PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Social Security


irishjayhawk
10-19-2008, 08:22 PM
I got into a discussion about this over the weekend. I proposed we cut the system entirely and my opposition claimed he'd rather have a chance at getting his money back since he's put in a lot over the years.

Should we cut it? Privatize it? Supplement it? Create an opt-out method?

HonestChieffan
10-19-2008, 08:57 PM
Is it a system for you the individual or is it a system for all?

Skip Towne
10-19-2008, 09:05 PM
I really like it. I get a nice check each month.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-19-2008, 09:09 PM
I got into a discussion about this over the weekend. I proposed we cut the system entirely and my opposition claimed he'd rather have a chance at getting his money back since he's put in a lot over the years.

Should we cut it? Privatize it? Supplement it? Create an opt-out method?

Just let all the old people die penniless. It's not like they paid into the system for 50 years or anything.

Ebolapox
10-19-2008, 09:22 PM
it definitely needs to be reformed. badly. I'm 25, there's almost zero chance that I get a dime that I pay in. we need to face a few sad truths:

1) when the social security system was established (thanks, fdr), hardly anybody lived to collect in the first place. if they did, it was only for a brief time. now, almost everybody lives past 65. just too many people collecting now, which takes me to

2) the boomer generation are aging, bringing us to a bottleneck in the system: no matter what they've paid into the system, it won't cover what they take out of the system.

3) if there's no hope of collecting, there has to be an amendment to the social-security act that allows for either privatization (lawk bawx) for those young enough to be hopeless, or allows those past the 'hopeless mark' to have what they pay into to be invested in 'long-term' risky investments. fuck, as long as I'm not gonna get a dime of it, I may as well give it a chance of increasing in value.

anyway. the sad truth is that the first politician who tries to do the right thing and 'reform' social security (raise the age proportionally as it originally was, or allow for privatization/personal investment) will be crucified.

Silock
10-19-2008, 09:24 PM
I am all for getting rid of it. People under 30 get no money back. People 30-40 get back 33% of what they paid into it. 40-50 get 66% back. 50 and over continue to receive it until they die.

Taco John
10-19-2008, 09:48 PM
Ron Paul has the only viable plan for it. But it will be ignored, and the system will collapse, and we'll end up with either a more socialist system, or a non-existant one altogether. Whatever happens, it won't be the status quo.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 12:33 AM
Just let all the old people die penniless. It's not like they paid into the system for 50 years or anything.

That's why I would propose a phase out system.

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 12:37 AM
I don't know if I will ever be wealthy enough to afford a social security free retirement. I honestly don't. And the same goes for the however many Americans that will have no choice but to live paycheck-to-paycheck their entire lives.

So what happens? Am I supposed to drive schoolbuses when I turn 55? Or just keep working, because we all know how efficient 70-year-olds are in the workforce.

Or what?

We need that security blanket. Social security must exist.

But it does need to be reformed. I'm all for raising the age or reducing some benefits, or maybe something else that's radical. But I'm no fan of Bush's privatization. I'm no fan of scrapping the system. I'm no fan of worrying about whether I'll be living on catfood when I'm 65.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 12:39 AM
I don't know if I will ever be wealthy enough to afford a social security free retirement. I honestly don't. And the same goes for the however many Americans that will have no choice but to live paycheck-to-paycheck their entire lives.

So what happens? Am I supposed to drive schoolbuses when I turn 55? Or just keep working, because we all know how efficient 70-year-olds are in the workforce.

Or what?

We need that security blanket. Social security must exist.

But it does need to be reformed. I'm all for raising the age or reducing some benefits, or maybe something else that's radical. But I'm no fan of Bush's privatization. I'm no fan of scrapping the system. I'm no fan of worrying about whether I'll be living on catfood when I'm 65.

I just fail to see why it's any of the government's responsibility to you out (to put it bluntly).

Essentially, the government is saying, here, you're too stupid to save correctly, so I'm going to for you.

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 12:42 AM
I just fail to see why it's any of the government's responsibility to you out (to put it bluntly).

Essentially, the government is saying, here, you're too stupid to save correctly, so I'm going to for you.

Not everybody is capable of saving correctly.

There is no society possible where everybody could live a life comfortable enough to pour into a retirement fund their entire life. It's necessary to have a system in place for the necessary mass of people who simply couldn't get a break.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 12:47 AM
Not everybody is capable of saving correctly.

There is no society possible where everybody could live a life comfortable enough to pour into a retirement fund their entire life. It's necessary to have a system in place for the necessary mass of people who simply couldn't get a break.

So should it be opt-in?

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 02:07 AM
So should it be opt-in?

I am not near versed enough to know the ups and downs of that particular course of action. If you detailed them to me as there are about 50 different theories as to what opt-in programs could look like, maybe I could better answer what you're looking for.

I would not be fundamentally opposed to most forms of opt-ins.

DaneMcCloud
10-20-2008, 02:10 AM
Not everybody is capable of saving correctly.



Fuck them.

Seriously.

I'm all for help out the disadvantaged but people "who can't save correctly"?

WTF?

FUCK them.

HMc
10-20-2008, 02:30 AM
When you guys say that you pay into it, how does that exactly work - do you pay a certain dollar amount, percentage of your pay or what?

Saggysack
10-20-2008, 02:34 AM
So should it be opt-in?

No. It should be opt-out. Of course, with the ever rising ages we are living to and the ever increasing costs of retirement, I sure hope you don't outlive your portfolio.

Saggysack
10-20-2008, 02:44 AM
**** them.

Seriously.

I'm all for help out the disadvantaged but people "who can't save correctly"?

WTF?

**** them.

I'll tell you who. My grandparents. Grandfather was a WWII vet, worked for the Army Air Corps, Air Force and Air National Guard for 42yrs before he was forced to retire. My Grandmother, typical Rosey the Riveter during the 40's, later becoming the typical housewife. Yeah, those people. Fuck them though. They died in the house worth 30K and not a pot to piss in. They may have not made enough to save, but they sure put in their fair share of work.

Not all of us can be grossly overpaid for B grade and porno movie scores to save such a vast fortune as yourself.

HMc
10-20-2008, 04:03 AM
I'll tell you who. My grandparents. Grandfather was a WWII vet, worked for the Army Air Corps, Air Force and Air National Guard for 42yrs before he was forced to retire. My Grandmother, typical Rosey the Riveter during the 40's, later becoming the typical housewife. Yeah, those people. **** them though. They died in the house worth 30K and not a pot to piss in. They may have not made enough to save, but they sure put in their fair share of work.

Not all of us can be grossly overpaid for B grade and porno movie scores to save such a vast fortune as yourself.

Rep.

IMHO it's a basic tenant of civilized society that those that have look after those don't have, especially when they're old.

It's not Socialism or any other dumb f***ing buzzword that most people don't actually understand, it's basic human decency. Then again, that may be why it doesn't appeal to Dane "Shaq F***ed my wife then shook my hand afterwards" McCloud

Saggysack
10-20-2008, 05:26 AM
Rep.

IMHO it's a basic tenant of civilized society that those that have look after those don't have, especially when they're old.

It's not Socialism or any other dumb f***ing buzzword that most people don't actually understand, it's basic human decency. Then again, that may be why it doesn't appeal to Dane "Shaq F***ed my wife then shook my hand afterwards" McCloud

You're exactly right it is a basic tenet. A lot of intelligent people won't understand that until they would see the amount of homeless elderly living on the streets if it weren't for social security. On more times than we would like to admit, that SS check is the difference between a roof, and a bridge overpass for many elderly. They are already burdened by rising health and prescription costs. Millions of which have to make a choice of which prescriptions they can afford from month to month. To not provide some amount of assistance is unnacceptable IMO. It is not a society I would choose to grow old in.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 09:54 AM
Rep.

IMHO it's a basic tenant of civilized society that those that have look after those don't have, especially when they're old.

It's not Socialism or any other dumb f***ing buzzword that most people don't actually understand, it's basic human decency. Then again, that may be why it doesn't appeal to Dane "Shaq F***ed my wife then shook my hand afterwards" McCloud

See, my problem with this is that if it were a basic human tenet, we'd be helping Africa a lot more than we are.

Garcia Bronco
10-20-2008, 11:42 AM
it definitely needs to be reformed. badly. I'm 25, there's almost zero chance that I get a dime that I pay in. we need to face a few sad truths:

1) when the social security system was established (thanks, fdr), hardly anybody lived to collect in the first place. if they did, it was only for a brief time. now, almost everybody lives past 65. just too many people collecting now, which takes me to

2) the boomer generation are aging, bringing us to a bottleneck in the system: no matter what they've paid into the system, it won't cover what they take out of the system.

3) if there's no hope of collecting, there has to be an amendment to the social-security act that allows for either privatization (lawk bawx) for those young enough to be hopeless, or allows those past the 'hopeless mark' to have what they pay into to be invested in 'long-term' risky investments. ****, as long as I'm not gonna get a dime of it, I may as well give it a chance of increasing in value.

anyway. the sad truth is that the first politician who tries to do the right thing and 'reform' social security (raise the age proportionally as it originally was, or allow for privatization/personal investment) will be crucified.


I agree with this 100 percent. Ultimately, liberals out there, is these entitlment programs never, ever go away once they are created because it becomes unfair to pull the rug out from others. This reason alone is why Obama and his planks are terrible.

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 01:14 PM
**** them.

Seriously.

I'm all for help out the disadvantaged but people "who can't save correctly"?

WTF?

**** them.

Fuck the guy in Springfield who can barely afford his apartment and has to work two jobs to pay for graduate school!

If he can't save then screw him!

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 01:16 PM
See, my problem with this is that if it were a basic human tenet, we'd be helping Africa a lot more than we are.

That's a fair take, but I think it takes the idea too far. But who am I.

irishjayhawk
10-20-2008, 01:19 PM
That's a fair take, but I think it takes the idea too far. But who am I.

How so?

Calcountry
10-20-2008, 01:20 PM
I got into a discussion about this over the weekend. I proposed we cut the system entirely and my opposition claimed he'd rather have a chance at getting his money back since he's put in a lot over the years.

Should we cut it? Privatize it? Supplement it? Create an opt-out method?We should put it in a lock box.

whoman69
10-20-2008, 01:30 PM
I just fail to see why it's any of the government's responsibility to you out (to put it bluntly).

Essentially, the government is saying, here, you're too stupid to save correctly, so I'm going to for you.

At the time the system was put in place there was not a system to get a 401K or IRA. The advantage that people did have back then is many had pension plans. Nowadays the companies just declare bankruptsy so they don't have to pay them, then give out million dollar bonuses to the CEOs who just legally stole the people's money.

Frankly I think the system would be solvent if it was illegal for Congress to dip into the fund to pay for their pet programs. The social security fund should remain outside the main government budget. They've stolen billions, perhaps even trillions.

That said these days there are alternatives. Had I placed as much into a simple IRA as I did into social security I would have a lot more saved. The problem with moving out of the system is that the government is dependent on those paying into the system now to pay for those who are now receiving benefits because Congress already spent their money. FDR came up with a great system in a time where the other options were not available. It was never meant to supplement the bloated federal budget. It was never meant to be a one and only source of retirement income. I'm at the point now that if I don't get Social Security when I retire that I probably won't have enough to live on because I didn't have enough to invest more into other means.

Direckshun
10-20-2008, 02:58 PM
How so?

Well first of all, it's highly doubtful that we could afford to put the entire continent of Africa on welfare, if that's what you're equivocating with social security here.

Second of all, we have a nationalistic obligation to ourselves first.

BigMeatballDave
10-20-2008, 02:58 PM
I've been in favor of privatizing for years. I can't trust Wall St. now.

RaiderH8r
10-20-2008, 03:08 PM
I don't know if I will ever be wealthy enough to afford a social security free retirement. I honestly don't. And the same goes for the however many Americans that will have no choice but to live paycheck-to-paycheck their entire lives.

So what happens? Am I supposed to drive schoolbuses when I turn 55? Or just keep working, because we all know how efficient 70-year-olds are in the workforce.

Or what?

We need that security blanket. Social security must exist.

But it does need to be reformed. I'm all for raising the age or reducing some benefits, or maybe something else that's radical. But I'm no fan of Bush's privatization. I'm no fan of scrapping the system. I'm no fan of worrying about whether I'll be living on catfood when I'm 65.

Don't sweat it. Even if it's not social security the communists will figure out a way for the poverty class to get a cut of the working class' paycheck.

RaiderH8r
10-20-2008, 03:14 PM
At the time the system was put in place there was not a system to get a 401K or IRA. The advantage that people did have back then is many had pension plans. Nowadays the companies just declare bankruptsy so they don't have to pay them, then give out million dollar bonuses to the CEOs who just legally stole the people's money.

Frankly I think the system would be solvent if it was illegal for Congress to dip into the fund to pay for their pet programs. The social security fund should remain outside the main government budget. They've stolen billions, perhaps even trillions.

That said these days there are alternatives. Had I placed as much into a simple IRA as I did into social security I would have a lot more saved. The problem with moving out of the system is that the government is dependent on those paying into the system now to pay for those who are now receiving benefits because Congress already spent their money. FDR came up with a great system in a time where the other options were not available. It was never meant to supplement the bloated federal budget. It was never meant to be a one and only source of retirement income. I'm at the point now that if I don't get Social Security when I retire that I probably won't have enough to live on because I didn't have enough to invest more into other means.


Quite simply, it is illegal for the government to cut checks out of the SS fund to pay for things that should come out of general revenue. Pass whatever law you like to make it more illegal. However, it's a convoluted government accounting system whereby administrations/CBO/ whomever borrow money out of other accounts and move this here, that there and ultimately the pay for comes out of SS fund.

Additionally, solvent or not, SS is not a viable solution. During its inception there were 44 workers/retiree, now that number is closer to 3/retiree. That means benefits go down, SS tax goes up, qualifying age goes up, or a combination of the above to keep the system viable. Those things can only be jiggered so much before the ultimate reality hits that the system can't sustain. It had a good run though.

tooge
10-20-2008, 03:37 PM
it definitely needs to be reformed. badly. I'm 25, there's almost zero chance that I get a dime that I pay in. we need to face a few sad truths:

1) when the social security system was established (thanks, fdr), hardly anybody lived to collect in the first place. if they did, it was only for a brief time. now, almost everybody lives past 65. just too many people collecting now, which takes me to

2) the boomer generation are aging, bringing us to a bottleneck in the system: no matter what they've paid into the system, it won't cover what they take out of the system.

3) if there's no hope of collecting, there has to be an amendment to the social-security act that allows for either privatization (lawk bawx) for those young enough to be hopeless, or allows those past the 'hopeless mark' to have what they pay into to be invested in 'long-term' risky investments. ****, as long as I'm not gonna get a dime of it, I may as well give it a chance of increasing in value.

anyway. the sad truth is that the first politician who tries to do the right thing and 'reform' social security (raise the age proportionally as it originally was, or allow for privatization/personal investment) will be crucified.

yeah, but you haven't paid in shiit yet. I have been paying into this crapshoot for 25 years and at 42 years old, there is a good chance I wont see any of it. I am getting raped if you ask me. I say give us individual manditory draw accounts and tie it to the treasury bill. then, make the age at which you can draw it inversely proportionate to the amount that you put in. That way, you are rewarded for having a job and putting more in, unlike today.

RaiderH8r
10-20-2008, 03:41 PM
yeah, but you haven't paid in shiit yet. I have been paying into this crapshoot for 25 years and at 42 years old, there is a good chance I wont see any of it. I am getting raped if you ask me. I say give us individual manditory draw accounts and tie it to the treasury bill. then, make the age at which you can draw it inversely proportionate to the amount that you put in. That way, you are rewarded for having a job and putting more in, unlike today.

No no no, that will never work. What about people who don't work and still need something to get them through their golden years? It's not just workin' folks who need to retire.

tooge
10-20-2008, 03:44 PM
Yeah, you are right. I think I am gonna quit my job tomorrow and hit the unemployment line. I am tired of paying into the system. Hell, I can get freebies the way it is set up now. why the heck wouldn't everyone just do this? So, lets see, I can not work, and still have an income till I die and now? what a country.

Bearcat2005
10-20-2008, 03:49 PM
Ron Paul has the only viable plan for it. But it will be ignored, and the system will collapse, and we'll end up with either a more socialist system, or a non-existant one altogether. Whatever happens, it won't be the status quo.


agreed

tooge
10-20-2008, 04:02 PM
agreed

What is Ron Pauls plan?

Garcia Bronco
10-20-2008, 04:56 PM
Quite simply, it is illegal for the government to cut checks out of the SS fund to pay for things that should come out of general revenue. Pass whatever law you like to make it more illegal. However, it's a convoluted government accounting system whereby administrations/CBO/ whomever borrow money out of other accounts and move this here, that there and ultimately the pay for comes out of SS fund.

Additionally, solvent or not, SS is not a viable solution. During its inception there were 44 workers/retiree, now that number is closer to 3/retiree. That means benefits go down, SS tax goes up, qualifying age goes up, or a combination of the above to keep the system viable. Those things can only be jiggered so much before the ultimate reality hits that the system can't sustain. It had a good run though.

"Billy Idol gets it, I don't understand why everyone else doesn't."

Ebolapox
10-20-2008, 05:37 PM
yeah, but you haven't paid in shiit yet. I have been paying into this crapshoot for 25 years and at 42 years old, there is a good chance I wont see any of it. I am getting raped if you ask me. I say give us individual manditory draw accounts and tie it to the treasury bill. then, make the age at which you can draw it inversely proportionate to the amount that you put in. That way, you are rewarded for having a job and putting more in, unlike today.

I've been working nine years. I haven't paid what you've paid in, but I've paid one million percent more than I'll ever collect. it isn't about how old a person is. look, it's about fairness to me. those of us who are young enough to not have a hope of collecting a dime should be able to either opt out or invest what we DO put in in a manner of our choosing.

I also agree with whoever responded earlier that it shouldn't be REQUIRED--we should certainly take care of the older generations and those who can't really take care of themselves... not everybody can handle their money. BUT--those of us who know how to save and know how to invest properly should have the OPTION to not get fucked by the government any more than we already do.