Schumer: Republicans Are 'Plotting a War on Seniors'

[Emjay]

Social Security could not be worse for everyone involved.  I have seen legitimate analysis (Think Dave Ramsey) and if a person were to earn minimum wage their entire lives and if they saved the 13% in a market based mutual fund, they would retire with well over $2.3M in that retirement account.  Instead, we get to argue about why "grandma has to eat dog food!"

I can't think of a bigger failure for the people of this country.  Yet, we have people fighting for such a scam!  And the ruling class loves it, because they get to be heroes when our seniors get to upgrade from dog food to rice and beans.

No, I am not advocating ripping it away from those that receive it.  But it would be wonderful if younger generations were allowed to make a choice to invest that 13% in a private account.  After a couple of generations, the program would simply vanish.  The problem, it takes power away from the ruling class and gives it back to the individual.  We can't have that!

I agree with some of your ideas.  And I'm sure you know the story of Galveston, Texas.  The problem is people are stupid.  It has to be mandatory that a certain percent of one's income go into a fund of one's choice... a fund that cannot be touched until retirement age.  Nobody would choose to put their money anywhere the government could touch it.

I have a liberal friend on Facebook who always refers to poor people eating cat food.  This is really stupid because tuna fish is cheaper.

[HonestJohn]

Social Security could not be worse for everyone involved.  I have seen legitimate analysis (Think Dave Ramsey) and if a person were to earn minimum wage their entire lives and if they saved the 13% in a market based mutual fund, they would retire with well over $2.3M in that retirement account.  Instead, we get to argue about why "grandma has to eat dog food!"

I can't think of a bigger failure for the people of this country.  Yet, we have people fighting for such a scam!  And the ruling class loves it, because they get to be heroes when our seniors get to upgrade from dog food to rice and beans.

No, I am not advocating ripping it away from those that receive it.  But it would be wonderful if younger generations were allowed to make a choice to invest that 13% in a private account.  After a couple of generations, the program would simply vanish.  The problem, it takes power away from the ruling class and gives it back to the individual.  We can't have that!

How many people making minimum wage can afford to set aside 13% of their already meager income for investment?

[Night Hides Not]

I agree with some of your ideas.  And I'm sure you know the story of Galveston, Texas.  The problem is people are stupid.  It has to be mandatory that a certain percent of one's income go into a fund of one's choice... a fund that cannot be touched until retirement age.  Nobody would choose to put their money anywhere the government could touch it.

I have a liberal friend on Facebook who always refers to poor people eating cat food.  This is really stupid because tuna fish is cheaper.

One could feed themselves for a week with a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter. Not saying it would be fun, but it could be done.

You can get a lot of mileage with canned veggies and soups, too.  All it takes is a little imagination, and prudent shopping (such as day-old bakeries, nearly expired poultry/meat, etc.).

Tell your liberal friend most of us can't afford a cat, because we're all supporting several families on welfare (with our taxes).

[Night Hides Not]

How many people making minimum wage can afford to set aside 13% of their already meager income for investment?

I see where you're going with this... lol.

[HonestJohn]

I see where you're going with this... lol.

I was kinda going with a 'maybe we ought to consider converting Social Security into a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP - the government version of a 401K)'.

For without the weight of governmental coercion (aka: taxes), most of those whose income is on the lower end would not invest their money for retirement.  Nor would young people. 

[Fantom]

When was the last time the GOP seriously looked at SS reform and had the power to do something about it?


Bush got his ass kicked.

They have never .. well not in modern history... post WWII had any power to do anything about it.

Democrats have been in sole power since then. Which is to say that only democrats have held all three branches of government needed to  advance their agenda.

The biggest hurdle.. a filibuster proof Senate. Without a Filibuster proof Senate you do not actually control it.

[CSM]

How many people making minimum wage can afford to set aside 13% of their already meager income for investment?

@HonestJohn

They already are today!  They pay half of it directly and the employer pays the other half.  FICA is 13% total.

[CSM]

The problem is people are stupid.  It has to be mandatory that a certain percent of one's income go into a fund of one's choice... a fund that cannot be touched until retirement age.  Nobody would choose to put their money anywhere the government could touch it.

I think that we are pretty aligned philosophically, however I wouldn't go as far as making it mandatory.  Stupidity should be painful, so that people learn.  If a set of parents fails to invest for their future and are not able to retire, then I'd wager their children would learn from that lesson.  In addition to not making it mandatory, I would also remove any government "safety net."For the truly destitute, they can be helped by their family, church or other local charity.

[Emjay]

How many people making minimum wage can afford to set aside 13% of their already meager income for investment?

I need to look this up but isn't a certain amount of all wages deducted for Social Security?

[Emjay]

I think that we are pretty aligned philosophically, however I wouldn't go as far as making it mandatory.  Stupidity should be painful, so that people learn.  If a set of parents fails to invest for their future and are not able to retire, then I'd wager their children would learn from that lesson.  In addition to not making it mandatory, I would also remove any government "safety net."For the truly destitute, they can be helped by their family, church or other local charity.

It HAS to be mandatory and this isn't just for the sake of low-level workers.  Many yuppy types live beyond their incomes and would end up on the streets. 

You may not want a safety net but we need one.  If you think there's a homeless problem now, do what you propose and they'll be camping in front of your house.

It is both a moral decision and a practical one to do this.

[Bigun]

I need to look this up but isn't a certain amount of all wages deducted for Social Security?

They say you pay half and the employer pays half but in reality you pay it all!  When a business owner looks at hiring someone he looks at ALL his costs and decides what he can afford to pay. His half of SS would go directly to the employee if he didn't have to pay it.

[geronl]

I was kinda going with a 'maybe we ought to consider converting Social Security into a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP - the government version of a 401K)'.

For without the weight of governmental coercion (aka: taxes), most of those whose income is on the lower end would not invest their money for retirement.  Nor would young people.

How about it not be a government plan at all.

[HonestJohn]

@HonestJohn

They already are today!  They pay half of it directly and the employer pays the other half.  FICA is 13% total.

See my post here:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,236293.msg1156580.html#msg1156580

[HonestJohn]

How about it not be a government plan at all.

How do you propose making it mandatory then?

Otherwise, we'll have to argue whether elderly people who didn't invest should be allowed to starve in alleys.

[CSM]

It HAS to be mandatory and this isn't just for the sake of low-level workers.  Many yuppy types live beyond their incomes and would end up on the streets. 

You may not want a safety net but we need one.  If you think there's a homeless problem now, do what you propose and they'll be camping in front of your house.

It is both a moral decision and a practical one to do this.

In that case, you simply do not believe in liberty.  Liberty includes freedom and responsibility.  People should be free to succeed or fail based on their choices, however they should also be held responsible for the outcome of those choices.  It is not moral in any way to utilize the force of government, or the barrel of a gun, to dictate how individuals utilize their own resources.  Of course, that assumes that each individual owns the fruits of his own labors. 

Progressives consider it moral to force others to bend to their will, after all it is for the people's own good!  I do not consider that moral in any way.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In that case, you simply do not believe in liberty.  Liberty includes freedom and responsibility.  People should be free to succeed or fail based on their choices, however they should also be held responsible for the outcome of those choices.  It is not moral in any way to utilize the force of government, or the barrel of a gun, to dictate how individuals utilize their own resources.  Of course, that assumes that each individual owns the fruits of his own labors. 

Progressives consider it moral to force others to bend to their will, after all it is for the people's own good!  I do not consider that moral in any way.

I think it's difference between political idealism and political realism. Ideally people would be ok with no governmental assistance. Realistically that's just a non-starter with the voting public.

[GrouchoTex]

...and Obamacare is not a "war on seniors"?
Seriously?
Having a board to decide if your life expectancy will be long enough to justify a given medical procedure is very much a "war on seniors".

[CSM]

How do you propose making it mandatory then?

Otherwise, we'll have to argue whether elderly people who didn't invest should be allowed to starve in alleys.

And there you have it.  The progressive argument in a nutshell and the ruling class relies on this to maintain their power over the individual. 

If someone fails to properly plan to be able to retire, then they would have several options.  We don't need a heavy handed, ironfisted, centralized system in DC.  They could:

1.  Continue working
2.  Be supported by family members
3.  Get charitable help from their local Church / Synogogue / Mosque
4.  Work with other local charitable organizations
5.  Localities (cities, towns, counties) could set up charitable organizations
6.  States could fund the safety nets

[CSM]

I think it's difference between political idealism and political realism. Ideally people would be ok with no governmental assistance. Realistically that's just a non-starter with the voting public.

How did people survive before FDR?  To restate your comment, our culture no longer believes in individual liberty and no longer desires freedom.  I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, however I am not willing to give up the fight.  I will always fight in support of individual liberty.

How is "mandating" the use of my earnings in this way any different than "mandating" that I purchase a product from a private company?  In other words, how is Social Security philosophically different than Obamacare?  It's not.  The only difference between the 2 programs is that one is more entrenched than the other.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How did people survive before FDR?  To restate your comment, our culture no longer believes in individual liberty and no longer desires freedom.  I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, however I am not willing to give up the fight.  I will always fight in support of individual liberty.

How is "mandating" the use of my earnings in this way any different than "mandating" that I purchase a product from a private company?  In other words, how is Social Security philosophically different than Obamacare?  It's not.  The only difference between the 2 programs is that one is more entrenched than the other.

You're preaching to the choir on liberty, Obamacare, and SS. I'm just saying that political realism is a thing that we need to deal with.

[Bigun]

I think it's difference between political idealism and political realism. Ideally people would be ok with no governmental assistance. Realistically that's just a non-starter with the voting public.

Whatever you think we are never again going to be a truly FREE people until we once again become a personally responsible people!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Whatever you think we are never again going to be a truly FREE people until we once again become a personally responsible people!

You don't need to tell me. Tell your friends, family and coworkers. We need to convince people.


Until that happens, we need realism.

[Bigun]

You don't need to tell me. Tell your friends, family and coworkers. We need to convince people.


Until that happens, we need realism.

How about we just re-introduce the concept to them little bits at a time!
!

[Sanguine]

I think it's difference between political idealism and political realism. Ideally people would be ok with no governmental assistance. Realistically that's just a non-starter with the voting public.

And, that is why we have a Constitutional Republic!  To keep "the people" from voting in things that conflict with freedom and liberty!

[HonestJohn]

How did people survive before FDR?  To restate your comment, our culture no longer believes in individual liberty and no longer desires freedom.  I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, however I am not willing to give up the fight.  I will always fight in support of individual liberty.

How is "mandating" the use of my earnings in this way any different than "mandating" that I purchase a product from a private company?  In other words, how is Social Security philosophically different than Obamacare?  It's not.  The only difference between the 2 programs is that one is more entrenched than the other.

They didn't survive well.  That was the political impetus *FOR* social security in the first place.  Your first paragraph is therefore an invalid argument.