What happened to the Democrats??
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
Skunk.n'the.Trunk
Well-Known Member
He said over the weekend that there's a "better than 50/50 chance" he will run
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
So you're recommending as a method of helping him save his social security that he votes for someone who if elected will get rid of social security entirely? That makes perfect sense.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history... It needs to be eliminated, it is simply re-distribution of wealth.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Yeah, we should just make seniors live in card board boxes. F-k them. They are all a bunch of socialist/marxist/fascists.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
My 72 year old disabled father is on Social Security and Medicare. Of course we should not cut THEIR social security.
What we need to do is immediately institute means testing. Lets say anyone reporting over 100,000 in income not receive social security checks.
Secondly in the short term we need to extend the enrollment age for people 50 and under.
Third, anyone 40 or under should not receive any social security or limited social security diminishing to 0 for younger people.
We can phase it out over time, it didnt exist when the country was founded.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I agree with this part.
Neither did tanks and stealth bombers. Lets eliminate them. That'll save a lot of money.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Social Security used to be a trust fund where the money got paid into some account.
At some point the government decided to steal that money.
Now the money that gets paid in goes directly to an old persons social security check.
That is a ponzi scheme, it is unconstitutional and it should be eliminated.
We got rid of slavery, maybe we should bring that back, we could compete with China then!! /JK
I am fully for cutting back the military, having all the troops come home, creating a smaller, better trained and better equiped fighting force designed for the new realitys of the world. We could save hundreds of billions. But just like I dont advocate the immediate elimination of social security, I dont advocate the immediate elimination of all of our military hardware in lieu of flower necklaces...
Skunk.n'the.Trunk
Well-Known Member
RP is not for eliminating social security but for instituting an opt out program where younger people who've been told all along they'll never collect SS anyway, can opt out of the system and start an IRA. Anyone under 45 who wouldn't opt out is crazy cause SS is a ponzi scheme.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
And this kills social security entirely and immediately.
RP is for eliminating social security, he's just not for calling it eliminating social security because that would be very unpopular.
And what happens to the seniors who opted out of social security when they get scammed out of their life savings by some greedy wall st banker?
Yeah, we'll have seniors living in card board boxes under freeway overpasses. I'll pass on Ron Paul's fortune cookie wisdom.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
The military industrial complex is just welfare for the rich. They build things we don't need and in some cases things the military doesn't even want and spend hundreds of billions per year doing it. I'll take the flower necklaces.
Imagine if we took all the money we spent invading Iraq and invested it in our tech/com/energy infrastructure. We might actually be able to compete with China if we had done that.
I agree that the money would be better spent at home than abroad killing brown skinned people for no good reason, but in order for us to Compete with China we are all going to have to take deep deep cuts to our daily pay.
You know something? you PAY INTO THE SYSTEM, thats where your retirement money was supposed to come from. Interest earned on funds you had saved for 45 years, it was just a mandatory savings program is ALL IT EVER WAS. Why couldn't people just put some money into a safe investment and plan for their OWN future instead of letting daddy government do it for us? Your idea just enforces my understanding that you do not want to be saddled with any kind of responsibility for yourself, and those kind of people who depend on others for most everything are just not conducive to living the Libertarian way of life. No, they are content being the fatted calf.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
World war I, World War II... All just for oil right? Who really cared if they burned up all the jews... Right?
Imagine if we didnt have Social Security and Medicare and people were responsible for their own retirements... Then maybe the government wouldnt need to confiscate 20-40% of our paychecks and we could use that money to invest and save on our own. What a f'in concept!!!
I was against Iraq but that is water under the bridge just like Obama's failed stimulus package which was essentially WELFARE for the unions and state governments... BTW, he really kills it in spending compared to Bush. Man, Obama is an expert spender... THROW MONEY AT THE PROBLEMS, IT FIXES IT GUUD...
Every part of government is inefficient, bloated, and wasteful. Why? Cause nobody is fucking responsible. They pass these ridiculous pay and benefit packages for the government employees knowing it will be 20 years before the problems start. Then they just push it down the road. Now we have 5 or so states that cannot meet their budgets and will need a federal bailout to bail them out from reckless spending. So now we are up to state government welfare....
It is not going to end until the government stops spending twice what it takes in and/or the government completely collapses due to financial insolvency. And I really fear that is where we are headed.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
No, it was a trust fund where you paid into the system.
Then somewhere along the way the government treated it as a giant cookie jar to grab funds from. Now it is a cookie jar filled with 3 trillion dollars in IOU's the government still has on the ASSET side of the books. That is one of the big reasons the deficit skyrocketed. Instead of stealing from the cookie jar which was now empty the government has to start paying those IOU's.
Once they started doing that it became a ponzi scheme. Supposedly you are sending money to them to hold but instead they are spending it on someone else to pay for their benefits that were already stolen.
And because people are living longer the average payout of SS is something like 5-10 times what is paid in. Now, if the government was actually doing what they promised and using that money as an investment they might be getting 2-3 times the return back to offset that huge difference. But hey, they are the government and due to that deficit spending are just making the problem that much worse.
In addition the government is fostering the mentality that at 65 you are home free. No need to save for retirement, the government is gonna take care of it all from then on. Combine that with all the baby boomers just entering retirement and the burden shifting from like 10 people paying for 1 persons retirement to 2 people paying for 1 persons retirement and it becomes completely impractical.
But all of our politicians are cowards and they are going to hand out cake until there is nothing left but debt and then they will throw up their hands and blame the other side while our economy is finally destroyed by those lazy greedy corrupt bastards that neither create anything nor improve anything...
Well a Trust fund is basically just a interest bearing savings account with a few special rules and a trustee or trustees. Its purpose is the exact same, to leave something for a rainy day or provide some financial security.
I pretty much agree with everything you said 100%, we should have been brothers or something me thinks. +rep
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Agreed.......
Skunk.n'the.Trunk
Well-Known Member
Well yes social security would be fazed out eventually, and yes it would be unpopular. But its a failing system and so is medicare/medicaid. They need to be addressed. And there are ways that MedicineMan wouldn't have to go postal. People already on and within 5 years or so(up for debate) still get full benefits. People 45 to 60 get half benefits and have their contributions cut in half. People 45 and below opt out. And the seniors that can't be taken care of by their families(who are better off now) & pensions seek aid from churches who handle charity much better than government.
Therefor the main problem now is not money being cut from SS, but cost of living like medman said. Have you seen prices lately? If I had all the money I've put into SS, I'd put it on top of the rare metals I own and know that someday it will still be worth something.
And a little joke... Obamacare would ensure seniors don't live as long.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Yet you're the one who'd be perfectly happy throwing seniors out on the street and taking away their medicare.
Similar threads
