Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama wants to change Social Security into a base for redistribution of wealth

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by FreeTedWilliams, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_el_pr/obama_social_security

    As I've been saying all along Obama is a Marxist, and here is the proof. He wants to change Social Security into a method of wealth redistribution. People now are taxed for social security with a cap on the tax to the maximum amount SS would re-pay you (If you remember SS is supposed to be a retireiment system, now with SSI, and with Obama it is going to be just another mechanism for redistribution of wealth) in a year. This year it was up tp $102,000. So now once again the Democrats are starting with their class warfare, he is going to tax people under a system that was originally designed soley as a savings tool.

    What is his justifcation for taxing people more money under SS, than they can collect? How can that be legal? Now wonder why all the Che posters, Obama is a Marxist too!
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Like we discussed on another thread last week, SS isn't supposed to be a welfare tax - the more you put in, in theory, the more you get out. This will be wildly supported and enacted but it changes the concept of social security to a tax as opposed to a (bad) insurance policy on living a long life.

    The (D)s will win easily because enough people are now convinced that the country owes them more than the already fantastic standard of living most Americans have. I would plan to move all my money out of stocks but I've finally decided that an Obama win has already been priced in and that's why stocks can't move up right now. In fact I've decided that the reason the stock market does better under (D)s is because the (D) win gets priced in before they take office.

    Back to the original point, I don't think most people even understand the concept of social security so he won't have to justify it. This is a chance to "get the rich" - it's a done deal.
  3. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    :yeahthat: ........10 chars
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    This election is over, there's no point in thinking about it. The Prince has everyone making under $250K (most of us) thinking he'll have money falling from the sky. We'll all "get stuff"; as we should, of course, even if you didn't bother graduating from high school.
  5. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    I am sure Obama will want to increse the benefits of SSI to illegal immigrants.

    SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is a federal cash benefit program for persons 65 or older, or those who are blind or have a disability. SSI payments are generally unavailable to most people already receiving Social Security benefits, though an individual may be able to receive both if combined household income and resources fall within the SSI limits. Besides cash payments, persons who are eligible for SSI are automatically eligible for most state-administered Medicaid programs.

    SSI is funded through the payroll taxes of Americans. But you don't have to be an American to receive SSI payments. Like food stamps, Medicaid and almost every other form of social insurance that America has developed to help its citizens, SSI is targeted by people from other countries as a tool to materially improve their lives without work.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0


    So how did we get to this point before Obama is even elected? Who has been the "president" for the last 8 years? Was it Obama? Some other "marxist" Democrat? You're a complete fool if you think this is a Dem or Rep thing. You must think everyone else is a fool to believe that Obama intends to do anything "new" and "dangerous" to America when this has been going on for at least the past three or four administrations! Why do you think the borders haven't been controlled? How do you think we have arrived to the point we are at today? Are you seriously expecting any half-intelligent member of this forum to buy into your whole "Obama's gonna do (fill in the blank) that will destroy America" crap?

    Please! Show us some respect fakrissakes!
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  7. Lifer

    Lifer Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    Thats it! Obama is an American-hating, flag-burning, Marxist, Muslim, Communist.
    And hes Black too! He's going to wipe out all the great stuff Bush has done over the last 7 years. Like...........um.....well.........
  8. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,883
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    another election year with no real choices...

    nice.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    You can make a bad situation worse. Really.

    The re-distribution of wealth thing I don't like. I think it's bad for the country in many ways, both economically and morally. We would get through it though - at least there is some good that comes out of it. Much like military spending, it may not be good but it's not a sink tank as a lot of the money cycles back into the economy.

    What really burns me - and McCain is not good here either though not as bad as Obama - is the Global Warming craze. We will take a humungous amount of money out of the economy (tens of billions, hundreds of billions, trillions, pick your number) and it will go to nothing. Nothing. I pay about 50 cents a gallon more than most of you, living in CA, and it doesn't create jobs (like the military), feed the hungry (like redistribution), it's just a sink tank. Might as well take $100 a month and rip it up.
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,945
    Likes Received:
    96
    Ratings:
    +171 / 5 / -20

    Do you have anything to base this on, conjecture perhaps or maybe you just figured it out. Your first paragraph is a very absurd statement..

    I agree SSI is a joke, once I knew a girl who 17 and could not read, her mother applied and she received SSI with no caveats.. wouldn't money have been better spent on teaching her to read?? Or reviewing her situation every 6 months to see if she is trying to learn how to read.. this case and many others pissed me off.. a lot of people know how to play this game well, it is not necessarily a tool of poor folks there are a bunch of scam artists in the middle class also. Used to work with people who could play the disability card, got money from the state for being disabled, got workmen's comp and then got SSI. I complained, but no one cared..
  11. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey


    Sorry that I took exactly what Obama said, as what he intends to do? Nobody on the right wants to turn SS into a redistribution of wealth. What else would you call it? SS has ALWAYS only taxed people up to the largest amount they could actually recieve in beneifts in a single year. Now Obama wants to eliminate that and tax people more than that amount? So it makes SS no longer a savings/retirement thing, it now makes it a tool to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
  12. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    On a related not {I don't mea to thread-jack}, It seems others are worried about his "policy" changes too


    Interesting they say that McCain is better for the economy, yet many back BO with cash. I won't even pretend to know about the economics of it all.
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,771
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +179 / 1 / -10


    The problem with the laws on ALL our retirement systems is that they severely penalize people who make good money, but certainly aren't "wealthy".

    The first stupid law we have is the "highly compensated employee act" which stipulates if you make over $99,000, you are restricted as to how much money you can put in your 401k. If you make under this amount, you can contribute the maximum or around $15,500 annually but as soon as you go over this income level, you can only contribute 2% above the average contribution of all the employees in your company.

    That is just 6% in the company I work for. That means someone making $90k in my company can sock away the maximum PLUS the additional 3% co. match which results in approx. $20k in contributions annually.

    But as soon as you go over the $99, you can only contribute about $9,000 annually (including the co. match)

    In addition to that law, you are also restricted on Roth IRA contributions as soon as you go over $95k and are not allowed to contribute anything to a Roth (or any other IRA)if you make over $112k annually.

    What does all this mean? shmessy probably knows a lot more than I do, but I believe it means if you make over $100k your only option is to start a personal investment portfolio on which you will pay taxes on earnings every year. Personally, I think this is ridiculous as $100k does not put one in a wealthy standard of living at all.

    If we are to keep our social security system, I believe everyone should contribute, but those with over a certain level of wealth upon retirement should not be eligible to receive benefits. I'm talking about the extremely wealthy here. Say those with over $5 million upon retirement.

    Giving them SSS benefits is counter-productive to the system.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    You're preaching to the choir.
    I would abolish SS and phase it out immediately if I were president. Obama is merely maintaining status quo. He is wrong to do so, of course. His course of action regarding SS is disastrous for the country, but it's nothing new (Bush and Clinton were both cowards about the SS mess, too) and McCain is not going to do the right thing about SS either...and you know it.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,771
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +179 / 1 / -10

    Not sure what you mean by

    "SS has ALWAYS only taxed people up to the largest amount they could actually recieve in beneifts in a single year."

    So, if you pay the $5,000 max (or whatever the exact number is), you only get $5k annually? I don't think that's correct if that is what you mean. My parents NEVER contributed the max but receive around $20k annually in SS.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    The one that kills me is that by ourselves both myself and my wife are eligible to contribute fully to a Roth IRA. We're both engineers, no CEOs here. Normal, good middle class incomes. But guess what ? For married couples the limit is something like 150% of the limit for an individual. So neither of us can contribute to a Roth IRA.

    F*ck you, Congress, and your stupid social engineering.
  17. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    This year SS taxes maxed out at 106,000. 6.2% of that is $6,572 (that added with the equal amount the employer has to contribute would be the maximum amount you would receive in SS benefits this year)
    http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

    The SS ceiling goes up about $3,000 a year. So once you make 106,000 they stop taking SS taxes out of your check, so say your Manny Ramirez and you make 20,000,000 a year. The Government takes it's $6,520 out of Manny's first check and the Red Sox send the gov't an additional $6,520, and then he doesn't have to pay any more the rest of the year. Now when Manny reaches 67, he can collect SS, gee what a bargin for Manny. NOw under Obama's plan, Manny would have to pay a total of $1,240,000 in taxes! That is a tax increase of over $1,233,000 for Manny, and an additional tax increase of 1,233,000 for the Red Sox, with no additional benefits! Now of course, people who live off Trust funds and such (cough, cough US Senaotrs from mass.) would never have to pay this additional amount. By how in the world can you justify that type of tax increase? All it is a Marxist plan to redistribute wealth!

    So in the case of manny, Obama's plan would result in a tax increase of almost 2.5 million dollars for ONE PERSON!!! Karl Marx would be proud!~!~!
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,771
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +179 / 1 / -10

    I guess you and your wife would be better off financially by faking a divorce so you can max out. But at least you can both contribute the max to your 401K. That means both of you together can save $40k/yr ($15,500 + co match each) tax free while I as a single person am only allowed $10k...figure that one out! I was absolutely shocked when I received an email telling me my 401k contributions would have to be more than cut in half! I wanted to punch someone in the face really....:mad:

    I am shut out of all tax deferred or tax sheltered retirement savings plans. I am no where close to being wealthy. I feel like I'm doing ok, but nothing fancy in my life.

    Another note is that once over the age of 50, you're allowed to contribute an extra $5,000/yr to your 401k by way of the "catch-up" law. But it expires in 2011. Hopefully it will be re-instated.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Yeah, I can save fine. It's just the social engineering that bugs me. Up to incomes of, say, $500K, we should have unlimited 401K/Roth IRA contributions IMO.
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,771
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +179 / 1 / -10

    Now there's something we really agree upon.:cool:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>