Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I Love Social Security [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)106. I checked the numbers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737
The average Social Security recipient receives less per year than a person working 40 hours per week on minimum wage -- and the person who is working has an opportunity from time to time to get overtime pay.
Look at the numbers.
On Social Security, seniors are barely making it. Those who earn more than $40,000 or $80,000 pay extra taxes on their Social Security.
I agree with you on one thing. The income disparity in the country is a scandal. Too many people are barely making it.
And yet, we are bombarded constantly with ads and propaganda from companies and individuals who want to take our money for utterly wasteful things.
The fact is that our nation is dizzy from the greed of those who have a lot and want more, more, more.
Seniors who have saved only accumulated any savings because they lived very frugally. If you fall for the sales pitches from the advertising industry or the promises of the "investment" brokers, you are lost.
I remember sitting in a meeting during the Kerry campaign. One of the younger, more conservative Democrats stated with firm conviction in her voice that, "We are living in the richest country on earth." Kids are taught that in school. It is a lie. We are quite possibly the country with the biggest personal debt in the world. The size of personal debt owed by ordinary individuals in this country worries me far more than the national debt.
Americans are not taught or encouraged to save or to question the value of what they buy. And the business community does everything within its power to hoodwink consumers and take their money from them.
Does it amaze you that we have so much poverty?
Many economists presume that people make rational choices about spending or saving money.
The truth is that people do not make rational choices about spending or saving money.
And, therefore, the entire premise upon which our economic predictions are based and on which businessmen calculate risks, is false.
As long as we delude ourselves into thinking we are rich, we will continue to allow the truly rich, the Pete Petersons and the Bushes and the Cheneys (Halliburton) and the Romneys and the Kochs, etc. to run our country and to steal from us the modest wealth that should be ours --- like the taxes we put into Social Security and the benefits those taxes entitle us to. Yes. Entitle is not a dirty word.
If you are entitled to something it means you own title to it. You are entitled to own land if you record the title or deed to the land in your county. A title is a sign that you own something.
An entitlement is something that you own.
Here, on the Danish line of succession:
As a distinction, those entitled to inherit the throne are called "Prins til Danmark" (Prince to Denmark, although this distinction is not made in English) while those without succession rights are referred to as "Prins af Danmark" (Prince of Denmark).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Danish_throne
Entitled means
Verb
Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.
https://www.google.com/search?q=entitled%20to%20land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=2NV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&q=entitled+definition&revid=2135647060&sa=X&ei=zhdrUZNAp6uKAtakgfgH&ved=0CHYQ1QIoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=69e0607ba6ebab96&biw=747&bih=362
We are entitled to our Social Security benefits, meaning we have a legal right to them.
Obama knows that, and that is why he is not admitting that his plan cuts the benefits but couching the Social Security cuts in the terminology of a chained CPI which suggest a cut to the increases in the benefits but not in the benefits themselves.
Don't be fooled. If the COLA is cut, the benefits are cut. That is because the COLA is what helps keep your monthly benefit the same. If you get $5 and inflation eats part of the value, you are actually receiving less if you don't get a COLA adjustment to keep your benefit up to the level of inflation.
The COLA goes up only when inflation goes up. So, under Obama's chained CPI proposal, the rate at which the COLA that keeps your Social Security benefit the same in terms of buying power when there is inflation, will not rise to keep up with inflation.
So, don't be confused, the chained CPI will put seniors either closer and closer to the poverty level or under it.
Please read the post that I linked to above if you want to know how much seniors really get from Social Security. It is less than a lot of people think.
Don't be fooled. Fight for your rights. Don't let them fool you out of your Social Security the way they fooled so many Americans out of their homes.
The average Social Security recipient receives less per year than a person working 40 hours per week on minimum wage -- and the person who is working has an opportunity from time to time to get overtime pay.
Look at the numbers.
On Social Security, seniors are barely making it. Those who earn more than $40,000 or $80,000 pay extra taxes on their Social Security.
I agree with you on one thing. The income disparity in the country is a scandal. Too many people are barely making it.
And yet, we are bombarded constantly with ads and propaganda from companies and individuals who want to take our money for utterly wasteful things.
The fact is that our nation is dizzy from the greed of those who have a lot and want more, more, more.
Seniors who have saved only accumulated any savings because they lived very frugally. If you fall for the sales pitches from the advertising industry or the promises of the "investment" brokers, you are lost.
I remember sitting in a meeting during the Kerry campaign. One of the younger, more conservative Democrats stated with firm conviction in her voice that, "We are living in the richest country on earth." Kids are taught that in school. It is a lie. We are quite possibly the country with the biggest personal debt in the world. The size of personal debt owed by ordinary individuals in this country worries me far more than the national debt.
Americans are not taught or encouraged to save or to question the value of what they buy. And the business community does everything within its power to hoodwink consumers and take their money from them.
Does it amaze you that we have so much poverty?
Many economists presume that people make rational choices about spending or saving money.
The truth is that people do not make rational choices about spending or saving money.
And, therefore, the entire premise upon which our economic predictions are based and on which businessmen calculate risks, is false.
As long as we delude ourselves into thinking we are rich, we will continue to allow the truly rich, the Pete Petersons and the Bushes and the Cheneys (Halliburton) and the Romneys and the Kochs, etc. to run our country and to steal from us the modest wealth that should be ours --- like the taxes we put into Social Security and the benefits those taxes entitle us to. Yes. Entitle is not a dirty word.
If you are entitled to something it means you own title to it. You are entitled to own land if you record the title or deed to the land in your county. A title is a sign that you own something.
An entitlement is something that you own.
Here, on the Danish line of succession:
As a distinction, those entitled to inherit the throne are called "Prins til Danmark" (Prince to Denmark, although this distinction is not made in English) while those without succession rights are referred to as "Prins af Danmark" (Prince of Denmark).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Danish_throne
Entitled means
Verb
Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.
https://www.google.com/search?q=entitled%20to%20land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
We are entitled to our Social Security benefits, meaning we have a legal right to them.
Obama knows that, and that is why he is not admitting that his plan cuts the benefits but couching the Social Security cuts in the terminology of a chained CPI which suggest a cut to the increases in the benefits but not in the benefits themselves.
Don't be fooled. If the COLA is cut, the benefits are cut. That is because the COLA is what helps keep your monthly benefit the same. If you get $5 and inflation eats part of the value, you are actually receiving less if you don't get a COLA adjustment to keep your benefit up to the level of inflation.
The COLA goes up only when inflation goes up. So, under Obama's chained CPI proposal, the rate at which the COLA that keeps your Social Security benefit the same in terms of buying power when there is inflation, will not rise to keep up with inflation.
So, don't be confused, the chained CPI will put seniors either closer and closer to the poverty level or under it.
Please read the post that I linked to above if you want to know how much seniors really get from Social Security. It is less than a lot of people think.
Don't be fooled. Fight for your rights. Don't let them fool you out of your Social Security the way they fooled so many Americans out of their homes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Lol, well sometimes people reveal their true 'sentiments' late at night, or is it early in the
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#6
I know. I would like to know if anti-Social Security people are also anti-Insurance policies in
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#11
Josh Mandel?? You're giving us projections on 'entitlement' programs from a Republican?
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#13
If you believe SS has no impact on the Natl Debt then I expect you think there will be a 25% cut
dkf
Apr 2013
#18
Seems like the simple solution would be to lift the cap and raise the SS tax.
SunSeeker
Apr 2013
#22
The trust fund will not expire. It currently has a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars. Too bad the
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#23
I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from...not from SS trustees apparently.
dkf
Apr 2013
#27
I guess I thought I would get something, after all if you go to all that trouble to make a statement
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#35
Raise the cap, increase taxes on the entities that can afford it, cut big war funding... Done.
grahamhgreen
Apr 2013
#43
How about we just let all the old people die? What utter garbage you are bringing here. SS pays
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#104
While we wait for GOP to jump on board with that, should we just sit quietly by and do nothing?
Hoyt
Apr 2013
#82
Why is SS a part of these discussions since it had nothing to do with the deficit and doesn't cost
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#108
Wait, you are blaming the creditor for the borrowing of the debtor? Again, you are not being clear.
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#110
Sorry, but money you and I paid in went to pay SS benefits for folks our parents age. Not right,
Hoyt
Apr 2013
#121
You couldn't be more wrong. There is a two trillion dollar surplus in the trust fund right now
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#126
And there's the old right wing lie they've telling for generations. I had hoped we wouldn't resort
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#132
Do you realize the payroll tax holiday contributed directly to the debt and the deficit?
dkf
Apr 2013
#50
Oh Bullshit. SS has two other sources of revenue and has shown a SURPLUS every year
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#51
Debt, deficit, SS is a separate fund and has nothing to do with either. You need to learn
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#140
Thank you, how refreshing to see that at least some people here actually understand
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#141
Those projections chancge every year and are based on the direst of situations.
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#54
I'm not assuming it, I am expecting it. I am working with millions of other Americans to
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#142
What makes you think that the Federal Govt will 'only provide SS'. The Fed Govt DOESN'T
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#4
I remember when pitting programs like Social Security and education against each other was solely
suffragette
Apr 2013
#24
Lol, well, that was a short and sweet slap down of that particular talking point.
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#143
I never agreed with him running for president. It was not the way to make a point. I always
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#157
The more anti social security people tell me they are Democrats, the more I realize
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#52
It still is, the difference is moderate Republicans are called third way Democrats sometimes
Dragonfli
Apr 2013
#61
Exactly. Same as the third way in the UK acted, which ushered the Tories back to power
suffragette
Apr 2013
#74
Wow, there it is right there. The propaganda we are seeing, right here in this thread!
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#86
Of course, he couldn't anticipate 3rd-Way thinking: "Where else are they going to go?"
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#123
Your chart has a very major flaw. It mentions the Deficit as an expense, (thanks Bush and your
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#32
I know, it is so transparent the way they try to distort these things. I guess if you read
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#144
A very good Republican point, so yeah, very brave to make it on a Democratic forum
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#87
I saw 42 today.God, I admire what Jackie Robinson had to go through. Even from his own team.
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#115
What have the republicans every done for the working man in history. Even big banks owe FDR their
demosincebirth
Apr 2013
#154
I am so glad that your parents are okay. I will be right there with you in that fight.
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#33
I couldn't agree more 'any politician who proposes the destruction of or even a cut to social
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#146
The fight is going to have to be fierce on our side to protect it. They have become blatant now
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#79
Thank you for posting that G20 speech. I was thinking about it when the proposal was announced
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#107
Oilwellian, what a beautiful post, it actually made me cry. Especially the part about your dad
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#91
No, thank you for posting in my thread. You and some of the other posters who provided examples of
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#155
No "REAL" Democrat on DU or anywhere else would ever be for cuts of any sort to SS.
L0oniX
Apr 2013
#93
Lol, well I guess it must have. But you realize you may be ruining my reputation now ...
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#102
Yikes! I was with her all the way until you approved. Now I will have to reevaluate. nm
rhett o rick
Apr 2013
#113
"Roosevelt insisted that the new program not look like a dole, his aides later explained"
Nye Bevan
Apr 2013
#105
Thanks for posting. I am going to ask Skinner if he can add a feature so I can
rhett o rick
Apr 2013
#114
The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins
Ruby the Liberal
Apr 2013
#122
I have not read that book, but I have read a great deal about Francis Perkins. She is a fascinating
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#152
Sabrina, I thank you for posting this information. I am grateful SS has been there for me.
classof56
Apr 2013
#135
I am so thrilled at the people, real people like you who have posted in this thread offering proof
sabrina 1
Apr 2013
#151
SS is a bedrock DEM PRINCIPLE, lazly cast asunder by Obama in his fetish for "bipartisanship" w/an
blkmusclmachine
Apr 2013
#147