Neo-con mindset on SS reform...I just HAD to post this

[durablend]

Though not surprising (at all), I still thought this was over the top even for them. This is from another board I frequent...thought you'd like a chuckle (or some fuel to make you want to throw something):


"Let's face it, the vast majority of folks out there collecting social security checks aren't just scraping by and having to eat dog food. If they are it's because *despite* having an entire lifetime to save for their retirement, they made crappy money and lifestyle choices and they should now have to face the music for those decisions.

My reform plan has one and only one step. It won't cost us any more money than we spend now and perhaps just maybe will make the greedy geezer set realize just how they're taking the money out of the pockets of their children and grandchildren. Simply replace cash payments to social security recipients with vouchers and assistance in kind. No more no-questions asked monthly stipend in cash form from Uncle Sam to pay for your bocci ball lessons and trips to Atlantic City.

Your SS check was for $600/month previously? Great, you're entitled to $600 worth of government cheese and/or food stamps/medical vouchers for the rest of your basic needs. Yes, if you're relying on me and my tax dollars to pay for your living expenses, I damn well want you to be embarrassed when you go to the supermarket and have to pull out your food stamps to pay for your incontinence diapers. Maybe then you'll sit and think for a moment about where that "free" money came from, such as from the 30 year old father of 3 who lives down the streer from you, is working two jobs to support his family, and who you think should pay for your goodies from taxes withheld from his paycheck. If you're old and pissed away your entire life's earnings while relying on social security to take care of you in your old age, then as the saying "beggars can't be choosers" applies and you can take your assistance whatever way we choose to give it to you."

[Goldeneye]

1. That must be one of those new fangled

"compassionate conservatives."

[SpiralHawk]

2. The quality of mercy is not strained

"The goals for this country are peace in the world. And the goals for this country are a compassionate American for every single citizen. That compassion is found in the hearts and souls of the American citizens."
- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2002

[displacedtexan]

3. Pig Ignorance

[yella_dawg]

5. Whoa!

I hadn't seen that picture of Mama Bush at the inauguration before. Excellent!

[salvorhardin]

4. Government cheese

I haven't seen government cheese being offered in my (extremely rural, extremely poor) area in about 15 years. Too bad, because a lot of people up here could use it.

It is truly sad that people think like this.

[cornermouse]

6. He's not thinking forward to the time when he too

will be begging for "cheese and food stamps", is he? Too bad. He clearly deserves to be there.

[salin]

7. hmmm wonder if s/he realizes

that these "greedy geezers" paid the bills for his/her parents so that s/he didn't have to spend a big part of his/her income caring for his/her parents as they aged... or that the expenses that his/her children will have to pay for him/her as s/he retires - esp if s/he has any serious medical problems that require selling off all assets to make initial payments for costs that those expenses to his/her children will likely be MUCH greater than the cost of the payrole deduction for SS/Medicare. Several years ago the estimated cost for keeping a loved one in a nurshing home with adequate medical and living assistance was between $20,000 and $40,000 a year (depending upon level of care, and cost of living/expenses of where the nursing home was located). Let's see... that cost to children would be somewhere between $1,500 to $3,500 A MONTH. That money, not only wouldn't be covered, but would also drain the children's ability to save for their own retirement.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

43. It's $5,200 per month for my aunt...

...right now, in the nursing home.

[mr blur]

8. What a dispicable wanker! (n/t)

[Yavin4]

9. That Is The Kind Of Attitude That Makes Me Want To Leave This Country

Let's not fool ourselves. There are a lot of dumbass Americans that hold this same stupid ass opinion. SS is "free money"? What an ass.


I really don't want to live in a nation that doesn't care for its elderly, nor its children, nor its sick.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. WTF greedy geezer set

Unfreakingbelievable!



"Maybe then you'll sit and think for a moment about where that "free" money came from," Where does this asshole get that this money is "free"? These "greedy geezers" :wow: paid into SS as we all do.

"If you're old and pissed away your entire life's earning while relying on social security to take care of you in your old age, then as the saying "beggars can't be choosers" applies and you can take your assistance whatever way we choose to give it to you." :wtf: :argh: So now after paying into SS their whole working lives, this asshole thinks the "greedy geezer set" are beggars when collecting what is rightfully theirs to collect? Where does this asshole get off spewing this crap? And I am not chuckling at all. :mad:

[seabeyond]

11. the average is 3-4 years that people go thru

the money that they put into ss. they receive well beyond what they put in, so to say it is our money is just not totally correct or honest. talking to my ultra conservative very rich in laws, i ask why they have issue government helping the poor in this country yet with all their money they are still receiving elderly welfare. that they have already received both the literal money they have put in plus the interest and accumulation, and still healthy in 70's are receiving the money. money they dont even need. my mother in law who didnt work all her life saves her ss and then pays for whole family and grandkids to go on a family vacation out of country.

knowing i am going to be ok as i get older, i would like to see a limit on those that can afford to not take ss for the rest of their lives to just money received back that they put in and a true elder welfare for those that dont have the money as they get old. it is decadent to me to see these millionaires and billionaires receiving a welfare check from the government with no guilt as they want to not take care of the poor

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. The trouble with making SS a welfare program is that

the rich will try even harder to get rid of it, making the same arguments that are quoted in the original post: that "greedy geezers" who were too stupid to save for retirement are sponging off those hard-working rich people.

Think of SS payments to millionaires as a relatively small bribe for supporting the program for people who actually need it.

[Cleita]

14. Also, if they removed the income of $86,000 for the millionaires,

they would pay more into it over a lifetime than they would get back. To me that's a fair trade. I don't mind them getting some of their money back as long as they pay their fair share percentage-wise.

[seabeyond]

16. it already a welfare program, including the rich

this is what i say loud and clear to all the people in my life who are so capable of taking care of self. when they talk the programs for the poor i talk to them about their welfare program for even the rich thru ss. they are taking from the government what is not theirs. what else is it but a welfare program for the old

[Cleita]

17. Why is it welfare?

Most seniors don't live long enough to collect what they paid into it over their lifetimes. I know my husband didn't.

[seabeyond]

36. they do statistically, i dont know if i can find #'s

i am not good at that. but what i do remember is surprisingly it is what we put in is spent faster than what i thought. and the death age has risen for both male and female, further the significant increase is with the wealthy that could always afford preventive medicine, a less physical demanding on body, better foods, more educated on lifestyle, yada yada. the ones that are living are the ones that can afford old age care.

i dont see how it is anything but welfare for the rich (as a whole, old) if we get a high percentage of investment for old age care. where as the poor that put in, they die at a younger age, for different reasons. so they are the ones to more likely not receive nearly as much.

i truly dont advocate discriminating on payment, saying if you are weathly you cant receive as others. i point this out to people because like my father, a conservative good honest man who doesnt get it, doesnt know, that he is the one draining the system. and there is no need, he has plenty. that he is receiving money he didnt earn. my millions dollar in laws..........i said to my father in law one time, and pissed em off so. gosh, didnt know them that well, probably why they still narrow their eyes at me when we talk money, society, politics, lol lol life. they are so fearful i actually might say somethng out loud

[ClassicDem]

19. 3-4 years seems a little short

If someone had an average income of 30,000 during a 40 year working career they would have put 144,000 into social security. I think the average single person recieves 1,200 a month in benefits so it would take 10 years for them to go through the money.

[TWiley]

27. Why was this NOT an issue for the WWII Vets?

Also, your employer matches your contribution so double your estimate to 6-8 years, and then add 3% (wow!) intrest, and Voloia' 6-8 years is increased to 12 - 14 years which is more than the life expectancy after 67.

Men generally crap out and die between 66 and 72. Thats a whopping 5 years! Most women work today as well, so it is not like the traditional non-contributing wife of the past is collecting today in the same numbers either.

Don't believe all the conservative propaganda out there.

[seabeyond]

37. i am not saying the system we have isnt doable

i think any half way responsible economist could go in there and fix and improve this system. i absolutely am not an advocate of giving money to the people to invest. i have played stock and watch brother now. i am sitting out cause i dont know what the f is going on and want to wait and see...........

but gosh what bush is suggesting is stupid.

i just want to be real on this. there are a lot of people draining the system when they do not need the dollar. they, my family can at least admit to me this is a form of welfare. the same they bitch about the poor. i say huh uh. you chose to receive this, i chose to give those struggling help.

and the really ironic, one of those is my brother. this mans son. using the system.

[TWiley]

44. You are right.

Bush is suggesting something stupid.

SS may not even be broken. Or, broken very much. Every time someone says "awww, Social Security will Never be there when I retire" supports the bushtapo.

Social Security WILL be there when I retire. This is the phrase we should all be using.

[Hamlette]

41. average person goes thru ss money in 3-4 years??????

is that right? Even though I worked and paid in for 50 years, at a current rate of 12 something %, and I'm near the maximum now (and have been for 30 years) my benefits will eat that in 3-4 years?


Do you have a source?

(What you are talking about is means testing, which I'm against. The SS system is already progressive, we could make it more so, but not means test it.)

[Cleita]

13. Ask that freeper if he is prepared to support his grandparents and

parents when the time comes in addition to supporting himself and his family? Since the maximum SS that anyone pays per year is $6450 a year or $537.50 a month (7.5% of $86,000), I hope that the freeper thinks he could support one relative for that including medical expenses. Since my deceased husband's medical expenses exceeded $3,000 per month and most old people have high medical expenses, ask him if he is prepared to pay similar bills out of his pocket? Ask him if he is prepared to turn his back and let them die uncared for?

These people make me sick.

[ClassicDem]

21. The maximum is $10,320 SS is 12% not 7.5%

n/t

[Cleita]

24. According to the SS site the maximum is $5,580.

The maximum wages taxed is $90,000. I was basing my figure on $86,000, which was the last time I had looked it up.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=214&p_created=956064310&p_sid=e-bO7bwh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjcmcF9jYXRfbHZsMT03JnBfY2F0X2x2bDI9JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=

Most who are against SS try to add in the amount that the employer matches, just like you did, but that is disingenuous as it doesn't come out of your wages, nor would you ever see that money from your employer if their was no FICA deduction.

[ClassicDem]

30. That is not including the Employers portion.

Your employer counts the amount they pay in SS on you as part of your benefits so it's your money, luckily you don't have to pay the taxes on it.

If your self employed then you pay the full 12%.

[Cleita]

32. You would never see that money if there was no FICA

deduction. I don't care if they try to include it as a benefit for the sake of tax purposes.

[July]

25. I thought that 12% includes the employer's contribution? nt

[ClassicDem]

31. It is

but it's still your contribution in the end.

[Cleita]

33. Again this is a term used for tax purposes,

I repeat, you would never see that money if there was no FICA deduction. Even if you add in the employer's contribution as your money on a yearly basis, I dare you to support your elderly grandparents on that money.

Social Security benefits not only the elderly, orphans and the handicapped, it also frees the relatives of those people of the burden of supporting them entirely.

[ClassicDem]

35. Self Employed I would see the money.

I have no need to support my elderly grandparents they like many of Americans elderly have collected enough wealth via personal retirement that they live in Sun City and golf every day. What is sad is they get their SS check every month and truly do not need it.

My mother on the other-hand has made no plan for her future retirement and thus will most likely live with me when she hits retirement age. I have no problem with this I would like to own a home with a little house in the back for her and my wifes parents.

[Cleita]

39. Oh, I see. You got yours and the Hell with everyone else?

Pathetic. I hope you are prepared for the medical bills she will cost you without insurance, if there is no Medicare

[ClassicDem]

42. I resent your comment.

I have no problem with SS, in fact I was just pointing out the fact that 12% of every dollar you earn is earmarked for it, thus these numbers that people are drawing out to make it look like you are receiving more than you invested are completely false.

In fact I think people like myself and others who have prepared themselves for retirement properly should not even receive SS that way people like my mother could receive more. And even if my mother was well off I surely would never put her in a home to be cared for. In my opinion the number one decay in the west is not a moral decay it's a family decay, in Asia, Europe and South America it is totally normal to have the grandparents in the home.

[Stirk]

15. I never understood that position, but I've recently figured it out.

People are split into two basic groups, and always have been:

1. people who think the world is basically good
2. people who think the world is basically bad

For people who think the world is generally a good place, nurturing is the rule. They're interested in others' opinions, in popular rule, and taking care of the least among us.

For people who think the world is inherently bad, punishment is the rule. They want nothing so much as a strong father figure to protect them, whether it's a daddy who lays down the law at home, or an authoritarian political leader, or the punishing Jesus of the Rapture.

And this split comes out again and again, in the strangest places. You just listed one. All the "good world" people are (rightly) asserting that Social Security is designed to help those that need it. The "bad world" argument is one of punishment for some perceived fault on the part of the suffering person.

[Just Me]

18. Where do those who believe people are neither basically "good" or "bad"

but rather, people are all born with the capacity to choose to do "good" or "bad" and the world is neither basically "good" or "bad"?

I can agree that the vicious, selfishness evident by the right-wing assumes everyone and everything else is as vicious and selfish and dark as they.

However, I disagree that people's perspective on a complex world falls into your black/white characterization.

Most progressives understand that both people and the world has many facets and nuances.

[Stirk]

29. Of course people make choices- that's the point.

You decide whether or not people generally make good choices. That's the whole split- do you think that people will make the right choices on their own, or do they need some strong authority figure to prevent them behaving like animals? There is no third option. Either people (collectively) generally do good or generally do bad.

Those are the two basic schools of thought, in my opinion.

They split into authoritarians vs. egalitarians again and again. Every age has them. Whether it's Royalists against Roundheads or liberals against conservatives. Different names and different specifics, but the theme is always the same.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. "they made crappy money and lifestyle choices and they should now have....

to face the music for those decisions."

Lifestyle choices?

Reminds me of the heated discussion I got into last night with a guy who voted for *. His lifestyle choice was inheriting land with oil rights.

His work now consists of mainly doing things that are more hobbies than trying to make a living. He runs a business that loses money, but what the heck, he has fun doing it.

I wish I had had the foresight to make the lifestyle choice of being born into money. Like the Bushies.

[neebob]

22. Yeah! Don't those greedy geezers realize

they could be paying for their own bocci ball lessons and trips to Atlantic City, if they hadn't sent all that money to the government in the first place?! They should be EATING CHEESE and thanking their lucky stars for that 30-year-old father of 3 who lives down the streer.

[TWiley]

23. WOW, That sounds like my something my republicrap

brother would write. He recently said something like that to me.

This is after he bought my mothers house and land, took the money he paid her for it, and spent most all of it to build an expensive house for her which is legally on HIS LAND! Well, she DOES have a FREE lifetime lease!

Now, Republicans may call that "making good money and lifestyle choices" but Democrats would call it the type of religious greed that justifies screwing ones own mother and the rest of the family to boot.

His position is not unlike that butt-hole's opinion concerning Social Security Reform.

Where do they get this crap? In church? The Rotary club? On talk radio? At Republicrap fundraisers? Where do they teach it?

[Liberal In Texas]

26. They get it from constant indoctrination.

That whole rant up there was nothing you won't hear on AM radio on any given day of the week.

They listen to so much of that crap they start to believe it after awhile.

[TWiley]

28. I think you are right.

He switches between repuke and Jesus radio all day.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. One minor problem

Food stamps are for FOOD. You can't use them to pay for non food items, like diapers.

[idiosyncratic]

38. People like this never think about the real possibility of disability

An acquaintance just rolled his BMW Z3 and is now a quadraplegic. He will get SS benefits for the rest of his life.

If this happens to someone when they are only 40-years old, have they had enough time to save and invest to support themselves?

Many other things besides automobile accidents can disable someone. Illnesses like Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, PTSD and clinical depression, among others can prevent a person from working, and saving and investing, until retirement age.

[Cleita]

40. Not only that, children who have lost their parents are covered.

Please tell me how a six-year-old is supposed to save for the possiblity.