Democrats are raiding (dismantling) SS

[RichardAWilson]

The so-called payroll tax relief means less cash in the SS Trust Fund (which is invested in long-term Treasuries). Every dollar in tax relief that's offered to big businesses and individuals means a dollar that won't be available down the line. (Meaning even earlier calls for reducing benefits and raising the age).

[Judicator]

What a tragedy, people having to rely on their children for support.

[RichardAWilson]

You're obviously not very educated.

[Judicator]

You're obviously a brainwashed leftist.

[o well this is ok I guess]

What a tragedy, people having to rely on their children for support. That is a tragedy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're obviously not very educated.Nah, he's just an Uncle Tom for the rich. An useful idiot for his masters.

[Agent Equality]

You're obviously a brainwashed leftist.

Lol You're on a site full of brainwashed leftists bud.

[Judicator]

Lol You're on a site full of brainwashed leftists bud.

Some might be free thinking.


Nah, he's just an Uncle Tom for the rich. An useful idiot for his masters.

That would make me my own master, fine.


That is a tragedy.

Why?

[RGacky3]

Some might be free thinking.


You just said "what a tragedy, they'll have to rely on their children," which just shows a level of ignorance about how society works that is so high the only appropriate response is to call you stupid, Richard was nice and just called you uneducated.

You know what happened before Social security? Old people died you idiot, because capitalism has made it impossible for people to support themselves, their families AND their extended families, hell its almost impossible for many people to suppor themselves under capitalism.


That would make me my own master, fine.


Unless your rich, your not your own master, riht now your just a cheerleader for the rich, and kind of a moron as well.


Why?

Because people will die.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why?Why is this not a tragedy?

[Judicator]

You just said "what a tragedy, they'll have to rely on their children," which just shows a level of ignorance about how society works that is so high the only appropriate response is to call you stupid, Richard was nice and just called you uneducated.

You know what happened before Social security? Old people died you idiot, because capitalism has made it impossible for people to support themselves, their families AND their extended families, hell its almost impossible for many people to suppor themselves under capitalism.


Are you seriously making the argument that old people today would starve without social security? Really?

In 1910, more people died from lightning strikes than starvation.



Unless your rich, your not your own master, riht now your just a cheerleader for the rich, and kind of a moron as well.


High income, so close enough.



Because people will die.


No, they really won't. The real tragedy is you're so used to big government you think it's impossible for anyone to function without it.

[Kamos]

In 1910, more people died from lightning strikes than starvation.

[citation needed]

[RGacky3]

Are you seriously making the argument that old people today would starve without social security? Really?

In 1910, more people died from lightning strikes than starvation.


Senior poverty was huge before social security.

And yeah people starved, they did'nt get medicine, their heating or cooling got cut off, people did die.


No, they really won't. The real tragedy is you're so used to big government you think it's impossible for anyone to function without it.

Its insurance dumbass, we pay into it, and it has a surplus, if your against big government, lets first cut corporation protections, sound good?

See heres the thing your not against big government, your againsat democracy, SS everyone pays into and everyone gets something, it just bothers you that poor people are treated the same as wealthy people. Your against democratic insurance, what you want is just insurance for the rich.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, they really won't. The real tragedy is you're so used to big government you think it's impossible for anyone to function without it.

Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171)

Not just the elderly this guy^ was 24 years old.

I'm pretty sure RGacky3, unlike you, wants to see the end of these governments. But while we have to live in this system it's better that we fight-back and win concessions from the capitalist government like voting rights, labor rights, civil rights, and protections for health and unemployment.

You, however, want taxes and a government, just one where the reforms and concessions that people fought for and won don't exist.

[Judicator]

Senior poverty was huge before social security.

And yeah people starved, they did'nt get medicine, their heating or cooling got cut off, people did die.

You don't need social security to fight poverty...we have welfare already. Social security is an awkward combination of forced savings and wealth redistribution. As a savings program it produces a crappy rate of return, and as wealth redistribution...might not be the best idea to just give poor people cash.


Its insurance dumbass, we pay into it, and it has a surplus, if your against big government, lets first cut corporation protections, sound good?

See heres the thing your not against big government, your againsat democracy, SS everyone pays into and everyone gets something, it just bothers you that poor people are treated the same as wealthy people. Your against democratic insurance, what you want is just insurance for the rich.

Forced savings + wealth reallocation isn't insurance. Taking money from people who make $109,000 for most of their lives and giving it to people who make $30,000 for most of their lives isn't insurance.

Yeah, let's cut farm subsidies, defense contracts, all of that.

I'm against government forcing people to save.


Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171)

Not just the elderly this guy^ was 24 years old.

I'm pretty sure RGacky3, unlike you, wants to see the end of these governments. But while we have to live in this system it's better that we fight-back and win concessions from the capitalist government like voting rights, labor rights, civil rights, and protections for health and unemployment.

You, however, want taxes and a government, just one where the reforms and concessions that people fought for and won don't exist.

I want low taxes and small government, you want high taxes and large government. I don't want "concessions" where the government acts as Robin Hood on steroids.

In the toothache example...do you really need to insurance to cover a routine $80 expense?

It's tragic that he died, but it's really only with government where you get a situation where someone who is unwilling to spend $80 subsequently spends $250,000 of other peoples' money.

[#FF0000]

you want high taxes and large government

Nah

[Jimmie Higgins]

I want low taxes and small government,That's an abstraction, what does that mean concretely?


you want high taxes and large government. I don't want "concessions" where the government acts as Robin Hood on steroids.No, I want no capitalist system and no state. The more people organize and fight for themselves in their class interests, the more chance that workers can organize to get rid of this system and replace it with democracy. In doing so they'll get rid of some of the big expenditures of capitalist states too by getting rid of the capitalist military and police. Capitalists need "big government" to protect private property, enforce trade agreements, secure resources, protect capitalists from themselves through anti-monopoly regulation and anti-corporate espionage laws, to maintain a legal system to standardize financial agreements etc.

And Robin Hood is the wrong analogy because Robin Hood wasn't forced to give to the rich and the government has never given to the poor unless it was compelled either to save its own skin or it forced to by popular movements.

So why fight for reforms and be anti-state? It's like you are in jail and guards are fucking with you. You can try to keep your head down and they'll only fuck with you a little. Or you can try and organize with other prisoners and make it harder for them to fuck with you at all. Fighting for better treatment and conditions in a prison doesn't mean you are FOR being in prison.


In the toothache example...do you really need to insurance to cover a routine $80 expense?Did you read the article? It was $600. They article asked, why, then didn't he go to a clinic. Then they quoted someone at a clinic saying that they couldn't take new patients.


It's tragic that he died, but it's really only with government where you get a situation where someone who is unwilling to spend $80 subsequently spends $250,000 of other peoples' money.$250000 - what are you talking about? Because he went to an emergency room when he was dieing? What does that have to do with government anyway?

[RED DAVE]

What a tragedy, people having to rely on their children for support.What kind of right-wing asshole are you, jtm? I have no patience, nor should anyone else, for this kind of bullshit. Why don't you take a nice long drink from a cup of tea and go where you belong/

This website is for revolutionaries, not clowns like you.

RED DAVE

[Baseball]

The proposal by Obama to continue the payroll cut is pure politics-- the Republicans had been lukewarm to continuing it for the very reasons stated by the OP and their continued opposition would be used as a political weapon against them by the president. Perry's analogies may not have been politically astute for himself, but the nature of SS is indeed a ponzi scheme, and it is not at all sustainable under present trends.

[RGacky3]

You don't need social security to fight poverty...we have welfare already. Social security is an awkward combination of forced savings and wealth redistribution. As a savings program it produces a crappy rate of return, and as wealth redistribution...might not be the best idea to just give poor people cash.


Actually as a savings program it does better than many private pensions (many of which went bust), also EVERYONE gets social security.

Its an insurance program, a national insurance program, and we know what things were like before SOcial Security. Social Security is not welfare, its a national pension.


Forced savings + wealth reallocation isn't insurance. Taking money from people who make $109,000 for most of their lives and giving it to people who make $30,000 for most of their lives isn't insurance.

Yeah, let's cut farm subsidies, defense contracts, all of that.

I'm against government forcing people to save.


Its not forcing people to save, people are paid post payroll tax, (in otherwords it comes out of the employer), it is insurance by definition, and as I said EVERYONE gets social security, the republicans want to means test it to make it a welfare program but thats not what it is.

Social Security works, it has paid 100% of the time, unlike many private pensions.


I want low taxes and small government, you want high taxes and large government. I don't want "concessions" where the government acts as Robin Hood on steroids.

you want government to ONLY work for the wealthies interest, you want them to protect property rights, contracts, corporations and military spending.

Well guess what, if you want the government to do that, then your not for small government, your for government doing YOUR stuff and not other peoples stuff.

I'd rather the government be RObin hood rather than just security guards for the rich, which is what you want.


In the toothache example...do you really need to insurance to cover a routine $80 expense?


Some people do. $80 is a lot of money for someone who does'nt know when his next meal will come

[QUOTE]It's tragic that he died, but it's really only with government where you get a situation where someone who is unwilling to spend $80 subsequently spends $250,000 of other peoples' money. [QUOTE]

Thats bullshit, do you think he was just saving up for something else? Get your head out the sand.

[RichardAWilson]

SS isn't a something for nothing program. The premise of your case is unfounded. You contribute and then you receive.

Benefits are indexed based on contribution, so your example of the person earning more subsidizing the person earning less has no foundation.

However, this rationale is coming from the same breed of moron that would privatize the police.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1863


Social Security reduced the poverty rate for elderly women from 52.6% to 14.7%

Among elderly men, Social Security lowered the poverty rate from 40.8% to 8.2%

I wish SS would be dismantled for Tea Party Conservatives. After which, I'd wish their children would leave them to die. - Which would be a normal attitude for young right-wingers.

[DinodudeEpic]

Replace the status quo payroll tax with a progressive income payroll tax. Then, replace bureaucratic management of the Social Security Administration with a direct democratic structure. And, allow for an option to not use social security, instead using some sort of cooperative replacement for said program.

Simple as that. The debt gets paid off by the rich (in conjunction with removing tax breaks), old people can chose their own retirement, less bureaucracy, and there is still welfare for everybody.

Now that's a system that truly helps the elderly. But, no, the Democrats and Republicans have to cut social security. And Judicator has to come here and say 'you're for big government' although the person in question is an anarchist. It's as if the only questions of government is how much it should interfere in the economy! It doesn't matter! That's minor compared to the following, who owns the means of production, civil rights, political rights, the way the government is structured, and such.

And, I don't see you complaining about corporate welfare. I don't see you complaining about the plutocratic structures of the corporation. I don't see you complaining about bureaucratic immigration. Is laissez-faire economy more important then civil rights, ownership of the means of production, government structure, and political rights? Or does 'less government' only apply to economics....then economics would be a better place to go to instead of politics.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It's fucking embarassing to say I voted to Obama at this point. Not in the sense I expected him to some kind of revolutionary, I would never have gone to the polls expecting that.

But I at least expected him to act like a fucking Democrat.

[eric922]

It's fucking embarassing to say I voted to Obama at this point. Not in the sense I expected him to some kind of revolutionary, I would never have gone to the polls expecting that.

But I at least expected him to act like a fucking Democrat.
He is. He's just acting like a New Democrat. As I've told my liberal friends "The party of FDR is dead, you've got the party of Wilson again."

[Judicator]

Actually as a savings program it does better than many private pensions (many of which went bust), also EVERYONE gets social security.

Its an insurance program, a national insurance program, and we know what things were like before SOcial Security. Social Security is not welfare, its a national pension.

Social security gets you something like 2%, while private pensions get you 5%.

Social security has a welfare component. If I never worked in my life, I would not receive any pensions, but would receive social security. The poor and disabled pay little to nothing and get money.



Its not forcing people to save, people are paid post payroll tax, (in otherwords it comes out of the employer), it is insurance by definition, and as I said EVERYONE gets social security, the republicans want to means test it to make it a welfare program but thats not what it is.

Social Security works, it has paid 100% of the time, unlike many private pensions.


Payroll tax is half paid by the employee. I can't opt out, my employer can't opt out, so I'm being forced to participate.

Insurance only pays out when the thing you're insuring against happens. Social security pays out always...so it's not insurance.



you want government to ONLY work for the wealthies interest, you want them to protect property rights, contracts, corporations and military spending.

Well guess what, if you want the government to do that, then your not for small government, your for government doing YOUR stuff and not other peoples stuff.

I'd rather the government be RObin hood rather than just security guards for the rich, which is what you want.


I want the government to prevent people from violating the rights of others and that's all. I do not want high military spending.



Some people do. $80 is a lot of money for someone who does'nt know when his next meal will come

Thats bullshit, do you think he was just saving up for something else? Get your head out the sand.


Okay...food insurance is a terrible solution to hunger. The whole idea of using insurance to cover routine expenses is absurd. You get insurance to cover rare, expensive one time events.

Yes, he probably was going to spend the money on something else. What do you think happens to money?

[RGacky3]

Social security gets you something like 2%, while private pensions get you 5%.

Social security has a welfare component. If I never worked in my life, I would not receive any pensions, but would receive social security. The poor and disabled pay little to nothing and get money.


Depends on the pension, but a lot of pensions give you nothing because the money dissapered.

What you mentioned is not welfare, its insurance, in any insurance program there will be some peopel getting more money than they paid in.


Payroll tax is half paid by the employee. I can't opt out, my employer can't opt out, so I'm being forced to participate.

Insurance only pays out when the thing you're insuring against happens. Social security pays out always...so it's not insurance.


But people are paid post taxes, if you make $40k a year, and taxes go up, your employers gonna raise your wage so that you make 40k again, because thats your price.


I want the government to prevent people from violating the rights of others and that's all.

Ok then first law we'll get rid of is encorporation, since that goes weay beyond violating the rights of others.


Okay...food insurance is a terrible solution to hunger. The whole idea of using insurance to cover routine expenses is absurd. You get insurance to cover rare, expensive one time events.

Yes, he probably was going to spend the money on something else. What do you think happens to money?

What I think happens to the money is it goes to rent and food ... you've obviously never been poor.

But whatever you say about SS it has worked and does work?

[Judicator]

Depends on the pension, but a lot of pensions give you nothing because the money dissapered.

What you mentioned is not welfare, its insurance, in any insurance program there will be some peopel getting more money than they paid in.

Pensions on average make more.

Moving money from one person to another isn't insurance. Forced savings isn't insurance, anymore than having a savings account is insurance.


But people are paid post taxes, if you make $40k a year, and taxes go up, your employers gonna raise your wage so that you make 40k again, because thats your price.

The original point was that you claim "Its not forcing people to save" is dead wrong. People have to participate.

On your more recent claim, your employer could also just fire you.


Ok then first law we'll get rid of is encorporation, since that goes weay beyond violating the rights of others.

Always this "you first" stuff... but sure, get rid of limited liability.


What I think happens to the money is it goes to rent and food ... you've obviously never been poor.

But whatever you say about SS it has worked and does work?

You ask "Thats bullshit, do you think he was just saving up for something else?" I say "he's spending it on other things." You say "He's spending it on food." Looks like we agree!?

By "worked," do you mean:
- Has produced a better rate of return than similar risk investments? Nope, other investments would have done better.
- Has reallocated wealth? Maybe, but then why combine it with forced savings?


SS isn't a something for nothing program. The premise of your case is unfounded. You contribute and then you receive.

Benefits are indexed based on contribution, so your example of the person earning more subsidizing the person earning less has no foundation.

I wish SS would be dismantled for Tea Party Conservatives. After which, I'd wish their children would leave them to die. - Which would be a normal attitude for young right-wingers.

The rich pay in after tax dollars, and their benefits are then taxed AGAIN when they take them out. If that's not reallocation nothing is.

I would also prefer social security be opt-out.

[Geiseric]

Pensions on average make more.

Moving money from one person to another isn't insurance. Forced savings isn't insurance, anymore than having a savings account is insurance.



The original point was that you claim "Its not forcing people to save" is dead wrong. People have to participate.

On your more recent claim, your employer could also just fire you.



Always this "you first" stuff... but sure, get rid of limited liability.



You ask "Thats bullshit, do you think he was just saving up for something else?" I say "he's spending it on other things." You say "He's spending it on food." Looks like we agree!?

By "worked," do you mean:
- Has produced a better rate of return than similar risk investments? Nope, other investments would have done better.
- Has reallocated wealth? Maybe, but then why combine it with forced savings?



The rich pay in after tax dollars, and their benefits are then taxed AGAIN when they take them out. If that's not reallocation nothing is.

I would also prefer social security be opt-out.

Dude nobody really cares what you think or say, because you're just an ignorant teenager who is living off his parents probably. If you don't see that capitalists are all terrible human beings, and everything they do is for the sole purpose of them having more money at the expense of other humans, you need to re-evaluate your political views, and watch something other than CNN or FOX news. Social security was created to prolong a workers revolution and to keep people like you safe and sound, so if I were you, I'd start leaning towards Kenyesian economics, because that is all that is going to save capitalism this cycle around.

[Judicator]

Dude nobody really cares what you think or say, because you're just an ignorant teenager who is living off his parents probably. If you don't see that capitalists are all terrible human beings, and everything they do is for the sole purpose of them having more money at the expense of other humans, you need to re-evaluate your political views, and watch something other than CNN or FOX news. Social security was created to prolong a workers revolution and to keep people like you safe and sound, so if I were you, I'd start leaning towards Kenyesian economics, because that is all that is going to save capitalism this cycle around.

1) Too lazy to provide rebuttal
2) Resort to ad hom
3) ???
4) Profit!

[RGacky3]

Pensions on average make more.

Moving money from one person to another isn't insurance. Forced savings isn't insurance, anymore than having a savings account is insurance.


THey also on average dissapear much more.

But hay 80% of the American people support it.


The original point was that you claim "Its not forcing people to save" is dead wrong. People have to participate.

On your more recent claim, your employer could also just fire you.


Yes, you are forced to participate, because you live in a society where that is considered a condition, if you don't want the government in your live lets end corporatization first.

THey won't fire you if they need you, if htey don't need you they'll fire you no matter what.


Always this "you first" stuff... but sure, get rid of limited liability.


At least your consistant, but you know what limited liability aint going nowhere without a revolution.


By "worked," do you mean:
- Has produced a better rate of return than similar risk investments? Nope, other investments would have done better.
- Has reallocated wealth? Maybe, but then why combine it with forced savings?


By worked I mean paid out every single time, and covores everyone, and kept millions of seniors out of poverty, unlike private pensions which have a better return because they don't include poor people.


The rich pay in after tax dollars, and their benefits are then taxed AGAIN when they take them out. If that's not reallocation nothing is.

I would also prefer social security be opt-out.

The rich also get more, (the poor pay taxes as well), and the rich don't pay after 100,000, which they should.

also screw the rich, the government does'nt just work for them, they live in a society that protects their property, and their property is subject to the society.