Posted on 05/31/2004 5:13:26 AM PDT by sarcasm
Sounds like winsap in #19, was saying the same thing you are. He (or she) has been paying in for years and years, and now you're saying he's selfish for wanting his money? Sounds like you want yours.
guess I'm a sucker
I don't see how you got that from what he said at all. I think he was commenting on the divisive insulting comments you made. The younger vs. old geezer crap that is so clintonian and will lead to a separate and unequal resolution of this issue. Divide is the only way to conquer. We're all in the same leaky boat, here.
"Logans Run"
One of my all time cheesy favorite movies. :)
The problem is govt socialists who want to keep power and keep taking from all of us and those who support them. Not an entire generation of people.
It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives are willing to keep the issue of Social Security on the back burner.
The boomers have bought into the lie of the retirement (and health care) entitlement. They can't be trusted to make the right decision by saying, "I will steal money from my children and grandchildren no longer; I will continue working and paying for my own costs."
Yes, the war on terrorism is important, but so is the war on socialism. And our side, whatever remains of it, is losing.
"Hello, Runner!"
Terrible world.
Well, too many "conservatives" think it's okay to redistribute wealth. I've seen that attitude on FR for a while now.
You can do the math yourself. Assume an approximate payout of about $700 per month (the maximum is somewhere around $1200 per month), multiply by 12, then multiply again by the number of years collected. Then, compare that with what they paid into the system based upon the average annual wage back in, say, 1960, or 1970. It's likely that most of them never even paid into the system a thousand bucks a year.
Taking inflation into account, [10K a year in the '60s was equivalent to 100K today - or more], plus interest, - I will have to live to 80+ [odds are, I won't], -- for a breakeven payback.
-- Assuming of course, that inflation doesn't continue.
- And playing games with hidden inflation, imo, will be the way the feds get us out of this ponzi scheme mess.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details.
I wish but I think we are stuck with more and more "Feel Good" and "give me" baby boomer socialist programs from both parties until Gen-x and Y takes over power from them which I don't think will happen until 2016 or 2020.
Well, if we are now on the subject of unconstitutional...just where the heck do I start?
I still maintain that social security could/could have been a valid system, had the money been set aside/invested properly even in the safest investment. The recipients now, might not have been able to withdraw 7 times their input, but there would have been real money available to pay them, rather than the large sucking hole that is presently called the social security system.
On top of this, there would be real numbers, available and matched to the census, that would accurately predict, based on the latest acturial data, the health of the program, rather than the inacurate guessing game that is now meant to polarize the oldsters against the youngsters. As one who is still working, and eligible for the social security, but not yet taking from it, I am interested in having a system that works through good times and bad.
One system that used to get mentioned quite a bit, as the epitome of social secuity systems, was the one in Chile, but of late I haven't heard much. There is one large negative when speaking of the amounts of money we are speaking of. If I say the words "union pension funds" it should be clear what the problem is. Even congress couldn't resist the piles of ready cash, and engaged in pension fund raiding. The controls from beginning to end have got to be as strict if not stricter than those on the control of Muclear weapons during the cold war.
I agree, and if you have paid in as much as you figure, I have contributed/been robbed of even more. I have a vested, oops, wrong choice of words, here, or should I say, No pun intended, interest in what becomes of my and your money, since it has already been extracted from us. Making government do anything correctly seems to be a major problem. That might be one of the many fears the Founding Fathes had, and the reason there were so many controls and limits on government as they saw it.
The MAIN reason I voted for Bush in 2000 was because of his promises to push for private social security accounts. This seems less likely every day, especially with the trillions, (yes TRILLIONS) in new entitlements being pushed by Bush to buy off the senior vote. The major parties have doomed me (I'm 24) to a future of 80% average tax rates to fund this massive welfare state. There is no other option and NOTHING is going to stop it.
What can I say boomers...
thanks?
:(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.