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

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It seems to me that the vocal part of talk radio conservatives(& yep that means a lot of libertarians as well)
are unable to concieve the art of the triple cross. A double cross with one more added.
Talk radio junkies are bombarded with;Government bad,programs only help minorities or illegal aliens etc. Yet when researched with nonpartisan GAO, we find solvent programs that are beneficial to many white natural born Americans .
Think about who is telling you Government bad.It's Alex Jones(try and get him to talk about the KOCH brothers)Glenn Beck,Rush,Savage? Paid for by The Chamber of Commerce.
I hope some realize it is corporations,oil companies,superstore chains & insurance companies that are feeding you most of the patriotic heresy.Obama's a socialist etc. Why? Because they make so much more money when you are unable to band with your coworkers to get better wages and dare I say some health coverage?
It's so much better for them if you die before 65 so lobbyists keep nutritional guidelines unregulated so you eat #.
Just because Rush and Alex Jones KOCH(that's my new name for him)are loud and tell you Obama's coming after you and your Granny over and over does not mean it's true.At all.
It's the triple cross. They (corporations) have been tricking toothless hard working Americans out of their health benefits and pay raises for years .So the triple cross gets you to vote for more of the same. Like you're a billionaire,but with no money, no teeth and a bum knee.If you had just been responsible and picked yourself up by your bootstraps all those years ago when you were working 50 hours a week and squirreled away money for a new knee.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Social Security just happens to be one of the government programs that works and anyone who promotes the idea of privatizing it has rocks for brains. But then, nowadays it seems that's just what the GOP is looking for, someone with rocks for brains.

For Rick Perry to say it's a "Ponzi" scheme makes about as much sense as Michele Bachman stating that people should be able to keep every penny of every dollar they earn. Go Figure! (I wonder who she thinks should pay for our roads, sewers, dams, electrical grid, police & fire protection, educating the next generation of workers, etc....?)

I don't know of a single retiree who's ever been cheated out of their S.S. payment but I know plenty who were cheated out of their money when Lehman Brothers went belly up and I know a lot more that saw their "private" investment accounts get cut in half during the same period of time. When it was all said and done, the american tax payers got left with the tab, (bank bail outs) and the "private" investors were never made whole.

Privatize Social Security? I think not, but don't let me stop those of you who wish to advocate for it, because nothing could be more important than for the american people to get a clear vision of just exactly where it is that you want to take this country. Oh yeah, good luck in the next election because with policies like that, you're gonna need it.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Sheep rely heavily on talking points which are often easily identified by the sudden popular use of words just recently relegated to the if needed pile.


Pon·zi   /ˈpɒnzi/ Show Spelled[pon-zee] Show IPA
noun
a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.


It is bad enough to hear Rush and his ilk start calling it that but to then see a forum full of "individual free thinkers" repeat it ad-nauseum with little thought to why it is incorrect to call it that is really bad. It is not a "swindle." No one is lured into bigger risks - kind of the crux of the scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, the one running the scheme makes a fortune. Who runs SS?


Yeah, calling it a Ponzi scheme is really reaching. We should just call it a pyramid scheme, because it is set up and run exactly, precisely like one. A Ponzi scheme was just...oh wait...it was a pyramid scheme, too.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
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.


Social security goes beyond merely being a government savings scheme. Medicare, medicaid and unemployement benefits sit under the unbrella of social security. Merely convincing folks to save privately will not be an effective way in privatizing the entire programme because there are a number of other factors. As for brokerage firms and their saving schemes, if we want to talk about Ponzi schemes, brokerage and banking firms are no strangers to this. There are some good firms out there, banks, for simple straightforward savings, I don't have a problem of folks taking responsibility for this, but when it comes to medicare, medicaid, unemployement benefits, this is something that private firms have demonstrated their inability (or unwillingness) to take over or cater to.

None of the presidential candidates have come up with any viable solutions to privatize medicare and medicaid and I've explained why in previous threads, there are obvious reasons why. No private firm wants to fill the void for medicare and medicaid, and why should they? The poor and elderly people are unprofitable. Disabled vets are unprofitable. This idea that the freemarket knows best to this problem is just talk at the end of the day.

Reagan, Nixon, the recent Bush, they didn't touch social security. Bush recommended an idea of privatization, but it was just a weak attempt to make a showing for his campaign promises, he knew that the private market would not be able to take the place of these programmes.

I'm curious to see whether there is any one government of an advanced economy that doesn't have a thing to do with healthcare and social security of their citizens. Such govenments simply doesn't exist today, and with good reason. The libertarian ideology of full self relaince in present day society holds no water. Maybe in the far flung future it might, but not now, and not in the near future, and understandably so.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Yeah, calling it a Ponzi scheme is really reaching. We should just call it a pyramid scheme, because it is set up and run exactly, precisely like one. A Ponzi scheme was just...oh wait...it was a pyramid scheme, too.

/TOA


Normally you seem much smarter than this. How has this talking point taken such hold? Why are there so many sheep here? Suddenly the GOP starts calling it that and amazingly all you individuals on ATS start calling it that.

What do you not understand? Pyramid schemes or Ponzi schemes? The definition for one was just supplied for you. Need the other one?

I am not trying to be mean here but saying this only displays ignorance of what those schemes actually do and how they work and from you it surprises me. Can you perhaps explain how it is either without making up your own new definitions?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman


The Fed Govt runs and profits from it.



And how big is that profit? I thought the other talking point was that it is doomed to go broke. Where is the profit?
As usual I demand PROOF and as usual I will expect none from you.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I know a young lady who was killed and then brought back to life due to a motorcycle accident.
The party responsible fled and this girl was severally brain damaged, yet still extremely
functional.Her mother's life was ruined by this accident too, nobody wants to hire or tolerate a
nasty, unstable, juvenile person, so the mother does it, two lives changed forever. How can you
work when the daughter you loved might get in the car with a murderer or set the house on fire?
Answer is you can't, nobody will hire or retain you, the mother tried, unfortunately she is not
a business acclimated person either, that failed. The state will not take her, charity organizations
will not take her, neighbors help, but that help might cover 3% of all it takes to provide care...

Thankfully the state and SS subsidize their existence, had this been 100 years ago this tragedy
would have become a living nightmare. These are the only two people I personally know on the
take and I am damn glad they are.
edit on 25-9-2011 by mastahunta because: messed up the spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by The Old American
Yeah, calling it a Ponzi scheme is really reaching. We should just call it a pyramid scheme, because it is set up and run exactly, precisely like one. A Ponzi scheme was just...oh wait...it was a pyramid scheme, too.

/TOA


Normally you seem much smarter than this. How has this talking point taken such hold? Why are there so many sheep here? Suddenly the GOP starts calling it that and amazingly all you individuals on ATS start calling it that.

What do you not understand? Pyramid schemes or Ponzi schemes? The definition for one was just supplied for you. Need the other one?

I am not trying to be mean here but saying this only displays ignorance of what those schemes actually do and how they work and from you it surprises me. Can you perhaps explain how it is either without making up your own new definitions?


A pyramid scheme works this way:

You have one person at the top who recruits two or more people to "invest" in a money making plan. They give him money, he invests it, and they all get a return. The people he recruited get people to invest, and they funnel money up to the the next level. This keeps happening until we have many people at the bottom funneling money up to the top. It resembles a pyramid, which is where it gets the name:



For a pyramid scheme to work, the bottom layer must recruit more people to keep feeding money up to the successive layers. The pyramid eventually crumbles because there aren't enough people to con into the scheme and the base falls apart.


Social Security:

Now, imagine that those same numbers in the pyramid scheme, and same explanation, are contributors and beneficiaries of Social Security. At the beginning there are a few at the top getting money funneled from a large amount at the bottom. It works for a while, but it takes more and more people at the bottom being born to support the older people not dying off because of scientific and medical advances. Here's the only difference between the two: The pyramid tips over.



Now the amount of people "contributing" are still at the bottom, but they are a smaller number than the top "benefitting". The bottom layer must recruit more people to keep feeding money up to the successive layers in order to tip the pyramid back over. But this absolutely cannot happen. The pyramid eventually crumbles because there aren't enough people to "con"tribute into the scheme and the base falls apart.

Newsflash: America's birthrate has slowed to an all-time low, but the amount of people living well past the age of receiving SS benefits continues to grow. SS cannot be sustained with any math known to humans.

Easy, yes?

/TOA



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by macman


The Fed Govt runs and profits from it.



And how big is that profit? I thought the other talking point was that it is doomed to go broke. Where is the profit?
As usual I demand PROOF and as usual I will expect none from you.


Really?
Why should I bother. You are presented proof in other posts, and then you either attack the person on grammar or just attack the source reported.

Back to the bridge you came from.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

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.



However if they send you a statement every year for what you are owed and what you paid in, you could so get that money that you paid in. I get one of those statements every year and they should also include the option to take it out immediately or to apply it to what you pay from then forth. They have to that's money you paid in but I agree privatizing that makes the business owner responsible primarily for payin those things which, is nice little deal for Government, but sucks for the private business that takes over.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


What no politicians wants you to know is how much their political parties have stolen from the SS when their parties are in the White house.

Yes, since the "Reagan" administration the political parties in charge can not help themselves from dipping into the SS fund none of then wants to privatized because they don't want the tax payer to know how much they have stolen.

The biggest raid to SS since Clinton was Bush Jr. that is why Bush Jr. was in a hurry to sell SS privatization to the people but he could not do it because people knew better.

It was no only Bankers to bid on the SS but China was the favorite under Bush to be given the chance because at that time China was big buying out Americas debt to finance the two wars in the middle east.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 



are unable to concieve the art of the triple cross. A double cross with one more added.
Talk radio junkies are bombarded with;Government bad,programs only help minorities or illegal aliens etc. Yet when researched with nonpartisan GAO, we find solvent programs that are beneficial to many white natural born Americans .

OH REALLY? What the heck does it matter what it benefits white americans? MOST benefit the minorities and illegals... here's the numbers:

Among the CIS findings:
•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.


•Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

SOURCE

This is taken from Census data...and then consider they said native Citizens and take into account some of those will be other minorities, but the biggest bite is shown here: illegals get the most government programs PERIOD!



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If the SS wasn't touched like is supposed to happen under any Administration since Reagan it could have enough surplus to pay for those that pay into the fund and those than not.

But when the thieves in our government started to loot the fund that is when the problems happened.

They want the people to turn into each other for the blame while keeping themselves out of the bickering.

It is our own government the one that has depleted our SS surplus they are the ones that stole the money, no the illegals or those so call "leaching the system" is our own government, people.

edit on 25-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
If the SS wasn't touched like is supposed to happen under any Administration since Reagan it could have enough surplus to pay for those that pay into the fund and those than not.

But when the thieves in our government started to loot the fund that is when the problems happened.

They want the people to turn into each other for the blame while keeping themselves out of the bickering.

It is our own government the one that has depleted our SS surplus they are the ones that stole the money, no the illegals or those so call "leaching the system" is our own government, people.

edit on 25-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)


I like ending SS though because I should not have to be forced to save for retirement when I need that money now and most likely will never retire (I'll probably die befor I retire). my kids don't need it if I done my job right so, I want to be cremated don't even need a box or fancy urn spread my ashes over the ocean (my kids can do this) so not much cost there. One month or two of work should cover it.Also I need have no viewing or memorial service, just burned bones ground and sent out to sea is enough. Wow all that it cost is $695, see now thats economical burial.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I understand, I also agree whit the proposal I don't remember if it was Bush or some other politician that wanted for the younger generation to be able to "invest" their money into the investment group of their choice rather than forcing the people into paying into privatization.

The oldest generation could not have been affected by this.

But with Americas falling into working poor this days, (working but still Dependant on welfare) is not going to be many younger generation investing anything.

This will grow into an older generation with retirement benefits at all and neither SS to depend on



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Privatize Social Security? I trust banks and other financial institutions even less then the government.

Right now you earn very little in a saving account and many people have had the life saving in stock market wiped out because of the banks.

The only thing banks and other financial institutions are out there for is to make money for the people that run then they have to system rigged so they make money even when everyone else looses money.

And as we have seen with the housing even the government can not protect us from these crooks.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Every minority group that has immigrated to the US has followed a similar pattern, whether it was the Irish in the 1850's or the Italians before that. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, typically do not arrive here in the middle class bracket. Sure, the current entitlements we have now were not in place way back then, however, there were other programs that benefited these groups ,especially after the 1930's. The fact that it is now Hispanics that are benefitting from some of these programs doesn't mean it's a grave new problem. This is the way the US grows and keeps the precious birth rate up that Southern Guardian is worried about. Also, diversity is a good thing IMO.
The CIS info states it's both legal and illegal immigrants that are receiving these programs.A finding, splitting these groups, would lower that number considerably on the illegal side I speculate. It's much harder to get assistance from programs if you are illegal. That's a hard one to grasp for a lot of people, but it is true in my experience.Language barriers and simply not being aware of program assistance in the first place make illegals less likely to draw assistance that legal immigrants receive . I grew up in El Paso Tx and witnessed these problems first hand. Many think our programs to benefit lower income people are wasted. Emergency rooms are just overflowing with illegals getting free health care. It so overblown. It reminds me of that old belief that all minorities on welfare are actually loaded and loving their life style. And of course they all drive cadillacs and have 20 kids. Stereo-type! I'm in no way saying Idyserenity holds these beliefs but countless others do. If the US kicked all the illegal Mexicans out this country would fall apart faster than it already is due to corporate greed and control.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
A pyramid scheme works this way:


I am well aware how a pyramid scheme works and you seem to be lacking certain important details such as the profit motive. So you are telling me that Social Security is not only sustainable but profitable? Because a pyramid scheme is profitable and as long as there are new investors, it will always be sustainable. I see no stopping in people being born yet I also see no scheme runner walking away with its ill gotten fortune.

Maybe you just need to point out where all the stolen SS fortunes are constantly going? The system is still running and if it is a pyramid scheme like you say then someone is still making a fortune off of it.

I am also thinking some of you might need to look up the word "scheme."



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Really?
Why should I bother.


Because you care about the truth.


You are presented proof in other posts, and then you either attack the person on grammar or just attack the source reported.


When the hell did that happen? Unless you are referring to a different thread where poor grammar and failure to use actual sources was pointed out because the TOPIC was ignorance. How about you show me where in this thread I was given any proof and further where I attacked it in anyway?


Back to the bridge you came from.


Yet you have said you were done talking to me 3 times now and keep coming back.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join