CampSkunk said:

---

It's not a huge issue, but I think it's silly to scream Ponzi scheme just because it involves taking from one and giving to another. That's how every tax works.

---

What are you talking about? If I tax citizens to build a road, and then I use those funds to build a road, that's the end of the commitment. That's most taxation and spending: a 1:1 import to output.

Social security is completely different. It's more like they taxed 4 people to pay for 1 person's benefits, but then said "don't worry, when you're old we'll tax 16 people to pay for you 4's handouts." It's snowballed and now we're at the point where the receiving group is too large and the paying group is too small, and it's on the verge of collapse.

The government organized this **** show, and it does function under the tax paying part, but that's the identical structure to a ponzi scheme. Only difference is the government forced everyone into it rather than sweet talking them into participating. If you want to draw a distinction there, whatever, but it's not inaccurate at all to call this a government perpetrated ponzi scheme

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

---

Just to illustrate how ridiculous your statements are:

- one generation voted for this? there are 5 generations since SS was passed that came of voting age, and only one voted to sustain SS? and you're saying that everybody in that generation voted exactly the same? come on, man.

- my fault? really? I've paid into it for almost 40 years and haven't collected anything yet. How is anything my fault? come on, man

- and how do you know how I voted? I've voted for candidates who would reform this. What else am I supposed to do... vote for those who want to expand it? come on, man

- I dug this hole? Again, I've been helping fund all other retirees since I was 15. come on, man

You are way off the mark. But go ahead and stick with that approach if you want. It won't get any traction with the people who know better.

---

All obfuscations from the fact that you're unwilling to do what needs to be done because you feel like you're entitled to "fairness" since your generation didn't elect representative willing to do what needs to be done. I didn't say you're personally responsible or that you endorsed the program. The reality is that you live in a society, though, and you are a part of the system that the society builds. And now you're looking to screw over my kids because you got screwed. It's selfish.

Anyone who is unwilling to phase out SS because they feel entitled to a benefit out of "fairness" is no better than the folks that want to maintain and expand the program. Either way, you're willing to screw over your progeny because of a cynical, self-interested view.

I'm sure you personally did not advocate for all of this. The question is whether you're willing to advocate for the solution. I will be held to the same account by future generations when the problem festers if our elected officials continue to kick the can down the road. And I and my fellow countrymen will deserve the criticism.

And by the way, I'm willing to pay for the mistakes of previous generations that I had no part in making if it means leaving a better country for my children. So I'm not off the mark.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

It's not a huge issue, but I think it's silly to scream Ponzi scheme just because it involves taking from one and giving to another. That's how every tax works.

---

What are you talking about? If I tax citizens to build a road, and then I use those funds to build a road, that's the end of the commitment. That's most taxation and spending: a 1:1 import to output.

Social security is completely different. It's more like they taxed 4 people to pay for 1 person's benefits, but then said "don't worry, when you're old we'll tax 16 people to pay for you 4's handouts." It's snowballed and now we're at the point where the receiving group is too large and the paying group is too small, and it's on the verge of collapse.

The government organized this **** show, and it does function under the tax paying part, but that's the identical structure to a ponzi scheme. Only difference is the government forced everyone into it rather than sweet talking them into participating. If you want to draw a distinction there, whatever, but it's not inaccurate at all to call this a government perpetrated ponzi scheme

---

Yes, and it's way worse than even just SS and other government entitelement programs. Our entire system is a ponzi scheme. Our government, our "economy", the stock market, everything. It's all based on infinite growth. It's not prepared for Europe style socialism and asset stagnation where nobody can afford to own anything. It's going to be a nightmare.

Quote:

---

• Medicaid's long-term-care benefit should be subject to tighter asset tests, so that affluent households have an incentive to purchase private long-term-care insurance.[33]

---

Here's another so called solution. I already have Long-Term Care Insurance and have had it for about 25 years now. I'm still forced to pay into Medicaid. And because of my earnings level, also pay the additional Medicaid premium the last 4+ months of every year. I can only assume the "incentive" to purchase private LTC insurance would be to prevent our state and local governments from seizing assets or going after established trusts to pay for publicly funded LTC.

I propose the Social Security Triple option. Every person is given the choice of three plans.
1) Opt out of SS. All your contributions are gone and you get no defined benefit. But you and your employer put an equal amount into an individual retirement account heavily regulated for investments and withdraws. Most people under 45 would take this option.
2) You stay in SS but when it comes time to file and get your benefit, instead of a check you get a tax deduction specifically to take money out of tax deferred accounts. To be attractive, it would have to be something like 150% of your benefit. So if you were slated to get $2,000/month in benefits, instead you get a $36,000 tax deduction. It can only be used for withdrawals from tax deferred accounts. Does not affect your other deductions and can't be used to get a refund. People who chose option 1 don't get this deduction. They opted out and got an IRA. Most people over 50 with significant tax deferred accounts would take this option.
3) Stay in and get your benefit. Most old people who didn't save enough would choose this, but their number would get fewer and fewer every year.

The tax deduction in option 2 would hurt General Revenue for a short time, but that would end because most people would choose option 1 going forward. There may not be enough in the Trust Fund to cover benefits for a short time, but that could be borrowed from the General Fund until essentially there are no more people collecting. After 40 years or so everyone would be in option 1.

torrid said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm going to start drawing at 62, even at reduced payments. I figure once I start, the harder it will be to take away.

---

You're probably doing it right.

---

I'm actually hoping to live a little longer than 80 years five months.

---

1) The first problem is when will you be 80 yrs old vs when the SS system is out of funds or starts reducing the rations.
2) The second challenge is if you are still working, the SS income bumps your taxes up and you are only netting half of of the SS income.

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

---

Just to illustrate how ridiculous your statements are:

- one generation voted for this? there are 5 generations since SS was passed that came of voting age, and only one voted to sustain SS? and you're saying that everybody in that generation voted exactly the same? come on, man.

- my fault? really? I've paid into it for almost 40 years and haven't collected anything yet. How is anything my fault? come on, man

- and how do you know how I voted? I've voted for candidates who would reform this. What else am I supposed to do... vote for those who want to expand it? come on, man

- I dug this hole? Again, I've been helping fund all other retirees since I was 15. come on, man

You are way off the mark. But go ahead and stick with that approach if you want. It won't get any traction with the people who know better.

---

All obfuscations from the fact that you're unwilling to do what needs to be done because you feel like you're entitled to "fairness" since your generation didn't elect representative willing to do what needs to be done. I didn't say you're personally responsible or that you endorsed the program. The reality is that you live in a society, though, and you are a part of the system that the society builds. And now you're looking to screw over my kids because you got screwed. It's selfish.

Anyone who is unwilling to phase out SS because they feel entitled to a benefit out of "fairness" is no better than the folks that want to maintain and expand the program. Either way, you're willing to screw over your progeny because of a cynical, self-interested view.

---

I simply want to be repaid some portion of what I contributed, per the same formula that's been in place for 90 years, of which I contributed for 47 years. No more or less than those I paid for. Equal treatment. You expect me to forego repayment of something that is due to me for the benefit of your kids. That is the definition of selfish... trying to change the rules of the game to preserve your own self-interest. I'm not asking for any changes. You're the one who wants to screw people over.

As for my kids in their mid 30's, they are doing just fine and well on the way to a comfortable retirement in their later years. In fact, the SS taxes from my kids combined will exceed my SS benefits and contribute some surplus toward the pot for others. It's the very opposite of selfishness.

Good luck with your approach though. It will be DOA in the halls of Congress when they are forced to deal with this in a few years. Fortunately, the adjustments will be broad-based and they will not screw over current retirees just because some people throw around ridiculous assertions of selfishness.

Social security was designed when life expectancy was 60 for males and 64 for females.

If you are above that age boomers, do the right thing.

Agreed draft vs. volunteer makes a difference. Vietnam lasted about 8 years (US overt involvement) while Iraq and Afghanistan lasted 20+ years. Yes sky high gas prices and interest rates in the 70s. 2007/8 saw the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

My point, is that the people who would have normally picked up the political torch were all still fighting wars from 2001 until, well, now. Additionally, who in their right mind wants to get into politics? The left made Mitt Romney, maybe the most milk toast presidential candidate from a major party ever, look like a dog killing sexist. The right does the same to the left, I am not excusing either side. Might as well use those leadership skills in the business world and make some money.

Disingenuous to address this to Boomers, as it was useless Congress (every year, every session, in perpetuity) that is responsible for this and the debt also.

No conservative voter EVER voted for his tax $$$ and federal $$$ be spent on so much fraud, waste and abuse but the politicians he voted for, supposedly conservative politicians, continued to vote and enable the fraud, waste and abuse of USAID, HHS, et. al.

NOBODY IN CONGRESS GIVES A F*** ABOUT HARD WORKING TAX PAYING AMERICANS. If they did, we wouldn't be $40T in debt and continued fraud, waste and abuse on a massive scale, every year.

You're talking past each other because he's advocating for the public interest as opposed to the individual, and you're talking about your personal interest versus his personal interest.

A republic requires that its citizens have public virtue, which is no more and no less the ability to put the good of the whole above their own personal interest.

Not being able to do this isn't the same thing as being selfish, but they are related. It is more specifically the absence of public virtue.

People who don't have public virtue are unfit to be citizens of a republic. If the body politic of a republic as a whole lacks public virtue, you can't have a republic.

"The virtue of the citizen must be relative to the constitution of which he is a member." - Aristotle

"A city can be virtuous only when the citizens who have a share in the government are virtuous." - Aristotle

"Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty: and this public Passion must be Superior to all themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasure, passions and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they stand in Competition with the Rights of Society." - Adams

"There are qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form." - Madison

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." - Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Franklin

Boomers and anyone else saying "I personally paid into this therefore I should get what I'm owed" without considering the cost to the Republic are just confessing, knowingly or otherwise, that 1) they haven't exercised their public virtue or 2) they lack the capacity to do so. And if, in general, this is prevalent in our country (which, you know, it obviously is) then we cannot have a republic, and indeed we can't have freedom, and we're in need of masters.

Zobel said:

---

You're talking past each other because he's advocating for the public interest as opposed to the individual, and you're talking about your personal interest versus his personal interest.

A republic requires that its citizens have public virtue, which is no more and no less the ability to put the good of the whole above their own personal interest.

Not being able to do this isn't the same thing as being selfish, but they are related. It is more specifically the absence of public virtue.

People who don't have public virtue are unfit to be citizens of a republic. If the body politic of a republic as a whole lacks public virtue, you can't have a republic.

"The virtue of the citizen must be relative to the constitution of which he is a member." - Cicero

"A city can be virtuous only when the citizens who have a share in the government are virtuous." - Aristotle

"Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty: and this public Passion must be Superior to all themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasure, passions and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they stand in Competition with the Rights of Society." - Adams

"There are qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form." - Madison

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." - Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Franklin

Boomers and anyone else saying "I personally paid into this therefore I should get what I'm owed" without considering the cost to the Republic are just confessing, knowingly or otherwise, that 1) they haven't exercised their public virtue or 2) they lack the capacity to do so. And if, in general, this is prevalent in our country (which, you know, it obviously is) then we cannot have a republic, and indeed we can't have freedom, and we're in need of masters.

---

We've gone back and forth on this before. Spare me the sanctimonious lecture that I should forego a long-established benefit for the sake of society out of some sense of nobleness. No sir, but feel free to go right ahead and waive your claim. More power to you. Freedom is a beautiful thing.

It isn't sanctimonious, it is a simple statement of fact. You can't have a republic without the citizens generally having the ability to put the public interest above their personal interest.

Zobel said:

---

It isn't sanctimonious, it is a simple statement of fact. You can't have a republic without the citizens generally having the ability to put the public interest above their personal interest.

---

Actually, you can. We've done it for 250+ years. Read more Adam Smith and the beautiful outcome of people navigating thru life trying to maximize their personal outcome -- and by doing so -- contributing to society at large. All within the framework of civilized society of course, with basic rule of law, freedom, and protection of core rights. No anarchy.

You're confusing personal and public interest and duties.

Cicero said "The private individual ought first, in private relations, to live on fair and equal terms with his fellow citizens, with a spirit neither servile and grovelling nor yet domineering; and second, in matters pertaining to the state, to labour for her peace and honor; for such a man we are accustomed to esteem and call a good citizen."

Or again, take Aristotle "governments which have a regard to the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic...true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions."

In private matters, private interest, you are perfectly correct.

But with regard to the state, you are completely incorrect. People acting in pure self interest, without the ability to consider the good of the whole, cannot self-govern. Every single one of the founding fathers understood this, they wrote about it, they talked about it.

Zobel said:

---

You're confusing personal and public interest and duties.

Cicero said "The private individual ought first, in private relations, to live on fair and equal terms with his fellow citizens, with a spirit neither servile and grovelling nor yet domineering; and second, in matters pertaining to the state, to labour for her peace and honor; for such a man we are accustomed to esteem and call a good citizen."

In private matters, private interest, you are perfectly correct.

But with regard to the state, you are completely incorrect. People acting in pure self interest, without the ability to consider the good of the whole, cannot self-govern. Every single one of the founding fathers understood this, they wrote about it, they talked about it.

---

I've contributed to the discussion on Social Security but not interested in the sanctimonious derail you're trying to stimulate. Waive your SS claim if you want. I will not.

It bears repeating that what we (I'm 71) should get out of SS is what our money could been worth if we were allowed to keep it and invest it (including) the employer "contribution" (actually a part of our pay). Forty years of investment would be worth many times what was invested. So no criticisms for the paltry ROI we've received.

That being said, social security is for wine and travel.

I'm just explaining why your response to kvetch did not address what he said. I assumed you didn't see what he was getting at - so I made it more explicit.

The fact that you're unwilling to engage with what I'm saying is the actual root cause to why the social security discussion is politically DOA.

No policy discussion can be had above this point, because you'll run into strict self-interest, which ultimately is just "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner". If everyone only votes for what benefits them personally, then there is no actual discussion to be had. And there are some ugly things coming in the future, in that case.

Quote:

---

social security is for wine and travel.

---

Zobel said:

---

The fact that you're unwilling to engage with what I'm saying is the actual root cause to why the social security discussion is politically DOA.

No policy discussion can be had above this point, because you'll run into strict self-interest, which ultimately is just "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner". If everyone only votes for what benefits them personally, then there is no actual discussion to be had. And there are some ugly things coming in the future, in that case.

---

Like I said in previous posts, I'm willing to absorb an equal share of the pain if spread broadly across the full range of stakeholders and phased in gradually to minimize the impact to everyone. Lots of room in that general statement for creative ideas to achieve the outcome. I'll remain open-minded and defer to experts to work the details, but I will adamantly oppose any solution that attempts to put a disproportionate share of the burden on any single group of people (young, old, poor, rich).

Pretty simple really. It goes downhill fast when one segment starts blaming another for the problem or calling them selfish. It's a complicated topic that won't be solved by emotional outbursts and narrow thinking.

I wonder how the average lifespan will affect SOCIALSecurity, Medicare, etc.
Impact of AI on Average Lifespan
AI is poised to play a crucial role in extending the average human lifespan through various advancements in healthcare and biotechnology.
Key Contributions of AI

• Precision in Gene Mapping: AI enhances the accuracy of gene mapping, allowing for better understanding and manipulation of genetic factors that influence aging.
• Delaying DNA Decay: Breakthroughs in biochemistry, supported by AI, are focused on slowing down the decay of DNA, which is a fundamental aspect of aging.
• Optimizing Treatments: AI helps in developing tailored treatments for age-related diseases, improving their effectiveness and reducing side effects.

Potential Lifespan Increase
Researchers believe that with these advancements, achieving a lifespan of 150 years may become possible within our lifetime.

The newborn and to be born will be on the hook for MUCH LONGER RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

Just saying.

Or raise the retirement age to 140 years old

That's fine, and I think what you're saying here is reasonable. There's no reason for any particular segment of society to take on a disproportionate or unreasonable burden.

(Which, incidentally, is the best argument against the status quo.)

But the only reason you are willing to absorb any pain at all is because you do in fact have some civic virtue here - which is a very good thing!! We need more people like you to say I am willing sacrifice for the good of the whole.

That is a sharp contrast to the people who say I paid in, pay back what's owed me without regard for the implications and consequences of that statement.

Zobel said:

---

That's fine, and I think what you're saying here is reasonable. There's no reason for any particular segment of society to take on a disproportionate or unreasonable burden.

(Which, incidentally, is the best argument against the status quo.)

But the only reason you are willing to absorb any pain at all is because you do in fact have some civic virtue here - which is a very good thing!! We need more people like you to say I am willing sacrifice for the good of the whole.

That is a sharp contrast to the people who say I paid in, pay back what's owed me without regard for the implications and consequences of that statement.

---

And what they're missing is the current situation isn't sustainable. Something has to change.

In addition to their miss on that, we also get off track with groups that point the blame at others and demand they absorb the primary impact, often with emotional claims of "selfishness," etc.

None of that creates a constructive environment for real, objective dialogue and creative solutions.

Hopefully we get past that. We need our political leaders to avoid making it one party vs. the other.

cecil77 said:

---

It bears repeating that what we (I'm 71) should get out of SS is what our money could been worth if we were allowed to keep it and invest it (including) the employer "contribution" (actually a part of our pay). Forty years of investment would be worth many times what was invested. So no criticisms for the paltry ROI we've received.

That being said, social security is for wine and travel.

---

Social Security initially was intended to be a supplement to retirement. Never happened, my Grandfather knew this was government BS, understood the crap FDR was spewing. When the Roosevelt dime appeared he refused it in change, would accept nickels and/or pennies or would take the loss.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

That's fine, and I think what you're saying here is reasonable. There's no reason for any particular segment of society to take on a disproportionate or unreasonable burden.

(Which, incidentally, is the best argument against the status quo.)

But the only reason you are willing to absorb any pain at all is because you do in fact have some civic virtue here - which is a very good thing!! We need more people like you to say I am willing sacrifice for the good of the whole.

That is a sharp contrast to the people who say I paid in, pay back what's owed me without regard for the implications and consequences of that statement.

---

And what they're missing is the current situation isn't sustainable. Something has to change.

In addition to their miss on that, we also get off track with groups that point the blame at others and demand they absorb the primary impact, often with emotional claims of "selfishness," etc.

None of that creates a constructive environment for real, objective dialogue and creative solutions.

Hopefully we get past that. We need our political leaders to avoid making it one party vs. the other.

---

There is no solution to reform a Ponzi scheme outside of shutting it down. "Reforms" just kick the can down the road until those "reforms" cause new issues when the inherent nature of the scheme catches up.

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

If you want to propose solutions that involve a phase out period or ensures security for those who REALLY can't afford not to receive any benefit, fine. But the half-assed middle ground "solutions" are just an unwillingness to address the root of the problem, namely that this is a program that was destined to fail at some point and we've let it fester to the point where the number of self-interested parties prohibits any meaningful action.

The solution takes self-sacrifice, which plenty of selfish people are not willing to undertake. You can be offended all you want and feel like you have the moral high ground because you're on the side with the institutional power (the wrong side that has caused this problem), but at the end of the day your position still is what it is: selfish.

The younger generation doesn't want a penny from you. Your money is long gone. We don't want you stealing from us and we don't want to steal from our kids and so on. You can have pain now or pawn it off to other, but someone will bear the burden.

Maybe the government should look at all the 70+ people drawing SS and make a deal with them for a one time payment. Take this $ and go away.

The problem is the uncertainty of the liability as no one knows when they are going to die.
Then do the same from ages 60-70.

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

But I'm glad you're sleeping well realizing that you're more than happy to perpetuate the issue out of cynical self interest.

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

But I'm glad you're sleeping well realizing that you're more than happy to perpetuate the issue out of cynical self interest.

---

I don't accept that and reject your attempt to paint it that way.

And I will sleep good at night because I recognize and can reject ridiculous assertions when I hear them.

Quote:

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

---

Nope, the government's position is.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

But I'm glad you're sleeping well realizing that you're more than happy to perpetuate the issue out of cynical self interest.

---

I don't accept that and reject your attempt to paint it that way.

And I will sleep good at night because I recognize and can reject ridiculous assertions when I hear them.

---

Denial is another avenue. As long as you're sleeping well while others are working to send you some extra spending money. Guess you can take solace in the fact that you wont be around to deal with the problems you're so willing to perpetuate.

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

But I'm glad you're sleeping well realizing that you're more than happy to perpetuate the issue out of cynical self interest.

---

I don't accept that and reject your attempt to paint it that way.

And I will sleep good at night because I recognize and can reject ridiculous assertions when I hear them.

---

Denial is another avenue. As long as you're sleeping well while others are working to send you some extra spending money. Guess you can take solace in the fact that you wont be around to deal with the problems you're so willing to perpetuate.

---

I'm done responding to your ridiculous assertions. Good luck trying to pin your frustrations on others. Let us know how that works out for you. Later.

Quote:

---

while others are working to send you some extra spending money.

---

It's my money, devalued by years of no interest or investment.

I agree that it's bad that the government has chosen to take money from someone else to give me back the money that took from me against my will.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

So there's one solution, and the inherent nature of that solution requires people to forgo the "benefit" they were promised when the scheme was put into place. Is it fair? No. It's reality.

So when you say "I paid in, I should get mine," you're being selfish. You're saying you deserve your benefits, which means all you care about is another person down the line having to miss out instead of you. It's the definition of selfish.

---

That is not happening. And resisting it isn't selfish no matter how many times you try to say so.

We're just on opposite sides of this one. I'm sleeping well knowing there's no way that Congress will strip SS benefits from current or near retirees. Maybe a slight haircut as part of a balanced solution, but even that is questionable.

Those who keep insisting that retirees give up their benefits will have to ultimately recognize that's just an extreme talking point that's not grounded in practical and political reality.

---

Then you have to accept that your position is mortgaging the financial security of future generations.

But I'm glad you're sleeping well realizing that you're more than happy to perpetuate the issue out of cynical self interest.

---

I don't accept that and reject your attempt to paint it that way.

And I will sleep good at night because I recognize and can reject ridiculous assertions when I hear them.

---

Denial is another avenue. As long as you're sleeping well while others are working to send you some extra spending money. Guess you can take solace in the fact that you wont be around to deal with the problems you're so willing to perpetuate.

---

I'm done responding to your ridiculous assertions. Good luck trying to pin your frustrations on others. Let us know how that works out for you. Later.

---

Fitting that you leave without ever addressing the economic reality and only talking about what's "fair" for you.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

while others are working to send you some extra spending money.

---

It's my money, devalued by years of no interest or investment.

I agree that it's bad that the government has chosen to take money from someone else to give me back the money that took from me against my will.

---

So vote to end it. It was a tax for a garbage socialist program. Chalk it up the same as the rest of your taxes that were wasted instead of perpetuating the issue.

You're not owed anything for bad investment, government mandated or not. You got screwed. It sucks. You have a chance to make things better for future generations.

But you'd have to be willing to forgo your "wine and travel" fund for the good of others.