Social Security and it's Surplus. Over 2 Trillion

[Guest123018-4]

No we were talking about your source for information. My point is that you need an alternate source that is more credible. the old saying of garbage in garbage out pertains to information provided by congress (garbage) and the results presented by the CBO (garbage). the point being if it comes from Washington DC dont believe it.

I believe in a very minimal federal government, the smaller the better, that performs what they are specifically allowed in the Constitution and no more. the balance of anything that needs to be done should be handled at the state level should they so choose to do so. the great thing about a republic of states is that if you do not like the way one state governs you can move to another and nobody can stop you and that my friend is in the Constitution.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by CJ7

anyway, fact check claimed social security added to the deficit ... it doesnt, its self financed through taxes, not the government.

That would be true if congress had not consolidated all of the SS taxes with general funds back in the 60's. Once those funds were combined it became just more tax revenue for congress to spend. Now that SS is spending more than it brings in it is adding to the deficit. All the references to the trust fund are irrelevant since the budget is consolidated.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What are the painless fixes to the SS program CJ; instead of your bullshit assertions, why not just tell us what the painless fixes are?


This should be interesting........awaiting your response...........

How economically painless would it be to cut everybody in the SS system off - including you, your mother, your kids, your neighbors, your councilmen, your president, your PTA, your mechanic, you grocer, your butcher, your attorney, your accountant, the guy that builds your cars, cell phones, furniture, house, office, TV and on and on and on. SS is intrinsic and it isn't bad.

[Whirlaway]

Sign me up;;;;;;;but I don't think that is what CJ is talking about.......

I always thought of SS as the safety net for "the Greatest Generation", the generation that faced down the depression and selfishly sacrificed thru WWII, not for us baby boomers who want want want more more more...............get rid of it, or at least cut the benefits !

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

How economically painless would it be to cut everybody in the SS system off - including you, your mother, your kids, your neighbors, your councilmen, your president, your PTA, your mechanic, you grocer, your butcher, your attorney, your accountant, the guy that builds your cars, cell phones, furniture, house, office, TV and on and on and on. SS is intrinsic and it isn't bad.

[Whirlaway]

Spoken like a true leftie; tax the rich more and more.............

Originally Posted by CJ7

drop the $106,000.00 cap.


anything else?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Spoken like a true leftie; tax the rich more and more.............

talking points booklet, Social Security, page 1, talking point 1.


notice the option for not touching the cap?

nonetheless ..

we want a man that made $106,000.00 to pay 100% , and a man that made $318,000.00 pays 33%


hell, fair is fair.

[Laz]

SS was sold as a benefit you pay for and receive. It was not sold as a welfare program. The reason the cap exists is because there is a maximum benefit and those over a certain income level do not receive more based on what they pay in. The program is already skewed so that those in the lower income levels receive a larger benefit, in relation to what they paid, from SS than those in the upper income levels.

I agree that the cap is probably going to go up but do not base or state that that decision is "fair". It is not fair since those at that income level will not receive a benefit that is related to their contribution.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Phase SS and Medicare out slowly. Let people under 30 know they will have to take care of themselves. Or let the states do it where it would be Constitutional, if the states wanted it.

But if it's unconstitutional, we shouldn't wait. Why would you advocate such nonsense? I mean, either it's unconstitutional or it's not. If it is, end it tomorrow. As the constitution supposedly demands.

And why people under 30? Why not 28? Or 37? And haven't people under 30 been paying into it? What about them?

And you're over 30, ain'tcha? How convenient.

Oh, and Doofe? Ever hear of the Postal Service? But to make sure you get it, use FedEx.

So your proposal is to replace 1 social security administration with 50 social security administrations.

Smaller government. Boo-yaaaaaa!

[Guest123018-4]

Yep the government sells us a lot of bills of goods that morph into something else. Just wait and wee what becomes of Obamacare if it is not overturned by the supremes.
Olivia SS isnt a bad thing but it isnt what it was intended to be which was a supplement to your own retirement funds. Eliminating SS isnt something that would happen overnight but in phases so that alternatives can be established that do not require the bureaucracy of the federal government. I think there are a lot of people that would over to hve 15 percent of their gross income in a fund that eraned compounded interst rather than earning nothingbeing taxed on what they take and potentially being taxed on the benefit your receive. It sucks paying taxes on money you have already payed taxes on.

[cptjohnstone]

I moved back to OK from TX to take care of my 88 yo mother.

She has supplemental insurance, anyway

4 months ago, she fell and broke her pelvic bone, she was in and out of the hospital 3 times, spend 30 days in assisted living and 3 trips in an ambulance

All of this did not cost her $.01

So maybe too many benefits? especially with supplemental insurance

btw she is fine now

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Doove

But if it's unconstitutional, we shouldn't wait. Why would you advocate such nonsense? I mean, either it's unconstitutional or it's not. If it is, end it tomorrow. As the constitution supposedly demands.

And why people under 30? Why not 28? Or 37? And haven't people under 30 been paying into it? What about them?

And you're over 30, ain'tcha? How convenient.



So your proposal is to replace 1 social security administration with 50 social security administrations.

Smaller government. Boo-yaaaaaa!

Ok what age should it be? At least we agree it needs to phased out.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok what age should it be? At least we agree it needs to phased out.

No age. If it's unconstitutional, it needs to go. Tomorrow.

Heeding the constitution is not for the meek. Nor is it for the people who want it applied to people who are not them.

[CuteOldGuy]

Ok, Doofe, I will agree with you, finally! Good job!

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Yep the government sells us a lot of bills of goods that morph into something else. Just wait and wee what becomes of Obamacare if it is not overturned by the supremes.
Olivia SS isnt a bad thing but it isnt what it was intended to be which was a supplement to your own retirement funds. Eliminating SS isnt something that would happen overnight but in phases so that alternatives can be established that do not require the bureaucracy of the federal government. I think there are a lot of people that would over to hve 15 percent of their gross income in a fund that eraned compounded interst rather than earning nothingbeing taxed on what they take and potentially being taxed on the benefit your receive. It sucks paying taxes on money you have already payed taxes on.

I do not think SS is a bad thing. If that's the impression I gave, I'm sorry. I agree with it. As WW said, it was supposed to be a temporary and supplemental fix. Though I disagree, it was not for the Greatest Generation (great book BTW), but for their parents. The Greatest Generation were not of age during most of the depression. Now, SS is ingrained in our financial planning and social safety nets. It is a necessary and integral part of our society.

If we are going to cut, cut end of life care. I’m sorry to hear of your mother. I truly do understand. I was one vote in three children that voted not to have dramatic care to prolong my 80-year-old fathers life. He doesn’t need a feeding tube to lay in bed lost in his own mind. Of course, he now has a feeding tube. My 75-year-old mother (and myself for that matter) has it in her living will to refuse all heroic measures to save her life when the inevitable comes. I’m sorry, I just do not think it’s fair or a good use of resources. Make someone comfortable is different than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend the life of an octogenarian.

[CuteOldGuy]

I agree with you, Olivia, I just don't want the government deciding how long I should be allowed to live. Hell, there are several on this board that would like to see my life ended as quickly as possible. I don't intend to give them the satisfaction.