Liberal Forum

Sumela » Yesterday, 8:17 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:17 pm

****,,,,a beautiful honest post sir.
There is a WILCO song that says..."its hard in the poor place tonite".

The lack of compassion and honor in these people is despicable.
Jesus spoke over and over about caring for the poor and the work-a-day people.

WTF?

Sumela » Yesterday, 8:17 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:17 pm

****,,,,a beautiful honest post sir.
There is a WILCO song that says..."its hard in the poor place tonite".

The lack of compassion and honor in these people is despicable.
Jesus spoke over and over about caring for the poor and the work-a-day people.

WTF?

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, lift the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:35 pm

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was right there with ya until the candy bar argument. You need a history lesson. 

When food stamps came on, they were sold to the public as being for staples. They were to address HUNGER. You asked rhetorically about "a guy buying his kid a candy bar," throwing shades of Norman Rockwell into your argument. I mean, what kinda guy wants to slap the candy bar out of a dad's hand, and see the light leave a little boy's dejected and forlorn face? What's next - kick the kid's dog? And that's ANOTHER thing. Why can't ya buy pet food with SNAP? What kind of monster would want to force a child to watch ole Fido starve to death? We gotta fix this!

So, here's the history lesson. The reason that nice dad can buy his kid a candy bar is that Hershey Company and Mars Company spent millions on bribes to make it so. And then coke came on board, and now the fast food joints are horning in - ALL looking to get a straw into the treasury, so they can suck. 

If this imaginary dad wants to get a candy bar for his imaginary kid, he can show some **** initiative and shoplift the **** thing. Or get a side hustle - something to augment his free housing, free medical, welfare payments and food stamps (along with some WIC every time he knocks up Little Candy Bar Timmy's mom). Maybe then he can have the dignity that comes with causing cavities, diabetes, and obesity.

Food stamps should be for food. Real food. You tell me I have a duty as a citizen to not let my neighbors starve? Okay - not gonna argue. In fact, gonna agree. But when you turn around and morph it into, "And ya gotta buy the kids candy bars, or you're a **** scrooge and a hater," now you're riding mighty high with a mighty low argument. That's some **** ****. Poverty isn't SUPPOSED to be easy. And the ONE **** THING that the poor have always had going for them is that they ate right. They could not afford the food that kills the better off. And you want to take that one thing away from them, in the name of compassion and liberalism. Well, sir, I object. My soks object. That's a **** army, sir.

Mrkelly » Today, 6:48 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:48 am

Thanks for setting me straight 

they should own nothing … and be happy

BOOTSTRAPS

Cannonpointer » Today, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:52 am

Are those the only options? I have to be part of the let them eat cake crowd, or I have to join you in poisoning pass-through children on behalf of big ag?

Do you genuinely not comprehend that end users are NOT the real beneficiaries? Did you think the POOR had lobbyists, pushing for SNAP to cover big macs? Is that where you thought your argument came from? From think tanks that create narratives to benefit the poor?

Thanks for setting ME straight - whatever big ag wants, big ag should get. And if they need to manipulate the gullible and guilt trip the based, so be it. 

VELCRO SNEAKERS

Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:52 pm

 Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi Scheme  

• Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
• Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
• Not backed by actual investments

Social Security

• Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
• Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
• Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments

Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution? 
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, lift the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly. 

These solutions suck ^^^. 

My idea: 

1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option. 

Or

2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?

• The concept is that everyone pays into a fund while they are working and are entitled to payments out of the fund once retired.
• Regardless of how successful someone has become, they did in fact work and paid into the fund.  Trust fund babies who do not work will not get social security because they never earn "wages".
• All people who work and contribute to a fund should be treated exactly the same way.  Drawing artificial lines as to who can and cannot receive social security, even though everyone contributed is what Democrats do.  It is not based on "fairness" but based on who an elite group of people decide should and should not receive retirement funds, even though they contributed.
• By doing this, you open the door to Democrats later saying that more blacks should get social security, using "Millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could decide to pay reparations to blacks using "millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could choose to fund "special" programs using funds contributed by people with "white privilege".  You do not want to open Pandora's ****** on this!
• I don't care if a Trillionaire pulls his retirement from Social Security, as long as its based upon what he contributed. That keeps things honest. 

Mrkelly » Today, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:07 am

Mooshell Obomba tried to make them eat healthy food

She couldn’t pull it off either 

If we can fund socialism in Israel 

I say

break off a piece of that Kit Kat bar for the homeys 

sandals and socks

Cannonpointer » Today, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:32 am

I disagree with supporting socialism in israel, so that argument does not address MY position - maybe some Sean Hannity fan's position, but not mine.

If I DID agree with that, you would have an argument that addresses my position. But I don't, so you don't. 

I am in perfect agreement with feeding the hungry. I do not feel compelled by compassion or by good sense to endorse big ag's propaganda. 

It might very well be that many people who want to slap candy bars out of poor people's hands are rat wing hayders. It might also be that many people who want to ooze their puss-bag "compassion" on the poor are virtue signaling on another man's dime. If you agree not to imply I am the former, I promise not to assume you are the latter.

Make israelis barefoot again (MIBA).

Skans » Today, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:14 am

Well, I agree with much of what you said here Vegas.  You and I differ on the 2nd solution you propose.  I'm going to explain why I do not like (and no conservative should like) your second proposed solution.

• The concept is that everyone pays into a fund while they are working and are entitled to payments out of the fund once retired.
• Regardless of how successful someone has become, they did in fact work and paid into the fund.  Trust fund babies who do not work will not get social security because they never earn "wages".
• All people who work and contribute to a fund should be treated exactly the same way.  Drawing artificial lines as to who can and cannot receive social security, even though everyone contributed is what Democrats do.  It is not based on "fairness" but based on who an elite group of people decide should and should not receive retirement funds, even though they contributed.
• By doing this, you open the door to Democrats later saying that more blacks should get social security, using "Millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could decide to pay reparations to blacks using "millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could choose to fund "special" programs using funds contributed by people with "white privilege".  You do not want to open Pandora's ****** on this!
• I don't care if a Trillionaire pulls his retirement from Social Security, as long as its based upon what he contributed. That keeps things honest. 

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:16 pm

Privatizing is a very bad idea. 
 
It will be stolen.

Vegas » Today, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:28 am

Yes, and morality says you are correct. Regretfully, morality and sustaining money do not always match. A depleted fund is a depleted fund. Regardless of what morality says. That means that people who did indeed pay into will not get their money either. This shouldn't be different than how we view welfare in the states. We all pay into that, but not everybody gets a return on it. Only those who qualify.

RebelGator » Yesterday, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:04 pm

How about offering a lump sum payout in lieu of monthly payments?

Skans » Today, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:36 am

Billionaires are so few they are not depleting Social Security.  Not even a drop in the bucket.

Once you open the door for "others" i.e. liberal elites, to decide who gets money from social security and who doesn't, regardless of what was paid in, you have just turned it into a discretionary slush fund again, and not a true pension-type fund.

Think abut this for a moment.  What if you work for a company for 30 years, are entitled to a pension, but bought some Nvidia Stock (or Bitcoin) 15 years ago and got wealthy.  Would it be right for that Pension to look and see what you've got before deciding to pay you what they promised to pay you all those years you were working?

Cedar » Yesterday, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:43 pm

How about they put back the money they stole from SS instead of spending it on money laundering for the elites.

DeezerShoove » Yesterday, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:32 pm

The maximum SS payout is about $5k per month. How many people getting $60k per year just absolutely wouldn't even notice that being stopped? Certainly Gates is one.
I'm just trying to figure out if your option #2 would work with the right payout scale (or something). A guy worth $10M could be getting a conservative 5% per year. So, that $500,000/year guy may still notice the $60K gone missing... 
Seems like finding the right income level would be difficult to sell (although I like the idea because it's going to be BROKE otherwise and nobody gets ****.) Devil's in the details. Who are you going to say "Go get ****" to?

Vegas » Today, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:41 am

It doesn't have to just be billionaires. There could be a cap. say the top 25% of earners.

• Who sets the cap?
• Who can change the cap?
• Who's going to control Congress and the Presidency in 2030........or 2034?
• Who will be able to enlarge the cap to excluded everyone of "white privilege".

Skans » Today, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:02 am

"There could be a cap"

• Who sets the cap?
• Who can change the cap?
• Who's going to control Congress and the Presidency in 2030........or 2034?
• Who will be able to enlarge the cap to excluded everyone of "white privilege".

Trump's got 4 years.  Enjoy them.  Because neither you nor I know what comes after that.  Open that kind of door and then whoever's in control can do whatever **** they want with that.  We've seen this before.

Vegas » Today, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:04 am

Good questions. A lot needs to be worked out, but the important thing is to get the leaders to take it seriously first. Always kicking the can down the road.

jerra b » Yesterday, 10:11 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:11 pm

Jesus has no place in this world anymore.

trump took his place.