Cutting Planned Parenthood Would Increase Medicaid Births, C.B.O. Says

[smilesammich 10,727]

27 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well of course you should get to keep your money, that also means getting back what you put into it. So you would be ok then with it not being mandatory, provided you got back what you've already put into it? 

never going to happen.

[jg121783 3,921]

So instead we can keep putting money into a failed program and probably get nothing when we retire.

[OriZ 3,165]

6 hours ago, smilesammich said:

never going to happen.

Oh come on cop out, play with me.

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So instead we can keep putting money into a failed program and probably get nothing when we retire.

if im not getting anything back on the money i've invested, what difference does it make? you're saying retirees can get their money and kids can opt out, what about people in between?

[smilesammich 10,727]

48 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Oh come on cop out, play with me.

i already said idc if I get my money back, once we get rid of all safety nets, money is only going to be worth anything for so long..there's waaaay more hungry poor than comfy rich.

[OriZ 3,165]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

i already said idc if I get my money back, once we get rid of all safety nets, money is only going to be worth anything for so long..there's waaaay more hungry poor than comfy rich.

Well I don't wanna get rid of all safety nets, nor do I consider SS to be one. I'm even ok with a certain degree of medicaid expansion(I know exactly how hard it is for some low income folks especially with pre existing conditions to find an affordable health plan that will actually answer their needs), and I think there needs to be a different mechanism for disability insurance. SS is simply a failure, and forcing people into a known failure only makes matters worse.

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well I don't wanna get rid of all safety nets, nor do I consider SS to be one. I'm even ok with a certain degree of medicaid expansion(I know exactly how hard it is for some low income folks especially with pre existing conditions to find an affordable health plan that will actually answer their needs), and I think there needs to be a different mechanism for disability insurance. SS is simply a failure, and forcing people into a known failure only makes matters worse.

you don't consider ss a safety net? uh, that's exactly why it was created. fix it, unless willing to give us all our money back.

[Teddy B 17,252]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

I'm well aware of the current situation, doesn't mean I think it should exist in the first place nor continue to be that way.

 

Choices have consequences. Why do we keep trying to save people from themselves by forcing them to do things we believe are good for them? Why not let people run their own lives? That's something I find quite arrogant about governance. If you never give them the option they will never learn how to.

 

Now keep in mind, the number of retirees is growing far faster than the number of new workers. The ratio of workers to retirees has grown from 42 to 1 in 1940 to just 3.3 to 1 today. SS is facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Young people actually believe they have a better chance seeing a UFO than a SS check made out to them when they retire.

 

It's not cruelty to let someone run their own life, it's cruel to force a young person who believes they will get nothing in return to pay into a system. Why should young workers who are just starting out in their careers be forced to pay for the SS benefits of elderly millionaires and billionaires? Seniors are much wealthier than young people on average.

 

If people were able to opt out of SS they could then choose to either stay in the insolvent Social Security system or invest on their own. If Social Security is so "great", why is it mandatory? Private sector retirement plans can provide safer plans with higher benefits. Unlike SS, the assets in the private retirement plans can be rolled over to a surviving spouse or other family member. We need more retirement choices instead of being forced into a terribly mismanaged government monopoly. Americans should be allowed to invest in their retirement as they see fit - not be forced into a mandatory Ponzi scheme against their will. 

Ahhh yes, the ole "choices have consequences" defense. While it is very simple for you or I to sit in front of our computer screens and make statements like this, in reality it is much tougher to do. We'll put you in charge of what to do with the bodies of the tens of millions of elderly people who will whither and die because of the consequences they face for not saving properly for retirement. We'll put them out in the street when they can no longer pay the rent and we'll let them starve when they can't afford food. Screw all of those veterans who fought for our country for next to nothing pay, no retirement plan you die. Screw all of those people who are parents & grandparents that worked two jobs to raise a family but couldn't afford the proper retirement plan, they die as well. Maybe if you're lucky none of these ill prepared folks will be someone you love, but chances are they will be. I'm sure you'll load up on cemetery stocks to help fund your retirement plan. While social security certainly isn't perfect, it allows tens of millions of people to continue a somewhat healthy lifestyle.

 

Yes I'm being harsh, because there is no defensible answer to my question. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that allowing tens of millions of people to die simply because they didn't save for retirement as a valid option. I'm being nice when I say your answer is profoundly immoral.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

if im not getting anything back on the money i've invested, what difference does it make? you're saying retirees can get their money and kids can opt out, what about people in between?

Haven't you heard? They die too! Everyone who isn't independently wealthy dies, it's a very simple system with extremely low overhead.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Haven't you heard? They die too! Everyone who isn't independently wealthy dies, it's a very simple system with extremely low overhead.

i'm cool with dying, just not working until the day i do.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

i'm cool with dying, just not working until the day i do.

Chances are you won't have to. You'll eventually reach a point where you won't be able to work. If you can't work then you can't pay your bills. You will be put out to pasture with the other millions of ill prepared folks. You'll probably survive about a week. But hey look at the bright sight, you won't be working!

[OriZ 3,165]

27 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you don't consider ss a safety net? uh, that's exactly why it was created. fix it, unless willing to give us all our money back.

And how would you suggest doing that?

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Chances are you won't have to. You'll eventually reach a point where you won't be able to work. If you can't work then you can't pay your bills. You will be put out to pasture with the other millions of ill prepared folks. You'll probably survive about a week. But hey look at the bright sight, you won't be working!

preach.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

And how would you suggest doing that?

You adjust the amount that people pay in to equal the amount that is being paid out and you pass a law that prevents that money from being used for any other purpose. It would be nice to hire a financial team that would be in charge of investing the monies paid in so it would yield the highest pay outs.

[OriZ 3,165]

25 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Ahhh yes, the ole "choices have consequences" defense. While it is very simple for you or I to sit in front of our computer screens and make statements like this, in reality it is much tougher to do. We'll put you in charge of what to do with the bodies of the tens of millions of elderly people who will whither and die because of the consequences they face for not saving properly for retirement. We'll put them out in the street when they can no longer pay the rent and we'll let them starve when they can't afford food. Screw all of those veterans who fought for our country for next to nothing pay, no retirement plan you die. Screw all of those people who are parents & grandparents that worked two jobs to raise a family but couldn't afford the proper retirement plan, they die as well. Maybe if you're lucky none of these ill prepared folks will be someone you love, but chances are they will be. I'm sure you'll load up on cemetery stocks to help fund your retirement plan. While social security certainly isn't perfect, it allows tens of millions of people to continue a somewhat healthy lifestyle.

 

Yes I'm being harsh, because there is no defensible answer to my question. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that allowing tens of millions of people to die simply because they didn't save for retirement as a valid option. I'm being nice when I say your answer is profoundly immoral.

It doesn't allow them, it forces them. I didn't say the same safety nets available for the poor anyway should not be available for them. I just don't believe the government should decide for you when, where, why and how much to invest for your own retirement, I find that to be immoral and profoundly anti freedom and anti American.