Rant "Social Security"?

Discussion in 'Political Outhouse' started by SparkyAZ, Nov 18, 2018.

  1. SparkyAZ

    SparkyAZ It is a dry heat, right... Supporting Addict

    Sep 11, 2012
    Came across this rant from a few years ago. I enjoyed it, thought I would pass it along...

    If you are over 50, you need to read this. If not, don't bother, you are already screwed.

    Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

    "Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!
    1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.

    2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

    3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

    4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

    5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

    6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetent bastards" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
    To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence.

    Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:

    1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

    2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

    3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

    4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

    It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

    And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.

    P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

    I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years “It's my money”-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks .
     
    xerts1191, rmac, simonp and 3 others like this.
  2. GeorgeandSugar

    GeorgeandSugar Well-Known Member

    127
    Nov 25, 2017
    Precisely why SS ought to be privatized. At least, it’s your money, in an account with your name on it and you can do with it as you please when you pass on. Wholly crap, a simple balance fund (60% stocks and 40% bonds) invested over a 40 year period would be a far better investment and generated better returns then what Congress could every promise and deliver.

    I know some people are scared at the prospect of managing your “own” money, but to hand over your money to an entity that in no way has your “best interest” at heart is far more troubling than volatility in the stock market. I can live with that, but can’t live with a politician deciding I have to be “means tested” (not all necessary, but not something that was ever mention until recent history) to get funds confiscated from a pay check at a time when you are depending on that as a way to fund your retirement.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

  3. Oldgunner

    Oldgunner Well-Known Member

    735
    Mar 30, 2018
    It's actually much worse than most folks think. You have 6.2 % of your pay withheld for "FICA taxes" which cover Social Security and Medicare. However, your employer is also required to match that with another 6.2% contribution to FICA. When you look at your Social Security account summary, you only see the amount that you contributed. You don't see the amount that your employer contributed.

    As many other financial advisors have said, you would have a lot more money in your monthly "social security payment" if you had simply invested all your payments in a very conservative balanced index fund. That's not even debatable. The calculation is very simple based on historical data available for the past 50 years. The excuse that politicians give for not privatizing is that most people wouldn't know what to invest in and the investment firms would make billions in profits. I wouldn't care if the investment firms made money as long as I ended up with a lot more money in retirement - I don't think you would either.
     
  4. july19

    july19 Womb? Weary? He rests. He has travelled. Supporting Addict

    Sep 16, 2013
    As much as I agree with the “author” I have one point of disagreement, SS is an entitlement. Most, if not all, of us have had a portion of our income withheld for: food stamps, WIC, cell phones, Medicaid, Wellfare, Temporary assistance, Federal Unemployment, etc...
    Many or most of us have never received benefits from those entitlements and never will because we don’t qualify for for the benefit - we aren’t entitled to the benefits of the program. While most of us qualify for the benefits of SS because we are entitled to them, there are retired Americans who will not qualify for the benefits because of the failure to meet qualifying criteria, e.g. disabilty claims often fail, SS applicants don’t have enough points and so on.
    I’m drawing SS because I’m entitled to draw the benefits because I meet certain criteria. “Entitlement,” in this context, does not carry a negative connotation in my opinion.
     
  5. Dallas Knight

    Dallas Knight Max Otto von Stierlitz

    Jun 22, 2015
    I think the whole issue of “privatization” of Social Security is a very difficult issue to address. Fundamentally, is goes against the whole idea of “why” Social Security was established.

    And at the core of the issue, it has mainly to do with one’s point-of-view as to whether ordinary citizens can ultimately take care of themselves financially, throughout their entire lifetime (regardless of how long or short that is).

    I would suggest an inherently optimistic person would see stock/bond market investments as a much better alternative verses the government holding their money. And perhaps a more pessimistic person (myself?) would be focused on the inability of average citizens to make and sustain such wise investments. I have faith in my own abilities but I’m not so sure about other people. Personally, I have worked hard my entire life, been frugal, had some good luck (& some bad), saved money and was able to comfortably retire (even before age 65). But I have serious doubts that most other folks are in such a decent position - some, of their own making and some, just due to unfortunate life’s happenstance.

    How many times have you read stories of someone winning a big lottery and within two or three years, having blown through it all and needing to declare bankruptcy? Idiots you say? Well, be that as it may, how will those idiots take care of themselves in five years? ...in ten years? ...in twenty?

    Most people DON’T hit the lottery but still find themselves facing “old age” financial problems of a similar vein. Without an assurance {guarantee} of Social Security, a significant social safety net is taken from those at a time of greatest need. One way or the other, those folks become a societal problem. “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” (Ebenezer Scrooge, A Christmas Carol). At the heart of it, can you really trust people to manage their own affairs? My concern is, that you can’t.... and then how do you manage that drain on society?

    And in the same breath, I can completely understand the legitimate concern of the government “raiding” Social Security funds to use for purposes other than what they’ve been collected for. And the equal concern of expanding SS coverage to cover folks who haven’t paid into the system (i.e., blurring the line and intentionally confusing it with “welfare”, in the public’s mind). As I said, to me, privatization is a difficult issue to address.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2018