John Boehner R-Ohio, says use Social Security funds to pay for war

[Danzig]

1-we're not broke. obama just went to the g20 wanting more spending. he lost that fight. thank goodness.
2-if the wars are making us broke, get out of the effing wars.
3-bush started both, but 1 1/2 years into obama's run, and we're still there. so, now they're his wars. just like nixon when he inherited vietnam. perhaps obama should also have studied machiavelli.
4-social security isn't supposed to be an entitlement program. we all pay in, with the expectation we all get it back out when we're old. it's funny, now this guy wants to tell some of us that even tho you paid in for years, too bad-you can't have it back.


old people and kids are who pols mention when they want their way. no doubt there's other spending that could be cut.

[joeydb]

Not broke??

Do we define being broke as not having enough money to pay our current debts, or as having reached our borrowing limit ("day of reckoning")? I would suggest it is the former, not the latter, but I am a fiscal conservative.

[joeydb]

By the way, and I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Riot that we should not be using Social Security funds to pay for wars. I will further amplify that to say we should not use Social Security funds to pay for anything but retirement expenses of Social Security contributors.

That means:
no payments to non-contributors (like illegal aliens)
No payments to those below retirement age.
Actually treating it like a separate pool of money, making Al Gore's "Lock Box" something other than the fantasy it has always been.

This also allows for:
The voluntary participation of the people and allowing people to GET OUT OF IT.

The program is doomed. No one below the age of 40 actually expects to collect anything meaningful from it, should the program even exist. Almost no one gets the principle plus interest they should be getting from what was originally sold as a retirement investment program.

That said, as Riot alludes to, it doesn't make sense to put yet another torpedo into the hull of that sinking ship.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This also allows for:
The voluntary participation of the people and allowing people to GET OUT OF IT.

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts. Do you have a retirement plan you've been funding since you were about 16 years old? You should have.

Americans would opt out, and the die off in later years will be huge, expensive, and horrifying.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts..

So once again the government is needed as a baby-sitter/guardian. Some people do plan and in this country they pay dearly for it in everything from inflated inheritance to property tax. SS in private hands would be an illegal Ponzi scheme as the money paid in by recipients today is long gone and they are only able to be paid by new contributors who are forced in by law instead of having to be suckered.

[Riot]

So once again the government is needed as a baby-sitter/guardian.

The government has been this specific "baby sitter-guardian" since half our elderly were in poverty after the great depression of the last century.

Some people do plan and in this country they pay dearly for it in everything from inflated inheritance to property tax.

What is the point of this argument? That life is futile? That some people are poor planners?

SS in private hands would be an illegal Ponzi scheme as the money paid in by recipients today is long gone and they are only able to be paid by new contributors who are forced in by law instead of having to be suckered

But Social Security isn't in private hands (a good thing, most of the funds would have gone the way of the private funds over the past two years). It was designed to work as it does.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

But Social Security isn't in private hands (a good thing, most of the funds would have gone the way of the private funds over the past two years). It was designed to work as it does.

unfortunately it in the hands of people who have been proven incapable time after time (not just you dumbo's.. the "conservatives" also).

Our politicians are on the same level as Bernie Madoff.. though they deal in trillions, not billions.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts. Do you have a retirement plan you've been funding since you were about 16 years old? You should have.

Americans would opt out, and the die off in later years will be huge, expensive, and horrifying.

That's the price of real freedom, the kind guaranteed by the proper and strict constructionalist view of the Constitution: some people may make the wrong choices, and they alone should pay the price for that.

I don't care if it's not planning for retirement, having too many cheeseburgers, or having unprotected relations with the wrong people -- if you did it, you own it. I have the freedom and the right not to be burdened for someone else's bad judgement. That's what freedom is.

The nanny state and all its ilk should never have gotten as far as it has, and it should be dismantled piece-by-piece and immediately.

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." -Andrew Wilkow.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's the price of real freedom, the kind guaranteed by the proper and strict constructionalist view of the Constitution: some people may make the wrong choices, and they alone should pay the price for that.

I don't care if it's not planning for retirement, having too many cheeseburgers, or having unprotected relations with the wrong people -- if you did it, you own it. I have the freedom and the right not to be burdened for someone else's bad judgement. That's what freedom is.

The nanny state and all its ilk should never have gotten as far as it has, and it should be dismantled piece-by-piece and immediately.

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." -Andrew Wilkow.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not broke??

Do we define being broke as not having enough money to pay our current debts, or as having reached our borrowing limit ("day of reckoning")? I would suggest it is the former, not the latter, but I am a fiscal conservative.

lol
my 'we're not broke' was really tongue in cheek...but after all, if the president wants to keep spending, then we must not be broke...right?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

1-we're not broke. obama just went to the g20 wanting more spending. he lost that fight. thank goodness.
2-if the wars are making us broke, get out of the effing wars.
3-bush started both, but 1 1/2 years into obama's run, and we're still there. so, now they're his wars. just like nixon when he inherited vietnam. perhaps obama should also have studied machiavelli.
4-social security isn't supposed to be an entitlement program. we all pay in, with the expectation we all get it back out when we're old. it's funny, now this guy wants to tell some of us that even tho you paid in for years, too bad-you can't have it back.


old people and kids are who pols mention when they want their way. no doubt there's other spending that could be cut.

Obama is starting to look like a fool to the rest of the world.

Rest of world: "We need to stop spending and stop stimulus packages, we are broke"

Obama "No.. the way to get out of debt is to spend so much more and print worthless money! Come on guys! Lets have a beer, pull some wool over your eyes, and spend some cash!"

FYI - I dont feel to bad for old folks like Riot who might not get all the SS she paid in.. because my generation will get doo doo from SS.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

FYI - I dont feel to bad for old folks like Riot who might not get all the SS she paid in.. because my generation will get doo doo from SS.

I'll get all I paid in without question. It's good for 25 years, and there is no baby boomer generation beyond the one I'm at the tail of. If Boehner doesn't loot it and change the rules. You need to make sure it's there for you - by not allowing the rules to be changed on you. Again, it should be, easily, as the minor adjustments made over the years have worked in the past, and should work again.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'll get all I paid in without question. It's good for 25 years, and there is no baby boomer generation beyond the one I'm at the tail of. If Boehner doesn't loot it and change the rules. You need to make sure it's there for you - by not allowing the rules to be changed on you. Again, it should be, easily, as the minor adjustments made over the years have worked in the past, and should work again.

its not the rules changing.. its the government not securing the SS in a "lock box" they pull out of SS to pay for other shiznit that doesnt work.. depleting the funds.

I'm screwed and my generations children are even worse off when it comes to SS.. I'm in favor of eliminating it completely and letting myself invest in my 401k or whatever else retirement plan others want.. instead of paying 6-12% and being lucky to get 1-2% back.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

its not the rules changing.. its the government not securing the SS in a "lock box" they pull out of SS to pay for other shiznit that doesnt work.. depleting the funds.

I'm screwed and my generations children are even worse off when it comes to SS.. I'm in favor of eliminating it completely and letting myself invest in my 401k or whatever else retirement plan others want.. instead of paying 6-12% and being lucky to get 1-2% back.

Social Security came into existence as people - even those who lived through the Depression and two world wars - didn't invest and plan for their own retirement. It came into being to save people's lives from starvation and homelessness.

That mindset - live for today, don't save - hasn't changed in the US, it's worsened (judging by amount of savings, bankruptcies, overspending and credit debt, etc)

Social Security in the government's hands cannot be invested as private funds can - a good thing, as 1/3 of the fund would probably be gone right now.

You (the general you, not you specifically) don't have to eliminate SS completely to invest in your own retirement. You should be able to take 10% out of your takehome no matter how small an income one makes (and can invest it so it becomes tax free, which markedly increases it's value). Depending upon social security to fund one's retirement is foolish, as even if you max out yearly on your contribution for 20 years, the amount you receive monthly isn't much.

If you don't already have a retirement account you currently pay into, you are way behind already, as the little bit of money you squirrel away in the low income early years of your career has the most growth upside just sitting there compounding for decades.

And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security came into existence as people - even those who lived through the Depression and two world wars - didn't invest and plan for their own retirement. It came into being to save people's lives from starvation and homelessness.

That mindset - live for today, don't save - hasn't changed in the US, it's worsened (judging by amount of savings, bankruptcies, overspending and credit debt, etc)

Social Security in the government's hands cannot be invested as private funds can - a good thing, as 1/3 of the fund would probably be gone right now.

You (the general you, not you specifically) don't have to eliminate SS completely to invest in your own retirement. You should be able to take 10% out of your takehome no matter how small an income one makes (and can invest it so it becomes tax free, which markedly increases it's value). Depending upon social security to fund one's retirement is foolish, as even if you max out yearly on your contribution for 20 years, the amount you receive monthly isn't much.

If you don't already have a retirement account you currently pay into, you are way behind already, as the little bit of money you squirrel away in the low income early years of your career has the most growth upside just sitting there compounding for decades.

And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me.

I do have a 401k that I pay into and my company matches, so I have NO clue where you pulled that last sentence out of.. (well I do have a clue)

Other people not planning for their own retirement is NOT my problem, nor do I care. Let them work til the die then. (I'm all for SS payments for the handicapped though, except for certain morons I know who are just not that smart and abuse it to get payments when they darn well can do hard labor) So I'm responsible, but I still have to lose 6% of my paycheck for people who arent responsible? If I knew I'd get back what I put in, I wouldnt have an issue. the absolute fact (and SS knows this - they sent me a letter) that I will get pennies back for what I put in for 55 years of work is what pisses me off. If I had the option, I wouldnt put a dime into SS and put that extra 6% into my 401k.

But seriously, where do you feel you have the right to assume things about my life like "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me"

I'm being responsible and being screwed.. if you wonder why people get pissed at you.. just look at your unreasonable assumptions that are not based on anything. And why the heck should people who plan have to pay for the mistakes of people who arent smart about things? Thats where this country goes wrong.

[Riot]

I do have a 401k that I pay into and my company matches, so I have NO clue where you pulled that last sentence out of.. (well I do have a clue)

Did you miss the part where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)"

I know you have a retirement account, you've mentioned it here before.

Other people not planning for their own retirement is NOT my problem, nor do I care. Let them work til the die then.

Ah. Many disagree. But you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

But seriously, where do you feel you have the right to assume things about my life like "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me"

I didn't. See above.

if you wonder why people get pissed at you.. just look at your unreasonable assumptions that are not based on anything.

I don't really care why some people get pissed at me. From my point of view it seems to be because they can't read, and they make false assumptions