PDA

View Full Version : Like it was said in "Animal House" after they trashed Flounder's car:



Cigar
01-07-2015, 11:04 AM
"you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes. You fucked up, you trusted us!"

So you say you voted Republican in 2014?... and the first thing they do is propose cuts in Social Security?

http://bit.ly/1tOG85a

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 11:11 AM
Social Security was never supposed to have been people's retirements. It was created for two reasons, one to make sure people had saved something (it's a payroll tax, after all), and as a way of government holding more equity, of sorts.

Given how the government handles our money, there is no way I would depend on social security ever being there or that cash is all we need.

People are just foolish if they trust politicians to care for them. Even those program that look "nice" are inefficient and cause as many problems as they attempt to solve.

Captain Obvious
01-07-2015, 11:12 AM
Social Security was never supposed to have been people's retirements. It was created for two reasons, one to make sure people had saved something (it's a payroll tax, after all), and as a way of government holding more equity, of sorts.

Given how the government handles our money, there is no way I would depend on social security ever being there or that cash is all we need.

People are just foolish if they trust politicians to care for them. Even those program that look "nice" are inefficient and cause as many problems as they attempt to solve.

Correct, and the income tax was supposed to be temporary too.

If only Cigar realized the bitter irony (hypocrisy) in the OP. Sadly, he will never know.

Cigar
01-07-2015, 11:15 AM
Breaking: House GOP seek rule change that could undermine Social Security for seniors & disabled.WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) condemned a dangerous new rule in the House of Representatives that would undermine Social Security by attacking Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The unprecedented rule change would prevent the House of Representatives from passing clean reallocations of the Social Security Trust Fund.

“Today, House Republicans are trying to change rules that have been in place for decades as a way to attack social insurance,” Brown said. “Rather than solve the short-term problems facing the Social Security Disability program as we have in the past, Republicans want to set the stage to cut benefits for seniors and disabled Americans.”

Link: http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-condemns-dangerous-move-by-the-house-that-would-undermine-social-security-by-attacking-disability-insurance

And so it begins...

iriemon
01-07-2015, 11:57 AM
Social Security was never supposed to have been people's retirements. It was created for two reasons, one to make sure people had saved something (it's a payroll tax, after all), and as a way of government holding more equity, of sorts.

Given how the government handles our money, there is no way I would depend on social security ever being there or that cash is all we need.

People are just foolish if they trust politicians to care for them. Even those program that look "nice" are inefficient and cause as many problems as they attempt to solve.

I think its kind of nice we live in a society where we don't have hordes of grannies living under freeway overpasses.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 11:58 AM
I think its kind of nice we live in a society where we don't have hordes of grannies living under freeway overpasses.

Have you ever been to a freeway overpass and looked under it? Lots of mentally ill there. It's nice to leave your ivory tower every once in awhile.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 12:08 PM
Have you ever been to a freeway overpass and looked under it? Lots of mentally ill there. It's nice to leave your ivory tower every once in awhile.

Terrible isn't it?

I wonder how many multiples more would be there without SS.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:11 PM
Terrible isn't it?

I wonder how many multiples more would be there without SS.

The same amount. It's a mental health issue. You'll have those that take them in and those who refuse to be taken in. This isn't the Great Depression. The milk man doesn't drive a horse cart and resources are more streamlined.

I hear what you're saying even though I think it's hyperbole.

We as a society don't care about mental health.

Common Sense
01-07-2015, 12:14 PM
Have you ever been to a freeway overpass and looked under it? Lots of mentally ill there. It's nice to leave your ivory tower every once in awhile.

...ahem.

See, we all do the same shit. Glass houses and all that.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:15 PM
...ahem.

See, we all do the same shit. Glass houses and all that.

I suppose you didn't listen to a word I said in the other thread. I've said quite clearly the position I take on here. Also, now you're trolling. ...ahem.

Bo-4
01-07-2015, 12:15 PM
Yep, meddling with SS with go over with the public as well as Bushie's privatization campaign .. like the proverbial fart in a spacesuit.

nic34
01-07-2015, 12:16 PM
Social Security was never supposed to have been people's retirements. It was created for two reasons, one to make sure people had saved something (it's a payroll tax, after all), and as a way of government holding more equity, of sorts.

Given how the government handles our money, there is no way I would depend on social security ever being there or that cash is all we need.

People are just foolish if they trust politicians to care for them. Even those program that look "nice" are inefficient and cause as many problems as they attempt to solve.

SS wasn't created for you or I, it was to keep seniors and the less fortunate (unlucky sperm club) out of poverty.

One would understand it better if they had a parent/grandparent that lived under the conditions in the US before 1935.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actpre.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-house-republicans-leverage-social-security-transfer

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:20 PM
SS wasn't created for you or I, it was to keep seniors and the less fortunate (unlucky sperm club) out of poverty.

It was create for "us" as a forced savings account. It is a payroll tax and our money. It is not the government's money.

Also, we don't any of us live in that generation. In that generation one parent worked, only one. Women just got the vote. You could buy cocaine for a toothache and laudanum for headaches.

It was a temporary solution to be revisited later.

Part of why people are broke today in their elderly years is because we have an extremely high and out of control cost of living that is counter-productive to savings.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 12:20 PM
The same amount. It's a mental health issue. You'll have those that take them in and those who refuse to be taken in. This isn't the Great Depression. The milk man doesn't drive a horse cart and resources are more streamlined.

I hear what you're saying even though I think it's hyperbole.

We as a society don't care about mental health.

So let me see if I understand you. You're saying that we could eliminate SS, and there would be no increase in homelessness amongst the elderly population. Is that really what you're tying to contend?

Matty
01-07-2015, 12:23 PM
The obama administration took every person who had run out of unemployment checks and moved to SS disability. And you wonder why funding is a problem?

nic34
01-07-2015, 12:26 PM
It was create for "us" as a forced savings account. It is a payroll tax and our money. It is not the government's money.

Also, we don't any of us live in that generation. In that generation one parent worked, only one. Women just got the vote. You could buy cocaine for a toothache and laudanum for headaches.

It was a temporary solution to be revisited later.

Part of why people are broke today in their elderly years is because we have an extremely high and out of control cost of living that is counter-productive to savings.

Sorry, mom and gramma disagree.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 12:30 PM
It was create for "us" as a forced savings account. It is a payroll tax and our money. It is not the government's money.

Also, we don't any of us live in that generation. In that generation one parent worked, only one. Women just got the vote. You could buy cocaine for a toothache and laudanum for headaches.

It was a temporary solution to be revisited later.

Part of why people are broke today in their elderly years is because we have an extremely high and out of control cost of living that is counter-productive to savings.

No. SS was never set up or sold as a "forced savings account". SS has never had a component of savings. There is no savings. You don't put your money in and they get to withdraw it when you want. It's not your money. And you aren't limited by the amount you've put it.

SS is social insurance. Like any insurance, you pay into it, and if and only if certain conditions occur. Like any other insurance, you make get far more than you paid in; you may get nothing.

In the early 20th century, we didn't really need a social insurance pension system because most people died well before retirement age. Today that is not true.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:32 PM
So let me see if I understand you. You're saying that we could eliminate SS, and there would be no increase in homelessness amongst the elderly population. Is that really what you're tying to contend?

At least you asked me if this was what I am trying to contend, although we both know you weren't really asking me, asking me. :wink:

If we cut off SS right now there would be homeless people just like if we robbed everyone's 401k or savings accounts.

I've said repeatedly that it is a payroll tax, it is a forced savings account, etc.

I think we can come up with a different, better way of doing it. I also think that since its a payroll tax, single people should be allowed to designate beneficiaries, but that's a different story.

Do you have a specific question for me in regards to this subject?

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:33 PM
No. SS was never set up or sold as a "forced savings account". SS has never had a component of savings. There is no savings. You don't put your money in and they get to withdraw it when you want. It's not your money. And you aren't limited by the amount you've put it.

It certainly is "forced". You're taxed from money you earned. You can call it whatever, but that is the gist of what it is. But you're right, unlike a savings account you can't do whatever you want with it. That's the problem.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 12:35 PM
Sorry, mom and gramma disagree.

Your mom and gramma were unusual. Today most people have to have two parents working, back then that was not the case. In fact, in the 1930s a woman who worked had stigmas attached to them.

Anyway, social security, could be done differently.

Bo-4
01-07-2015, 12:51 PM
The obama administration took every person who had run out of unemployment checks and moved to SS disability. And you wonder why funding is a problem?

I call BS unless you have a reputable link to such a claim.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 01:05 PM
It certainly is "forced". You're taxed from money you earned. You can call it whatever, but that is the gist of what it is.

Sure it is force. But its not savings.


But you're right, unlike a savings account you can't do whatever you want with it. That's the problem,.

Insurance is not intended to be savings. It's designed to provide a benefit if certain conditions occur. It's not a problem.

The problem with a savings account is that many will outlive it.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 01:06 PM
At least you asked me if this was what I am trying to contend, although we both know you weren't really asking me, asking me. :wink:

If we cut off SS right now there would be homeless people just like if we robbed everyone's 401k or savings accounts.

I've said repeatedly that it is a payroll tax, it is a forced savings account, etc.

I think we can come up with a different, better way of doing it. I also think that since its a payroll tax, single people should be allowed to designate beneficiaries, but that's a different story.

Do you have a specific question for me in regards to this subject?

Not any more. I think you agreed that if we were to eliminate SS we'd have far more poverty (and homelessness) among the elderly, just as we did before SS.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 02:00 PM
Sure it is force. But its not savings.

True, I dumbed down my vocabulary because this place has become exceedingly elementary. No, you are correct a savings implies that you still have some control over it. The government has seized your funds so they can help, were going to throw it in a lockbox, decided a lockbox isn't the best idea and borrowed against it, et al.

But we should still continue to trust them with this money because "old people, freeways, etc".

We all love our grandparents and we love other people's grandparents, but asking the fiscally irresponsible to be the gatekeepers for their future safety is like asking a crackhead to hold your wallet for a second.




Insurance is not intended to be savings. It's designed to provide a benefit if certain conditions occur. It's not a problem.


It was intended to be insurance but what it became is a savings account because the general public is not educated on what it is and counts on it to be there when they are older.

So we're both "correct" and "incorrect" in how we choose to frame this, but it is what it is. I only have so much patience these days for posting on forums where idiocy is rampant.




The problem with a savings account is that many will outlive it.

The problem with a savings account is that you have no control over the cost of living, no handle on inflation, no way to predict, and all of this is a direct result of the mismanagement and collusion of the people you're telling us all we should trust.

People should be able to live off of their savings. Things shouldn't be so expensive. And yet...it is.

iriemon
01-07-2015, 02:12 PM
True, I dumbed down my vocabulary because this place has become exceedingly elementary.

It's OK to dumb it down, I have to do it a lot too. But not make it inaccurate.


No, you are correct a savings implies that you still have some control over it. The government has seized your funds so they can help, were going to throw it in a lockbox, decided a lockbox isn't the best idea and borrowed against it, et al.

I agree. The jacked up FICA taxes mostly paid by the lower/middle class workers, who paid in cumulatively trillions of extra dollars in SS more than was needed to pay benefits, and effectively used that extra cash to fund tax cuts mostly benefiting the richer.

It was the biggest steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich scam since the Sheriff of Nottingham.


But we should still continue to trust them with this money because "old people, freeways, etc".

More so because the alternative is not acceptable to most Americans.


We all love our grandparents and we love other people's grandparents, but asking the fiscally irresponsible to be the gatekeepers for their future safety is like asking a crackhead to hold your wallet for a second.

Yet we keep voting fiscally irresponsible panderers into office.


It was intended to be insurance but what it became is a savings account because the general public is not educated on what it is and counts on it to be there when they are older.

It is not a savings account, never was, and never was intended to be.


So we're both "correct" and "incorrect" in how we choose to frame this, but it is what it is. I only have so much patience these days for posting on forums where idiocy is rampant.

How was I incorrect?


The problem with a savings account is that you have no control over the cost of living, no handle on inflation, no way to predict, and all of this is a direct result of the mismanagement and collusion of the people you're telling us all we should trust.

And the fact that millions cannot afford to save and millions more that can afford don't.


People should be able to live off of their savings. Things shouldn't be so expensive. And yet...it is.

There you go. Why we need SS.

Alyosha
01-07-2015, 03:33 PM
It's OK to dumb it down, I have to do it a lot too. But not make it inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate. Social Security is given to you upon retirement, injury, etc. Most people use it for their retirement when it was intended to be supplemental, so it is used as a savings when that is not what it is.

Whether it is called that or even meant to be that, it has become the answer to savings and that was never meant to be the case. This is the unintended consequence of a program that morphs into something it was not intended to be.




I agree. The jacked up FICA taxes mostly paid by the lower/middle class workers, who paid in cumulatively trillions of extra dollars in SS more than was needed to pay benefits, and effectively used that extra cash to fund tax cuts mostly benefiting the richer.


Speaking of language, you should use the correct language, as well, if you hold my feet to the fire.

You can't fund a tax cut. It is just a tax cut. What you mean to say is that you feel the middle class are paying more than their fare share of taxes (I agree).




It was the biggest steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich scam since the Sheriff of Nottingham.


Only you're not giving to the rich, they're just keeping what they made. If the middle class got to keep more of what they make that's also not money being given to them. It's money they get to keep.

When you use language like that you enforce this belief that we're entitled, somehow, to the wealth of others.

I don't believe that I'm entitled to other people's money or that other people are entitled to mine.

I agree that we have serious problems and that the rich are able to wiggle around laws and regulations because they help write those laws and regulations, which is why any attempts to change this or punish them will result only in the middle class or upper middle class and lower upper class bearing the burden, while the extreme wealthy move to other locales that let them keep their wealth.

You seem to believe that these people are patriotic as they were in the WWII era, and they are not.



Yet we keep voting fiscally irresponsible panderers into office.


Mostly because people believe that there is a difference in the parties and that if they can just get their guy into office things will be better. You're showing that now, but it's okay. Indoctrination is strong in most people of your generation. You saw Rome before the decay.




It is not a savings account, never was, and never was intended to be.


It was certainly never intended to be, but when that is what people live off of as retirees it is a defacto one just the same.




How was I incorrect?


By implying it's still "insurance" when you know people live off of it. Insurance is for accidents and change of life conditions that are temporary or abrupt.




And the fact that millions cannot afford to save and millions more that can afford don't.


I'm not responsible for those that can afford to and don't, but I will be generous to those that can't afford to voluntarily. I have my own parents to look after and hopefully soon my own children. I have a trust to help those in need that I set up 7 years ago and will continue to put money in it, but beyond direct involvement I don't really want the same people who think it's okay to kill 100 kids to get one terrorist telling me about how I should perform charity or caring for my fellow man.





There you go. Why we need SS.

We need something like it. Agreed. I don't like the inefficiencies of it.

iriemon
01-08-2015, 06:42 PM
It's not inaccurate. Social Security is given to you upon retirement, injury, etc. Most people use it for their retirement when it was intended to be supplemental, so it is used as a savings when that is not what it is.

You cannot withdraw the amount you pay into SS. It's not savings, no matter how much you want to try to defend your inaccurate characterization.


Whether it is called that or even meant to be that, it has become the answer to savings and that was never meant to be the case. This is the unintended consequence of a program that morphs into something it was not intended to be.

I disagree. It was intended to provide income to people to supplement their savings, and provide income to those with inadequate savings.


Speaking of language, you should use the correct language, as well, if you hold my feet to the fire.

You can't fund a tax cut. It is just a tax cut. What you mean to say is that you feel the middle class are paying more than their fare share of taxes (I agree).

No, I mean that extra payments the middle class have made into SS have effectively instead gone to offset the deficits caused by tax cuts mostly benefiting the richer.


Only you're not giving to the rich, they're just keeping what they made. If the middle class got to keep more of what they make that's also not money being given to them. It's money they get to keep.

When you use language like that you enforce this belief that we're entitled, somehow, to the wealth of others.

When you raise taxes mostly paid by the poorer to offset deficits caused by tax cuts mostly benefiting the richer, it's close enough to me.


I don't believe that I'm entitled to other people's money or that other people are entitled to mine.

I disagree. I think that a fair quid pro quo for having a capitalist system that allows people to leverage the work of others to make gigantic fortunes is that they share some of that wealth to help provide for others who are aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck, and to help provide for opportunities for those who otherwise don't have them for lack of money.


I agree that we have serious problems and that the rich are able to wiggle around laws and regulations because they help write those laws and regulations, which is why any attempts to change this or punish them will result only in the middle class or upper middle class and lower upper class bearing the burden, while the extreme wealthy move to other locales that let them keep their wealth.

So if it is difficult to capture fraudsters we should not attempt to punish them? I'm not saying the wealthy are fraudsters, but I don't see the logic in your position.


You seem to believe that these people are patriotic as they were in the WWII era, and they are not.

Lost me.


Mostly because people believe that there is a difference in the parties and that if they can just get their guy into office things will be better. You're showing that now, but it's okay. Indoctrination is strong in most people of your generation. You saw Rome before the decay.

Fine. Since there's no difference to you, please vote Democratic. Thanks.


It was certainly never intended to be, but when that is what people live off of as retirees it is a defacto one just the same.

You cannot withdraw a savings account. And when your savings account runs out of money, you're SOL.


By implying it's still "insurance" when you know people live off of it. Insurance is for accidents and change of life conditions that are temporary or abrupt.


People live off insurance all the time. Your parent dies and you live off their life insurance. What is incorrect about it?



I'm not responsible for those that can afford to and don't, but I will be generous to those that can't afford to voluntarily. I have my own parents to look after and hopefully soon my own children. I have a trust to help those in need that I set up 7 years ago and will continue to put money in it, but beyond direct involvement I don't really want the same people who think it's okay to kill 100 kids to get one terrorist telling me about how I should perform charity or caring for my fellow man.

No, you're responsible for paying taxes. The Govt is responsible for providing the safety nets.


We need something like it. Agreed. I don't like the inefficiencies of it.

It's actually one of the most efficient things the Govt does.