THE Social Security Thread (merged)

Kingcoal · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject:

First off Silverhair, it's Mr. Fark to you.
To sum up simply, you OWE social security taxes and that's the end of it. Whether or not you get any of "your" money back out of it is up to the government. The government has no liability to give it's citizens money. If you don't believe me, just look at the constitution. On the flip side of the issue, according to the constitution, the federal government has no right to force it's citizens to pay into social security in the first place and that is a good example of how the federal government uses the constitution for it's own purposes and ignores it otherwise. Who the hell did those founding fathers think they were, trying to limit the power and growth of the federal government?

0mar · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:21 pm Post subject:

Don't see how this is a peak oil redflag.
A peak oil redflag is something like:
"Russia lowers output"
"Ghawar collapsed"
"Oil has hit $80/bbl"
Those are redflags. A broken government program from the 30s isn't, IMO at least.
_________________
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "

Dreamcatcher · Guest

I just recently began to read this forum and would like to comment as follows: I recommend going to www.ilcaonline.org and read "Hands off Social Security" by Bruce Bostic, People's Weekly World, ILCA Associate Member.

Personally, I agree with much of what he has to say in this article. In addition I think we only need to look at Bush's record of the last 4 years.
Have the common people benefited from his leadership? Not in my opinion. Yes, he has done some good things. But unemployment is NOT down as much as claimed, more businesses have closed, leaving many jobless as well as without means to obtain gainful employment in the home towns in which they live. He touted how under his leadership ALL would benefit. WHO benefited? CORPORATIONS AND THE ALREADY RICH. Thats who! Social Security will be the same if his reform is allowed.

BabyPeanut · Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject:

Trouncing Social Security is proof that Bush thinks Peak Oil is survivable.

If there was no future according to Bush he could lie about the benefits that would not happen anyway.

khebab · Moderator Joined: Sep 27, 2004 Posts: 935 Location: Canada

gary_malcolm · Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject:

gg3 · Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:

Silverhair, stop cussing and start using your spell checker.
It's really annoying to read all the gratuitous swearwords.
Occasionally there's a good reason to swear, but not in every paragraph.
Thank you very much.

gg3 · Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject:

It walks like a duck, and it flies and it quacks.
Therefore it's a duck, or in this case, a tax.
You haven't a choice as to whether to pay it
Don't call it a "trust fund," I'll laugh if you say it.

But now when the Boomers get too old for booming,
and too deep in debt from their over-consuming,
they rise up again and they beat on their breasts
as they did in their youth in the 60s protests:

Their chants are the same as when they quoted Mao,
"We want what *we want*, and we want it NOW!"
And just like the days when they fought the polices,
"Tear down the government! Smash it to pieces!"

But since Marx and Lenin have long since expired,
the new proletariat is: the retired!
The new slogan doesn't say "Smash it to pieces!,"
but, "We are entitled!" and "No tax increases!"

With social security private investment
it won't take a genius to make this assessment:
The moment the stock market falters or stumbles,
the whole of the Federal government crumbles!

The boomers will get what they wanted and dreamed,
while their kids get the bill, or more aptly, get reamed
They'll die with a smile of smug subterfuge,
and their last words will be, "Apres' moi, le deluge!"

(George Gleason, 2005, all rights reserved. Premission to reprint in whole only, with attribution.)

(And I didn't even have to use a single cussword!)

Pops · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: Social Security vs PO

Someone has decided Bush has enough political capital to save Soc Sec, which by his estimate will be broke before 2050.
Now encouraging more regular folks to place a bet on wall street will certainly be smiled upon by his true constituents, and getting those underachieving old blue-hairs off the government dole will be preached from every pulpit by the self righteous.
On the other hand perhaps the system is truly broken and in danger of imminent collapse.
But so what?

If even the rosiest scenarios on this site are remotely true, none of the Soc Sec Fund estimates are worth spit. By 2050 most estimates of energy supplies remaining even the governments own, indicate that we'll be using the last of our oil, coal, and gas! And if the basic premise of PO is correct and the cost of that energy is virtually unattainable for the majority of the population - well, drawing that Rocking Chair money will be the least of our worries.

So If Bush & Assoc. are willing to grab the 3rd rail of politics, for the stated reason the system will be broke in 40 years, it kind of takes the juice out of the argument that government doesn't want to address PO because its beyond the next election thereby not something our representatives care to bring up.
So either:
- PO is essentially correct and the powers are getting while its good
- Bush, Cheney, et al know nothing about energy, the oil business or PO
- The Energy Fairy is alive and well and simply hiding behind the bushes.
What do you think?

Edited for clarity
_________________
Make a plan and work it:

khebab · Moderator Joined: Sep 27, 2004 Posts: 935 Location: Canada

nero · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:17 am Post subject:

Being not from the US I haven't followed the details of the social security debate. But if I understand correctly, this new scheme the pres is proposing will be volontary, so what's the difference between it and the 401k? It sounds to me like it might do absolutely nothing for those who are too poor to save money. A tax break for the rich in other words.

Pops · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:15 am Post subject:

I apologize! As I understand it:
For most in the US Soc Sec is a mandatory withholding and the idea is that part of the mandatory savings could be elected into the stock markets instead of loaning that money to the general fund, which is what happens now.
Money would be borrowed to make up the shortfall in payments to older folks and eventually the main benefit would be lowered as the stock investments pay off. Presumably the money borrowed would be paid back someday by someone, I'm not sure. Perhaps the loans would be paid in savings from the other program cuts to be proposed.
_________________
Make a plan and work it:

RealityCheckBounced · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 27, 2005 Posts: 106

Anyone who thinks social security dollars dont matter think again! What else will we use when we run out of toliet paper?
I just hope money still exists in 50 years.

Leanan · News Editor Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 4489

Ironically, the "Thatcher Revolution" in the UK led to a system pretty much like Bush says he wants. It's been an abysmal failure. So much so that even conservatives are praising the virtues of the American social security system, and suggesting that they adopt it.

I think Cheney and oily pals are well aware of the depletion problem. They are looting the country for as much as they can, while they can. And they are trying to roll back as much of the New Deal as they can, because when the new Great Depression starts, they know the pendulum will swing toward socialism again.