Social Security History Lesson

[babe]

Not all of them increase and expand it. Taxing the payments later is effectively reducing them.

I agree. Taxing all federal expenditures will effectively reduce the " deficit spending" by a fraction. Taxing of this sort inflates the size of government budgets and reduces our sensibilities about government spending. It all comes out of our pockets, and costs us to maintain the bureaucracies that handle all the transactions.

 

[babe]

Snopes, whatever that is, is obviously a leftist plot to discredit the right.

well, it is a reasoned response to partisan allegations from the "Republicans", even if it is pretty much going to exhibit some bias from its proprietors, who are responding to the danger that our society will spin right politcally. While I'd like to see someone out there giving a contrary view to the major media socialist propaganda lines, I do prefer to seek out the actual facts as much as possible. . . . And Snopes in this case has some important facts.

 

[Stoked]

The way some of these are written is misleading. Particularly the one about immigrants receiving a check. Yes they can under certain conditions. For example:

For retirement: They had to have paid in 10 good years to receive OR be married to some one that has (called an auxillary). Have to have legal residence.

So if an immigrant is paying into the system and are here legally why shouldnt they get monthly checks?

Also as far as the using it for ID goes. You have the right not to give that number out. But as a result they do not have to provide you service. It comes down to practicality for the businesses. They can either:

A) create a brand new database that assigns and guards numbers for each and every individual.

or

B) Borrow one that already exists.

 

[Stoked]

while I might quibble about the "mostly" in that "mostly untrue" assessment of the email, I found the link to be well worth reading. Obviously the email was partisan, but I well remember many of these changes in Social Security over the years, and can vouch for them being heavily supported by most politicians of both parties in general. "Social Security" has long been the political Holy Cow people have relied on instead of saving on their own account and providing for their own retirement security, all the while the value of people's retirement funds have been decreased by heavy inflation in costs of goods and services essential to life, caused by deficit spending. Putting money in the bank just makes no sense when bank interest is less than the currency devaluation year after year.

I think the Republicans deserve their share of responsibility for going along with this nonsense in the political rhetoric as they do.

Federal "Social Security" is a bad program, a cancer in our society that should be cut out, with a return to limited government power over our lives.

I disagree but it has been, per the norm, horribly mismanaged by the feds.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I think we should just give all our money to Wall Street. I'm sure they won't screw up and lose it all.

 

[babe]

I think we should just give all our money to Wall Street. I'm sure they won't screw up and lose it all.

They're too big to fail, right. . . . for sure, right?

But just like Vegas, all those big bank buildings are paid for by the losers who go there to play, that's for sure, too.

I don't think gambling with crooks running the tables is "investing". I do think owning your house is a good idea, and maybe some rentals.

banks, cartels, even the government all live off the people. The bigger they get, the littler you get.

 

[babe]

I disagree but it has been, per the norm, horribly mismanaged by the feds.

who would manage a program like that any differently?

Even the LDS Church has disregarded Joseph Smith's statement against the Church becoming the title-holder of productive enterprises. The United Order originally was laid out as an organization of proprietors who held title to their land and shops with the idea of passing title to their kids, and everything that was given to the bishops was supposed to be transferred to people who were short on owning their own economic base. Joseph Smith even threatened the first bishop who had a penchant for wanting to hold title for stuff in the name of the Lord. Ultimately, the LDS Church abandoned the precept because in practice people made a socialist program of it, rather than just using it to enable people to get a start somehow in becoming self-sustaining and eventually prosperous as individuals and families. Today, however, the LDS does promote microbusiness enterprise by individuals in many parts of the world as a way of improving their economic capacity. . . . well, besides being a stakeholder in a lot of corfporate cartels. . . clearly a mixed bag, at least not all bad.

 

[franklin]

Babe, those are all examples of democrats increasing and expanding SS. How is that somehow an argument that republicans aren't the ones trying to reduce or eliminate SS?

The Ryan Plan clearly was a shot at protecting those who need it at the expense of the rich who don't. This is the same m.o. Going back to McCains campaign.

This is the reason I can't align with the DP. They say they want to protect the poor, but when it came down to it their true colors showed .. protect theirs while complaining about inequality while refusing to fix what is causing the inequality.

For all his faults, Paul Ryan is right on this one.

 

[babe]

The Ryan Plan clearly was a shot at protecting those who need it at the expense of the rich who don't. This is the same m.o. Going back to McCains campaign.

This is the reason I can't align with the DP. They say they want to protect the poor, but when it came down to it their true colors showed .. protect theirs while complaining about inequality while refusing to fix what is causing the inequality.

For all his faults, Paul Ryan is right on this one.

I like more specificis on this line of analysis.

My general impression has been that Paul Ryan is a competent accountant who will speak the truth Obama doesn't want to deal with.

I have seen many examples of how the Democratic Party is a sell-out to its support base, but the media won't shine the light on it. Well, look at the Unions for example, and how they all rolled over for exporting jobs and industry and importing substandard menials to do our work. And the Union membership doesn't even see it, somehow. Complete sell-outs.

In the company I worked for across many years, there was a sort of ritual dance between management and the union bosses. The union bosses would go on strike, then settle for less than the company offered at first. . . . and within five years the key union negotiators were overtly given cush management-side salaried jobs. . . .

Funny how the Dems and the media never give us the connections their people have to the real money.

 

[franklin]

I like more specificis on this line of analysis.

My general impression has been that Paul Ryan is a competent accountant who will speak the truth Obama doesn't want to deal with.

The dems always fear monger that the GOP is trying to take away social security, when they've been very clear that they want to make it solvent for those who need it but not a catch all welfare program for everyone who doesn't.

The democratic base believes they deserve theirs no matter what and are willing to bankrupt the country before giving up the cush social security that they don't need. Then they go on these rants over taxing the rich right after they just gave the rich a check. Makes no sense outside the clear fact that democrats want nothing more than to pick winners and losers. Me, me, me, me.