A personal story about Social Security

[burythehatchet]

I used to work for a guy, worth at least several hundred million dollars, who was around 70 when I worked for him. He lived the lifestyle of someone with that kid of wealth. He had/has at least 3 private planes, several homes, and all the toys and gadgets that comes with conspicuous consumption.

Oh, by the way, he made that money from Medicare, but that's not relevant to this story.

Every month he used to get a social security check. I do not know how much he got, but he would send his secretary out to cash the check the day it arrived, and then he would stuff the cash in his pocket. He called it his "funny money". It was his walking around change.

Is it wrong to provide SSI benefits to those at his station in life?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. His check was a smaller percentage of what he paid in than mine will be.

In short, no. It is not wrong. Social Security is not welfare, it is insurance. You pay in, and if you retire or become disabled, you get something back.

[MajorChode]

13. Social Security is welfare

The term "welfare" has a negative connotation associated with it in this country because of the right's demonizing it.

SSI is an insurance program administered by the Social Security Administration, but should not be confused with the rest of the program. FICA withholding is considered a tax, and the original purpose of Social Security was to provide financial assistance to the elderly who needed it (and still do for the most part). It is not insurance. It is not a retirement program. FICA withholding does not guarantee benefits.

[closeupready]

19. It is not, and after your arguments were destroyed yesterday, I'm surprised you are still with us.

and that you are showing your face here again. Masochistic much?

[MajorChode]

25. ...sez the one who HAS no argument

Unless you count "you are so full of it" as an argument.

Most people north of a room temperature IQ don't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. It is absolutely not.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Expand Welfare

Even before the Depression hit, the States had been forced to deal with the problems of economic security in a wage-based, industrial economy. Workers Compensation programs were established at the state level before Social Security, and there were state welfare programs for the elderly in place before Social Security. Prior to Social Security, the main strategy for providing economic security to the elderly, in the face of the demographic changes discussed above, was to provide various forms of old-age "pensions." These were welfare programs, eligibility for which was based on proof of financial need. By 1934, most states had such "pension" plans. Even at the state level, however, these plans were inadequate. Some had restrictive eligibility criteria which resulted in many of the elderly being unable to qualify. The most generous plan paid a maximum of $1 per day.

In the Congress, the consensus of conventional wisdom was for more old-age assistance like that available in the states.


The "New" Alternative

With the coming to office of President Roosevelt in 1932, and the introduction of his economic security proposal based on social insurance rather than welfare assistance, the debate changed. It was no longer a choice between radical changes and old approaches that no longer seemed to work. The "new" idea of social insurance, which was already widespread in Europe, would become an innovative alternative.

Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. Thus it was an alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a moderately conservative, yet activist, response to the challenges of the Depression.


The Social Insurance Movement


The Social Security program that would eventually be adopted in late 1935 relied for its core principles on the concept of "social insurance." Social insurance was a respectable and serious intellectual tradition that began in Europe in the 19th century and was an expression of a European social welfare tradition. It was first adopted in Germany in 1889 at the urging of the famous Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. Indeed, by the time America adopted social insurance in 1935, there were 34 nations already operating some form of social insurance program(about 20 of these were contributory programs like Social Security). Philosophically, social insurance emphasized government-sponsored efforts to provide for the economic security of its citizens. The tradition of social insurance would come to be seen as the reasonable, practical alternative to the radical calls to action represented by Townsend, Long, Sinclair and the others.

Although the definition of social insurance can vary considerably in its particulars, its basic features are: the insurance principle under which a group of persons are "insured" in some way against a defined risk, and a social element which usually means that the program is shaped in part by broader social objectives, rather than being shaped solely by the self-interest of the individual participants. Social insurance coverage can be provided for a number of different types of insured conditions, from disability and death to old-age or unemployment. We may find it obvious to think of death, disability or unemployment as conditions causing loss of income and which can be ameliorated by pooling of risk. It is at first a little odd to think of old-age or retirement in these same terms. But that is precisely how the early social insurance theorists conceived of retirement, as producing a loss of income due to cessation of work activity.

One of the first American books on social insurance was by a Columbia University economics professor named Henry Seager. Seager explained the principle of old-age security based on social insurance in his 1910 book, "Social Insurance, A Program of Social Reform":

"As changing economic conditions are rendering the dependence of old people on their descendants for support increasingly precarious, so, on the other hand, new obstacles are arising to providing for old age through voluntary saving. . . The proper method of safeguarding old age is clearly through some plan of insurance. . . for every wage earner to attempt to save enough by himself to provide for his old age is needlessly costly. The intelligent course is for him to combine with other wage earners to accumulate a common fund out of which old-age annuities may be paid to those who live long enough to need it."

One of the earliest American advocates of a plan that could be recognized as modern social insurance was Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, Roosevelt addressed the convention of the Progressive Party and made a strong statement on behalf of social insurance:

"We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure...it is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance." TR would succeed in having a plank adopted in the Progressive Party platform that stated: "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for: . . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."

[MajorChode]

32. Your own source contradicts you

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Expand Welfare

...

From its earliest history, Social Security was sold as an insurance program due to the stigma of calling it "welfare". However, the reality of it was completely different. Early on, Social Security was very much means tested, and today that means testing has been replaced by benefit taxation. There are several other ways in which Social Security is different than insurance. For one, your benefit is based on your income, not just your contribution. So the more you pay in, the less benefit you derive, and the more benefit you derive, the more you are taxed. No insurance plan on earth could stay in business if it worked that way, but of course SS is compulsory which is yet another reason why it is not insurance.

[Hannah Bell]

61. It wasn't "means-tested". Low lifetime income & lack of $ in old age is what's being insured against

so if you wind up with plenty of income at 65, yes, you'll have paid in more & get less.

Just like I pay in more & get less if I never have a car accident, while joe up the street has a $100,000 dollar claim.

Your claim is bullshit.

[MajorChode]

74. You are so woefully ignorant of the history of SS

In fact, there were several federal "insurance" programs prior to SS and they failed constitutional muster.

Why?

Because the government has no authority under the Constitution to engage in the insurance business. (specifically Article I, section 8)

That's why FICA was specifically defined as a tax. That's why your payment into FICA in no way guarantees you any benefit. That's why you don't even have to contribute to receive a benefit. That's why SS payments are legally described as "gratuity" and not an annuity in which you would have specific legal rights to property under trust. In fact, congress could legally cancel the entire SS program and nobody would have any legal recourse. What "insurance" program do you know of works that way?

I can't help it that you've bought into the government's cover story that SS is "insurance". That was nothing more than marketing. If you don't think false marketing exists in the passage of bills and laws, I can give you a lot more examples.

So call SS whatever you like, but it isn't insurance and the government itself made that declaration in its brief on Flemming v. Nestor:
The OASI program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.

Your comparison to your car insurance policy is a false analogy for a number of different reasons other than those above.

[Hannah Bell]

78. We're not talking about programs prior to SS. And the rest of your crap is crap.

Flemming wasn't about whether SS = "welfare," & not about whether it = "insurance" either.

It was about whether the gov could deny benefits to a deported communist.

[MajorChode]

96. Is the rest of your life so simplistic?

Certainly you don't want to talk about anything prior to SS because you have no concept of the history of SS. I'm sure you don't want to get out of your little world where you maintain 95% intellectual superiority, but those are the breaks. The fact is there's a lot of relevant history prior to 1935, and if you don't understand that, you probably aren't going to understand why SS is the way it is.

What do you think Mr. Nestor's arguments were?

Since you obviously don't know, I'll tell you.

Mr. Fleming was trying to make the same argument you are which was that SS is "insurance". He lost that argument some 48 years ago just like you've lost it. Here's a portion of the brief filed by the DOJ on behalf of the SSA once again for the obtuse:

The OASI program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.

[Hannah Bell]

106. Uh, no , that's the "brief" filed by this wingnut:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+OASI+program+is+in+no+sense+a+federally-administered+%27insurance+program%27%22

Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "The OASI program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program'". (0.63 seconds)

The Immorality of Social Security| The Foundation for Economic ...The OASI program is in no sense a federally-administered “insurance program” under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement ...

www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=2628 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Ronald Reagan and Medicare... the Department of justice in its brief said, "the OASI program is in no sense a federally-administered insurance program under which each worker pays ...
www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/Reagan.htm - 87k - Cached - Similar pages


Do you even understand what a "brief" is?

Hint: It's not a court decision.

Bugger off, you're just posting cut & paste arguments, most of which I've heard 10 times before.

[MajorChode]

116. Once again you are caught in a lie

The portion of the "brief" I posted was NOT written by a wingnut. It was written by a DOJ attorney representing the SSA and the US government. So either you are simply perpetuating a lie once again in a failed attempt to make an ad hominem argument, or you are simply too ignorant to understand what a "brief" is. Since you claim 95% intellectual superiority over everyone else, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

You can include ad hominem to your long list of logical fallacies you employ. Farther and farther do you descend down the road of pure unadulterated bullshit. Did you actually think you could use another logical fallacy without me raising the bullshit flag on you again? Do you even understand what logical fallacies are? People (like you) who make their arguments using only logical fallacies are what any reasonably intelligent person would call, "full of shit". I'm sure you've enjoyed great success using fallacious rhetoric on others, but you're not in the same league anymore. Such cheap parlor tricks don't work on me.

But perhaps you think "briefs" are what people like you pull out of their ass, but I can assure you that's not the case. A "brief" is the written argument presented by either side to the court presenting their facts and legal reasoning. So obviously you don't have a clue what they are. Furthermore those historical briefs are available to anyone who has access to a comprehensive law library and are a matter of public record.

Now if you want to discuss the FACTS about those briefs (and clearly you don't), then do so. If you want to go down the road of ad hominem and argue that just because you were able to google them from a wingnut web site the must not be FACTS, then I will simply say you are full of shit.

It's obvious you haven't heard them "10 times before" or you wouldn't have bothered to google them and you wouldn't have demonstrated extreme ignorance regarding the history of SS.

Now that we've cleared up and negated your ad hominem bullshit, just try answering this question (which I'm sure you won't).

Why did the government itself argue that SS was NOT "insurance" if that wasn't the case?

I'm sure you won't answer the question because you know more than 95% of everyone else, which includes the DOJ attorneys who I'm sure you think are full of crap.

[Hannah Bell]

62. dupe

[Cleita]

35. It IS retirement insurance. You pay into it with the chance that if you live

to be 65 you will be able to collect benefits. It works no differently than life insurance. You don't collect benefits from life insurance until you die or your beneficiaries do anyway. In SS you are the beneficiary and you collect for the rest of your life once you reach the right age. In my husband's case it was thirteen years. However, his benefit extended to me, which I'm still collecting.

[MajorChode]

38. It works very much diffently than life insurance

The definition somewhat matches in your case because you were married.

However, what about someone who isn't married or has underage children? What should they call it?

Should they call it insurance?

Insurance protects you from unforeseen circumstances and hedges your bets against risk. Who on earth would buy an insurance policy against an unforeseen risk like old age, but pays nothing if you don't make it? You would be ahead just saving the money for retirement.

[Cleita]

40. Life insurance pays nothing when you stop paying into it, like in middle age

when the premiums get hiked up as to make more sense to put the money in the bank. When you stop paying, all that you paid into it before that you don't get back. You get nothing back. At least with SS, even if you never collected, there is someone you loved who did like a grandparent or sister or brother.

[MajorChode]

43. You make a great case for the merits of taking care of the elderly, but not for SS itself

I would agree completely that we as a society should take care of those who can't take care of themselves, especially the elderly. I don't think there's a question about the merits of the lofty ideals of the program.

The problem I see is some people think of SS as welfare, some think of it as insurance, and some think of it as retirement. The reality is it is some of all three of those things, but it doesn't do any of them very well.

[Cleita]

45. It's definitely not welfare because those who benefit from it

have paid into it at sometime in their life. Welfare recipients have seldom paid the taxes that support it.

[MajorChode]

76. That's because most are kids

The hope is that most who receive welfare will someday become self sufficient and pay taxes like everyone else.

But it is true that most Americans have such a callus view of welfare. That probably explains why we have one of the highest poverty rates in the G-8.

[closeupready]

42. Getting lonely out there, all alone?

:rofl:

[MajorChode]

44. ...sez the one who HAS no argument

Unless you count "you are so full of it" as an argument.

Most people north of a room temperature IQ don't.

[defendandprotect]

67. Yes . . . because Social Security does cover disabilities . . .

And, yes, the Repugs have made some very negative changes to Social Security

which should be overturned.

It insures families, children, where spouse dies --

Blindness -- etc.

And there used to be a "death" payment which I think has been substantially reduced

or eliminated.

[MajorChode]

75. The disability program is administered by the SSA, but...

Is in no way tied to FICA. It is a separate program.

The pugs made a lot of changes to SS in 1983, much of it with the approval of many Democrats. Moynihan made a lot of good arguments against those changes and they are well worth reading.

[Hannah Bell]

79. Wrong, as usual. SSI Disability is a separate program. It's not funded with SS $$.

But SS DOES have a disability portion, it's Social Security disability.

The difference?

SSI, Supplemental Security income, is for people who never paid into the SS system enough to vest in it.

Social Security disability is paid to disabled workers vested in the SS system.

Maybe now you get the difference between "insurance" & "welfare"?

Yes, I see how broad your so-called sweeping knowledge of SS is.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

85. Social Security has benefits for the blind.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10052.html

The rest of your post is your usual crap.


If you are blind, we have special rules that allow you to receive benefits when you are unable to work.

We pay benefits to people who are blind under two programs: the Social Security disability insurance program and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The medical rules we use to decide whether you are blind are the same for each program. Other rules are different. We explain the different rules for each program below.

You can get disability benefits if you are “legally blind”
You may qualify for Social Security or SSI disability benefits if you are considered “legally blind.” We consider you to be legally blind if your vision cannot be corrected to better than 20/200 in your better eye, or if your visual field is 20 degrees or less in your better eye.

You can get disability benefits even if you are not legally blind
If your vision does not meet the legal definition of blindness, you may still qualify for disability benefits if your vision problems alone or combined with other health problems prevent you from working. For Social Security disability benefits, you also must have worked long enough in a job where you paid Social Security taxes. For SSI payments based on disability and blindness, you need not have worked, but your income and resources must be under certain dollar limits.

How you qualify for Social Security disability benefits
When you work and pay Social Security taxes, you earn credits that count toward future Social Security benefits.

If you are legally blind, you can earn credits anytime during your working years. Credits for your work after you become blind can be used to qualify you for benefits if you do not have enough credits at the time you become blind.

Also, if you do not have enough credits to get Social Security disability benefits based on your own earnings, you may be able to get benefits based on the earnings of one of your parents or your spouse.

For more information about Social Security disability benefits, contact us to get Disability Benefits (Publication No. 05-10029). This booklet also is available in Braille.

[MajorChode]

88. So what is the score now that you've been proven wrong yet again?

Would you say you know more than 90% or 85%, or are you still going with the 95% figure?

Just curious.

[Hannah Bell]

90. SS has benefits for the blind. The rest of your post - the usual crap.

[MajorChode]

92. Well some would call it "reality"

[Hannah Bell]

93. Nope, they'd call it contentless, ad hom crapola.

[MajorChode]

95. That would be you

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket.

[olegramps]

111. People like you are a pain in the butt.

You make a ridiculous claim that cannot be substantiated and continue to refuse to be corrected. Why don't you just give it up here and go join the Republicans who have the same vain of non-think.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own unsubstantiated facts.

[olegramps]

110. Why would someone persist in being wrong!

SS is an insurance policy whose deposits have been robbed by the government in a futile attempt to balance the budget and continue their reckless spending spree.

[katmondoo]

15. YES we still need Social Security

without it many of us elderly would be in the streets. How dare anyone that means anyone, who calls it welfare is a total uninformed idiot. They are the people whom I wish will need it in their old age. I paid into it for over forty years so do NOT call it welfare.

[MajorChode]

29. You must think the USSC was full of totally uninformed idiots

In fact, numerous court cases challenged Social Security at its inception.

And what was their argument?

That Social Security was not welfare, so Congress had no authority to implement it.

What was their decision?

Social Security was welfare, so Congress did have the authority to implement.

Steward Machine Co. v Davis
It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare.

Helvering v Davis
When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield. Constitution, Art. VI, Par. 2.

Carmichael v Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper
This Court has long and consistently recognized that the public purposes of a state, for which it may raise funds by taxation, embrace expenditures for its general welfare.

Whether you paid into it for 40 years is irrelevant to what it is or isn't. Other people pay taxes at various points in their life and still need public financial assistance from time to time. Are you saying they don't deserve it?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oceansaway]

2. imo, no, not if he paid into SS

all his life....hes got it coming...

[DrDan]

3. he paid in to Social Security to get these benefits - why should he be denied?

[SoCalDem]

4. Our local bowling center used to have a senior league

that I helped with.. MANY of these folks had several pensions..

One guy in his 80's had :
1) SS
2) military pension
3) state of CA pension
4) union pension

He always called his SS payment "greens fees & bowling money"

But, he earned all of those pensions...

My father had his military pension, a city govt pension and SS too but he died at 65+5 months, so he collected very little ..

The folks who want to means test, seek "punishment" of the few who are "multi-dippers or super wealthy", but singling out the ones who are able to hire accountants may bite us all in the ass...

It's better to just knock the 97K (or whatever it is now) cap off of the payments INTO the system... or to attach a surcharge somehow to the super-high earners..(they'll never miss it, and the benefit of maybe not seeing so many old people pushing their life's worth around in shopping carts, might be worth it to them:)

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. It becomes wrong if the law is changed. It's that simple.

And yes, I think it should be changed. If it isn't needed, it shouldn't be drawn. It never ceases to amaze me how greedy people can be.

Like pigs' snouts in a trough. And that's a major reason why not enough ever goes to those who really do need it.

Guys like this should try just pushing away from the banquet table once in a while.

[MiniMe]

14. I disagree that the law should be changed

Social Security is not an entitlement program as the repubes like to say because everybody gets it when they make it to age 65. It is more like an insurance policy that you pay into. That would open it up to be eliminated. Too many people rely on their social security check to live.

[Saturday]

6. Of course this man should get it. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

7. No. Everyone who receives SS has paid into the system. Everyone should receive the benefit they're

entitled to receive. It's insurance, just like life insurance. If you keep up with your insurance premiums and die, somebody gets the money.

[Zuiderelle]

11. Yes, someone, usually a spouse. Unless you're gay. Then it goes back in the coffer.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Are you referring to normal life insurance or SS? Because you are able to make anybody your

beneficiary of your life insurance policy if they're over 21.

[Zuiderelle]

20. Social Security, the subject of the OP. A gay spouse DOES NOT get a partner's SS benefits.

Period.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. I sympathize with you. However, I've known over a dozen single men and women who died after

only receiving a few SS payments and all that they paid in went back into the pot. Same will happen to mine if I were to die. I have a grown son and grandchild, but they can't collect on my SS.

[Betty88]

27. Gay with partner is not single

Please don't confuse your single friends with me and my partner of 17 years. Should I die she can not get my SS payments she will also loose her health insurance, that I have to pay income tax on... It is not the same thing as your grandchildren getting your check.

[Statistical]

30. I agree with you it is WRONG. Morally and Civilly

Even without legalized Gay Marriage (which may take a while to be resolved) the laws should be changed immediately so that for SSI a single beneficiary can be named.

If married it would be spouse.
If in civil union it would be partner.
If not in either (due to law or religious reasons) it could be a person whom the SSI recipient has a long term relationship.

This "could" happen tomorrow but sadly I don't think that is the kinda change Obama is looking for.

[Zuiderelle]

39. And the difference is that if you meet someone you want to marry and take care of you CAN.

Same thing happens to you as happens to all single people. The difference is that married STRAIGHT people are able to protect their spouses while gay people ARE NOT.

[sinkingfeeling]

48. I understand. Hopefully, that will change in the near future.

[demodonkey]

114. Gay or anyone else with partner IS NOT "SINGLE". Your comparison feeds the Fundy meme.

:grr:

[MajorChode]

37. Not quite

It's not like life insurance at all (although life insurance would be the closest type of insurance it could reasonably be compared with). Life insurance is for the exclusive benefit of your survivors which can be any beneficiary you designate. In reality, life insurance only protects you if you die young. Most life insurance gets too expensive to retain in old age and most people don't. Whole life is the exception, but most don't buy whole life as it's not a good value.

If you die, SS only pays a reduced survivor's benefit (in most instances) and even then only to your spouse or children. In that regard, that small facet of SS somewhat resembles an insurance program. However if you are unmarried and don't have underage children, you still pay the same amount, so for that reason you really can't even call that part of the program "insurance".

[sinkingfeeling]

47. Social Security is retirement insurance. If you pay into it during your working life, you should

get the benefit, no matter how much other money or income you have.

[MajorChode]

54. But what kind of benefit are you talking about?

If your view of SS is like a whole life policy that you eventually receive an annuity, then logically the more you pay into the program the more you should get out of it, and this relationship would be linear.

However, it's not linear. It's not even close. Those who pay more derive less benefit from their dollars, and they are much more likely to have their benefit taxed, which reduces it even more.

So let's say we wanted to make SS truly into an insurance policy and make the benefit linear for everyone instead of logarithmic. The more you pay in, the more you get, period, and nobody gets their benefit taxed (just like an insurance policy). Well, we can't do that without reducing the benefit to those on the low side of the scale or greatly increasing FICA. Neither are realistic.

Thinking of SS as insurance serves the Republicans' purposes, because if people started calling it social welfare (which is what it really is), then someone might come up with the idea that it shouldn't be just the middle and upper-middle classes paying for it. Everyone should be paying for it, including the rich.

[sinkingfeeling]

56. It is the Republicans who consistantly insist that SS is 'welfare', just like you. You appear to

have a limited understanding of the program. Compare the 'benefits' of those who averaged about $16K a year in wages and those who made $100K and you will find that the monthly benefit does vary.

[MajorChode]

57. I have an excellent understanding of the program

You didn't read what I wrote very well. I'm not saying a person who makes $100K gets less in his check, I'm saying a person who makes $100K derives far less benefit as a function of his contribution.

The $100K person makes over 6 times more than the $16K person, and also pays over 6 times more in FICA.

At retirement, the $100K person will get less than 3 times more than the $16K person.

In fact, the person at $16K gets over twice the benefit for his contribution. The $100K person will almost certainly have 85% of his benefit taxed, which further reduces his benefit.

Now I don't think anyone can argue that the $16K person doesn't deserve more, and that's not what I'm taking issue with. My issue is that, in fact, at least at some level, social security is social welfare. And since this is the case, the burden for funding it should fall on everyone and not just the middle classes.

Some seem to have this irrational fear that if we start requiring the small minority of the wealthiest Americans to start ponying up to their social obligations, somehow something disastrous will happen like SS will cease to exist. If that is the case then I say that the fat junkie's false notion of "class warfare" has been bought into by not only the far right.

[olegramps]

112. Give it up. You have been so soundly defeated you are becoming a pest.

Go post on some Republican board where they will appreciate your nonsense.

[Obamanaut]

8. It's his money. nt

[terisan]

9. The government owes the social security fund money they have taken and used for other things.

Congress needs to pay it back and this guy should get his check.

[Romulox]

60. WE are the government. Congress doesn't pay anything. Taxpayers do. nt

[Zuiderelle]

10. It's his money. What he does with it is a moral judgement.

Ideally, he would put it back into the hands of people who need it, but if he doesn't, it's not our money nor our place to judge.

I'm more concerned about the widows and widowers of gay partners who die who never get one cent from their partners' social security benefits.

[Statistical]

12. Similar story

I used to work for a guy, worth at lot. He lived a rich lifestyle, lots of money, planes, cars, wasted wealth (I am morally superior because I have less wealth than he does, otherwise why would I included how we "wasted" his money).

Also I will kinda allude but not quite confirm the fact that he is a bad man because he made money off old sick people (I need to build up moral superiority for when you here my plan).

Anyways to the actual story:

During his lifetime he put aside 12.4% of his income into a separate bank account that he never withdrew. He called it his "security" plan. Every paycheck 12.4% went to his "security" plan. He was very consistent with it, rain or shine, good times or bad he ALWAYS put 12.4% aside in his plan. We called it paying himself first. Other people laughed at him but he put aside that money. Now he decided to "cap" his security account at $13,400 a year (12.4% of $108K). He ran some numbers and he knew that $13,400 saved each year would be enough to take car of his final years no matter what happened to the rest of his investments.

Now after working for 40+ years he had saved a LOT of money (probably too much). Plus monthly interest from money market fund didn't hurt either (40 years of compounding is something).

He decided to do one last safe thing. He took all the money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) from his "security" account and bought an annuity. The annuity will pay him a guaranteed income for the rest of his life. Now it turns out he never needed his security plan. He is rich. He stuck with the plan for 40 years to ensure he was "covered" in case something bad happened and he lost his risky assets. Here is the part that just burns me up. HE NEVER NEEDED IT!

How about you and I beat the shit of him and steal it? We could tie him up and force him to sign over the annuity checks to us. I mean he is a rich old man who was smart enough to put aside money for his final years and stuck with the plan for 40 years. What a F**king bastard? How DARE HE plan to be self-sufficient in his last years. We will show him. Armed robbery that is the American way.

The only different between my "old man" and your "old man" is that SS is a required plan and this one is optional. They both work exactly the same. SS is insurance. You pay into it and get an annuity with guaranteed payments for the rest of your life. Actually for the rich SS is a very bad insurance plan. For the same amount witheld they could get a MUCH MUCH better deal with a private annuity.

Somehow you are implying it is morally right to seize someones money as long as it is being held by Federal govt as opposed to being held by Wachovia. Robbery of privately held funds is illegal but somehow robbery of federally held funds should be legal? You are talking about seizing someones wealth. A wealth that took a lifetime to build.

If he wants to use that money to light his fireplace it is his money. He saved it.

[burythehatchet]

18. When you put it that way it makes so much more sense to me.

The whole "mugging" and "armed robbery" thing was very convincing, especially because the font changed to a bold variety at various points in your story.

That's when it struck me, the muggings and armed robberies are only allowed against the ones who are unable to defend themselves. The poor shlubs who thought they were going to have a pension that was whoops underfunded. How did THAT happen?

But somehow to you SSI is some sacred entity that sits immune from the rest of the economy. No, SSI is untouchable, but pensions, stock market swindles, war profiteering, S&L bailouts, bank bailouts, they are all good and fine because the people who have to bear the brunt of that are we and our children. Take your...never mind.

[Statistical]

22. Stealing is stealing. Doesn't matter if it is by physical force or by legislated force.

Wrong is wrong, you can try to hide it if it makes you feel better by making it legal but you are advocating theft. Period.

Why stop just at this rich guy? Do you (or anyone you know) make 1% above the median income? How about we take all their assets too.
I mean is it fair that you get a secure retirement? There are people who make less than you. Shouldn't we seize your funds to protect them?

A homeless person could benefit from your future SS check more than you can. So it is fine if we seize yours also right? Why limit it to the US. We are all humans right? World median income is somewhere in the $11,000 range. How about we seize SS from everyone above world median income to relieve suffering around the world?

Either of those plans sound good? Or is theft just morally acceptable to you when it happens to someone richer than you?

But somehow to you SSI is some sacred entity that sits immune from the rest of the economy. No, SSI is untouchable, but pensions, stock market swindles, war profiteering, S&L bailouts, bank bailouts, they are all good and fine because the people who have to bear the brunt of that are we and our children. Take your...never mind.

That was kinda the point. SSI is backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal Govt. It is suppose to be the most stable, most basic, most secure insurance.

SSI = very low return (for people making more than $50,000 it is actually a negative return) very low risk
T-Bills
Pensions (insured via http://www.pbgc.gov/)
Invesmtment Bonds
Junk/High Yield Bonds
Stocks
Derivatives = very high return & very high risk

Your logic seems to be because people should lose money in stock market (high risk, high return) they should also be able to lose everything in SS (mandatory program they had no choice in and was sold as universal very low risk). :wtf:

[SmileyRose]

24. I have to agree with Statistical

SSI is and should remain a federally insured and run retirement insurance program. Everyone pays premiums and if one is lucky enough to live beyond a certain age then they have the insurance of knowing they will have some sort of income. Saying those who managed to be financially well off have no right to their insurance payoff is just wrong IMHO.

Statistical never said anything about it being OK to swindle the non-rich out of their pensions. He/she never said anything one way or the other about corporate welfare. However, I will say that it's wrong to swindle people out of their hard earned money, regardless of how it's done. Screwing people of their defined pension plans is just evil - and bailing out billionaire majority stockholders who make stupidass decisions at the expense of the poor is also evil - but the fact this happens doesn't make it OK to take SSI from Mr. Wealthy.

If you want SSI to be only for the poor then that's fine with me. Make it a welfare system rather than insurance. Change the name, whatever you like. But as long as it remains an insurance system then Mr. Rich has the same right to the payout as Mr. Poor.

[Doremus]

26. "For the same amount witheld they could get a MUCH MUCH better deal with a private annuity."

Tell that to my annuity. :eyes:

[SmileyRose]

53. 40 years of gains have not been wiped out in nearly all cases.

There are a few retired or close to retired seniors who's saving have been wiped out, However, everyone I know with a diversified portfolio still has a good 6-10% annual gain when averaged over 40 years - and that's after the losses of the last few years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SSI shoots for 2-3%.

[redqueen]

16. No, it isn't wrong... but it does seem wrong to withhold less from people because they earn more.

Is there any reason we have FICA deductions capped?

[Hamlette]

21. My story about means testing Social Security

My parents, and their siblings, lived a more modest American dream than the example in the op. They came from poverty, or in some cases lower middle class, and worked their way into the middle class. They sacrificed for years to get through college, worked 2 jobs, saved and had a modest nest egg when they retired. The ones who were "richest" got that way through land. My "rich" Aunt bought a house that came with 5 acres. When she died it was worth $1 million. My parents had a couple hundred grand in stocks when they retired. Dad had a couple of small pensions, one from his job, one from the military. Both had social security.

Social Security makes the difference between a measure of comfort after 40 years of working and a life of just scraping by.

If SS was means tested, all of them would turn it down even through they would likely qualify because they firmly believe "welfare" is there only if you absolutely must.

Means testing SS turns it into welfare.

[Cleita]

34. SS is not welfare. It's retirement insurance run by the government, because

if it were run by insurance companies, very little of it would be paid out in benefits, like with life insurance. In life insurance you pay into it every year and when you die your family gets death benefits, usually far less than you ever paid into it if you live long enough. With SS retirement insurance you pay into it all your life so when you retire at 62 or 65, you get a monthly check the rest of your life for your retirement. If you die before you are 65 you won't get anything, just like if you stop paying premiums into life insurance you won't get anything. However, with SS you may live long enough to collect all your money back that you paid into it.

You are right means testing would turn it into welfare.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Not Wrong Whatsoever.

[Cleita]

33. How do you know he wasn't giving his funny money away to the homeless?

I've known rich people who give their SS money away to needy people, sometimes a needy relative or a charity they support. It doesn't mean that they don't deserve to get money back from a program they participated in and paid into. That's like saying rich people shouldn't get protection from the fire department because they can afford to pay for it, even though their property taxes support police and fire protection. btw SSI is for those under 65 who can no longer work because of illness or disability. It's part of SS but not distributed under the same rules. SSI is very strict about making sure it's recipients are indeed needy.

[Vinca]

36. The rich guy should get the benefits if he contributed, but

it would make a whole lot of sense to take a larger chunk out of the wealthy during the years they contribute to the fund. That would solve the crisis. Elevate the cap to $120,000 or $150,000 or higher for contributions, leave the dispersal rates as they are for now.

[Pithlet]

41. No. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. There's a reason why wealty people get SS benefits

Any program that is means-tested immediately bcomes "welfare."

Sad to say, it's necessary to bribe the rich by giving them SS, or else they would be gunning for it even more than they are now.

[burythehatchet]

49. I hear what you say. Sadly, the money's all gone. Even the SSI. Al Gore wanted

to protect it. Its all gone, so whether we like it or not, SSI has to be looked at in this light.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Current accounts are still good

It's the reserve fund that's depleted.

[Hannah Bell]

65. no, the money's not "gone," & social security isn't "SSI".

could you quit confusing SSI (disability, not funded with SS taxes) & SS, please.

[defendandprotect]

70. That's baloney . . . Are we defaulting on government bonds/notes . . . ????

[burythehatchet]

72. you're correct. The money can actually never run out. Bernanke farts trillion $ bills in his sleep

[Hannah Bell]

80. Which doesn't answer his point. Does the money only "run out" when it's borrowed from ordinary folk

but never run out when it's borrowed from millionaires?

And, in fact, the money *doesn't* "run out" if we decide it doesn't. Lincoln financed a lot of the Civil War on greenbacks, a currency he essentially created so as not to have to go into debt to international banksters. It worked fine.

Oh, & in a deflation, "printing money" isn't inflationary. The problem was, is, & remains the DEBT of the FINANCIER class, willfully created on bogus collaterals.

[defendandprotect]

101. Only if you bankrupt the Treasury with wars ---

which should be TREASON ... IMO.

[defendandprotect]

102. Bailing out Capitalism . . . again . . .

is evidently Okay . . .

but even using the huge Clinton SURPLUS to restore borrowing from

Social Security was an idea that had to be destroyed---!!!

Bankrupting the Treasury by any means should be TREASON ...

Bush/Cheney should be in jail ---

Is bail out total $8.8 Billion?

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. It's no more "gone" than the money loaned to us by China.

The trust fund is physical bonds bearing the words "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States".

It is no more gone than the money your bank loaned you for your mortgage... provided we, like the bank, intend to collect.

[Romulox]

59. So give the wealthy foodstamps too. And housing assistance. And free prostheses (needed or not)

Anything else would be "welfare", which (for some undefined reason) is the worst thing in the world.

[defendandprotect]

68. If what you are arguing for is depriving the few, or punishing them . ..

then you are short-sighted because you will harm the MANY . . .

[Hannah Bell]

81. They can get those things if they need them. The difference is, those things are funded from the

general budget.

Social Security isn't, & its financing is arranged so that no one can say people are getting a free ride.

[Romulox]

107. No, the wealthy cannot receive foodstamps. Gimme a break. nt

[Romulox]

115. They can also get retirement annuities if they need them. And you're wrong about the general budget

The "Social Security" trust fund is set to require "repayment" from the general budget starting in 2012

[Hannah Bell]

119. 1. you have the wrong date: it's 2017. But that's understandable,

because the date changes every year. 2012 is the date from the 1997 report.

2017 is the date from the 2008 report. 2018 was from the 2007 report; it moved back because of higher unemployment in '08. It will move forward again if employment increases.

2. This situation, having a bloated TF to borrow from, was supposedly a "good thing" in 1983, when the reagan admin raised SS rates to create surplus collections: they saved social security!

Now the Orwellites style it a "bad thing". Who knew?

[katty]

51. i've known people who don't need SSI to do that-that needs

to change.

[csziggy]

52. My parents each receive a SS check each month

They are not rich by the standard of the guy you worked for, but by most people's standards they are rich. They did work hard to get there, thus they are legally entitled to the SS checks. But they do not need them at all.

I think it is especially offensive to not have a cap on receiving the pay outs from Social Security as long as there is a cap on paying into it. If everyone who works, or maybe everyone who has an income, pays in, then it would not be so bad IMO to let people receive pay outs.

[defendandprotect]

69. That's nonsense. Your parents could fall on hard times at any time...

One of their children may have an emergency --- and they would want to help.

Remember the Enron people who thought they were millionaries -- and suddenly

ALL gone????


Let's remove the cap on FICA completely -- why not?

[csziggy]

71. If someone loses everything, then they can re-apply for SS

But when they don't need it, why should they collect? Yes SS is considered sort of like an insurance, but IMO it should be more like unemployment insurance - available when really needed, not at your convenience when you do not.

My parents grew up during the Depression. They have no debt, their house is paid for, they have substantial assets and live far below their means. Of course, that does not mean that a medical emergency or a complete financial collapse could not take a large chunk of what they have, but they have done everything humanly possible to plan for all contingencies.

[Hannah Bell]

82. Well, if they want to, they can send it back to the gov, or donate it to charity.

But they paid in, & they're getting what they paid for.

[defendandprotect]

103. Are you also going to suggesting . . .

that the poor get double checks . . .

When you make an attempt to disconnect the few wealthy from the system

you are making a short-sighted judgment.

Everyone collects and the system works -- or you make exceptions and it

doesn't work.

And your parents have been lucky, as well.

Shall we disconnect people from Social Security because they haven't suffered

calamities? Theft? Poor health?

[MajorChode]

77. Good question

I would favor the same thing, but there are many who have an irrational fear that if we start making the very rich pay their fair share of social responsibilities that somehow they will use their political influence to kill SS completely.

[Hannah Bell]

83. "Their fair share" - sez who? If you want the rich to pay for welfare,

INCREASE THEIR INCOME TAX RATES.

Not their Social Security tax rates.

[MajorChode]

87. So Social Security is a tax now, eh?

Or was that just a Freudian slip?

But you are correct. FICA is a tax and the proceeds of said tax go directly into the general fund and are not earmarked for SS. So yes I do want the rich to pay for welfare and yes I do want to increase their tax.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Hannah Bell]

89. I never said SS taxes weren't taxes, I said SS wasn't "welfare."

No, SS taxes don't go "directly to the general fund," & yes, they are "earmarked for SS". That's what the Trust Fund is for.

Over 700 billion in SS taxes & Trust Fund interest was collected last year & over $500 billion went out to SS recipients.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Increase their income taxes if you're so hep on making the rich pay more. Then they could pay down what they borrowed from SS to fund their tax cuts.

[MajorChode]

94. Once again you prove your ignorance

You really are making it too easy for me. Do you realize that?

From the Social Security website:

The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html

The proceeds, when collected, go into the Treasury of the United States like internal-revenue collections generally. Section 905 (a). They are not earmarked in any way.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme2.html

I'm kinda getting tired of providing all the proof around here. Don't you ever have any, or is just your 95% superior knowledge all that is required? Just curious.

[Hannah Bell]

100. Well, let's see who's ignorant:

Your initial assertion:

"FICA is a tax and the proceeds of said tax go directly into the general fund and are not earmarked for SS."

This is a statement about the present: 2009, to be precise.

In support of which, you cite Helvering v. Davis, 1936/37. The Court references Title 8, Section 807a of the 1935 SS Act, & says:

"The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

Here's the relevant section in the 1935 Act:

"DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES

SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections. If the tax is not paid when due, there shall be added as part of the tax interest (except in the case of adjustments made in accordance with the provisions of sections 802 (b) and 805) at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month from the date the tax became due until paid.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html


But unfortunately, your right-wing crib site just cherry-picks shit it thinks will sound good to the uninformed. If you'd only read down into the case a bit, the Court, referencing Title II of the 1935 Act, continues:

"Title II has the caption "Federal Old-Age Benefits." The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant.

The first section of this title CREATES AN ACCOUNT IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURING TO BE KNOWN AS THE "OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT". Section 201. NO PRESENT APPROPRIATION, HOWEVER, IS MADE TO THAT ACCOUNT. All that the statute does is TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS ANNUALLY THEREAFTER beginning with the fiscal year which ends June 30, 1937.

How large they shall be is not known in advance. The "amount sufficient as an annual premium" to provide for the required payments is "to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually." Section 201 (a). NOT A DOLLAR GOES INTO THE ACCOUNT BY FORCE OF THE CHALLENGED ACT ALONE, UNAIDED BY ACTS TO FOLLOW..."


In other words, the "Old-Age Reserve Account" had been legislated, but was not yet in use, since the whole SS system wasn't even fully in place, nor all the relevant legislation fully enacted.

Which is not the case TODAY.


From 1936:

THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS SYSTEM

"Under the Federal Social Security Act {3} a Nation-wide old-age benefit system is provided. Title II {4} of the act establishes an OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT IN THE TREASURING OF THE UNITED STATES FROM WHICH THERE WILL BE PAID AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941, AN OLD-AGE BENEFIT in the form of a monthly life income to eligible wage earners after they have reached the age of 65. From December 31, 1936, there will be paid certain death benefits and lump-sum payments at 65."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ces/cesbookc11.html


From 1939:

THE OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE (OASI) TRUST FUND WAS CREATED pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act AMENDMENTS OF 1939. These amendments also established a Board of Trustees. OASI became effective on January 1, 1940, and SUPERSEDED THE OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SS ACT OF 1935.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html.

This is the same dedicated SS Trust Fund Account we have today, IN 2009.



Now bugger off.

[MajorChode]

117. As it turns out, it's you (SURPRISE!)

What a load of bullshit you just hauled in. So where do I start to correct your ignorance...hmmm, let's start with "trust fund".

A "trust fund" to the federal government bears no resemblance to a private sector term of the same name which carries common law connotations. If you don't understand that simple basic concept of government, you are probably on the 5% side of the bell curve, rather than the 95% side as you claim. "Trust fund" as used by the federal government is simply an accounting tool and nothing more. All trust funds in the federal government do NOT have any funds in them whatsoever. They are simply IOUs. All the money that comes from FICA goes directly into the general fund and an IOU goes into the "trust fund" filing cabinet. The SSA is authorized by law to cash in those IOUs WITHOUT congressional approval. This is purely for convenience. Otherwise congress would have to authorize funds every time the SSA needed money to pay benefits. In fact, almost all (if not all) federal entitlement programs work that way and somewhere around half of the entire federal budget resides in "trust fund" IOUs. So not only is there no "fund" there is no "trust" either. Congress can wipe out every single one of those IOUs with the stroke of a pen and not one single person in the US would have a legal recourse. So if you really think your "trust fund" argument holds any more water than a sieve, you are sadly mistaken.

Federal "trust funds" should NOT be confused with private trust funds like real insurance companies that are generally legally required to maintain with real funds and a fiduciary. It ain't the same thing. There is no "trust" there is no "fund" and you don't have a legal right to anything beyond the due process clause of the 5th amendment.

This is all basic stuff here. Tell me again about the 95% claim again. That was really funny.

[Hannah Bell]

120. From 1936:

THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS SYSTEM

"Under the Federal Social Security Act {3} a Nation-wide old-age benefit system is provided. Title II {4} of the act establishes an OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT IN THE TREASURING OF THE UNITED STATES FROM WHICH THERE WILL BE PAID AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941, AN OLD-AGE BENEFIT in the form of a monthly life income to eligible wage earners after they have reached the age of 65. From December 31, 1936, there will be paid certain death benefits and lump-sum payments at 65."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ces/cesbookc11.html

[MajorChode]

121. I can get to the SS web site myself

Do you still think any "trust fund" has actual funds in the account? Or is "cut and paste" the best you can do at this point?

[Hannah Bell]

122. From 1939:

THE OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE (OASI) TRUST FUND WAS CREATED pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act AMENDMENTS OF 1939. These amendments also established a Board of Trustees. OASI became effective on January 1, 1940, and SUPERSEDED THE OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SS ACT OF 1935.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html .



Having been revealed as clueless, you now revert to the old standard,

"We spent all the money in the Trust Fund".


Yeah, the bank "spent" all the money in your bank account, too, when they loaned it out to other people. But I bet you wouldn't buy that if they tried to use it as a reason not to give you your money.

[MajorChode]

124. You can now add strawman to your long list of logical fallacies

Time to raise the flag.


Intentionally misquoting someone is just another form of lying. For one that claims to be so intolerant of lies, you sure do quite a bit of it.

I never claimed:
"We spent all the money in the Trust Fund"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Obviously since you can't possibly argue with what I did say, you must invent things in your vain attempt to claim your 95% intellectual superiority self anointed title.

Such a claim would be ridiculous. There's no money in the "trust fund" to begin with. Only IOUs that the government calls "securities" (which aren't even securities in reality).

Furthermore, you use yet another one of your logical fallacies which in this case is a false analogy with your bank account nonsense. Depositing money in a bank creates a legal contract between the depositor and the depository institution which is enforceable via tort law. No such contract exists with SS.

So let's run the tally of your logical fallacies. OK?

We have Strawman, false analogies, ad hominem, ad verecundiam, ad nauseam, circular reasoning, sweeping generalizations, and non sequitur. I'm probably missing one or two because it's not all that easy to keep up with all of your bullshit mongering, but needless to say your "crap" pretty much runs the full gambit of available fallacious rhetoric.

[Hannah Bell]

127. 1939

THE OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE (OASI) TRUST FUND WAS CREATED pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act AMENDMENTS OF 1939...and SUPERSEDED THE OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SS ACT OF 1935.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html .

[MajorChode]

128. Argumentum ad nauseam

Ad nauseam arguments are logical fallacies that rely upon the repetition of a single argument while ignoring other valid arguments, to counter those other arguments. This tactic relies on the use of intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favor of preconceived, and ultimately, subjective modes of reasoning and rationality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

[Hannah Bell]

129. THE OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE (OASI) TRUST FUND

WAS CREATED pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act AMENDMENTS OF 1939...and SUPERSEDED THE OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SS ACT OF 1935.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html




No other way to respond to a toad, is there?

[MajorChode]

130. For the toad

[Hannah Bell]

131. OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND 1939

[MajorChode]

132. Now that you're idiocy has been fully revealed...

for exactly what it is, you may now have the last word, as you apparently crave it no matter how childish you must act.

Enjoy and have a nice day.

[Hannah Bell]

133. OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND 1939

[olegramps]

113. Your lack of knowledge about what you are pretending to be an expert on is most revealing.

Why are you persisting in exposing your ignorance of the facts. Everyone of your assumptions has been disproved by people who have demonstrated far more in depth knowledge of Social Security than yourself. What I can't understand is why are you on this board using the same ridiculous arguments that are employed by Republicans whose only desire is to destroy it because it is one of the most successful of the New Deal legislation? It has provided our seniors, like myself, with a guaranteed income that supplements my own savings and pension program. I thank God for Roosevelt that I don't have to see people in their old age eating out of garbage cans. The Republicans would love to dismantle it since it would save their corporations billions of dollars in mandatory matching payments. Just who in the hell do you think fought against it?

[MajorChode]

118. What makes you think I'm fighting against it?

For someone who accuses me of ignorance, you sure as hell haven't read very many of my posts.

Not only do I want to preserve SS, I'm an advocate of strengthening it, increasing benefits to those who need it, and reducing the burden of the program on the middle class. If you think those are the arguments of the right, then I'm not really sure what rock you're living under.

[Hekate]

55. Afaik, FDR's reason for everyone getting a check was that everyone would then support SSI. Otherwise

Otherwise, Social Security checks would have quickly devolved into something "they" were getting, like welfare, and that kind of mindset allows entitlement programs to always be vulnerable to cuts, cuts, and more cuts.

This way everyone pays in and everyone gets a check and Social Security has remained virtually untouchable.

I know this is the simple version, but it's my best understanding of a complex arrangement.

That said, I would have found it offensive if my boss called it his "funny money" in front of me, a perennially low-paid worker -- would have kept my mouth shut, though, and let it roll off me like water off a duck's back.

Hekate

[Hannah Bell]

91. Yes, it's a good explanation, & it's worked well. SS has always had high support %'s,

& it's because everyone gets something back if they pay in.

[Romulox]

58. These arguments make no sense. Why not send the Millionaires WIC and Blind Persons' benefits too?

So that the piggish millionaires won't accuse anyone of receiving welfare, you see. :puke;

[defendandprotect]

104. It's an insurance program for EVERYONE . . .

If you want to disconnect the wealthy few -- maybe you also want to give

double benefits to the poor who also collect Social Security?

Let's make "means tests" and delve into everyone's finances -- make them

prove what they have and don't have?

Let's keep it simple and keep the original agreement -- everyone who paid

in collects a check.

[Romulox]

108. So make WIC an insurance program for EVERYONE, and distribute Katrina rebuilding funds to EVERYONE

and kidney transplants for EVERYONE etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Somehow, all of this will make the rich less selfish. Right? :wtf:

[defendandprotect]

126. If you're trying to "teach the rich to br less selfish"...

find a way to do it that doesn't harm everyone else ...

[Hannah Bell]

64. SO WHAT? He paid in. This is another version of the "welfare queen" story, promulgated

for the same reasons (not necessarily by you).

And, FYI, SSI ISN'T Social Security. It's Supplemental Security Income ("disability"), funded through the general budget, not from Social Security taxes.

[defendandprotect]

66. No . .. if he paid into it, he's entitled to it ---

Rather than looking at the few wealthy who collect, understand that honoring ALL

obligations for everyone is the way to go.

Additionally, Repugs would love to change this into a welfare system --- easier

to kill it!

[southernyankeebelle]

73. He earn it - Its his

I don't give a thang how wealthy the man is. If he paid into the program than he is only getting back what he put into it. I will tell you this. My dad retired from the military and got a pension and social security. My mom was a stay at home mother. My father died at the age of 50 yrs old all of a sudden. When he died he left 2 young children under the age of 13. My mother never worked except raising her large family. She got part of his military pension and social security. I don't know what she would have done. She came from another country. She didn't drive, she never wrote checks. My dad did everything. She took care of the family and cleaned the house. I will be retiring come Oct 11 09. I will be 62 than. I earned every penny and its my money. Alot of people would have been hurt if they had it in the stock market. Thank god for social security and medicare. I pray Obama will help this country with some type of medical insurance that everyone can afford to pay into.

[Romulox]

109. Social Security is 100% PAY AS YOU GO. His benefits come out of existing taxpayer contributions

Not out of "his earnings".

[Hannah Bell]

123. His earnings paid for someone else's benefits. That's how it works.

and since the 1983 Reagan "fix," it's no longer 100% pay-go. The premise of the fix was to have 35 years of OVERPAYMENT credits that could then be DRAWN DOWN to fund the boomers' old age.

[Romulox]

134. Right. But he didn't "earn" the money coming out of MY check by paying for a third person

Instead, he is expecting my help, the way he helped someone else.

"and since the 1983 Reagan "fix," it's no longer 100% pay-go. The premise of the fix was to have 35 years of OVERPAYMENT credits that could then be DRAWN DOWN to fund the boomers' old age."

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with this, but Social Security is indeed 100% pay as you go. 100% of benefits are paid for with current payroll taxes. Any so-called "trust fund" was spent years ago; only IOUs remain. And to replenish it, you must raise taxes on existing workers.

[elleng]

86. I won't go into the history etc

that others here have done, but I will say that it is WRONG for that guy to seek and take that benefit.

[marketcrazy1]

98. it should not be allowed

a guy who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars should NOT get SS money period. if the law says it`s ok then the law should be changed, social security is a "safety net" you pay into this fund in case you NEED it, nothing in life is certain and even the best laid plans can go wrong, that is why social security is there, so at retirement ( when you are to old to work ) if, for whatever reason you have not been able to save at least you will have SOMETHING to help keep you going. and if you happened to grab the brass ring, instead of complaining about paying into SS and not getting anything back you should thank god for your success and breath a sigh of relief that you dont need it.. WTF! people!! this is a no brainer!! and a sad commentary on American society that any could argue this with a straight face......

[elleng]

99. The problem arises

in opening the can of worms to begin with. I'm sure there are many issues that would be raised, and many potential disagreements; its just not possible to address ONE apparently simple item in a complex piece of legislation; the system won't allow it.

AND then the 'issue' and bounds would have to be defined. Put 10 of us in a room and we'd come up with 10 different ways to approach the same issue.

[defendandprotect]

105. The program covers him -- and that's the way it should stay . ..

concerning yourself with the few wealthy who collect makes you short-sighted

on overall success of program -- highly successful.

Trying to make exceptions of the few to somehow please your sense of justice

misses the overall concept of the program --- which is for EVERYONE.

[lanlady]

125. And what if he had lost all this money to Madoff?

Then he would need the SS check.

The point is, if a person paid into the system during their working life, they're entitled to claim it upon retirement. To do it any other way based on individual net worth or whatever at the age of 65 would effectively turn SS into an income tax. I'd rather see a strong progressive income tax system, and the closing of tax havens and other dodges, than complicate the way SS works.