Chris Christi Wants To Take My Social Security Away

I agree with Jackie, the scenario he laid out is not fair. As far as I am concerned, it is his money to do with what he wants. He earned it!

As for Chris Christie, I believe he is pandering to the Far Right and is hopeful his anti SS message will appeal to enough Far Righties to get in their good graces.

Fuk him and the horse he rode in on!

Crisper fucked up when he walked arm in arm & swapped spit with Obacock after hurricane Sandy. Social Security is a pipe dream to any one 55 years or younger. Enjoy it Jackie and STFUP about it. sore subject for some of us younguns(55)... by this fall, it won't matter.

They will take away your cash for NO reason... http://www.forbes.com/sites/institut...ture-nebraska/

another ... http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/15...-dairy-farmer/

The Republicans have hated SS since it was created during the depression. They have the idea that Wall Street is entitled to have their sticky hands on everyone's retirement. As for solvency? Just raise the earnings cap. Have pay above $200K pay social security tax like the rest of us. Then SS will be solvent for centuries.

No, it's not fair. I heard they even tax social security if it's over a certain amount! Geeze, didn't we already pay taxes for social security? I thought most of the extreme rights on this board were against safety nets. . .lol

Of the social security that is taxed if over a certain dollar amount has not been taxed. The SS one receives comes from two sources your paycheck and your employer matches. The amount your employer matches has never been taxed. Regan created up to 1/2 of of social security tax was taxable (the amount your employer contributed that was never taxed) if your income exceed $32,000 MFJ. Clinton decided that from the time you started paying till the time you started to draw their was some inflation interest earned not taxed and increased the amount of SS that could be taxed up to 85% for incomes exceeding $44,000 MFJ.

I started paying into the Social Security program when my Dad put me to work at age 15.

I have paid in every year since, the last 20 or so years, the max.

I am 68 now. I still work, I draw a paycheck from my Business just like I always have. I went into Medicare when I turned 65, and I started drawing Social Security last year.

I paid it in all of these years, and I should be entitled to it, right?

Not according to Gov Chris Christie.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...el-and-callous

He has a proposal that would limit Social Security for anyone making over $80,000 after retirement, and eliminate it completely for those of us who make over $200,000 after retirement.

Keep in mind, "retirement" doesn't mean you have quit working, it simply means you are eligible to enter Medicare and can start drawing Social Security.

And guess what. Even though, under his proposal, I would not be able to draw ANY of the benefits I paid into for all those years, I WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY as long as I work and draw a paycheck.

Does any of this seem fair? Originally Posted by Jackie S

According to the right, middle, and left it is called "means testing". This is actually more of another left wing statement. They hate the rich and want to take away their (your) money even though you earned it or saved it. This is the problem with Christie, he doesn't have the philosophical underpinnings of a true conservative. He moves around the spectrum, playing one sentiment against another.

The Republicans have hated SS since it was created during the depression. They have the idea that Wall Street is entitled to have their sticky hands on everyone's retirement. As for solvency? Just raise the earnings cap. Have pay above $200K pay social security tax like the rest of us. Then SS will be solvent for centuries. Originally Posted by Jitneyrun

Hated? Not quite true is that. I thought the standard line on race was that since the depression the democrats and GOP have switched sides...so much for that little myth. No, the GOP was against the idea of the government giving money to people and creating dependency on the government. Before SS, people provided for their own retirement through family, investments, and savings. SS should have been just a temporary program to get families through the depression but it didn't stop there. Did you know that the original program did not include everyone? It was also designed to allow over half the possible beneficiaries to die before they collected. Some people are mad because they may lose their money (or some of it) before they can collect it. What happens when you die ahead of time? You lose it all and your family gets no benefit. You should be mad about that. Want to be mad, don't be mad at the GOP who saw this coming but at the democrats who have justified government stealing going back decades.

Check out this name; Ida Mae Fuller

I have question for the OP, how much money do you think you should get from SS? All that you put in? Plus 5%? Plus 10% Plus 20% or everything that I can get my hands on?

I think I should get back what ever amount is prescribed by law.

We can only hope that the law would be fair.

That is what this discussion is about, the fairness of The Government taking all of that money out of someone's paycheck for 50+ years and then changing the rules, more ore less saying......." Too bad, fuck you".

According to the right, middle, and left it is called "means testing". This is actually more of another left wing statement. They hate the rich and want to take away their (your) money even though you earned it or saved it. This is the problem with Christie, he doesn't have the philosophical underpinnings of a true conservative. He moves around the spectrum, playing one sentiment against another. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How, pray tell, is it 'means testing'. What in the fuck does anything he said have to do with determining a person's eligibility for government assistance, which is what means testing is. I think you've pulled another one out of your ass.

I think I should get back what ever amount is prescribed by law.

We can only hope that the law would be fair.

That is what this discussion is about, the fairness of The Government taking all of that money out of someone's paycheck for 50+ years and then changing the rules, more ore less saying......." Too bad, fuck you". Originally Posted by Jackie S

Here's the shitty thing; at some point, there will have to be a cutoff and the people on the wrong side will hear exactly that sentiment.

How, pray tell, is it 'means testing'. What in the fuck does anything he said have to do with determining a person's eligibility for government assistance, which is what means testing is. I think you've pulled another one out of your ass. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're telling us that you've never heard of "means testing"? Even Wikipedia has an entry for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
Do you think Oprah should get reparations if they ever pass such a stupid bill?
As for the "as much as the law allows", what if they (that means us) don't have it. Does your stand take into account that when the coffer is empty that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah, the Walton family, and George Soros should get a piece of that dwindling resource? Answer those questions?

I have question for the OP, how much money do you think you should get from SS? All that you put in? Plus 5%? Plus 10% Plus 20% or everything that I can get my hands on? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'm too lazy to do the math. I contributed the maximum to Social Security for 45 years approximately. Something like $400 the first full year I worked and over $7,000 the last full year I worked. Over $93,000 from 2000-2013. And my company matched that sum so the total for those 14 years alone is around $186,000. Now what if all that money from Day 1 had been invested in the stock market, bonds, mutual funds, or CDs at the average ROI?

My expectation is that I should receive at a minimum my contributions + my company's contributions plus the ROI. Not my fault if the government did not invest
wisely.

You're telling us that you've never heard of "means testing"? Even Wikipedia has an entry for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
Do you think Oprah should get reparations if they ever pass such a stupid bill?
As for the "as much as the law allows", what if they (that means us) don't have it. Does your stand take into account that when the coffer is empty that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah, the Walton family, and George Soros should get a piece of that dwindling resource? Answer those questions? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I point out that you don't know what means testing is and you turn around and act like I'm the one that didn't know? And then you go on with some other bullshit about Oprah? You've been found wanting. Go forth and sin no more you dumbass cunt.

I'm too lazy to do the math. I contributed the maximum to Social Security for 45 years approximately. Something like $400 the first full year I worked and over $7,000 the last full year I worked. Over $93,000 from 2000-2013. And my company matched that sum so the total for those 14 years alone is around $186,000. Now what if all that money from Day 1 had been invested in the stock market, bonds, mutual funds, or CDs at the average ROI?

My expectation is that I should receive at a minimum my contributions + my company's contributions plus the ROI. Not my fault if the government did not invest
wisely. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

They have already projected (social security) that most will not see one hundred percent of their benefits, due to the deficit. You may get 75 percent (if you are lucky). The majority of our children and grandchildren have no future if the economy continues to unravel such that it is. Americans, please get involved and stand up for humanitarian rights.

The wars and "national security" have taken a huge toll on our taxes, and if you are smart, you will see it.