queencitybuckeye wrote:

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.

Really? You don't think Amercians died of hunger in the 1800's? Don't make me laugh, pard. Everything I post is backed up with proven links. Every single time.

The problem with you.... the facts I present here prove the nonsense spewed by the right winged nutballs from the AM dial. It destroys your psyche and your preconceived irrationalities as what actually is the truth.

It's a lot of fun educating you people.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: 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?

SMH. Is that what anyone has proposed? What's being proposed is the exact opposite...i.e. raising the SS age to 69 or higher. You think your FICA payments are high? Let me just remind you that without SS your taxes would be a hell of a lot higher in keeping the retirees fed and clothed. it's too bad you don't understand this fundamental reality.

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.

Whereby the SS funding has in fact been bastardized, and is unsustainable without systemic change, to compare the SS system to what Madoff did shows your inability to separate gross criminal activity from Constitutional ammendments.

Pathetic analogy on your part.

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?

As I said above...with the population bubble of baby boomers retiring, either the age of retirement will have to be raised (being proposed over and over in the past 5 years) or more funding will be required from the working sector. if SS is abolished, then the American active workers will be forced to pay in even more. How you can't understand this basic math problem is remarkable.

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.

Once the issue is addressed..(increased age before SS paymnets are paid out}, the ststem will become viablr again. Once my generation dies off, and then your generation retires, the ratio of workers to retirees will render the system viable once again.

Footwedge wrote:
SMH. Is that what anyone has proposed? What's being proposed is the exact opposite...i.e. raising the SS age to 69 or higher. You think your FICA payments are high? Let me just remind you that without SS your taxes would be a hell of a lot higher in keeping the retirees fed and clothed. it's too bad you don't understand this fundamental reality.

Here is a crazy idea, people could save and take care of themselves. I'm in my mid 30's, and I'm sure I will pay more into SS than I will ever collect. I wish I had the option of putting the 7.5% of my pay into options similar to where my retirement money and IRA go. Say I make $50,000, 7.5% of my pay plus 7.5% of employer pay is $7500 a year. If I put in $7500 a year for 30 years compounded at 5% interest per year (a very low return for that time frame), I would have $498,291.36 after 30 years. I did the calculations assuming my pay never goes up and interest isn't calculated until the very end of each year, so the value is on the low end. I highly doubt I will see that much from Social Security.

"SMH. Is that what anyone has proposed?"

Point missed. The point is that if SS was such a great idea, why isn't expansion of SS an option? Of course no one is arguing that because it's disingenuous. If you argue that SS benefits should be reduced or subject to a higher retirement age, you're de facto arguing for shrinking it, or even getting rid of it. Which is what we should have done a long time ago.

edit, hell you argued for it yourself:

"Once the issue is addressed..(increased age before SS paymnets[sic] are paid out}[sic], the ststem[sic] will become viablr [sic] again. "

Raised to what? 70? 75? After some age what is the point? Pay your whole life into a system that won't pay you back? Is this a security program or not?

Al Bundy wrote: Here is a crazy idea, people could save and take care of themselves. I'm in my mid 30's, and I'm sure I will pay more into SS than I will ever collect. I wish I had the option of putting the 7.5% of my pay into options similar to where my retirement money and IRA go. Say I make $50,000, 7.5% of my pay plus 7.5% of employer pay is $7500 a year. If I put in $7500 a year for 30 years compounded at 5% interest per year (a very low return for that time frame), I would have $498,291.36 after 30 years. I did the calculations assuming my pay never goes up and interest isn't calculated until the very end of each year, so the value is on the low end. I highly doubt I will see that much from Social Security.

But, not only that, you could possibly live off the income from the $498,000, perhaps without touching the principle, and then you could leave the half-million to your heirs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's YOUR money!!!

Now THAT would be ....................... change we can believe in ....

QuakerOats wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: Here is a crazy idea, people could save and take care of themselves. I'm in my mid 30's, and I'm sure I will pay more into SS than I will ever collect. I wish I had the option of putting the 7.5% of my pay into options similar to where my retirement money and IRA go. Say I make $50,000, 7.5% of my pay plus 7.5% of employer pay is $7500 a year. If I put in $7500 a year for 30 years compounded at 5% interest per year (a very low return for that time frame), I would have $498,291.36 after 30 years. I did the calculations assuming my pay never goes up and interest isn't calculated until the very end of each year, so the value is on the low end. I highly doubt I will see that much from Social Security.

But, not only that, you could possibly live off the income from the $498,000, perhaps without touching the principle, and then you could leave the half-million to your heirs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's YOUR money!!!

Now THAT would be ....................... change we can believe in ....

You should probably just make that your signature.

Here's my favorite about SS...

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the firs t $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Governm ent program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.


I understand #2 would have to change over time, but the rest of these could have and should have stayed in tact.

Guess how they changed?

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

This is MY FAVORITE:
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter!



I would be "ok" with SS if it was voluntary, and was tax deductible like 401k contributions.

^^^

Indeed, but the big issue for me at least is when it was created, 1935. QCB can speak for himself, but I really doubt the initiation of the program had anything to do with elderly people dying in the streets. Was there something special about the 30's with people dying in the streets that didn't happen in 1925, or 1905, or 1895? Of course not, this was a depression-era program that's purpose had little to do with elderly security, and more to do with addressing the employment situation in the middle of the Great Depression. Have high unemployment? Get rid of it by buying out your workforce, with future generations footing the bill. And we're still footing it.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "SMH. Is that what anyone has proposed?"

Point missed. The point is that if SS was such a great idea, why isn't expansion of SS an option? Of course no one is arguing that because it's disingenuous. If you argue that SS benefits should be reduced or subject to a higher retirement age, you're de facto arguing for shrinking it, or even getting rid of it. Which is what we should have done a long time ago.

The concept of SS being a great idea doesn't mean that the execution was operated correctly. Your 2 extensions of "what if" in either direction make absolutely no sense.

Let's try again. Social security was intended to be a forced savings program in order to insure that the elderly would pay for their own survival when the time would eventually come. The program in theory was a thing of beauty...

Unfortunately, the actual mathematics involves ratios between the population that works and the population that is retired..is forever elastic ...and needs tweeking for population "bubbles" that occurred....i.e.... when the baby boomer generation was started.

Being the conservative fiscal hawk that I am, there always exits the need to make adjustments to balance the books. That is exactly the reason why Reagan presided over the single greatest increase of the workers' SS taxes.

"Once the issue is addressed..(increased age before SS paymnets[sic] are paid out}[sic], the ststem[sic] will become viablr [sic] again. "

Raised to what? 70? 75? After some age what is the point? Pay your whole life into a system that won't pay you back? Is this a security program or not?

[/quote]

First of all. I would suggest to you that you look up the proper use of the term (sic). Your misuse of the word is far worse than someone who has a few typos. Take away my typos, and my statement is dead nuts on the money...and has been proposed time and time again by both the CBO and the GAO as what is needed to keep the system solvent. How many links do you need proving this??????

As I stated above, your ramblings on the issue at hand transcends your overall ability to understand basic mathematical formulas in dealing with the insolvency of the program.

Once gain...I will restate what must be done in the very near future. Either:

A. Increase the age before people can collect SS, or
B Increase the FICA taxes on the working people to balance the SS budget. or

C. Implement both ideas above.

Sorry MB...you really don't understand the conundrum very well at all.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: ^^^

Indeed, but the big issue for me at least is when it was created, 1935. QCB can speak for himself, but I really doubt the initiation of the program had anything to do with elderly people dying in the streets. Was there something special about the 30's with people dying in the streets that didn't happen in 1925, or 1905, or 1895? Of course not, this was a depression-era program that's purpose had little to do with elderly security, and more to do with addressing the employment situation in the middle of the Great Depression. Have high unemployment? Get rid of it by buying out your workforce, with future generations footing the bill. And we're still footing it.

The implemenatation of Social security had absolutely nothing to do with the high unemployment rates of that period of time. NOTHING!!

These were separate issues and were presented separately by FDR..

Footwedge wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: ^^^

Indeed, but the big issue for me at least is when it was created, 1935. QCB can speak for himself, but I really doubt the initiation of the program had anything to do with elderly people dying in the streets. Was there something special about the 30's with people dying in the streets that didn't happen in 1925, or 1905, or 1895? Of course not, this was a depression-era program that's purpose had little to do with elderly security, and more to do with addressing the employment situation in the middle of the Great Depression. Have high unemployment? Get rid of it by buying out your workforce, with future generations footing the bill. And we're still footing it.

The implemenatation of Social security had absolutely nothing to do with the high unemployment rates of that period of time. NOTHING!!

These were separate issues and were presented separately by FDR..

It is highly doubtful that FDR would have received support for his socialist programs (including social security) without such high unemployment rates.

Al Bundy wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: ^^^

Indeed, but the big issue for me at least is when it was created, 1935. QCB can speak for himself, but I really doubt the initiation of the program had anything to do with elderly people dying in the streets. Was there something special about the 30's with people dying in the streets that didn't happen in 1925, or 1905, or 1895? Of course not, this was a depression-era program that's purpose had little to do with elderly security, and more to do with addressing the employment situation in the middle of the Great Depression. Have high unemployment? Get rid of it by buying out your workforce, with future generations footing the bill. And we're still footing it.

The implemenatation of Social security had absolutely nothing to do with the high unemployment rates of that period of time. NOTHING!!

These were separate issues and were presented separately by FDR..

It is highly doubtful that FDR would have received support for his socialist programs (including social security) without such high unemployment rates.

LOL, ya think?! I suppose that after 150 years of the U.S.'s existence it was simply coincidental that the government addressed the whole retirement thing during the middle of the great depression. Unemployment had NOTHING to do with it, it was just the right time to give a generation free money as a result of a program that will cost future generations. It had NOTHING to do with the great depression. People at or near retirement age in the mid-1930's simply deserved this benefit.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, how can anyone not add up the numbers here?

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: ^^^

Indeed, but the big issue for me at least is when it was created, 1935. QCB can speak for himself, but I really doubt the initiation of the program had anything to do with elderly people dying in the streets. Was there something special about the 30's with people dying in the streets that didn't happen in 1925, or 1905, or 1895? Of course not, this was a depression-era program that's purpose had little to do with elderly security, and more to do with addressing the employment situation in the middle of the Great Depression. Have high unemployment? Get rid of it by buying out your workforce, with future generations footing the bill. And we're still footing it.

The implemenatation of Social security had absolutely nothing to do with the high unemployment rates of that period of time. NOTHING!!

These were separate issues and were presented separately by FDR..

It is highly doubtful that FDR would have received support for his socialist programs (including social security) without such high unemployment rates.

LOL, ya think?! I suppose that after 150 years of the U.S.'s existence it was simply coincidental that the government addressed the whole retirement thing during the middle of the great depression. Unemployment had NOTHING to do with it, it was just the right time to give a generation free money as a result of a program that will cost future generations. It had NOTHING to do with the great depression. People at or near retirement age in the mid-1930's simply deserved this benefit.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, how can anyone not add up the numbers here?

Here you go Madhatter Buckeye. I cut you some slack before...just shaking my head at how utter ridiculous your post here was.

I suppose this is what you referred to in "pwning" me. Muhahaha.

Tell me again how inplementing social security reduced unemployment in the thirties. Got a new supply of Orville Reddonbacker to pop. I got all week.

Oh...and this little ditty for Madhatter. Here is a link explaining the whole history regarding social security. Why don't you dig line by line and highlight something...anything showing that SS was implemented to reduce unemployment. One of us did get pwned on this subject. And it wasn't me.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1609.html

Good day sir.