Democrats planning to cut Social Security while acting as its protectors

[Adios]

Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.

IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.

I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.

I'm going to expound on your comment. First, please use a finer brush, your current one is far too broad.

The AARP is the primary voice for the elderly. Now exclude most who are in nursing homes. Then exclude the apathetic ones. Next exclude all who don't understand or who have been brought up to think you can't fight the government.

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3]  An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5]  Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Now, remember everybody who is working 'contributes' to social security as a means of retirement.

Social Security provides disability insurance and survivor's benefits, but when people talk about it, they tend to be referring to its role as a program that provides income support to retirees. The average monthly benefit of $1,170 replaces about 39 percent of the person's pre-retirement earnings. Over the next two decades, the "replacement rate" is slated to drop to 31 percent. That is less than in most developed countries -- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks it 25 out of 30 member nations.
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090400096.html?hpid=topnews

So when the younger group wants to talk about how we didn't do anything to deserve our money back, or that it isn't our money, I say to you, study a bit and quit listening to the howls from your lawmakers and others who are benefitting from other programs personally. remember, a rich person doesn't need SS.

Yeah, that's just what you WOULD say, you socialist!

Damned if that didn't touch a nerve. Didn't mean to rant up like that.

[BabylonHoruv]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves.  The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things.  It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.

[Disco Pickle]

Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.

cheap shot is soooo cheap.

didn't advocate for that at all in that post.  

in fact, I'd be the first person (behind you that is) to say fuck the military-security-industrial complex and that THIS is where cuts need to be made.   Appropriated spending is spending we know about..  I want it ALL appropriated. and accounted for.  and cut.

This may not jive with any preconceived illusions about libertarians you may already hold.

or the reality many of them DO hold.

I'm ok with that.

[Adios]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.

Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.

Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.

Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?

But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.

[Doktor Howl]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

Jesus H Christ.  We should just echo the LP board.

I mean, if we're going to get stock, canned opinions.

[Doktor Howl]

Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.

cheap shot is soooo cheap.

didn't advocate for that at all in that post.  

in fact, I'd be the first person (behind you that is) to say fuck the military-security-industrial complex and that THIS is where cuts need to be made.   Appropriated spending is spending we know about..  I want it ALL appropriated. and accounted for.  and cut.

This may not jive with any preconceived illusions about libertarians you may already hold.

or the reality many of them DO hold.

I'm ok with that.

TFYS.

[Disco Pickle]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves.  The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things.  It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.

Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit.  I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so. 

As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money.  eh..  Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades..   For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"

well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them..  and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power.  Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff..  but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.

[Doktor Howl]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves.  The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things.  It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.

Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit.  I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so. 

As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money.  eh..  Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades..   For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"

well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them..  and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power.  Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff..  but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.

So.  2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.

I see.

[Disco Pickle]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.

Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.

Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.

Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?

But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.

again putting words in my mouth.  does that happen a lot here?

I thought I was clear that the problem is that the demographics have changed and that there are now less people paying in than are going to need benefits out.  Couple that with stagnant wages and rising inflation and you have problems with solvency.  

I'm with Cain, cut defense spending to something resembling reality of need, end the empire before it collapses as England's did.

get politicians who are complicit in tapping the fund out of office and ban it from being used for anything else.

but then, that would take an informed voting population not voting for "anyone but the other guy"

[Doktor Howl]

again putting words in my mouth.  does that happen a lot here?

Yeah, because your argument has been advanced, verbatim, by at least four other Libertarians who preceded you.  It's almost like a cut and paste, you know?

[Disco Pickle]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves.  The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things.  It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.

Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit.  I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so. 

As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money.  eh..  Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades..   For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"

well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them..  and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power.  Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff..  but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.

So.  2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.

I see.

they deserve the government they have.  Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.

you guys..  love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.  

[Doktor Howl]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves.  The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things.  It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.

Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit.  I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so. 

As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money.  eh..  Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades..   For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"

well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them..  and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power.  Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff..  but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.

So.  2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.

I see.

they deserve the government they have.  Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.

you guys..  love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.  

I just go to http://lp.org and I can see what you're going to write 3 posts ahead. 

[Disco Pickle]

The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.

It's unsustainable based on several factors:

Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.

Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.

You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs.  Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.

I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045..  and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.

Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.

Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.

Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.

Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?

But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.

again putting words in my mouth.  does that happen a lot here?

I thought I was clear that the problem is that the demographics have changed and that there are now less people paying in than are going to need benefits out.  Couple that with stagnant wages and rising inflation and you have problems with solvency.  

I'm with Cain, cut defense spending to something resembling reality of need, end the empire before it collapses as England's did.

get politicians who are complicit in tapping the fund out of office and ban it from being used for anything else.

but then, that would take an informed voting population not voting for "anyone but the other guy"

so the problems I'm stating do not exist unless you're thinking about it from a libertarian view point?  The solutions I've offered involve massive cuts to defense spending and closing of over seas bases.

I'm aware that also tends to be a libertarian solution to illiquid funding of the promises made to our people for retirement benefits, but are you discounting them because they're libertarian in nature?

I understand your aversion to identity politics, and I share that aversion, but the fact is that like minded people WILL come together to share ideas (and yeah, reinforce their own world view at times) but is that what you seriously think I'm doing?

I have spent a lot of time on boards for all three parties, and found I identify more with these proposed ideas.

That doesn't mean I'm not doing my own cognitive reasoning and rejecting any ideas that are fucking loony tunes.

some of you seem far more reactionary than I have ever been to thoughts and ideas.  Could be I've just caught you on a day where you feel like hammering on some noobage.

I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own.  So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?

[Doktor Howl]

I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own.  So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?

30% more government.

But I don't want to help, remember.

I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.

[Disco Pickle]

I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own.  So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?

30% more government.

But I don't want to help, remember.

I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.

and i get a kick out of someone who says something like this:

So.  2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.

I see.

and then advocates for something that would ensure it.

I'm not sure yet whether you believe what you say, about not wanting to help, or you're just a very intelligent troll.

I'm guessing when you talk about Discord, if you ever do, you always leave off the ism