Social security, a landmark liberal achievement

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.

I have yet to understand why the party that normally appeals more to the older American (GOP) would make so much noise about eliminating or limiting Social Security. I get that they want to shift everything over to the "free market" where someone else can make some scratch off of it rather than having it "help" people, but why would they needlessly antagonize the only voting base they can usually count on is beyond me.

But corporate America already offloaded their pension obligations in preference to 401k's and forcing everyone into the "stock market" so that they could bankroll the finance folks to play fun "games" with the money and occasionally crater the economy, so I guess telling Americans that we are OFFICIALLY back in the "Gilded Age" is how the whole game plays out.
 
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

So Georgie's privilege gets him more money than a grandmother? That doesnt seem fair now does it?
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

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.

They are told they might get a better benefit through the market. What they are not told is that entails greater risk. There simply is not greater ROI without greater risk. The financial gurus know this but are quiet about it when championing a market-based system to replace SS.

The beauty of SS is that it is a secure system.

The only thing it needs is more young workers. And guess what? They are clamoring to get into the USA and fulfill that role. Republicans are very fearful of this because they might all vote Democrat. So they are dehumanized and blamed for the things the rich and powerful have done to workers. And Fox viewers bought it hook line and sinker.

It's so easy to sell hatred to the rumor-driven misinformed.
 
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.

First it's a.ponzi scheme. Next every dollar stolen from me for this ponzi scheme would have been better invested by me than the govt. Lastly lots of people out live what they "contributed" and that strains the system.
 
So Georgie's privilege gets him more money than a grandmother? That doesnt seem fair now does it?

SS is calculated based on your work history, that's fair.

You might be the first person in history to demand everyone get exactly the same SS benefit.
 
First it's a.ponzi scheme. Next every dollar stolen from me for this ponzi scheme would have been better invested by me than the govt. Lastly lots of people out live what they "contributed" and that strains the system.


You've been duped by rightwing media personalities.

I was also told 40 years ago that SS wouldn't be there for me when I retired.
 
SS is calculated based on your work history, that's fair.

You might be the first person in history to demand everyone get exactly the same SS benefit.

Why not? It's expected everywhere else. George's privilege as a white man unfairly allowed him to make more money than a grandmother. If that's fair then people who work more hours than others and earn more as a result is fair.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,



They are told they might get a better benefit through the market.

Yup. We all heard that. And the minute I hear that some finance-obsessed bean counter has to do the same job as me to not retire in penury I'll believe that it is a fair system. :)

What they are not told is that entails greater risk. There simply is not greater ROI without greater risk. The financial gurus know this but are quiet about it when championing a market-based system to replace SS.

As one commentator I once heard say: we are all forced into the stock market in order to provide the capital that finance folks play their risky games with. They need the unwashed masses putting money into the system. And since not every person in the US is a financial maven the financial sector games players are counting on that money just sitting there.

I have no clue how to read the stock market but my entire future existence is a function of that. That's why I want finance people to have to do MY JOB as well so they can face this kind of fear.
 
Why not? It's expected everywhere else. George's privilege as a white man unfairly allowed him to make more money than a grandmother. If that's fair then people who work more hours than others and earn more as a result is fair.

Retarded.

You won't find one prominent liberal politician in the history of the United States who demanded everybody make exactly the same amount of money.
 
Why not? It's expected everywhere else. George's privilege as a white man unfairly allowed him to make more money than a grandmother. If that's fair then people who work more hours than others and earn more as a result is fair.

I believe this is what is called the "slippery slope" or argumentum ad absurdum. The extremes of what you perceive is the Left's desire to offset systemic privilege. I don't think even the Left really thinks that we need to be full on Communist "From Each According to His Ability To Each According To His Need" approach.
 
I believe this is what is called the "slippery slope" or argumentum ad absurdum. The extremes of what you perceive is the Left's desire to offset systemic privilege. I don't think even the Left really thinks that we need to be full on Communist "From Each According to His Ability To Each According To His Need" approach.

I agree it's absurd but it's what passes as a leftist argument. That fact that you want to apply your logic ot only specific things at specific times tell us you have an agenda that is rooted in something other than what you claim.
 
You must be brand new to politics.

Equal pay for equal work

It doesn't mean a dishwasher should make the same salary as a neurosurgeon. That's not equivalent work.
.

You must be brand new to thinking

Right and goerges male whiteness gave him greater opportunities than a grandmother and that is unfair is it not?
 
Lifetime-benefit, starting at age 62:

Retire @ 62 - $2,102/month
Retire @ 65 - $2,683/month
Retire @ 67 - $3,161/month
Retire @ 70 - $4,022/month

You are pretty close to what I am. I used my survivor benefit from my spouse until I reached full retirement age and switched over. SS is basically an afterthought for me, but it's nice that I don't have to think about healthcare, my Medicare Advantage premium comes out of my payment, and I get a little spending money once a month. I know some people are dependent on SS. Thank God it is in place and we didn't do something stupid like privatize.
 
I have yet to understand why the party that normally appeals more to the older American (GOP) would make so much noise about eliminating or limiting Social Security. I get that they want to shift everything over to the "free market" where someone else can make some scratch off of it rather than having it "help" people, but why would they needlessly antagonize the only voting base they can usually count on is beyond me.

But corporate America already offloaded their pension obligations in preference to 401k's and forcing everyone into the "stock market" so that they could bankroll the finance folks to play fun "games" with the money and occasionally crater the economy, so I guess telling Americans that we are OFFICIALLY back in the "Gilded Age" is how the whole game plays out.

Why? Because the puppet masters behind the GOP know that an aging voter base is a road to party destruction, so they are trying to appeal to younger voters. Younger voters are the ones still working, who are having that 7.65% deducted from each and every paycheck to support the current retirees. There is a lot of resentment among them because they're also being told that when THEY get our age, SS will be bankrupt. They'll supposedly have paid into it their entire working lives with nothing to show for it, according to the pro-privatization gang. One of my own kids has fretted about this. I told her that I've heard the exact same thing all MY life too. Yet here we are, still solvent, and we haven't had to move in with her yet. lol
 
Back
Top