Social security, a landmark liberal achievement

[T. A. Gardner]

Neither FDR or the government were in the business of insuring SS will give you an extravagant retirement.

SS attractive source of supplemental retirement income for those who have pensions and savings.

SS removes a lot of risk from retirement decisions.

SS prevents those who don't have savings from falling into destitution.



You can thank FDR for your very attractive source of supplemental retirement income.

You are sneaking around and cheating on taxes for no valid reason. You're supposed to be able to legally work and continue to earn as much as you want if you took SS at the full retirement age.

Why should I thank anyone for what amounts to an irrelevant amount of income which would have been better managed if I were the one saving and investing it?

As for that last, SS has income limits when you work on a W-2. Income from investments, property, 1099's and a number of other sources that don't take out FICA don't count. It isn't "sneaking around and cheating" but rather taking full advantage of the system as it is designed.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Why should I thank anyone for what amounts to an irrelevant amount of income which would have been better managed if I were the one saving and investing it?

Ironically enough there are countless of your fellow Americans who need that "irrelevant amount". Count yourself lucky you are so well off. I'm sure it was 100% absolutely all your doing with no help whatsoever from anyone else. Like Paul Ryan!

 

[zymurgy]

Ironically enough there are countless of your fellow Americans who need that "irrelevant amount".

Those that failed to save can ask for charity - which means they can't be dickheads to people and expect to get said charity

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ironically enough there are countless of your fellow Americans who need that "irrelevant amount". Count yourself lucky you are so well off. I'm sure it was 100% absolutely all your doing with no help whatsoever from anyone else. Like Paul Ryan!

Need? Those that didn't take the time and effort to plan and save for retirement, they have nothing coming in my book. That's on them. It isn't up to government to be anyone's nanny and shouldn't be forcing others to pay for those person's sloth or ignorance. For those that had some occurrence that was unexpected like injury, medical condition, etc., you might have some valid argument in that.

 

[Flash]

and why should we pay attention to lib'rul whining?......

Liberals aren't the ones who whine about social welfare programs--it is the right.

And what is conservative about making people pay SS and Medicare taxes but not get any benefits because they are financially successful?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Need? Those that didn't take the time and effort to plan and save for retirement, they have nothing coming in my book.

Because you didn't get any help from anyone for anything ever in your entire existence. Good on you! You are literally the ONLY HUMAN BEING I've ever met who never got a helping hand from anyone. Were you raised by wolves as well?

That's on them. It isn't up to government to be anyone's nanny and shouldn't be forcing others to pay for those person's sloth or ignorance. For those that had some occurrence that was unexpected like injury, medical condition, etc., you might have some valid argument in that.

Spoken as someone who loves their privilege. Just like Paul Ryan!

 

[Flash]

That's right. I'm fine with that. Employers would have the option of offering supplemental insurance if they wanted.

Isn't the left is critical of government subsidies for corporations? Current subsidies are small compared to paying SS, Medicare, and healthcare. We would be subsidizing hundreds of billions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Because you didn't get any help from anyone for anything ever in your entire existence. Good on you! You are literally the ONLY HUMAN BEING I've ever met who never got a helping hand from anyone. Were you raised by wolves as well?
Spoken as someone who loves their privilege. Just like Paul Ryan!

Using a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to generate an ad hominem is a fail on your part.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Using a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to generate an ad hominem is a fail on your part.

Oh nice, so glad you got your copy of

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Liberals aren't the ones who whine about social welfare programs--it is the right.

didn't I just quote a lib'rul whining that he wouldn't get back what he put in if we made it means tested?.......what is lib'rul about giving government money to the rich?.....

 

[Nordberg]

If I were free to invest privately and die early, the money (my money) would go where I want it to go - which is certainly not to line the pockets of shit stain socialist assholes

How many super investors went broke in 2008? How many are losing money on the market now? How many super-smart people lost all with Madoff? You are deluding yourself.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Oh nice, so glad you got your copy of

While you should get a copy of

 

[IBDaMann]

How many super investors went broke in 2008? How many are losing money on the market now?

Everybody, I apologize for Nordberg. He doesn't know how to compare apples to apples or to remain on a topic without pivoting. The point was individuals taking responsibility for their own retirement ... and Nordberg being Nordberg pivoted to the topic of the need for the government to save We the People from ourselves, i.e. that We the People are too stupid to handle our own affairs without going broke and the government really must steal our wealth for our own good.

Yes, Nordberg is egregiously mistaken, as he almost always is, but in this case, he's equivocating on the wrong topic. If you were to ignore him, the rest of us will understand, i.e. we won't consider you rude.

 

[zymurgy]

How many super investors went broke in 2008? How many are losing money on the market now? How many super-smart people lost all with Madoff? You are deluding yourself.

what a great reply. pointing out one of the many, many near economic collapses of our system since the Federal Reserve was implemented in 1913

 

[Mason Michaels]

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?.....

Because Soros only pays in on a tiny amount of his income

 

[Nordberg]

what a great reply. pointing out one of the many, many near economic collapses of our system since the Federal Reserve was implemented in 1913

You do not have the power to make yourself safe and secure. There are huge players who fuck up due to greed. That is what they did in 2008. People lost homes and wealth and did nothing wrong. The bankers destroyed 3 trillion in the wealth of the world. Their green impacts us all.

 

[zymurgy]

You do not have the power to make yourself safe and secure. There are huge players who fuck up due to greed. That is what they did in 2008. People lost homes and wealth and did nothing wrong. The bankers destroyed 3 trillion in the wealth of the world. Their green impacts us all.

Planning for life on a fixed income would be a bit easier if prices stayed flat, or - sit down for this - actually went down over time as would be common in a world of sound money and human innovation. Imagine being able to save and earn interest, and than buy something that cost less than when you first started saving for it! all because we have a check and balance in place that prevents run away government from spending what they can't get people to agree to contribute.

Then, because of this, people have to be decent to one another - since you never know what might happen in the future and might need to rely on charity of your fellow man.

 

[Flash]

didn't I just quote a lib'rul whining that he wouldn't get back what he put in if we made it means tested?.......what is lib'rul about giving government money to the rich?.....

What one liberal posted does not negate the fact that it is the right that mostly criticizes social welfare programs for going to people they don't think deserve it.

The right often excludes Social Security and Medicare from the "socialism" label because "they paid it in."

 

[Nordberg]

The fact is, for whatever reasons, a lot of people were having serious troubles after the great depression. Most can figure out that the workers did not create that crash. But their jobs were gone. Their ability to plan and bank for the future was gone. The old people in America were suffering and starving. So we provided for seniors in the future. It is not charity because the money is taken from workers' checks. They pay into SS and get it back.
It is a good thing.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What one liberal posted does not negate the fact that it is the right that mostly criticizes social welfare programs for going to people they don't think deserve it.

The right often excludes Social Security and Medicare from the "socialism" label because "they paid it in."

we'll have to distinguish between what you say in public and what you say when you think no one is looking.....