1
   

Hillary's Star Continues To Rise

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:33 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Typical - social security is NOT an entitlement program. It is intended to work as sort of a savings plan. If you had a REAL JOB and paid REAL TAXES you'd know that about 10% of your pay goes to FICA. Sure, you are funding someone elses SS because it never worked as designed, so it's become a pyramid scheme, but it is NOT - NEVER WAS - an "entitlement program".


I agree with you! But it's typically listed off as one by the right wing.

Cycloptichorn

It was designed as a retirement fund or insurance program, but it is run as an entitlement program, so thats what it essentially is, in my opinion. If the program runs out of money, which it is because retireees are not being paid with money they paid in, but by money being raised now from other people being taxed. If this was truly a retirement fund, the government officials would all be in prison for embezzlement or mismanagement of the program.


I agree with you that the US gov't should not embezzle the funds paid into the SS program. I would ask that this stop immediately, as it would ensure that the program would exist for far, far longer in a solvent status.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:54 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Typical - social security is NOT an entitlement program. It is intended to work as sort of a savings plan. If you had a REAL JOB and paid REAL TAXES you'd know that about 10% of your pay goes to FICA. Sure, you are funding someone elses SS because it never worked as designed, so it's become a pyramid scheme, but it is NOT - NEVER WAS - an "entitlement program".


I agree with you! But it's typically listed off as one by the right wing.

Cycloptichorn

It was designed as a retirement fund or insurance program, but it is run as an entitlement program, so thats what it essentially is, in my opinion. If the program runs out of money, which it is because retireees are not being paid with money they paid in, but by money being raised now from other people being taxed. If this was truly a retirement fund, the government officials would all be in prison for embezzlement or mismanagement of the program.



I think the historical facts suggest you are both wrong. The rhetoric and nomenclature surrounding the Social Security program was certainly designed to create the illusion that is was a kind of self-funding insurance scheme. However the actual mechanisms built into the law from the start revealed it to be merely a wealth transfer scheme, with wealth passing from the ranks of the currently employed to the retired and disabled. The "trust Fund" was designed to be completely accessable to the treasury through the issue of government bonds. This was not a deceptive practice that silently grew up after the system was enacted: it was there from the start.

I have no objection, in principle, to such a wealth transfer system. It is merely a net benefiucial cushion for the society as a whole. However we should recognize that we have far outgrown the original system. At the time it was instituted the average beneficiary could expect to collect benefits for but a few years. Now that life expectancy in this country has increased by over 12 years since the program was started, it is clearly time to further adjust the age at which benefits become available. The only alternative to that is a major increase in taxation on a workforce that is declining in numbers relative to the number of beneficiaries of the system.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:57 am
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Typical - social security is NOT an entitlement program. It is intended to work as sort of a savings plan. If you had a REAL JOB and paid REAL TAXES you'd know that about 10% of your pay goes to FICA. Sure, you are funding someone elses SS because it never worked as designed, so it's become a pyramid scheme, but it is NOT - NEVER WAS - an "entitlement program".


I agree with you! But it's typically listed off as one by the right wing.

Cycloptichorn

It was designed as a retirement fund or insurance program, but it is run as an entitlement program, so thats what it essentially is, in my opinion. If the program runs out of money, which it is because retireees are not being paid with money they paid in, but by money being raised now from other people being taxed. If this was truly a retirement fund, the government officials would all be in prison for embezzlement or mismanagement of the program.



I think the historical facts suggest you are both wrong. The rhetoric and nomenclature surrounding the Social Security program was certainly designed to create the illusion that is was a kind of self-funding insurance scheme. However the actual mechanisms built into the law from the start revealed it to be merely a wealth transfer scheme, with wealth passing from the ranks of the currently employed to the retired and disabled. The "trust Fund" was designed to be completely accessable to the treasury through the issue of government bonds. This was not a deceptive practice that silently grew up after the system was enacted: it was there from the start.

I have no objection, in principle, to such a wealth transfer system. It is merely a net benefiucial cushion for the society as a whole. However we should recognize that we have far outgrown the original system. At the time it was instituted the average beneficiary could expect to collect benefits for but a few years. Now that life expectancy in this country has increased by over 12 years since the program was started, it is clearly time to further adjust the age at which benefits become available. The only alternative to that is a major increase in taxation on a workforce that is declining in numbers relative to the number of beneficiaries of the system.


I agree that the retirement age should be raised as life expectancies rise. It only makes sense to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 12:11 pm
okie wrote:
I would streamline the management of the military and do away with outdated technology, which is the very thing Rumsfeld got in trouble for when he tried to do it.[/quote

which is a giant mystery because he and his war in Iraq have been such a shining success...
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 07:43 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

I think the historical facts suggest you are both wrong. The rhetoric and nomenclature surrounding the Social Security program was certainly designed to create the illusion that is was a kind of self-funding insurance scheme. However the actual mechanisms built into the law from the start revealed it to be merely a wealth transfer scheme, with wealth passing from the ranks of the currently employed to the retired and disabled. The "trust Fund" was designed to be completely accessable to the treasury through the issue of government bonds. This was not a deceptive practice that silently grew up after the system was enacted: it was there from the start.


I think the whole thing was deception from Day 1. Perception is 99% reality, and it was what the people were led to believe that is important, not what is hidden in some obscure federal code that nobody reads. Another thing, social security was meant to be a supplemental retirement fund, but many people somehow have come to believe it to be a full retirement fund, and when the amounts are insufficient, they complain about the government shorting them the money and not taxing the rich enough to support their chosen lifestyle when they reach 65. Many of those same people are without another dime to their name at 65 and some politicians do nothing to dispel people's expectations of such a rosy future with social security, when it was never meant to be a full retirement program.

Also, if retirement trust fund managers in the private sector would return the same kinds of low returns on the citizens money as the federal government does, they would at the very least been fired a long time ago and somebody competent and honest would have been hired. The whole thing is a scheme that is based on more than one shell game or dishonesty. For one, they tax half of it from employees and half from employers, which does nothing but increase paperwork and cost in an effort to make it look like the bite is only half of what it really is. Of course the self employed pay the entire percentage, but employees pay the full amount whether they know it or not, because otherwise the employer could be paying them the money instead.

P.S. Government employees should be made to be social security participants and taste their own medicine instead of their own cushy retirement funds. After all, people in the private sector may have their own funds and are still made to pay social security. That is another deception and fraud perpetrated on the American people.
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 05:18 am
okie wrote:

P.S. Government employees should be made to be social security participants and taste their own medicine instead of their own cushy retirement funds. After all, people in the private sector may have their own funds and are still made to pay social security. That is another deception and fraud perpetrated on the American people.


In the last few years, the newly hired government employees haven't been given the old cushy retirement plan. There's still a 401K type thing, but it isn't nearly as nice as the old one.

All in all, the citizens in this country are going to have to do their own retirement planning and stop relying on others to do it for them, especially since today's definition of job security is the ability to find another job. Most people now aren't going to be able to stay with the same job for 30 years like they used to be able to do.

The social security argument is meaningless, in my opinion. Its not enough to live on... not even close. That's why so many elderly people are moving to Mexico for their assisted living/nursing home/retirement home needs. It sounds sad, but they're getting really good care, for the most part... from what I've read.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 06:53 am
I have my own retirement plan. I'm going to work as long as I can... and when I can't anymore, or when I get a killing disease and it's obvious the jig is up..... whatever comes first... I'm going to have a party with people who care about me (that'll make it small and manageable) have really great sex, drink some good wine, snort some coke, smoke some really good weed, then say goodbye to everyone, put on Close To The Edge and eat about 50 valium and get in a nice hot bath.

I'm also a full body cadaver donor so no stupid after expenses.No muss no fuss.
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:46 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I have my own retirement plan. I'm going to work as long as I can... and when I can't anymore, or when I get a killing disease and it's obvious the jig is up..... whatever comes first... I'm going to have a party with people who care about me (that'll make it small and manageable) have really great sex, drink some good wine, snort some coke, smoke some really good weed, then say goodbye to everyone, put on Close To The Edge and eat about 50 valium and get in a nice hot bath.

I'm also a full body cadaver donor so no stupid after expenses.No muss no fuss.


That's a hellova plan! LOL @ "the jig is up", I like that.

I'm donating my body to a haunted house.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 11:13:20