(01-02-2011 11:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 10:54 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 07:44 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 05:40 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 11:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As I've said to ad nauseum. Until we get people who actually understand sacrifice. Nothing is going to happen here. I'm going to use a line from Dennis Miller that succintly defines my position. I think the govt. should be there for the "helpless". I would like to see some cuts for the "clueless". I don't think your going to be electable in cutting Medicare or Social Security. You going to have to raise taxes to cover these. It's going to take cuts and tax increases. Hell I would love to see tax reform on a bi-partisan agenda.

why do we need to "cover" social security? How about this: they can keep the money i've paid in FICA, but in exchange i get no more FICA taxes pulled from my check and i can take that money and invest the way i want. Letting me keep my money, what a novel idea

How about the US lives up to it's commitment to the people who paid in to SS and our leaders spent the money. Now that's a novel idea.

well obviously i'm not trying to stiff the people who already paid in. I'd just like to not have 6.5% of my wages stolen anymore

But the problem is that without stealing that 13.0% of yours (and the "employer" 6.5% comes out of your pocket too) they can't make the Ponzi scheme work for the people who have already paid in.

The real problem is that the receivers receive far more than they paid in at the payers expense. All ponzi schemes collapse in time because they are unsustainable. Just like ours.

(01-03-2011 08:23 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 11:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 10:54 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 07:44 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-02-2011 05:40 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  why do we need to "cover" social security? How about this: they can keep the money i've paid in FICA, but in exchange i get no more FICA taxes pulled from my check and i can take that money and invest the way i want. Letting me keep my money, what a novel idea

How about the US lives up to it's commitment to the people who paid in to SS and our leaders spent the money. Now that's a novel idea.

well obviously i'm not trying to stiff the people who already paid in. I'd just like to not have 6.5% of my wages stolen anymore

But the problem is that without stealing that 13.0% of yours (and the "employer" 6.5% comes out of your pocket too) they can't make the Ponzi scheme work for the people who have already paid in.

The real problem is that the receivers receive far more than they paid in at the payers expense. All ponzi schemes collapse in time because they are unsustainable. Just like ours.

Yes, recipients do receive more than they paid in. But consider what interest would have accumulated for the use of that money. The ponzi scheme would have worked better and longer, if the money was INVESTED instead of spent. Another novel idea. The US is overcommitted. Why not gut foreign aid first. Our leaders are not talking about cutting our commitment to foreigners or the f'ing UN.

For the life of me I don't understand people wanting to gut Social Security. It has raised the quality of life for our seniors. It gives them a safety net. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a 401 k to supplement your social security. Many many people depend on social security. It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

(01-03-2011 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For the life of me I don't understand people wanting to gut Social Security. It has raised the quality of life for our seniors. It gives them a safety net. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a 401 k to supplement your social security. Many many people depend on social security. It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

No one has said we need to gut it for senior citizens or those approaching retirement. Hell, giving every American 1 million bucks by the time they reach 50 will also increase the 50 year old's quality of life, but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it. Right now with the direction we're taking, SS is unsustainable in it's present form.

(01-03-2011 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For the life of me I don't understand people wanting to gut Social Security. It has raised the quality of life for our seniors. It gives them a safety net. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a 401 k to supplement your social security. Many many people depend on social security. It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

To supplement SS? Why can't you understand that there will be nothing to supplement for everyone currently under the age of 35 or so by the time they retire? They will have paid into the system for decades and not be able to get a dime back from it. Hence the Ponzi tag. There is nothing "sacred" about an empty promise made to me by the gov't.

(01-03-2011 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

when did i agree to enter into a government mandated retirement account? Mach, i can totally see some of your views, but i'll never understand why you feel the way you do about SS. It's blatant theft, plain and simple

(01-03-2011 01:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

when did i agree to enter into a government mandated retirement account? Mach, i can totally see some of your views, but i'll never understand why you feel the way you do about SS. It's blatant theft, plain and simple

Its all theft of one kind or another. I haven't had a child in school for 30 years but I still pay School Tax. I pay for Fire, Police, Ambulance, even the Community College, so tell me again why SS is any different.

(01-03-2011 01:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 01:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a sacred agreement between the governed and the government.

when did i agree to enter into a government mandated retirement account? Mach, i can totally see some of your views, but i'll never understand why you feel the way you do about SS. It's blatant theft, plain and simple

Its all theft of one kind or another. I haven't had a child in school for 30 years but I still pay School Tax. I pay for Fire, Police, Ambulance, even the Community College, so tell me again why SS is any different.

don't you think paying for fire, police and ambulance is a little different than a forced retirement account? I mean i pay for the police to help protect me and i pay for fire because if my house goes up in flames, the fire dept can deal with better than i can. The difference with SS is that i don't need the government to create some kind of supplemental safety net. I can do more with that money

Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

Why are people forced into it then?

(01-03-2011 02:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

Why are people forced into it then?

There are ways out. Becoming a self-employed Old Order Amish will do the job.

(01-03-2011 02:59 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 02:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

Why are people forced into it then?

There are ways out. Becoming a self-employed Old Order Amish will do the job.

Why should I have to change my religion to opt out of some ponzi scheme forced onto me by a government that supposed to be working FOR ME!?

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

i wouldn't have had my soon-to-be-needed retirement money in stocks. what a stupid thing that would be.

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

Well, in the first place, if you had taken the money that you would have paid to social security and instead put it into stocks for 40 years (reasonable since you would be retiring), then you'd be WAY WAY ahead of where you'd be with social security. Quite probably six figures ahead. Of course, before the crash you'd have been WAY WAY WAY WAY ahead, so you'd have lost something in the crash.

That's how bad a deal social security is.

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

That is absolute BS. If you had to retire in 2008 you would not have been invested in anything risky that would have lost that much. Unless you are a total dumb*** one knows that the closer to retirement you get..the more conservative you invest..if at all.

The SS system is single most vile program ever conceived. It has propagated generations of Americans that believe that they will be "taken care of" and has LIED to them. It has stolen from the young...to support the old and poor to BUY VOTES!!! It is such a ponzi scheme that it make one wonder if Madoff was one of its architects.

(01-03-2011 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Swoosh it goes back to the age old argument. We put things in place for those that can't do it on their own. Can you imagine if you had to retire in 2008 when everything went to ****?

Well, in the first place, if you had taken the money that you would have paid to social security and instead put it into stocks for 40 years (reasonable since you would be retiring), then you'd be WAY WAY ahead of where you'd be with social security. Quite probably six figures ahead. Of course, before the crash you'd have been WAY WAY WAY WAY ahead, so you'd have lost something in the crash.

That's how bad a deal social security is.

Ask any Railroad retiree if they would rather been in the SS system.

..or member of that city in SE Texas. Galveston?

(01-03-2011 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ..or member of that city in SE Texas. Galveston?

Yep...We already have a perfectly good model for this to be done nationally. I think the return on both plans was better than 8 percent over their history. What is the return on SS...3..4.Percent? What a fing joke.

The SS system was not conceived to help people...it was conceived to enslave them.

(01-03-2011 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ..or member of that city in SE Texas. Galveston?

Have you ever told people about these things and notice the blank look that comes over their faces? It is amazing just how ignorant most Americans are. Do you think that is what those in power want?...Yes.

(01-03-2011 11:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-03-2011 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ..or member of that city in SE Texas. Galveston?

Have you ever told people about these things and notice the blank look that comes over their faces? It is amazing just how ignorant most Americans are. Do you think that is what those in power want?...Yes.

Yeah, they're call Democrats. Sorry, while you may not like Republican's social stances, they are normally fiscally conservative....and the ones that aren't, get their asses booted out. Democrats don't WANT fiscal conservatism.