54 year old tells me he won't get Social Security if Romney is Elected.

reply to post by The Old American


newcovenant is spewing BS. 401k's cant' be raided by the employers. They can't be "raided" by anyone. Pension plans can be raided, 401k's cannot.

Fear-mongering for the sake of winning argument is BS.

well i am 28 and i believe i will never see social security regardless who wins the election.

not to sound cold, the the issue is much bigger then some unprepared elderly folk.

Originally posted by The Old American
IT'S. HER. CHOICE.

That is the difference here. You want the government to do it for us, we want to do it ourselves. The risk is ours. Not yours or anyone else's. The government can keep everything I've put in over the last 30 years. I'll still come out ahead if allowed to invest it myself.

But it would be my choice. My risk. My personal responsibility. You know, that thing you have a problem with.

/TOA

No no, we are supposed to feel sorry and empathetic for her. Screw responsibility and foresight; we need to tax the hell out of people to continue this scheme! How else will we (democrats/republicans) be able to instill fear into the hearts of the elderly if Social Security were to be handed over to the People?

Beez Knee's post sums it up fairly well. We (collectively ATS) hold nothing true, we question and we bicker; yet SS is off limits even for here. Don't touch it!

Ponzi Schemes are so much fun.

Romneys/Ryans plan for saving Social Security means if you are 55+ you keep the same plan currently available. If younger, you choose.

Why are you criticizing his intelligence? He's the smart one....
If any politician says something vague like ,"Oh we're going to change this and save money, but don't worry, we're going to give you more options"
You should take that as you're going to be screwed over.
I'm sorry but it's the guy who said that that is intelligent. It doesn't matter your political leanings. Romney's plan is vague. And when someone says they're going to save money, and improve something at the same time, it should send up red flags.....

So funny the idea of putting our SS into Wall street. Mitt made millions by beefing up a stock and then dumping it. Making him money and the average stock holder holding the bill. Imagine your SS invested like that. Rich people and hedge funders would drool waiting to plunder all that money. They would make the stock market rise though... making people who run and go very wealthy. The people who think by sticking in and forgetting would lose everything. Not smart playing a casino owned and played by the house to win while you lose.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I know many people who placed all their saving in a 401 K and lost their entire investment in 2007. There are no guarantees and who is to say you will not become victim of scammers or unscrupulous companies who are supposed to match your savings but instead raid the account. Hardly ever see white collar criminals go to jail so tell me what do they have to lose by screwing you?

IT'S. HER. CHOICE.

That is the difference here. You want the government to do it for us, we want to do it ourselves. The risk is ours. Not yours or anyone else's. The government can keep everything I've put in over the last 30 years. I'll still come out ahead if allowed to invest it myself.

But it would be my choice. My risk. My personal responsibility. You know, that thing you have a problem with.

/TOA

I don't want government to do anything for me but keep regulations in place that protect the middle class.
You can't continue to have lobbyist for the richest 1% deregulate the financial industry. You just don't get it. Your personal responsibility? Why don't you educate yourself because it isn't up to you and hardly ever is.

Encore Broadcast:
On Winner-Take-All Politics March 1, 2012 In this encore presentation,
Bill Moyers investigates America’s economic disparity — how it happened and who’s to blame.

billmoyers.com...

BILL MOYERS: Our once and future middle class is fading. Their share of the nation’s income is shrinking, while the share going to the top is growing. Wages are at an all-time low as a percentage of the economy, and chronic unemployment is at the highest level since the Great Depression, but the richest Americans now hold more wealth than at any time in modern history. This gross inequality didn’t just happen. It was made to happen. It was politically engineered by powerful players in Washington and on Wall Street.

You can read how they did it in this book, Winner-Take-All Politics, by two of the country’s top political scientists, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson.



JACOB HACKER: You know, the startling statistic that we have in the book is that if you take all of the income gains from 1979 to 2007, so all the increased household income over that period, around 40 percent of those gains went to the top one percent. And if you look at the bottom 90 percent they had less than that combined.

And it is not just a one or two year story...
But we were actually looking at the last 30 years, and seeing that the middle class had only gotten ahead to the extent that it had because of families working more hours.

So this is a story that isn't just about those at the top doing much, much better. But...a story about those in the middle not getting ahead, often falling behind in important ways, failing to have the same kinds of opportunity and economic security that they once had.

Let's take a look at just how dramatic the inequality is. You have a chart here. I'm not an astute reader of charts, but this one did hit me. What are you saying with that chart?

JACOB HACKER: It says how much did people at different points on the income ladder earn in 1979 and how much did they earn in 2006 after adjusting for inflation?

It exploded at the top. The line for the top one percent, it's hard to fit on the graph because it's so much out of proportion to the increases that occurred among other income groups including people who are just below the top one percent. So, that top one percent saw its real incomes increase by over 250 percent between 1979 and 2006. Yeah. Over 250 percent.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by The Old American

 

newcovenant is spewing BS. 401k's cant' be raided by the employers. They can't be "raided" by anyone. Pension plans can be raided, 401k's cannot.

Fear-mongering for the sake of winning argument is BS.

You just don't know how badly the middle class has been deliberately screwed. I have watched it happen and if you want a refresher you can also check out the Bill Moyers interview above. We need greater financial regulations actually just removing loopholes or the economy doesn't stand a chance of prospering because now it is skewed against the middle class.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by newcovenant

 

OMG...you absolutely don't understand. There's not a "cent" in social security. There are only standing "credits" that the government say are there for every cent they took out of social security and spent on whatever the war or social program of the day was. If those dollars taken from social security had been used to decreased the deficit of the budget (i.e. produce a balanced budget) those "credits" on the money taken would have some modicum (kind of sort of) of actually being worth something, but that's not what they did. Part of the 16 trillion debt is the debt to the social security system! And they issued that "debt" back to the fund while continuing to raise the deficit year after year.

You can't buy bread on an outstanding debt...especially when the debt owed you is by the government. Go try it. Try to buy your Wheaties by saying "I'm eligible for social security but right now all I have is a "credit" issued to me, will you let me buy those Wheaties on the promise that the government will actually earn 16 trillion dollars soon and my credit will be reimbursed?

IT DOESN'T EXIST!

edit on 11-4-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

There is a surplus in Social Security Insurance accounts right now. I don't know where you are getting your information but seems to be a moot point. The people have spoken and exit polls say they did not want changes to social security.

reply to post by newcovenant



There is no surplus. And the vote has nothing to do with whether there is money sitting there or not. Votes don't produce money in the social security fund.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by newcovenant

 

There is no surplus. And the vote has nothing to do with whether there is money sitting there or not. Votes don't produce money in the social security fund.

Media Chronically Wrong On Social Security And The Deficit
mediamatters.org...

The national debate on the future of Social Security is surrounded by falsehoods and misconceptions regarding the program's finances and its relationship to the federal budget -- misconceptions that are repeatedly reinforced by major media outlets. In fact, as it's currently constructed, Social Security cannot add to the deficit in the long run, does not present a major threat to America's fiscal future, and is backed by some of the safest financial assets in the world.

Do Not Believe the GOP: Social Security Is Running A Surplus
hg.scimth.net...

Social Security’s surplus is approximately double the $1.4 trillion collected in corporate and personal income taxes for 2011. Furthermore, the surplus is projected to continue increasing its surplus until 2021; the year that the youngest “baby boomers” reach full benefit age.

Social security has always been a pyramid scheme.

The government never invested the "extra" money that people were paying into the system. Instead in went into the general fund and the politicians spent it.

Now, around 2018, the amount of money paid out to social security recipients will be more than they bring in from social security taxes paid by the masses.

That's when things will get very interesting. The politicians will either have to raise social security payroll taxes (a very unpopular choice) or reduce benefits (but old people vote)

reply to post by newcovenant


OMFG...I linked you to the damned GAO website and you still don't get it. THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by newcovenant

 

OMFG...I linked you to the damned GAO website and you still don't get it. THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND.

OMMFG I linked you to the board of trustees annual report and Media Matters!
And yet you still don't get it? Is it a problem with the math? Help me - help you!

The national debate on the future of Social Security is surrounded by falsehoods and misconceptions regarding the program's finances and its relationship to the federal budget -- misconceptions that are repeatedly reinforced by major media outlets. In fact, as it's currently constructed, Social Security cannot add to the deficit in the long run, does not present a major threat to America's fiscal future, and is backed by some of the safest financial assets in the world.

US Govt Debt Clocks

Social Security is $2.7 trillion in the black (Nov 2012). In 2010 it ran a $90 billion surplus.