|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 13:40:10 GMT -5
You cannot just say spend less and you'll have more in the end so you won't need Social Security. Things happen that you can't plan for and it could take those savings. A major surgery, identity theft, something, anything can happen that could wipe out the savings and they are ed. But I guess that's how the system works or how the system should work according to you guys. Instead of fixing it so he gets more than those who are better off than he is, you want to just get rid of it. Yeah, that's a great plan. Physically able to work does not mean they are mentally able to work.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Jul 26, 2011 13:43:13 GMT -5
You cannot just say spend less and you'll have more in the end so you won't need Social Security. Things happen that you can't plan for and it could take those savings. A major surgery, identity theft, something, anything can happen that could wipe out the savings and they are ed. But I guess that's how the system works or how the system should work according to you guys. Instead of fixing it so he gets more and those who are better off than he is, you want to just get rid of it. Yeah, that's a great plan. Physically able to work does not mean they are mentally able to work. I find myself agreeing with you more and more.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 13:51:02 GMT -5
You cannot just say spend less and you'll have more in the end so you won't need Social Security. Things happen that you can't plan for and it could take those savings. A major surgery, identity theft, something, anything can happen that could wipe out the savings and they are ed. But I guess that's how the system works or how the system should work according to you guys. Buy health insurance. Buy identity theft protection. I have these things. Tell these people to take some ing responsibility. It's not MY fault that some idiot, meth-smoking redneck from Alabama decides, "I'ma gonna buys me a new boat!" on Craigslist, only to have his identity stolen and what terrible credit he had to begin with gets flushed down the toilet. Why should I have to pay for his mistake? I take care of myself. I was raised on the principle that it is my responsibility to budget for myself and prioritize my money into the things that are most important. Instead of fixing it so he gets more and those who are better off than he is, you want to just get rid of it. Yeah, that's a great plan. "Fixing it so he gets more" is an absurd notion and you know it. Come on now. Can we at least be realistic when we're talking about this? You've seen the Social Security charts and graphs which prove that it's not sustainable. You're not actually under the impression that you or I are ever going to see that money, are you? The only thing that can happen is that we come up with a new type of serious-only "Social Security" that ONLY takes care of the severely handicapped. Physically able to work does not mean they are mentally able to work. Yes, there are physical and mental handicaps which keep people from working... But when I see the mentally intellectually- disabled guy greeting me at Wal-Mart, or the guy with no arms selling me a TV at Best Buy; I know that there are a lot more people who can be working than are. I, for one, know at least a handful of people who are completely healthy that are on social security. They're IDIOTS, but they're not mentally handicapped nor physically handicapped.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 13:57:27 GMT -5
You cannot just say spend less and you'll have more in the end so you won't need Social Security. Things happen that you can't plan for and it could take those savings. A major surgery, identity theft, something, anything can happen that could wipe out the savings and they are ed. But I guess that's how the system works or how the system should work according to you guys. Instead of fixing it so he gets more than those who are better off than he is, you want to just get rid of it. Yeah, that's a great plan. Physically able to work does not mean they are mentally able to work. Pouring more money into it is ridiculous. You have a radiator with a hole in the bottom of it. The solution is not to keep pouring water into it.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jul 26, 2011 13:57:52 GMT -5
Social Security as we know it is going to die eventually anyway. Sooner than later. It is not sustainable in our current system, especially as a TON of people are going to be eligible soon. It can't handle the current number of people on it. Let alone, the huge bandwagon coming.
Social Security, like every other program the government has ruined, needs to be completely re-worked. To me, it should be more like a voucher program, similar to W.I.C. I'm no genius, so I don't know if that would work or not. But other options HAVE to be considered, because, we can't just keep pouring money down that drain, and hoping that miraculously the money multiplies, and starts coming back.
I would love to be able to guarantee more social security for EVERYONE. But we can't. It is NOT possible, not the way it is currently run.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:04:25 GMT -5
Not everyone can afford those things to begin with so whatever little they have saved they are screwed out of because of something bad happening.
We can't blame people and tell them they should have managed their money better so they are SOL because they might not have had money to manage in the first place.
I'm talking about getting Social Security when the person hits that age. I'm not talking about giving some meth addict with bad credit money because his identity was stolen.
So you have enough money stored away so if some emergency happens you'll have enough for it and make sure it doesn't hurt you financially? A lot of people don't and it is not always their fault no matter how much you want to blame them.
I know Social Security won't be there for us but that doesn't mean it can't be there for the people now. We'd have a good social security system if it wasn't raided and we did go with Al Gore's lock box.
I'm not talking about mentally handicapped in the way you are talking about it. I'm talking those with debilitating mental illnesses like schizophrenia or depression or even those people who just cannot if their life depended on it get out of the house because they are afraid of what may happen if they go out. They cannot work and I don't see how you could force them to either.
Should we force that 75 year old widow to get a job? How about a guy who is 90?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:06:51 GMT -5
You cannot just say spend less and you'll have more in the end so you won't need Social Security. Things happen that you can't plan for and it could take those savings. A major surgery, identity theft, something, anything can happen that could wipe out the savings and they are ed. But I guess that's how the system works or how the system should work according to you guys. Instead of fixing it so he gets more than those who are better off than he is, you want to just get rid of it. Yeah, that's a great plan. Physically able to work does not mean they are mentally able to work. Pouring more money into it is ridiculous. You have a radiator with a hole in the bottom of it. The solution is not to keep pouring water into it. Pouring money into it isn't going to fix it. I'm not talking about that. We have to fix that hole but people seem to want to outlaw radiators because they get holes in them instead of trying to fix the hole or get another radiator.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 14:12:17 GMT -5
Pouring more money into it is ridiculous. You have a radiator with a hole in the bottom of it. The solution is not to keep pouring water into it. Pouring money into it isn't going to fix it. I'm not talking about that. We have to fix that hole but people seem to want to outlaw radiators because they get holes in them instead of trying to fix the hole or get another radiator. In order to get another radiator, you have to scrap the old radiator that is leaking. No one wants to do that.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:15:20 GMT -5
Pouring money into it isn't going to fix it. I'm not talking about that. We have to fix that hole but people seem to want to outlaw radiators because they get holes in them instead of trying to fix the hole or get another radiator. In order to get another radiator, you have to scrap the old radiator that is leaking. No one wants to do that. You have those that want the leaky radiator, some that want to fix the hole and others that want to see if they could do without the radiator.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 14:17:16 GMT -5
Not everyone can afford those things to begin with so whatever little they have saved they are screwed out of because of something bad happening. Most employers offer some health options at at least a somewhat reasonable rate. Even if your particular employer doesn't, you can still buy it as an individual. When I got out of college and was looking for a full-time job, I had health insurance and I had identity theft protection. I was working part-time at Best Buy for like $9/hr., but I prioritized my money so that I could afford the things that I needed. I determined that I needed health insurance and identity theft protection. It wasn't THAT expensive. Did I have to make some sacrifices to afford health insurance? Sure. Did I end up even using it? No. But it was a wise decision. We can't blame people and tell them they should have managed their money better so they are SOL because they might not have had money to manage in the first place. Yes we can. They're going to be doing it when you and I get to retirement age. We're not getting a dime from social security and you know it. I'm talking about getting Social Security when the person hits that age. I'm not talking about giving some meth addict with bad credit money because his identity was stolen. I guess I don't know who you're talking about then. So you have enough money stored away so if some emergency happens you'll have enough for it and make sure it doesn't hurt you financially? A lot of people don't and it is not always their fault no matter how much you want to blame them. I have insurance on myself and my fiancee so that if we have some sort of health issue, that it will be taken care of. I have identity theft protection for both of us. I have homeowners insurance. I have car insurance and bumper-to-bumper warranties on both of our vehicles (because we both drive fairly nice vehicles). These things are a priority to me. If one of us or both of us loses our jobs, then we will have a dramatic change in lifestyle. Again, this is called personal responsibility. If I go from making "X" amount per month to making half of "X" or less, I need to re-evaluate my spending and, again, look at what is most important to me to keep. I know Social Security won't be there for us but that doesn't mean it can't be there for the people now. We'd have a good social security system if it wasn't raided and we did go with Al Gore's lock box. Why should the people NOW have it if the people in the future won't? What is the REASON that you and I won't get it? Because there won't be enough money for it. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY NOW! It's the exact same situation!! I'm not talking about mentally handicapped in the way you are talking about it. I'm talking those with debilitating mental illnesses like schizophrenia or depression or even those people who just cannot if their life depended on it get out of the house because they are afraid of what may happen if they go out. They cannot work and I don't see how you could force them to either. First of all, that is such a low percentage of people that it's ridiculous. And second, if those people cannot function in society, then they should probably be in a mental institution where they can be properly cared for so that they are not a danger to themselves or others. Should we force that 75 year old widow to get a job? How about a guy who is 90? They're more than welcome to NOT get a job. If they have planned responsibly throughout life, then they should be just fine. A widow would likely have received money from her husband's life insurance policy as well as be receiving his retirement money if he invested it. If the couple didn't do those things, then that sucks, but if they are physically able to work, they should be working. If they are unable to work, then they should be in a nursing home. Why should I have to pay for them to sit around and watch Judge Judy all day at home?
|
|
Gnewt32
Mid-Carder
My display name is my XBL Gamertag
Joined on: Oct 17, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
Posts: 177
|
Post by Gnewt32 on Jul 26, 2011 14:22:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 14:26:55 GMT -5
Not everyone can afford those things to begin with so whatever little they have saved they are screwed out of because of something bad happening. We can't blame people and tell them they should have managed their money better so they are SOL because they might not have had money to manage in the first place. I'm talking about getting Social Security when the person hits that age. I'm not talking about giving some meth addict with bad credit money because his identity was stolen. So you have enough money stored away so if some emergency happens you'll have enough for it and make sure it doesn't hurt you financially? A lot of people don't and it is not always their fault no matter how much you want to blame them. I know Social Security won't be there for us but that doesn't mean it can't be there for the people now. We'd have a good social security system if it wasn't raided and we did go with Al Gore's lock box. I'm not talking about mentally handicapped in the way you are talking about it. I'm talking those with debilitating mental illnesses like schizophrenia or depression or even those people who just cannot if their life depended on it get out of the house because they are afraid of what may happen if they go out. They cannot work and I don't see how you could force them to either. Should we force that 75 year old widow to get a job? How about a guy who is 90? The problem with this post is there is no personal responsibility in it. It's never ever ever ever anyone's fault and because it's no one's fault I get the privilege of paying for it. It's complete BS.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:34:23 GMT -5
Until 'Obamacare' was passed, insurance companies didn't have to cover you if you had a pre-exisitng condition so those people were ed. What other major bills did you have that you could live on $9 an hour? Car payment? Rent/mortgage? Grocery? We can say it, doesn't mean it's right to say it. You and Hulk seem to be under the impression that people don't struggle to make ends meet so they can't always save or that they have a ton of extra money to be doing all these things you want people to do with their money. If you do understand that they struggle then you blame them for struggling because they should be better off some how. I'm happy that you can afford all those things. Not everyone can and for some reason you are blaming those people for not being able to afford those things. So if someone later can't have it then someone now can't have it? What kind of logic is that? Great attitude to have. Let's throw these people away because they can't work. That is just disgusting. I am sick of that argument "Why should I have to pay for them." How much do you actually pay for them to do that? I'm guessing it is a few pennies or even less. Here, I'll mail you two cents to pay for them. You are acting like it's some huge financial burden on you for those people to get social security. I know, you hate government, everything it stands for and how it helps people. That's not going to change, no matter who is in power. Ron Paul could be President tomorrow and it wouldn't happen, no matter how long he was in office. This country will continue to help people much to your chagrin. So instead of just saying no to helping which is not realistic, let's find a way to make the system better.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:34:43 GMT -5
Thanks for that inspiring post.
|
|
Gnewt32
Mid-Carder
My display name is my XBL Gamertag
Joined on: Oct 17, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
Posts: 177
|
Post by Gnewt32 on Jul 26, 2011 14:35:47 GMT -5
Since Obama spends sooo much money, why can't he put money into important things such as this?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:40:23 GMT -5
Not everyone can afford those things to begin with so whatever little they have saved they are screwed out of because of something bad happening. We can't blame people and tell them they should have managed their money better so they are SOL because they might not have had money to manage in the first place. I'm talking about getting Social Security when the person hits that age. I'm not talking about giving some meth addict with bad credit money because his identity was stolen. So you have enough money stored away so if some emergency happens you'll have enough for it and make sure it doesn't hurt you financially? A lot of people don't and it is not always their fault no matter how much you want to blame them. I know Social Security won't be there for us but that doesn't mean it can't be there for the people now. We'd have a good social security system if it wasn't raided and we did go with Al Gore's lock box. I'm not talking about mentally handicapped in the way you are talking about it. I'm talking those with debilitating mental illnesses like schizophrenia or depression or even those people who just cannot if their life depended on it get out of the house because they are afraid of what may happen if they go out. They cannot work and I don't see how you could force them to either. Should we force that 75 year old widow to get a job? How about a guy who is 90? The problem with this post is there is no personal responsibility in it. It's never ever ever ever anyone's fault and because it's no one's fault I get the privilege of paying for it. It's complete BS. What's BS is how you blame everyone. Someone is working minimum wage and can barely get by? That's their fault, they should have a better job. They can't get a better job because they didn't go to college? That's their fault for not having the money to afford college or they should have gotten loans which will cripple them because the economy is bad and they can only get a minimum wage job and they can't afford their rent, groceries and the loan payment plus other essentials to live? Well that's their fault for going to college and getting into that debt. It's a vicious cycle of blame you like to lay out on everyone because they can't afford to save or afford things you think they should. It's so great to sit on your high horse and blame everyone for their problems isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:40:41 GMT -5
Since Obama spends sooo much money, why can't he put money into important things such as this? Great point you made. Elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 14:49:23 GMT -5
Until 'Obamacare' was passed, insurance companies didn't have to cover you if you had a pre-exisitng condition so those people were ed. What other major bills did you have that you could live on $9 an hour? Car payment? Rent/mortgage? Grocery? We can say it, doesn't mean it's right to say it. You and Hulk seem to be under the impression that people don't struggle to make ends meet so they can't always save or that they have a ton of extra money to be doing all these things you want people to do with their money. If you do understand that they struggle then you blame them for struggling because they should be better off some how. I'm happy that you can afford all those things. Not everyone can and for some reason you are blaming those people for not being able to afford those things. So if someone later can't have it then someone now can't have it? What kind of logic is that? Great attitude to have. Let's throw these people away because they can't work. That is just disgusting. I am sick of that argument "Why should I have to pay for them." How much do you actually pay for them to do that? I'm guessing it is a few pennies or even less. Here, I'll mail you two cents to pay for them. You are acting like it's some huge financial burden on you for those people to get social security. I know, you hate government, everything it stands for and how it helps people. That's not going to change, no matter who is in power. Ron Paul could be President tomorrow and it wouldn't happen, no matter how long he was in office. This country will continue to help people much to your chagrin. So instead of just saying no to helping which is not realistic, let's find a way to make the system better. Reality is that there are times in life when you are just ed no matter what you do. You're just ed. You fail. You fall flat on your face. You might as well be a no-name jobber getting in the ring with Triple H. You reek of fail and you have no chance whatsoever. What matters is how you deal with that. Our government has taken away that failure. You can sit there, decide you are a failure in life and spend the rest of your life eating off food stamps and living in government housing and the feds will take care of you. That is a complete sham. It's how you deal with that failure that defines your character. If I had the chance to opt out of Social Security I would and wouldn't think twice. The system is ridiculously flawed.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 14:52:05 GMT -5
Until 'Obamacare' was passed, insurance companies didn't have to cover you if you had a pre-exisitng condition so those people were ed. What other major bills did you have that you could live on $9 an hour? Car payment? Rent/mortgage? Grocery? We can say it, doesn't mean it's right to say it. You and Hulk seem to be under the impression that people don't struggle to make ends meet so they can't always save or that they have a ton of extra money to be doing all these things you want people to do with their money. If you do understand that they struggle then you blame them for struggling because they should be better off some how. I'm happy that you can afford all those things. Not everyone can and for some reason you are blaming those people for not being able to afford those things. So if someone later can't have it then someone now can't have it? What kind of logic is that? Great attitude to have. Let's throw these people away because they can't work. That is just disgusting. I am sick of that argument "Why should I have to pay for them." How much do you actually pay for them to do that? I'm guessing it is a few pennies or even less. Here, I'll mail you two cents to pay for them. You are acting like it's some huge financial burden on you for those people to get social security. I know, you hate government, everything it stands for and how it helps people. That's not going to change, no matter who is in power. Ron Paul could be President tomorrow and it wouldn't happen, no matter how long he was in office. This country will continue to help people much to your chagrin. So instead of just saying no to helping which is not realistic, let's find a way to make the system better. Reality is that there are times in life when you are just ed no matter what you do. You're just ed. You fail. You fall flat on your face. You might as well be a no-name jobber getting in the ring with Triple H. You reek of fail and you have no chance whatsoever. What matters is how you deal with that. Our government has taken away that failure. You can sit there, decide you are a failure in life and spend the rest of your life eating off food stamps and living in government housing and the feds will take care of you. That is a complete sham. It's how you deal with that failure that defines your character. If I had the chance to opt out of Social Security I would and wouldn't think twice. The system is ridiculously flawed. How can other countries do it and we can't and don't give me the 'we have too many people' argument. That's not an excuse.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 14:52:46 GMT -5
Typical. Let's tax the rich even more. Yes, let's do it. They are paying less now than they did in the 90s. Rich people are saying to tax them more. Gates, Buffet, but I'm guessing because they are liberal that it doesn't matter that they say that. We can't go the Orrin Hatch way of the poor and middle class having to pay even more. They are barely making it as it is and we want to add more to their plate because we can't go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich because that's socialism or some bullpoop. would you still think it would be right to tax the rich more if i told you that their contributions to federal taxes ALREADY equaled out to more than half of that pot?
|
|