MonsterMarK, please address this.

B

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
I just got this from a Michigan Senator. Yes. she's a Democrat. I'm having trouble refuting what she is saying.

Care to take a factual shot at what she's saying?



KEEP THE SECURITY IN SOCIAL SECURITY

Tell President Bush to Keep the Security in Social Security – Sign the Petition Today!

Now more than ever, we need to fight to keep the security in Social Security.

Social Security is a great American success story. It represents the very best of our American values: after a life of hard work, you earn the right to a secure retirement, living in dignity. Before Social Security, 50% of older Americans were living in poverty. Today, it’s only 10%.

Social Security doesn’t just ensure a secure retirement; it’s also a disability policy and a life insurance policy. Did you know that Social Security protects you whether you’re a 22-year-old just starting your career or you’re a 75-year-old retiree? It covers you if anything goes terribly wrong – a financial crisis, death of

a spouse or parent, or if you become disabled.

Some people are trying to scare Americans by manufacturing a crisis. Let’s look at the facts: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports Social Security can pay 100% of its commitments until the year 2052. Even after that, Social Security will be able to pay nearly 80% of its commitments – hardly a crisis.

President Bush’s privatization plan will actually undermine our economy and make Social Security less secure, with deep cuts in benefits and huge increases in the national debt:

• Benefit cuts of one-third or more, even for those who choose not to risk their money in privatized accounts. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the average retiree can expect to lose more than $152,000 in benefits over the course of a 20-year retirement.

• Substantial increases in the national debt. Privatization adds $2 trillion in debt over 10 years, and much of that would be borrowed from countries like China and Japan. Already our nation has the highest budget deficit in history. Further debt could destabilize financial markets, drive up interest rates, and stifle economic growth – forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for these financial burdens.

We need to strengthen Social Security and make sensible changes for the long term, not dismantle this great program with privatization schemes. We need to exercise fiscal discipline. For example, Social Security would stay secure for the next 75 years if the wealthiest citizens in our country received 80% of the President’s tax cuts instead of the full amount the President is requesting.

We need to build on the success of Social Security by developing bold and innovative ways for Americans to build wealth and save for retirement.

I will continue my work to keep the security in Social Security. And I need your help. You can add your name to this fight by signing up here. I will keep you posted on developments related to Social Security and what you can do to stay involved on this issue.

Thanks for your interest and for joining the fight!
 
For what its worth, I agree with the letter in its entirety. I am sure there is a flip side that I am not considering. I think it is a mistake overall. SSI was suppose to be about funding the future, not the present.

I really dont see how it would benefit anyone. What if, and this is all but guaranteed to happen, a soon to be retiree finds his privatized investments cut by half or worse, because the market took a sudden hit because of something like 9-11? Or he had been invested in the dot.coms and they took a dump? Now the person cant afford to retire? Thats just an 'off the cuff' scenario, but you see what I mean.

IMO, we should find ways strengthen and enhance the current program. For example. One time I was talking to a friend of my father's, he was retiring as group vice president of a fortune 500 company. This guy was worth millions. He was joking that since he was now 72 (I think) he was being sent SS checks automatically as an entitlement, regardless of his income.

Another example is the SSI Cut off. I forget the specific amount, (somewhere around 80k I think) but once you acheive a certain amount in salary you no dont have to contribute anymore. That's BS. Expecially when I see CEO's being paid millions a year and that number rising. Somehow it doesnt make sense to give a multimillion a year CEO a break on his SSI tax, but then take it from someone making $8 an hour and trying to survive.

I can tell you that if we are going to rack up 2 trillion in debt, I would rather see that happen because we find a way to effectuate a national health care plan, something that is greatly needed. That doesnt necessarily mean I favor government provided health care for all, but there has to be a solution.

I love how the dems are call the Tax n Spend party, while the republicans always seem to want to just spend.


just my 5.30am .02


-
 
Joey,

We do disagree. The SS take from my paycheck stops at over $90+ thousand a year yet my benefit is no where near proportional to what I put in. In effect it has become a subsidy for the poor that failed to put anything away for themselves. I have little pity for people that retire with nothing when there have been so many programs available over the years to encourage savings.

I do agree that semi-privatizing SS is a mistake for the reason you stated. We went through a period recently where many 401-Ks and other retirement plans were almost wiped out. This could happen any time to anyone's portfolio.

Why not let the SSI administration invest the same portion in riskier investments to bolster the SSI fund. Wouldn't that be safer that letting a bunch of idiots invest in dot.coms and other faddish investments.

SSI was supposed to be about suplimentary income. It was never meant to retire on.

Let's do a little more math here. My wife informs me that I have contributed $209,000 to SSI. The balance of the $250,000 I quoted elsewhere was for Medicare. I'm 53 years old now and I contribute over $11,000 a year to the fund. If I retire at 70 I'll have contributed another $187,000. That's a total of almost $400,000. The SSI statement I get every year shows that I'll be getting $2,700 a month. I'll have to live until I'm 83 years old before I get anyone else's money unlike many that retire today and start getting my money in as little as three years. What's fair about that system?

So you think they should continue to raise the limit on high earners even though they may never get any kind of return. Smacks of Socialism to me. You think I should be penalized for being sucessful while low income earners get to feed off of the public trough. Something's wrong with your picture.
 
No, I dont think you should be penalized. I think everyone able to do so should contribute. Your looking at it from a purely self serving point of view, and I understand that and dont blame you. I would probably think the same if I was making $200k a year.

Its the same old argument. I have the Robin Hood complex I suppose, take from the rich and give to the poor. Im not talking about subsidizing people to lay around and watch TV, but I am talking about the people who work hard day after day just to make ends meet and retirement isnt a real option.

Something the more wealthy people sometimes dont realize, is that everyone can not be rich. It isnt always an option to be well educated, or well employed. Some people are destined to be poor or "working class" poor, no matter what they do. There are plenty of losers out there who could be better off, but choose to be lazy, but im not talking about them.

There are many many families where Mom n Dad are raising 2 children and both parents work 40+ hour a week each and between them clear $40k. They will probably work until they die. Taking vacation trips are never even contemplated, they drive used cars, and do their best to keep their kids fed, clothed and educated. Savings isnt a realistic goal for them. They tend to spend most of their money just surviving and educating their children. They live in a house some of the richer people wouldnt consider adequate to house their Mercedes.

Im sorry, I think that family should get whatever help we can give them. If that means someone making a few hundred thousand needs to continue to give 4% of his salary to do it, then I dont see the harm. I dont see the harm because the 4% isnt very much to that person, and probably what they'll blow in a slot machine in vegas. That person sure isnt going to go hungry or see a diminishment in his lifestyle. That same 4% can mean the difference between saving and not saving for that family of four.
 
Ahh yes, Debbie "stab-her-now" Stabenow. The ugliest woman on the planet.
 
Yes, Debbie is not all that attractive, but we do have one hot Governor.
 
Joeychgo said:
No, I dont think you should be penalized. I think everyone able to do so should contribute. Your looking at it from a purely self serving point of view, and I understand that and dont blame you. I would probably think the same if I was making $200k a year.
Click to expand...

Joey,

What is it about villifying successful people? I've been in business for 28 years changing light bulbs. I've attained a level of wealth due to the fact that my wife worked full-time for the first 20 years we were married and that allowed me to start my business and take risks in the stock market. We didn't have children, so we have lots of "things". I have one semester of college under my belt so my level of education isn't the cause of my wealth.

I saw a need and I filled it with a company that provides excellent service. I'm probably the most expensive lighting maintenance company in town because my customers are willing to pay for service. What is stopping people from doing the same thing in their own niche? Funny how all the newer additons to our culture (Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic and on and on.........) have managed to build businesses by getting help within their community. That seems to be something that "Americans" have lost.

In fact, I am being penalized. The withholding ceiling has increased every year of my taxpaying life, yet, the benefit has not risen proportionally. In fact, we who pay $12,000 a year for the SSI benefit will most likely not get any.

Your premise that high wage earners should pay more bothers me. Doesn't the drive to succeed diminish if the government takes from the rich and give to the poor?

At the rate that Bush is increasing the National Debt SS is the least of my worries. It's my 14 year old nephew and Bryan's 4 sons that will be paying for this administration's blunders.
 
Nobody is villifying anything barry - Nobody wants to penalize.


But what is your position? The little guy is just SOL? The family I talked about, well, thats their lot in life and if they cant afford to retire too bad?

Let me put this into perspective for you.


GW Bush and his buddies get the best perks - and you get crapped on because of it.

Your perks are better then that family I talked about, so they get crapped on even more.

So you should enjoy YOUR lot in life and quit complaining about GW, because he is doing to you what you are willing to do to those below you.

I believe the theory is called trickle down economics - which loosely translated means their pissing on you.

Some of the things you complain about, are the same things your unwilling to do yourself Barry.



Think about it bud.......... :D
 
I beg to differ with you. It's not me that I'm bitching about. I won't need Social Security. I put away the max I could every year and I won't need it but I won't turn it down, either. It should nicely "supplement" my lifestyle, as it was intended. I funded a lot of people's retirement. Why shouldn't I take it. You were saying that rich people should forego SS. Why?

Your analogy makes it seem like I am somehow damaging people in lower economic conditions. I am an employer. My employees make less than I do. I pay way over what I have to because a well paid work force is a happy workforce. I fund, in total, a 20% contribution to their retirement plan. I pay for 50% of medical, dental and optical premiums. Two to four weeks paid vacation and reasonable sick leave. Their safety is my foremost consideration. How am I pissing on people less fortunate? Are my well paid employees pissing on people of lower earnings?

I am already doing my duty to underprivileged families by bearing a larger share of the taxes necessary to run this country. I am proud to be contributing much more than I'll ever get back.
 
I never said you shouldnt take advantage of SS. I ws simply talking about the cap where after $80k you dont have to pay into SS anymore.
 
Joeychgo said:
One time I was talking to a friend of my father's, he was retiring as group vice president of a fortune 500 company. This guy was worth millions. He was joking that since he was now 72 (I think) he was being sent SS checks automatically as an entitlement, regardless of his income.
Click to expand...

How else was I to interpret this?
 
He was still working at the time. This isnt a savings account or an investment account. It was meant to help people with retirement who otherwise might not be financially be able to retire.
 
barry2952 said:
I beg to differ with you. It's not me that I'm bitching about. I won't need Social Security. I put away the max I could every year and I won't need it but I won't turn it down, either.
Click to expand...

That's great that you were able to do so. It was also good to have your wife work while you did what you had to, to get to where you are now!

I didn't get so lucky - My choice was to spend money in court or not! My former wife kept me in court for over 10 years. Why? her answer was to bankrupt me! I tried to stay out. Now that I am almost 45 I am hoping that I can begin to do my own retirement and not just rely on my work retirement fund (which I got lucky and my ex-wife didn't get any of). But right now I am currently putting my current wife through school. I am hoping that after this year she will begin to earn enough that I may work on a comfortable retirement.

barry2952 said:
It should nicely "supplement" my lifestyle, as it was intended.
Click to expand...

Health Insurance! SS to cover your Health Insurance... Health Insurance it's what scares me when I think about retiring.

barry2952 said:
I funded a lot of people's retirement. Why shouldn't I take it. You were saying that rich people should forego SS. Why?
Click to expand...

You paid you deserve your cut! But I don't think anyone should not have to pay into SS. Everyone needs to do their part to keep SS funded.

barry2952 said:
Your analogy makes it seem like I am somehow damaging people in lower economic conditions. I am an employer. My employees make less than I do. I pay way over what I have to because a well paid work force is a happy workforce. I fund, in total, a 20% contribution to their retirement plan. I pay for 50% of medical, dental and optical premiums. Two to four weeks paid vacation and reasonable sick leave. Their safety is my foremost consideration. How am I pissing on people less fortunate? Are my well paid employees pissing on people of lower earnings?
Click to expand...

Barry if more employers would treat their employees the way you do we would have an even more Prosperous nation

barry2952 said:
I am already doing my duty to underprivileged families by bearing a larger share of the taxes necessary to run this country. I am proud to be contributing much more than I'll ever get back.
Click to expand...

Barry that is true you do do a lot to help out. But there are many who unlike you who don't and worse don't care. Enron, Haliburton, etc..... Places where those in control only care about how much more (more than they could ever need) they can get!

My biggest worry about SS is that my age group will have nothing when we retire. We have also paid into SS and paid a lot of money. But SS is needed by my class as a suppliment to make things go! In my mind a suppliment to cover the high cost of Health Insurance.
 
Joeychgo said:
I never said you shouldnt take advantage of SS. I ws simply talking about the cap where after $80k you dont have to pay into SS anymore.
Click to expand...

This $80K cap........ to remove it would NOT be "villifying the rich", to leave it in place is letting the rich have a FREE RIDE and puts the burden on the poor. That's simply NOT FAIR. That's a good place to start any SS "reform".
 
Wow Barry, for what it's worth you just moved up alot in my book. I'll have to think before I disagree with you from now on.

You're right, your position as an employer means you provide much more of a service to society in that respect than the SS taxes you pay could ever do. Many people feel that they can ride through life without any thought of the future and that it is society's job to take care of them (there was a story about a grasshopper and an ant that I recall). I know alot of people who were born into this world with nothing and fought to get everything they have. Some would say that certain people are predesposed to being poor. I think this is BS...a person is as capable as their belief in their capabilty. If you go through life thinking that you won't suceed then you will not.

There is a harsh reality that needs to be learned here...the world owes each and every one of us exactly two things...JACK and S__T... The sooner that this is realized the better off a person will be.
 
Did you notice that MonsterMark hasn't responded to the original post? Maybe he can't.

Is it possible that Bryan agrees with the Lady Democrat from Michigan?
 
barry2952 said:
Did you notice that MonsterMark hasn't responded to the original post? Maybe he can't.

Is it possible that Bryan agrees with the Lady Democrat from Michigan?
Click to expand...

No. I wanted other people to chime in with their opinions first.

What I will post will explain the SS issue in detail. The opportunity to change the course of one's life is far to great.

I am in absolute favor to change the way we do SS. Especially for the young ones in this country.

I'll be back.
 
When? It's been almost a day since you said you'd be back. What's your plan? GWB said he lacks a plan so he went around the country asking "folks" what they thought. Is that what you've been doing?
 
I've been distracted all day. I'll get to it. Thanks for the patience. A post like the one I'll make takes time and I am darting in and out of here just trying to get a bunch of things done. Sorry.
 
No apology necessary. It just appeared as though you were avoiding the issue.
 
barry2952 said:
GWB said he lacks a plan so he went around the country asking "folks" what they thought. Is that what you've been doing?
Click to expand...
hmm...not too unlike what our last president did for all 8 years? eh?
 
barry2952 said:
No apology necessary. It just appeared as though you were avoiding the issue.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just ADD rearing its ugly head.

But to give you an idea, I can't think of one reason why it is a bad idea. Help me out. It may help me to pull my ideas together.

I am trying to handle a couple complex issues right now and the 'ol mind doesn't want to redirect. Maybe in the morning.
 
MrWilson said:
hmm...not too unlike what our last president did for all 8 years? eh?
Click to expand...

I wasn't criticizing GWB for asking questions. The problem is that it took him 4 years to start asking questions of the people that elected him.

"Worst President Ever"
 
MonsterMark said:
But to give you an idea, I can't think of one reason why it is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Here's a bad idea. After talking to the public, 75% have decided that taking benefits away from the wealthy is the preferred method of saving SS. How stupid is that? Those are the people that contributed the most.

Penalize the wealthy and you'll see more money leaving the country than you can imagine. Are we going to have the Wealth Police? How are you going to determine who has assets and who doesn't? It would be so easy for a wealthy person to hide their assets, thus creating a criminal class where there isn't one today.

Are you going to penalize granny for saving a nestegg to leave their kids or grandkids? It's just a stupid proposal fostered by a bunch of stupid people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 101 (members: 0, guests: 101)
Back
Top