New Social Security bill

Wrong

I’m going to heck
It’s gross to watch people who chastise welfare programs celebrate this socialist crap.

:censored2:ing boomertives, tax cuts and huge entitlements.
 

Wrong

I’m going to heck
I will never be singing the hypocrite tune like you. I’ll never cheer social security as morale and good.

You would gladly vote democrat if it was a sure thing republicans were moving against that entitlement. I wouldn’t.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I will never be singing the hypocrite tune like you. I’ll never cheer social security as morale and good.

You would gladly vote democrat if it was a sure thing republicans were moving against that entitlement. I wouldn’t.
So basically you'd let a lot of people starve, kicked out on the street? That's what would happen to many, many people. When it's all said and done what you're paying for is stability. Take away any hope of retirement and you'd have a seething underclass ready to explode. At any rate we all contribute and as long as they manage it properly we all get a benefit. It's not welfare for the able bodied and after a lifetime of doing your job you will know what I mean.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
I will never be singing the hypocrite tune like you. I’ll never cheer social security as morale and good.

You would gladly vote democrat if it was a sure thing republicans were moving against that entitlement. I wouldn’t.
Let me get this straight, you have money taken from you for your entire working life, and you would cut off your nose to spite your face? I don't like the way social security is set up, but if I don't get some of my money back, then it truly is theft.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
Let me get this straight, you have money taken from you for your entire working life, and you would cut off your nose to spite your face? I don't like the way social security is set up, but if I don't get some of my money back, then it truly is theft.
That's called Government.
 

Wrong

I’m going to heck
Let me get this straight, you have money taken from you for your entire working life, and you would cut off your nose to spite your face? I don't like the way social security is set up, but if I don't get some of my money back, then it truly is theft.
That’s the problem, everyone’s worried about where the roulette ball will land. How many more times are they going to increase the age limit for government retirement, how much will it end up costing the workers to properly fund it as people life expectancy increases. You got to keep in mind social security wasn’t originally planned to subsidize someone for 40 years.
The average life expectancy was 61 in 1935, people start collecting at 65. That isn’t the case these days, it needs an increased age limit.

So basically you'd let a lot of people starve, kicked out on the street? That's what would happen to many, many people. When it's all said and done what you're paying for is stability. Take away any hope of retirement and you'd have a seething underclass ready to explode. At any rate we all contribute and as long as they manage it properly we all get a benefit. It's not welfare for the able bodied and after a lifetime of doing your job you will know what I mean.
Sounds like you’re a proponent of welfare statism when it comes to getting a handout yourself. Yet you don’t have morales behind it, you don’t believe welfare states are good when they don’t directly benefit you and you still have to pick up the tab. You don’t worry about the example the older generations have embraced, our downward spiral into socialism and collectivism. Which is a destructive ideology, eventually you will run out of other’s money then this financial government bubble and artificial standard of living will pop.
 

bumped

Well-Known Member
Its a good thing the social security program was taking in a surplus of money for many decades to make up for the shortfall coming up. Oh, wait...Regan screwed us.
 

Wrong

I’m going to heck
Actually SS is an insurance program.
Medicare for all is also an “insurance” program.

Its a good thing the social security program was taking in a surplus of money for many decades to make up for the shortfall coming up. Oh, wait...Regan screwed us.
They all spend the money and leave us with non negotiatable government bonds. The good faith of the US government will pay you back. :lol:
 

Wrong

I’m going to heck
We should just turn to the federal government for all our financial decisions.

They’ll promise you a retirement, health insurance, livable wages, housing, food, education so you can learn how wonderful it all is and in the end we will be lucky if we get a loaf of bread after waiting in Bernie’s wonderful breadlines.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
That’s the problem, everyone’s worried about where the roulette ball will land. How many more times are they going to increase the age limit for government retirement, how much will it end up costing the workers to properly fund it as people life expectancy increases. You got to keep in mind social security wasn’t originally planned to subsidize someone for 40 years.
The average life expectancy was 61 in 1935, people start collecting at 65. That isn’t the case these days, it needs an increased age limit.



Sounds like you’re a proponent of welfare statism when it comes to getting a handout yourself. Yet you don’t have morales behind it, you don’t believe welfare states are good when they don’t directly benefit you and you still have to pick up the tab. You don’t worry about the example the older generations have embraced, our downward spiral into socialism and collectivism. Which is a destructive ideology, eventually you will run out of other’s money then this financial government bubble and artificial standard of living will pop.
I'm totally against able bodied people living off the government with free money. I'm totally for contributing from my paycheck, matched by my employer, towards the day when I'm too old to work, or disabled and can't work, or for children who are orphaned. I realize people game the system with disability, there are flaws that need to be addressed. But there are millions and millions of people who don't make enough to decently fund their retirement on their own. Before looking down your nose at them you need to recognize that they perform essential work, or work in companies that provide goods and services you want but couldn't afford if they paid their workers a good deal more. The dirty little secret of capitalism is that for many companies to succeed and their owners and management to get wealthy they have to have a workforce that will accept less pay than what you deem acceptable. If they didn't the whole system would unravel. Against that the least they can do is contribute to the retirement of the people who are making it happen for them. Which is exactly what many business owners don't want to do, they want to keep it for themselves and hate that they are forced by law to do so. But without that law many many people would be forced to work until they physically couldn't, and be a real burden to their families without any income at all. Maybe we could run them up to the Arctic and push them out to sea on a little iceberg like the Eskimoes? Just euthanize them? Say they weren't "winners" in life like you and thus don't deserve anything?
 

1989

Well-Known Member
Its a good thing the social security program was taking in a surplus of money for many decades to make up for the shortfall coming up. Oh, wait...Regan screwed us.
Which part, the taxing of up to 50% of SS benefits over a certain income?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
That’s the problem, everyone’s worried about where the roulette ball will land. How many more times are they going to increase the age limit for government retirement, how much will it end up costing the workers to properly fund it as people life expectancy increases. You got to keep in mind social security wasn’t originally planned to subsidize someone for 40 years.
The average life expectancy was 61 in 1935, people start collecting at 65. That isn’t the case these days, it needs an increased age limit.



Sounds like you’re a proponent of welfare statism when it comes to getting a handout yourself. Yet you don’t have morales behind it, you don’t believe welfare states are good when they don’t directly benefit you and you still have to pick up the tab. You don’t worry about the example the older generations have embraced, our downward spiral into socialism and collectivism. Which is a destructive ideology, eventually you will run out of other’s money then this financial government bubble and artificial standard of living will pop.
Who is this Morales guy and why is he behind it?
 
Top