Social security, a landmark liberal achievement
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
but tell me this about your lib'rul acheivement.........why does George Soros and a grandmother with no other income receive the same monthly check?.....
Your word can't be trusted.
Provide a link to a reputable mainstream news source
Your total SS benefit is calculated based on your wage income
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Because it's for everybody.
even for fascist shitstains that say ""the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States"
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
It is a fantastic system. For those who think not having it would be better, they need only look at how many seniors passed into destitution after they were too old to work before Social Security. It is the very reason the system was created.
floridafan
Verified User
Your kind controlled government when Trump was president, but you did nothing about it. But you are good at whining.
It mitigates destitution for low wage earners, and it provides a very attractive retirement supplement to those who have savings, but not a pension with a lifetime benefit.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
And if you are married and your spouse passes away, you can receive benefits based on their record. This program has done more to lift elders out of poverty than just about anything else we can think of. I wonder how many still-working people would appreciate having to have their aged parents come live with them and be supported by them, absent social security? They would be paying out more $$ than the current 7.65% that is deducted from their paycheck now.
I notice all the proposals Republicans have come up with to turn SS into some kind of private stock market investment always studiously make sure that their parents and their peers are protected, and privatization only effects younger people.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello ThatOwlWoman,
That's the way it was before SS. And for those who did not have children who could support them? Destitution was the norm of the land.
Without Social Security, one would have to save, in cash or wise secure investments, $1.5 million - $2 million in order to live off the ROI without drawing down the principle.
Now, how many Americans are able to do that?
The only reason some Republicans want to kill or cut Social Security is because big money wants to get their hands on that system and all that accrued wealth. They are literally salivating at the prospect of it. And, of course, big money tells the Republican party what to think, what to say, what to believe, and what to vote for.
That's the way it was before SS. And for those who did not have children who could support them? Destitution was the norm of the land.
Without Social Security, one would have to save, in cash or wise secure investments, $1.5 million - $2 million in order to live off the ROI without drawing down the principle.
Now, how many Americans are able to do that?
The only reason some Republicans want to kill or cut Social Security is because big money wants to get their hands on that system and all that accrued wealth. They are literally salivating at the prospect of it. And, of course, big money tells the Republican party what to think, what to say, what to believe, and what to vote for.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Republicans try to appeal to younger voters by painting SS and Medicare as "entitlements" that were not earned, but given to them by currently-employed workers. There is just enough truth in that to appeal to the stupider ones.
The problem with turning SS into a 401(k) type scheme is the vagaries of the markets. What happens if the markets -- and all that money the government invested for you -- are down at the time you decide to retire? Either you accept less pay-out, or you continue working. The current scheme has concrete payouts which allows employees more freedom in deciding when to hang it up. There is no risk-taking. And you don't end up having to move in with one of your kids.
\
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Bingo.
Since pensions are becoming rarer and rarer for working adults, a supplementary retirement benefit with a lifetime benefit like SS should be a no brainer in any retirement strategy.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Cypress,
Any kind of bait-and-switch come-on they can use will be attempted. Reminds of the 'great tax break' from Trump, where the tax cuts for the super-rich and big corporations are permanent but the ones for everybody else run out in 2027, fast approaching. Gotcha!
Any kind of bait-and-switch come-on they can use will be attempted. Reminds of the 'great tax break' from Trump, where the tax cuts for the super-rich and big corporations are permanent but the ones for everybody else run out in 2027, fast approaching. Gotcha!
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello ThatOwlWoman,
Continuing working is not always such a great option. Many people intend to do so only to get laid off before they can reach their intended retirement plan age. Age-discrimination is very common. Older workers have accrued seniority, full paid vacation time every year, and increasing health care expenses. Many an employer considers letting them go only to replace them with younger workers who are paid less, begin with no paid vacation, and don't have as many health issues. An attractive way for shameless for-profit non-human corporations to cut labor costs and increase profits.
Who cares what they may virtually 'owe' a worker who has dedicated their life to the employer? If it's not in writing, then it is not legally binding.
Toss the old to the curb.
Do not let their conscience disturb.
Continuing working is not always such a great option. Many people intend to do so only to get laid off before they can reach their intended retirement plan age. Age-discrimination is very common. Older workers have accrued seniority, full paid vacation time every year, and increasing health care expenses. Many an employer considers letting them go only to replace them with younger workers who are paid less, begin with no paid vacation, and don't have as many health issues. An attractive way for shameless for-profit non-human corporations to cut labor costs and increase profits.
Who cares what they may virtually 'owe' a worker who has dedicated their life to the employer? If it's not in writing, then it is not legally binding.
Toss the old to the curb.
Do not let their conscience disturb.
SS also served as a model for the rest of the developed world, resulting in an enormous benefit to the welfare of humanity at large.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
You are exactly right. My husband spent his entire working career in IT with the same company. He planned to retire at age 60 or so. Three years before that could happen, he and several other long-time employees were laid off. They were replaced with H1B visa workers from India, who were paid far less and who received few benefits. As an incentive not to sue the company (a large national insurance company), they were offered six months salary and two years' health insurance if they would sign an agreement not to sue for age discrimination. They all accepted. We were more fortunate than many people in the same situation, including some of his former coworkers. He walked out CIGNA's door and right into a better-paying IT position with another company. We used the severance to pay off the house, he retired at age 60, and we moved up here.
Imagine though if you were a person with a physical type job like construction, nursing, electrician, police officer, assembly line, etc. who found working more and more physically difficult as you aged. You plan to retire as soon as possible because your body is failing you. But the Republicans took away social security and put your retirement benefits in the market, which was way down by the time you planned to hang it up. What then? My guess is that you'd see a large number of new applications for social security disability, assuming, that is that the Republicans hadn't destroyed that as well.
Ironically, the people most likely to be financially harmed by the (R) scheme are the same ones who typically vote for them.