Cool! I got a raise!

[Thumper]

Got my letter from SSD today. Due to the COLA I get a $28/mo. raise in 2014! I must be doing a good job. ;)

[Buckrub]

I got $12.20.

[jb]

Mine was about $30

[Buckrub]

Geez.

It appears my SS check is about half everyone else's.

Wonder if they know I'm not a Democrat?

[Captain]

They found out you had two fish cookers and figured you did not need the money

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

I don't need the money.

But I want it.

P.S.
I now have four......

[Captain]

Next census you will have to list those and they will cut you some more.... :D

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Arty]

Not to be a Debbie Downer....

BUT...You're Welcome.

I get really pissed off when I think of retirement. I think of all the money I have paid into Social Security since I was 14 years old....and I just shake my head. 22 years of paying in so far...another 19 years to go (if I'm lucky).

I don't expect to see a penny of it.

[Arty]

Bucky - any man that has a gun that's as pretty as .... uh... what's her name? (does she have a name yet?!), don't need no Social Insecurity! :)

[Captain]

Bucky - any man that has a gun that's as pretty as .... uh... what's her name? (does she have a name yet?!)
Yes, Horney... :D

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

Delilah.

And she ain't no virgin no mo'.

No, I don't need it. I don't need air, neither. I paid into it for 46 years, though. So I want it back.

[BarryBobPosthole]

How can y'all talk with those big ole titties in your republican mouths?

BkB

[Buckrub]

If it's Titties in MY mouth, it's fake ones I PAID for.

[Chicken Dinner]

I'm with Bucky. As much as I've paid in, I'll not be shy about bellying up to the government trough when it's my turn.

[BarryBobPosthole]

No sense of entitlement to be found here!

BKB

[airbud7]

How old you gotta be to get that stuff? I turn 50 new years....

[Chicken Dinner]

No sense of entitlement to be found here! BKB

I don't make the rules. I'm just forced to play by them. If they'd set it up back in the day as a tax to support the needy. Fine. But, they didn't. If I play my cards right, it shouldn't make too much if a difference whether I get it or not.

[Captain]

I don't know when I can start drawing but as soon as I can I will. Stupid not too... IMHO. I'm entitled alright. I earned it and paid it in so I'm entitled to get some back (and interest) :D

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Thumper]

I feel no guilt at all ... I was FORCED to open and maintain that "savings account" all my adult life ... no reason I shouldn't be able to withdraw from it now. It ain't frigging welfare!

[Captain]

Amen. Correct.
It might be considered that to folks that have never worked or paid in but I've been paying every since I was 14 or so. It ain't no handout to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Thumper]

My first "real" job was at 12 (aside from mowing lawns for $1.50 - $2.00 ea.). I was in the 6th grade and landed a job at the local Schwinn dealer over the Christmas holidays. They had a crew of about 10 of us opening the shipping crates and assembling bicycles for the Christmas rush. It was all done after store hours and I'd work from about 10 at night to 4-5 in the morning! BUT ... sumpin' tells me "Old Man Perkins" (the owner) didn't pull payroll taxes out'ta my pay, OR pay me minimum wage, 'cause I only got a $13.00 check! But I had Christmas money! ;)

I guess my first "tax-payin" job was at 15, at the local Cadillac/Pontiac/Buick/Opel/GMC Truck dealership. I was picking-up/delivering customer's cars for service ... WITHOUT a driver's license! (Things were a bit more "lax" in those days.) ;)

[Chicken Dinner]

It is "kind" of welfare as we're likely to pull out way more than we ever put in.

[Buckrub]

Don't buy that.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

"Entitlement" has come to mean the opposite. It is no longer what you are legitimately entitled to (such as SS retirement income), but what you are NOT entitled to, such as welfare. So be careful what you call an Entitlement and how you mean the word. It's so misused of a word, I suggest not using it at all. Find another word.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Just becauseyou don't like to be lumped in with the rest of the people who are getting a government check and receiving government paid for and ran health carevdoesn't mean they aren't entitlements. Those programs were intended to be safety nets for people who didn't have pensions and got into old age and were poor and starving. They ony became the bedrock of a lot of people retirement plans whem companies cut costs and stopped providing pension plans to employees. The same was true of medicare when it was created. It wasn't for everybody. Now almost everyone counts on them when they retire and they are virtually impossible to reform. I'm not looking down my nose at people who use those programs. I will draw it myself althou I do plan to buy my own health insurance if at all possible. But to complain about government run health care and welfare prgrams while getting benefits from the same is kind of hipocritical isn't it?

BKB

[Captain]

Nope not even close if you paid into it your entire working life. If you don't use it then it's just another Government way of redistributing wealth. Right. If you are given a option to NOT pay in for all those years, knowing you will have to provide your own retirement and retirement health care then yes... You are not given that option so not to file for it is just plain redistribution of wealth.
You work and the government forces you to give part of your earnings to someone else. Period. There is no other way to look at it. There is no option.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

Posthole, sometimes I seriously, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, wonder where you get your logic.

I don't see a single thread of logic in your last post. I'm sorry.

[Buckrub]

And worse, your rememberance of history is wrong.

Yes, they were for supplements at first. 1% of your salary. Medicare was much later. But it was Congress that kept inching up the SS premiums/costs, and thus the benefits, WAY before "defined pension" plans fell out of favor. I mean WAY WAY WAY before. In fact, since Corporations started cutting out defined benefit pensions, SS has done almost nothing to be increased.

If you can't see a difference in paying 14% of your salary for an expected future retirement income, versus doing nothing but getting pregnant and getting income directly because of it.........then man, o man...........I just can't fathom that you truly don't see that. I mean...........you're smart......you have to! It is not only NOT the same, the only connection I can even fathom is that the same US Government is somehow involved in both.

[Thumper]

I'm wondering where I stand? I was 18-19 years old, had a hot car and an ever hotter girlfriend, a killer job, a nice apartment with a few bucks in my pocket and a bright future. What more could a guy ask for? Then Uncle Sam threw a monkey wrench in the works and told me to throw all that away as "he" wanted me in a place called Vietnam! BUT ... they "enticed" me just a bit with the promise of free health care for life! Considering they planned on paying me $89.00/month to drop my life as I knew it and instead, RISK my life in some jungle getting shot at, I figured (if I lived to get out of that place) I DESERVED that health care. It was promised to me and I "paid" for it.

I look at SSI and/or SSD the same way. They said if I paid in (no, I was told I HAD to pay in), I'd get it back IF I live long enough to retire. If I can arrange my finances to use that as my only income, kudos to me. If not, then I'd need to make sure I had a supplemental income of some sort, whether it be a retirement plan or investments.

I worked 45 years and was only unemployed maybe 3-4 months of that time. Guess what? I drew unemployment for a good part of that 3-4 months, BUT ... like the above scenarios, I was REQUIRED to pay INTO unemployment during that 45 years and in fact, I put in MUCH more than I ever took out.

But, ya' know what? Now that you mention it, you're right. Those really ARE "entitlements". The way I figure it, an entitlement is the feeling or belief that you deserve (deserve is the key word here) to be given something. I think I DO deserve to be given what I've paid for.

My question is, why do people call being given something they have NOT paid for, an entitlement?

[Arty]

Allow me to clarify my first comment on this (when I said "you're welcome")

What I meant was that social security is a broken bankrupt system, and the only reason those that are drawing it now, is because people continue to pay in.

So... The money I pay in today, is not set aside for me to use, it's being sent to those that are currently drawing off it.

That's not the way it should be.

If I could opt out, I would

[BarryBobPosthole]

Social security was never designed to be a system where people made an investment and then pulled money out of that investment when they retired. Its a tax and was put in place because the elderly in our country were living in poverty and starving to death. If you think the only social security system is one where only the people who pay in get to reap the benefits, then get ready to see a lot of folks living on the street. I guess that's fine though since they're all slackers anyway. My whole point is that there should be a proof of need before social security or medicare benefits are given, just like any other entitlement program. Medicare is even worse than social security when it comes to how much people take out of it compared to how much they put into it. Hardly anyone ever 'pays their own freight' in Medicare. Why should someone who is a multimillionaire receive social security benefits in the first place? Its this misconception that we've been socking away money for ourselves instead of paying a tax to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves that is the root of the problem in the system. Call it what it is, pay out only to those who can demonstrate a need, and the 'bankrupt system' we keep hearing republicans talk about will be fixed. By the way, a big part of that republican base draws benefits from both of those welfare programs.

And yes, Thumper, I think you have a demonstrable need. But serving in the military doesn't make you or anyone else more deserving of social security benefits than anyone else. You should be receiving, and I think you are, veterans benefits. The social security benefits you receive (and rightfully so) are the same for veterans or non veterans.

If the Republican Congress wants to cut veterans pensions like they just did on the grounds that what the servicemen paid in service is much less than the amount we're paying for their pensions, then that ought to apply to everything else too.
BKB

[Captain]

Barry I guess being shut up for a couple of days has you in the SD mode.

IF that money only when to those that COULD not take care of themselves instead of a billizon folks that WON'T take care of themselves there would be excess money in the ditches from coast to coast. So quit acting like it only goes to those in need, it goes to plenty in WANT that have never tried to care for themselves or earn a living, yes I said it. basically a whole host of just plain lazy folks.

Wonder how "poor" folks took care of themselves before the government decided to take money from people that work and give it to them? Reckon there were poor folks in the 15, 16, 17, and 1800's??? What did they do Posthole? I know they didn't all die as you would have us believe. I bet they got out and did what they could do to take care of their families. I bet families and communities helped each other out. But we ain't smart enough to do that anymore we got to have government to do it for us.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

My whole point is that there should be a proof of need before social security or medicare benefits are given, just like any other entitlement program.

So if I pay in based on my income, I can NOT draw out until I prove I'm needy? Is that your point?

Also, the problem is that this is NOT THE CURRENT RULES. Sorry. It's not. If you want those to be the rules for drawing out, then contact your Congressman. Till then, the rules say that A) I pay in and B) I draw out. It's exactly what you say it should not be. But it really is that way, whether you like it or not. It's an Entitlement Program all right, cause I'm entitled to it under the current rules. Welfare is NOT an entitlement program because no one is entitled to it based on anything they've done to deserve it.

Look up "Ponzi Scheme" in the dictionary. Social Security is the exact definition. The ONLY reason it works is that future contributors are FORCED to contribute and keep contributing.

You can spout Liberal B/S all night and all day if you want. But you ain't right here, and there's NO logic in your position. Not even a sliver.

And that's my two cents.

[BarryBobPosthole]

You've put a large number of words in my mouth. And yes, they died, in large numbers. Families and communities helped where they could but it was the people in the soup lines that convinced people that something had to be done. And I never said it only went to the needy. I said it should only go to the needy. You seem to think that if just stopped all welfare and entitlement programs that everything would just magically take care of itself. There's no such thing as magic.

There plenty of references for how things were before SS and Medicare. It wasn't all some bed of republican roses.

BKB

[Niner]

I'm trying really hard to stay out of this one.
:atomic

[Captain]

The way you want to do it is just pure and simple redistribution of wealth. If I'm wrong tell me how? Taking money away from working people that earn it and giving it to; some needed and some lazy people? But not allowing the folks that earned it to recover their contributions.
Call it what you want.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Captain]

I'm trying really hard to stay out of this one. :atomic

You know you can't sit this out.... ;-)

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

No, I want what most true conservatives want. You're the one who thinks the government should fund your retirement. I think we need to make SS what it was intended to be and that is retirement insurance. That would cost a lot less than what we pay in now. Its easy to sit on your ass and claim its a ponzi scheme all the while never wanting to change a thing.

BKB

[Captain]

Now who's putting words in who's mouth. I never said I wouldn't change things?
I'd change them alright but not for the redistribution of wealth. I would not be popular. I've said before the federal government should be about 10 people. And I'm not kidding about that... It all needs to go away and let the states run their own programs for caring for the citizens of their states.
The closer to home, the least the waste.
What you are proposing will not last long. When folks can lay around home and get paid sooner or later the workers will get tired of their money going to them and join the crowd of laying around the house...bits damn near to thy point now.
And why when I joined the ranks of the working people as a young kid was I told that the deductions were what the government took out for us when we retired.
And yes I could get by without it, I have my retirement and pretty much set. But I'll apply as soon as I can... I earned it, payed it In and I'll use all they will give me.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

I want DESPERATELY to change Social Security. I want it to go POOF!! Don't tell ME I don't want to change it.

Your position about what it IS continues to be 100% inaccurate and invalid, nonetheless.

If you want it to be a tax on the wealthy to give to the needy, fine. Run for office and propose it. Till then, I want what I paid in. I want what I was promised, not what you wish I had been promised.

If you want it to be insurance against poverty for which I pay the premium and Mr. Poor Man pays nothing and reaps everything, just say so. That is, as Cappy said, a simple redistribution of wealth, out of guilt (I assume). But till it gets changed to that, it AIN'T that, and I want mine out of what it is.

I have no clue WHY you feel as you do. That baffles me. But regardless, it ain't valid, and it has no logic to it.

[BarryBobPosthole]

You've paid for homeowners insurance against disaster for the entire time you've owned your house. Do you expect to get all of the money out that you've paid in for insurance some day? Do you consider that money yours? No. You were paying for protection against something happening to your home that was out of your control. Social security should be set up the same way, and in fact it was at one time. Its the people who believe they should get their money back that they pay for retirement insurance whose logic is invalid. Instead of viewing it that way, its easier to describe it as socialism or redistribution of wealth. that's just Republican bullshit. Its not a conservative view of the thing at all. If we're gonna reform it, we have to change it so we are putting that money in the people's hands so they can invest it and provide for their own retirement. If disaster happens and their savings are wiped out and they have no other means of support, their retirement insurance kicks in and takes care of them. Its the principle behind every kind of insurance we have, only the government is our insurer. THAT should never change. Especially considering how fraught with criminals our banking system and the politicians who protect them are.

Medicare should be handled the same way. Today, both social security and kedicare are viewed as investments not payments for insurance. Its nothing but a government funded retirement plan and that's wrong.

BKB


BKB

[Buckrub]

Geez.

Last time, then I'm going to bed.

Your view is NOT HOW IT IS. It is a Liberal utopian view of how you want it to be.

If that is the law of the land tomorrow, I'll adjust.

Till then, I want what I was promised and paid for over a 46 year period. You can leave yours in, not take it, take it out, whatever.

For the record, I don't want any part of your "retirement insurance" B/S. I don't want any government involvement in private affairs, period. I don't want someone stupider than I am telling me how to save for retirement, or how much I need to pay in, or how much I will get back. Bunch of Elitist Snots.

But that's how it IS. And I played by the rules, and I am E N T I T L E D to all I can get. Which from the start of this thread, is considerably less than others get. But that's fine, that's the rules. I don't want theirs. Or yours.

I just want mine.

If you want to WISH for change, I WISH they'd get out of the investment business. That's what I wish for. I wish they'd fall into the ocean. I wish folks didn't look to the Government first, instead of last, to solve society's problems. I wish I was taller, and that this tooth would stop hurting.

Till then, I wish I would not be out of Ibuprofen, and that you'd be struck by a Logic Bolt tomorrow sometime.

Night.

[Buckrub]

I went to bed, and it struck me what the better answer is:

I do not pay fire insurance premiums so that when YOUR house burns, YOU get to file the claim without ever having paid any premiums!!! And no, I do NOT want to pay "retirement insurance premiums" so that YOU can get retirement benefits based on MY "premiums" I paid in, either.

Your idea sucks.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Uh.....that's EXACTLY how insurance of any kind works.

That's okay. I'm done ever since you used the 'you're just a liberal' brush off.

Good night. Hope your tooth is etter.

BKB

[Arty]

You've paid for homeowners insurance against disaster for the entire time you've owned your house. Do you expect to get all of the money out that you've paid in for insurance some day? Do you consider that money yours? No. You were paying for protection against something happening
BKB


BKB

One small difference... State Farm doesn't send me statements once a year telling me how much I will receive based on how much I've paid in when I turn 65.

[Thumper]

You have an OPTION as to whether you carry homeowner's insurance or not. Granted, it's required if you have a mortgage, but that's required by the mortgage company to cover THEIR asses. If you OWN your home, there is no REQUIREMENT to pay homeowner's insurance. BIG difference than being REQUIRED to pay into SSI.

What you think the system "should" be and what it is, are two different things. Every 6 months or so for the past umpteen years, I've received a Social Security statement in the mail. It always said, you've put in this much during year so-and-so (and it listed ALL the years I've worked and what my "contribution" was). It would go on to say, IF I retire at age 62, I'd receive X-dollars/month. IF I retire at 65, I'd receive X-dollars (a higher figure)/month. And it would go on to say IF I retire at 67 years old, I'd receive X-dollars (and even higher figure)/month. NOWHERE did it say anywhere on any of those statements that I'd receive it IF I need it.

The way it's set up is that I'm REQUIRED to purchase Treasury Bonds my entire working life, whether I want to or not. Like any other Treasury Bond, those bonds have a maturity date ... in the case of SSI, a set retirement age. It makes no difference how it was "supposed" to work, or how you "think" it should work, "we" are following the rules as they exist ... as we're told by the government what those rules are. The same goes for medicare. To run the system as you're describing it, all those "contributions" withdrawn from my paychecks should have said simply, "Welfare Tax". I have no problem with Welfare ... I've been to countries without it and it's NOT pretty. What I DO have a problem with is ABUSE of the system. What you're proposing is that anyone who draws SSI and doesn't NEED it is abusing the system. The way SSI and Medicare are set up, they are nothing short of "investments" with a promised return. Like I mentioned above, nothing more than "Treasury Bonds" per se. Treasury Bonds pay a guaranteed return. Why would anyone invest in them if they didn't plan on collecting that return? Either do away with SSI and Medicare and call it what you think it should be called (Welfare Tax) or change the system.

One last point:


... serving in the military doesn't make you or anyone else more deserving of social security benefits than anyone else. You should be receiving, and I think you are, veterans benefits. The social security benefits you receive (and rightfully so) are the same for veterans or non veterans.

I haven't re-read my post, but I don't think I ever compared SSI to Veteran's Benefits. They're not even in the same ballpark. When I joined the military, the Veteran's Benefits were presented to me as being in lieu of pay during active duty. I thought it sounded like a good "investment" and it was. BUT ... the government has the power to give you something and then take it away if they want. A few years back, Congress changed the rules and set Veteran's benefits up on a tier system based on income. They are basically deductibles, one income level and there are no deductibles, reach a certain income and you pay X%, another level and that % goes up, etc. I never could understand how the government could promise me something and then change the rules in mid-stream, but they did. (I always thought they should have "grandfathered" the existing vets when the law kicked in, and just present the new rules to new recruits, but it was a "blanket" law) That said, your complaint about the "rich" drawing Social Security is very similar. If the government can develop a tier system for Veteran's Benefits, why not do the same with SS?

EDIT: Ooops, looks like youse dufes are up early this morning and some of the same points I just made, were also made while I was huntin' & peckin'! :)

[Buckrub]

I didn't say you were JUST a Liberal. But in this case, you are. Fully vested Liberal. But don't add words to what I said. You can be wrong in one area and not others.

But Thump and Cappy and I and everyone has made the same point, and I guess you are ignoring it. You started by telling us that SS was simply another government entitlement (which you use as giveaway) program. We showed you over and over where it isn't, and you switched gears totally and tried to say what it used to be originally (you aren't even right on that, by the way), and then changed again to what you think it OUGHT to be.

The truth is that Social Security WAS set up strictly as a retirement for a worker who had earned income. It was later that they started adding benefits and options to it that made it unfeasable. It was 4 years later that they added Survivor's benefits (life insurance, no cost) and children's benefits. It was 1956 before Disability Benefits (Disability insurance, no cost) was added. Medicare was 1965!! If it had been kept as a retirement for one worker, it might have made it fine. But when liberal congressmen started adding, out of guilt, help for the poor needy widows and ophans, without any additional charge, that it started to get out of hand. This actuarial demise had nothing to do with corporations, or what they did. Your view of all that is so skewed that it upsets people.

You get upset at someone laying a label on you, even if it's valid. But we get upset when you distort facts and provide wild views of things that don't match reality.

I admire you, but I can't fathom the source of some of your beliefs. I have an idea, but really can't figure it out. You give up arguments way later than most Liberals, I'll give you that......I never met one that would finish one.

Here, by the way:

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