A glance into SS and Medicare

I don't believe that we could ever go back to a charity basis for helping the poor in retirement. Federally funded social services are like heroin. Once our society became addicted, there was no going back. The ObamaCare fiasco has the same issue. Originally Posted by kehaar

While I agree with you , it never ceases to amaze me how right leaning so called small government zealots refuse to acknowledge Dwight D Eisenhower warning of the vast industrial military complex...

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...strial-complex

.

Like I said, replacing Social Security with a voluntary program scares me. Yes, if I socked away the same amount that my company and I paid into SS, I probably could have invested that money and have a larger source of income. But would I have saved the same amount of money voluntarily starting way back when I began working as I and my company paid into SS? I'd like to think so but I doubt it. All I can say is Social Security worked wonderfully for me. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So cause some may not save on their own doddles, and it scares others, we should keep a rotten to the core, program??

No one has mentioned why it isn't solvent now, because of both parties raiding it to balance their budget. Politicians can't see money lying around without dipping into it. Originally Posted by bamscram

Which is why i feel ALL currently active politicans, and all those still alive drawing a retirement/pension, should have their pay CUT to 10% of what it is, and the remainder of that cut goes INTO the SS fund, to repay all the damn IOUs!

That's because the Liberals continually expand the definition of "disabilities" to include "conditions" that are avoidable and hardly prevent someone from working and the medical profession "plays along" with quakes writing reports to assist in the SSWelfare system .... as the recipients depart in their Caddies. Originally Posted by LexusLover

What makes me laugh about what qualifies these days, is the whole purpose behind the Americans with Disability Act being passed, was SO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES could still work in the work force.. So if by the ADA i can't refuse to hire a disabled person, then other than being totally brain dead or quadriplegic (to where they can't even use their hands), No one should be 'too disabled to work' to where they need SSDI..

Add to that all the 'so called mental issues' that people get to claim disability for (slight depression, anxiety).. I know people with REAL mental issues that they take daily pills for who still work.. So again, that's not a real disability.

And IMO NEITHER IS being obese..

The label "Libertarian" is a caricature.

..snip..

That doesn't describe a libertarian. Originally Posted by kehaar

To me that 'snipped part' describes a Constitutionalist!

I don't believe that we could ever go back to a charity basis for helping the poor in retirement. Federally funded social services are like heroin. Once our society became addicted, there was no going back. The ObamaCare fiasco has the same issue. Originally Posted by kehaar

Which imo is WHY so many are ranting and frothing at the mouth over losing their 'obamacare'.. even though its only been what, 3 years, that's now seen as a RIGHT, and they will be damned if the govt strips them of their right to 'health insurance'..

Some folks get "confused" about social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Those some folks probably believe that ...
..."STOP" on a red sign means "slow down."

So cause some may not save on their own doddles, and it scares others, we should keep a rotten to the core, program??
Originally Posted by garhkal

Unfortunately yes.

You think Social Security is rotten to the core. I applaud it, at least as a retirement supplement. For some people, it is their only source of income.

In Texas, 24% of those 65 and older receiving Social Security payments get 90% of their income from those payments. These people, for whatever reason, have little to no income other than SS. Can you imagine where they would be without SS?

To me that 'snipped part' describes a Constitutionalist!


.. Originally Posted by garhkal

Constitutionalist is the new State Right Segregationist


.

Unfortunately yes.

You think Social Security is rotten to the core. I applaud it, at least as a retirement supplement. For some people, it is their only source of income.

In Texas, 24% of those 65 and older receiving Social Security payments get 90% of their income from those payments. These people, for whatever reason, have little to no income other than SS. Can you imagine where they would be without SS? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes i can. I know many who saved for their OWN, cause they thought with the state SS was in, back in the 80s, that it wouldn't BE around any longer.. SO SAVED themselves, that way they wouldn't have had to worry about the SS safety net.

Yes i can. I know many who saved for their OWN, cause they thought with the state SS was in, back in the 80s, that it wouldn't BE around any longer.. SO SAVED themselves, that way they wouldn't have had to worry about the SS safety net. Originally Posted by garhkal

Well, those people were wrong. Social Security is, at the moment, alive and well and living up to their commitment to send me monthly check. After 2034, it may be a different story.

I also saved beyond the 6.2% taken out of every check for SS. I was lucky in that I earned enough to pay my bills and have money left over. Not everyone is so fortunate. If you are barely making ends meet each month and are asked "How would you like a 6.2% increase in your pay" you would probably jump at that opportunity.

I don't know what sort of jobs the people you know who are saving more than just SS have. After retirement I went to work for a home improvement company making maybe $3 an hour over minimum wage. Not unusual pay in retail. This was "mad money" for me but for most workers at the company this was their only source of income. If the government gives people working in such jobs the option of opting out of "saving for retirement" they will more than likely do so. Worry about the future in the future.

When they took that 6.2(it is actually 15%) out of your paycheck, it wasn't "saved", or "invested". That money is gone.

The money you are receiving is being taken from my descendants.

I have no problem giving you money.

I have a problem with you saying that you are "owed" money from my descendants. It is the equivelant of a Ponzi scheme participant saying that they are "owed" money from the plan, and since the plan was fraudulent, the participant has the right to pull a gun on the neighbors, and take their food.

Be glad we have a society that cares for its people because you aren't "owed" anything.

Your parable is instructive, and demonstrates that anybody has the ability to save money. There are always "wants" that can be sacrificed. Teaching people that saving isn't required is disgusting.

Actually...SS and Medicares surpluses have given people like kehaar reason to overspend in other sections of government. ..such as Defense spending.

That surplus has covered up how big the actual debt has neen growing in nonrelated social services.

He dors not mention the gact that he himself is wanting his decedent's to pay for his military overspending.



Things one should know it they are really going to act like they can follow money.

Social Security is already "broke". The its outlays are currently greater than its "revenue".


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/socia...175058898.html

Actually...SS and Medicares surpluses have given people like kehaar reason to overspend in other sections of government. ..such as Defense spending.

That surplus has covered up how big the actual debt has neen growing in nonrelated social services.

He dors not mention the gact that he himself is wanting his decedent's to pay for his military overspending.



Things one should know it they are really going to act like they can follow money. Originally Posted by WTF

By chance WTF, are you dyslexic? Cause your posts seem to always (or almost always) contain a # of spelling errors. Or don't you give a rats ass..??

By chance WTF, are you dyslexic? Cause your posts seem to always (or almost always) contain a # of spelling errors. Or don't you give a rats ass..?? Originally Posted by garhkal

Probably.

Yes they do.

I do not give a rat's ass.

I have ADD...I usually type on my phone. I hardly ever proof read. I move on to the next thread. After I come back to a thread, if someone has quoted me...I see all the fucked up shit. But still it is a hooker board. Idc.

Plus....read this:

http://www.livescience.com/18392-rea...led-words.html




.

Social Security is already "broke". The its outlays are currently greater than its "revenue".


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/socia...175058898.html Originally Posted by kehaar

What about military spending? Its outlays are abov3 it revenue. Should we start cutting it too?



.

When they took that 6.2(it is actually 15%) out of your paycheck, it wasn't "saved", or "invested". That money is gone.

The money you are receiving is being taken from my descendants.

I have no problem giving you money.

I have a problem with you saying that you are "owed" money from my descendants. It is the equivelant of a Ponzi scheme participant saying that they are "owed" money from the plan, and since the plan was fraudulent, the participant has the right to pull a gun on the neighbors, and take their food.

Be glad we have a society that cares for its people because you aren't "owed" anything.

Your parable is instructive, and demonstrates that anybody has the ability to save money. There are always "wants" that can be sacrificed. Teaching people that saving isn't required is disgusting. Originally Posted by kehaar

15%? Please explain.

I'm sorry if you don't like my terminology. It is not my fault that the money I and my company gave to Social Security was spent on others. If I am not "owed" that money, why does the government send me a nice check every month?

Look, we have different viewpoints on Social Security. I am fine with that. We can always question if SS did not exist would I have invested an equal amount in some sort of savings plan. BTW, if an alternative plan to SS was available, would a company pay into it? I doubt it, which means you would have only 50% of the investment you currently have.