None of the GOP candidates have the backbone to privatize social security

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Republicans have been trying to destroy social security sense it's inception. I don't trust Republicans doing anything with social security.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


exactly the point i was making you have access to your money at any given time

lose a job about to lose your home.

your money is your money so why do we have to go beg someone else for the right to get it.
edit on 24-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

As long as theres an opt out, I am all for that whatever, as long as they don't FORCE me to do it privatize it and give the option of backing out, I'd much rather save for my kid's education at a credit union.
So yeah I agree if there's an option to say "NO" I don't want your stinking Social Security.


That would up end the entire plot to bilk people out of money with a false sense of retirement security.

But, if given the chance, I would as well.
Even if told if I opted out I would not get the money out from what I paid in (Like that will happen anyways), I would opt out.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Social security was a solution to a symptom, not a solution to a problem. The problem being, that people were not saving for retirement. This was due to low wages, high cost of living, lack of forethought.

Recreating social security in a private medium would again, only address the symptom, not the problem.

To truely "privatize" social security, you'd have to simply not take it (FICA) in the first place. Go back to a time where people kept their own money, made their own destinies.

Now, creating a company that holds the funds might be a viable option, but we have them now. They are called brokerage firms.

Allowing people to keep their own money, would enforce the individual to take responsibility for themselves. Some might see this as a harsh reality, but I look a it as the definition of freedom.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


talking to a brick wall in this thread

they think government is good and bankers and financiers are bad

governemnt destroys money and look who makes it.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well said. But Liberals dislike the word "Responsibility" .. in their eyes it is our responsibility (The Middle Class) to pay for the poor..

Even if someone making minimum wage their entire life put away a few dollars every month, they could retire earning minimum wage.

But there are sneakers and iphones to be had, there is nothing to spare after discretionary spending..


If I retired today my allotment of Social Security wouldn't even pay my mortgage let alone my car payments, food, energy etc. Social Security is nothing .. it's a theft from my paycheck and a promise it will augment my income later even though I know I'd never be able to live off of it. So what's the point? I concur with others, don't privatize it via Government because that's still Government ... destroy Social Security.. be done with it.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Here here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You , Beezer and Neo have it right.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by neo96
 


It is our money, taken without my consent, placed into an IOU filled account, then paid out to someone else for doing nothing except get old.

Fun times.



So then, you know nothing about SS? Seems like you would have picked up enough on this thread to have made somewhat of an informed statement?

The people who are old, and getting old, have ALREADY paid into it -- their entire working lives.

It has been STOLEN. If someone "borrows" money from you, WITHOUT your consent, and NEVER pay it back, it is stolen.

Comprehend?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
I know.

That should never stop us though.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


Except.. inflation. They pay in. Yeah. When it comes time to take out, they consume far more than was put in. Hence the SS Deficit? Hence the massive growth year over year in SS expenses.. And no .. not everyone does pay in.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


I do understand it. You paid into it, to fund the people before you.
Now I am paying to fund you.
The people behind me will pay, yet that money will be gone when it is my time.
SO, so long and thanks for all the fish.
www.youtube.com...

I want off this sinking SS planet.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
To the topic at hand, why none of the candidates will eliminate it? It's easy to make world-changing decisions from behind the screen of a computer. To stand in front ofmillions and tell them they have to take responsibility for their own actions?

I look forward to the day when someone can stand up and say,

"America? Starting tomorrow, the government will return all the money you put into the social security program. Folks, we can't afford it. We can't manage it. America was founded on the ideals of freedom, individualism.

Starting tomorrow, that's where we will be again. good night and God bless."



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Considering the state things are in, it is those who say they would accept the check "as a good night out", rather than forego receiving it, that is very troublesome. Things would be improved somewhat if this mentality were nonexistent.


The SS people receive after retirement DO all pay into it. The check is based on how much they pay into it. Yours might be 400.00. Your Dad's might be $2500. Those who don't pay into it, in response to your "no, not everybody pays in to it", comment, are those who are disabled, and receive other types of assistance.

In my previous comments I was referring to those who have paid into the system as a retirement benefit. I would not presume that anybody on this thread other than perhaps the OP, would willingly contribute to funding a disabled person, or someone who has never contributed to the system. God forbid.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
my aunt god love her

has never worked a day in her life and draws it multiply that by millions of americans

rocks point is valid and inarguable.

thems the breaks.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Tell you and Rock what. You provide evidence that a person may receive SS who has not paid in to it through check withdrawal. Mind you, I'm not talking about SSI, SSI-D, or SSI-B, or the other forms of SS.

Your Aunt is apparently disabled, either physically or mentally, and if she gets SS it's SSI, and you know that it is, unless she worked for a while that you are unaware of.

edit on 9/24/2011 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


Um .. no .. I pay into the damn system once, I'm not forgoing my check to give it "back to the system". I have met people when I was a financial adviser who did not cash their checks at all, just tossed em aside because they didn't feel right taking it. I also knew a little old lady who cashed hers and on Sunday gave the entire thing to her church (she also made the best cookies.. best part about my job.. was the old people and their cookies mmmmm)

Personally, I'd be far more inclined to give it away personally than I would just letting the gov keep it. Then again, if I didn't have to pay 20k+ in taxes every year, I would be able to donate far more than I do to local charities. The homeless shelters around here are over flowing, I'd love to donate what I pay in taxes into something I can actually see where I'm helping. No. Instead I pay for vagrants in cities I've never been to. I pay for wars half a World away for people that hate us. I pay for obese imbeciles with 8 kids living in a double wide so she can buy another24 pack of coke and carton of smokes "for her kids". And naturally I pay for the healthcare, education, and general world class treatment of...... illegals.

Sorry. My position on Social Security is the same on nearly everything about the Federal Government -- get rid of it. It serves it's self and it's masters, illegals over citizens, corporations and imperialism.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


i know my aunt you dont shes not disabled

she draws a government packcheck for nothing.

she has never worked a day in her life keep trying to argue

i know her have for decades



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


here's the bottom line... the proposal to privatize a portion of someone's SS contributions...
is merely a back-door ploy to seize the present SS 'contributions made weekly'

instead of just robbing the 'general fund' of the SS contributions collected as a special & specific tax rate to fund the 'voluntary SS' program... it's all a calculated rip-off scheme so the Congress can eliminate the 'special IOUs' credited to the SS retirement & disability segments of the wide ranging social program that has funded itself since about 1935..

they (the congress of both houses) areliars/thieves/ inscruitible & sinister self-seekers...

may they all (presnt and retired doofs) get the flesh eating crud
edit on 24-9-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by angeldoll
reply to post by neo96
 


Tell you and Rock what. You provide evidence that a person may receive SS who has not paid in to it through check withdrawal. Mind you, I'm not talking about SSI, SSI-D, or SSI-B, or the other forms of SS.

Your Aunt is apparently disabled, either physically or mentally, and if she gets SS it's SSI, and you know that it is, unless she worked for a while that you are unaware of.

edit on 9/24/2011 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)


you do take into account the category of 'survivor benefits'... rightfully doled out to homemaker wives who never entered the 'workforce' of the 'liberated women' of the 1960's... the change over is both correct and rightious


to give home bound mothers/homemakers a 'credit' for all the labor intensive duties they performed to make the 'Nuclear Family' work...is worth at least a portion of the dead/live spouses SS voluntary payments as a return of their spouses contributions---since they had no recourse or option to contribute themselves for their own retirement years...


tsk, tsk ... you seem more callous than myself
edit on 24-9-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Republicans need the elderly vote....that's all it's about. The most reliable independent voting block that everyone needs to get elected.

Of course, that voting block relies on Social Security and Medicare.

It's not getting easier to live out there...and it's going to get more and more difficult for Republicans to continue on the path they are on.

You can't expect to cut social programs and cut taxes for the wealthiest when millions are in dire straights.

I have no idea how the political environment will be in a year from this time...but I bet it will be much different than now.

edit on 24-9-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Dubya tried to privatize social security early in his first term... Wanted to invest the proceeds in the stock market...

Good thing THAT didn't happen.


I will never trust a republican of any stripe.




new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join