By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fordy on 14 August 2011
Edit Thread
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:

Saying social security has a surplus is like saying that I spend 100 dollars of my retirement fund write myself an IOU for 1 million dollars promise myself half a million, then claim i have a half a million surplus.


It's more along the lines of giving money to someone to hold, yet they cannot help but spend it on themselves. Since 1983, social security has been getting prepared for when the boomers go into retirement. So where'd it go? Used to find wars for oil or tax cuts for the wealthy perhaps? Either way, it's summed up by one word: Stealing.

that doesnt even make any sense.

thats one of the most misinformed non sensicle thing i have ever heard.

1) the tax cuts, which went to every american. is completely seperate from the SS fund, they arent even in the same pool, they could have cuts those taxes by 100% and SS wouldnt have been touched.

2) money from the supposed social security trust fund wouldnt/couldnt get deminished/spent by letting people keep their own money, that requires raiding it, like you said. it just make no sense what you said. money cant be spent from the fund, if they never had it in the first place.

like kaz said, there is no fund, they pay people with iou's they spend the money they do get on frivalous spending projects, non sustanable programs.

1. There were all around cuts, but do you really believe that a cut to capital gains tax would help the lower-middle income bracket? Last I saw, a lot of that bracket had trouble making ends meet, letalone having spare money to invest. Capital gains tax cuts are a tax cut especially for the rich in particular.

2. I think we're getting mixed up here. I'm not angry because government has control of social security. I'm angry because conservative politicians in particular are using the excuse to axe social security to get out of paying back what they owe. Personally, I think you guys would be better off with something like the Australian superannuation scheme, where the employer has to pay roughly 7% into a superannuation investor picked by the employee.