Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Stormi 11 years, 4 months ago
    S.S. was sold to the nation as an insurance program, albeit mandatory one. At 23, I resented the government deciding where my future retirement money went. At retirement age, I resent that the money could have grown much better with my own broker, rather then being given outside the fund to those who never paid a dime. It cannot go on this way, but the problem lies in the out of control paying out of money to those who never paid in, and the rash of entire families on Disability. These are not the truly disabled, but those who hire pricey lawyers to to cook up ways to beat the system. Our daughter made the bad decision to marry into such a family, where her husband, his mother and father, all have vague "issues" which get them out of work. Yet they can carry on affairs, play golf, cultivate marijuana, and do anything else they want all day. We have reached to point we now grant DI to people who are in danger, of being in danger, of being depressed! To use a liberal term, this is just not "sustainable" - no way, no how.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by edweaver 11 years, 4 months ago
    The second one to me is questionable. People have paid in a significant amount of money into SS and should be able to at least get out what they put in. And I mean everyone who paid. At that point the program should end and no one pays into it any more. There is no excuse for the government taking 15% of people's income for any single program and especially not one that most people thought was an investment into their retirement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 4 months ago
      If it were a normal business investment, I'd agree. The problem is that those who implemented in in the 1970's lied. They lied to the people and made promises they not only had no intention of keeping, but no ability. They sold false hope. And millions of people bought into it.

      The second problem is that our current politicians perpetuate that false hope - or at least have to deal with those false promises. The reality is that the system itself was a Ponzi scheme that relied of several horribly-flawed premises:
      1. That the Federal Government has any business getting into retirement
      2. That the Federal Government can effectively manage anything resembling a business
      3. That those occupying the seats of judgment have the integrity to honor past commitments.

      The people have been horribly wronged by probably the worst case of false advertisement in the history of the United States. It is wrong that they were promised what could not be delivered. But the reality now is that we now have to pay for those lies. And the system itself - because it was a lie to begin with built on more lies - is simply insoluble. The first step toward dealing with the fallout is to recognize the cause and the perpetrators (throwing them in jail would be nice) and then try to figure out a solution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by xthinker88 11 years, 4 months ago
      I"m sorry but you've been tricked. Nobody has paid "into SS". You've paid a tax. SS is not a retirement plan that you pay into and then deserve to get money out of. It is a tax plain and simple. The money paid in the tax go to pay people who are receiving money and other uses.

      The only reason that SS was ruled constitutional by the SC was because it was a tax. Not a retirement system.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 11 years, 4 months ago
        I am aware of this but that does not make it right. Most people have been tricked but they should still get there money out, the program ended and money cut off to the government. It will not happen but one can dream.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by brando79az 11 years, 4 months ago
        I would like to see our government gradually put less and less money into SS as our genrations progress. I am 35 and would like less of my tax dollar placed into SS than my father's generation. This would fit the gradual decline of SS payouts and will gradually ween us from SS. I believe that it is still required for the truly needy. It was explained to me that this was the original purpose and that it was not supposed to be as robust as it is today. Weening us from it will bring it back to it's initial purposes.
        In the meantime? I save. I have saved since I was 19 and will continue to save, even though also I pay the same amounts of SS as my father. The difference is he only pays once for his retirement and I'm paying twice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 11 years, 4 months ago
    I would "opt out" of SS in an instant for a balanced budget amendment with a 2:1 provision in favor of non-welfare spending. Who is with me?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by freedomforall 11 years, 4 months ago
    End empire building and the wars on drugs and poverty and terrorism. Eliminate the federal reserve system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 4 months ago
      Empire building? You mean like being the military force for all of Europe, allowing them to use that money on social welfare programs instead of defense? What a crazy idea! ;)

      And the Federal Reserve is our bastion of currency inflation! If we controlled our own money instead of an international cabal, we'd like actually have to pay for what we buy! Investors could actually demand a reasonable return on their savings and investment that wasn't getting eaten by inflation!

      Great thoughts!

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 11 years, 4 months ago
    do not foprget that each and every congressman is on the public dole. each is NOT ever interested in reducing the percentage of growth of the budget but sometimes they supposedly do limit the the percentage of increase. Whe reality sets in you will find that the deficit is going to continue to grow because those who are elected to office will NOT ever actually buck the system that is in place and has been since George Washington.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago
    I agree with the tenor of this. In places it starts to fall into two traps.
    1. Making it sound like we can do it without sacrifice: Eliminate Social Security DI _except_ for those who truly need it. Eliminate needlessly duplicated programs.
    2. Focusing primarily on programs the author already doesn't like. If deficit reduction is to work, everyone has to give a little. Otherwise we just sanctimoniously say, "Don't you see we just cannot afford this program to help poor children / military bases around the world / disability insurance / long prison sentences!" We have to be willing to pick programs we think are important and feel some concern that children will be scared for life by poverty or ISIS will take over part of the world b/c we know the gov't can't handle it. People need to feel that fear and opportunity of the gov't stepping down and people needing to step up.

    I'm not AT ALL condemning the five ideas b/c if all politician even briefly debated each of them it would be a huge help. Implementing them along with cuts to programs I don't like too would be an amazing dream.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo