http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/05/bush-social-security-accomplishment/

"On domestic policy, Bush was asked if he made progress in some areas for which he hasn’t and probably won’t get credit. Topping his list was his unsuccessful drive in 2005 to reform Social Security. Bush said his effort showed it’s politically safe to campaign on changing Social Security and then actually seek to change it."

His plan to privatize social security wasn't popular.  Do you guys think he had any chance in the first place?  Also, what do you think of his quote.

Lastly, what if Social Security was privatized, what would it do to the economy and the retirees in general?

What?  You mean what if everybody's food-and-shelter money was tied up in last fall's stock market?

:o

There's no sense in privatizing Social Security.  Phasing it out completely would be a better idea.  It just takes time to do that.

What?  You mean what if everybody's food-and-shelter money was tied up in last fall's stock market? :o


...well, it would have delayed the collapse long enough for some of us to retire and ditch this pathetic banana republic for saner shores while we still had the money to do so.  Not that I'm bitter or anything.

The only difference is that the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on propping up failing entities would have been used before the collapse, and in so doing, might have delayed the collapse by a few years.  Instead, we're spending the same dollars, but we're doing it after the collapse, and the only effect will be to prolong the agony.

Either way, your food-and-shelter money is tied up in the present-day market.  You think the trillions of dollars they're going to have to print to "pay" the "benefits" are really going to be worth the paper they're printed on?  Social Security takes in dollars from its new "investors" and uses the money to pay returns to its old "beneficiaries".  It is fundamentally no different than Madoff's scam.  It even sucks in its victims with the same premise Madoff used, namely mathematically-implausible claims of risk-free "guaranteed" returns.

In the end, this one's about power.  We gave power to the wrong people.  I have a sinking feeling we've done it again.  Yes, I'm talking about you, Obama. 

I'm happy for you that you wish to be a thief like them when you grow up.

Bush Social Security policy is his greatest achievement
...
"Topping his list was his unsuccessful drive in 2005 to reform Social Security."
er.. so something he didn't manage to get through counts as his greatest achievement?

Having said that, looking at the things he *did*, you may be right

er.. so something he didn't manage to get through counts as his greatest achievement?

Having said that, looking at the things he *did*, you may be right


It's been a good day so long as I didn't burn the house down! 

George W. Bush helped me set high standards for myself!
:D

IMO-The Baby Boomers of 1946-1964 are retiring, making Social Security go up and Insurance get dried-up.

Soon, you may have to wait until you're 75 to get Social Security since Medicine has been better.

IMO-The Baby Boomers of 1946-1964 are retiring, making Social Security go up and Insurance get dried-up.

Soon, you may have to wait until you're 75 to get Social Security since Medicine has been better.


I've got a good Save Social Security campaign slogan:

"Pitch in and die young!"

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/grim.gif

I've got a good Save Social Security campaign slogan:

"Pitch in and die young!"


Prussia was the first government to attempt to set up a public pension system.  It chose the age of 65 because that was the average life expectancy.  We chose the age of 65 based on their experience.  Unlike a defined contribution plan, you have no property interest in your "contributions" to the "fund".  If you die the day before the first check is cleared, you net a -100% return on your "investment", and any beneficiaries you've named in your will get nothing. 

Your joke was is more correct than you know; people were expected to "contribute", and then die before receiving any payments.  Will you be attending Carousel, or will you become a runner?

Prussia was the first government to attempt to set up a public pension system.  It chose the age of 65 because that was the average life expectancy.  We chose the age of 65 based on their experience.  Unlike a defined contribution plan, you have no property interest in your "contributions" to the "fund".  If you die the day before the first check is cleared, you net a -100% return on your "investment", and any beneficiaries you've named in your will get nothing. 

Your joke was is more correct than you know; people were expected to "contribute", and then die before receiving any payments.  Will you be attending Carousel, or will you become a runner?


As you observe, it wasn't exactly a joke.  In 1935 the average life expectancy for an Ameran male was 62 years and eligibility for SS kicked in at 65. 

A little off-topic, but that's my gripe with the OTHER pro-life movement.  Call it the anti-death movement.  Day in and day out the trashy media bombards us with news blurbs, exercise regimens, diet books, and health tips all pushing the ideal of squeezing every last living minute out of your carcass. 

It reminds me of the way pro-life conservatives wail about the sanctity of life when the subject is a fetus, but after the birth, they don't want to spend a nickel to promote the well-being of the child.  Our "anti-death" culture guilt trips us about drinking, smoking, fatty foods, and sedentary lifestyle and then whines about how much we spend keeping the elderly alive.  Whether you're 65, 75, or 95, sooner or later your body and mind break down; I don't care how big a healthnut you are.  And yet, if a 70-year-old man with liver cancer says, "Don't treat me, let me die; spend the money on the kids," the anti-death culture treats that guy like he's sick in the head.  OK, then, two million bucks treating a patient who's going to die in two years anyway, just don't piss-and-moan about the money. 

Personally, I'd rather pitch over and die of a sudden heart attack than linger for years as my organs disintegrate and my mind goes all fuzzy.  But they call you crazy if you say 62 years is quite long enough thank you.  My grandfather lived to be 100.  On is 100th birthday, they asked him, "How does it feel to be 100?"  He paused a moment and replied,
"Well...I wouldn't recommend it!"
::)

I read a book about a year ago about someone proposing an act giving people financial incentive to kill themselves in order to keep social security solvent. The character who made the proposal was a liberal blogger out to make a point. The book is Boomsday by Chris Buckley.

A little off-topic, but that's my gripe with the OTHER pro-life movement.  Call it the anti-death movement. 


"'Smoking takes ten years off your life.'  Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks?  It's the ones at the end!  It's the wheelchair, adult diaper, kidney dialysis f*kin' years, you can have those years, we don't want 'em, alright?"
    - Denis Leary, Smoke, "No Cure for Cancer", 1993.

(( Edit: Worst. Typo. Evar. ))

"'Smoking takes ten years off your life.'  Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks?  It's the ones at the end!  It's the wheelchair, adult diaper, kidney dialysis f*kin' years, you can have those years, we don't want 'em, alright?"
    - Denise Leary, Smoke, "No Cure for Cancer", 1993.

I was thinking of that one, too.

..what Denis (when did he get the sex change?) Leary omitted to mention is that smoking also on average brings forward the wheelchair, adult diaper years, as well as meaning fewer of them.

But I'm completely with Max on the "anti-death" viewpoint - Anatole France summed it up when he said:
"The average man, who does not know what to do with his life, wants another one that will last forever"

As far as I am concerned, Denis Leary can do us all a favor, take the pack he stole from Bill Hicks, light up and breathe deep

As you observe, it wasn't exactly a joke.  In 1935 the average life expectancy for an Ameran male was 62 years and eligibility for SS kicked in at 65. 




That figure is very misleading.  Average life expectancy is calculated for the whole population.  With high infant and child mortality the average was (and is) bound to be lower than the reality for those who survive childhood.

That figure is very misleading.  Average life expectancy is calculated for the whole population.  With high infant and child mortality the average was (and is) bound to be lower than the reality for those who survive childhood.


Either way, it was considered fortunate to reach your eigth decade, not expected.

I think that the baby boomers, along with generations afterwards are going to live a lot longer now than say 100 years ago.  So much is done technology and medical wise that one could literally live up to 120, though I imagine with a lot of mechanical assitance. 

I was watching a video the other day of the last remaining WWI soldier and his interview.  That alone was surreal to me.

That said, I think somewhere down the line, SS needs to be reformed just so the working class doesn't have to suffer from higher taxes.

Interesting how no one has mentioned SSI or SSDI.  I suppose most people just assume it benefits retirees.

I think that the baby boomers, along with generations afterwards are going to live a lot longer now than say 100 years ago.  So much is done technology and medical wise that one could literally live up to 120, though I imagine with a lot of mechanical assitance. 

I was watching a video the other day of the last remaining WWI soldier and his interview.  That alone was surreal to me.

That said, I think somewhere down the line, SS needs to be reformed just so the working class doesn't have to suffer from higher taxes.


The solution, as some very rich people (like Bill Gates' father among others) have observed, is to eliminate the cap on the FICA withholding, not increase the rate for those now paying on all their income.

Interesting how no one has mentioned SSI or SSDI.  I suppose most people just assume it benefits retirees.


True.  SSI and SSDI help people debilitated by disease or injury, or those with developmental delays.

Interesting how no one has mentioned SSI or SSDI.  I suppose most people just assume it benefits retirees.


Interesting how no one has mentioned that a socialized insurance programme for the portion of the population that claims SSI/SSDI benefits would cost a hell of a lot less than a 12.4% income tax on every dollar in sub-$100K salaries paid.

Better yet, fund government spending programmes out of taxes, and stop calling it "insurance", because it ain't.  I'd tell Congress to keep its grubby mitts off the citizens' "retirement" funds, except that boat sailed decades ago.  The money being "saved" for "future retirees' benefits", was spent decades ago, when Congress decided to make it legal to "borrow" against it.  (Hint: If you're going to tax future participants to pay for things you're spending the money on now, it's not a loan, it's theft, and you don't have an investment plan, you have a pyramid scheme.)

True.  SSI and SSDI help people debilitated by disease or injury, or those with developmental delays.


Why can't we just shoot them?
???

(Speaking as one who struggled with both psychiatric and developmental issues, this seems to be the endgame of the conservative mainstream.)

Why can't we just shoot them?
???

(Speaking as one who struggled with both psychiatric and developmental issues, this seems to be the endgame of the conservative mainstream.)


Because this is supposed to be a culture of Life. (So Bush and company have stated on numerous occasions)  How would they explain the blood and the corpses?  They also have to argue over how much they're going to charge the departeds family for the bullet.

Because this is supposed to be a culture of Life. (So Bush and company have stated on numerous occasions)  How would they explain the blood and the corpses?   They also have to argue over how much they're going to charge the departeds family for the bullet.


Well, that's just it.  Pro-life my skinny Irish ass!  They love to get their butt-munch right-wing preachers to finger-wag the message on Larry King 'coz that don't cost nothing.  When it comes to investing in the children, the elderly, the disabled, and what have you, they're like, "Forget it, I need the tax cut; my pot-head kid's gotta make through Exeter and I have to pay off the second yacht!"
::)

Well, that's just it.  Pro-life my skinny Irish ass!  They love to get their butt-munch right-wing preachers to finger-wag the message on Larry King 'coz that don't cost nothing.  When it comes to investing in the children, the elderly, the disabled, and what have you, they're like, "Forget it, I need the tax cut; my pot-head kid's gotta make through Exeter and I have to pay off the second yacht!"
::)


I'm disabled and I'm doing fine without the Government. I don't need the friggin' Government that much. fudge Food Stamps, Welfare, SSI, Medicare, Medicade, and some of that sheesh.

The only thing I need is BVR, and once I get my Drivers License and a better job I'll be fine.

I'm disabled and I'm doing fine without the Government. I don't need the friggin' Government that much. fudge Food Stamps, Welfare, SSI, Medicare, Medicade, and some of that sheesh.

The only thing I need is BVR, and once I get my Drivers License and a better job I'll be fine.


Mr C, if your situation was different, your attitude might follow.

Mr C, if your situation was different, your attitude might follow.


Okay Max...you now confused me.  ???

Okay Max...you now confused me.  ???


That is, it's easy to dismiss food stamps when you don't have to worry about how you're going to buy groceries...and so forth.  There are millions of "disabled" people who for one reason or another do not need social services.  However, millions do need them, and when the services are not there, they go homeless and hungry.  Lessons we DID NOT learn from the first Reagan Administration.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of SSI, nurtition assistance, and such programs elegantly plays into the fascist attitude that anybody who is not rich is stupid and lazy and deserves to starve on the street. 

One day you yourself might be less fortunate than you are today and, as a person with a mild level of disability, you might need to partake of public assistance.  What I'm trying to discourage is the social stigma attached to receiving public assistance.  This Republican scapegoating helps no one, saves no money, and causes grief to millions every day.

I hoped I would not have to explain this because you seem like a bright enough fellow to infer what I implied from the nine words I posted earlier.

^exactly

That is, it's easy to dismiss food stamps when you don't have to worry about how you're going to buy groceries...and so forth.  There are millions of "disabled" people who for one reason or another do not need social services.  However, millions do need them, and when the services are not there, they go homeless and hungry.  Lessons we DID NOT learn from the first Reagan Administration.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of SSI, nurtition assistance, and such programs elegantly plays into the fascist attitude that anybody who is not rich is stupid and lazy and deserves to starve on the street. 

One day you yourself might be less fortunate than you are today and, as a person with a mild level of disability, you might need to partake of public assistance.  What I'm trying to discourage is the social stigma attached to receiving public assistance.  This Republican scapegoating helps no one, saves no money, and causes grief to millions every day.

I hoped I would not have to explain this because you seem like a bright enough fellow to infer what I implied from the nine words I posted earlier.



There are also vice-versa moments.

My neighbor across the street collects welfare, SSI, Food Stamps, etc.

Now there are a few exceptions...her daughters has disabilities. Her eldest daughter is deaf, but what pisses me off is that her husband gets disability...because he's on drugs!

Junkies SHOULDN'T get SSI or Welfare, Junkies SHOULD be in Rehab!

There are also vice-versa moments.

My neighbor across the street collects welfare, SSI, Food Stamps, etc.

Now there are a few exceptions...her daughters has disabilities. Her eldest daughter is deaf, but what pisses me off is that her husband gets disability...because he's on drugs!

Junkies SHOULDN'T get SSI or Welfare, Junkies SHOULD be in Rehab!


It's virtually impossible for anyone with an active drug addiction to be on SSDI.  Disability is not as readily handed out as SSI.  As for welfare if they're all getting some form of Social Security then they're above the limit for most forms of Welfare which includes food stamps and medicaid.

It's virtually impossible for anyone with an active drug addiction to be on SSDI.  Disability is not as readily handed out as SSI.  As for welfare if they're all getting some form of Social Security then they're above the limit for most forms of Welfare which includes food stamps and medicaid.


Again, if you're on drugs and your family has the bucks, you can get into any number of private rehab programs, most of which cost a fortune, and because of the high recitivism rate of addicts, your family might have to shell out the treatment costs two, three, or multiple times.  More addicts than not are broke and alone.  They consort with other addicts, which does not help.  Often their families cannot help them.  Sometimes the family, even if affluent, have "given up" on the addicted member.  Thus, I think publically-funded rehabilitation programs are a good investment.  When Mr C says addicts should not be on the dole, they should be in rehab, he fails to consider that rehab is often part of the dole. 

As for SSI/SSDI, nutrition assistance, and housing assistance for drug addicts, I'm in favor of this too, even if it's frustrating.  If there's one thing harder to cure than a junkie it's a homeless, hungry junkie.  Addicts on the street are likely to drop out of treatment programs, even given the slim chance they're in one in the first place.  Furthermore, addicts with no options often live in filthy conditions, commit crimes, and/or engage in prostitution, all of which is detrimental to the health of the individual addict and incur considerable financial and morale costs to the community at large. 

If a junkie obtains $100 for a sex act or a petty crime, he/she is not likely to invest in groceries or a room for the night, but more heroin, and down the spiral we go!

If Mr C is "pissed off" at his drug-addicted neighbor receiving public assistance, perhaps applying the MYOB principle might calm the nerves.  I use it myself; it works.  Of course, Mr C might get a charge out of being pissed off at his neighbor, in that case it's his choice!
:P

^In a way...I really don't like my neighbors, she thinks she owns our street.

All that she is is a (I_am_a_loser_who_has_no_respect_for_women)!

Again, if you're on drugs and your family has the bucks, you can get into any number of private rehab programs, most of which cost a fortune, and because of the high recitivism rate of addicts, your family might have to shell out the treatment costs two, three, or multiple times.  More addicts than not are broke and alone.  They consort with other addicts, which does not help.  Often their families cannot help them.  Sometimes the family, even if affluent, have "given up" on the addicted member.  Thus, I think publically-funded rehabilitation programs are a good investment.  When Mr C says addicts should not be on the dole, they should be in rehab, he fails to consider that rehab is often part of the dole. 

As for SSI/SSDI, nutrition assistance, and housing assistance for drug addicts, I'm in favor of this too, even if it's frustrating.  If there's one thing harder to cure than a junkie it's a homeless, hungry junkie.  Addicts on the street are likely to drop out of treatment programs, even given the slim chance they're in one in the first place.  Furthermore, addicts with no options often live in filthy conditions, commit crimes, and/or engage in prostitution, all of which is detrimental to the health of the individual addict and incur considerable financial and morale costs to the community at large. 

If a junkie obtains $100 for a sex act or a petty crime, he/she is not likely to invest in groceries or a room for the night, but more heroin, and down the spiral we go!

If Mr C is "pissed off" at his drug-addicted neighbor receiving public assistance, perhaps applying the MYOB principle might calm the nerves.  I use it myself; it works.  Of course, Mr C might get a charge out of being pissed off at his neighbor, in that case it's his choice!
:P


What I was saying is that Mr.C seems to think it's easy to get Social Security (SSI or SSDI) it isn't.  Some people wait for months for approval and even have to hire attorneys to help them.  I agree with you some people who have a drug problem need assistance in order to combat their addiction.  Believe it or not I did the math with Mr.C claim.  You cannot collect both SSI and cash welfare benefits at the same time.  In other words he basing his disgust of Social Security and welfare on speculation.

What I was saying is that Mr.C seems to think it's easy to get Social Security (SSI or SSDI) it isn't.  Some people wait for months for approval and even have to hire attorneys to help them.  I agree with you some people who have a drug problem need assistance in order to combat their addiction.  Believe it or not I did the math with Mr.C claim.  You cannot collect both SSI and cash welfare benefits at the same time.  In other words he basing his disgust of Social Security and welfare on speculation.


I am, because I did try to get into a Disability Package, but I was denied. And if I would ever get SSI, I would be hit very hard with NO!

And I believe that my neighbor may be taking the system for granted...she works too so I also believe that there may be Welfare and SSI Fraud.

I am, because I did try to get into a Disability Package, but I was denied. And if I would ever get SSI, I would be hit very hard with NO!

And I believe that my neighbor may be taking the system for granted...she works too so I also believe that there may be Welfare and SSI Fraud.


I went through the same sh*t ten years ago, so I know what you mean, bro!

If your neighbor is indeed gaming the system, she better pray she never gets caught.  Our government doesn't like people stealing from it.  Well, it doesn't like working class people stealing from it.  Rich people get a little more slack!
::)

I went through the same sh*t ten years ago, so I know what you mean, bro!

If your neighbor is indeed gaming the system, she better pray she never gets caught.  Our government doesn't like people stealing from it.  Well, it doesn't like working class people stealing from it.  Rich people get a little more slack!
::)


A "little" more slack?  That has got to be the understatement of the decade.

A "little" more slack?  That has got to be the understatement of the decade.


Yeah...it's more like going up to the bank teller and saying, "You know the drill!"  She smiles and fills a sack full hundreds, throws in a toaster, and says "Come back any time, y'all!"
::)

The solution, as some very rich people (like Bill Gates' father among others) have observed, is to eliminate the cap on the FICA withholding, not increase the rate for those now paying on all their income.


While I like that idea, even that would be a temporary fix.  Ending the cap would extend the life of SS, but ultimately, it's a losing battle.

Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a societal one.  I support welfare, but I don't support funding the retirement of people with tax money.  Either you saved and got lucky, or you didn't.

The main reason I'm against SS is that I know that, no matter what happens, I'm not going to see SS funds in my old age, because it will be bankrupt by then.  I shouldn't have to pay into a system I'd never be able to use (unless I got injured or really sick).

While I like that idea, even that would be a temporary fix.  Ending the cap would extend the life of SS, but ultimately, it's a losing battle.

Retirement is a personal responsibility, not a societal one.  I support welfare, but I don't support funding the retirement of people with tax money.  Either you saved and got lucky, or you didn't.

The main reason I'm against SS is that I know that, no matter what happens, I'm not going to see SS funds in my old age, because it will be bankrupt by then.  I shouldn't have to pay into a system I'd never be able to use (unless I got injured or really sick).



What if one of your children were disabled or perhaps another relative?  Would you tell them not to apply for disability? 

What if one of your children were disabled or perhaps another relative?  Would you tell them not to apply for disability? 


You are confusing two completely separate issues.

You are talking about something that's effectively a form of universal disability insurance, in which all taxpayers pay to feed/house those who become disabled during the course of their working lives.  That's not a fiscally-unreasonable idea; any present-day worker could become disabled at any moment in time, and the number of disabled workers is going to remain a constant proportion of the number of total contributors to the programme.

A retirement programme is a function of private savings - while you are working, save some of your wages, and at some point in the future, you no longer need to work, so you draw down those savings for retirement.  Social Security is the opposite; present-day taxpayers are funding the retirements of those who got into the pyramid earlier.  It's no different than Madoff's scam.

The taxes that would need to be levied to fund the SSI/SSDI portion of "SS" are miniscule in comparison to the taxes currently being poured into the pyramid scheme currently masquerading as a retirement programme.

The people behind the pyramid scheme love it when people get the two ideas confused.  They crammed two completely separate programmes into one pile of legislative crap, precisely so that anyone who objects to the pyramid scheme is immediately accused of wanting to starve babies.  (And conversely, anyone collecting SSI/SSDI is also inclined to protect the irrelevant pyramid scheme, because it's part and parcel of the programmes that actually benefit them.)

I trust evewyone here will be voting for the "Fwuffy Bunny Pwotection Act", in which 1.0% of all wage income  is marked as FBPA contwibutions.  It's not wegwessive taxation, it has no cap at $100K!  0.1% of your sawawy goes toward the wescue of fwuffy bunnies for welease in national pawks, and the wemaining 0.9% of your wage is awwocated towards the ongoing constwuction of a national network of "Foo Bar Pale Ale" bwewewies and distwibutorships, which will be a wegitimate multi-wevew-mawketing oppowtunity.  What aww you, some kind of spear-and-magic-helmet-toting opewa singer?  Have some compassion for the fwuffy bunnies!

You are confusing two completely separate issues.

You are talking about something that's effectively a form of universal disability insurance, in which all taxpayers pay to feed/house those who become disabled during the course of their working lives.  That's not a fiscally-unreasonable idea; any present-day worker could become disabled at any moment in time, and the number of disabled workers is going to remain a constant proportion of the number of total contributors to the programme.

A retirement programme is a function of private savings - while you are working, save some of your wages, and at some point in the future, you no longer need to work, so you draw down those savings for retirement.  Social Security is the opposite; present-day taxpayers are funding the retirements of those who got into the pyramid earlier.  It's no different than Madoff's scam.

The taxes that would need to be levied to fund the SSI/SSDI portion of "SS" are miniscule in comparison to the taxes currently being poured into the pyramid scheme currently masquerading as a retirement programme.

The people behind the pyramid scheme love it when people get the two ideas confused.  They crammed two completely separate programmes into one pile of legislative crap, precisely so that anyone who objects to the pyramid scheme is immediately accused of wanting to starve babies.  (And conversely, anyone collecting SSI/SSDI is also inclined to protect the irrelevant pyramid scheme, because it's part and parcel of the programmes that actually benefit them.)

I trust evewyone here will be voting for the "Fwuffy Bunny Pwotection Act", in which 1.0% of all wage income  is marked as FBPA contwibutions.  It's not wegwessive taxation, it has no cap at $100K!  0.1% of your sawawy goes toward the wescue of fwuffy bunnies for welease in national pawks, and the wemaining 0.9% of your wage is awwocated towards the ongoing constwuction of a national network of "Foo Bar Pale Ale" bwewewies and distwibutorships, which will be a wegitimate multi-wevew-mawketing oppowtunity.  What aww you, some kind of spear-and-magic-helmet-toting opewa singer?  Have some compassion for the fwuffy bunnies!


I will agree with you on the retiree aspect of it.  Does the Fwuffy Bunny Pwectection act also cover Fwuffy Bunnies that move to Panama so they can have their Foo Bar ale cheaper and avoid paying taxes to help other Fwuffy Bunnies?

Does the Fwuffy Bunny Pwectection act also cover Fwuffy Bunnies that move to Panama so they can have their Foo Bar ale cheaper and avoid paying taxes to help other Fwuffy Bunnies?


Yep.  A couple of Senators' friends have interests down there, so I had to let them put in a rider to make sure it had enough votes to get through without having to worry about a filibuster.  You must be a private citizen to have noticed it; it's not like any of us read the bills.  First question, why are you bothering your betters by trying to embarass us with questions like this (as if it's possible for us to feel shame!), and second question, what do you have against fwuffy bunnies?

A retirement programme is a function of private savings - while you are working, save some of your wages, and at some point in the future, you no longer need to work, so you draw down those savings for retirement.  Social Security is the opposite; present-day taxpayers are funding the retirements of those who got into the pyramid earlier.  It's no different than Madoff's scam.





First, I will state that I am a big fan of Social Security, but I also understand where you are coming from.  The one argument I would like to make in this case is what of the stay-at-home mom whose husband controls the finances spends every cent.  Should a stay at home be able to co-opt a portion of her husbands earnings to insure against her own future destitution.

What if one of your children were disabled or perhaps another relative?  Would you tell them not to apply for disability? 


Of course not.  As long as the program is there, I'll definitely make use of it.  Hell, I'm paying into it.  Shouldn't I use it if it's still there?  ;)

First, I will state that I am a big fan of Social Security, but I also understand where you are coming from.  The one argument I would like to make in this case is what of the stay-at-home mom whose husband controls the finances spends every cent.  Should a stay at home be able to co-opt a portion of her husbands earnings to insure against her own future destitution.


Yes, that's called a divorce settlement. (just kidding)

But seriously, most couples self-regulate that.  At least, most couples I've known do that.

For example, if you're married, the first thing you ought to do is set up a joint account with your spouse so that both of you have control over finances and can view how much money is there and where it's going.  If problems arise, that's when you talk it over.

I just don't see any reason to get the state involved in a private affair like that.  Retirement really should be a private responsibility.

For example, if you're married, the first thing you ought to do is set up a joint account with your spouse so that both of you have control over finances and can view how much money is there and where it's going.  If problems arise, that's when you talk it over.



That is a big ought.  The problem is that it is usually these women who are left out in the cold.  They are exalted by society, but are really at the mercy of their husbands largesse.  When you actually look at the vulnerability of a stay- at-home mother you see what an unenviable position it is. I work in a male dominated sector(construction) and am privy to their conversations, what is said sometimes boggles the mind, especially when it comes the "their money".  A prime example, which I love repeating, is when I entered the shack and was asked my opinion on a question that was being debated.  The question(so relevant to this) was "Does my wife have the right to know how much money I make?"  If you can believe it, the nays out numbered the yeas!!! I like to think that if I was in that situation that I would walk out, but when you have kids and your economic stability depends on Mr Blunderbuss, well, I don't know what I would do.  I feel lucky I didn't put myself in that trap, and feel a great amount of sympathy for those in the situation. 

Of course not.  As long as the program is there, I'll definitely make use of it.  Hell, I'm paying into it.  Shouldn't I use it if it's still there?  ;)


Yeah, you're like my Dad.  He doesn't like how Social Security is run.  At the same time he's more than willing to fight for "adult disabled child of a retiree" status for one of his kids.

Yep.  A couple of Senators' friends have interests down there, so I had to let them put in a rider to make sure it had enough votes to get through without having to worry about a filibuster.  You must be a private citizen to have noticed it; it's not like any of us read the bills.  First question, why are you bothering your betters by trying to embarass us with questions like this (as if it's possible for us to feel shame!), and second question, what do you have against fwuffy bunnies?


Because sometimes embarrassment is a necessary evil.  Fwuffy bunnies are a only fwuffy when they're not paying taxes and taking pictures of the Panama canal with the camera they bought with the "chump change" from Social Security.  Their fwuffy bunny status is fleeting.

Speaking of smoking and Denis Leary....

"There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately.

There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger.

Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY ****! These things are bad for you! *** hought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!"

You ******  dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these ****** things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fudgeing cigarettes, ok!? There a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze* "

Speaking of smoking and Denis Leary....





Speaking of smoking and Denis Leary

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4sK_yYtGQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=INarE1WraFA&feature=related

Yeah, you're like my Dad.  He doesn't like how Social Security is run.  At the same time he's more than willing to fight for "adult disabled child of a retiree" status for one of his kids.


On the surface, it seems hypocritical.  Still, considering we all pay into the system, we ought to be free to use it when it applies.

Now, if I wasn't paying into it, I'd have no right to use it.

That is a big ought.  The problem is that it is usually these women who are left out in the cold.  They are exalted by society, but are really at the mercy of their husbands largesse.  When you actually look at the vulnerability of a stay- at-home mother you see what an unenviable position it is. I work in a male dominated sector(construction) and am privy to their conversations, what is said sometimes boggles the mind, especially when it comes the "their money".  A prime example, which I love repeating, is when I entered the shack and was asked my opinion on a question that was being debated.  The question(so relevant to this) was "Does my wife have the right to know how much money I make?"  If you can believe it, the nays out numbered the yeas!!! I like to think that if I was in that situation that I would walk out, but when you have kids and your economic stability depends on Mr Blunderbuss, well, I don't know what I would do.  I feel lucky I didn't put myself in that trap, and feel a great amount of sympathy for those in the situation. 


That's definitely disturbing, but I've heard several similar conversations at my work.

As discussed in the other thread, state governments usually have some sort of child support laws in place that reconcile this situation somewhat.  Admittedly, if no children are in the picture, things become harder for the woman to get as much compensation.

Still, I generally see this as a state issue rather than a federal one.

If nothing else, this issue shows how badly we need to educate young women about family finances.  I've always been a strong advocate of increasing financial/economic education in public schools.  There are so many important aspects of personal finances that we expect young people to pick up in the real world but that would be better learned in a classroom environment to prevent future disasters like the ones you reference.

That is a big ought.  The problem is that it is usually these women who are left out in the cold.  They are exalted by society, but are really at the mercy of their husbands largesse.  When you actually look at the vulnerability of a stay- at-home mother you see what an unenviable position it is. I work in a male dominated sector(construction) and am privy to their conversations, what is said sometimes boggles the mind, especially when it comes the "their money".  A prime example, which I love repeating, is when I entered the shack and was asked my opinion on a question that was being debated.  The question(so relevant to this) was "Does my wife have the right to know how much money I make?"  If you can believe it, the nays out numbered the yeas!!! I like to think that if I was in that situation that I would walk out, but when you have kids and your economic stability depends on Mr Blunderbuss, well, I don't know what I would do.  I feel lucky I didn't put myself in that trap, and feel a great amount of sympathy for those in the situation. 


Like I said on your Brother's Keeper thread, whatever happened to "share my worldly goods" guys? 
Sometimes it backfires.  I used to work for this rich doctor who was a total male chauvinist.  He demanded of his wife that she NOT work; her duties were to raise their son and tend to their home.  By the time I was working for him, he didn't like his wife anymore.  I knew one thing, he was in no position to get a divorce 'cos it would be ka-ching ka-ching time for his wife.  He told her not to work, which the courts would take into account when looking at his $400 large annual salary (or something like that).

Couples treat marriage like exchanging high school sweetheart rings.  I think that's a big part of the problem.