Cool! I got a raise!

[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.

[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.

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