2
- 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 10/13/26 at 2:36 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 10/13/26 at 2:36 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
There's no scenario where boomers do not get theirs primarily because they are already drawing it or are about to.
quote:
That's literally what the entire discussion has been about. Stopping it abruptly and rage quitting on the Boomers.
No. This thread has been all over the place about the present and future of social security. There have been multiple subset discussions happening within the thread as well. Your subset discussion with ShrimperDan started with this question:
quote:
I have another question: Please explain to me how SS is "Going to screw your kids and grandkids."
He told you how with this:
quote:
If the kids and grandkids of boomers pay into Social Security and then do not actually get benefits themselves from it as many people predict, that would be screwing them would it not?
You responded with this:
quote:
No more than the boomers paying in and not getting theirs.
Right?
I said how it wasn't the same thing and why. I expounded on it when you wanted an explanation when I gave you the three scenarios as I see it.
In a scenario where it is a complete rage quit on social security, then, yeah, the boomers get screwed along with everyone else, but the Boomers can rest easy since it's not going to happen that way. It's not going to be pulled from the boomers nor is their payout going to be changed.
I inferred that ShrimperDan's answer to your question was based on the scenario of SS continuing in some form or another, and, correctly, he said that will mean screwing over the successive generations in some way.
Do what you will with all of that or do nothing. It's perfectly normal for threads to go off road a bit.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 2:44 pm to SparkyWilson
quote:It's a long thread, and I am having trouble finding your "why."
I said how it wasn't the same thing and why.
But Social Security is the same thing it has always been.
It has never been, nor under current design will it ever be, a retirement "benefit." It is simply money that the government is borrowing, under the pretense of repayment at an exceedingly low ROI.
As such, it screws 90+% of its contributors, as it has since inception. The contributory cost to Social Security increased substantially for boomers over previous generations. Unfortunately, unless people understand the nature of the program and vote accordingly, the same "remedy" will apply to current contributors.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 2:50 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:
You’re just selfish old assholes that have consistently voted for people/legislation that have ruined this country
And everytime the next generation starts talking about changing things you whine like little bitches
If you are making the case that Social Security isn't guaranteed and isn't a different type of program than Welfare, then what makes you think killing Social Security would mean that the government isn't going to continue collecting Social Security taxes. I mean, we are running a 1T+ deficit and are 40T in debt.
Certainly, as someone who is not selfish like those evil boomers, you are going to support continuation of paying those taxes, right? You don't want to be guilty of leaving that debt to your children and grandchildren, right?
Posted on 10/13/26 at 2:55 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:
Hyper individuality
quote:
No sense of community
You are a leftist
Posted on 10/13/26 at 2:58 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:Stereotypes are what they are
I literally deal with mostly this generation all day/everyday
At least 70% are like this
The other 30% are good people
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:07 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
You realize that if SS stopped today, so would the SS tax, right?
why? How in the world could someone complaining about "Boomers" leaving all of this debt to the younger generation justify ending the SS tax just because SS payments aren't happening?
We are 40T in debt and run yearly 1T+ deficits. You'll be doing the exact same thing as these evil boomers.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I said how it wasn't the same thing and why.
quote:
It's a long thread, and I am having trouble finding your "why."
It's a mess to try and find it. That bolded above statement had nothing to do with the things you've just said.
Summary: wackatimes asked ShrimperDan how is SS going to screw boomers' kids and grandkids. ShrimperDan said it's screwing them because they'll have to pay into something they won't receive any benefit from. wackatimes said how is that any different than boomers not getting when they have paid in. I said it wasn't the same. He asked how. The divergence was he's looking at it from if SS was stopped abruptly, then, yeah, boomers get screwed along with successive generations. I was looking at it from no matter what form social security is continued as (changes or not), boomers aren't (well, very, very unlikely) going to see any difference but successive generations will see less or no benefits.
As for your response, I don't disagree. SS as-is is already a screw job for everyone involved. I'd argue if it gets worse, boomers will be least affected if at all.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:11 pm to alabamabuckeye
Boomer losing their precious social security or having to pivot to a greatly reduced benefit would be a sight to behold. They would throw the most entitled tantrum this world has ever seen.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:24 pm to ronricks
quote:
Boomer losing their precious social security or having to pivot to a greatly reduced benefit would be a sight to behold. They would throw the most entitled tantrum this world has ever seen.
We can get them more on board by slashing disability, which is about 10 percent of the outflow of Social Security, because many of those lifers haven't paid in much of anything in to it.
I think that would be a good start. Agreed?
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:30 pm to SparkyWilson
quote:I agree to a point.
boomers aren't (well, very, very unlikely) going to see any difference but successive generations will see less or no benefits.
However, your assertion is unfortunately, not quite correct, at least not likely so. Congress will do everything it can to ensure "benefits" continue, albeit with some reductions at future retirement ages.
Why do I say that?
Because doing so will entail being able to expand program. Expanding the program, expands the contributional loan, which is the entire purpose of social security.
In that regard, it is exactly what was done to boomers in 1983. The cost of contributions increased, the program expanded, the amount of the loan increased, the benefits decreased. Meanwhile, current "beneficiaries" continued with their "benefits" unfettered. That is far-and-away the most likely outcome here.
Again, and I keep coming back to this point because it's so important, social security is a benefit to no one but the US government. So the US government will do everything in its power to convince voters to expand the program. That is why all of this "boomer" nonsense is so counterproductive.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In that regard, it is exactly what was done to boomers in 1983. The cost of contributions increased, the program expanded, the amount of the loan increased, the benefits decreased. Meanwhile, current "beneficiaries" continued with their "benefits" unfettered. That is far-and-away the most likely outcome here.
The bolded part sounds a lot like less benefits that I mentioned.
The bolded underlined part sounds a lot like boomers aren't going to see any difference in benefits that I mentioned.
What part is not quite correct?
Posted on 10/13/26 at 3:54 pm to ronricks
quote:Indeed.
Boomer losing their precious social security or having to pivot to a greatly reduced benefit would be a sight to behold.
The problem, of course, is retirees counting on the promissories as an important part of their retirement income (which I understand to be a significant contingent) would have limited means of recovery. The other problem is such a move would almost certainly be slapped down by SCOTUS.
But again, making this about Boomers dangerously misses the point. The point is, like it or not, SS screwed Boomers just as badly as it is now set to screw Gens Y & Z.
The sole beneficiary, the only beneficiary of SS, is the Federal Government. Unless and until people understand that, the scheme will roll on.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:10 pm to SparkyWilson
quote:I'm probably missing your point.
The bolded part sounds a lot like less benefits that I mentioned.
Greatest and elder Silents benefits were untouched by the 1983 bill. Boomers paid for it. Now Boomers are in the identical situation Greatests were in 1983.
quote:Right.
The bolded underlined part sounds a lot like boomers aren't going to see any difference in benefits that I mentioned.
That is my contention.
IMO, preservation of retiree (or near retiree) """benefits""" is likely a matter of 14th Amendment Constitutional law. I would be strongly in favor of a >10yr COLA freeze and full taxation of SS benefits for current retirees ... at least those at income levels not reasonably reliant on SS income. I just don't think, given the structure, that those are constitutionally touchable
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It has never been, nor under current design will it ever be, a retirement "benefit." It is simply money that the government is borrowing, under the pretense of repayment at an exceedingly low ROI.
People were led to believe that it was a "retirement" investment and safety net, but in reality in the fine print, it is a false promise.
The saddest part is that instead of that $1000 left in SPY 40 years ago being worth $80 to $90,000 today, the "Trust Fund" return is more like $2000 over 40 years repaid with money that is worth less than half of its original value. Not good for people or the national economy.
Bush tried to fix it, but he folded in the blink of an eye.
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
Got you.
Yeah, I think it's more likely there's changes to how it gets paid out and how it gets funded versus a full and abrupt termination of the program.
I appreciate the responses.
quote:
IMO, preservation of retiree (or near retiree) """benefits""" is likely a matter of 14th Amendment Constitutional law. I would be strongly in favor of a >10yr COLA freeze and full taxation of SS benefits for current retirees ... at least those at income levels not reasonably reliant on SS income. I just don't think, given the structure, that those are constitutionally touchable
Yeah, I think it's more likely there's changes to how it gets paid out and how it gets funded versus a full and abrupt termination of the program.
I appreciate the responses.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:35 pm to Auburn1968
quote:There was a helluva lot of blinking. Congress did not want to give up the grift. Ironically, W was successfully marketed as too intellectually deficient to understand the program. Voters bought the lie.
Bush tried to fix it, but he folded in the blink of an eye.
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:38 pm to SparkyWilson
quote:
Do what you will with all of that or do nothing.
The problem with your analysis is that Shrimper Dan's comment to me was not made in a vacuum and was part of an ongoing discussion which he chimed in on.
The poster with whom I was having that discussion (and notice that I didn't say "thread," I said "discussion," and that's what I was referring to, not the whole thread) was indeed advocating a revenge-quit on the Boomers.
It was a reply to that guy that Shrimper Dan responded to.
Now that we can (hopefully) finally let that go, the Boomers won't get screwed and neither will anybody else. Because they won't stop the program and they won't reform it either, other than that they will raise taxes in some form to keep paying for it. As a last resort, they'll import more immigrants and give them citizenship so they can pay for it.
If young people are really worried about it, they need to start having some fricking kids. The Boomers did their part by having enough kids to pay for their retirement. If Gen Y and Z aren't willing to do so, then that's on them.
And anybody who is going to start whining that people don't have the money to have kids anymore please explain this chart to me showing the inflation adjusted rise of median disposable income since 1900 (when the median number of kids was 3.5). Average people have never had more money than they do now.
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:49 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Correct ... except for your contention that "Boomers won't get screwed and neither will anybody else.."
Boomers won't get screwed and neither will anybody else. Because they won't stop the program and they won't reform it either, other than that they will raise taxes in some form to keep paying for it.
Boomers got screwed and so will anybody else.
EVERYONE except Uncle Sam will get screwed.
The ONLY BENEFICIARY of SS is Uncle Sam.
This post was edited on 10/13/26 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 10/13/26 at 4:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Boomers got screwed and so will anybody else.
Not in the context of the discussion I have been having according to the defined terms.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 5:00 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:I get what you are saying in a relativity context.
Not in the context of the discussion
But the overarching pretext is your context is the comparison of screwed parties, one vs the other.
There is a third party thriving off of those getting screwed, and benefitting from the arguing of the screwed factions amongst themselves as to whom is the least screwed.
The third party is Uncle Sam. He is the sole beneficiary of SS.
All the folks pointing fingers at each other need to understand they are all equivalent victims of the same grift.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News