DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on December 01, 2016, 02:16:28 AM
-
Legally the government is not required to return the money to the people they collected from. But that does not mean people would should sit still to it.
Once in awhile this subject keeps popping up and i have not heard answer to what happens to the money if it happens
-
Why preface a scenario that isn't going to happen? That's political suicide to "cancel" SS. Modifications are definitely in order. Some privatization would be an extremely wise approach, but it'll never be cancelled
-
Because most if not all proposals I've witness has been for cancelling it. One time it was called welfare .
-
People can say...pretty much anything. It won't be cancelled, however. As I said, political suicide....not just the President, but party as well
-
actually quite alot of of conservatives has been favorable to it and the quote is welfare to the middle class. so far no party has been harmed by this statements.
-
actually quite alot of of conservatives has been favorable to it
can you source the "quite a lot" of Conservatives that have advocated cancelling social security without offering a replacement that they feel is better?
i do think social security should be "means tested" after the person gets back what they paid in, because at that point it is basically welfare....
why should T. Boone Pickens get social security checks after he gets back what he has paid in?
that is welfare to the rich.
-
Social security doesn't have any money of its own.
Who's bright idea was it to invest all of the Social Security tax receipts into nothing?
Three generations of placing all of that money in the general fund so that it would be spent immediately leaves SS as dependent on the general fund as any other federal program.
If I were offered 50% of all the money I have given to the SS fund as a cash out and quitclaim ,I would grab it as a chicken grabs a June Bug. That would be a terrific deal for me and would confer much greater safety for my future.
Unfortunately there is no way to cashout all of our people at 50% of contributions, there isn't that much money there.
-
actually quite alot of of conservatives has been favorable to it and the quote is welfare to the middle class. so far no party has been harmed by this statements.
I have to echo Cu4's question......who are these "alot of conservatives" who simply want to cancel SS??
-
actually I have a hard time finding it. i get these info passively but for some reason actively cannot get these info. most articles are about trump cutting it . which is not what I`m talking about. this is not about some recent news that just popped up on my computer. i`m talking about years here of getting news about social security getting cut as a strategy to gain support.
it was these news pop up that got me to post hjere
-
that's ok Kimba....I think some Republicans have offered some alternative plans to SS. It's impossible to cancel it without another plan. Too many people depend on it to cancel it and not offer the alternative.
-
I would be willing to make a bet.
That for two years while the President , Congress and Senate are held by Republicans , there will not be a significant legislation on Social Security passed.
-
I would be willing to make a bet.That for two years while the President , Congress and Senate are held by Republicans , there will not be a significant legislation on Social Security passed.
Normally I would agree....but with Trump.....all bets are off
Ha Ha @ "he cant take a call from Taiwan"
-
Plane brought up a good point about SS is tied to general fund and why it has less money. this should bring a uncomfortable question why is it gone to the government
-
Plane brought up a good point about SS is tied to general fund and why it has less money. this should bring a uncomfortable question why is it gone to the government
I don't even know whose idea it was to use the Social Security money as general fund , but it is years past , I think it is gotten away with at this point .
-
All these complaints of lack of funds and no one screaming where did it go.
-
Oh, there's plenty of screaming, but the media doesn't dare report it. They probably will now, under a GOP controlled DC
-
but would the GOP question it also. I hear about cutting budget in various areas but I do not ever heard where the money goes.
-
Kimba....I really would not worry about Social Security getting cancelled by Republicans. That is not going to happen. We can't allow our seniors to suffer that fate. In fact we need to stop wasting so much money over-seas and use that money on our seniors. The nursing homes are a sad national embarrassment.
-
My focua has gone from that to where the money went. By all rights thier should be enough money since only a partial amount was allocated to senior. My reasoning is if we don't look than potentially more money will be taken. As a government employee i can say money overseas does not effect the sad state of nursing homes. Bad incompetent fianacial oversight is the villian in most of these cases. Meaning you can double,triple the budget and improvements will unlikely reflect the increase.
-
All these complaints of lack of funds and no one screaming where did it go.
It isn't a secret, for many years the Social Security taxes were in excess of the social security payments.
This peaked during the administration of Bill Clinton, when the workforce reached its all time best earning power.
Now the baby boom is about to retire and put the SS system under its worst ever strain.
Bill Clinton cut benefits, every president since Reagan has cut benefits in some way or another, mostly subtly with no fanfare.
I predict more small cuts , never enough to make heads roll.
-
But did the baby boomers really take that much ?. No doubt the money coming in when they are collecting did it take all from the surplus from all those previous decades.
Also wouldn't the presence of social security encourage the to take part in creating more jobs..
-
But did the baby boomers really take that much ?. No doubt the money coming in when they are collecting did it take all from the surplus from all those previous decades.
Also wouldn't the presence of social security encourage the to take part in creating more jobs..
Examine your statement "surplus from all those previous decades"....
This is exactly what has been done wrong ...
This is exactly what is missing...
In the 90's there was a budget surplus for President Clinton to waste, but not if you don't count the SS taxes paid by the baby boomers who were earning more than ever before in their lives.
The baby boom generation paid in enough to run a pretty good pension system, but they paid it into the general fund where it was spent the same day it arrived , if not sooner.
-
I think that's what I'm trying trying to imply that people receiving ss are not the freeloaders but the government is and the focus is not enough instrad of why not enough money.
-
people receiving ss are not the freeloaders but the government is
Amen to that Kimba!
-
I think that's what I'm trying trying to imply that people receiving ss are not the freeloaders but the government is and the focus is not enough instrad of why not enough money.
I agree that Social Security recipients are not freeloaders.
They have mostly put more in than they will get back out, and those who die too young have contributed for no return at all.
This does not mean that Social Security is a good deal for a young earner now.
It certainly does not mean that the money will be there to give us each and all as much as promised.
The benefits have been reduced several times already, but not yet enough to ensure that the ability of the system to pay wont be overwhelmed by either too many geezers or too few young earners.
-
They have mostly put more in than they will get back out
not completely true until recently...and not even completely true now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/new-retirees-receiving-less-in-social-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic.html
-
Isnt this a enticement to get people jobs? I always notice we dont really make much effort in job creation in this country. We tell people get a job but we dont make jobs. I modify a qoute thats more accurate to way thing are done. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day but yell get a job hippie and we can ignore him now. You cant say we teach now can we
-
Whose responsibility is it , to make jobs?
-
truthfully nobody but that doesn`t stop unemployment from happening.
-
truthfully nobody but that doesn`t stop unemployment from happening.
I don't agree.
An employer is responsible for the quality and quantity of the jobs he creates. This is also applicable to a self employed person, only the scale would be different.
This is a group that varies widely in every way, including in their success and wisdom.
This group includes our most and least taxed citizens.
-
But employers tend to not see it that way. CEO right now are only obligated to show results to bring money to share holders. Which lately cost jobs and productivity of the businesses. Lately its been a major isdue to find talent that wont hobble a business for profit. Notice we got less businesses now than 10 years ago