HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Social security is design...

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 PM

 

Social security is designed to provide a minimum degree of security upon which a worker builds.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

"It is impossible under any social insurance system to provide ideal security for every individual. The practical objective is to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security—as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide adequately for his individual security." -- From the Report of the Social Security Board recommending the changes which were embodied in the 1939 Amendments.

85 replies, 4407 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Social security is designed to provide a minimum degree of security upon which a worker builds. (Original post)
dkf Dec 2012 OP
Romulox Dec 2012 #1
randome Dec 2012 #2
dkf Dec 2012 #7
CreekDog Dec 2012 #12
dkf Dec 2012 #15
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #27
closeupready Jan 2013 #82
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #84
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #72
Scuba Jan 2013 #75
reteachinwi Jan 2013 #79
L0oniX Dec 2012 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #5
L0oniX Dec 2012 #10
Igel Dec 2012 #49
L0oniX Dec 2012 #60
GObamaGO Dec 2012 #62
L0oniX Dec 2012 #66
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #4
RebelOne Dec 2012 #33
DavidDvorkin Dec 2012 #6
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #76
DavidDvorkin Jan 2013 #80
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #8
Spazito Dec 2012 #9
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #13
leftstreet Dec 2012 #19
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #22
forestpath Dec 2012 #24
dkf Dec 2012 #28
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #30
Spazito Dec 2012 #34
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #36
dkf Dec 2012 #38
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #43
99Forever Dec 2012 #41
Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2012 #64
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #67
Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2012 #70
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #71
Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2012 #73
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #74
closeupready Jan 2013 #83
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #37
CreekDog Dec 2012 #39
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #42
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #54
Igel Dec 2012 #53
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #69
shanine Dec 2012 #57
WillyT Jan 2013 #81
Brickbat Dec 2012 #11
jwirr Dec 2012 #14
dkf Dec 2012 #40
jwirr Dec 2012 #68
firehorse Dec 2012 #16
randome Dec 2012 #21
forestpath Dec 2012 #25
JVS Dec 2012 #17
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #20
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #18
GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #23
Arkana Dec 2012 #46
leftstreet Dec 2012 #26
MrYikes Dec 2012 #29
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #31
99Forever Dec 2012 #32
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #35
stevenleser Dec 2012 #44
ProSense Dec 2012 #55
WCGreen Dec 2012 #45
stevenleser Dec 2012 #47
WCGreen Dec 2012 #50
JVS Dec 2012 #52
Spazito Dec 2012 #58
ms liberty Dec 2012 #48
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #51
Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #56
neverforget Dec 2012 #59
gollygee Dec 2012 #63
GObamaGO Dec 2012 #61
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #78
dionysus Dec 2012 #65
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #77
quaker bill Jan 2013 #85

Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:01 PM

1. I've been reading people lately saying SS is fine--if the US economy grows at 3% a year

ad infinitum...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:06 PM

2. But people come to depend on it for much more. That's the reality of it.

And nothing is impossible. If loopholes were closed and tax rates set appropriately, we would be much closer to an ideal social insurance system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:22 PM

7. You hit it on the head...tax rates are not set to provide more than the minimum.

 

To expand the system to more than a minimal payment we must increase payroll taxes. And it while it is progressive, it is not massively redistributionist so the IRR at all levels is decently close to 100% with the bottom exceeding by 10% at best and the top receiving at worst 95%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:41 PM

12. then stop opposing unions and higher wages for people if you want them to save more

okay?

deal breaker for you, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:44 PM

15. I have no problem with unions.

 

But unions also need to keep their employers competitive domestically and worldwide. If they can't do that their employer will collapse anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:09 PM

27. At some point in the future worldwide wage levels will probably level out for respective

jobs and at that point a lot of this will go away. I'm all in favor of international labor unions if that's what it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:32 PM

82. All governments will strongly oppose real international labor unions.

Governments manage labor markets on behalf of their big money backers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:17 PM

84. Yep, the greatest fear of all governments is people talking and making decisions ... it's a

major threat to them, a potential loss of their grip on power and often the $$$$$ that surrounds them. ... but in the big picture, do any really seriously think the chaos of governments as we have today around the world will last ad infinitum ... they will fade away, as will we all.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:41 PM

72. way off point here

but doesn't management usually have the job of keeping the company competitive? The phrasing you used is usually code for lowering or freezing wages for the workers........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:54 AM

75. "To expand the system to more than a minimal payment we must increase payroll taxes." Bullshit ...

Payroll is already taxed more than capital gains. Just tax capital gains at the same rate as payroll and problem is solved and then some.

Why should money earned from working be taxed at a higher rate than money earned by owning? Let the leeches start paying their fair share; don't forget - the wealthy benefit far more from government than do the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:24 AM

79. FICA taxes

 

should apply to capital gains and "carried interest" (whatever that is) also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:08 PM

3. It's not a retirement fund.

The big lie is that crap about it going under in 30 years. O yea ...the boomers will live that long? Hmmm 65 + 30 = 95 yo. Not many will make it to that age especially if they cut Medicare or make it useless and or unaffordable. Cutting payment rates to doctors will only cause them to refuse patients which will cause more boomers to die sooner. Isn't that nice! Nice trend that more and more children don't give a shit about those that raised them and paid for their asses. Their time will come ...sooner than they think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:18 PM

5. It is for an increasing number the primary source of retirement funds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:32 PM

10. That's not news to me. It was never designed to be a retirement fund.

It's nothing but a forced government savings plan ...with benefits for the military spenders to use for whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:28 PM

49. Lots will be alive in 30 years.

In 30 years I'll be 83. That's pretty much average life expectancy for somebody my age. I'm white, so that would push it a bit higher, but male, so that would pull it back down. The actual number is more like 81, but it's not like we'll all die off when we hit the average. Two years past the average probably 40-45% of us will still be alive--and that's assuming no increase in life expectancy since the numbers I'm using were produced (2008: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_03.pdf , pdf page 53ff).

And there are boomers younger than me. There won't be many of the first few years of the boomers, but from later years there'll be millions. (But wiser actuaries than either of us know this and have nifty equations and formulas for it all. They differ in details, but not in the big picture.)

Lessons:

1. Don't confuse life expectancy at birth (a relatively easy number to find and fling around) with expectation of life at a given age. Life expectancy at birth is currently around 77 years and change for the average American.

But in 2008 the life expectancy for black male then aged 65 was estimated at 15.4 years, so that average BM's life expectancy was 80.4 years, higher than the average life expectancy. Remember that black males are usually at or near the bottom of the life expectancy charts. For white females it was 85 years. (Notice how expectation of life figures narrow with age.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:25 PM

60. You're not a baby boomer ...where the surge in use of funds is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:32 PM

62. Technically Igel is a baby boomer

The baby boom ended in the beginning of 1965.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GObamaGO (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:12 PM

66. Point is that the amount of people on the SS fund will diminsh in 30 years...

so for a more balanced summation of the bull shit insolvency problem we would have to figure in a good estimate of how many will be on the roles over that 30 years. I'd like to see an estimate graph chart. You can also factor in possible changes to Medicare that might affect deaths during that time ...which is kinda hard to do. We don't how much we are going to get screwed yet. Right now the minimum cost of the Medicare premium is $99 (I think) not including part B and there's talk of raising that. What ever that is will have to be paid out of the SS one receives. You can figure that many will not be able to pay that which will increase the amount of deaths over that 30 years. It's all bull shit though because SS is taking in more than it is spending and someone owes for what's been taken out of the fund for non SS use. Oh silly me ...no one is going to pay that back ...because someone thinks war is more important than old people ...including those that fought in wars for this country. This country is all about deceit and lies. It's no wonder they call it ...The Great Satan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:09 PM

4. It's a great addition to workers destroyed & looted pensions. If not for SS poverty would be HUGE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:16 PM

33. Definitely is.

My 401K dwindled to a very low balance. Then I was laid off. Fortunately, I was already collecting Social Security. But I wanted to work a whole longer to get more money back into my 401k. So after I was laid off, I yanked that 401K and put it into my savings account. I am trying to live on Social Security alone without having to break into my savings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:21 PM

6. That assumes pensions

In reality, SS is the main or only retirement income for great numbers of old people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:04 AM

76. True. But that's not what it was designed for. It's an edge against homelessness.

Nothing more.

Pensions were not assumed, since most people in the country have never had pensions.

Case in point: In another post recently, I suggested that young people forego some non-necessities (like smart phones with contracts), and save that money for their old age. Posters were actually hostile toward that idea...they couldn't get much interest so what's the point....smart phones are necessities (wtf?)....you name it.

So you end up with a lot of older people who blew what little extra money they had when they were younger instead of saving it, expecting Social Security to fill that gap. It won't. It wasn't meant to.

There's no shortcut, there's no easy street. You have to save and sacrifice when you're young, so you'll have it when you're older and not in a position to earn extra income. You will need that smart phone money for medical bills or food or house repairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:20 PM

80. Don't assume that old people blew their money when they were young

Most people who are now old didn't have much extra to blow and couldn't save much. They barely scraped by. Now they depend on SS for survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:28 PM

8. And your point would be?


There once was a time when labor was treated like the resource it is.

Employers paid a living wage enabling people to save for retirement.

I would love for you to explain how humans living on sub-par, poverty wages are supposed to eat, let alone fund a retirement account? Anyone who believes this is possible is insane, stupid or just willfully CRUEL.

WE have no health insurance. No pension funds. If we get sick, forget even keeping the house.

Greed is rampant among the brass. Don't tell the starving masses they "didn't do enough to save for retirement" while refusing to see the CEOS Who STEAL THE WAGES OF THE WORKERS by paying themselves bloated, perverse bonuses.

Don't you DARE tell me I don't deserve health care when my taxes pay for the politicians' health plan - and they make sure THEY have great health care.

It is very depressing to live in this nation, and to know that greed is god, and the working person is treated like trash.

Thanks for just piling it on. Fuck......I need to stop getting on this site and reading this snot-nosed, pathetic drivel about how it's the fault of the underpaid worker that he or she is TOO POOR FOR YOUR "CLASSY" TASTE.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:31 PM

9. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:41 PM

13. Thank you Spazito



I am so disgusted with all the talk about how you can get blood from a turnip.

The American worker has not been irresponsible - productivity continues to increase as wages continue to slide into the living-in-squalor zone.

The workers have kept up their part of the bargain. It's the CEOs and politicians who CHEAT the system.

FUCK YOU GREEDY SCUMBAGS! FUCK YOU!

I am just so pissed right now...this talk of taking food from the mouths of the elderly and children is CRIMINAL. Because those meager dollars "saved" are only going into the offshore bank accounts of the rich fuckers who hate us all.

That's America. Greed is goddamned KING, and merely wanting a roof over your head and a few meals a day is considered pathological. WHAT THE FUCK?????

WE can't afford to feed BABIES and OLD PEOPLE but we can afford to pad the asses of the perversely comfortable? SICK!

FUCK THE REPUBLICANS and the GREEDY CORPORATE SCUM!!!!!

America has become a Third World Nation because of GREED.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:54 PM

19. +1





You should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make this an OP


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:00 PM

22. Thanks leftstreet

Maybe tomorrow. I am too upset and sad and angry to do much but use copious amounts of swearese.

And there is work to do so I can't babysit a thread today as much as I want to do so.

But thank you so much for your vote of confidence. Everyone who is struggling needs to raise their voice and scream it out loud:

WE HAVE GIVEN ALL WE CAN and THEN SOME!

It's time for the richie riches to give back what they've stolen from us....

And I'm too frickin' poor for any bootstraps lol






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:05 PM

24. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:12 PM

28. Well maybe you need to address the specific problems instead of expecting social security

 

To do what it is not intended to do.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:13 PM

30. Times change and Social security' function has as well

do you concede that reality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:17 PM

34. How about going back to the federal tax rate from 1939....

it was 79%? Would you be in favor of that given you went back to 1939 for your Social Security OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:22 PM

36. Maybe YOU need to address them

You copy a quotation and give no commentary and then ask ME to parse it all out for you?

You know the reality in this nation for millions of us, yet you post this drivel as if you are making some grand point.

You aren't making any point. In my opinion, the OP is merely supply-side written masturbation.

Hope it feels good.

I feel like my country has BETRAYED me. It is a sick feeling to know you live in the richest nation on the planet yet we HAVEN'T THE HEART OR DECENCY TO FEED OUR ELDERLY because the goddamned rich fucks need to get goddamned more rich.

This economy sucks because of GREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREEDGREED GREED GREED GREED GREED and MORE GREED




Does that address it for you?










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:28 PM

38. It's a quote from the legislation that broadened benefits.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:35 PM

43. And you just plopped it down there with no comment

I would call that intellectually lazy.

Does your brain have no bootstraps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:33 PM

41. Oh Hell yes!

I can't figure out WHY a supposedly DEMOCRATIC site such as this, allows the kind of rightwing horseshit like this OP posts. This one should have be BANNED a very long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:36 PM

64. It's called trolling. Some trolls manage to walk between the rain drops on this website. For years

some cases. That's why it won't address it when asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:16 PM

67. Oh, I know but thanks



For all "its" talk of responsibility and accountability, it sure does fail to be responsible or accountable for what it pecks out and cuts and pastes and offers to us as some sort of message.

"It" has the flat affect; the cold calculated stance of the inhumane, the sociopath.

There has never been a shred of truth or concern for community in its incarnation here, but it never fails to be predictable.


Usually I let it slide, but today I am ashamed of and disgusted by "don't know fuckall."





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:25 PM

70. I figured you're hip to what's going on. I just feel the urge to say it out

loud sometimes. It's a real shame though how it constantly gets away with this shit. I figured the Benghazi RW horseshit spewed by it would've been enough. But oh well, wrong again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:32 PM

71. I understood you completely mon ami



Just adding to the discourse

We do need validation as to the vapidness of some long term squatters and I enjoyed your post. Grounded me, lol.


They are in lockstep, those Special Snowflake Rugged Individualists. If one of them ever has an original thought in its' one track mind it may totally screw up the space/time continuum....

you can trade them out like PEZ dispensers. No matter if it's Chewbacca or Popeye, that plastic jaw is only spewing PEZ pellets...





The Goood News: Only a few more hours to deal with them THIS year







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:55 PM

73. Hells yeah! I'll

drink to that my friend. A toast for those of us who don't cry crocodile tears for the banksters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:13 PM

74. TO those of us who have maintained our humanity



in these most inhumane times


Happy New Year, Guy Whitey Cornbread!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:35 PM

83. Shit happens. Things change. SS can be whatever we want it to be.

Regardless of what you claim it was intended to be. Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:25 PM

37. . . .



Between retirement accounts and savings accounts I had a comfortable six figures. Three years before the economy crashed for everyone else my husband's business took a dive. That was in 2005. We've been living off the retirement and savings ever since and guess what? It's all gone now. So these assbites lecturing me about how I didn't plan for retirement can kiss my ass. I planned just fine. This was a planned robbery just as the Boomers were starting to retire. The timing was NOT an accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:31 PM

39. The OP thinks it's all your fault

and to the extent that she doesn't think it's your fault --she blames people like you.

it's maddening.

most people, if provided a decent income will save. most people I know with decent incomes have savings (there are some that aren't responsible, but most are).

the people i know without savings are either unemployed, make terrible pay, have kids and too many health or other critical bills...

we have to improve people's standards of living --then they'll save more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:33 PM

42. It's been wholesale robbery for a long time

Robbing wages from the worker, robbing pension funds, destroying businesses and paying huge bonuses to already rich fuckers.

Our politicians have padded their own comfy asses by betraying ALL OF US working people. They let our jobs go overseas; they let our pensions be robbed and then paid the robbers! They vote themselves pay and benefits they tell us we don't "deserve." WHAT THE FUCK?

May they all be damned to whatever hell awaits them. I am sick of being told it's MY fault that this nation worships the Kings and Queens of Avarice.

SICK of it. I have worked hard all my life and yet the last ten years I have been treated like dirt by those for whom I worked. It's no different any where you go.

No longer is this a nation with a community spirit. No longer is this a nation where we wanted all to be okay.

Now, employers expect us to be happy with peanuts and then posters like the OP want to blame us because we can't afford even the day-to-day expense of living in this "great" fucking country?




@$%*$&@^%*(!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:38 PM

54. Well there is always the dumpster, right?

Our local marie antoinette proclaims "let them eat catfood". I know what they can do with their goddamned chained-cpi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:37 PM

53. That's romanticizing things.

I was young when there were lots of unionized industrial jobs around, but a lot of jobs weren't unionized. I grew up with friends whose father supported a relatively tolerable lifestyle (nothing by comparison to most today, but this was the '60s). I also grew up with friends whose parents worked no less hard, but had the misfortune of working for a small, non-unionized company. Their father's take home was 50% or less of the unionized fathers' pay.


"Labor" wasn't treated like the resource it is and got precious little respect, if by "labor" you mean "the people who put forth the effort of production."

"Labor" was given grudging respect, if by "labor" you mean "the political and strike-based clout wielded by unions."

These are really different categories of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:24 PM

69. I've been here a while - on this earth

I was able to give birth to my kids and take family leave because I was afforded excellent health insurance, disability insurance and vacation and sick time.

I was able to get dental care, glasses, and free well visits, vaccinations and ER visits for my children because of great insurance plans paid for all the way or halfway by my employers.

My wages and/or my partner's were more than adaquate to meet modest needs, even working part time as I did.

The CEOs did not pay themselves the net worth of the business every year; they paid -----wait for it ------bonuses even to part timers! One company I worked for gave me a $600 bonus after jobsharing a position for only 6 months, as an example. Companies SHARED the wealth.

I lived it.

Don't tell me it can't be the way things are.

GREED is the ONLY excuse you have, and that's your crime.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:55 PM

57. Thank you, thank you!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:29 PM

81. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:36 PM

11. "...as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide

provide adequately for his individual security."

The problem of course being that corporations have looted the worker's "own efforts" of pensions and collective bargaining, and the government has done little to stop them. People get old -- the government can either support people's efforts to not rely on the government, or it will have to boost its own efforts, or we'll have to come to terms with the fact that we don't really give a shit about old people and not pretend to wring our hands when the system falls apart after its been deliberately weakened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:42 PM

14. This quote comes from an era that was mostly rural and it was much easier to provide extras from

the farm. Seniors in my family lived with family and helped on the farm. There were gardens, chickens, and many other sources that one could provide oneself. What they got from Social Security back then would have provided a little extra for a family living in the depression years.

One real problem I see today is that the pension plans that workers have set up are not all that reliable. Many have seen them disappear when they most needed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:31 PM

40. Then maybe the problem is social security hasn't kept up with the times.

 

But if it is now to take on a role as the main and source of income it needs to be funded as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:22 PM

68. In that I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:48 PM

16. It should be changed to a retirement fund. Pensions don't exist anymore,

the over educated are under-employed and college debt is lasting a lifetime for many. I'd rather pay higher taxes to have SS as a retirement plan, and to have universal health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firehorse (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:57 PM

21. Me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firehorse (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:06 PM

25. So would I.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:50 PM

17. But then employers decided that since there is social security they didn't need pension systems.

Just like foodstamps and medicaid wasn't originally designed to take care of the basic needs of those who work at walmart, or federal education funding was designed to supplement schools' resources and not replace local funding, or increased financial aid options were not intended to drive the price of tuition to that of a brand new car. Without the will to tie the hands of the rich, every dollar that gets spent for a purpose gets yanked out on the other side by some greedy fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:54 PM

20. This is my argument as well

Private corporations took away pensions and many bonuses because the existence of social security. So not only does the general population agree social security is considered retirement system now, but so does the private sector. This is why they want to privatize it because they know a lot of people will lean on it more now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:51 PM

18. Looniz, Grey, Lionessa and slackmaster

could you please answer this question:

How are underpaid workers supposed to augment social security when they can't even afford medical care?

When they can't even keep their homes?

When they are struggling to pay their bills today?

How do they do this? Is is fucking MAGIC?

Tell me the goddamned secret...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:01 PM

23. I can cherry pick too ...

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."--
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:42 PM

46. Another gem from the Traitor To His Class:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much; it is how much we provide to those who have little."

FDR was that rare anomaly--a Depression-era rich man who actually gave a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:09 PM

26. A Bootstraps thread! And it's only Monday n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:13 PM

29. ss benefits could be tied to ceo's mean compensation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:15 PM

31. My mother lived on Social Security and Union retirement income...just barely.

My mother continued to work as a waitress until she was 82 years old.

No one is asking SS to be the ideal. What they should expect is something that, with medicare, will meet their requirements.

With two pensions my mother managed to keep the wolf from her door. My sister, who has no other pension, is in a much more precarious position. The rest of us, our family, will have to supplement my sister when the normal emergencies arise.

You should also remember that SS has changed a bit from its origins, which like any bill washington was a compromise between those who wanted to create something good and those who thought it was a curse from the pits of socialist hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:15 PM

32. What's your fucking point?

WTF? This is the kind of horseshit that can be found over at Freeperville. You carrying those assholes water for them?


Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:20 PM

35. The entire premise is a contradiction

The U.S. is a capitalistic, demand driven society for goods and services. If people started to save all their money this capitalist system would fall apart.

The answer is often in front of people, but they refuse to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:36 PM

44. You attacking Social Security or Medicare or tax increases for the rich isn't exactly a surprise. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:41 PM

55. The poster never seems to advocate the 90 percent top tax rate of the period.

It's all about screwing over people who are struggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:41 PM

45. In theory...

But how many pension funds were eliminated because the parent company up and moved everything overseas. There has been a tremendous amount of money shifted out of the hands of the middle class and landing into the hands of the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WCGreen (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:44 PM

47. You mentioned the key word there. PENSIONS. When SS was introduced, almost everyone had one.

In an environment where everyone has a pension, Social Security is a nice addition to keep the standard of living up for retirees.

Without a pension, it is a minimalist lifeline that keeps many elderly from going hungry or getting kicked out of their meager homes.

Cut that? WTF kind of person would even remotely suggest such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:32 PM

50. You can't cut it now...

There's a lot of people out there who lost a lot of their planned retirement when the value of their biggest asset, their home, lost a shloads of value.

IRA's are nice, but most safe investments are paying, at best, about 2.5%.

People were doing what they were told to do and then had the rug pulled right out from under them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:33 PM

52. There is a slight chronology problem here, but it doesn't change the essential argument.

Pensions were not prevalent before social security. The chain of events is more accurately described as:
1. Depression causes widespread privation, hits elderly especially hard through bank failures and high unemployment.
2. The New Deal has multi-pronged approach to benefit working class. The Wagner Act establishes the National Labor Relations Board, which is the legal framework in which collective bargaining takes place. Unions will go on to negotiate pensions though a private system. Meanwhile Social Security is set up to deal with the more immediate problem (old people with no money) and serve as a safety net for those not able to get a private pension.
3. In the post-war Truman administration 2 things happen that will make a big difference in our times. First, facing an inflationary environment caused by several years of accumulated wartime wages finally being released into an unconstrained but ill prepared consumer market, a string of particularly hard labor disputes arise. Companies are encouraged to offer pensions as a way of offering increased compensation without contributing to an inflationary spiral. At the same time Taft-Hartley severely weakens the standing of labor unions and when the post-war economic boom is over, they will be unable to maintain their strength.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:05 PM

58. What the OP also doesn't point out is that the amendment was in tandem...

with other changes, that Glass-Steagall was in place which stopped the banks from raiding the investments/savings of Americans, that the top tax rate in 1939 was 79% and it was the wealthiest 6% paying it, that the % of disposable income for the average American worker was greater, the cost of living much more in line with the wages being paid.

The OP is beyond insulting, imo. It indicates one of two things; either the poster thinks DUers are unable to recognize appallingly obvious cherrypicking in order to point fingers at the middle class and the poor OR it is deliberate flamebaiting. Either way, it is nauseating, again imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:55 PM

48. Correct, that is what it was designed to do...

In his letter outlining his vision of SS, FDR called it one leg of a three legged stool. The other two legs were pensions and private savings and investments. Unfortunately, private corporations and the gazillionares who love them have used it as an excuse to end pensions for their workers while also ending wage increases as a means to promote private savings. Too bad some of the posters above have reacted to the results we are living with now rather than the subject of your post, which was the original purpose of SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:32 PM

51. Correct

Pensions are no more because corporations argued that it is no longer necessary since there is the existence of social security. So people do rely more on social security as a result for retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:44 PM

56. And?

Where are all the awesome jobs that SS is only a supplement for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:15 PM

59. What's your plan? Specifics please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:33 PM

63. l'll guess

Cut SS, let people starve, and then tell them it's their own fault for not having more in savings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:29 PM

61. And what about those retirement age people who did all the right things

Invested in 401Ks, only to lose up to 80% of what they had invested just as they were getting ready to retire? At least they have Social Security (which they also paid into all their working lives).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GObamaGO (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:11 AM

78. Those investors still have their money in those mutual funds in their 401ks.

Which have since recovered their value. Also, if they retired, they transferred their 401ks to a private account, where they no longer have to pay those high fees.

So they have SS, Medicare, 401k, and other savings = they should be able to get by on that. They won't be traveling all over the world with tons of cash in their pockets, but they should be fairly secure.

BUT if they didn't contribute to their 401ks (as most people don't), then they will be missing that leg of the stool. Employer contributions to 401ks aren't enuf.

I started a new job last year. I asked several people how much the employer contributes to the 401k (although they won't contribute for ME for a year). NO ONE KNEW! They barely participated in the 401k, if at all. One employee contributed $40 a month, which is almost nothing, although better than nothing.

When you're really poor, you can't contribute to a 401k or have personal savings. But for a lot of the middle class, and esp where I work, they choose to spend their money instead of save it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:39 PM

65. thanks for the info, hannity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:07 AM

77. Oh, yes, because circumstances and laws must never change from PRE-WWII!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:43 PM

85. and it might have worked too

if the worker's share of profit from their own productivity as an employee had remained fairly constant. As this measure plummeted, so went the ability to save. We went from one worker households largely living on savings to two worker households living on consumer credit. Social Security was not designed with this economy in mind.

My grandparents were self employed business people. One ran carpentry business and another owned an awning shop, where she created custom awnings herself. They paid their taxes and saved and took the benefits when the time came, and until the Savings and Loan collapse, were largely able to live off their savings with SS as a supplement. Because they were self-employed, they were able to keep most of the profits of their productivity. Most people swinging a hammer these days don't do that well.

My paternal grandfather was a GM employee who due to union contracts was able to invest in GM stock. He retired very comfortably and mostly cashed out to more diverse holdings before GM declined. Because the percentage of his productivity he could retain was high, SS was just a supplement. I inherited a portion of the remains of his estate, and it paid for both of my children's college tuition.

We do not have the sort of economy where a guy swinging a hammer, or another guy doing brake jobs as a career leave estates to their grandchildren. However, Social Security was designed in that economy, not this one.

Now I do not know how to fix the economy to the point where labor is actually compensated fair value, but in the absence of that, the employer contribution to SS will have to rise at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread