ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: What do you think?
Yes, socialism is bad! 7 33.33%
No, I love socialism! 14 66.67%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
Page 4 of 12
< 1234 5678 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Should we cut Social Security and Medicare benefits?
NJChiefsFan27 01:14 PM 02-25-2020
Scientific poll incoming!
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 02:45 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
Having children out of wedlock has devastating consequences for the mother and children, and is a near guaranteed ticket to poverty for all but the best cases.
Define poverty in today's United States for a single mother?


Are you a father? Do you discipline your kids by giving them more candy and toys so that they don't act up or throw a tantrum?
[Reply]
Loneiguana 02:45 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
SS was used as a tool against the right for 30+ years through fear mongering. SS was set up when the average life expectancy was 61 and recipients would receive at 65. Current life expectancy is 79. We should have indexed benefit start dates to actuarial life tables long ago. This would have drastically helped this reallocation of wealth.

This program has also created dependency, as many who could have saved more for their retirement, chose not to with SS as their only means of subsistence. These folks are drastically underfunded due to lack of personal responsibility.

Medicare is a similar program and start date should have been indexed with life expectancy. It also has lead to dependency, which created priority conflict in many Americans lives who are underfunded for medical care as well.

These should have been used as a safety net for non-able bodied individuals. Not a dependent option. A lot of able bodied people saved little for retirement but lived a life well above their true means. Also a lot of healthy people who lived a healthy lifestyle have to support folks who chose to eat poorly, and drink and smoke in excess and our a huge burden on Medicare. Personal responsibility is penalized in this country...
Before SS, over half of all elderly lived below the poverty level. It didnt create dependency. It solved a massive problem america had at the time.
[Reply]
Reerun_KC 02:47 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
What do you think happens to the huge percentage of the population who are dumb and impoverished that reach retirement age with no savings? When they cannot physically work but have $1000 in their savings account, there are going to be problems. I mean up to 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
Well since the contributes to SS their whole lives ( if they worked ) they have that income.

Show them the money.
[Reply]
BigBeauford 02:49 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Define poverty in today's United States for a single mother?


Are you a father? Do you discipline your kids by giving them more candy and toys so that they don't act up or throw a tantrum?
A single mother living in public housing with multiple kids, hand me down clothes, living in a dangerous community where they could be killed, with no hope for upward socioeconomic upward mobility because the odds of succeeding in that environment are abysmal, that's how I imagine poverty. Poverty in 2020 looks different from the 1930s, as it should. Yeah, they all probably have a fridge and an iphone. I think it's silly this is the measuring stick for poverty. I guarantee they dont have two pennies to run together, let alone a net wealth of over $10k.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 02:55 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
A single mother living in public housing with multiple kids, hand me down clothes, living in a dangerous community where they could be killed, with no hope for upward socioeconomic upward mobility because the odds of succeeding in that environment are abysmal, that's how I imagine poverty. Poverty in 2020 looks different from the 1930s, as it should. Yeah, they all probably have a fridge and an iphone. I think it's silly this is the measuring stick for poverty. I guarantee they dont have two pennies to run together, let alone a net wealth of over $10k.
Do you see any relationship between what you wrote above and dependency on government, specifically in poor brown, black and white communities, where this as become an unfortunate lifestyle. Also, has illegal immigration exasperated this problem further?
[Reply]
RunKC 02:55 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
SS was used as a tool against the right for 30+ years through fear mongering. SS was set up when the average life expectancy was 61 and recipients would receive at 65. Current life expectancy is 79. We should have indexed benefit start dates to actuarial life tables long ago. This would have drastically helped this reallocation of wealth.

This program has also created dependency, as many who could have saved more for their retirement, chose not to with SS as their only means of subsistence. These folks are drastically underfunded due to lack of personal responsibility.

Medicare is a similar program and start date should have been indexed with life expectancy. It also has lead to dependency, which created priority conflict in many Americans lives who are underfunded for medical care as well.

These should have been used as a safety net for non-able bodied individuals. Not a dependent option. A lot of able bodied people saved little for retirement but lived a life well above their true means. Also a lot of healthy people who lived a healthy lifestyle have to support folks who chose to eat poorly, and drink and smoke in excess and our a huge burden on Medicare. Personal responsibility is penalized in this country...
Your best options are to invest in an IRA and 401k. Usually both of which are invested in the stock market.

Itís not so fun when youíre putting money in and thereís very little growth for 12 years. Thatís my in laws issue. Market from 2000-2012 was stagnant overall.

An economy like Trumpís is not normal. And yes my in laws have saved money for their whole lives, but itís concerning to them whether it will be enough for retirement.

Iíd gladly take the money Iím putting in and put that all in my IRA to grow compound interest, but I also realize that Iím paying in for the people now who need it.

Not everyone that needs this is a fat, lazy POS.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 02:57 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Do you see any relationship between what you wrote above and dependency on government, specifically in poor brown, black and white communities, where this as become an unfortunate lifestyle. Also, has illegal immigration exasperated this problem further?
Its just so cute how you parrot busted 1860's talking points.

Here is a fact. America tried the whole no social safety net thing. It was because of America's experiences without a social safety net that America decided to have one.

Learn some damn history before you bring your talk radio talking points here.
[Reply]
candyman 03:03 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
What do you think happens to the huge percentage of the population who are dumb and impoverished that reach retirement age with no savings? When they cannot physically work but have $1000 in their savings account, there are going to be problems. I mean up to 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
Euthanize them.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 03:09 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Its just so cute how you parrot busted 1860's talking points.

Here is a fact. America tried the whole no social safety net thing. It was because of America's experiences without a social safety net that America decided to have one.

Learn some damn history before you bring your talk radio talking points here.
Were single mothers and kids growing up in a one parent household as a percentage of the populous more prevalent before social "safety net" programs or after?

Should safety net programs be used for non able bodied, and able bodied individuals who have temporarily fallen on tough times, or for anyone?

Has illegal immigration hurt the poor brown, black and white communities that are being reference in these posts?
[Reply]
patteeu 03:18 PM 02-25-2020
Yes, for young people like NJChiefsFan27. No for current retirees. Some kind of transition in between.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:22 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by banyon:
Thereís almost no question that this has to be done at some point in the not too distant future. The demographic generational crunch just isnít going to leave us much alternative.
Turn in your modern progressive card if you're going to address this subject like a rational person.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:25 PM 02-25-2020
Your "scientific" poll is nonsense. Social Security is NOT socialism, in case your dumb ass didn't know it.

I paid for every penny I get. It is NOT an entitlement. It was based on a deal between the American people and Uncle Sugar.

An entitlement is Obamacare. Start there.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 03:25 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Were single mothers and kids growing up in a one parent household as a percentage of the populous more prevalent before social "safety net" programs or after?

Should safety net programs be used for non able bodied, and able bodied individuals who have temporarily fallen on tough times, or for anyone?

Has illegal immigration hurt the poor brown, black and white communities that are being reference in these posts?
Here are some facts for you to ignore while you continue to parrot busted No Nothing Party rhetoric.

Originally Posted by :
Before Social Security, in 1934, roughly one half of seniors were estimated to be poor. Most had to rely on family or friends, or go to the poor house. As ever more seniors paid into Social Security and then received retirement benefits, the poverty rate among seniors steadily declined from circa 50 percent in the Great Depression to 35 percent in 1959, 25 percent in 1970, 15 percent in 1975, and around 10 percent in 2000, where it has hovered ever since. Today, were it not for Social Security, the senior poverty rate would be 43.5 percent, and just over half (PDF) of elderly African Americans (51 percent) and Latinos (52 percent) would be poor.
Originally Posted by :
Twelve percent of children (PDF) rely on Social Security benefits, either as dependents of retired, disabled or deceased parents (or grandparents), or because another adult in their household receives benefits. No one ever plans on becoming disabled, but just over 1 in 4 people (PDF) who turned 20 in 2013 are projected to become severely disabled during their working years. 151 million working Americans, and their families, are insured through Social Security against income loss due to disability. 212 million Americans, and their families, are insured through Social Security against income loss due to old age or death. In sum, Social Security not only provides the primary retirement security for most working families, but also our primary disability and life insurance protections.
https://www.nasi.org/discuss/2015/08...present-future

Originally Posted by :
Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state, and they lift more Americans above the poverty line than any other program. Without Social Security, 21.7 million more Americans would be poor, according to analysis using the March 2019 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, 6.9 million are under age 65, including 1.2 million children.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...-other-program

Originally Posted by :
To appreciate what Social Security provides for older Americans, itís useful to look back at the ways seniors built a nest egg ó or, more accurately, how most of them didnít ó before the program was put in place in 1935 to help the country recover from the Great Depression.

So how did older Americans get by? Website Gobankingrates.com compiled a list of 16 things that served as a safety net for seniors before Social Security, though ďsafety netĒ doesnít really apply to many of the options, which include panhandling, moving into almshouses or poorhouses, or simply dying impoverished, which was the fate that befell 1 in every 2 older Americans in the years after the 1929 stock market crash.

Among the most ďreliableĒ resources were pension plans, though as of 1932 only 15 percent of American companies offered employees such an option. State pensions were available for the lucky few government workers; by 1935 about 3 percent of elderly Americans were receiving those benefits. And in the years after the Civil War, those injured during military service received pensions. By the early years of the 20th century, less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was still benefiting from those.

Annuities gained popularity in the years before the Depression, as the practice of large, extended families providing a safety net for elder members diminished. And savings accounts were useful to some, too, though banks werenít as trusted or as regulated. Thus, the old cliche of stuffing money into a mattress wasnít an outlandish or impractical notion ó often, it was the most practical option, at least for the few seniors who had cash on hand. Some seniors relied on help from church congregations and neighbors to stay afloat. A few had investments that survived the crash.
https://www.aarp.org/money/investing...-security.html

Remember Voters, Republicans want to take us back to a time when over 50 percent of the elderly were impoverished.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:26 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC:
Well since the contributes to SS their whole lives ( if they worked ) they have that income.

Show them the money.

:-) :-) :-)
[Reply]
patteeu 03:26 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Poll sucks -- is a complete joke.
Polls are harder than they look. Everyone screws them up except Rain Man and me. And maybe a couple of others (you know who you are, but the problem is everyone else thinks they're you).
[Reply]
Page 4 of 12
< 1234 5678 > Last »
Up