Comments about ‘Letter: I deserve Social Security because I paid to get Social Security’

Frank's is a perfect example of cut-entitlements, just not MY entitlements.

BTW - Yes, Mitt Romney WAS refering to you -- He assumes you are a Obama vote.
How do you feel about that?

"Those who receive Social Security are simply receiving back monies they paid into the system; they earned it; they paid it; and they should get it back, according to the contract they have with the U.S. government."

Call up the social security administration and ask them how much is in your account. They will tell you that you don't have an account. Back in the 1970's and 1980's when you were paying into SS, the retirees at were taking out 50 to 100x more than they had put in. The congress was also using SS funds to make it look like the deficit was smaller than it really was. The SS money was actually just an income tax under a differne name. At at this point, if you collect SS, someone a lot yonger than you, who may be struggling on his own has to work to support you.

Years ago, I proposed to our then congressman Wayne Owens (a democrat) that the government should means-test for social security, he quipped, "That might be a good idea, but then we would have a whole new congress.

As has been shown by numerous studies, (the Heritage Foundation being just one recent one) about 47% of Americans actually pay no federal income taxes, which includes paying into Medicare OR S.S.(FICA). This is one of the inconvenient truths that are very politically incorrect for people to discuss! Romney dared to tell the truth but the truth sometimes isn’t pleasant and some people do not want to hear the truth, apparently preferring to believe a lie. Do we want a leader who lies to us or tells us the truth about our economic situation? Sadly, a quick look at recent polls answers that question. As Winston Churchill once said, “Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance will attack it, malice will deride it, but in the end, there it is”. We will be forced to face the truth in the future whether we want to acknowledge it or not! One has only to look at the economic problems in some of our cities in California to see the results of economic ignorance and political malice!

Well then, Frank, you should be voting for the reelection of President Obama. By the way, you would very likely have done worse with a definined contribution plan. Only with a defined benefit plan might you have done better, but the private sector has flushed them. Again, you make an argument for voting Democratic. It is the party that represents your interests, not the party of the wealthy - the GOP.

The problem is that you didn't 'pay in' to anything, frank. It's a big ponzi scheme. It was, and is, not some big managed investment fund like it should be. Oversight and regulation should have been in place with social security right from the beginning, because faith and optomism in eternal growth apparently aren't enough to keep it solvent.

I'm not sure what the commenter's here are saying. But the statement: I paid into SS and deserve to get it out as the contract between myself and my government stated, is totally true.

Another completely false assertion from Mountainboy. Even if a person does not earn enough to pay Federal income tax, they are still required to pay into Social Security.

Hutterite is correct only to a point. Social Security was properly managed until the days of St. Ronald when he conducted the first of many Republican raids on its funds to supplement income lost from his tax cuts.

Thanks to Mountanman for discussing truth. It however escapes me how he can hold forth so eloquently while being blind to "the rest of the story". Romney's comments would have had much more traction and relevance in my mind IF he had included the corporate persons who likewise pay no income tax on revenues of billions of dollars into the mix. What an interesting omission.

100% of the time that the subject of Social Security is brought up someone wrongly labels it a Ponzi scheme. It is not. Then Hutterite says it should be a "big managed investment fund". It is not and should not be. You don't put dollars at risk when it comes to money that keeps a roof over your head and food on the table. True the fund needs an adjustment just as it did in the 80ties under Reagan, but it is not insolvent nor lacking oversight...only the Congressional will to make needed changes.

Mountanman:

You are the one not telling the truth. The fact that one is not liable to pay income tax does not necessarily mean that one does not pay into FICA or Medicare. If one is employed at a low wage that does not reach the threshold for payment of income tax (and it's not the Obama administration that established that threshold), those earnings are still subject to mandatory FICA and Medicare contributions. Or one could have deductions (e.g., charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.) that take one's taxable income below the threshold, yet still be liable for FICA and Medicare contributions.

What's backwards is that wages over $106,800 are not subject to FICA. Removing the arbitrary cap on earnings subject to FICA would go a long ways toward solving the Social Security funding shortfall.

Frank, did you work all your life to support yourself and your family? I presuming you did which means you are in no way part of the "welfare/entitlement crowd" and of course, you deserve every penny of what you put into Social Security. Unfortunately, SS is run by the government and the government has an uncanny way of mismanaging everything it touches. I sincerely hope you get back at least put you put into it along with a healthy rate of return but unless you're well into your retirement years, I'm not too optimistic. Romney was not referring to you - of course, the liberal crowd & media would like you believe that because that is what they do.

Biff states that "the government has an uncanny way of mismanaging everything it touches" which is a standard sound bite of the right. In this case, the "mismanagement" was in not anticipating that the life expectancy of Americans would increase so dramatically after the war hence making the original plan for the safety net inadequate because people are not dying soon enough. There is hope though Biff, as long as American keep porking out on Oreos and Ice Cream the system might just right itself without government tinkering.

Frank, don't listen to these SS naysayers. They are advocating a crime. They are repeating the same spiel that the right has used for 70 plus years. SS has never missed a payment. It has always met it's obligation. It is funded by salary based citizens and always will. The money in the account is no different than the money that is in a bank. As long as America is working SS will be working. It is owed to people like you much like any other debt we owe to China or the banks of the world. To default, which these naysayers are unwillingly schilling for, is worse than defaulting on borrowed money from any other creditor. Most of our national debt is owed to it's citizens and default is not an option. We have seen what Wall Street has done to our economy and to give them carte blanche with no accountablilty would be the worse thing we could do with it. So naysayers, enough already because you are drinking from the wrong well.

Mountman:

You're wrong on the Social Security tax. Everyone pays it. The irony is that even illegal immigrants pay it as even if they use bogus S.S. numbers, the tax is still collected from them and their employers...

You know Romney said something stupid... and that things are getting rough for Romney... When even Frank Overfelt disagrees with him.

Grover, "sound bite" huh? Please enumerate all the things that federal government has run well/better than the private sector?. I'll give you the military only because there is no way anyone can compete with that.

Postal Service? - Nope. Bankrupt and losing money like a retired athlete.
Fannie Mae? - Broke
Dept of Energy? Formed in 1977 with the express purpose of lowering our independence on oil. 16,000 employees, 24 annual billion dollar budget and 35 years later - our dependence has only grown.
Social Security? By everyone's estimation, soon to be broke.
And now health care which is wildly expensive and will also fail.

The sound bite of the left is the government will take care of you no matter what.

I was incorrect when I stated on here that people who pay no federal incomes taxes also pay no SS or Medicare contributions. My apologies!

Each of us, who has paid into Social Security, has a contract with the government that the GOVERNMENT will pay us a pension when we retire. They took 15% of our WAGES, not our capital gains, and not our Schedule D income. They tried to fool us to make us think that they were only taking half that amount and that our employers were being kind and "donating" the other half. We had no choice and our employers were forced by the government to work for the government without being paid as their agents to PAY half of our Social Security in lieu of paying us an honest complete wage.

Now, liberals are doing everything that they can to tell us that the government doesn't owe us that "pension". They're trying to tell us that if we actually saved other money to supplement our SS "pension", that they're going to cheat us out of our SS pension.

The lesson to be learned is to not ever, never ever, trust the government to keep a promise. They'll tax us to death, but they won't keep their commitments.

"and they should get it back, according to the contract they have with the U.S. government."

Oops, there is no contract to pay SS. There is a law, of course. Entirely different issue. Congress can change a law to increase/decrease benefits and taxes. It can't change a contract.

@Tekakaromatagi:

"Years ago, I proposed to our then congressman Wayne Owens (a democrat) that the government should means-test for social security..."

Means test? You need to check on how benefits are calculated. You will find that it is basically the same as means testing... People on the high end of the wage scale put tons more in to SS but get only a fraction more than the less affluent.

@Mountanman:

"As has been shown by numerous studies... about 47% of Americans actually pay no federal income taxes, which includes paying into Medicare OR S.S.(FICA)."

Yes, and if you don't pay SS tax you get basically nothing out of it. SS benefits are computed based on wages earned subject to SS tax. Not so with Medicare. You get Medicare (at retirement) regardless of how much Medicare taxes you've paid in.

"the government has an uncanny way of mismanaging everything it touches"

I think that is pretty much a fair statement.

And the reason is that business bribe, lobby and contribute so that the politicians will insure that legislation is passed that will allow the businesses to drain the program for huge profits.

Anytime a govt program is inefficient, someone or some business is reaping great rewards.

Blame govt, but also blame the corps who insure they get a sweet deal.

@Hutterite:

"It's a big ponzi scheme."

It's impossible for the government to be involved in a Ponzi scheme... Ponzi schemes involve private concerns only. Furthermore, if the government gets in a bind it can just up the SS tax or lower the benefits to make up the difference. There is no contract to pay anyone SS benefits.

"It was, and is, not some big managed investment fund like it should be."

Then, you agree with the George Bush program to invest SS funds in the stock market... to possibly lose everything?

"Oversight and regulation should have been in place with social security right from the beginning, because faith and optomism in eternal growth apparently aren't enough to keep it solvent."

The fund is solvent... and always will be until the government decides otherwise. Congress is responsible to see that the fund remains solvent, by either adjusting SS taxes or benefits, which has been done several times in the past and will be done in the future.

It is truly astounding how ignorant folks are regarding the workings of finances in the federal governmnet. There should be a test on the matter before people are allowed to vote.