It turns out someone around the Democrat party want to try and turn around their political fortunes by making the GOP take tough votes, or make them repudiate their budget ideas for refusing to do so.

Paul Ryan, head Republican on the budget committee, has been sponsoring a GOP road map back to government sustainability (backed by many Republicans) that would ultimately include privatizing most/all of Social Security and giving out vouchers for Medicare.

Democrats now are going to supposedly put those sorts of resolutions on the floor for votes to make the Republicans vote on them so they can have them on record as either being for privatizing SS and maybe Medicare vouchers, or be able to politically beat them over the head for voting no and offering no alternatives they are willing to stand behind when the GOP claims they are not the "party of no".

Now that the Democrats don't have a filibuster proof majority, and people like Richard Shelby are holding the Senate hostage over not getting enough earmarks (which is maddening considering the Republicans are supposed to be seizing the spending message not reinforcing how broken Washington is) are we going to start seeing alot more bare knuckle politics like sponsoring votes designed to make the other party look bad?

When Republicans were in charge this was a favorite Rove tactic in the area of defense spending, so I think now that Democrats are struggling we may see alot of this to rile up seniors for the midterms.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/dems-to-force-gop-vote-on-anti-social-security-privatization-resolution.php?ref=fpa

Good...

I like it

Most Republicans in the Congress do not support privatizing most/all of Social Security. This thread is quite misleading.

ccrunner609 wrote: I dont pay SS so I could care less. From what I have seen SS is a joke. Work your whole life, pay into teh system forever and when you retire you get $700 a month. WTF? $700, really?

I've never understood why public employees have their own taxpayer funded retirement programs while those of us in the private sector are forced by Federal law to participate in and contribute to the near-bankrupt SS system. So not only am I forced to pay the Feds for my own modest retirement, I'm also paying for your relatively generous one. Go figure. I can understand why you could care less.

Shouldn't ALL Americans be forced by the Feds to pay-in to the SS system? What makes public employees exempt? Wait....it's coming back to me. Public employee unions like the NEA, AFT, and AFSCME all insist on it.

Oh well I guess I'll just have to eat cheese and mac on $700 a month....well actually it'll be $2,000 a month if I retire at 65 or $2,500 if I die at my job at 70 (minus Medicare deductions of course) but what's the difference right?

I think I'll retire at 65 and be the greeter dude at Wal-Mart so I can afford the cheese and mac. No wait...I can't do that because if I receive $25,000 or more per year in SS benefits and part-time greeter dude income I'm subject to income tax.

So when you retire and play golf on my taxpayer dime I'll be home chewing on Milk Bones.

ccrunner609 wrote:Maybe people ought to look at what those unions do for their peeps and stir up some shit. I pay 10% of my lifetime income into the STRS and when I retire at 55 I will probably recieve about $4000 a month for the rest of my life, guarenteed. The good part is that the STRS has about a $60 billion dollar surplus that is untouchable. SS is being propped up by taxpayer $ from other programs because the government has no fucking clue to what they are doing.

Oh I agree.

It also proves my point that while you may be paying 10% of your gross income into the public employee retirement system to enjoy your $4,000 a month, I'm also contributing to your retirement through my tax dollars while also being forced to pay into SS to get my $2,000 a month.

Redistribution of wealth is a wonderful thing.

believer wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:Maybe people ought to look at what those unions do for their peeps and stir up some shit. I pay 10% of my lifetime income into the STRS and when I retire at 55 I will probably recieve about $4000 a month for the rest of my life, guarenteed. The good part is that the STRS has about a $60 billion dollar surplus that is untouchable. SS is being propped up by taxpayer $ from other programs because the government has no fucking clue to what they are doing.

Oh I agree.

It also proves my point that while you may be paying 10% of your gross income into the public employee retirement system to enjoy your $4,000 a month, I'm also contributing to your retirement through my tax dollars while also being forced to pay into SS to get my $2,000 a month.

Redistribution of wealth is a wonderful thing.

This!!!

If it's any consolation for you, Believer, those of us who paid into both systems (Social Security and PERS) have our SS benefits cut dramatically, regardless of how many years we paid into the system, because of being enrolled in both.

I am curious (and don't know) but, for instance, has PERS in Ohio had to be given additional funding by the state beyond what employees are putting into the system to help keep it afloat? Unlike some of these public retirement systems (Chicago's comes to mind), I don't believe any of the Ohio public funds have had to be bailed out. At least not yet.

ccrunner609 wrote:

believer wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:Maybe people ought to look at what those unions do for their peeps and stir up some shit. I pay 10% of my lifetime income into the STRS and when I retire at 55 I will probably recieve about $4000 a month for the rest of my life, guarenteed. The good part is that the STRS has about a $60 billion dollar surplus that is untouchable. SS is being propped up by taxpayer $ from other programs because the government has no fucking clue to what they are doing.

Oh I agree.

It also proves my point that while you may be paying 10% of your gross income into the public employee retirement system to enjoy your $4,000 a month, I'm also contributing to your retirement through my tax dollars while also being forced to pay into SS to get my $2,000 a month.

Redistribution of wealth is a wonderful thing.

What is great is that my contributions are not taxed. comes out pretax. As for you contributing to my retirement I would love to know how you think you do this?

Is your salary not funded 100% by taxpayer money?

ccrunner609 wrote:

believer wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:Maybe people ought to look at what those unions do for their peeps and stir up some shit. I pay 10% of my lifetime income into the STRS and when I retire at 55 I will probably recieve about $4000 a month for the rest of my life, guarenteed. The good part is that the STRS has about a $60 billion dollar surplus that is untouchable. SS is being propped up by taxpayer $ from other programs because the government has no fucking clue to what they are doing.

Oh I agree.

It also proves my point that while you may be paying 10% of your gross income into the public employee retirement system to enjoy your $4,000 a month, I'm also contributing to your retirement through my tax dollars while also being forced to pay into SS to get my $2,000 a month.

Redistribution of wealth is a wonderful thing.

What is great is that my contributions are not taxed. comes out pretax. As for you contributing to my retirement I would love to know how you think you do this?

Where do you think that 10% contribution is coming from?

ccrunner609 wrote: Sure it is, local state and federal $.

So the federal tax dollars I pay don't filter into the public employee retirement system?

ccrunner609 wrote: Tax dollars pay for teachers salaries.....we all know that. Whats your point?

Just answering your question:

What is great is that my contributions are not taxed. comes out pretax. As for you contributing to my retirement I would love to know how you think you do this?

I fully understand that my taxes pay your salaries and you contribute 10% of your salaries for a 100% guaranteed generous retirement. Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't your employer also contribute to your retirement system? Even if I'm wrong about this point it is still true that my taxes go to your employer who in turn pays your salaries which pays for your generous retirement plus your 3 month summer vacations, plus snow days plus.....

Meanwhile I pay federal, state and ever increasing local property taxes which pay your salaries which pays for your 100% guaranteed "great...that my contributions are not taxed" generous retirement. Then I'm forced (and you are not) by the Feds to pay Social Security and FICA taxes to get half (I hope) the retirement benefits you'll eventually enjoy. Redistribution of wealth at its finest!

This is why I LMAO when I hear some teachers (like my wife's parents and grandparents) and the NEA boo-hoo about educators being underpaid and under-appreciated. No personal offense CCRunner but you asked.

Just so you know, state employees now pay some into Social Security knowing they'll never see a dime of their money. I suspect it won't be too much longer until you start seeing the same thing with other government employees as they try to find ways to keep the system afloat.

believer wrote: This is why I LMAO when I hear some teachers (like my wife's parents and grandparents) and the NEA boo-hoo about educators being underpaid and under-appreciated. No personal offense CCRunner but you asked.

I'm with you 100%. Teachers complain about being underpaid, when in fact, they are paid generously I mean look at CC's grammar and spelling in every post, this is what teaches children?). Job is no harder than any other job, easier than firefighters and police officers jobs, yet paid the same or more in some cases.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Just so you know, state employees now pay some into Social Security knowing they'll never see a dime of their money. I suspect it won't be too much longer until you start seeing the same thing with other government employees as they try to find ways to keep the system afloat.

As someone who has worked for the railroad (currently laid off), I know what you're saying. We pay into railroad retirement (funded only by ourselves, no taxpayer money for our salaries since we work for a private company) and I noticed that I was also paying into SS, which I won't collect if I retire from the RR. The RR retirement fund has a huge surplus and will sustain itself for the next 35 years.

I will retire (God willing) on June 1 and receive slightly over 100% of my best three year average. Of course, I have been involved in my career for over 40 years and am planning to continue my coaching for a couple of years more as well as substitute teach a couple of days a week. We all make choices and reap the benefits of whatever we select. Isn't it great to live in a country where these choices are left entirely up to us and the consequences of those choices are also left up to each of us? Sounds like free enterprise at it's very best to me.

Swamp Fox wrote: I will retire (God willing) on June 1 and receive slightly over 100% of my best three year average. Of course, I have been involved in my career for over 40 years and am planning to continue my coaching for a couple of years more as well as substitute teach a couple of days a week. We all make choices and reap the benefits of whatever we select. Isn't it great to live in a country where these choices are left entirely up to us and the consequences of those choices are also left up to each of us? Sounds like free enterprise at it's very best to me.

It would be great if the consequences of our choices were actually left up to each and every one of us, but they aren't. It isn't as black and white as you describe it, there is many shades of gray involved.

We don't control how shifts in the economy will effect our retirement plans, our job stability, etc.

Actually, my post was a little bit tongue in cheek, as I was talking more to those who criticize the teaching profession as a "part time" occupation that doesn't require much work and "all that time off" as if every teacher works their 30 minutes a day and hurries home to do exactly what they want to do for 23 out of 24 hours each day..(I slightly exaggerate here, but I think you get my intent.) It was my intention to suggest that while teaching salaries, although certainly much better than in earlier years, are still moderate at best, but the retirement benefits are really quite good and it is each person's choice as to what they want to do, and retirement systems factor into our choices. I realize that the retirement benefits that we all anticipate are subject to sudden and at times devastating changes, but thus far, it appears that my profession's retirement opportunities are quite good. The point I was making is that people can choose to do whatever they want, including teaching. It's not my fault that I have a good retirement program and anyone else who wanted the same thing could have chosen that path. That is what I meant by "free enterprise at work".

State employees pay "some into Social Security"? Really? I don't think so.