- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security
Posted on 11/2/25 at 6:54 am to Armymann50
Posted on 11/2/25 at 6:54 am to Armymann50
quote:As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.
and you are delusional
Who paid for original SS?
1
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:07 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
He does.
It is a public debt of the United States.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned."
This isn't true.
The US is a separate juridical entity from its citizens. You'd have to have an anarchocommunist syndicate style system to combine the two.
And that specific debt fungible with all other debts of the US and can't be specifically assigned to any person, nor can any policy of the US claim to apply to any specific debt.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yeah, it 100% really is his money.
It is not.
"His" money is whatever obligations are put on the welfare program at the potential time of transfer (per the policy/law in question).
That's how welfare programs work.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:11 am to stout
Social Security was never meant to be a person's sole income for retirement. It was always meant to supplement someone's retirement. Too many people just count on it as welfare for old people.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:13 am to Pelican fan99
At least start by raising the collecting age to 67. Phase that in over a few years.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:15 am to Lsut81
quote:
I dont disagree... At some point the system needs to be fixed. Those within 10yrs - No Change 10-20yrs away - changes to 68 20+ years away - changes to 70
So someone who is 40 and has been paying into SS for over 20 years gets it moved back the same as someone who is 18 and hasn’t paid a dime into it? frick that.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:24 am to stout
That won’t change for the ones approaching retirement age in the next 20 years. It will affect young millennials and zoomers.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:28 am to stout
Anyone born after 1973ish who is planning on getting SS is an idiot. Plan as if it won’t be there or at minimum plan as if it will be drastically reduced (which it will be)
It’s a Ponzi scheme and an entitlement. Regardless of your age start maxing those retirement accounts tomorrow otherwise you are going to be in a very bad position financially later in life.
It’s a Ponzi scheme and an entitlement. Regardless of your age start maxing those retirement accounts tomorrow otherwise you are going to be in a very bad position financially later in life.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:31 am to theronswanson
quote:
So someone who is 40 and has been paying into SS for over 20 years gets it moved back the same as someone who is 18 and hasn’t paid a dime into it? frick that.
I’m 44 and if I work until 60 my wife and I will have maxed out social security for close to 30 years with an additional 10 years of contributions below the max.
If I would have been investing that money on my own and just had what I’ve contributed so far it would be worth around 4 mil at 70. If i live to 83 the max I will get from social security would be around 1.5 mil.
I’m pretty sure I got fricked on that deal.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:31 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Social Security was never meant to be a person's sole income for retirement.
Correct. Just like minimum wage jobs were never meant to be ‘careers’ they are to gain entry into the workforce and to learn from yet we have idiots wanting to make them $30 an hour jobs to pay a ‘living wage’. It’s just stupid.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:33 am to ronricks
quote:I would be more worried where your country will even be here in 20 years.
Anyone born after 1973ish who is planning on getting SS is an idiot. Plan as if it won’t be there or at minimum plan as if it will be drastically reduced (which it will be)
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:33 am to ronricks
Overlooking the gross unconstitutionality of SS, it's the biggest criminal Ponzi scheme in history.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:34 am to Rize
I’m 45 and would gladly opt out of SS right now if government would just give me a lump sum of half of what I’ve paid in so far tax free. I’d dump that lump sum into the market and it would grow to much more than I’d ever receive from full SS payout at whatever age I decided to draw. I’d totally take an opt out to help ‘save’ SS if offered.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:35 am to Diamondawg
quote:
I would be more worried where your country will even be here in 20 years.
I don’t disagree. The foreign born population statistics are eye opening and something most Americans are oblivious to. That’s a whole other issue.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:37 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Who paid for original SS?
my first ss was paid by you
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:A difference without distinction. SSTF securities are “public debt … authorized by law.” Canceling them would be repudiation of lawful U.S. obligations. That would violate the 14th Amendment—akin to tearing up Treasury bonds. The SSTF is obligated by law to a class of citizens.
This isn't true.
The US is a separate juridical entity from its citizens.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:In a welfare program, the beneficiaries are the recipients. In SS the beneficiary is the government. That is because welfare pays out far far more than recipients as a class have invested. Whereas SS recipients as a class have invested far more than they have received. Hence the beneficiary being Uncle Sam.
whatever obligations are put on the welfare program
Posted on 11/2/25 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A difference without distinction.
100% incorrect. They are completely different juridical persons.
It makes a huge difference.
quote:
SSTF securities are “public debt … authorized by law.”
US debt. Not the debt of individual citizens.
quote:
Canceling them would be repudiation of lawful U.S. obligations.
Nobody is talking about "cancelling" the actual debt of the program.
It seems that you're conflating that with the incorrect projection that this debt is specifically owed to specific citizens, which is simply not true.
quote:
The SSTF is obligated by law to a class of citizens.
The recipient class at the time of transfer, per the legislation.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 8:03 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In a welfare program, the beneficiaries are the recipients. In SS the beneficiary is the government.
Gobley asian.
And you didn't fully quote my comment which removed important context.
quote:
That is because welfare pays out far far more than recipients as a class have invested. Whereas SS recipients as a class have invested far more than they have received. .
This applies to SS, too
quote:
Hence the beneficiary being Uncle Sam.
Your conclusion is based on the faulty assumption above. Again, gobley asian
Posted on 11/2/25 at 8:04 am to stout
Something has to change. I can see it going to 65 for both MC and Early Withdrawal for SS.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News