It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


House Republicans attack Social Security on day one

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: desert

You got the plot right.

One day theses same people, young people here who are suckered into this philosophy will be very sorry 20 or 30 years from now when the GOP gets rid of SS and they are old people WITH NOHTING as Wall street by then will have done to them what they did to the poor mans 401k in 2007-8

People are just STUPID to go for this AGAIN AND AGAIN

Bush actually tried to privatize SS before the crash of 2007-8.

Imagine when the stupid people who support the GOP and put their trust in Wall Street get ruined

Don’t come crying to me.


posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:41 AM
a reply to: Willtell

It is the stupid old southerner that keeps the GOP in power. They "got theirs" and that is all they care about. Young people will not vote. I have grown children in their 20s, 30s. They have lost hope in all politicians. I think that has been the conservative game plan for 30 years. Take Hope Away.

And yes, one day, they will be sandwiched between job, family, and what to do with the old geezer who is incontinent.
edit on 15-1-2015 by MOMof3 because: grammar

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:26 PM

originally posted by: CB328

what have the Republicans actually DONE to get rid of it?

They all want to get rid of it, Paul Ryan for one example, I think part of his "Ryan plan" included cutting social security. And don't forget Bush tried to sell swapping it for privatization, but he couldn't get support for it.

I think the plan is actually, not to do away with social security, but to privatize it. The moneys will still come out of your paycheck, but wall street will administer the program for a tidy profit. The .8% administrative cost of the current system with raise over night to fees of 20% or more. Where are those fee going to come from? From benefits.

Accounting tricks, rule changes - aren't the republicans clever. And you believe them - shame.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: FyreByrd

Your post made me think. Once everyone has to buy an insurance company retirement plan AND an insurance company disability plan, then the Social Security offices could shut down, no? Or, would they, since they no longer would be responsible for administering a govt insurance plan, convert to some type of agency that would check to see that everyone did indeed buy two private plans (ret and dis)? Like the IRS now checks to make sure taxpayers have a medical insurance plan.

Since the ACA (private medical insurance) is based on a conservative plan (regardless of that haha Marxist/Commie/Fascist Obama haha), I would think that a conservative plan for private ret and dis insurance plans would be similar. To be honest, the ACA put in more progressive ideas, such as requiring ins co's to expand who/what they cover; would something need to be done to ret and dis plans? I don't know.

All I know for young people is that Social Security was only meant to be a safety floor to keep elders out of poverty; it was never meant to be one's ONLY retirement funds. But it is a good program. My bet is that, with the private plans you young people would be forced to buy, you young people would run out of retirement/disability money BEFORE you die. Trust me, unless you're wealthy, there is no way in hell you can save enough in a 401k/savings account. You might as well plan to die a year or two after retirement, when your money runs out. Scary, huh?

I have a relative who since 1965 has complained that "if only the guvment let me invest my own retirement money rather than give it to Social Security!", that the guvment was robbing him....well, guess what, the only money he now has IS Social Security!

If one of the conservative plans is to give you a voucher to buy private dis and ret, than that is the same as opening govt funds for Wall Street to plunder.

my 2c and then some...must be 4c as I end this post

edit on 16-1-2015 by desert because: punc and gram

edit on 16-1-2015 by desert because: add "s"

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: MOMof3

Your right apathy is going to ruin the youth of today when they get old in a GOP run country and then theirs NOTHING for them but regrets

The youth have no future with capitalism

Their sending jobs overseas so the capitalist can pay slave wages

There allowing the school debt to ruin the youths future and now when they screw up SS they will one day have to starve or work until they die.




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:59 AM
a reply to: desert

Sure he would have invested and Wall Street would have screwed him good and he’d have nothing


posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: desert

And what protection would be given these retirement funds that they won't be "invested" and then lost?

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: MOMof3

a reply to: Willtell

Yep. Of course, Wall Street could once again ask that their profits be privatized and their risk socialized.... as the last go around starting in 2000 and crashing to a halt in 2008.

I can remember the 1980s, the Savings and Loan crisis, with its accompanying scandals (Jeb and George Bush's brother Neil received publicity on that one. The Bush family and the S&L Scandal. Seniors lost retirement/life savings on that one.

Hey, trivia time. Guess who else was involved in his own scandal back then....

The five U.S. senators were accused of trying to pressure federal thrift regulators to back off their political benefactor Keating, whose Lincoln Savings & Loan would collapse during the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s at a cost of $3.4 billion to taxpayers. At the time, Keating was an influential and larger-than-life business figure in Arizona and he generously contributed campaign cash to his favorite politicians.

McCain is the only member of the "Keating Five" who is still serving on Capitol Hill. The other four retired in 1990s: U.S. Sens. Alan Cranston, D-Calif.; Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.; John Glenn, D-Ohio; and Donald Riegle, D-Mich.


Yep. You're correct to ask those questions. The "little people" seem to get screwed if they don't.

Since I went in my way back machine to the 1980s, I have another observation to share.

The word con in “con job” or “con man” refers to the word “confidence”, Con men gain a person’s confidence in order to play out a scheme to defraud. Groups of people can fall under the spell of a con man.

Good, decent, moral people fell under the spell of politicians and their supporters, who told them they could place their confidence in them to do what is right because they were moral Christians. Voting for a Christian was voting for all that was great about America. Religion and patriotism! Values and the flag!

But, as it is said, no one can serve two masters, the pull of money and power pulled elected leaders to serve greed and corporations rather than their citizens who voted for them. But still believers believed.

And as the ideologues and extremists forced out or silenced those who would counter them, they set out to change the nation with their self-righteous extremist ideology. Trickle down would become even more trickle up, as more money from the bottom would go to the top.

If a politician says he/she will “reform” something, question and ask HOW this will be done. For ex, I can tell you that I discipline my child; to you it might mean that I restrict phone use, but what I really do is kick them to the ground and lock them in the garage. The good, decent, moral people preferred to never question authority but rather blindly trust in these con men, believing them to be just like them.

By now, many of the good, decent, moral people who were conned now understand the implications of the schemes. I would say that whomever is left to go along are either ignorant (in the nicest sense) or true believers.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:52 PM
a reply to: desert

"By now, many of the good, decent, moral people who were conned now understand the implications of the schemes. I would say that whomever is left to go along are either ignorant (in the nicest sense) or true believers."

I pray you are right.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:29 PM
a reply to: desert

The hell you cannot save enough. I had my cousin (financial planner) run a schedule showing what would have happened had I invested just my portion of my payroll taxes when I first started working full time (1987) using a middle of the road investment product. 27 years later, I would have had seven million dollars even with the 2007-2009 crash.

But no, I gave that money to the government to ensure that when I retire in another 22 years I may get a monthly check of $2200.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:36 PM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How would you protect it with no government guarantee?

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:11 PM
About 80% of the disabled are on social security because of workplace injuries or exposures to toxins.

Many times these workplace injuries or exposures do not show up or disable for years.

yet in most of these cases the companies never have to pay for the disabled they leave behind.

There should be a tax on every company per employee to cover the disabled they cause.

even the government leaves veterans by the wayside when it comes to injuries or exposures during military service.

i was exposed to PCBs and dioxin(PCDD) in the navy during shipboard fire.

but since it was not agent orange dioxin(TCDD) i know its going to be a long fight to get service connected disability.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:30 PM
a reply to: MOMof3. Since when should I depend on the government to take care of me? For the most part I wish they would forget who the hell I am.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:11 PM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

That was not my question. If you want private soc sec who is going to protect the funds from Wall Street investors to lose? Oh, you want us to gamble with our old age. You go ahead.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: MOMof3


30 year bond

reinvest the coupons

compounded interest

look it up with calculators

it works

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 07:17 AM
a reply to: MOMof3 Wall Street.....Wall Street....Wall Street....... You do realize that Wall Street is not the end all, be all of investing right?

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:25 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

A U.S. Treasury debt obligation that has a maturity of 30 years. The 30-year Treasury used to be the bellwether U.S. bond but now most consider the 10-year Treasury to be the benchmark.

What is the difference? Soc Sec and Bonds are government money, guaranteed by the government. If I could go back in time and be smarter financially, I would have done both.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:56 AM
Amazing that if society now expects people to be financial wizards WHY DIDN’T THEY TEACH THIS STUFF IN THE SCHOOLS?

Not one subject in all of my years in school did I come across How to invest

Wall street standards and practices, NOHTING

Now all of a sudden its expected.

Millions of people will be doomed to extreme poverty in old age with the dogma of the GOP

Their ideas DON’T work in the real world

Every time we try these Republican draconian anti-human ideas THEY DON’T WORK!

The idiot in Kansas FINALLY relented AND NOW WILL RAISE TAXES.

Kansas governor seeks tax increases to address budget woes


posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 11:08 AM
a reply to: Willtell

The same thing is happening in Idaho. They pillaged the education funds and tried to get rid of teachers with computers. It has been a dismal failure and now they want a government bailout to pay the internet company. It is a long story.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: Willtell
"Brownback also proposed making future personal income tax cuts more gradual than promised under reductions enacted in 2012 and 2013 at his urging to stimulate the economy."

Did you read this part. Guess who has to pay for the Koch Brothers tax cut gifts? The working man.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in