I will not argue the father of socialism for this country, a gray area, but I will crown fdr the KING.
Printable View
I will not argue the father of socialism for this country, a gray area, but I will crown fdr the KING.
FDR would be the king of socialism in this country. Many people in the southern part of the country from his era thought he was King. I can remember my grandparents had a picture of FDR on the mantel and cheeriest him. His programs brought many of these people electricity through the TVA and work through WPA and associated programs. At least WPA required "work". Many of the WPA projects are still around and in use some here in my area. My point isn't to defend FDR it's only to point out how he built such a following. He followed Pavlov's teaching about giving dogs a treat when they hear a bell. FDR gave the people a treat which they paid for through taxes and they not only fell for it they loved it. They loved it so much the people elected Franklin D. Roosevelt four times, in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. He assumed the Presidency on March 4, 1933 and died in office on April 12, 1945, serving for a term of 12 years and 1 month. This later caused the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution which limits a president to two terms. The bell is still ringing only there is a different hand ringing it. Obama is ringing the bell with illegal aliens, welfare recipients and other seeking government supplied medical benefits all getting lined up for treats. Let me guess how they'll vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
Bill
Timma, I think I explained my views on Social Security once before. It has to be totally abandoned for those under 50 years of age right now. Refund whatever money those under 50 have paid into the system and allow them to invest their money in totally tax-free saving programs of their choice for their own retirement. This would be above and beyond whatever their employers may give them for retirement, and not taxed when they earn it and not taxed when they need it. Continue the program for those over 50, with the proper payouts when they reach 62. This would be sustainable if Congress immediately stopped stealing from the system, repaid what it took and invested the collected money so that it earned interest. Then SS would be a thing of the past in about 30 to 40 years.
As an alternative to taking monthly payments for the rest of their lives, those over 62 could elect to take a lump sum, consisting of their total payments into the system, plus compound interest. They would also be allowed to invest this money tax free. I'm sure that many would choose that option, thus being able to eliminate SS quicker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
This is not exactly your last opinion, that said, if you did what you just said, there would be NO money to pay the folks currently on the system. The people in the system NEED those of us who are not collecting to STEAL our loot just as those currently in the system had their loot STOLEN by those before them and those before them had their loot STOLEN. The original collectors of social security, the most pathetic generation, made a deal with the devil (fdr) to enslave all these future generations so that they might have and never had to pay in. It is one of the single biggest fleecings perpetrated on America's youth in all history.
OK, maybe I didn't explain it this way before. Anyway, those currently on the system are mostly being supported by those still working, except for the newest entries who are get back what they paid in. Once what they have paid is gone, they should not receive any more. That is why I support the lump sum payment. Those who have already collected all of what they contibuted, plus interest that they could have earned by investing the money (which the Government did for them, but then stole that too), should now be cut out of the system. It is not my problem if they did not save any money on their own. They are living off other's people efforts now.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
To simplify this: Pay back whatever workers have paid into the system and let them invest it or throw it away as they see fit. If they can't make it last or don't know how to invest it for the future, then that's just too bad. Those that have gotten all of what they paid in get nothing more. Remember, this was originally set up when people worked longer before retiring and their life span was shorter. The cost of living was much lower and they didn't need as much to survive in retirement. Social Security is another one of those "good ideas" that went bad when the Congress dipped into it. It's a dinosaur, like Medi-Care, that needs to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
KK, gently now, what you're missing here sir is the GIANT sucking sound from the "most stealing generation" as they stole the loot from every generation to come. That generation, brokaw mistakenly calls it the "greatest generation", paid NOTHING into the system. This means that the government used the money of the people in that work force to pay that first group of thieves.
To put this simply, you tell your kids right now that you want them to pay you $2000 a month at this time because you say so. That is $24,000 in a year.
You die after 20 years and you collect $480,000 during that time. In that time, your kid needs to retire at your death. Your kid stops the cycle though and tells his kid he is not going to enslave him as you did to your child. Now, how does your son get his money back? He cannot, you stole it.
Even if your son just asked for the money that his son had been paying for the last 20 years, how does his son get his money? His kid hadn't even started working yet or may not even have been born.
I guess you are talking about the first group of retirees to receive Social Security. OK, they may not have paid into the program, per se, as it not exist while they were working. But I would use your Michigan Tax for Obamacare as an example. Those people did pay taxes of some sort in their lifetimes, so they were getting back money that they earned and paid to the Government. As for your example of my son paying me $2000 a month, I would still be losing money, since over the course of my son's life, I invested much more than that in him. When my kids were all still under 18, it was extimated that it took $1 million to raise just one child in America. I had 3. I'm sure it costs a lot more than that now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
KK, social security has its own fund. NO taxes that were paid by the first social security beneficiaries were paid into that fund. They did not pay ANY social security taxes in general, in specific, in imagination, or per se, they paid NOTHING to social security.
I will pay much more raising my kids then the social security benefits I will receive as well. What does this have to do with anything? I freely made my choice to have two children, I couldn't afford more as I have to pay for everyone else's too, and this does not give me the right to enslave them in adulthood.
Does all this mean FDR is your fave deceased liberal?
You're the one that started the thing about asking my kids for money. I don't know what it had to do with SS either. So if you don't know, then we both don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
OK, let me try this again.
We enact a law where a group of people will receive money from the Federal Budget. We call it Social Security. In order to pay the first group of people eligible for this money, we have to take it from somewhere. So, ok, we start taking money from working people and put it into the fund, then pay other people in the first group with it. However, it's just like your Obamacare example. That first group of people also pay taxes. Those taxes go into pot A. The Social Securtiy payments go into pot B. Now, the payments from pot B pay the first group, but the payments from pot A pay for everything else. So everyone is benefiting from both pots. It doesn't matter if you mix the pots or not, it's still all Federal money. In fact, thise was proven when Congress starting using SS money for "everything else". In reality, no mater how you pay your taxes into the Federal Government, there is only one Treasury and only one pot. It's like the tax money that goes to Planned Parenthood. They say that none of that money, by law, goes to abortions. But how do you prove that? It's all mixed in with the other money. So maybe $100 of tax money pays the light bill and $100 of donations pays for an abortion. You still started with $200 and paid it out from one pot.