Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
206
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

206 Views
Message 51 of 74

Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!

Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
206
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
199
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

199 Views
Message 52 of 74

@mandm84wrote:

Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???


So you resent someone being rewarded for service to the country?  And COLA's?  You believe a government employee shouldn't enjoy retirement the same as someone from private industry?  You resent a retiree from sustaining a decent level of living? 

 

What else do you resent?  From posts it is everything.

 

 


* * * BLOOMBERG * * *
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
199
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
192
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

192 Views
Message 53 of 74

rk9152 says " Yes, Republicans have opposed and do oppose efforts to make people dependent on the government."

----------------------------------------

Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
192
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
189
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

189 Views
Message 54 of 74

This makes no sense. SS is an organization that manages a lot of "stand-alone" programs each with its own funding.

 

So which program is this talking about?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
189
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
190
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

190 Views
Message 55 of 74

@ManicProgressivewrote:


If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.


With several pensions from the military, civilian employment and social security hardly.  But I'm not against even more income.  But if you want to help the Social Security funds, you can always send your contributions to the government.


* * * BLOOMBERG * * *
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
190
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
193
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

193 Views
Message 56 of 74

@ManicProgressivewrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?


Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?


Then we are in agreement - help for our fellow man is an individual responsibility not to be designed as a government program.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
193
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
207
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

207 Views
Message 57 of 74

@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?


Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
207
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
207
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

207 Views
Message 58 of 74

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?  Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?


If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
207
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
214
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

214 Views
Message 59 of 74

@john258wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.



@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.


Not true, but typical of the far right. They are for anything that would hurt people, and sadly a lot of the far right would be hurt the most but they do not understand that as they are mostly uneducated, easy to lead, etc. per the experts. With Trump and the far right no wounder this country falls in to last place so quickly in everything. The US from the most admired, to the most you do not follow.


Not true but typical of this poster - thinking that Conservatives like to hurt people. And the assumption that anyone not in agreement with him/her/it must be uneducated, easy to lead, etc. And, of course, absolutely nothing about the topic.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
214
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
214
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

214 Views
Message 60 of 74

@umbarch64wrote:

Since Social Security began,  the more extreme sectors of the Republican Party have pushed hard for eliminating the system entirely.  It's welfare....the 'government' shouldn't be doing it.  An absurd view from people employing an absurd ideology.  The People establish government to promote the general welfare.  Says so in an authoratative souce.

 

This same political sector is sometimes truthful, most times not,  The data habitually used  comes from disingenuous sources who disingenuously analyze it, distort its meaning,  and then disingenuously employ it for advocacy.  Propaganda.  

 

Truth is the Social Security system is doable.  The most economical, humane and rational solution possible for dealing with people who can no longer 'work' and do for themselves. It ALL has to be paid for.  How to do that 'fairly' has always been in question.  The 'cap solution' proposed can be 'fair'.  If not yet 'there', it can easily be fixed.  The concept works.  Enough of the 'yeah but' bs.  It is getting old.   

 

Not surprising, this same political sector views all of humanity to be 'selfish', just as they are.  A 'cynic's' viewpoint influencing everything they speak, write and do.  "I'm that way so you must be that way too."  Absurd.  That viewpoint completely ignores the fact that cooperation for mutual benefit is why mankind got to where it is and essential for civilization to exist.  The United States is an experiment to prove that is a Truth and I, for one, intend that this Nation finish what has been started. 

 

 


Yes, Republicans have opposed and do oppose efforts to make people dependent on the government. But beyond that, FDR designed this as a forced saving plan, modern Dems are trying to turn it into a "wealth redistribution" scam.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
214
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors