Why I am supporting Obama

[creekster]

Sorry, the federal government raided the SS trust fund. The only way you would have a chance of getting your money back is do your part in paying off the federal debt first. So pay up!

It's not your money any more than any other tax is once it's been paid. But you know that.

SS was a bargain. I paid into the system to get a return. Now because the government has raided it and is otherwise in deep financial trouble, wuap says I should get nothing out of the system. It is fundamentally unfair to eliminate the benefits I have been promised (or at least some benefits) giving me nothing in return. As it now stands, barring some Methuselah-esque trick of longevity on my part, I will never get my money out of the system. But to give me NOTHING is just fundamentally unfair.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

SS was a bargain. I paid into the system to get a return. Now because the government has raided it and is otherwise in deep financial trouble, wuap says I should get nothing out of the system. It is fundamentally unfair to eliminate the benefits I have been promised (or at least some benefits) giving me nothing in return. As it now stands, barring some Methuselah-esque trick of longevity on my part, I will never get my money out of the system. But to give me NOTHING is just fundamentally unfair.

I agree. It sucks. But those same promises made to you were made to Wuap and me as well. Those promises can't be kept. It's impossible. The question is not if someone will get screwed, it's who and how much. And, again, it isn't your money. It's tax money that was collected and spent as soon as it was received just like all the other tax money. You (collectively) already received the goods and services paid for with that money. Goods and services you should have paid more income tax to get if SS was really your money being saved for you. We change the promises we made to people (poor, children, unemployed, sick) all the time. This one has to change too.

[Viking]

i can't believe our household voted for obama.

[edward777]

i can't believe our household voted for obama.

It's okay. That is the beauty of repentance. You have seen your error and can make restitution this November by voting for Romney.

[Maximus]

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm scrapping Social Security and Medicare. That's over a trillion dollars. What programs are these bloated and worthless ones of which you speak?

Id say most government departments could use a lot of trimming down.

[Uncle Ted]

Id say most government departments could use a lot of trimming down.

There are five departments that could be cut completely: commerce, education, energy, interior... and, oops, what was that other one?



Oh yes, thanks Ron Paul, the department of housing and urban development.

[Jacob]

SS was a bargain. I paid into the system to get a return. Now because the government has raided it and is otherwise in deep financial trouble, wuap says I should get nothing out of the system. It is fundamentally unfair to eliminate the benefits I have been promised (or at least some benefits) giving me nothing in return. As it now stands, barring some Methuselah-esque trick of longevity on my part, I will never get my money out of the system. But to give me NOTHING is just fundamentally unfair.

First of all, I'd say that it was not a bargain in the first place. the promised benefits would be a very low rate of return for the average person.

Secondly, I've come around to the idea that the current generation of retirees almost deserves to have their benefits cut. They knew that the system relied upon having productive younger people pay taxes so that the benefits could be paid out, yet they (as a generation) decided that it wasn't worth it to have many children. As a result, they raided their own trust fund. Their children were their retirement and they collectively decided to forego having enough children. They shouldn't get the retirement either.

[byu71]

First of all, I'd say that it was not a bargain in the first place. the promised benefits would be a very low rate of return for the average person.

Secondly, I've come around to the idea that the current generation of retirees almost deserves to have their benefits cut. They knew that the system relied upon having productive younger people pay taxes so that the benefits could be paid out, yet they (as a generation) decided that it wasn't worth it to have many children. As a result, they raided their own trust fund. Their children were their retirement and they collectively decided to forego having enough children. They shouldn't get the retirement either.

Who is "they", Lone Ranger. I think if you look at it, a lot of younger people, especially college folks vote for the libs and their policies.

I have paid into the system for 47 years. I never voted for someone who wanted to raid the system to pay out for welfare, child benefits, et. al. I paid to take care of your grandparents and great grandparents and the thanks I get is your stupid post.

If your going to be mad at someone, be pissed at the folks who got into the system in the 30's and 40's.

Look, I paid in far more than I will ever get back and the extra will probably go to your whiny little ass or some of your relatives.


Edit: Here is another idea. Let's share in this screw job equally. The government can see how much you have paid in and how much you have taken out. Right now add up how much the government owes everyone based on what they put in. Now, there will be those that owe. They get nothing from now on. You subtract the total of what is owed by those that have overdrawn. Figure out a percent the program is down and pay out exactly what everyone has paid in less that percent and do away with the damn program.

Good luck to some of you. I am you are kind enough to support your grandparents.

[creekster]

First of all, I'd say that it was not a bargain in the first place. the promised benefits would be a very low rate of return for the average person.

Secondly, I've come around to the idea that the current generation of retirees almost deserves to have their benefits cut. They knew that the system relied upon having productive younger people pay taxes so that the benefits could be paid out, yet they (as a generation) decided that it wasn't worth it to have many children. As a result, they raided their own trust fund. Their children were their retirement and they collectively decided to forego having enough children. They shouldn't get the retirement either.

By bargain I meant a contract with consideration, not a good deal.

Otherwise, your post is silly. Cut benefits because they didnt have enough kids? Not even EUropeans would go for that sort of social engineering. That sounds more like a Chinese idea. And what about someone who agreed with you and had ten kids. Do we except them?

[Moliere]

It's fun to watch the geriatrics older more mature people on CUF defend their pocketbooks.

Of course SS should be adjusted NOW. Why should they get 100% payout when I'm staring at possibly 70% when I retire. That makes no sense. The fact that anyone has paid into the system their whole life is not a convincing argument since I'll be paying in for another 30 years only to get 2/3 of the benefits that 71 and Creekster will get.

[Jacob]

Who is "they", Lone Ranger. I think if you look at it, a lot of younger people, especially college folks vote for the libs and their policies.

I have paid into the system for 47 years. I never voted for someone who wanted to raid the system to pay out for welfare, child benefits, et. al. I paid to take care of your grandparents and great grandparents and the thanks I get is your stupid post.

If your going to be mad at someone, be pissed at the folks who got into the system in the 30's and 40's.

Look, I paid in far more than I will ever get back and the extra will probably go to your whiny little ass or some of your relatives.

The "they" I was referring to is your generation and the one after you, and then the one after that The system is not broken because it was "raided" by congress, it is broken because it can't pay for itself and it can't pay for itself because the retirees didn't have enough children. Of course the law-makers are also to blame, but somebody kept voting for them.

I'm sorry to have offended you. I'm not mad at anyone, least of all you, so I'll just ignore your last couple of paragraphs.

Let me revisit one minor point again. The fact that the "trust fund" has been spend on other things, is largely irrelevant. It is a debt owed by the nation and is backed by it's full faith and credit just like any T-bill. If anyone is going to argue that the "trust fund" is worthless, he must also argue that the T-bill (held largely by american citizens, though also by China and others) is similarly worthless. But nobody is arguing that. The problem is that there aren't enough productive workers to pay the bills. It was a ponzi scheme, but not really, because everybody knew about it. The law would continue to work just fine if we had enough workers in perpetuity.

So, who should pay the bills? The people who didn't have enough kids to support the laws they they wrote? Or their kids? It's easier to pass it of on the kids. So that's what we'll do. That's what you propose to do. That's somewhat unfair to the retirees who were relying on this income, even though they probably should have known better and voted for different people. There is no "fair" way to resolve this deal. But I think you must admit that the lack of sufficient workers to support the retirees is the main cause of the problem here--the law's main fault. Other than low reproductive rates, the only other major contributing factor that I can think of is the increase in longevity. That's why we see proposals to increase the retirement age, but nobody ever wants to do that to people already at retirement age. Why not? Because they think they already paid their fair share, even though they propose that their kids pay even more in taxes for even less in benefits.

[byu71]

It's fun to watch the geriatrics older more mature people on CUF defend their pocketbooks.

Of course SS should be adjusted NOW. Why should they get 100% payout when I'm staring at possibly 70% when I retire. That makes no sense. The fact that anyone has paid into the system their whole life is not a convincing argument since I'll be paying in for another 30 years only to get 2/3 of the benefits that 71 and Creekster will get.

Are some of you really that stupid. I thought you were an accountant.
Tell me what you base your numbers on. Do you know how much I have put into the system? Do you know what the rules are going to be for what you will have to put into the system.

Quite frankly I am happy to have some type of adjustment now for my kids benefit. However, there is no guarantee my sacrifice won't be squandered.

Also when I see the stupid argument you and Jacob make, I figure I might as well take it all. These guys are to dumb to know how to save it anyway.

[byu71]

The "they" I was referring to is your generation and the one after you, and then the one after that The system is not broken because it was "raided" by congress, it is broken because it can't pay for itself and it can't pay for itself because the retirees didn't have enough children. Of course the law-makers are also to blame, but somebody kept voting for them.

I'm sorry to have offended you. I'm not mad at anyone, least of all you, so I'll just ignore your last couple of paragraphs.

Let me revisit one minor point again. The fact that the "trust fund" has been spend on other things, is largely irrelevant. It is a debt owed by the nation and is backed by it's full faith and credit just like any T-bill. If anyone is going to argue that the "trust fund" is worthless, he must also argue that the T-bill (held largely by american citizens, though also by China and others) is similarly worthless. But nobody is arguing that. The problem is that there aren't enough productive workers to pay the bills. It was a ponzi scheme, but not really, because everybody knew about it. The law would continue to work just fine if we had enough workers in perpetuity.

So, who should pay the bills? The people who didn't have enough kids to support the laws they they wrote? Or their kids? It's easier to pass it of on the kids. So that's what we'll do. That's what you propose to do. That's somewhat unfair to the retirees who were relying on this income, even though they probably should have known better and voted for different people. There is no "fair" way to resolve this deal. But I think you must admit that the lack of sufficient workers to support the retirees is the main cause of the problem here--the law's main fault. Other than low reproductive rates, the only other major contributing factor that I can think of is the increase in longevity. That's why we see proposals to increase the retirement age, but nobody ever wants to do that to people already at retirement age. Why not? Because they think they already paid their fair share, even though they propose that their kids pay even more in taxes for even less in benefits.

Seriously, you are blaming it on people who don't have kids? LOL Maybe I should go off on having to pay property taxes to support this bloated school system because of all the kids people have. Especially in this state where I think the church you support doesn't pay "ANY" taxes.

Show me the stats that the low birth rate is the problem over how poorly it was invested and the many other programs that have leached onto it. What does SS pay out beside SS benefits to those who pay in? I bet there are quite a few. It isn't a retirement program, it is a huge safety net for all sorts of things.

[Moliere]

Are some of you really that stupid. I thought you were an accountant.
Tell me what you base your numbers on. Do you know how much I have put into the system? Do you know what the rules are going to be for what you will have to put into the system.

Quite frankly I am happy to have some type of adjustment now for my kids benefit. However, there is no guarantee my sacrifice won't be squandered.

Also when I see the stupid argument you and Jacob make, I figure I might as well take it all. These guys are to dumb to know how to save it anyway.

Calm down, no one is going to fix SS yet. It's political suicide to do it given that the 55 and over crowd is so large.

But what I don't get is why you think it shouldn't be fixed now. You've paid into the system for over 40 years and when I retire I'll have paid in for over 40 years. You'll get 100% of your promised benefits, but I'll be lucky to get 70%. I pull the 70% figure from my last SS statement that was sent to me, so I'd imagine it was conservative coming from a government publication. The actual amount will likely be between 50-70%.

So if it's not fixed, you'll end up getting more than me because, well you were born earlier. Yeah, that sounds fair. I guess one nice thing is that my generation is not counting on SS to carry us trhough retirement so we are actually trying to save enouhg on our own.

[Jacob]

By bargain I meant a contract with consideration, not a good deal.

Otherwise, your post is silly. Cut benefits because they didnt have enough kids? Not even EUropeans would go for that sort of social engineering. That sounds more like a Chinese idea. And what about someone who agreed with you and had ten kids. Do we except them?

I haven't proposed social engineering. The bargain that you entered into, as drafted by your elected representatives, was that you'd pay for the benefits of retirees while you worked, and that the next generation of workers would pay for your retirement benefits. Your generation failed to produce a sufficient generation of workers to support your retirement. As long as we are sticking with contract law, you are in default. You failed to pay your consideration.

Of course you don't exempt anyone because they had more kids. I just indicted your entire generation. It is no excuse that some of you had more foresight than the large majority. These are laws of general application.

And I'm not making any policy proposal except to say that current retirees should share in the burden, especially the relatively young ones. We shouldn't pass the entire burden of your generation's failure to make sound economic, retirement, and social policy on to the younger generations, just so you can get the benefit of a bad deal. Most in my generation want nothing to so with SS. But it is your generation who still refuses to consider fixing the thing or getting rid of it altogether.