why does a guy who has a rich wife need SS?

Yet some say they want to privatize SS ?
Sheesh.
My way keeps it going, privatizoing just puts more money into the market to be gobbled up and lost to SS.
 
Desh said:
Because at the time he had a military that was sufficient to fight the war.

Later after we went to Iraq for no good reason the jackasses who supported had very few who were willing to go fight it.


Saying SS needs to be privitized is the equivalent of dismantleing it.

Wither on the vine , drag it down the hall and drown in in the bathtub.

It has long been the hope of the right to end it.
Click to expand...

well, no one has tried to privatize social security. You are (purposefully?) misrepresenting what has been done in the past. Bush attempted to allow (optional) personal accounts which at best would be considered partial privitization. That is not privatizing the system.
 
Desh said:
Because at the time he had a military that was sufficient to fight the war.

Later after we went to Iraq for no good reason the jackasses who supported had very few who were willing to go fight it.


Saying SS needs to be privitized is the equivalent of dismantleing it.

Wither on the vine , drag it down the hall and drown in in the bathtub.

It has long been the hope of the right to end it.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. Privatization does not mean you have to dismantle SS Desh. That is simply the fear mongering line of bullshit the left wingnuts keep spouting to scare people into thinking privatization is "bad" and will "take away their money".

ROFLMAO. The sad truth is that it is the way the system is currently run that will most likely end in people losing their SS monies.
 
cawacko said:
well, no one has tried to privatize social security. You are (purposefully?) misrepresenting what has been done in the past. Bush attempted to allow (optional) personal accounts which at best would be considered partial privitization. That is not privatizing the system.
Click to expand...

LOL, the old minimalization rationalization ploy.
 
First off I get the idea it is insurance because it is called the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. Insurance is RIGHT THERE in the title. Every trust fund that manages the money has the term Insurance right in the name. As for means testing, it was means tested once upon a time. The requirement used to be that you were completely retired. So if you worked and recieved income from that work, you didn't get Social Security, because you had other MEANS to survive. So, it should be means tested, it is an insurance. That being said, I could hire someone to take my 7% contribution per year and make more money for my retirment than the federal government is EVER going to pay me. So there should be and opt out, there should be a means test, insurance should mean JUST what it says. SS should protect those that somehow get to their golden years with no penision. Forbes should not be getting SS, and if you don't believe me, ask him, he'll tell you the exact same thing.
 
Socrtease said:
First off I get the idea it is insurance because it is called the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. Insurance is RIGHT THERE in the title. Every trust fund that manages the money has the term Insurance right in the name. As for means testing, it was means tested once upon a time. The requirement used to be that you were completely retired. So if you worked and recieved income from that work, you didn't get Social Security, because you had other MEANS to survive. So, it should be means tested, it is an insurance. That being said, I could hire someone to take my 7% contribution per year and make more money for my retirment than the federal government is EVER going to pay me. So there should be and opt out, there should be a means test, insurance should mean JUST what it says. SS should protect those that somehow get to their golden years with no penision. Forbes should not be getting SS, and if you don't believe me, ask him, he'll tell you the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah as we have seen those investemnts are paying off well lately. If you Need SS you should not have to wait till the market is better.
 
tinfoil said:
it's a contractal agreement between the taxpayer and the government. Where the hell do you get the insurance thing from? For many people it will be a source of income they are counting on having. People paid into it!!! They are owed the money they paid into it.

It's really funny how SS benefits are not meant to live on according people like USC, but the very same people cry for minimum wage increases for entry level jobs.
Click to expand...

ROTLMAO. Wow. You're a sharp one aren't you?
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah as we have seen those investemnts are paying off well lately. If you Need SS you should not have to wait till the market is better.
Click to expand...

Privatization does NOT mean that the funds have to be placed in the stock market. It simply means the money is under YOUR control rather than under the control of a bunch of morons in DC that have proven for the last 48 years that they are not smart enough to balance a friggin checkbook.
 
Socrtease said:
First off I get the idea it is insurance because it is called the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. Insurance is RIGHT THERE in the title.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that has to be one of the dumbest posts tinfoil has made in a while. And that's saying a lot.

Every trust fund that manages the money has the term Insurance right in the name. As for means testing, it was means tested once upon a time. The requirement used to be that you were completely retired. So if you worked and recieved income from that work, you didn't get Social Security, because you had other MEANS to survive. So, it should be means tested, it is an insurance. That being said, I could hire someone to take my 7% contribution per year and make more money for my retirment than the federal government is EVER going to pay me. So there should be and opt out, there should be a means test, insurance should mean JUST what it says. SS should protect those that somehow get to their golden years with no penision. Forbes should not be getting SS, and if you don't believe me, ask him, he'll tell you the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
\

As for the means testing, I totally disagree. If you are forced to buy this insurance you should be entitled to it. 7% is a substantial amount of money to take out of someone's pay check. If they are forced to buy the insurance, tehy should be entitled to the benefits.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah, that has to be one of the dumbest posts tinfoil has made in a while. And that's saying a lot.

\

As for the means testing, I totally disagree. If you are forced to buy this insurance you should be entitled to it. 7% is a substantial amount of money to take out of someone's pay check. If they are forced to buy the insurance, tehy should be entitled to the benefits.
Click to expand...
You are FORCED to by car insurance and it only pays out if you need it, ie car accident. I know, not a perfect analogy, but we have to start somewhere. Forbes and Trump and McCain and Obama and Bush don't need it and never will. Somethings gotta give. It was created in the 30's because there were thousands of people too old to work and no means to support themselves. It is supposed to keep us from having to eat dog food, or worse yet, potted meat.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah as we have seen those investemnts are paying off well lately. If you Need SS you should not have to wait till the market is better.
Click to expand...

moron, long term stocks are 9%, vs long term maybe 2% return on SS
You REALLY shouldn't have skipped college and settled for a GED:pke:
 
Socrtease said:
You are FORCED to by car insurance and it only pays out if you need it, ie car accident. I know, not a perfect analogy, but we have to start somewhere. Forbes and Trump and McCain and Obama and Bush don't need it and never will. Somethings gotta give. It was created in the 30's because there were thousands of people too old to work and no means to support themselves. It is supposed to keep us from having to eat dog food, or worse yet, potted meat.
Click to expand...

How about starting with ending the wars that optionally spend billions, how about not sending billions to multiple country's.
 
Superfreak said:
Privatization does NOT mean that the funds have to be placed in the stock market. It simply means the money is under YOUR control rather than under the control of a bunch of morons in DC that have proven for the last 48 years that they are not smart enough to balance a friggin checkbook.
Click to expand...

Yeah right under the control of all those "victims" of predatory lending practices ? Smooth move exlax.
 
Got me, I was linking two different threads together since they seemed related.
All those victims of predatory lending practices controlling their partially privatized SS accounts. A recepie for disaster for everyone except those in the market sucking the money up.
 
Socrtease said:
You are FORCED to by car insurance and it only pays out if you need it, ie car accident. I know, not a perfect analogy, but we have to start somewhere. Forbes and Trump and McCain and Obama and Bush don't need it and never will. Somethings gotta give. It was created in the 30's because there were thousands of people too old to work and no means to support themselves. It is supposed to keep us from having to eat dog food, or worse yet, potted meat.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are forced to buy car insurance. And based on the contract, upon incident you're entitled to certain reimbursements. You've paid, a covered event occurs, and you get paid out.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of forcing someone to pay for car insurance and upon incident, be denied all coverages because they have a shore house or made some other wise investments. That's not fair. If you pay the premium you deserve the coverage promised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top