[RealJustme]

First of all social security isn't an entitlement, it was earned for those who paid into it. So why is there fear by the Democrats of running out of money for social security benefits for those citizens who paid their dues for decades but there is no fear of running out of money for welfare benefits, pacifying the illegal immigrants and others with free medical care, free education, tax breaks, reduced housing payments, free cell phones, free food and free utilities?

To me "everyone" of those entitlements should be cut before even considering reducing earned social security benefits to those who have paid for it.

Watch for Democrats to try and expand social security benefits to those who haven't paid into to it for decades (illegals and other criminals) while reducing the benefits to those who have paid into it if they have other sources of income such as pensions or 401ks.

Taking earned social security benefits and raising taxes on those who have worked their entire lives "in America" will become just become more ways for redistribution of wealth to leaches in our society.

[johnforbes]

Bernie Sanders was talking the other day about expanding Social Security.

[elklindo69]

When the SS system cannot fully pay out benefits as is expected in the next 20 or years, then it's considered to be bankrupt. Bankruptcy by definition is when debts cannot be fully paid out, and the government will be in default. A SS default can be simply be avoided by raising taxes, increasing retirement age, etc.

Now as far as non payers receiving benefits, that's Justme's making shit up. Anytime you have to make shit up as you go along... that's when you have no game!

LMAO

[johnforbes]

When Obama said illegals would not get Obamacare, he was lying.

It is now very clear that clinics will provide care regardless of citizenship.

Liberals make up new "civil rights" every day. Today, a transgender or gay can serve in the military.

This spells opportunity for Elkin.

[RealJustme]

When the SS system cannot fully pay out benefits as is expected in the next 20 or years, then it's considered to be bankrupt. Bankruptcy by definition is when debts cannot be fully paid out, and the government will be in default. A SS default can be simply be avoided by raising taxes, increasing retirement age, etc.

No, Social Security is not an entitlement for those who have paid into the system, it's a government run savings account with guaranteed payouts based upon contributions and when you start drawing your savings out. Before the government touches everyone's "forced" savings they should reduce entitlements like free housing, Obama phone, food stamps and even reducing the number of refugees we're taking in from countries like Africa. If that's enough then they need to reduce the size of the government until they reach a point they can pay everyone their savings back. Hands off of our savings, there are other programs that can be reduced or done away with.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^Probably evey last word in that post is just plain ignorance and entirely wrong.

Tool, you need to learn something about Social Security.
It IS an entitlement (just ask all your Right Wing buddies who insist entitlements need to be cut) and it is NOT a savings account or retirement account.

This is a perfect example of why you are such a useful tool of your handlers.

[RealJustme]

Tool, you need to learn something about Social Security.
It IS an entitlement (just ask all your Right Wing buddies who insist entitlements need to be cut) and it is NOT a savings account or retirement account.

I agree, libtards want to make Social Security an entitlement so they can dole it out to those who haven't paid into it and use it as a form of welfare. Social Security was meant to be a forced retirement savings only meant for those who paid into it, more you put into, the longer you work the more you get up to a limit.

[Clownkicker]

No, Tool, it isn't.
It paid out to people who never paid into it from day one. That was the whole point at the time.

To prove it isn't a "saving account", try having the estate of someone who dies at age 66 attempt to collect on the remainder of the "savings account" of that person, just as you would any bank savings account.
You will get laughed out of the Social Security office.

Tool, don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, or at least get johnforbes to tell you you're sorely mistaken (read "full of shit") about this.
Get his worthless ass to do something worthwhile for you, like keep you from looking like a bigger moron.



Don't be a tool, educate yourself, fool.

[RealJustme]

To prove it isn't a "saving account", try having the estate of someone who dies at age 66 attempt to collect on the remainder of the "savings account" of that person, just as you would any bank savings account.
You will get laughed out of the Social Security office.

That's factored into the payments to keep the system solvent, they have people called actuaries that come up with those type of factors. Members of the dead person's estate "will" be collecting from social security if they paid into it and qualify. Now don't you feel silly

[Clownkicker]

Tool, if the estate can't get it, it doesn't belong to the estate; that is, it isn't something owned by the individual.
You just made the argument against your idiotic position that it is a personal savings account.

Now you should really feel stupid.

But since the feeling of being stupid is your normal state of existence, you probably can't tell the difference.