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

[joeydb]

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.

[joeydb]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

People don't plan. Americans especially. Americans are quite the live for today, overspend, overbuy, consumer addicts..

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.

[Riot]

So once again the government is needed as a baby-sitter/guardian.

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

Some people do plan and in this country they pay dearly for it in everything from inflated inheritance to property tax.

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

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

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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

unfortunately it in the hands of people who have been proven incapable time after time (not just you dumbo's.. the "conservatives" also).

Our politicians are on the same level as Bernie Madoff.. though they deal in trillions, not billions.

[Antitrust32]

any many many many many many Americans do plan Riot. Including people my age and younger. We arent as dumb as you think we are.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

That's the price of real freedom, the kind guaranteed by the proper and strict constructionalist view of the Constitution: some people may make the wrong choices, and they alone should pay the price for that.

I don't care if it's not planning for retirement, having too many cheeseburgers, or having unprotected relations with the wrong people -- if you did it, you own it. I have the freedom and the right not to be burdened for someone else's bad judgement. That's what freedom is.

The nanny state and all its ilk should never have gotten as far as it has, and it should be dismantled piece-by-piece and immediately.

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." -Andrew Wilkow.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's the price of real freedom, the kind guaranteed by the proper and strict constructionalist view of the Constitution: some people may make the wrong choices, and they alone should pay the price for that.

I don't care if it's not planning for retirement, having too many cheeseburgers, or having unprotected relations with the wrong people -- if you did it, you own it. I have the freedom and the right not to be burdened for someone else's bad judgement. That's what freedom is.

The nanny state and all its ilk should never have gotten as far as it has, and it should be dismantled piece-by-piece and immediately.

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you." -Andrew Wilkow.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

lol
my 'we're not broke' was really tongue in cheek...but after all, if the president wants to keep spending, then we must not be broke...right?