".. or don't care.. that socialism is Slavery by Government..

Anybody know, say, a "REPUBLICAN" that would turn DOWN a government CHECK.?...

How bout' you.?.. Would YOU turn down a federal government check.?.... Socialism is insidious.. thats why its a social disease.. not easily CURED..

[KC_for_Freedom]

It's the FDR / New Deal worship factor

You have it about right. You did not mention the democratic party run AARP. They support anything that will hurt Bush. (Even though Bush got their support for his drug plan, they AARP quickly kicked him in the rear by saying that the plan was not all they wanted. The AARP has been agains private accounts because they will take money from the government and keep it in private hands, thus the government has less to spend to buy democratic votes. Of course taking the money from the government is the only way to stop the government from spending it. Much of the ove 55 crowd believe the AARP is looking our for their interests, and overlook the support for democratic party interests, but FDR was part of the democratic party, so maybe they are the same.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I don't mean they're horrible. That's not the case. But they were truly the 1st sheeple gen.

I just hate the moniker "Greatest" - very recently penned by liberal Brokaw, making HIM famous.

The greatest gen of the US will forever be the "founding generation". Now THAT was sacrifice. As well as selfless self-sustenance.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I'm the older generation. I'm retired. I really don't care what you do with Social Security. I will tell you this...You have not figured out anything! Government does not keep promises. They are not out to fix Social Security. They want a bigger bite of your money.

You are so right, so why not accept private accounts and let people keep their money. The government will have to learn to get along without this "tax". Surely this would be a good thing from your point of view? Yes?

It is not about fixing social security althought a lifetime of investment would build a bigger nest egg than social security ever would. But just to take the money away from the government warms my heart. BTW, I am retired as well, not drawing SS, but living on investments I salted away myself.

[GOP_1900AD]

AARP = DNC violation of so called "Campaign Finance Reform Laws"

[KC_for_Freedom]

The "Elderly" are the largest single socialist voting block in America.. The ones that should know "don't".. or don't care.. that socialism is Slavery by Government..

The elderly are socialistic because they are informed by the AARP (which is socialistic). Most people on SS believe they are taking out that which they put in, never realizing that after a few years they end up taking out much more than they contributed.

As for turning down the money. Even if someone tried to "prove" that I don't need it, I want it the same as the next person. I believe if you commit to any program and allow people to base their plans on it, then a contract has been created. That is why I agree with the concept that change should be Phased in at the level of the newly employeed. Private accounts are such a program. Means testing and changing the age of collection are not.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Defined contributions" are much better than "defined benefits." This is the essence of the Bush SS plan. At least (especially in the private sector) you can take it with you.

[hunter112]

Ruben Navarrette

What a Jerk.

He's a liberal, for sure, I read his column regularly in the SLC Tribune. He's pretty big on giving amnesty to illegals, but with his Latino background, I sort of expect that. But on occasion, he does see some truth, and is not afraid to write about it in his column.

I think he did us all a favor with this one, by telling of his own personal frustrations with the aging New Dealers. To them, the whole scheme has been a magic money machine, put in a very few bucks back in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's, when postwar prosperity was lifting this country to new heights, like the world had never seen, and reap COLA-adjusted bennies until you croak. They fail to realize that by the time the postwar prosperity was starting to peter out (about 1970, by my reckoning) what saved the Social Security system from collapse was all those baby boomers entering the workforce in massive numbers.

Now, the boomers are standing at the door, waiting for their handout, but there's not enough money coming in through the door to keep the pyramid going. I'm glad that Navarette sees this for what it is, we need more liberals who do not merely stick their heads up their butts.

[chronic_loser]

How bout' you.?.. Would YOU turn down a federal government check.?.>>>

I would....., and did. When I was in grad school I made under $11,000 one year. Two kids. It was what you would call "tight." I checked off the taxes (zero owed) and sent in my return. I got a check back saying that I qualified for some crap b/c I had kids. I called the IRS and told them it was IMMORAL to steal from other people when I was able bodied and able to work. I know the receptionist thought I was some nut. She did say if I sent it back they would just send it back again. She said to just destroy it if I was philosophically opposed to the idea, and that it would go back in to the treasury after 3 years.

[chronic_loser]

How bout' you.?.. Would YOU turn down a federal government check.?.>>>

I would....., and did. When I was in grad school I made under $11,000 one year. Two kids. It was what you would call "tight." I checked off the taxes (zero owed) and sent in my return. I got a check back saying that I qualified for some crap b/c I had kids. I called the IRS and told them it was IMMORAL to steal from other people when I was able bodied and able to work. I know the receptionist thought I was some nut. She did say if I sent it back they would just send it back again. She said to just destroy it if I was philosophically opposed to the idea, and that it would go back in to the treasury after 3 years.

[CIDKauf]

I am not advocating to back this system, don't get me wrong. The government propped up the elderly following the Great Depression by starting this "welfare", and avoided the mass exodus of the starving elderly. We do not need this system at all, and I would back a completely privitized system as suggeted in the CATO plan.

http:www.socialsecurity.com/catoplan/

[fooman]

agreed.

[Melas]

You people scare the holy crap out of me. There are times I'm ashamed you're my countryman. Now we have so-called conservatives calling for the elderly to tighten an already tight belt. I wouldn't blame Jim if he closed up shop in total disgust.