From: Chris Bellomy on
assimilate(a) wrote, On 12/3/09 12:40 AM:
> On 2-Dec-2009, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:
>> That's all true.
>> However, Social Security is a law passed by Congress and, as such, it
>> is a legal obligation taken on by the government.
> and as such it can be changed by Congress; and if they had to rely on it,
> boy would it get fixed quickly!

75 years, the same Chicken Little story. It never changes.

And yet the sky is still very much in place.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:27:47 -0500, Horvath(a) wrote:

>>If I live long enough, I will get back more than I paid for Social
>>Security Insurance. But in reality, I didn't pay for me, I paid for
>>previous generations. It will be workers who will be paying for me.
>Kind of unfair, isn't it? How do you feel knowing you will be living
>off the earnings of others?

Not real bad - others were living off of my earnings. Most of my
retirement income will be from a real pension.

How do you feel?

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Dec 2, 7:07 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:38:28 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2...(a)> wrote:
> >> Those seniors, rich or poor, have been paying into SS for their entire
> >> working lives and for Medicare since 1964. =A0They deserve their
> >> benefits. =A0I think that both SS and Medicare are bad programs, but
> >> they are not welfare.
> >That's all fine and good, but govt's of the past took and spent that
> >money on other things and left it for others to pay off the SS and
> >medicare...and the cold hard fact is that there isn't, in absolute
> >terms, enough money to pay off medicare and SS obligations.
> >The program is a total dog because govts cannot be trusted with the
> >money. The program robs the poor to pay the rich. It's regressive and
> >out of date; not to mention absolutely untenable economically.
> >One wonder just what is so bad with simply helping out people who need
> >the help? Beats subsidizing golf resort lifestyle for seniors while
> >young working people have zero chance to build a life for
> >themselves....and they have the option of simply not going to work, ie
> >a general strike of some sort, which leaves the govt zero SS and
> >medicare to collect, and thus have zero to pay out.
> The fact that the government decided to spend all the SS and Medicare
> Trust Fund money does not mean that the people who paid into the
> system are any less deserving of their benefits.  And, in addition,
> the fact that you're rich also doesn't mean that you don't deserve
> your benefits.  If the government starts means testing SS and Medicare
> then it will become a welfare program.

I suppose so, but that definitely doesn't obligate others to make up
for your bad investment.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Dec 2, 7:34 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:54:39 -0600, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)>
> wrote:
> >> SS retirement benefits is basically a governemnt run annuity that you
> >> pay into all your working life and then get a return.  Like any
> >> annuity, if you live a long life, you get a higher return than if you
> >> die young.
> >> Medicare is health insurance where you have to pay the premiums in
> >> advance.
> >> Medicaid is a welfare program.
> >Except that my children cannot inherit my SS retirement benefits!!!
> >If I don't make it to retirement everything I paid in stays in the pool.  If
> >my SS tax went into an annuity I could pass that to my children.
> You are correctly making the point that SS is an annuity with very bad
> terms.

If SS were an annuity, the people in the govt who mange(d) it would be
in jail.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Dec 2, 7:51 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:08:23 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2...(a)> wrote:
> >Maybe, but the trustee of the funds blew them all on other things, and
> >they have no money. When they take money from other taxpayers to pay
> >you, it's welfare. What scam they used to set up the program in the
> >first place notwithstanding.
> The people who are paying into the SS system now, are paying for
> future benefits just like the retired people did when they were young.
> The government owes people for SS and Medicare, they have an
> obligation.  The fact that the politicians spent all the money they
> should have been keeping in trust, doesn't change the nature of the SS
> program, which is not welfare.  And I hope that they never turn it
> into a welfare program because I would quickly be "means tested" off
> the SS rolls.

OK, but the problem is that the govt doesn't have any money to pay
you. They have to take it from working people today, which makes it
welfare. I have no problem with them using the money they have
squirreled away from SS and medicare payments to pay benefits. My
problem is with them taking it from taxpayers.

When you take money from one group of people to redistribute to
another, it's welfare. In the case of SS and Medicare, its robbing the
poor to pay the rich.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Prev: Palin's book on top at amazon
Next: Was Pitts right?