John Boehner R-Ohio, says use Social Security funds to pay for war
 

The world according to GOP House Minority Leader and Leading Suntan Expert John Boehner:

Change Social Security retirement age and use Social Security funds to pay for war in Afghanistan - an interesting priority choice.

Although everyone pays into Social Security, the government will decide who receives it. :zz: If you've planned well for yourself and saved on your own, you lose.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur.../s_688102.html

machiavelli said to fight a war you need treasure, and more treasure and yet more treasure.

we used to have treasure. now we have debt, more debt, and yet even more debt.

oh, and still have two wars..

i wonder if boehner is aware the ss isn't socked away in a separate account?

It's not in a "Lock Box"?

:D


why, suuuuuure it is....only problem is, seems everyone in washington has the key!


funny, isn't it, that laws require pension plans to be fully funded-except for social security?

Start a war or two.

Worry about funding it years later.

Take the money from your most elderly, non-working citizens to do so.

Brilliant.

no, it'll be fine. we had a discussion a few months back about ss, you assured me there was nothing to worry about.

I guess that in college, Bush should have done less drinking, and more reading of Machiavelli and the funding of wars.

Boehner probably expects support from the far right/libertarian anti-government "abandon or dismantle social security" crowd for his position. War over socialist handouts - that has to be a winner with them, hum?

Yet at the same time he's going all-in against those same people - they were the ones screaming, "keep your government hands off my medicare" last August, and fearing "government death panels".

I imagine those folks will feel the very same way about their social security, and the creation of government panels determining who will receive it, and who will not.

Interesting political position Boehner is taking.

"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."


I guess you missed the part about moving the age for people that are 20 or more years away from SS as well.

1-we're not broke. obama just went to the g20 wanting more spending. he lost that fight. thank goodness.
2-if the wars are making us broke, get out of the effing wars.
3-bush started both, but 1 1/2 years into obama's run, and we're still there. so, now they're his wars. just like nixon when he inherited vietnam. perhaps obama should also have studied machiavelli.
4-social security isn't supposed to be an entitlement program. we all pay in, with the expectation we all get it back out when we're old. it's funny, now this guy wants to tell some of us that even tho you paid in for years, too bad-you can't have it back.


old people and kids are who pols mention when they want their way. no doubt there's other spending that could be cut.

Not broke??

Do we define being broke as not having enough money to pay our current debts, or as having reached our borrowing limit ("day of reckoning")? I would suggest it is the former, not the latter, but I am a fiscal conservative.

By the way, and I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Riot that we should not be using Social Security funds to pay for wars. I will further amplify that to say we should not use Social Security funds to pay for anything but retirement expenses of Social Security contributors.

That means:
no payments to non-contributors (like illegal aliens)
No payments to those below retirement age.
Actually treating it like a separate pool of money, making Al Gore's "Lock Box" something other than the fantasy it has always been.

This also allows for:
The voluntary participation of the people and allowing people to GET OUT OF IT.

The program is doomed. No one below the age of 40 actually expects to collect anything meaningful from it, should the program even exist. Almost no one gets the principle plus interest they should be getting from what was originally sold as a retirement investment program.

That said, as Riot alludes to, it doesn't make sense to put yet another torpedo into the hull of that sinking ship.

Obama is starting to look like a fool to the rest of the world.

Rest of world: "We need to stop spending and stop stimulus packages, we are broke"

Obama "No.. the way to get out of debt is to spend so much more and print worthless money! Come on guys! Lets have a beer, pull some wool over your eyes, and spend some cash!"

FYI - I dont feel to bad for old folks like Riot who might not get all the SS she paid in.. because my generation will get doo doo from SS.

Uh, no, that's exactly what I'm talking about. All the parts you quoted. Duh.

I'll get all I paid in without question. It's good for 25 years, and there is no baby boomer generation beyond the one I'm at the tail of. If Boehner doesn't loot it and change the rules. You need to make sure it's there for you - by not allowing the rules to be changed on you. Again, it should be, easily, as the minor adjustments made over the years have worked in the past, and should work again.

its not the rules changing.. its the government not securing the SS in a "lock box" they pull :$: out of SS to pay for other shiznit that doesnt work.. depleting the funds.

I'm screwed and my generations children are even worse off when it comes to SS.. I'm in favor of eliminating it completely and letting myself invest in my 401k or whatever else retirement plan others want.. instead of paying 6-12% and being lucky to get 1-2% back.

Social Security came into existence as people - even those who lived through the Depression and two world wars - didn't invest and plan for their own retirement. It came into being to save people's lives from starvation and homelessness.

That mindset - live for today, don't save - hasn't changed in the US, it's worsened (judging by amount of savings, bankruptcies, overspending and credit debt, etc)

Social Security in the government's hands cannot be invested as private funds can - a good thing, as 1/3 of the fund would probably be gone right now.

You (the general you, not you specifically) don't have to eliminate SS completely to invest in your own retirement. You should be able to take 10% out of your takehome no matter how small an income one makes (and can invest it so it becomes tax free, which markedly increases it's value). Depending upon social security to fund one's retirement is foolish, as even if you max out yearly on your contribution for 20 years, the amount you receive monthly isn't much.

If you don't already have a retirement account you currently pay into, you are way behind already, as the little bit of money you squirrel away in the low income early years of your career has the most growth upside just sitting there compounding for decades.

And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me.

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts. Do you have a retirement plan you've been funding since you were about 16 years old? You should have.

Americans would opt out, and the die off in later years will be huge, expensive, and horrifying.

So once again the government is needed as a baby-sitter/guardian. Some people do plan and in this country they pay dearly for it in everything from inflated inheritance to property tax. SS in private hands would be an illegal Ponzi scheme as the money paid in by recipients today is long gone and they are only able to be paid by new contributors who are forced in by law instead of having to be suckered.

The government has been this specific "baby sitter-guardian" since half our elderly were in poverty after the great depression of the last century.

What is the point of this argument? That life is futile? That some people are poor planners?

But Social Security isn't in private hands (a good thing, most of the funds would have gone the way of the private funds over the past two years). It was designed to work as it does.

I do have a 401k that I pay into and my company matches, so I have NO clue where you pulled that last sentence out of.. (well I do have a clue)

Other people not planning for their own retirement is NOT my problem, nor do I care. Let them work til the die then. (I'm all for SS payments for the handicapped though, except for certain morons I know who are just not that smart and abuse it to get payments when they darn well can do hard labor) So I'm responsible, but I still have to lose 6% of my paycheck for people who arent responsible? If I knew I'd get back what I put in, I wouldnt have an issue. the absolute fact (and SS knows this - they sent me a letter) that I will get pennies back for what I put in for 55 years of work is what pisses me off. If I had the option, I wouldnt put a dime into SS and put that extra 6% into my 401k.

But seriously, where do you feel you have the right to assume things about my life like "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me"

I'm being responsible and being screwed.. if you wonder why people get pissed at you.. just look at your unreasonable assumptions that are not based on anything. And why the heck should people who plan have to pay for the mistakes of people who arent smart about things? Thats where this country goes wrong.