According to FactCheck.org Social Security has a huge deficit problem

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

But Democrats like Harry Reid, Tom Harkin and AL Franken, along with self described Socialist (and former Democrat) Bernie Sanders, there is no problem at all.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-28/harry-reids-social-security-lie/#

Pandering to scared senior citizens, the dems once again show they are hardly interested in deficit reduction or austerity.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 10:12AM by WingNut.

It's in trouble, but some simple changes like changing the wage cap for contributing and possibly, MAYBE raising the retirement age would likely solve the problem. Republicans don't want to raise taxes so raising the salary limit won't happen, and neither party wants to piss off the AARP, so raising the retirement age is not happening. Cowards all.

Yawn, the article could have been published in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 with no changes except to a few politician names.

The real answer is to roll back the Bush tax cuts as scheduled for $250k+ and create a payroll tax donut hole, stopping it at the current limit but restarting the tax for income over $250k/year.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2011 11:53AM by justsayin.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's in trouble, but some simple changes like
> changing the wage cap for contributing and
> possibly, MAYBE raising the retirement age would
> likely solve the problem. Republicans don't want
> to raise taxes so raising the salary limit won't
> happen, and neither party wants to piss off the
> AARP, so raising the retirement age is not
> happening. Cowards all.


Agreed.

Neither party will do anything until circumstances force their hand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Social Security is a welfare program, nothing more.

Until a single politico defines it as such and keeps up this charade of it being an entitlement, we are doomed

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

It's going away. How else to pay for the illegals , political graft, and questionable wars?

It isn't a welfare program, one has to pay into it for ten years to get any benefit at all from the retirement side. The question isn't whether there will be a system, it is will any of us see as much money as we put in it. If it was "welfare" it would be handed to people at no cost, but the social security system doesn't make that possible. A system that gives me less than I put into it is hardly a "welfare" system.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009

THAT'S JUST THE THING, IT IS WELFARE FOR THE ELDERLY BECAUSE ALL THAT
MONEY THEY THOUGHT WAS BEING PAID FOR THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, ACTUALLY
WAS GOING TO PAY FOR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't a welfare program, one has to pay into it
> for ten years to get any benefit at all from the
> retirement side. The question isn't whether there
> will be a system, it is will any of us see as much
> money as we put in it. If it was "welfare" it
> would be handed to people at no cost, but the
> social security system doesn't make that possible.
> A system that gives me less than I put into it is
> hardly a "welfare" system.

If you can receive more back than you paid in, I consider it to be a welfare program.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can receive more back than you paid in, I
> consider it to be a welfare program.


Old people are fuckin stupid.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can receive more back than you paid in, I
> consider it to be a welfare program.

Then you are retarded. By your reasoning, buying US treasury bonds online and receiving payments on them is welfare.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009

US Bonds are an investment,

Is Social Security?

Go get your apple sauce now, Corky!

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 10:11AM by WingNut.

It is government paying someone more than what they pay in, what is the difference? There isn't one, other than some teabagger on thread saying it is different.

Either a) you get more than you are paying in, or b) you don't get more than you are paying in. In both cases, you are paying in. Therefore it isn't welfare.

It is indeed a forced gamble (or investment, call it what you want), which is why some would rather take a portion of their payroll tax and invest it themselves using their own method of gambling instead of the Social Security Administration's method. But it isn't welfare.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2011 01:02PM by justsayin.

So the fact that you can contribute a little and receive back more means it is not a welfare or a subsudy program?

How is it an investment? What is the major risk?


Where does the money come from that pays some of the recipeints more than they contribute? Answer- from other taxpayers.

The program is not solvent and it is in trouble. It is a welfare program. I don't necessarily want to do away with it, but call it what it is.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

From Robert J. Samuelson:


"We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts."

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to FactCheck.org Social Security has a
> huge deficit problem
>
For a second there, I thought you were citing fatchick.org

I opted initially not to click the linky.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Robert J. Samuelson:
>
>
> "We don't call Social Security "welfare" because
> it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want
> to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social
> Security as something else when it isn't. Here is
> how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes
> one group to support another group, meaning it's
> pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where
> people's own savings pay their later benefits. And
> second, Congress can constantly alter benefits,
> reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and
> politics. Social Security qualifies on both
> counts."


Yeah that's one man's opinion on how he defines welfare.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where does the money come from that pays some of
> the recipeints more than they contribute? Answer-
> from other taxpayers.

Where does the money come from that pays purchasers of government debt more than their purchase price? Answer- from other taxpayers.

I have to say that Social Security is NOT welfare. There is a huge difference - you aren't forced by the government to pay in money for your eventual welfare payments. You are however forced to pay a tax that is supposed to be directly tied to your benefits once you are retired (or disabled, etc). Just because the government has failed at running it properly doesn't mean it is wrong - it just means that we have a really stupid bunch of people that allow for folks to have used Social Security funds as a budget balance over the years. If the money had been put into a lockbox and administered only for Social Security this would not be a problem. Now we are seeing what has been happening to a lot of State governments who, over the years, didn't pay into their retirement systems as they should have to balance budget shortfalls elsewhere.

They also need to stop having welfare cover illegal aliens - I remember Bush was negotiating with Caldone of Mexico to provide Social Security to Mexican citizens that had come here to work illegally. Yeah right. As it is, they need to re-visit all the situations in which they pay out benefits, and tighten up the controls, then maybe look at what it will take to keep the thing afloat. I look at this like illegal immigration - you have to put the firewalls in place to stop the money bleed into other projects, and then you can fix the problem. There is nothing wrong with having a social security system - but we probably need to see part of the funds used toward a defined contribution plan instead of just having the defined benefit plan as it stands now. Not all of the funds - part of the funds.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to say that Social Security is NOT welfare.
> There is a huge difference - you aren't forced by
> the government to pay in money for your eventual
> welfare payments. You are however forced to pay a
> tax that is supposed to be directly tied to your
> benefits once you are retired (or disabled, etc).
> Just because the government has failed at running
> it properly doesn't mean it is wrong - it just
> means that we have a really stupid bunch of people
> that allow for folks to have used Social Security
> funds as a budget balance over the years. If the
> money had been put into a lockbox and administered
> only for Social Security this would not be a
> problem. Now we are seeing what has been happening
> to a lot of State governments who, over the years,
> didn't pay into their retirement systems as they
> should have to balance budget shortfalls
> elsewhere.
>
> They also need to stop having welfare cover
> illegal aliens - I remember Bush was negotiating
> with Caldone of Mexico to provide Social Security
> to Mexican citizens that had come here to work
> illegally. Yeah right. As it is, they need to
> re-visit all the situations in which they pay out
> benefits, and tighten up the controls, then maybe
> look at what it will take to keep the thing
> afloat. I look at this like illegal immigration -
> you have to put the firewalls in place to stop the
> money bleed into other projects, and then you can
> fix the problem. There is nothing wrong with
> having a social security system - but we probably
> need to see part of the funds used toward a
> defined contribution plan instead of just having
> the defined benefit plan as it stands now. Not all
> of the funds - part of the funds.


A lot of us our sick of paying welfare some goddamn wetback can go out drinking with his amigos.

... AND DRIVING, RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF OUR CHILDREN.

justsayin Wrote:
> Where does the money come from that pays
> purchasers of government debt more than their
> purchase price? Answer- from other taxpayers.

Government welfare.

I'm not arguing against social security, I am saying it should be edfined as to what it is. Politicians are full of shit who say it is solvent.

I'm ready for all the discussion of means testing, higher retirement ages and more, just call it what it fucking is- WELFARE.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM