John Boehner R-Ohio, says use Social Security funds to pay for war

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

But Social Security isn't in private hands (a good thing, most of the funds would have gone the way of the private funds over the past two years). It was designed to work as it does.

unfortunately it in the hands of people who have been proven incapable time after time (not just you dumbo's.. the "conservatives" also).

Our politicians are on the same level as Bernie Madoff.. though they deal in trillions, not billions.

[Antitrust32]

any many many many many many Americans do plan Riot. Including people my age and younger. We arent as dumb as you think we are.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts. Do you have a retirement plan you've been funding since you were about 16 years old? You should have.

Americans would opt out, and the die off in later years will be huge, expensive, and horrifying.

That's the price of real freedom, the kind guaranteed by the proper and strict constructionalist view of the Constitution: some people may make the wrong choices, and they alone should pay the price for that.

I don't care if it's not planning for retirement, having too many cheeseburgers, or having unprotected relations with the wrong people -- if you did it, you own it. I have the freedom and the right not to be burdened for someone else's bad judgement. That's what freedom is.

The nanny state and all its ilk should never have gotten as far as it has, and it should be dismantled piece-by-piece and immediately.

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." -Andrew Wilkow.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Uh, no, that's exactly what I'm talking about. All the parts you quoted. Duh.

You said "take money from your elderly, non working citizens".

How many people 50 year olds and under (20 or more years from SS at the proposed age) are considered elderly, non-working citizens?

Is 50 the new 70?

[Riot]

I do have a 401k that I pay into and my company matches, so I have NO clue where you pulled that last sentence out of.. (well I do have a clue)

Did you miss the part where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)"

I know you have a retirement account, you've mentioned it here before.

Other people not planning for their own retirement is NOT my problem, nor do I care. Let them work til the die then.

Ah. Many disagree. But you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

But seriously, where do you feel you have the right to assume things about my life like "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me"

I didn't. See above.

if you wonder why people get pissed at you.. just look at your unreasonable assumptions that are not based on anything.

I don't really care why some people get pissed at me. From my point of view it seems to be because they can't read, and they make false assumptions

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

any many many many many many Americans do plan Riot. Including people my age and younger. We arent as dumb as you think we are.

I'm going by the percentage of people with savings, what percentages of income they save, the number of bankruptcies, etc. There are plenty of surveys and studies on this. Yes, some do plan, but a whole lot do not.

You brought up dumb. Not me.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you miss the part where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)"

I know you have a retirement account, you've mentioned it here before.



Ah. Many disagree. But you certainly are entitled to your opinion.



I didn't. See above.



I don't really care why some people get pissed at me. From my point of view it seems to be because they can't read, and they make false assumptions

you are the queen of the backtrack, but there is no way your last statement wasnt directed towards me.

but I'll let it go.

Who are the "many people" that feel like everyone else's retirement should be paid from the hard workers' paycheck?

I guess that is why I'll never be able to be a liberal, I cannot for the life of me grasp that understanding.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You said "take money from your elderly, non working citizens".

How many people 50 year olds and under (20 or more years from SS at the proposed age) are considered elderly, non-working citizens?

Is 50 the new 70?

Psst ... the money is taken from them, and as a result they do not have it when they are elderly, non-working citizens. Follow?

[Riot]

you are the queen of the backtrack, but there is no way your last statement wasnt directed towards me.

My last statement was directed to the "opinion", not to you personally.

but I'll let it go.

My, thank goodness!

ROFLMAO.

Okay, continue:

Who are the "many people" that feel like everyone else's retirement should be paid from the hard workers' paycheck?

Social Security isn't supposed to "pay for retirement", it's a social program. A fallback. Because some Americans care about their fellow citizens.

The "many people"? Pretty much every President since Roosevelt in the mid-1930's, the majority of our elected Congress and Senate since. The citizens of the US. All have rejected eliminating social security.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security isn't supposed to "pay for retirement", it's a social program. A fallback. Because some Americans care about their fellow citizens.

Nope. That might have been the original motivations of some legitimately kind, but misguided, people.

It persists not because "some Americans care about their fellow citizens", but because all Americans are coerced into surrendering about 16% of their income to the program. I deliberately say 16% because the "you pay 8% and your employer pays 8%" is utter nonsense. The employee pays it all, just like every other tax. You can bin it up any way you like, but the fact is your employer, should you be enough of a sucker to work, views it as "the cost to employ John Q. Public"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Nope. That might have been the original motivations of some legitimately kind, but misguided, people.

It persists not because "some Americans care about their fellow citizens", but because all Americans are coerced into surrendering about 16% of their income to the program. I deliberately say 16% because the "you pay 8% and your employer pays 8%" is utter nonsense. The employee pays it all, just like every other tax. You can bin it up any way you like, but the fact is your employer, should you be enough of a sucker to work, views it as "the cost to employ John Q. Public"

I would say Social Security persists because the majority of American citizens over the past 70 years have wanted it to persist. If they did not want it, they could easily have elected representatives that would repeal it. They haven't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Psst ... the money is taken from them, and as a result they do not have it when they are elderly, non-working citizens. Follow?

I think that it is a real stretch to determine that from what he said. The truth is the jist of what he said is that SS should be reformed and it is hard to argue that isnt true. While it may not be from the conservative playbook that I supposedly read from, I think that he has made two good points about raising the age and not paying out to people who dont really need the SS (ie, wealthy people). I'm surprised that you wouldnt praise him for talking of taking money from rich people?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I would say Social Security persists because the majority of American citizens over the past 70 years have wanted it to persist. If they did not want it, they could easily have elected representatives that would repeal it. They haven't.

It persists because the govt lacks the funds to pay everyone that has paid into it back. The idea that compassion determines anything that is done in Washington outside of Barney Franks townhouse is laughable.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It persists because the govt lacks the funds to pay everyone that has paid into it back. The idea that compassion determines anything that is done in Washington outside of Barney Franks townhouse is laughable.

Never let the truth get in the way of a Riot post!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that it is a real stretch to determine that from what he said.

I think it's self-evident. From the words and stuff

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It persists because the govt lacks the funds to pay everyone that has paid into it back.

Nonsense. Just vote in people to repeal it. Gather your fellow citizens. Stop further collections immediately. Let the payout be pro-rated among those that have contributed until it's all gone. Easy.

Amazing that you think "payback" is the only thing standing in the way of eliminating social security.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Never let the truth get in the way of a Riot post!

Amazing that you, too, think "payback" is the only thing standing in the way of eliminating social security.

Right

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not broke??

Do we define being broke as not having enough money to pay our current debts, or as having reached our borrowing limit ("day of reckoning")? I would suggest it is the former, not the latter, but I am a fiscal conservative.

lol
my 'we're not broke' was really tongue in cheek...but after all, if the president wants to keep spending, then we must not be broke...right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nonsense. Just vote in people to repeal it. Gather your fellow citizens. Stop further collections immediately. Let the payout be pro-rated among those that have contributed until it's all gone. Easy.

Amazing that you think "payback" is the only thing standing in the way of eliminating social security.

Amazing that you think that it is possible.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think it's self-evident. From the words and stuff

You pluck one sentence and twist it. Typically I might add. Interestingly enough you felt the need to add that he is a GOP Senator in your title. Now if Obama had said the same thing you'd be right on board. I'm still waiting to hear your opinion of the important things that he said about reforming SS. I guess it would pain you too much to agree with him about that. Or it just wouldnt fit into the agenda...