I Wear Pants wrote: So you want to tax things that aren't taxable?

I want government off the backs of the producers; and I want the perpetual dependency state to cease.

IggyPride00 wrote: There seems to be a disconnect between your rhetoric and reality.

Actually there is no disconnect ............ think about it.

Unfortunately there are too many stupid people in Congress that shot this idea down.

Things like the 08 market crash and the 1,000 point "flash crash" from last week are what keep S.S from ever being invested in the market and subject to the volatility that comes with it. Some people are smart enough to do far better than S.S would provide in the market, but most aren't.

I am not philosophically opposed to the idea of a forced savings account like that so to speak that takes all risk out of the equation so people no they are going to receive a somewhat defined amount regardless of what is going on in the market at a given time.

Congress has been borderline criminal in how they have handled the surplus, but the program itself has been possibly the most successful thing the government has ever done in what it was designed to accomplish. It brought stability for seniors in ways that never existed before it, and has always been reliable and there regardless of the economic situation in the country.

Government doesn't do alot well, but keeping S.S away from the whims of the market does more good than harm as the few who would do more with the money than S.S does are outweighed by those who would see their retirement go up in smoke through poor investment decisions. It is easy to say its their fault and tough luck, but it ends up causing political and social instability when the natives are restless.

jmog wrote:
The best idea the government ever had with regards to SS was to privatize it and let you put it in the market like a 401k or IRA.

Unfortunately there are too many stupid people in Congress that shot this idea down.

Precisely.

"Congress has been borderline criminal in how they have handled the surplus, but the program itself has been possibly the most successful thing the government has ever done in what it was designed to accomplish. It brought stability for seniors in ways that never existed before it, and has always been reliable and there regardless of the economic situation in the country. "

At what cost? We are broke. I don't know if your moniker means you're an '00 grad from St. Iggy, but assuming you are the odds of you ever seeing a nickel from SS is remote unless major changes are made, which fortunately will probably happen eventually due to political pressue. Unfortunately, even if major changes are made, those changes will likely be in the form of a higher benefit age as well as higher premiums (since taxes seem to be a non-acceptable word) as well as lower benefits.

It is a ponzi scheme, and if you are under the age of 40, you're on the ass end. The baby boomer generation has done everything possible to destroy the economic base of the country, the generation above it was too dimwitted to see the storm coming, and the generation after it (including mine) was/is too apathetic and coddled to do much about it.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Unfortunately there are too many stupid people in Congress that shot this idea down.

Things like the 08 market crash and the 1,000 point "flash crash" from last week are what keep S.S from ever being invested in the market and subject to the volatility that comes with it. Some people are smart enough to do far better than S.S would provide in the market, but most aren't.

I am not philosophically opposed to the idea of a forced savings account like that so to speak that takes all risk out of the equation so people no they are going to receive a somewhat defined amount regardless of what is going on in the market at a given time.

Congress has been borderline criminal in how they have handled the surplus, but the program itself has been possibly the most successful thing the government has ever done in what it was designed to accomplish. It brought stability for seniors in ways that never existed before it, and has always been reliable and there regardless of the economic situation in the country.

Government doesn't do alot well, but keeping S.S away from the whims of the market does more good than harm as the few who would do more with the money than S.S does are outweighed by those who would see their retirement go up in smoke through poor investment decisions. It is easy to say its their fault and tough luck, but it ends up causing political and social instability when the natives are restless.

Come on, if they made the options to choose from mostly money markets, bonds, etc the risk is very low, less risk than letting the government take it.

jmog wrote:
Come on, if they made the options to choose from mostly money markets, bonds, etc the risk is very low, less risk than letting the government take it.

Come on, if they made the options to choose mostly from money markets, bonds, the risk is very low....then .the people would blow their money on the present, and then saddle the active workers with having to shoulder a bigger societal burden in keeping these retirees fed.

Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

Footwedge wrote:
Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

If a billion people believe in a stupid idea, it's still a stupid idea.

Footwedge wrote: Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

I highly doubt "most" intelligent people think SS is a good idea. It is sad that America has to protect people from spending all of their money and not thinking about the future. Because the majority of Americans are morons.

iclfan2 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

I highly doubt "most" intelligent people think SS is a good idea. It is sad that America has to protect people from spending all of their money and not thinking about the future. Because the majority of Americans are morons.

Well....my parents are 2 of the most intelligent people around. Dad is a hard core conservative and they both agree that forced savings via the SS program is one of the best things ever implemented in this country. They were both young kids during the depression... I will take their life experiences over yours.

But let me expand here.

Do you homestly think that without SS people would save enough money on their own to pay for their retirement? I mean...really?

Probably 75% of retired people would be on full blown welfare recipients withour force feeding the SS system.

You think it's bad now...iof SS hadn't neen implemented, then the working group would have to shell out a hell of a lot more than they do now.

Social Security forces people to pay for at least part of their retirement.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

If a billion people believe in a stupid idea, it's still a stupid idea.

And if 100 people think it's a good idea, then it's a good idea. See how that works?

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote:
Come on, if they made the options to choose from mostly money markets, bonds, etc the risk is very low, less risk than letting the government take it.

Come on, if they made the options to choose mostly from money markets, bonds, the risk is very low....then .the people would blow their money on the present, and then saddle the active workers with having to shoulder a bigger societal burden in keeping these retirees fed.

Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

The government should have no business in making sure it's citizens save money. Not their mandate. If people don't save on their own, too bad.

tk421 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote:
Come on, if they made the options to choose from mostly money markets, bonds, etc the risk is very low, less risk than letting the government take it.

Come on, if they made the options to choose mostly from money markets, bonds, the risk is very low....then .the people would blow their money on the present, and then saddle the active workers with having to shoulder a bigger societal burden in keeping these retirees fed.

Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

The government should have no business in making sure it's citizens save money. Not their mandate. If people don't save on their own, too bad.

That's fine. And you will see over 50% of retired Americans starving to death during their retirement years....and I do mean starving to death. If that's your idea of a cuvilized world, then I feel sorry for you.

Our country has a boatload of financial problems, but forcing the public to save for their own retirement ain't one of them.

The government should have no business in making sure it's citizens save money. Not their mandate. If people don't save on their own, too bad.

That sounds great in theory, but in the real world you still have to deal with those people that were irresponsible and pissed their savings away were they not forced to by the government. Too many of those kind of people lead to social unrest, and stability is a hallmark of the American political and economic system. Hordes of angry and hungry seniors dying in the streets will not benefit America in any way shape or form, and to think that this would not be the inevitable outcome of not forcing people to save at least something for retirement is naive.

The social stability that 7.5% of people's incomes (up to a max of the first $110,000 earned...plus the employer contribution) they are forced to save has provided for 75 years now drastically outweighs the downside that some people have not realized the return on that money they might have if they made good investments with the same money.

Yes, but it causes and has caused many problems. Once the government got into the retirement business, everyone started to expect more. Now we have SS, Medicare, welfare, etc, etc. It's a snowballing slope. Plus the politicians have shown their inability to keep their hands out of the pot. The SS bank is empty. There is no money. Anyone under 35 should be given the option to opt out and save on their own with no taxes paid towards SS at all.

IggyPride00 wrote: Hordes of angry and hungry seniors dying in the streets will not benefit America in any way shape or form, and to think that this would not be the inevitable outcome of not forcing people to save at least something for retirement is naive.

The number of people in America who died of hunger in the streets prior to this program's introduction? Zero. Not a small number, not almost zero, exactly zero. If your statement is correct, it can only means such programs are the cause of the problem.

Raise>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bonus

queencitybuckeye wrote:

IggyPride00 wrote: Hordes of angry and hungry seniors dying in the streets will not benefit America in any way shape or form, and to think that this would not be the inevitable outcome of not forcing people to save at least something for retirement is naive.

The number of people in America who died of hunger in the streets prior to this program's introduction? Zero. Not a small number, not almost zero, exactly zero. If your statement is correct, it can only means such programs are the cause of the problem.

Wrong. Dead wrong. American history is not your strong suit.

Footwedge wrote:

Come on, if they made the options to choose mostly from money markets, bonds, the risk is very low....then .the people would blow their money on the present, and then saddle the active workers with having to shoulder a bigger societal burden in keeping these retirees fed.

Say what you want....most people in our country say that SS's benefits far exceed the risks.

Yeah, the government is running it so well that every expert out there is telling us that those of us paying into it now won't see any money when we are 65 because SS will be long gone by then if they continue the current way of doing it.

If SS was such a success, why don't we expand it now, everyone over 55 must retire (which will help the unemployment rate, which is one of the main reasons why SS was enacted in the first place), we'll just tax the younger and future generations more, but that's ok because they'll get the same benefits when they get older, right?

It is unfathomable to me that when one of the biggest recent scandals involves a ponzi scheme (Madoff, obviously), that some citizens fail to see that SS is nothing more than a government-run ponzi scheme. There is no lockbox, there is no guarantee, other than if you are a current worker you're guaranteed to have to pay SS on your wages.

I'm not sure what people think happened prior to SS, but the concept of "retirement" is a relatively new phenomenon. Back then, you worked, if you got too old to work you moved back in with your family, and then you died. The expected lifespan was drastically different back then. The concept of defined pensions and social security benefits doesn't work well when your lifetime in retirement is longer than your lifetime in working years. My Dad could have "retired" at age 52 and drawn his pension the rest of his lifetime. If he lives as long as his father who died at 89, he would have drawn a pension for 37 years after working 30 years. Does it make sense to anyone how this is a sustainable system?

This isn't politics, it's math. We are on an unsustainable path and the American QOL can and will go down. The concept of retirement for younger people and their children will be just as foreign of a concept as it was for those before SS was enacted.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: It is a ponzi scheme, and if you are under the age of 40, you're on the ass end. The baby boomer generation has done everything possible to destroy the economic base of the country, the generation above it was too dimwitted to see the storm coming, and the generation after it (including mine) was/is too apathetic and coddled to do much about it.

Exactly. I'm half-tempted to run for office solely on the platform of "screw the baby boomers and let 'em starve" just to even it out.

IggyPride00 wrote: The social stability that 7.5% of people's incomes (up to a max of the first $110,000 earned...plus the employer contribution) they are forced to save has provided for 75 years now drastically outweighs the downside that some people have not realized the return on that money they might have if they made good investments with the same money.

So essentially, it's "protection money"? The wealthy/young pay off the old to keep social unrest in check?

The problem is that the ratio between retirees:working people is drastically changing. Pyramid schemes only work when the base is bigger than the top. Either the people at the bottom have to pay more, the people at the top have to take less, or we have to narrow down the list of people at the top (by raising eligibility ages and criteria). Because the boomers are such a big chunk of the voting demographic, I'm willing to bet that option (1) is the one that is eventually selected.

FFT, exactly.

If a balanced budget ever wants to happen again, major cuts to medicare and SS will need to happen.

Footwedge wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

IggyPride00 wrote: Hordes of angry and hungry seniors dying in the streets will not benefit America in any way shape or form, and to think that this would not be the inevitable outcome of not forcing people to save at least something for retirement is naive.

The number of people in America who died of hunger in the streets prior to this program's introduction? Zero. Not a small number, not almost zero, exactly zero. If your statement is correct, it can only means such programs are the cause of the problem.

Wrong. Dead wrong. American history is not your strong suit.

My record for veracity on this site far exceeds yours. You've been caught a number of times making up your own facts. This is another example.

jmog wrote: FFT, exactly.

If a balanced budget ever wants to happen again, major cuts to medicare and SS will need to happen.

In the world of the 24 hour news cycle it will be nearly impossible to do. Just imagine the types of town hall meetings the minority party (be it Democrats or Republicans) would be able to play up at the time major cuts would be announced. It will make healthcare town hall meetings look like a walk in the park. The issue will then be demagogued to death as a means of getting back into power.

Same goes for the defense budget. Try touching it and the 527 groups will be blistering the airwaves with pictures of masked Al Qaeda guys invading local playgrounds to scare the public, and making sure to hammer whoever is proposing said cuts as being weak on security and a friend of Al Qaeda.

Politicians just can't resist the chance to demagogue an issue that will help them get back into power even if it is good for the country.

IggyPride00 wrote:

jmog wrote: FFT, exactly.

If a balanced budget ever wants to happen again, major cuts to medicare and SS will need to happen.

In the world of the 24 hour news cycle it will be nearly impossible to do. Just imagine the types of town hall meetings the minority party (be it Democrats or Republicans) would be able to play up at the time major cuts would be announced. It will make healthcare town hall meetings look like a walk in the park. The issue will then be demagogued to death as a means of getting back into power.

Same goes for the defense budget. Try touching it and the 527 groups will be blistering the airwaves with pictures of masked Al Qaeda guys invading local playgrounds to scare the public, and making sure to hammer whoever is proposing said cuts as being weak on security and a friend of Al Qaeda.

Politicians just can't resist the chance to demagogue an issue that will help them get back into power even if it is good for the country.

This is why I have said it will take revolutionary change to save this country from certain fiscal ruin. I only hope it happens peacefully and at the ballot box.