Repeal Healthcare bill? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

buffa98 · #1 10-20-2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Talk to your elder relatives and the 50+ million senior citizens who contributed to SS their whole life and are now are reaping the benefits of that program. I'm pretty sure most will rebuke your claims of "stolen money".

Personally, I kinda like the fact that for the most part we don't have 10's of millions of elderly senior citizens starving to death living in the streets. Well worth the 6% contribution we all make.

Given the greed and selfishness I see amongst many, I'm not certain they'd open up their homes and support their elderly parents/relatives. That's what families did before SS, and still do in nations that have no social benefits. Tell me, ARE YOU WILLING TO THAT in lieu of paying SS?

\

BUT_ the peoplethat are getting the SS benfits now are NOT GETTING BACK THE MONEY THEY PAID IN,
They are getting back the monet thawe are paying now. The whole theory behind SS was it was designed to help SECURE you golden years, Not fund them entirely.

OH an by the way it is 13.8% of your income. 6.4% taking from you 6.4% funded by your employer.

As a former employer the amount of revenue you can make me comes into play for your hourly wage. I and all the other employer must figure out what you as the employee are going to cost us before we can hire you.

Now before this goes to long absolutely I am will to de fund the whole SS administration if and only if it went back to to the original design.

Last point how many people die before reaching 62,5 years and never see a dime of the SS that was taken from them????? I can think of a few. Most of them with the same last name as me

. So If pay into a system for the next 30 years till I am allowed to retire and fall over dead the next day can my estate get a refund on the money that big brother STOLE in the name of MY golden years?? HELL NO! People need to look back at the depression generation to take a few lessons on how to live. If you don't have the cash for it you cant afford it. The only person you should depend on to take care of you is you not some over-payed A!@#HOLE in a suit in DC promising to give you $250 stimulus check because you did not get a COLA this year(But you can bet your behind they got there COLA)\\

OK rant over

Honus · #2 10-20-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

...Last point how many people die before reaching 62,5 years and never see a dime of the SS that was taken from them????? I can think of a few. Most of them with the same last name as me

. ...

While I am sorry to hear about your relatives' misfortune, they are the ones who make SS work. The whole system depends on having some percentage of people pay in more than they get back. It is socialism, pure and simple. It is also, IMHO, among the greatest achievements of any government in history. It is highly efficient, with much lower administrative costs than any private system could ever match. It has kept countless Americans out of poverty. To me, SS is untouchable. Anyone who favors any sort of privatization will not get my vote.

aklim · #3 10-20-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

It is highly efficient, with much lower administrative costs than any private system could ever match.

It has kept countless Americans out of poverty.

Question: How did it achieve that? Did they consider all the costs or did they simply consider the office costs and not figure out all the congressional time expended on it, making the rules, etc, etc? Do they have to pursue fraud as diligently as say a private system or do they just raise taxes to cover it? As a private enterprise, I have to have money saved up for a "rainy day". Does SS? IIRC, there were 20+ workers to 1 retiree. Have they got a way to cope now that there is about 3+ working people to 1 retiree?

It has given them a fish but not taught them how to fish. I guess that is a great achievement.

Shouldn't Americans keep THEMSELVES out of poverty? It does keep the govt out of poverty since it is a slush fund they can tap from so that is an achievement.

Honus · #4 10-20-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Question: How did it achieve that? Did they consider all the costs or did they simply consider the office costs and not figure out all the congressional time expended on it, making the rules, etc, etc? Do they have to pursue fraud as diligently as say a private system or do they just raise taxes to cover it?...

Dunno.

Quote:

...It has given them a fish but not taught them how to fish. I guess that is a great achievement.

Shouldn't Americans keep THEMSELVES out of poverty? It does keep the govt out of poverty since it is a slush fund they can tap from so that is an achievement.

IMHO, there is a simple answer to those comments - Without social security, we have poverty. With it, we have less poverty. For cheap. What's not to like?

aklim · #5 10-20-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Dunno.

IMHO, there is a simple answer to those comments - Without social security, we have poverty. With it, we have less poverty.

For cheap. What's not to like?

But you said????

Inaccurate. Without SS, we MIGHT have more poverty. With it, we MIGHT have less poverty. I can bench press 5000# and I can prove it. I just needs some "help". Morphine does NOT take away the cause for pain. It numbs the pain. That is exactly what SS does. It masks the poverty. It doesn't take it away.

There you go again. Unsubstantiated. You don't even know how it came about to be that efficient.

Honus · #6 10-20-2010, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

...There you go again. Unsubstantiated...

Goodbye.

buffa98 · #7 10-20-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

While I am sorry to hear about your relatives' misfortune, they are the ones who make SS work. The whole system depends on having some percentage of people pay in more than they get back. It is socialism, pure and simple. It is also, IMHO, among the greatest achievements of any government in history. It is highly efficient, with much lower administrative costs than any private system could ever match. It has kept countless Americans out of poverty. To me, SS is untouchable. Anyone who favors any sort of privatization will not get my vote.

Thank you for the thoughts.

BUT when it was enacted there were 28(?) people working for every one person drawing. Now the ratio is closer to 4.5 to one. When the Baby boomer star to retire in droves 2011(at age 65) there will an even lower number. The system as designed does not work. My answer is let the people who are young enough let them opt out of the system(myself included) That way we would be responsible for our own retirement.

aklim · #8 10-20-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

Thank you for the thoughts.

BUT when it was enacted there were 28(?) people working for every one person drawing. Now the ratio is closer to 4.5 to one. When the Baby boomer star to retire in droves 2011(at age 65) there will an even lower number. The system as designed does not work. My answer is let the people who are young enough let them opt out of the system(myself included) That way we would be responsible for our own retirement.

Remember what happened with Madoff? When the pool of young suckers dried up, the old suckers bit the big one. Same with SS. If they let the youngsters like you off, what happens when the old ones of Ponzi Scheme claim money? Who pays into it? It is a Ponzi Scheme, is it not?

Honus · #9 10-20-2010, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

Thank you for the thoughts.

BUT when it was enacted there were 28(?) people working for every one person drawing. Now the ratio is closer to 4.5 to one. When the Baby boomer star to retire in droves 2011(at age 65) there will an even lower number. The system as designed does not work. My answer is let the people who are young enough let them opt out of the system(myself included) That way we would be responsible for our own retirement.

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that SS has been clicking along for 70+ years without missing a beat. It needs adjustments to keep itself solvent, but I don't think we should scrap it.

One problem with letting people be responsible for their own retirement is that many people just won't do it. What do we do with them? Let them starve out in the street?

kknudson · #10 10-20-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that SS has been clicking along for 70+ years without missing a beat. It needs adjustments to keep itself solvent, but I don't think we should scrap it.

You do understand there isn't one thin dime in the SS trust fund.
Our great leaders have spent it willy nilly.

More was coming in than going out, so out leaders spent that too.

Now the day is coming when there won't be enough coming in to cover whats going out so they'll have to start taking money out of the trust fund to make up the difference.
Oh wait, there's nothing in there, my oh my what will we do ??

Funny a corporation must have reserves to pay it's pension obligations, ah but this is the government.

Honus · #11 10-21-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

You do understand there isn't one thin dime in the SS trust fund.
Our great leaders have spent it willy nilly.

More was coming in than going out, so out leaders spent that too.

Now the day is coming when there won't be enough coming in to cover whats going out so they'll have to start taking money out of the trust fund to make up the difference.
Oh wait, there's nothing in there, my oh my what will we do ??

Modest adjustments now will make the system solvent for decades.

Quote:

Funny a corporation must have reserves to pay it's pension obligations, ah but this is the government.

Exactly right. This is one thing that only the federal government can do and it does it very, very well.

aklim · #12 10-21-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Modest adjustments now will make the system solvent for decades.

Exactly right. This is one thing that only the federal government can do and it does it very, very well.

Yeah, right. When your worker pool shrinks by 10, a minor change is needed. Let me cut your household income by a factor of 10 and you tell me that.

Now I see how you come about with that statement. You compare apples with oranges. Care to explain why if the govt can do something so well, we have this huge debt? Care to explain why they have so many cost overruns? Take that into consideration when you consider this. Remember Fannie and Freddie? They were wonderful till they needed to be bailed out. Consider that the govt has been able to do accounting tricks that nobody has been legally allowed to do and it still cannot balance it's checkbook. Now tell me, do you really think it can do what you think?

aklim · #13 10-21-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that SS has been clicking along for 70+ years without missing a beat. It needs adjustments to keep itself solvent, but I don't think we should scrap it.

One problem with letting people be responsible for their own retirement is that many people just won't do it. What do we do with them? Let them starve out in the street?

'GM has been doing that too if you don't count the bailouts.

So let them starve. Let them be an example to the younger generation as to what happens when you don't take care of yourselves. If you kid doesn't want to stop sucking on Mama's Tit, what do you do? At the rip old age of 55, he still will be sucking on Mama and crapping in diapers.