Skip to main content

View Diary: Alan Simpson's Social Security lessons (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It would be a trivial matter to"fix" SS. (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, Ms. Dolly, I am dense.  I live with it.  I do know a couple of things, though.  One thing that I know absolutely is that Social Security is 100% solvent for another couple of decades at least.  The other thing that I know is that all that is needed to make Social Security solvent into perpetuity is to simply remove the cap that limits Social Security deductions to, I believe, $106,000 a year.

    As you may or may not be aware, one of the psychological differences between innies and outies is that men have a strong sense of fair play.  Call me sexist, since you have all ready stated that I am dense, it is a certainty that you will.

    The "New Deal" deal was that everyone pays into Social Security and everyone benefits with a payout at the end of their working days.

    Now, tell me up front if I am buying insurance for an unplanned eventuality.  Don't tell me on the back side of a contract that you are going to stick a stick up the but of the stick in my but.  If you do that, please be prepared to be vehemently challenged.  Oftentimes, when one entity attempts to screw another entity and the screwee fights, it is called self-defense.  I guess that if one has worked hard, contributed to society, taken care of his/her family and prospered, then thata individual should smile and bend over and take it like a man/woman.  Sorry Charlie.  Ain't gonna happen.  

    Sincerely,

    Your dense, but focused acquaintance who supports most liberal causes, but vehemently refuses to take a screwing at the hands of weak kneed DINO's who don't have the courage to do the obvious and easy fix to Social Security and would rather cater to the masses by; beating up hard working people who happen to have been financially successful.

    p.s.  I may be dense, but you, my acquaintance, aspire to
    support penalizing people who have done absolutely no wrong.

    It is a pleasure doing this posting soiree with you.  Allows me to vent some of my irritation with those who would wish my family and me ill.  Happy face and have a wonderful day, my posting acquaintance.

    After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

    by El Tomaso on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:31:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Do you think you're informing me at all? (0+ / 0-)

      I too know that eliminating the cap entirely would fully fund SS.

      What I also know, though, because apparently I'm much better educated on this topic than you are, is that the cap will never be fully eliminated - it's a political impossibility, first off. Secondly, it'd be unfair and a violent rejection of the longstanding compact to eliminate the cap without also allowing unlimited benefits - but unlimited benefits based upon unlimited contributions violates its status as a baseline safety net!

      The solution you suggest isn't "easy", nor will it ever happen, and so your brainstorming and leap to an unworkable solution is simplemindedness to the extreme.

      And I don't actually support means-testing Social Security. Not at all. I was simply pointing out that your reasoning didn't hold water.

      If you have enough income and savings so as to be means-tested out of receiving SS, then you wouldn't be substantially hurt by not receiving it, contrary to your assertions. Either you need the money, and so you wouldn't lose it after a means-testing scenario, or you don't need it, and you would lose it after means-testing!

      You claimed that you would lose it, but that you needed it. Those two things contradict one another.

      •  Well, Ms. Dolly, it does seem a bit mean spirited. (0+ / 0-)

        As you so succinctly described your feelings toward any who have accomplished by referring to me as "people like you", it makes me feel that you are a bit mean spirited.  I have done nothing wrong.  I only ask to receive what I was promised by my government.  It isn't as if I am a piker and did not pay into Social Security.  I have in fact.  I also have, in fact, paid 100's of thousands in income taxes.  I have never complained.  I vote always in the affirmative to properly fund public education.

        Why, would you deign to deprive "people like me" of a New Deal benefit that was promised by the government.

        If we can simply means test "people like me" out of receiving Social Security, perhaps we could next means test the poor out of being able to vote if they cannot pay their own freight.  Perhaps, if we can simply means test "people like me" out of receiving Social Security, then we could implement poll taxes.  

        Really, who cares.  America is fading.  Our poor are getting poorer.  It is a slippery slope that you promote.  I'm willing to give up my Social Security if I can simply have my contributions returned with a fair interest rate.  Would you oppose that?  I suspect that you would.  "People like me" should simply be happy that we can bend over and get screwed by Uncle Sam.  Doesn't really sound like a good way to run a railroad.

        After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

        by El Tomaso on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:28:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I swear, you keep making ridiculous posts (0+ / 0-)

          People like you isn't necessarily offensive. In your case, it's people who would lose SS benefits if means-testing was implemented! There's nothing derogatory in that categorization. Yet you thought there was. That's your failing, not mine.

          And, as I have repeatedly explained, I am not a supporter of means-testing. Your failure to read with comprehension when I explicitly said that I don't support means-testing is, once again, your failure, not mine.

          And then you say this?

          I'm willing to give up my Social Security if I can simply have my contributions returned with a fair interest rate.

          Are you really this stupid? After we've already discussed how it's insurance, you somehow think that it's an investment, or can magically be transformed into one? Really? Are you really this clueless?

          It's retirement insurance, and just like all other insurances, current premiums pay for current beneficiaries! The idea that you could get back your contributions is ignorant, especially considering the discussion we've already had!

          Insurance only pays out when one has a claim. A person contributing to Social Security has a claim when they retire, when they become disabled, or when they die and have dependents who would be disadvantaged without the income from the wage earner.

          I swear, really, you should stop while you're behind, and you should learn from this encounter with me. Likely, you won't. One can hope that you will.

          •  As per Forest Gump.... (0+ / 0-)

            I'm sorry, I no longer have the desire to continue pointing out your inconsistencies.  I wish you life, my acquaintance.  Your hateful manner will certainly earn you much unhappiness.  I mourn for you.

            I mean this sincerely.  Good luck.  May your days become progressively better.

            After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

            by El Tomaso on Fri May 13, 2011 at 03:32:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, except I don't have a hateful manner (0+ / 0-)

              I don't suffer fools gladly. That's not hateful.

              I haven't shown any inconsistencies, liar, so there were none that you've already pointed out nor are there any to continue to point out.

              You, sincere? I doubt it.

    •  Oh, and we can see previous posts (0+ / 0-)

      They don't melt into oblivion.

      So, I said

      Now, I don't really support means testing for a variety of reasons...

      I said that I don't support means-testing. And I meant that. I don't. It's a bad idea for several reasons.

      Even after I said that, you write

      I may be dense, but you, my acquaintance, aspire to support penalizing people who have done absolutely no wrong.

      No, I don't support that. I'd already told you that I don't support that, yet, you felt the need to make that dishonest accusation.

      1. Means-testing wouldn't raise sufficient money to really affect the balance sheet.

      2. If we did means-testing, people would find ways to put money into places where it wouldn't be eligible to be counted towards income and/or savings in efforts to game the system.

      3. Turning Social Security into a welfare program would be its death knell.

      I don't "aspire to penalize" anyone. The issue was your saying that it'd be burdensome to you. It wouldn't be. It would be wrong for several reasons, and it wouldn't work as a solution, but it's not really "burdensome" to those who would lose benefits as a result of means-testing - those few don't need that safety net that Social Security was envisioned to provide. Losing something you don't really need isn't a burden. Yes, you'd be losing something, but that doesn't make it a burden.

      •  Oh, Ms. Dolly (0+ / 0-)

        This accomplishes nothing.  It only pisses each of us off.  Pissing someone off ultimately solidifies their position in any matter.

        You are correct about means testing.  Means testing would take Social Security from the realm of being a self-funded requirement that pays universally to being an entitlement.  We all know how the popularity of entitlements fare.

        You and I may actually share some common viewpoints, but I will not ever succumb to having my government not keep its word to its citizens.

        I wish that you had not called me dense.  I wish that you would be reasonable and see things my way.  Believe me, Sister Dolly, you will never change the mind of another with name calling.  Nor will you change the mind of another by accusing them of lying.  "People like me" only require fairness.  It is so sad to me that some feel it right...and righteous...to attack "people like me" who simply want honesty and fairness from their government.  I say again, the New Deal was premised upon all contributing and all subsequently receiving.

        After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

        by El Tomaso on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:37:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't care if you're teed off or not! (0+ / 0-)

          But if you get teed off when you get proven wrong, the issue is your issue - it's your failing, and isn't related to me in the least!

          You were dense. You did say something that was dishonest. Me pointing that out isn't the problem - you doing it is the problem.

          I am the reasonable person in this discussion. You're the dishonest one who thinks that it's okay to be selfish so long as you think you have a good reason for it.

          And you're the dense one who made an invalid argument and then tried to move the goalposts when I pointed out the failed argument you made, and then falsely accused me of supporting means-testing.

          Again, I fully understand that you would have preferred to not have your dishonesty and your unreasonable conclusions pointed out. Too bad, so sad for you.

          •  Peace, but I disagree... (0+ / 0-)

            I will post no more, but in the spirit of accuracy, "people like me" will make the observation that you can say that you are against a means test, and that is fine, but you are not entitled to subsequently vehemently support means testing.

            Sometimes, still waters run deep and sometimes, still waters are just a little mud puddle.  You are a mud puddle, my acquaintance.  A hateful one at that.

            FYI...Nothing is being done to change Social Security at present and for the future.  I win.  

            After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

            by El Tomaso on Fri May 13, 2011 at 03:28:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't ever support means-testing (0+ / 0-)

              You couldn't cite a single place where I did. You're either lying or ignorant, or both, when you claim that I did.

              I objected to your claim that you weren't selfish for thinking that you shouldn't have to help. That's not a reason to not support means-testing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site