This group loses big under the GOP Social Security plan

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't have a problem with social security, have no problem collecting it. I am sick of the terror and threats. Stop telling people lies and just do it. Republicans have rule over congress and laws and can't blame democrats for not fulfilling this threat this time.

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh, they could.

See: Obamacare is failing and a failed law because the Republicans wouldn't let the Democrats pass what they really wanted ...

Remember how the Democrats had a full Supermajority when they jammed the sucker through?

So, yeah, it's entirely possible to pass a law with a full majority in both houses and the presidency, make a hash of it, and then blame the other guys. Democrats wrote the book on it this past eight years.

a reply to: CB328
Thank goodness I don't pay into SS. I am one of the lucky few working for a non-profit hospital so we don't have to. We voted to pay into Medicare but not SS. Instead we pay into an extra employee matched 401K.

I think everyone should have this option.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, if you keep fishing for it, I already gave it up. Do it.

I find it ironic that "Social Security" money is used to fight wars and pay the MIC profiteers.

Nothing will change that scam.

isn't that what a program like SS is? Money you are forced to set aside every month no matter how poor you are?

Yes but the employer has to add matching funds too. Without SS most of those people won't save much and without matching fees as well they will have hardly anything and never be able to retire.

That's what the GOP want, lots of dirt-poor laborers with no means to resist their exploitation. Anyone who aids the GOP in this is a traitor.

originally posted by: eXia7
Its pretty much common knowledge these days that social security won't be there for the younger generation anyway. It's bound to be discarded eventually. If more people were able to save that money per month, with the right tax incentives then social security wouldn't even be necessary.


Just think if you had been invested all the money into a good yield mutual fund, or index fund, and in 30 years you'd have way more money available than you receive through SS.

geez...don't you people know why it was enacted into law...it's because poor people that were to old or too low paid were dying out in the street, broke and homeless.....is this what republicans are for? you're damn right they are.....all the while, massive tax cuts for the wealthy AGAIN, AND AGAIN, decade after decade, keep multi-millionaires and billionaires stuffing their pockets...the top 1% now own 50% of this countries assets, and they want to cut SS payments...the poor bastards that keep voting for these A**hole conservatives are the ones that will get screwed, and yet they seem to have blinders on, as to what is being done to them.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: eXia7
Its pretty much common knowledge these days that social security won't be there for the younger generation anyway. It's bound to be discarded eventually. If more people were able to save that money per month, with the right tax incentives then social security wouldn't even be necessary.


Just think if you had been invested all the money into a good yield mutual fund, or index fund, and in 30 years you'd have way more money available than you receive through SS.

geez...don't you people know why it was enacted into law...it's because poor people that were to old or too low paid were dying out in the street, broke and homeless.....is this what republicans are for? you're damn right they are.....all the while, massive tax cuts for the wealthy AGAIN, AND AGAIN, decade after decade, keep multi-millionaires and billionaires stuffing their pockets...the top 1% now own 50% of this countries assets, and they want to cut SS payments...the poor bastards that keep voting for these A**hole conservatives are the ones that will get screwed, and yet they seem to have blinders on, as to what is being done to them.

That's socialist/commie talk. You know that right?

a reply to: jimmyx

Forget trying to reach cold hearts. I am encouraging the democrats to stand back and let them have their way. Yes, the millennials will get screwed big time, but they voted for trump and republicans as too. By the time they figure out that all politics are local, too late.

I was born in 1974. I'll be 43 in a couple weeks. Honestly, I haven't counted on Social Security or Medicare being there since my 20's when they already predicted the baby boomers would break the bank. Well, that and decades of congress using it as a slush fund. And most people my age and younger don't expect it to be there, either. So really, we aren't the ones getting screwed by it. There are many decades still left before any of us can even retire, so there is still time to plan for other contingencies and seek alternatives.

Ironically, the people that are going to get screwed the most are the very people who voted for this. Most of the older voters voted for these same people doing the cuts, so they really shot themselves in the foot. They will be the ones to suffer their own stupidity, so let them choke. In the mean time, letting the Republicans destroy the system might actually be the best thing for the country in the long run, for more reasons than you can imagine.

a reply to: CB328

CB your right but again they won't listen because their stupid, indoctrinated ignorant narrow minded people.

They will cause the destruction of millions of unwary people who while young and healthy don't realize the pit they will be in when they get 40 50 or 60 and have no insurance, health care or retirement pension.


It is a MYTH SS is in financial trouble a dogma by ignorant inhuman conservatives

I could see them privatizing social security, but anything destroying social security would not fly with their own constituency, a large portion of which is elderly.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

What your saying is just not logical or reasonable. the SS FUND is NOT in trouble. that's a lie
econproph.com...

Do some research and stop relying on dogma


What do you mean voted for it. The people alive today weren't even born when SS was put in place. That's indicative of your ignorance.

a reply to: rickymouse


Good points all.

There's no guarantee either way we go, from what I can see.

At least with Trump's, assuming no collapse, we will come out the other end with 'choice'. The other way? Same old, same old.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Exactly.

You're my husband's age and I'm a few years younger.

We haven't counted on SS for a long time now. It's stupid. It won't be there because those above us in age will exhaust it there aren't enough kids young enough to keep the fund going for us when we will be of an age to need it for those reasons you cite. If you aren't making your own plans, then you're likely going to be screwed.

I've been paying real money into SS for some ten years now. This year I've put nearly five grand into it- and another 1100 into medicare.
My employer pays health insurance, but if they didn't that would be more money they would be paying me- The accountant tells me it's about 150 a week for the average single middle aged guy- 600 a month!

All that, and I had to fire my doctor because it cost to much since obamacare took over, and I'll never see a dime from medicare OR social security. Who is this system working for, anyway? Certainly not me, I feel like I'm in some sort of silent majority that's being forced to hold up the ever growing weight of our failing government, and the tens of millions of useless people hanging off its rotting underbelly. It's getting heavy, and I'm getting tired- where's MY retirement?
Oh, right- I got a letter in the mail saying I'll be eligible for payments when I get to be 67 years old. Not a single person in my family history has lived to be that old... not that it matters, since that's nearly fourty years out and the money will be gone in ten.
You'd have to be insane in my shoes to keep paying for these criminal systems- but I guess when the penalty is being locked in a cage for refusing to participate, you'd have to be insane to fight it, too.

Assuming I don't even keep up with inflation and don't get raises, and nothing changes, that's still $130,000 over the next ten years that I could have in my pocket. If I had 130k in my pocket today, I'd have my mortgage paid off- meaning an easy 1100 a month going into my pocket instead of to the banks- which would be going a long way towards retirement, which I could have at the age of 40 when I'd still have enough life left in me to enjoy it.

T

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: rickymouse


Good points all.

There's no guarantee either way we go, from what I can see.

At least with Trump's, assuming no collapse, we will come out the other end with 'choice'. The other way? Same old, same old.

Definitely better with Trump. His attempt to stop the export of jobs and increase the creation of factory jobs in this country itself will stabilize social security because more people will be contributing. The more people paying taxes the better. We still will have deductions, but the change is more people will be working full time hopefully. Governments need income to maintain the infrastructure and in the case of social security, to keep it functional. It is the waste on Technology that seems to be bringing up the cost, they are changing the software, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, to run our government every year it seems. Changing the software all the times makes it hard to see if money is being wasted and hauled off. Mistakes are being made all the time.

What happened to accounting practices that made it so you could check out things three years down the line to see if anyone is hiding things. I know a few people using these programs and they are frustrated because it is impossible to transfer the info correctly, they make paper copies of everything so they have proof they were not the ones ripping off the money.

We got some serious problems in the Bureaucracy part of the government and the businesses that are working for them. There is too much ability to hide things because of all of the changes. Also, the meetings the employees have to attend to learn the new software creates three days of spending with the meals and motels and travel.

Social security is a disaster to begin with. Suppose you paid into SS for 30 years then drop dead. Who gets the money you contributed? Will SS cover your funeral costs, or your family must absorb that cost despite your contribution? What is the likelihood you can ever collect 100% of your contribution? If you retire and collect social srcurity, then pick up a part time job, why should you have to pay into social security from your part time job? SS does not serve the same purpose for which it was originally designed. The fund is heavily abused and it needs to be replaced with a more appropriate solution to fit our current needs.

We boomers have private and soc sec, as planned by the gen before us. Long term jobs were plentiful that offered retirement plans. That is gone, now Republicans want to gamble away more.

originally posted by: angryproctologist
a reply to: eXia7

"If more people were able to save that money per month, with the right tax incentives then social security wouldn't even be necessary."

Expecting people to use any form of common sense or self reliance is racism,bigotry-ask any liberal,lol.

Yeah well, you can't fix stupid.

*shakes head*