More important in today's world: After Social Sercurity was once again secure for future retiement needs of the masses, who declared it okay to raid the fund?
fishin, I'm impressed by your ability to comprehend the in's and out's of the "off-budget" to "on-budget" games playing by our government. Since my voice in this democratic republic is not even a whisper to our government representatives, information on how they play games with the national budget is of little use to this voter. Unlike most Americans, I still go to the polls on election day to cast my vote, but the actions our government takes is beyond my control. In that sense, my interest on the details is very limited. I also presume that both parties play games with our budget. c.i.
BillW wrote:More important in today's world: After Social Sercurity was once again secure for future retiement needs of the masses, who declared it okay to raid the fund?
When was Social Security EVER "secure for future retiement needs of the masses"? At best, projections had it listed as "safe" until 2031. That's wonderful if you plan on retiring and dying before then but there are a whole lot of us out here in the "masses" that plan on living past that point in time. Social Security will never be secure for anyone until such time as the fund is guaranteed to take in more than it pays out every single year.
Lovey has told me i have to live to be 90 years of age. You're not making things look very hopeful for me, Boss . . .
cicerone imposter wrote:fishin, I'm impressed by your ability to comprehend the in's and out's of the "off-budget" to "on-budget" games playing by our government.
Yeah, I spent 20 years in the Military playing budget games. All of that helps me figure out one obscure political reference! Woohoo! Maybe I should have learned something else eh? lol
But you are right, they ALL play games with the numbers. It's amazing how money "appears" to fund things in the general budget when someone wants something badly enough.
Snopes isn't the only one debunking this E mail campaign and there are many others on the internet:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/09_GOPLies.html
It doesn't change the plank that's remained in the Republican platform of privatizing Social Security -- I'd just wonder if it will be as successful as Amtrak was for transporation....
Setanta wrote:Lovey has told me i have to live to be 90 years of age. You're not making things look very hopeful for me, Boss . . .
Well, let's see 2031 subtract 90 and umm.. Yeah, sure... you're safe! lmao
Lightwizard wrote:Snopes isn't the only one debunking this E mail campaign and there are many others on the internet:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/09_GOPLies.html
It doesn't change the plank that's remained in the Republican platform of privatizing Social Security -- I'd just wonder if it will be as successful as Amtrak was for transporation....
The BuzzFlash site references right back to Snopes. (look at the bottom of the page). Just for grins and giggles I'm going to dig some more and see exactly how much "truth" there is in these statements. I'm guessing that the other statements are just as "true but misleading" as the first one was.
BTW, who's the sponsor of "snopes?" Anybody know? c.i.
Fishin' I had some hope for some money. This administration now makes that impossible.
But then you obfuscate, the original question is still on the table - ah, but I cheated and already answered it. That was not only obfuscation, but a trick!
Edited to correct spelling!
Another link which was provided by Buzz/Flash and there are more:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
BillW wrote:Fishin' I had some hope for some money. This administration now makes that impossible.
But then you obfuscate, the original question is still on the table - ah, but I cheated and already answered it. That was not only obfuscation, but a trick!
I was hoping for some money too but I'm not elidgible to collect anything from SS until 2030 at the earliest so I guess I'm just out of luck eh?
If you want straight answers then ask straight questions.
Perhaps this should be split out to a discussion of Social Security.
If you like, I can do the split thingie. Only $5.
Just kidding. For you, free.
And where are these straight questions to be asked at?
Bill asked:
More important in today's world: After Social Sercurity was once again secure for future retiement needs of the masses, who declared it okay to raid the fund?
Fishin' responded:
BillW wrote:
More important in today's world: After Social Sercurity was once again secure for future retiement needs of the masses, who declared it okay to raid the fund?
When was Social Security EVER "secure for future retiement needs of the masses"? At best, projections had it listed as "safe" until 2031. That's wonderful if you plan on retiring and dying before then but there are a whole lot of us out here in the "masses" that plan on living past that point in time. Social Security will never be secure for anyone until such time as the fund is guaranteed to take in more than it pays out every single year.
Oh well, I guess I'll never figure out this game?
Then again fishin' - especially in a polical arena, ofuscation is the primary tool. Take something someone says, leave the meat and use the parts that one can make a point with and then declare it the proof of the pudding. Hmmm, Political Science, maybe I'm on to something.
Just like in a Debate!
The article in The Atlantic is really quite good (as usual).
Ok, another one that is "technically true" there but is hidden.
Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.
The Snopes site for this points to 2 specific points in time where the laws affecting this were changed, 1972 under Nixon and 1996 under Clinton. But the original Social Security Act of 1935 (which Democrats are usually credited with..) DID allow for immigrants to collect SSI Disability and AFDC payments without ever having paid in.
There was also a law change (42 U.S.C. 428 Sect 228) in 1966 that granted automatic SS benefits to anyone (citizen or LEGAL alien) who reached age 72 before 1968. In that change if they were an alien that reached age 72 prior to 1966 they could collect retirement benefits without having to have ever worked in the US provided they had lived here for at least 5 years. That was a loophole in the law that later closed itself by virtue of the number of people turning aged 72 prior to 1966...
Again, the word play is with the word "got" in the original statement. The fact that immigrants haven't been able to collect it since the 1970s is ignored. Yes, at one time in the history of the program they could collect. They can't now though...
LW and Jes, you are right, we probably should split this off.
I don't really see it as a "Social Secuirty" issue though. I'm attacking this from the political aspect of what the party proponents say and how those statements read and how they confuse the voting public.
