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 5 of 12
< 12345 6789 > 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]
Loneiguana 03:29 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Turn in your modern progressive card if you're going to address this subject like a rational person.
^ Supports the tax scam that blew a trillion dollar hole in a debt and deficit, wants to balance by cutting the single most successful safety net America has. Thinks he is being reasonable.

:-)
[Reply]
Loneiguana 03:31 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
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.
Just because you pay a tax specifically for something doesn't not mean it isn't socialist. What a conservative (dumb) thing to say.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:32 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Just because you pay a tax specifically for something doesn't not mean it isn't socialist. What a conservative (dumb) thing to say.

You're kidding, right? Jesus...........
[Reply]
Loneiguana 03:33 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?
Oh, and just to highlight how dumb this comment is, look into what historically happened to single mothers before a social safety net. Learn some things about women staying with abusers a lot more often because they had no other options. Or what happened to families of the civil war when their father was killed. Learn about Alm houses and poor houses.
[Reply]
BWillie 03:34 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Scientific poll incoming!
Yes. They should not exist. If you want the option to have it, you can but it should not be forced upon people.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 03:35 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
You're kidding, right? Jesus...........
No.

You would say medicare for all is socialist, yes?

But, the same thing would apply. You would pay a tax specifically for medicare for all (just like a insurance premium) that the government combines will all other funds from that tax (like S.S.) that is then paid out by the government as needed.

Whether the social safety net has a specific tax attached to its funding or not is not the qualifier for socialism.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:37 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
I dont support anything beyond what we have, and we have too much. Unfortunately I am compelled to vote for a stupid ass socialist candidate because of who is currently in the WH.
Is it your opinion that a pragmatic form of conservatism mixed with traditional labor democrat protectionism is worse than socialism or is it just Trump's sometimes rude behavior and fast food at WH celebrations that bothers you?
[Reply]
crayzkirk 03:38 PM 02-25-2020
The big problem with social security and other programs like it are that the government decides to make use of the 'free' money and then the interest that was to be generated is gone.

Social security is simply another tax on the middle class. Instead of having a cutoff where no additional money is taxed, it should have a starting point where no money below that point is taxed.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:40 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
No.

You would say medicare for all is socialist, yes?

But, the same thing would apply. You would pay a tax specifically for medicare for all (just like a insurance premium) that the government combines will all other funds from that tax (like S.S.) that is then paid out by the government as needed.

Whether the social safety net has a specific tax attached to its funding or not is not the qualifier for socialism.
"Medicare for all" is a bullshit use of phraseology and nothing more. Sort of like the democrats use of the phrase "If the republicans win, they are going to take your social security" It's bullshit by bullshitters.

Medicare for all would include 95% of those who have never held a job in their lives; have never paid a tax, and are accountable to no one and leave the rest of America to pick up the bill.

Social Security is a tax that we seniors have paid all of our working lives - say from age 14 to 70 years of age. We are "getting our own money back as promised"

I can't understand why you can't differentiate between the two.......oh yeah, you are a democrat.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:43 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
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.
It's an entitlement by definition (a program that doesn't need to be reauthorized every year by Congress). It's also socialism although in this case there is both a contribution/savings component and a wealth transfer component.

That said, at your age, I don't think we've reached the crisis point where your benefits that you relied on your entire working life would have to be touched. Future participants who have time to prepare are a different story. The longer we keep putting off some kind of reform for the future though, the more people will be disrupted by the solution.
[Reply]
Reerun_KC 03:44 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
:-) :-) :-)
I would rather not be in SS. I want less government in my life.

So I would like to opt out. Get a refund and put my money in a more secure place.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:45 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
The big problem with social security and other programs like it are that the government decides to make use of the 'free' money and then the interest that was to be generated is gone.

Social security is simply another tax on the middle class. Instead of having a cutoff where no additional money is taxed, it should have a starting point where no money below that point is taxed.
Social security survives like a cockroach because it was designed to have a lot of buy in and at least an appearance of a contributions/forced savings program. Your fix would turn that on it's head and make SS a more identifiable welfare program and it would lose political support just like welfare did in the 90s.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:47 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
It's an entitlement by definition (a program that doesn't need to be reauthorized every year by Congress). It's also socialism although in this case there is both a contribution/savings component and a wealth transfer component.

That said, at your age, I don't think we've reached the crisis point where your benefits that you relied on your entire working life would have to be touched. Future participants who have time to prepare are a different story. The longer we keep putting off some kind of reform for the future though, the more people will be disrupted by the solution.


I have stated for the last 20-25 years that if the government wishes to rid itself of Social Security - fine. Start with an age and make the cutoff there. If those don't wish to responsibly plan for their future - they can starve.

But we both know that it will never happen that way. When those who didn't give two craps about retirement are living in the street when they are 70 years old - Uncle Sugar will (most likely) step in.

Hell, that's what started Social Security in the first place.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 03:51 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC:
I would rather not be in SS. I want less government in my life.

So I would like to opt out. Get a refund and put my money in a more secure place.

And I have always said that anyone - ANYONE - who wishes to opt out of the program should be allowed to.

However, if the SHTF (2008 for example and WILL happen again) good luck to you. :-)
[Reply]
patteeu 03:52 PM 02-25-2020
Originally Posted by Randallflagg:
I have stated for the last 20-25 years that if the government wishes to rid itself of Social Security - fine. Start with an age and make the cutoff there. If those don't wish to responsibly plan for their future - they can starve.

But we both know that it will never happen that way. When those who didn't give two craps about retirement are living in the street when they are 70 years old - Uncle Sugar will (most likely) step in.

Hell, that's what started Social Security in the first place.
I agree with you and the others who say SS isn't going away. Benefits will be reduced one way or another (higher salary cap for taxation, older age of retirement, tweaked algorithm for calculating benefit, etc.), but we're not going back to a fend for yourself system.

Medicare is the biggest culprit anyway and it's being driven by out of control healthcare (not insurance premium) costs. No one seems to know what to do about that and it's nearly political suicide to try to do anything. That's a bad situation.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 12
< 12345 6789 > Last »
Up