Posted on 01/06/2012 6:38:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW
And I believe that YOU missed the point. Social Security was meant for retirees only. NOT for illegals and 20 somethings.
Btw, our parents and grandparents were fooled into believing that there was a "trust fund" that their money went into. Johnson changed that. A Dem of course.
Research Note #20: The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget
Part of that is Johnsons fault as he added SS funds to the general budget. Why hurt seniors for being forced to pay into a system that the government mishandled? People paid into it. So you want to just tell them.....what?
Because the system was altered so that the amount paid out was far more than what had been paid in by those currently getting Social Security. What I have paid in did not go into a 401K-type account, it went to those getting payments. And seniors are now the wealthiest segment of the population. It makes no sense to take large sums of tax dollars from working-age citizens to subsidize seniors on the current scale being done.
And I believe that YOU missed the point. Social Security was meant for retirees only. NOT for illegals and 20 somethings.
Well, get rid of those freeloaders. But you also can't pretend that nibbling around the edges will fix the larger entitlement issue.
It's so thick you need a knife to cut through it.
“Explain to me how it’s an “entitlement” when people were forced to pay into it and it was THEIR money?”
“Their” money was spent long ago on the previous retirees. The SS checks the old folks are receiving now come from the pay checks of the young. So your question is irrelevant. Its akin to screaming at Bernie Madeoff for your money back. As to what those dependent on SS should do if benefits are reduced, that’s a question which should be asked and will be best answered AT THE LOCAL LEVEL!
What was paid in also went up.
So you are suggesting that we should tell seniors that they were lied to and robbed. Too bad, so sad?
And seniors are now the wealthiest segment of the population.
Maybe in your neighborhood.
I guess that you haven't read my posts. Or you only picked out what you could argue with.
And that means what? That you can cheat them? Not honor what they were forced to do?
As to what those dependent on SS should do if benefits are reduced, that’s a question which should be asked and will be best answered AT THE LOCAL LEVEL!
It wasn't the LOCAL LEVEL that took their money every week.
I have read your posts. But you are also pretending that those currently receiving benefits paid in anything close to an amount to rationalize their current receipts on an actuarial basis. That is not the case, which makes Social Security an entitlement.
If you put your faith in government you’re going to be disappointed. The issue here is that by insisting that SS operate without any alterations, you are going to condemn this country to an economic catastrophe. Are you willing to see that happen just so that your checks aren’t touched? Those of us who love this nation don’t. How about you?
I would say leave Social Security alone and get people off SSI that have never worked a day in their lives but have a gimpy leg a crooked finger a bad eye bad nerves hell it is easier to get SSI disability than it is SS!
That's fine. You tell Granny she can't eat or have heat because the government lied to her.
Your link undermines your own argument. And it is a statistical fact that on the average, seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population. Does that mean there are no poor seniors? Of course not. However, that also means that we should not continue paying current benefits out across the board to seniors as an entitlement. They are getting more than they paid in, and the current structure is a generational wealth transfer.
Point out in the source article where Santorum said anything like that.
Gawd, you sound just like a Democrat, they used that exact kind of imagery when Bush proposed sensible Social Security changes. So any further discussion with you is pointless. Later.
It wasn't me the government lied to. And I've never looked to them to solve my problems. EVER. They ARE the problem.
The issue here is that by insisting that SS operate without any alterations,
I never said that. Another one that never really reads posts or links.
You have a nice day.
And again, you have ignored my posts about changing the system. All you want is a fight.
Later indeed!
But Social(ist) (in)Security does not need to be "trimmed".
It needs to be abolished outright.
Pay off the people who paid into it ... cut the rest of us free ... END the Marxist/Leninist nightmare.
Anyone who thinks SS is not a problem is NOT a conservative.
Social Security is pure communism.
Social Security needs changes. But our nation can’t pull the rug out from under seniors to do it. Government lied and cheated. That’s not the old folks fault.
The very first Social Security check went to Ida May Fuller in 1940. She paid just $24.75 in Social Security taxes but collected a total of $22,888.92 in benefits, getting back all she put into Social Security in a month.According to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Social Security Reform" (October 2002), by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler:
- workers who retired in 1980 at age 65 got back all they put into Social Security, plus interest, in 2.8 years.
- Workers who retired at age 65 in 2002 will have to wait a total of 16.9 years to break even.
- For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
- Workers entering the labor force today won't live long enough to get back even half of what they will put into Social Security.Social Security faces Ponzi's problem, not enough new "investors." In 1940, there were 160 workers paying into Social Security per retiree; today there are only 2.9 and falling.
Williams was subbing for Rush on the Friday before New Years and was explaining a lot of this. The root of the problem is that no matter what LIES were told at the onset and continue to be told, it was an inherently flawed system to begin with (calling it a Ponzi scheme is objectively accurate); never mind the fact it is completely extraconstitutional and would have been struck down immediately had the SCOTUS at that time not been compromised.
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.