Political & Elections

It will never be changed for one reason...the biggest voting block that consistently goes out on election day are older, and SS is a big issue for them. It comes down to the same thing every generation. I put in and they owe it to me.

SS was never designed to be a retirement fund. Our society needs to get back to that fact. We need to face reality that we can no longer live this way.

I agree hayden.

As I stated earlier, if a financial advisor did a re-coup of investment analysis re: my In laws, they would say that they got every penny ever put in and now are actually a drain on the taxpayer system.

My grandmother lived to 101, she never worked a day in her life, but got to collect on my grandfather's SS for 18 yrs after he died.

My Mother was given an option on how to collect. My father who died in 1993, or her own. She was divorced from him in 1983, but because of a loophole, she was allowed to collect...married more than 20 yrs. She could have collected his SS, starting back in 1999. Her financial advisor told her to not touch his until he hit 67 1/2 (2004). His second wife was ticked, another loophole issue...she took 2nd place and could not collect until my Mom made a move.

If anyone in their 40's believes that SS will be available for them when they hit 62 1/2, I have a bridge in NYC to sell them. The bridge is a historical landmark, and owned by the city, but give me sometime I am sure that I can get them to agree to sell me it.

Only a fool in their 40's or younger will believe that it will be around for them when they hit 67 re: more than covering your utilities or food bill.

As baby boomers age, the system will crumble. There will not be enough workers to pay for the system. That is how SS works...it is the biggest PONZI scheme every created. Madoff had nothing compared to the US govt when it comes to PONZI.

Additionally, it is important to see how the Rich get wealthy. It is not salary, which goes into SS. It is from investments. It always comes up about Buffet's comment that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. Sure he does, why? Because his salary is stock options, dividends, investments, etc. A different tax system. He can afford to move his money, to get the best ROI. His secretary can not.

Want to save SS? DO a means test, starting at 72, currently. If it looks like there will be negative flow, reduce the age in increments...70, 67 1/2, 65, etc.

Anyone who has watched parents from a married couple perspective, may get that birds eye view like me.

1 set uses it as splurge money, another uses it to pay their utilities and food. You will realize very quickly that when it is your time to collect that the parents who splurged impacted your own SS.

Or we could pool part of the money everyone (of any age) makes and use it to pay for various societal goods like interstate highways, national defense, veteran's healthcare, etc.

I know, let's call the pooled funds "taxes".

Jordcin wrote:

---

 

soccerguy315 wrote:

---

Why should the rich people pay 12% of their salary every year into SS if they aren't going to get anything back when they retire?

---

Rich people don't pay 12% of their salary every year into SS.  Working poor and middle class people pay 12% of their salary every year in SS.

Social Security taxes income up to $106,000 per year.  A middle class couple making $106,000 per year pay SS tax of about $12,000 per year.  A CEO making $3 million per year pays SS tax of about $12,000 per year. 

The working poor and middle class pay a much bigger proporation of their income into SS and that's where the benefits should stay.  Wealthy people who worry about not getting  a SS check are just small minded pigs.

 

---

I was not aware that SS was capped like that.  Thank you.  However, if you pay into Social Security, it is only fair that you get that money back.  The rich person should not get 12% of their working salary, but rather the money that they put in ($12,000).  Why should that CEO not get his $12,000 back every year?  Because he doesn't "need" it?  A lot of people have things they do not need (perhaps this is a big problem with America).  The wealthy person already pays the majority of income taxes, with almost 50% of Americans paying zero income tax.

 

Perhaps we should just pool all the money that Americans make and then divide it equally among all persons over the age of 18?

soccerguy315 wrote:

---

Why should the rich people pay 12% of their salary every year into SS if they aren't going to get anything back when they retire?

---

 Rich people don't pay 12% of their salary every year into SS.  Working poor and middle class people pay 12% of their salary every year in SS.

Social Security taxes income up to $106,000 per year.  A middle class couple making $106,000 per year pay SS tax of about $12,000 per year.  A CEO making $3 million per year pays SS tax of about $12,000 per year. 

The working poor and middle class pay a much bigger proporation of their income into SS and that's where the benefits should stay.  Wealthy people who worry about not getting  a SS check are just small minded pigs.

Because the rich are fortunate enough not to need it, and presumably could see the wisdom of allowing some person who actually does need it, benefit from it.  If that person is therefore not a street person, then the rich do not have to step over, on, or around him or her.  Win / win situation.

-- Edited by Bogney on Thursday 17th of February 2011 10:35:14 PM

I think a number of Republican "Conservatives" are actually "Reactionary".

"We like change as long as it is back to the good old days!" 

You can hit the SS issue without touching those in the system now, regarding wealth.

My In Laws are a great example. They use their SS check to go to AC and gamble. They take a couple of vacations a yr (cruises for 10-14 days) Means testing would probably stop that check at their mailbox My Mother OTOH uses her SS check to pay her mtg, utilities, etc. She would probably keep her check. She has not gone a "vacay" for 10 yrs.

OBTW my mother officially retired at 72...my MIL at 62.

Just by doing means testing we protect the poor, and save taxpayers money.

My FIL tells us all the time he worked for it. Yes, he did, but he is 79, and started collecting at 62 1/2. He has been paid every penny back. He goes to the Borgata 2x a month to drop quarters in a slot machine.

As far as changing the retirement age and hurting the poor, oh well. That is callous, I get that, but the 1st lesson all of our parents taught us was:

LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

My MOM never complained that my MIL retired 10 yrs younger. She accepted the fact this was her fate in life and moved on.

I didn't beaacch that I had to do work study in college to pay for school and my friends didn't.

My mother and I were those poor people you talk about...we survived just fine, because we accepted the fact it was up to us to make it.

Harsh, yes!

Sorry, life is harsh. When as a society do we start saying to people life can suck!


We can all say WOAH are our grandkids for the debt and do nothing.  Or we can be adults, and say to the govt., you have a checkbook like us,  and if we wrote bad checks they  do we would be in JAIL! 

Hard decisions have to be made.  END OF SUBJECT.  Everyone will feel the pain.  Not In My Backyard no longer works as an excuse.




-- Edited by pima on Thursday 17th of February 2011 11:38:21 AM

Cardinal, there is a thing called pandering.

The Dems do it too.

The way to get elected today is a simple course:

1. Pander to your base
2. Once you get the nod move to the center to beat the opponent.

Politics 101.

The fact is if Republicans don't vilify the opposition, they actually have a shot of taking control.

Instead of blaming the Unions, they should change the topic to if we continue to support unions, including govt., we as every taxpayer pays for it.

Instead of saying cut medicaid, discuss how to keep it medicare will take a hit if we don't touch everything.

Instead of attacking the opposition for attacking only, start showing that while one aspect of the economy is hit (yours), other aspects will be hit just as hard.

Again, I am seeing that 20/20 experiment of everyone diving in for themselves.

I will gladly vote for any politician regardless of their party, the minute they step up and say TAKE FROM MY BACKYARD.

Bicker and fight...the fact is some of you are just as entrenched as our politicians. Tell me one thing you are willing to sacrifice that will impact you fiscally.

I gave 2.

I am willing to:
1. Lose mtg write offs
2. Change the retirement pay to not collect until 65.


I will add a 3rd:

Means testing for SS.

I say that and it should be acknowledged that I still want abortion to be funded! I am smart enough to understand forcing a woman to have a baby will cost our society alot!

think a lot of Republicans would get elected if they PO'd the conservative Christians.

Then why aren't Republicans PO'ing the conservative Christians? You'd think if it were a plausible electoral strategy, they'd jump on it.

Is it because they overestimate the conservative Christians' power? Because even though Republicans would get elected if they dissed the fundamentalists, few Republicans have tried that strategy, so that current elected Republicans are sympathetic to fundamentalists?

With the economy in such bad shape, and with House Republicans having promised they'd focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, why did they spend last week considering abortion bills? I checked inside my uterus. No jobs are there.

I think a lot of Republicans would get elected if they PO'd the conservative Christians.

There are many like me who are Christian, that leans right, not due to my religious beliefs, but because I believe in smaller govt.

I can easily separate my Catholic beliefs from my political beliefs.

As a voter, do I believe we should federally assist in paying for abortions? YES! The reason why is because the cost of forcing a woman to have a child she did not want is much higher.

The govt IMPO has no right to dictate what happens to my body, that is a personal decision. However, I also believe that religion should not dictate the govt regarding my body.

I understand there are a ton of people out there who want a baby and cannot have one. Yet, I also understand as a MOM that feeling a child move in your body changes your life, and giving that child up is very difficult. I could not even begin to imagine that pain.


See, as a practicing Catholic, I have no problem in supporting abortion...afterall, a true Christian who believes in what is being taught, understands compassion is lesson 1. Lesson 2, don't condemn others. Lesson 3, love unconditionally.

This whole Conservative Christian owning the R party is BS to me. It is like saying the Dems are controlled by the far left who supports legalizing pot, late term abortions, and gay marriage. They are a subset of the party, a subset that screams the loudest, but they are not the majority.

You can't lump everyone into a neat pile.

51% of Republican primary voters doubt President O's status as a "natural born" citizen.

Which Primary, back in 2007?

Wasn't that the same time that NYT incorrectly printed a story that McCain wasn't a citizen? He was born in Panama to an AD military parent.

If a pollster called me today and asked if Obama was a citizen, but only gave me 3 choices:

1. Do you believe he is
2. Are you not sure, but believe his statement that he is
3. You do believe he is.

The pollster can come back and say that 51% doubt because of the way the responses of 1 & 2 were rigged.

That number 2 can be used either way.

I skimmed the article, but it quickly made me think of George Will's op-ed in the WaPO

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605102.html

"Change of the dimension we need," says Daniels, "requires a coalition of a dimension no one has recently assembled," including people who "surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter." Which may mean ideological dilution: "Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers" and "King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared." Daniels has "no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying, 'I told you so' or 'You should've done it my way.' "

He reminded his listeners that when he was serving Ronald Reagan, the president admonished him and others that "we have no enemies, only opponents." The case for less strident conservative rhetoric is practical: "As we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us, just a bit."

Do not, Jefferson warned, undertake great departures on "slender majorities." Conservatives criticized Democrats for doing just that regarding health care. Big changes, Daniels knows, will require a broad majority, perhaps one assembled after 2012 by someone with his blend of accomplishments, aversion to pandering and low-key charisma of competence.

For conservatism to survive they need to be more like Christie, and less like McCallum. I think people now understand that everyone will pay the price someway, somehow to save this country from the fiscal brink.

Christie is following the attitude we are not enemies, we are opponents. He is not vilifying the opposition. He is showing respect, and stating okay, so if I can't touch your budget, which budget can I touch. You say it often enough in the right manner and tone, people start understanding the situation.

Yrs ago 20/20 did this great experiment. They gathered people in a room and through a bunch of bills on the table. They said the only deal here is everyone has to walk out with some money, and you will keep doing it until that occurs. The first time out, you saw people diving after it like a bridal bouquet, ripping money out of each others' hands. By the end after multiple times, they finally got tired and said, the only way to get out of this room is if we equally split it.

To me that is our world when it comes to the budget. How will it impact me, yet everyone will say, my poor grandchildren will inherit massive amounts of debt. If we agree that our kids will pay the piper, than as the adult now, ante up and say, yes, take that away from me now, so I can insure the future.

I would hate to lose the mtg deduction, but if that means it has to go so be it. If the DOD comes down and says to save the military budget for the AD world, retirement pay will now start a means test for getting it at day 1 after 20 yrs, but will guarantee everyone it at 65, so be it. Yes, we get that ret. pay, and Bullet is 47. It would fiscally hurt us big time, but I also understand that if he lived to 94, they would have paid 50 yrs of 50% pay for a guy who served 20 yrs, and economically that doesn't make sense.

We all have to stop saying not my backyard, but go for their backyard, and understand everyone has a backyard.