
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Myth- “social security is guaranteed”.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:26 am to TrueTiger
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:26 am to TrueTiger
I like Matt sometimes, but I notice he has a lot of "hot takes" like this that totally seem to miss the mark. Of course social security is a scheme. It's a socialist policy, what else would you expect? But claiming that old people are stealing from young people? Does he even know how SS works? You have to earn enough work credits in your lifetime to even qualify for checks when you retire. They've had their money taken from them for their entire working lives, and now that they want their money that was taken from them, that makes them thieves of younger people? Why? Everyone is playing by these rules, young and old.
And I'm so tired of the "you boomers voted for this" argument. Is every "boomer" at fault? Do conservative boomers not deserve their money because liberal boomers voted for something that was bad? What's the answer then, Matt? Screw the old people, because younger people somehow shouldn't have to deal with what everyone else does? And by the way, didn't social security come before boomers existed? I don't get it.
And I'm Matt's age, so I'm not saying this from a senior citizen's perspective. I just don't know why he goes down these rabbit holes and tries to sound like some tough guy who's telling it like it is, but making no sense in the process.
And I'm so tired of the "you boomers voted for this" argument. Is every "boomer" at fault? Do conservative boomers not deserve their money because liberal boomers voted for something that was bad? What's the answer then, Matt? Screw the old people, because younger people somehow shouldn't have to deal with what everyone else does? And by the way, didn't social security come before boomers existed? I don't get it.
And I'm Matt's age, so I'm not saying this from a senior citizen's perspective. I just don't know why he goes down these rabbit holes and tries to sound like some tough guy who's telling it like it is, but making no sense in the process.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 12:34 am
Posted on 10/7/26 at 6:28 am to Deplorableinohio
quote:
Boomers did a lot more than beat the Axis powers in WW2. We financed, engineered, designed, and constructed the infrastructure that you use every day. I’m tired of hearing from Gen whatever bitching, moaning, and growning about boomers
How frickin dumb are you?
Boomers weren’t alive during WWII and were kids when this country’s infrastructure was built
Posted on 10/7/26 at 6:33 am to wackatimesthree
I find this to be pretty common. Young people say "Boomer" like it means anybody over about 45, and their grasp of history is so poor that they don't realize that the stuff they blame on the Boomers wasn't anything the Boomers did.
This only happens in your head
Nobody thinks boomers are 45-60
You are not in touch with reality
No shite
If you would’ve read the conversation you would know that we were talking about 2006 when the president wanted to reform it and boomers could’ve easily got it done if they would have wanted to
This only happens in your head
Nobody thinks boomers are 45-60
You are not in touch with reality
quote:
You might be interested to know that Boomers didn't reach a majority of the seats in Congress until 1999
No shite
If you would’ve read the conversation you would know that we were talking about 2006 when the president wanted to reform it and boomers could’ve easily got it done if they would have wanted to
Posted on 10/7/26 at 6:48 am to TrueTiger
Say you eliminate social security. Then what? There will be tens of millions of people that didn’t save for retirement. How will they survive? That’s right-a government check. They’ll just get social security under a different name, and you’ll probably be taxed more for it.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 6:50 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The Boomers have been in charge of Congress since 1999, 27 years, 14 Congresses, and four presidents.
To be fair, we haven’t had a balanced budget since they took charge, and the deficit exploded.
ETA: I’m a very late boomer, almost genx.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 6:52 am
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:02 am to TrueTiger
Myth: Myths are not the figments of human imagination?…
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:08 am to Midtiger farm
quote:The POTUS WAS A 'BOOMER' nimrod!
the president wanted to reform it and boomers could’ve easily got it done
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:13 am to TrueTiger
quote:
First of all, social security is not something you “pay into.” If it were, you wouldn’t need younger people to “pay into it” in order to get your check. But you do. Because this is a Ponzi scheme, not a retirement account. What you really mean to say is that your money was stolen from you — which it was — and now you want to steal from younger people to get restitution.
Hes right you know
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:22 am to Crowknowsbest
I know what the problem is. Hence, I support them not doing it anymore. Return my money and stop the steal all together.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:24 am to TrueTiger
quote:
FTR- I supported the Bush 43 plan.
I did too. We missed a golden oppertunity to do a permenant fix of Social Security with that plan.
But maybe we need to revisit why that "Bush 43 plan" failed.
Does the name Hank Paulson ring a bell? He was the GWB II Treasury Secretary who came running into the Oval Office screaming, "the sky is falling". As in the banks and lending institutions were on the verge of collaspe. So the Bush administraton and Congress quickly came up with a rescue plan called the "Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP)". If my memory serves me right the "official cost" of that debacle was around $ 874 billion. But in reality, the unofficial cost was for more than that. It always is with govmint spending. I know I was there watching on television as they scrambled to save the lending institutions with a massive infusion of $$.
So what did the banks and lending institutions fail in the first place? Well we need to go back to the Clinton Administration to answer that. So our pal Bill Clinton and the democrats decided to pass legislation that demanded lending institutions and banks make high risk mortgage loans to minorities. This was so minorities could buy homes anywhere they wanted. Okay, so that's a good thing, right? And they did. The only problem with that? The minorities defaulted on those loans on a massive scale and the Lending Institutions and the Banks were left holding the defaulted mortgage loans. The default was massive and devestating. And the bill for that default came due during the waning moments of the Bush II administration.
Now let's revisit the "Bush 43 Plan". George Bush proposed carving out $ 1.3 trillion dollars to create a fully funded IRA for each American worker. Seemed like a lot of money back then, but pocket change compared to now.
But that "Bush 43 Plan" had no chance of passing because our pal Bill Clinton had destroyed the banking system with his "Mortgage Loans for Minorities" scheme. Therefore the money that could have been used to fund those Retirement IRA's had to go towards bailing out the banks and lending institutions.
Let us not forget my fellow Americans, Social Security is funded by contributions (6.1%) from American workers and contributions (6.1%) from their employers. It is a worker/employer retirement plan. The Social Security "Trust" Fund (hint: it really isn't a trust fund) administers the fund. Now this is the scary part. Those social security receipts do NOT go into a Social Security "Lock Box" (i.e. Trust Fund) they flow into the........(wait for it)......the U.S.Treasury. The Social Trust Fund people simply certify that the money to fund S/S benefits is there. Chew on that.
So what can we deduce from this debacle? Given the chance the mafia democrats will steal the American people blind every single time. Bill Clinton was a smooth talker........and he is also a certifiable crook. But he had a good teacher in Lyndon Johnson. America went on to elect other democrat crooks, namely Barook Hussin Obama and Joe "AutoPen" Biden. But I digress.
You do realize America, unless we figure out a way to pay off this massive debt, Social Security will default and take the entire United States government with it. All thanks to our crooked mafia democrat pals.
President Trump is right about..........everything
(there, I said it)
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:29 am to TrueTiger
Robots and AI don’t require social security and they won’t be required to pay into the system- Ponzi scheme so Imagine what will happen when AI and robotics replaces the jobs ….
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:38 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:The boomers didn't invent social security nor did they fight the Nazis in WWII. But the laws written in 1933 allowed the government to use money paid into SS for other things. Had every dollar paid in by we boomers, there would be many trillions more in the Trust Fund than the $2.56T that is in there now. We didn't have the internet in the 50s, 60s or 70s to research that theft but yeah, we'll take the blame. Now go to work so I can enjoy my retirement.
We owe it to boomers to pay more tax so they can keep social security
They beat the Nazis in WWII and brought this country into the 21st century
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:41 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
And I'm Matt's age, so I'm not saying this from a senior citizen's perspective. I just don't know why he goes down these rabbit holes and tries to sound like some tough guy who's telling it like it is, but making no sense in the process.
because they need to sell clicks, and they've stumbled upon this notion that generational warfare sells to millennials and gen z. nothing more, nothing less.
you want to know the real bad guys in social security? the greatest generation. the only generation that took far more out of social security than they paid in. every other generation including boomers will take out far less than they paid in. the greatest generation took out so much that in 1994 we had to "fix" social security when bob doyle courageously crossed the isle to fix social security, by cutting it for the boomers and creating a new tax for medicare. i was 33 when that happened we were expecting our first child, does matt not think it occurred to me at 33 that i might like to opt out of the system?
of course it does unless he's just a complete retard, which is possible, after all he's proud that he never went to college. no matt's got subscriptions to sell and a payroll to meet, he's a face in the crowd, lonesome roads
by the way in his real life andy griffith was far closer to lonsome roads than he ever was andy taylor married 3 times.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The POTUS WAS A 'BOOMER' nimrod!
And a failure dipshit
Posted on 10/7/26 at 7:58 am to Deplorableinohio
quote:
Boomers did a lot more than beat the Axis powers in WW2.

Posted on 10/7/26 at 8:24 am to Midtiger farm
quote:
This only happens in your head
No, it happens on this board every time the topic comes up.
quote:
Nobody thinks boomers are 45-60
They sure post like they do.
quote:
You are not in touch with reality
O.k., Boomer.
quote:
If you would’ve read the conversation you would know that we were talking about 2006 when the president wanted to reform it and boomers could’ve easily got it done if they would have wanted to
I really don't care about your conversation, since you are clearly an angry dullard, but the simple, obvious answer to that question is that Republicans couldn't agree on how to transition. Payroll tax rate, progressive indexing, and the cost.
You're a very simple person, but changing SS is a very complicated formula. Changing it just because simpletons like yourself gnash your teeth about it is tricky...a misstep can end up being a hot mess very quickly. Much worse than leaving it alone.
It's something that if you're going to do it you better do it right, or you will be losing elections for decades to come over it. They couldn't agree on what that "right" thing was.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 8:37 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, it happens on this board every time the topic comes up.
quote:
They sure post like they do.
Quote the posts then since happens all the time
There are none in this thread but there are multiple boomers taking credit for winning WWII and leading this country through the 50s and 60s
quote:
.a misstep can end up being a hot mess very quickly. Much worse than leaving it alone.
Because a bunch of boomers - who always claim they are so frugile and so good a managing money will have to then go on welfare
Posted on 10/7/26 at 8:44 am to Free888
quote:
To be fair, we haven’t had a balanced budget since they took charge, and the deficit exploded.
Not true.
The last year we had a balanced budget (actually a budget surplus) was fiscal year 2001. We had four consecutive years of surplus from 1998 to 2001.
We had a majority Boomer Congress and POTUS from 1999.
The thing Republicans don't want to talk about is this...the Bush Tax Cuts is what ended those surpluses. Even before the wars in the ME. That's a fact. They cut taxes without cutting spending.
And any time you have a war you expect to run a deficit.
Then you had the financial crisis of 2008-2009, deficit got even worse.
After 2011 the deficits shrunk, but never got back to baseline, and COVID cranked up the gap again.
So we're really looking at a tax cut ending the surpluses, then two big spikes. 2008-2010, and 2020 to present.
Sure, we can blame the Boomers for that if we want. They also get credit for the first surpluses we had since 1969.
The thing about the deficit is that the people in charge have become steadily more careless about it. The last two administrations have spent like a criminal with a stolen credit card. We weren't running deficits like this even when we were actively at war with Iraq.
Even at the height of Bush's ME wars we were spending at 3% of GDP. Now we're spending at twice that, and have been since long before the Iran War started.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 8:49 am to Midtiger farm
quote:
Quote the posts then since happens all the time
I don't know who told you that I take orders from you, but the fact that you think that demonstrates how dull you are.
quote:
Because a bunch of boomers - who always claim they are so frugile and so good a managing money will have to then go on welfare
Well, Boomers would be in the position of having not had all their money to invest. The government took a chunk throughout their lifetimes.
But yes. fricking it up could mean that millions of people would end up on welfare which could potentially be even more costly than SS.
Because when you dismantle SS, you don't just dismantle the payouts. You dismantle the tax too. We'd save $1.6 Trillion in the budget, but we'd also forgo $1.4 Trillion in tax revenue.
Better leave this topic to people with more gray matter than yourself. I don't want to rev your brain into the red or anything.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 9:00 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Social Security serves a purpose. It is important for millions of lower income people. Decide how to cut the high income earners out.
It will never go away because well: Social Security serves a purpose. It is important for millions of lower income people.
I would accept it, but I don't expect it to go away. I've pretty much given up on expecting to get much of anything out of it when my time comes. Just the way it is. I can easily see it moving to means tested where people who had the means and prepared for retirement accordingly will be denied anything.
As some have said, if it goes away, you'll have masses of low income people with little to retirement savings who have nothing to rely on. The government probably steps in then and you're back to having to fund something similar to SS.

Popular
Back to top


1








