Once more with feeling, 55 or older, SHUT UP on Social Sec.

from JoeUser Forums
I said it in response to another forum posting, but I'll say it again here, with feeling if necessary.

If you are 55 or older, then it's time for you to SHUT THE HELL UP, or -- in leet speak for j00 if necessary -- STFU - about Social Security.

Take your dis-information, your one-sided math examples, and your continued bashing and crying about transistion costs that haven't even been determined yet, and may be completely covered in methods that would make even the most jaded robin hood type happy, and put them away permanently.

Thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and others over time, we have a morally bankrupt and corrupt system that depends on the income of today's workers to pay the workers of yesteryear so they can live a few years in squalor before they hopefully die an early death and don't suck up more than their share of the non-existent funds that were spent by generations prior.

To the AARP - SHUT IT. You have shown yourselves to be more concerned about continuing your own financial services and insurance businesses than you really are about the welfare of those that are forced to contribute to the system that you advocate.

It's been said repeatedly (but I guess since it was said by Pres. Bush it must all be a lie) that no one over 55 years of age will be affected by these proposed changes. So if you are 55 or over, SHUT IT. If you are able to show as the plan progresses that it really does affect you, then start whining at that time.
politics
8,028 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
So if you're over 55 you don't care about how future generations are going to be affected by misguided policies? You simply want those who have studied the issue the most to be quiet about it.

So Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and now Dubyah have done nothing to perpetuate social security?

Nobody ever claimed that social security was supposed to do anything more than assist the elderly. The right used that argument to state that we should just get rid of baby boomer's benefits. It was so little they wouldn't miss it. The same thing could be said about most people's tax cuts. Guess we should get rid of those as well.

Perhaps you should do a study on what prompted social security in the first place? Then maybe come back and try again.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
And there you have it folks, great Social Security rhetoric from both sides of the issue!!

Bravo Terpfan and Whoman69!!! Well done!
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
im all for it. bush is 57 aint he?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
great Social Security rhetoric from both sides of the issue!!


if only one of em had said 'bill clinton's momma' then--like you--he woulda been gettin an insightful too.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps you should do a study on what prompted social security in the first place? Then maybe come back and try again.


Regardless of what prompted it in the first place, it was designed from the very beginning to be a placebo. Why do I say that? Because it was built on the idea that most participants would not live long enough to collect it. Actuarial tables and life expectancy rates were used to determine at what point the average participant would live until with the expectation that many would wouldn't live very long lifes and few would actually ever collect what they paid into the system if they collected anything at all.

It was an insurance program, yet now it's an entitlement program. Now everyone must get back something (except for Blacks, especially males, whose life expectancies are still low enough that many never collect).

How about you or someone else do a study and tell me how many companies used to provide retirements for their workers and now don't? Why, because instead of having those responsibilities, companies opted to shfit the responsibilities onto the government (or just let the government take the responsibity away).

It's a broken system that needs to be fixed by 2012 before it starts sucking up more money than it could ever collect. Between now and then, it can be fixed so that those still participating can have their security financially guaranteed, and so that those participating for the future can also have theirs guaranteed.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about you or someone else do a study and tell me how many companies used to provide retirements for their workers and now don't?


hopefully thatll be followed up by some investigation into how, why and by whom those companies were permitted to default on their obligations.

but...if you really wanna approach it that way, shouldnt we also take a look at how many working families received some sorta public assistance (foodstamps, medicare, etc.) prior to 1980 vs how many do now?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, people over 55 should have no say at all in how issues that affect them are run, especially when they've been paying into them for their entire lives.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I WILL NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Get used to it.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #8 By: dabe - 3/10/2005 6:54:23 PM
I WILL NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Get used to it.


Then you very well could find that I'l break my own non-stated policy of never blacklisting anyone, as I will not provide a platform for you to behave the way you do.

You'd be well off to censor yourself, rather than have others do it for you as many have done over time.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #7 By: AJCrowley - 3/10/2005 6:22:11 PM
Yes, people over 55 should have no say at all in how issues that affect them are run, especially when they've been paying into them for their entire lives.


Have you any proof that any of these changes are going to impact your benefits in any way, shape or form?

No?

Then STHU.

I've been paying into these plans since I was 12 years old. Suffice it to say that is longer than many individuals have. Will these decisions impact me? Because of my age, yes. Will they impact my parents? Because of their age, NO. My brothers, sister, my nieces, nephews and others? Yes.

Who should be heard in the discussion? Those that are effected.

If I hear that changes are going to be made that impact those 55 years or older, then I'll be one of the first to take up arms to help stop such changes. Hell, I've taken up arms for this country and it's citizens before, so it's not something I'm unfamilar with.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
shouldnt we also take a look at how many working families received some sorta public assistance (foodstamps, medicare, etc.) prior to 1980 vs how many do now?


Sure. You want to remind yourself and others who passed Welfare Reform and helped to fix a program that allowed many to make themselves dependent upon the government forever, no matter how able bodied they were?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
blacklist me. see if i give a rat's ass. you freakin dipshit
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about you or someone else do a study and tell me how many companies used to provide retirements for their workers and now don't? Why, because instead of having those responsibilities, companies opted to shfit the responsibilities onto the government (or just let the government take the responsibity away).


That's IF you stay long enough with a company to get a pension. The paradigm is shifting, folks, and older workers are quickly deemed "expendable".
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I WILL NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Get used to it.


Right, dabe, because you and your ilk don't give a rat's patoot about the younger generation's SS...as long as you get yours, right?

Personally, I want to report a strong armed robbery...the perpetrators? the US Government.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, people over 55 should have no say at all in how issues that affect them are run, especially when they've been paying into them for their entire lives.


You don't get it do you? These issues do NOT affect those 55 and over. Please pay attention.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
im all for it. bush is 57 aint he?


INSIGHTFUL

this is the best comment I've read in forever
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Social Security was set up as a Insurance Policy for the people who would potentially become poor elderly. FDR was not a bad president, in fact he was one of the best, but regardless, SS has become a nightmare. The problem is people feel entitled to it. As one of the top 1% of america, wealthy people do NOT need this lowly 10,000 dollars, and further nor does the next 5% of the wealthiest elderly. Rich people shoudln't get social security, and if you can tax the heirs to fortunes for their wealth, even though the money has already been taxed, then you sure as hell should be able to tax SS income.
Bush's plan is frankly, retarded, no offense to people who are actually mentally disabled, and I am loosly not including Bush in this category, though maybe after this program I should reconsider. It is a political gamble to a) destroy social security and b) win the young vote, forever republicanizing the country. It makes no sense to do what hes doing, bec ause the transition cost is trillions of dollars. We need a solution, not a bush induced sinking of a broken ship.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I hear that changes are going to be made that impact those 55 years or older, then I'll be one of the first to take up arms to help stop such changes. Hell, I've taken up arms for this country and it's citizens before, so it's not something I'm unfamilar with.


You talk about how people 55 or older should not talk about Social Security changes because it will not affect them. Then you say you would act against something that would not affect you. I'm confused; unless you meant something else, you're negating your entire arguement.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You want to remind yourself and others who passed Welfare Reform and helped to fix a program that allowed many to make themselves dependent upon the government forever, no matter how able bodied they were


unless it turns out more working families are receiving some sort of government assistance now than before because employers let the government provide what used to be employee benefits.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Social Security was set up as a Insurance Policy for the people who would potentially become poor elderly. FDR was not a bad president, in fact he was one of the best, but regardless, SS has become a nightmare. The problem is people feel entitled to it. As one of the top 1% of america, wealthy people do NOT need this lowly 10,000 dollars, and further nor does the next 5% of the wealthiest elderly. Rich people shoudln't get social security, and if you can tax the heirs to fortunes for their wealth, even though the money has already been taxed, then you sure as hell should be able to tax SS income


If they're not to be entitled to it then they shouldn't be made to pay into it.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
My house has never burned down before, but yet I still pay insurance on it.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

My house has never burned down before, but yet I still pay insurance on it


A *REALLY* bad analogy. If your house burns down you can expect to collect on it! They aren't entitled to collect at all, at any time. Big difference.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
A *REALLY* bad analogy. If your house burns down you can expect to collect on it! They aren't entitled to collect at all, at any time. Big difference.


If people become poor, they should be able to collect from Social security.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
A *REALLY* bad analogy. If your house burns down you can expect to collect on it! They aren't entitled to collect at all, at any time. Big difference.


If people become poor, they should be able to collect from Social security.


But that's not what you said, now is it?


Social Security was set up as a Insurance Policy for the people who would potentially become poor elderly. FDR was not a bad president, in fact he was one of the best, but regardless, SS has become a nightmare. The problem is people feel entitled to it. As one of the top 1% of america, wealthy people do NOT need this lowly 10,000 dollars, and further nor does the next 5% of the wealthiest elderly. Rich people shoudln't get social security, and if you can tax the heirs to fortunes for their wealth, even though the money has already been taxed, then you sure as hell should be able to tax SS income.
Bush's plan is frankly, retarded, no offense to people who are actually mentally disabled, and I am loosly not including Bush in this category, though maybe after this program I should reconsider. It is a political gamble to a) destroy social security and b) win the young vote, forever republicanizing the country. It makes no sense to do what hes doing, bec ause the transition cost is trillions of dollars. We need a solution, not a bush induced sinking of a broken ship.


I still say if they're not supposed to get it then they shouldn't have to pay.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I did say poor people should be able to collect from social security. This applies to the "newly poor" as well as the already poor. Therefore, you are wrong, my friend.