60 Minutes tonight

[trainsktg]

So, if we discuss hyperinflation we're potential criminals and anarchists? I thought that made us students of history.

Keith

 

[trainsktg]

On a side note, given the discrepancy of population between baby boomers and gen X and beyond, how do you conservatives view the funneling of SS money from my generation to the old-timers as anything but "wealth redistribution" and "socialism'? Don't you guys hate that stuff?

Personally I wish Social Security had never been invented, because this is exactly the end result of such a program (especially when its so easy for politicians to raid it for their own pet projects). Prior to its invention, for those not well off (i.e. most of us), multiple generations lived under the same roof; grandparents cared for the young ones while the parents worked, the family pitched together to care for the sick and the dying.

Is it much nicer to be on our own and not deal with the sick and aged? Sure, but what right do we as Americans think we are entitled to to have others care for our parents in their time of decline or our babies because both parents need to work? And before someone brings it up, we're not talking the Waltons or Little House here either...my wife and I personally did this ourselves. It would have been much easier for my us to leave our niece in government-paid foster care when she was a baby instead of taking her into our home as our own, but we felt it was our responsibility as her family to do so when her parents weren't in a position to properly care for her. We also had my wife's mother move in for several years rent free to care for her while we both worked. 18 years later that young neice is still with us and she's beginning her first day of college tomorrow. We have no regrets.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to add that one of my grandmothers lived the last 25 years of her life with my mom and dad (and me until I left home) under the same roof. My other two grandparents were brought into the home as well when their health declined rapidly towards the end of their lives. My parents' home is about 900 square feet, with a 400 square foot finished basement and a 200 square foot room that was converted from a one-car garage. A very big house indeed!

Keith

 

[dmancornell]

Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, correctly described social security as a "cruel hoax":

...Let me explain it in another way—in the simple terms of the family budget. The father of the family is a kindly man, so kindly that he borrows all he can to add to the family's pleasure. At the same time he impresses upon his sons and daughters the necessity of saving for their old age.

Every month they bring 6 per cent of their wages to him so that he may act as trustee and invest their savings for their old age. The father decides that the best investment is his own I O U. So every month he puts aside in a box his I O U carefully executed, and, moreover, bearing interest at 3 per cent.

And every month he spends the money that his children bring him, partly in meeting his regular expenses, and the rest in various experiments that fascinate him.

Years pass, the children grow old, the day comes when they have to open their father's box. What do they find? Roll after roll of neatly executed I O U's.

I am not exaggerating the folly of this legislation. The saving it forces on our workers is a cruel hoax.

Of course, he lost to FDR in a landslide because voters are idiots who vote for the thief who gives them more money, as opposed to honesty and respect for the Constitution.

 

[Angie]

I am not counting or even expecting the social security that I've paid into for 25 years to be there in 25 more. It's just a double tax to me, and a triple tax to my husband who is self-employed and therefore gets to pay income tax, plus 15% more to social security. Again, we're not counting on it. We have other investments.

As for only wanting what you put into it, the average person is getting a lot more than he/she put in, which is part of the problem. My grandfather is 94. He started working for $1.50 an hour in the shipyards right before the war. When wages were $2-$10 up until, say, the early 70s, how much do you think he put in? He retired in the late 70s and has been drawing for over 30 years. Guaranteed he has used up the amount he put in years ago and is now living off of what we are putting in every year. So my money is not going to be there for me, because they are spending it on him.

I totally get Mr. Ruby wanting what he put in (with interest) but for me, I understand it's just a pipe dream. If there IS something there, I will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Angie]

Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, correctly described social security as a "cruel hoax":



Of course, he lost to FDR in a landslide because voters are idiots who vote for the thief who gives them more money, as opposed to honesty and respect for the Constitution.

Alf Landon was my grandmother's uncle

 

[deen_ad]

My SS is $1514/month and will be refigured next year.
My wifes will be something over $1700 and will be refigured the year after mine.

Luckily I have a state retirement (I'm collecting now and have been since 1998) and my wife has a corporate retirement annuity (collecting it also and has been for a couple years) in addition.

 

[Kevatc]

LOL, the only thing you got out of all the other tax money is endless war and entitlements, what makes you think you should get anything out of your SS tax money? Don't rob younger, poorer people for your retirement just because you are delusional/gullible/stupid enough to believe politicians and their lies.

If you actually planned on retiring on your social security handouts, just off yourself because you're going to starve to death.

I for one know I will never see a dime of the money I've "invested" in SS, and none of my similarly aged friends expect to either.

You are cruel and heartless. You are a jerk.

 

[Kevatc]

Just wondering if I am the only one who noticed from the 60 Minutes interviews tonight ....

If a POTUS candidate were to say that future Social Security beneficiaries who were wealthier would get less in SS benefits and poorer folks would get more how would that not be wealth redistribution?

So far nobody has addressed the idea of wealth redistribution as mentioned by one of the interviewees on the program. Is it or isn't it redistribution?

 

[dmancornell]

You are cruel and heartless. You are a jerk.

 

[billstaf]

Social Security would be fine if they raised the cap and limited it to retirees (like it was meant to be in the first place). There are so many hands in the fund now that it is a surprise it hasn't already gone broke. Congress needs to keep Social Security funded and then keep their greedy mitts out of it.

I have a 55 year old son-in-law who is getting SS checks for each of his three adopted kids because his wife is over 65. He makes real good money, so I don't get how SS decided to start sending checks for his adopted kids, but apparently that is how the law works.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I had set out to prove your posts incorrect.
I spent a good two hours REALLY researching all that you have posted. I read up at your links, and at those refuting the Romney/Ryan plan.
And, I stand corrected.
I don't necessarily like ALL of the Romney/Ryan plan as it stands today, but its a great start and can be dialed in by creative minds.
Thanks!

You're welcome Gunfixx. And thank you for posting that.

This is the "information age" people. What Gunfixx (and I, and a few others) has done really isn't all that difficult, and considering that this is an election year, maybe more people need to spend some time doing more of that, and less time arguing over which pizza place/TV show/pickup etc. is better.

Would spending two hours dedicated to helping you become a more well-informed voter be too much to ask?
It used to be we could depend on our press, because they were a little less partial. That is no longer the case.

But all is not lost, you are reading this on an information device. Use it for something else for a while, and better your chances of getting the government you want.

 

[Angie]

So far nobody has addressed the idea of wealth redistribution as mentioned by one of the interviewees on the program. Is it or isn't it redistribution?

I believe it is redistribution of wealth. You put more into it, you should get more out of it.

 

[beavertonbuck]

So far nobody has addressed the idea of wealth redistribution as mentioned by one of the interviewees on the program. Is it or isn't it redistribution?

I have is redistribution plan and simple. I stated earlier in the thread I would not support that action unless it was just a phase in the winding down of Social Security entirely. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that the government forces you to participate under the threat of violence. Right now middle class retirees are starting to receive less in benefits than they paid into the system all those years. There are several factors that have affected Social Security and will continue to make matters worse.

1. You do not own the money that you paid into the system. Your taxes are going to pay for current recipients and your kids are going to pay for your benefits.
2. We are living longer. As a result benefits are being paid at a higher rate than the program can support.
3. As birth rates have dropped we have less employees supporting more people on Social Security.
4. The tax rates have always been too low to support the system. Its hard to sell the people on higher taxes when they are already paying 12.4% towards and they aren't going to recover all their money.
5. As much talk about as there is about a trust fund or a lock box, the truth of the matter is that the Social Security money has been spent. Right now the Social Security fund has a bunch of Federal Reserve Notes that have no monetary value but act as an IOU. So when they need the money they cash in the Federal Notes with the Federal Reserve. The Fed in turn borrows the money that it issued to the fund.

If it is untenable to shut down Social Security (and I believe for the majority of people it is) then I would again advocate that the taxes you pay go into an account that is owned by you and cannot be touched by the government.

 

[Kevatc]

If it is untenable to shut down Social Security (and I believe for the majority of people it is) then I would again advocate that the taxes you pay go into an account that is owned by you and cannot be touched by the government.

I would support this. Soc. Security should be a required deduction but ownership is the person paying in. A new SS program could be started just by grandfathering in everyone from 12 years old an up into the current system and all those 11 y/o and younger to the new system. The details in how the money would be invested need to be worked out. I would've hated to have a bunch of SS money in some type of mutual fund back in 2008 and wanted to retire sometime after that. Another detail would be making sure whoever the money was invested in/with would be able to pay it and not go belly up on a person who had been saving for life.

 

[jrprich]

Interesting points being made.
I hit 62 this year and my first SS check should arrive next month. But I never planned on retiring on SS, I always knew that I would need to save for my retirement years and that I was responsible for my own funds in my "senior" years.
But that said, I agree with Mr. Ruby, I do want to recover at least all that I contributed.
Looks like my SS will be about $1,450. a month........which will just about cover our family health insurance premium.