17 responses

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    January 11, 2013

    To paraphrase some old advice: Move [Mid]West Young Lady!

  2. Finrod Felagund
    January 11, 2013

    Elections have consequences. I have no sympathy for anyone who bought the Barack Obama ticket and is now complaining about the bumpiness of the ride.

    • Finrod Felagund
      January 11, 2013

      However, looking at her blog, she looks like someone that did not buy the ticket. Too bad we’re all stuck going along for the ride anyways.

      • smitty
        January 11, 2013

        Gabby is one of the good ones.

  3. jwallin
    January 11, 2013

    SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme.

    A Ponzi scheme is setup to be an investment that returns a dividend. Only the investment never happens or does not return a dividend.

    Social Security is a Pension scheme for one generation that is charged to the next or working generation.

    No claim of a dividend was ever made.

    Yeah a lot of politicians claimed it was an “investment” but then anyone who believes a politician deserves what they get (or don’t get as the case may be).

    • smitty
      January 11, 2013

      It is totally a Ponzi scheme in the general sense of being a ripoff.

      • Adjoran
        January 11, 2013

        No, a Ponzi scheme is a very specific type of ripoff. A bank robbery is a ripoff, but it isn’t a Ponzi scheme.

      • BruceC
        January 11, 2013

        Tomato, Tomahto…both result in us getting bent over.

    • Jimmie
      January 11, 2013

      That is not correct. When Social Security was first founded, there was a claim of a dividend, in the form of interest. It is a Ponzi Scheme.

      • jakee308
        January 21, 2013

        Good grief, how long ago? The ’40’s?

        It hasn’t been promoted like that for years so for people to take some pol (I assume some pol or commentator made that point. BTW where’s the link to this claim of it having a dividend?) speaking 70 years ago as a definitive statement of the aims and means of the SS system.

  4. Freddie Sykes
    January 11, 2013

    A step in the right direction is to allow people below a certain age to divert some of their FICA taxes into individual accounts with right of survivorship. Investment choices should be limited to a mix of stock and bond funds.

    The two groups this would help the most are minorities with low life expectancies and married couples given that the lower paid spouse receive absolutely no return on their “investment” since benefits are based solely on the higher paid spouse’s “contributions”.

  5. Bob Belvedere
    January 11, 2013

    Paul Ryan voted for the New Year’s deal.

    • smitty
      January 11, 2013

      I hope Paul Ryan does some ‘splainin’ at CPAC.

      • Jimmie
        January 11, 2013

        I suspect his explanation will be the feeble “but…but…but…it was a tax cut” talking point.

        Insufficient.

  6. Adjoran
    January 11, 2013

    The critical need right now is to address health care expenses through Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare. Veering off topic into Social Security – which is still within range of repair with fairly innocuous reforms like raising retirement ages and means testing for the very wealthy – merely invites a return to the classic demagoguery which has thwarted every previous attempt to deal with the subject. Been there, done that.

    One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, always expecting a different result.

  7. Adobe_Walls
    January 11, 2013

    The SS tax should never have been reduced at least not for individuals. SS is currently operating in the red and that and medicare taxes are the only federal taxes many Americans pay. If we are going give SS benifits they should be paid for.

Back to top
mobile desktop