Perry is STILL right: Social Security is a loser

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's one opinion.

Another is that no, the program doesn't "suck". It's the most successful social program ever, 100% reliable, has kept millions out of poverty.

This society takes care of it's elders. You don't approve, well, the Supreme Court long ago ruled "too bad" for those that share your opinion. You have to pay in.

That's what living in a democratic Republic entails as your responsibility.

The program does exactly what it was designed to do, and does it very well, and will continue to do so for the next several decades.

You are free to save the 10% you should be saving out of your take home pay on your own, like all responsible people. SS will then only be a just-in-case fallback check by the time you retire, as it is intended to be. You know, like for the folks who had their private retirement funds decreased by 25-30% over the past 10 years. Devastating, when you've worked your whole life, but market crashes and housing crashes ruin one's planning and saving. Good thing this country, like other first world countries, has a social safety net for our seniors.

You're making my point by calling us a "Democratic Republic". Just like East Germany was, huh?

Nice of you to let me save ANOTHER 10% in an attempt to undo the lack of yield from Social Security.

As for its success - yeah - it's successful in keeping people in line, voting for Democrats to "protect" the program. That is exactly what it was designed to do.

[joeydb]

Here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...zi_111323.html

Excerpt: "Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it.

Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy -- you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There's no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse."

[dellinger63]

Obamacare is worse and will only benefit the contributor with an empty promise of lowered health care costs by saving money on uninsured ER costs. Meanwhile every other chumbalone will be subsidized on the backs of families fighting to provide a decent life for their OWN children and themselves.

Money in the pockets of families expected to pay for this must be unstimulated dollars unlike the stimulated dollars put into the pockets of teachers, first responders and the unemployed, again by those trying to provide a decent life for their families. The government needs to stop acting like a parent, get out of the way, and watch this county prosper, like it did for so many years.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You're making my point by calling us a "Democratic Republic". Just like East Germany was, huh?

I'm sorry you are unawares of what type of government we have.

Nice of you to let me save ANOTHER 10% in an attempt to undo the lack of yield from Social Security.

I assume you are over the age of 21, right? So I assume you've been taught, during your life, that you have to save for your own retirement? Plan for your own future? And it is clear you are awares that Social Security is just what the name of the program says?

So your puzzlement at taking responsibility for yourself comes from .... ?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm sorry you are unawares of what type of government we have.



I assume you are over the age of 21, right? So I assume you've been taught, during your life, that you have to save for your own retirement? Plan for your own future? And it is clear you are awares that Social Security is just what the name of the program says?

So your puzzlement at taking responsibility for yourself comes from .... ?

Lighten Up Muddafukka

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I assume you are over the age of 21, right? So I assume you've been taught, during your life, that you have to save for your own retirement? Plan for your own future?

So your puzzlement at taking responsibility for yourself comes from .... ?

ironically allowing an employee to invest/save his SS/Medicare tax along with his employer's contribution would achieve savings of 10.4% presently and 12.4% a year, once the payroll tax cut expires.

About time Americans grow up and takes responsibility for themselves rather than the 'woe is me', 'I was abused/bullied/forced fed bad foods/ not informed of the dangers of smoking etc etc. etc., with a hand out attitude that is polluting our country today.

[Riot]

About time Americans grow up and takes responsibility for themselves rather than the 'woe is me', 'I was abused/bullied/forced fed bad foods/ not informed of the dangers of smoking etc etc. etc., with a hand out attitude that is polluting our country today.

Social Security has been around since 1935. And it's not going anywhere.
It's an unqualified success. And it has nothing at all to do with a feeling of "entitlement".

It's about time the narcissistic, selfish "me, me, me," crowd of current young people realize that the ongoing privilege of being American citizens requires their personal participation and commitment to being a member of the social fabric of this country.

Some had best grow up and start saving 10-20% of their take home pay - ohmygawd, even if they can't have the car and house and electronics they want immediately! - from the time they start working as teenagers, throughout their lives, because that's what mature adults do for themselves. Only fools ignore planning for their own retirement or assume a Social Security anti-poverty stipend is enough to live on in their old age. Or immaturely refuse to cut out their Starbucks daily coffee and save that for a rainy day, while vocally complaining about decades-old social programs that benefit everyone in this country and literally saves lives.

Bitching and whining that 6.2% (currently less in 2011) commitment of your lifetime wages only up to a certain ceiling amount, ensures that no American - including themselves - will live in poverty in old age is the whining selfish bullshit of the self-entitled generation who seem want to enjoy all the benefits of this great country, but don't want to contribute.

Different opinion. Ain't America great?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

.

Some had best grow up and start saving 10-20% of their take home pay - ohmygawd, even if they can't have the car and house and electronics they want immediately! - from the time they start working as teenagers, throughout their lives, because that's what mature adults do for themselves. Only fools ignore planning for their own retirement or assume a Social Security anti-poverty stipend is enough to live on.

and others, some who are middle aged and never matured, who bought a house they couldn't afford, with no money down, and cash back at signing (new car they also couldn't afford) need to start packing and searching the classifieds for apartments instead of looking at the taxpayer, some of whom are young, for a bailout. Because that's what mature adults do and they should be showing an example to the younger generation not financially relying on them.

Just as mature adults should be responsible for their own healthcare or lack of it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and others, some who are middle aged and never matured, who bought a house they couldn't afford, with no money down, and cash back at signing (new car they also couldn't afford) need to start packing and searching the classifieds for apartments instead of looking at the taxpayer, some of whom are young, for a bailout.

Who is "looking for a bailout"? What are you talking about?

You've switched the subject and done a 180 again, I guess.

People contribute to Social Security their entire working lives. It's no "bailout". It's an "entitlement" - because you are entitled to participate in the program when you've contributed your whole life.

Dell: "Desperately in search of one of Ronald Reagan's imaginary welfare queens to blame for ... whatever he doesn't like".

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who is "looking for a bailout"? What are you talking about?

You've switched the subject and done a 180 again, I guess.

People contribute to Social Security their entire working lives. It's no "bailout". It's an "entitlement" - because you are entitled to participate in the program when you've contributed your whole life.

Dell: "Desperately in search of one of Ronald Reagan's imaginary welfare queens to blame for ... whatever he doesn't like".

The people who paid into social security their whole lives are surely entitled to their benefits.

The people who are going to be recipients of

Unemployed and underemployed homeowners in the Chicago area could soon receive up to $25,000 in mortgage help under a $345 million federally funded program that will be announced Thursday by the state of Illinois.

If all criteria are met, homeowners do not have to repay the loan.

are not. Sorry I kind of cross threaded the comment but since SS contributions is the 'cash' at least in part, used to finance such programs, it's pertinent. See this is how not SS but the mishandling of SS contributions adds to the debt. SS money comes in, BS goes out and the treasury marks down an IOU in the same amount that is directly added to the debt. The mortgage bailout program is nothing more than a reward for being irresponsible or immature as you stated. And at whose expense? The responsible and mature is who!