How Liberals Destroyed Social Security...

The last corrupt government didn't do it. Nor the one before. What makes you think the next corrupt one will be the one to do it? Or the next? That is the problem with the country today in so many ways. People let themselves be guided around by their parties who's best interest is in the status quo.

The fact is the current system is a failure. The only possible way to continue it, as is, is to raise the tax. And what does that do? It takes the money that people are investing for their retirement away from them and gives it to the people who are already retired. That is not only a bad idea, it is unsustainable.

 

There are two sides to this issue (like all politics)...people who put their faith in the government for EVERYTHING and people that believe in the individual taking charge of their assets and will being.

When you look at government schools, government housing, goverment socialized services, etc., I side with individual rights and choices over those people that sit at desk in D.C. and make decisions for the populus.

What has happened? All of these government programs have created an entire class of people that can't think or do anything for themselves because they not only NEED government subsidizes, they DEMAND it! So how do these people dependent on the government give themselves a raise or an increase in government social programs?

They support and vote for those politicians that will transfer income from producers of this country so that this money is allocated to people that EXPECT it! What a sad state of affairs that more and more people EXPECT the government to take care of them.

John F. Kennedy summed it up best...

"Ask NOT what your country can go for you...but rather, what you can DO for your country"

Apparently it fell on deaf ears as his successor Lyndon B.Johnson very shortly signed a number of federal bills that pretty much created an entire generation of socially dependent parasites that breeded and now we are dealing with their "gimmee-gimmee-gimmee" offspring.

So I guess what JFK stated was quickly ignored as his democratic party titled further "left". Basically, the new Democratic party took Kennedy's quote and lived to this idealogy:

"Don't ask your goverment what it can do...DEMAND IT!" March and shout, "No justice, no peace" Call the main stream media for coverage...repeat the process.

Now the country is paying a serious toll for all of these socialized programs and government agencies.

So...as you can see, I would rather trust the individual, NOT the government.

 

Hyperbole

 

No exageration involved. If the current system continues, it will fail. And it will fail on people who are paying into it right now, this paycheck. Remember that guy selling pre-release mint products on Ebay a few years ago for less than issue price? It was a great deal for those that got in early. The people who kept buying into it, didn't come out quite so well.

Remember the 'con' in Con Game stands for confidence.

 

Oh, lordy me. Do you not recall those heady days in 1983, when Reagan signed the first taxation of Social Security benefits into law? Fifty percent of SS benefits could be added to taxable income, if taxable income went over a certain threshold. In 1993, Clinton signed legislation raising that 50% to 85%--again, only for higher income beneficiaries. And 81% of beneficiaries don't have to pay any taxes.

In 1983, we knew the baby boomers were looming. That's why we're running a Trust Fund surplus now. We've been socking a little extra away for decades, which is why SS is projected to pay all benefits for the next 37 years, without any changes at all.

If immigrants don't pay into Social Security, they don't get Social Security. Could you be confusing SSI with Social Security? SSI helps aged, blind, and disabled people with little or no income, but it was created and signed into law in 1972, by Nixon. It's possible that immigrants could qualify, but it certainly isn't a given. Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with it, far as I know.

Your statements about FDR and the history of Social Security are myths that the Social Security website addresses appropriately:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

A black man's life expectancy at BIRTH is only 69. Black-white mortality differences decrease as time goes on. The remaining life expectancy for a 67-year-old black man is 12 years, not 2. And the older he gets, the more likely he is to outlive a white man of the same age. Bush has used numbers that would be hilarious if they weren't so awfully misleading: they assumed all black men would live to be precisely 69 and then keel over dead. He also left out disability and survivor benefits. Maybe our government uses Actuaries R Us.

 

All black men do not live to precisely 69...it is called an average...and yes, some white people die off before black people. But when you look at the numbers ACROSS the board, I just wonder how a black person would "feel" about paying into a system that they are least likely to realize any of these benefits they PAID for!...on the AVERAGE.

Look...the system is a joke and the law that FDR signed in the 30's is nothing close to what we have today. All we did was create a "nipple-sucking" environment where people now expect and DEMAND the government take care of them at the expense of people that work and produce.

Whenever a person brings up hard core realities, they are usually shot down by the liberals and called "mean-white-conservative-enviromental polluting-racists" (amongst other things). The liberal solution to this mess? Expand the government program and increase income tax redistribution and rates to fund it. Think about this...when was the last time a liberal actually called for a cut or a reduction or the elimination of a government socialized program????

Quite the opposite is usually the response. More of the failed program and more taxes...more, more, more, more, more, more!!!

So let the name calling begin...I want at the very minimum the OPTION to put a piece of that massive 15% FICA tax into accounts that I want to participate in. If people don't want to participate, they don't have to!!

It's called a CHOICE and why should CHOICE only be allowed for woman to abort the unborn??? Why can't I have a CHOICE where my tax dollars go for my children's school or where some of my FICA dollars are "saved"??

Well, that will be underminding the government's socialist power, wouldn't it?? That would be a good thing to put this power back in the hands of the individual instead of a bunch of government workers, but as long as people DEMAND the government take care of them...

Let the socialist-parasites suck the government nipple dry...

 

The posters in this thread are hopelessly stupid about this subject. Good Bye!

 

Midas, are you really that inane, or do you just not understand the nature of the topic you created?

Looking back, maybe you just wanted another reason to blast liberals, and the idea was not intended to center around social security at all...

What did people do before social security? Well, what do you think, Midas? Do you think they all invested wisely and retired early, before the big bad ineffecient government came along and took over? That would be nice to believe, but in all reality most people were not able to retire if they were able to work. Many elderly were cared for by their children, who were now among the working. And let's not forget that the life expentancy was a little lower before the days of social security.

Seriously, man, do you even think about these questions in a realisitic sense before you assume some far reached conclusion?

What about the flip side to your argument, Midas? What about those that outlive their accumulation of retirement money with a privatized account? Do they now get the shaft? Sorry Mr. Smith, you were supposed to die 4 years ago... your retirement is tapped... You're in quite a spot!

Now lets look at your little graph... very clever! But as any investor would tell you, past performance is no guarantee of future gains. Uh oh, you mean there's risk? Moreover, that market is comprised of many little choices, all which average... you know what an average is, don't you? Sure you do... That means that a lot of people MADE money, and a lot of people LOST money, and even if the average MADE money, I guarantee a lot of people didn't. Now what?

Now you have no guarantee that horizen will continue to rise, and moreover, you have no guarantee, on an individual basis, that you will not form the bottom of that average... Good plan, Midas!

I see at the end, you blasted liberals again. At least, you have someone to blame for all the problems you see - and it's a good thing you are never to blame. I bet that helps you sleep easier.

 

Marianne, great post

 

I agree.

 

Gosh...that nipple sucking sound from liberal socialists is getting louder and louder!! Meanwhile, go ahead and continue to sweep this issue under the rug...or throw more money (taxes) at it.

It's what liberals do...blame the producers of this country so they can raise taxes (class warfare...again), hold hands as they feel good about what they did and watch more Americans become more and more dependent on the government (that means more votes for liberals).

Also, if a fight comes along against enemies of the United States, wave the white flag and sing peace songs. It will make you feel good about yourself.

As for the free market...the last 80 plus years is a pretty good track record, but if you want the government to manage your funds, that's YOUR choice...remember that word? It is called a CHOICE. You can either Opt-in, Opt-out and a little of both. Why is that soooooooooo terrible?

Oh, I forgot...you are taking money away from a government socialist who knows better how to spend/invest it than the individual that earned it. How silly of me...

 

How come all the conservatives are so down on a program like Social Security when no one screams about the billions of tax dollars shot to hell in Iraq??We have all this money to buy allies all over the world but not enough money for our own victims of natural disasters.Free enterprise YES bot not unrestrained capitalism with a bent on world domination.not all governments of the world want or need our brand of happiness:the unrestrained desire for more and more for the individual no matter what the outcome for the people as a whole.If greed is GOOD, than we are doing great!!!

 

Midas - you have no concept of reality.

What you are proposing has no basis in the real world. It is without merit, and you don't even know it, because you won't even look at the backlash of your own idea...

Point blank, your idea lacks ANY AND ALL economic sense. It isn't a liberal opinion, it isn't a concervative opinion - it is a lack of understanding.

Let it go.

 

Because it a good idea to kill islamic radicals THERE than wait for the next attack HERE. The major role of the federal government is to protect and defend this nation...for if this nation is not defended, you can say goodbye to the nation itself. When the president is sworn into office, he raises his right hand to protect and defend...NOT to promise social entitlements to the citizens.

As for "unrestrained" capitalism...it is already restrained with enough taxes and regulations to discourage private investment and risk. Look what is happening in California and other over taxed and regulated areas of the country. The proof is there...you CANNOT tax yourself into prosperity.

As for world domination, the only land we ever asked for when we won a war or liberated a country was to bury our dead.

 

Then let the government take care of you. I would rather not. Why you will not grant us a CHOICE where our tax dollars go for FICA and schools is totally against the idea of CHOICE! But... you slam CHOICE down our throats when it comes to abortion. I guess that CHOICE is okay...but only if it suits you.

If you want to send your kid to a failing school or let the feds handle your retirement...go right ahead. My choice is otherwise.

 

I have already explained why like 2 or three times. If you are not smart enough to grasp it, don't blame me.

when have *I* slamed anything about abortion down *your* collective throat? Even so, what would that have to do with social security.

What does Social Security have to do with where my kids attending school?


It is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of financial mathmatics. What you are proposing just doesn't work, you are just too ignorant about the subject to know it - again, don't blame me.

 

You've got that right. There are probably more inaccuracies in this thread than any other one on the forum. People don't even know the difference between liberal and conservative, but are hard core defenders of their ignorance. They also don't understand the nature of the problem. I think I'll join you and stop reading it now.

 

Excuse the generalization, but it is a fact that the vast majority of liberal democrats strongly support a woman's right to choose more so than people on the other side of the aisle. Me, I don't supoort abortion but it is not me to tell somebody I don't know what they should or not do with their body. Frnakly, I could care less if you drug it or drink it to death...just don't come asking me (tax payers) to pay for your lifestyle after you screw up your body!

I was addressing the CHOICE issue. Why is it a crime to allocate a portion of the 15% paid for FICA into retirement funds/accounts of MY choosing? The same holds true for school choice. Why should I be forced to have my kids attend a failing government school when the tax dollars I pay could be allocated to a private school of MY choice...not ALL of the dollars, but at least give me the opportunity to send my kids to a better school with some of the school tax dollars I spend.

How do you know? Please explain your version of 'financial mathematics'...or is that just a feel good excuse for liberals to hold on to their precious tax dollars/government agencies so that they can control what and how we do things. If I take my kid out of a public school whereas not one further nickel is being spent by the government on him for his education, and SOME of that tax money is used for a school of MY choice...why is that soooooooooo bad? The same with S.S....why is it that a "choice" is soooooo upsetting to you liberals!?!? (except for abortion).

 

One thing that is not inaccurate is the fact that disability fraud is hurting SS bad