Remember when Republicans used to claim might means right!

KingCondanomation said:
Are they going to get any smarter by having government decide for them?

Think of the road you are going down, how can people ever learn if there are no consequences for their actions? And if you can't trust them, then don't expect freedom to last long.

"There can be no freedom without freedom to fail." – Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), The Ordeal of Change, 1964
Click to expand...

LOL, well your side sur has a lot of freedom they have failed miserably.
 
Jarod said:
Yup. If you turn SS over to allow risky investments, you defeat the entire purpose.
Click to expand...

No one ever proposed allowing people to turn their SS money over to risky investments. That's a big part of the problem. People arguing like you do either don't understand what the SS proposal was or purposefully misrepresent it because your argument won't fly otherwise.

The proposal was this. People had the OPTION (you know freedom to choose) to put a small percent of their SS money into a personal account. This personal account had several CONSERVATIVE options to choose from for where people could place their money. Putting their money into individual stocks was NOT an option.

You are free to say you don't believe people should have even that option. But please don't lie about what the options were in an attempt to bolster your argument.
 
Watermark said:
Social security is a minimum safety not for seniors. There is nothing wrong with that, and if we made it voluntary there would be hotshots out there ditching it and starving in the streets when they're 65, and we'd just have to pay for them with welfare anyway.
Click to expand...
There is no record whatsoever of anyone or any seniors starving in the 1920's prior to SS.
You don't trust in people, and so you trust the theoretical that results from that mindset over history.

There is something wrong with that, people die younger than 65, they would like to use the money they earned from their own labor prior to being dead and it going to someone else who didn't earn it.
 
KingCondanomation said:
There is no record whatsoever of anyone or any seniors starving in the 1920's prior to SS.
You don't trust in people, and so you trust the theoretical that results from that mindset over history.

There is something wrong with that, people die younger than 65, they would like to use the money they earned from their own labor prior to being dead and it going to someone else who didn't earn it.
Click to expand...

It is insurance you ignorant ass.

Do you burn your house down so you can get the money you paid in ?
 
uscitizen said:
What does the I in SSI stand for Dano ?
Click to expand...
Income, not insurance.
http://www.socialsecurityhome.com/SupplementalSecurityIncomeSSI.htm
In the context of this discussion, we are talking about the actual SS program, NOT SSI which is a seperate Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues.

There is private life insurance out there for chances of disability happening anyway.
And you are not going to get disability payout for cancer.

Let people have free choice, stop forcing your views on them.
 
SS functions like a govt mandated ponzi scheme insurance company for elderly and disabled income with some survivors benefits as well.
 
uscitizen said:
SS functions like a govt mandated ponzi scheme insurance company for elderly and disabled income with some survivors benefits as well.
Click to expand...

Well if I have my money invested privately, I can pull it out when I want. With SS, I have to hope that whatever my disability or illness is meets their conditions.

I'd rather put that power in the hands of free individuals themselves rather than government.
 
Jarod said:
I believe in requireing people to save a bare minimum in safe government back investments, then after that people should be free to do what ever they want, including not investing at all.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I would agree that should be a requirement. "x" percentage must go into Treasuries/Repos/Ginnies. But even if you require 100% go into those securities, it would still be privatization and it would still be a net benefit to consumers as you would eliminate the idiotic rob peter to pay paul approach our current system takes.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I only remember him saying that he had some political capital, but it was fragile and used up all too quickly on stupid Schiavo affair.

If Obama does get in it's because Americans want an end to the Iraq war and they are tired of the spending they've seen and economy jitters. Obama's political capital should be used to end the war and control spending. If he tries to use it on giant social welfare programs and initiatives, he will lose his political capital just like Clinton did in the early 90's and the Repubs took congress.
NO trillion dollar universal healthcare!
Click to expand...
Could you write this up and send it to the Obama Campaign? Because you are right. Hillarycare killed the Clinton momentum, elected a republican majority in both houses and made it much harder to get common sense middle of the road legislation enacted. Presidents from both parties forget that they are elected to serve ALL the people and not just the people in their party. You HAVE to govern fromt he center and take incemental steps to the left or right without going overboard. My biggest worry is that Obama will see this as some sort of mandate to pass MORE big government legislation. They should all watch "What about Bob?" Baby steps.
 
Socrtease said:
Could you write this up and send it to the Obama Campaign? Because you are right. Hillarycare killed the Clinton momentum, elected a republican majority in both houses and made it much harder to get common sense middle of the road legislation enacted. Presidents from both parties forget that they are elected to serve ALL the people and not just the people in their party. You HAVE to govern fromt he center and take incemental steps to the left or right without going overboard. My biggest worry is that Obama will see this as some sort of mandate to pass MORE big government legislation. They should all watch "What about Bob?" Baby steps.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you argue that with Clinton and the Republican congress doing battle we did get more common sense or middle ground legislation passed? Or arguably less bad legislation which is a good thing itself.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You don't get SS payouts until you are 65, what if you have cancer in your 40's? What if you need the money early?
You can't assume that you are always protecting people, very often you are hurting them and the ones who need it the most.

Please, do the right thing and let people make their own free decisions. You aren't like other Liberals on here Jarod. Just let go of trying to decide what is best for them, you certainly don't like it when social Conservatives do for you.
Click to expand...

Id be okay for an exemption for something like cancer.
 
Watermark said:
Social security is a minimum safety not for seniors. There is nothing wrong with that, and if we made it voluntary there would be hotshots out there ditching it and starving in the streets when they're 65, and we'd just have to pay for them with welfare anyway.
Click to expand...
Why? Why would we have to pay them welfare IF they opted out? If I choose to eat rat poison the natual consequence is I get sick and maybe even die. If I opt out of Social Security then I have to prepare for old age myself. If I don't then I die. Natual Consequences.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Well if I have my money invested privately, I can pull it out when I want. With SS, I have to hope that whatever my disability or illness is meets their conditions.

I'd rather put that power in the hands of free individuals themselves rather than government.
Click to expand...

for the SS program I would not because people are often too stupid for their own good.

but then you were right about Bush, the Iraq war, etc so I suppose you must be right again.
 
KingCondanomation said:
There is no record whatsoever of anyone or any seniors starving in the 1920's prior to SS.
You don't trust in people, and so you trust the theoretical that results from that mindset over history.

There is something wrong with that, people die younger than 65, they would like to use the money they earned from their own labor prior to being dead and it going to someone else who didn't earn it.
Click to expand...

Sure, because the government used the working mans tax dollars to make sure that did not happen.
 
Look, establish a basic minimum that you must pay into, once you reach that min... you are free to do whatever you want with your money. That is fine with me, and what I consider SS to be.
 
cawacko said:
Couldn't you argue that with Clinton and the Republican congress doing battle we did get more common sense or middle ground legislation passed? Or arguably less bad legislation which is a good thing itself.
Click to expand...

for the most part yes.

That was painful, but not too bad....
Maybe you learned from my past posts ?
 
Jarod said:
Sure, because the government used the working mans tax dollars to make sure that did not happen.
Click to expand...

When SS was created the age to begin taking distributions was 65, the average life expectancy at the time was about 65-67 years of age. It was not designed to provide for 20 years of retirement. It simply is not sustainable unless you have ever greater numbers in the workforce. As the baby boomers retire, there will not be enough workers to replace them in the ponzi scheme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top