Posted on 09/14/2011 2:38:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said that most Americans do not understand that federal entitlements are not “bank account” programs that hold their money, adding that Social Security is not even a legal guarantee -- "Legally, they're not even promises." Cooper, asked about potential reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, said that the core problem was that the public does not understand the true nature of entitlements. “Many Americans don’t really realize that Medicare is a government program,” Cooper said at a press conference with fellow Blue Dogs on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
A nice little Catch-22 money scheme if there ever was one.
Perfectly right. I called Cooper this morning and stated what I did in the post. It’s puzzeling how anyone can work for people like this. What part of “my money” don’t they get?
If Obamacare is unconstitutional (as I believe) then this should be too.
The point isn’t that folks who wait til 65 have paid in longer and therefore get more. The point is that the folks who apply for their money at 62 are due the full amount, not just 75%. Why should they have to wait til 65?
What part of "it's just an income tax" and they never had any account with "your money" in it don't you get?
That’s pretty funny.
Okay, I guess I don’t follow you, what are you saying? Do you mean that people should get at 62 what they get now at 65? That would mean that people who retire at 65 should get a lot more than they do now. Can you elucidate?
I just want the money I put in the damn thing, not stupid benefits. The older crowd are the ones who continued to vote for this crap. They can have their benefits cut in half. Every politician who voted for this crap can have their retirements confiscated.
You get over it! I knew by the time I was 26 Social Security was a fraud.
I want out TODAY. I can't get out. I continue to get screwed week after week. I'll get screwed AGAIN this Friday. Don't tell me to get over it. It's money I could put somewhere else.
That's a really stupid analogy.
But you didn't put any money "in" to anything, other than you paid an income tax to the Treasury as me and 20 other posters are on this thread trying to explain.
I'm sure the majority of people would like their income taxes fully refunded, but it's mathematically impossible to do without assessing higher income taxes on someone else.
The government has no business owning old people. That's , in essence, what social security is. I believe in God, not government, and I have faith that those truly in need will be taken care of through better and more humane and personal support mechanisms than a bloated bureaucracy. Have a little faith in your fellow man.
That is correct. It is also correct that it is part of that employee's compensation because it is part of the cost to the business of having the employee in the first place. Eliminate Social security taxes and there is a 15 percent difference that currently goes to the Government but instead will go to the employee and or the employer. If it all goes to the employee, it's a 15 percent raise. If the employer keeps it, prices should eventually fall seven and a half percent on his products. Either way, there is a 15 percent gain to the individual.
You are not special. Lots of us have had the screws put to us. The answer has to include shared sacrifice and shared rewards in order to be accepted and or passed into law. It can't be fixed in a day.
BTW, I understand that there is no money in SS. Thanks.:-B
If you took the time to see the poster I was responding to you might understand the context in which I was responding. What I basically was trying to convey was I don’t like the idea of my generation holding the entire bag, but that context was lost during the exchange and you decided to jump in. And my initial response was based in his proposed solution.
As if they'd care if there WAS a Constitutional obligation.
The National Government dismisses all obligations -- contractual, Constitutional, or otherwise; dismisses the wishes of the electorate; has abandoned the rule of law altogether; and, serves no useful purpose other than National Defense which, under Obama, has become more inner-directed (vs. citizens) than outer-directed (vs. foreign enemies).
And why does the National Government do this?
Because it can.
"OUR" government isn't obligated to do anything whatsoever!
To say that one is obligated is to say that he is obliged by something, and obliged to somebody.
Obliged by what? Conscience? Morality? LAW?!?!
Government has no morals or conscience; and government IS the law.
But, if they were obligated, to whom would they be obliged? YOU, the Soc Sec "beneficiary"?
And what recourse would you have if such an obligation weren't met?
This applies not just to Social Security, but to everything that "our" government does (or fails to do).
You keep talking about the government’s credibility... as tho they have any.
For those of us who can do the actuarial math... they have none. The coming explosion in “entitlement” spending at the current levels of obligation are simply impossible for us to entertain while sober.
we here in this household are going to need SS and somehow, someway, we’re going to get it.....period.....
I’m happy to clarify. The total amount that you pay in by the age of 62 isn’t available until you reach 65. At 62 you only get 75%.
You are mistaken. People pay into SS so that they have retirement money. SS is a separate entitiy, run by a separate part of the government. If it were income tax then you would still get a refund.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.