Give social security it's walking papers

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I don't expect any of you to understand what I say.
I did not have to get a SS at birth and it was a childhood decision
you could make when you where not old enough to enter into contract
by law at the time.




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


You keep saying we are blaming old people....

I keep saying the government screwed it up and the government should give us a choice to get out of it.

Rudy, no disrespect, but is English your first language? Because I think we have a communication problem.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
So since we are discussing SS,
Lets hear from the ones old enough,
that were told as kids,
we can not hire you,
until you get a SS number.
We were children treated just like illegals.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I am 46 years old..is that young? But you didn't put 11k in every year you worked..I doubt you were making $100,000, 25 years ago when you had your first job...unless you are Bill Gates. Is this Bill Gates?

So, the numbers do not add up.


I was rounding the numbers unless you want me to itemize my life earnings... But I'll come close for you... in my first 20 years of work that was about 500k and so a little over 50k would have gone into SS if we just wag that it would be 75K total with 5% interest at the end of that 20 years and we let it build for another 30 years that comes to 325k, by 2005 I was maxing SS so not even looking at the 7 years between 1998 and 2005 I would have put into SS 11k per year for 30 years, or...drum roll please another 505k in savings for a total of 830k, ok my 600k was a little off...


edit on 7-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
So back to the OP.
Are you old enough to experience,
when you could not get a job without an SS number,
as a child born in America?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
So without an SS number,
How are you going to prove you can work in America.
If we get rid of SS?
A chip?
Your mommy, like I had too?
Etc?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





I took out old and unemployed since they do not mean "need" too.


One would think the old, unemployed and the old unemployed would be placed in the 'poverty' column. Haven't seen many rich, old unemployed people. Except for Romney






No we can't let people take care of people, we need the Government


Well, its all just in perspective, I would say the government is of the people, and by the people. So its people, taking care of people. In theory at least. Much better than corporations are people, don't ya think?

Much like Greenspan found when he said the markets will regulate themselves (we see how that worked out), depending on citizens, charities, religious organizations, etc will ultimately fail due to greed. It is in all of us, and I think people will fall to this basic starting point each time. Just like wall street, greed would get the better of us.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


I don't think Rudy has a problem with English.

Maybe missed a certain pharmaceutical dosage.

Or in desperate need of one.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I haven't read all reply's since my last post but I want to add that the gov doesn't just take your money and let it sit there as many suppose. They invest it in the stock market. They are lying to you/us about this SS problem.

This is a large site and I no longer know the exact spot to find the information but there have also been threads on ATS that can lead you to this information. If we don't have the money to pay for SS or Medicare, it is because their investments went awry, they put it into something we aren't told about (black ops), or whatever.

original site info

ATS link and 2 hour video

Anyone who takes the time to view this and do a little research...it will blow you away. The money is, or was there.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by timetothink
 


I don't think Rudy has a problem with English.

Maybe missed a certain pharmaceutical dosage.

Or in desperate need of one.


And I think you have never achieved anything in America,
on your own,
and were issued a compliance number at birth.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


So when rich people get old they just keep on working forever...they don't retire like the rest of the world.

I do not understand that you don't see "rich, old unemployed" people. Retired is unemployed as in no longer working.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
As an American I had to earn my right, and number, as a child to work here.
Unlike the younger generation that was issued numbers at birth.
I had to earn a label, those that followed were issued labels.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I take pride that I was not issued a number,
and had to apply for the number,
that some complain about.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





So, the numbers do not add up.


Not to eavesdrop, but as I am reading through the thread I became interested in the conversation betwixt you and Xtrozero. I'm enjoying it actually [&trying to learn from it].

The way I think about what you said here, is that though it may seem as if the numbers don't add up.. the Gov't is aware and statistics show that not all people who pay into SS collect it. Most do, but not all, and of those that do, they don't always add up to the amounts paid in. Some get more, some less, some not at all.. so it should work out in a way that makes the system work for all of us. One problem is, the Gov't putting their hands in the kitty. That is [or should be] illegal, but who polices the Gov't


..But I certainly don't have the answers, nor do I really know much about the issue-but I'm trying



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 


Thank you for eavesdropping.

That's why my point is to give people a choice whether to participate or not. Of course, I understand that some people will not participate if given a choice and they won't save..so there's another problem.

But see, there used to be a time before government programs when these things were taken care of by the family, community and organizations. But we lost our moral compass and let t he government take over and now people don't know how to operate without them.

Personal responsibility and community are better caretakers than a government, especially one gone rogue.

I just want a choice of a buyout and to protect my money and take care of myself and family.

Why in America are we forced to give into a retirement system that we have no control over?
edit on 8-10-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 


I like your avatar reminds me of the vaccines,
we would line up for as children,
handed out at public schools.
When I grew up they handed out vaccines,
before SS numbers.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


There were no SS numbers before the SS act , so if you were born before that you wouldn't have had one until they came out......so what's the problem?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





Why in America are we forced to give into a retirement system that we have no control over?


No idea. But....you really answered that [in a way] within your own comment;




But we lost our moral compass and let t he government take over and now people don't know how to operate without them.


It's true that we lost our moral compass-or maybe we just stopped trying/caring. In any event, that isn't the reason our Gov't started SS in the first place, though I bet they would use that as reason enough. Which came first, the chicken or the egg



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





I do not understand that you don't see "rich, old unemployed" people. Retired is unemployed as in no longer working.


Sorry, was being a lil sarcastic, doesn't show well on screen. Although I must disagree with your definition of ' Retired is unemployed as in no longer working.' As you can be retired and employed, or retired and working.




So when rich people get old they just keep on working forever...they don't retire like the rest of the world.


In my opinion, they do not retire like the rest (the 98%) of the world. If your rich, this is entirely different than working for 40 years and then retiring with 60% of your salary and $20,000 in the bank. With a second mortgage taken out to pay for your children's college education and one major illness away from being on Medicare/Medicaid and losing your house.

These are not the worries of a 'retired' rich person.

They worry about offshore accounts and not showing their tax records. Not their daily bread.

It is a significant difference some would say.
edit on 8-10-2012 by ErEhWoN because: sp.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 


Actually a posted a brief history of SS earlier in the thread.

Of course I still believe it's the old...we know better than you crap...that's why the gov't does everything...control and money. Keep people enslaved.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join