• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Youre*

And I’d rank that above defending a bunch of politicians who you nominally agree with but don’t substantively agree with
 
It was never meant to pay rich people.

Lots of people pay into unemployment and never collect any. There are lots of things you pay taxes for that one never gets the benefit.
That’s different. They carried the benefit of security if they ever needed it. That is what insurance is for. Your analogy doesn’t work. Your analogy would have to be someone paying into unemployment and then being denied their rightful benefits because they made too much at the previous job.
 
It was never meant to pay rich people.

Lots of people pay into unemployment and never collect any. There are lots of things you pay taxes for that one never gets the benefit.

If that were the case, you'd think the Act would have excluded workers who made too much money or who accumulated too much wealth. The Act didn't, so either wealthy workers were meant to be included or it was one of the bigger oooops of all time.
 
Yep. If anything the GOP is worse than the donkeys. They keep cutting taxes but maintaining or increasing spending (especially on wars and shit). Obama and Clinton had much better fiscal performance than any GOP president in 40 years. Only a nut job would keep voting for the GOP if fiscal policy was their number one issue

H.W. is the 1 exception there, and his party was pissed when he broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was the 1 pragmatic Pub president during that 40 year period.
 
Tulsi has picked up 45,000 new unique donors since the debate to satisfy 130k donor requirement for debate #3.
 
 
If that were the case, you'd think the Act would have excluded workers who made too much money or who accumulated too much wealth. The Act didn't, so either wealthy workers were meant to be included or it was one of the bigger oooops of all time.

In a different time, people didn't think it was for the rich. What about all the people who pay in for ten, twenty or even forty years and die before they reach 65/67? Should their families get all that money? Social Security was always an insurance policy for seniors.

Should I get a portion or all the money I've paid into car insurance for the past fifty years because I've never made a claim?

How about all the people who live in 55+ communities in AZ, CA, FL and other places who pay real estate taxes that go to paying for schools when they will never have a kid in those schools?

Let's look at the inverse for Social Security. What about all the kids who have tragic injuries and collect SSI for decades after only paying into it for a year or two?
 
Even though I know better...

Social Security is partly comprised of insurance (disability), but is in no way "an insurance policy for seniors". Retirement income is not insurance.
 
It's not a savings or investment account. There are rules. There are limits. There are artificial limits in how much is taken.

It was set up as an insurance policy to provide income for those who couldn't save.
 
It's not a savings or investment account. There are rules. There are limits. There are artificial limits in how much is taken.

It was set up as an insurance policy to provide income for those who couldn't save.

Social Security is a public pension program.
 
In a different time, people didn't think it was for the rich. What about all the people who pay in for ten, twenty or even forty years and die before they reach 65/67? Should their families get all that money? Social Security was always an insurance policy for seniors.

Should I get a portion or all the money I've paid into car insurance for the past fifty years because I've never made a claim?

How about all the people who live in 55+ communities in AZ, CA, FL and other places who pay real estate taxes that go to paying for schools when they will never have a kid in those schools?

Let's look at the inverse for Social Security. What about all the kids who have tragic injuries and collect SSI for decades after only paying into it for a year or two?

Here's some light reading for you, rj. Make your case after reading it.

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=68#
 
Here's some light reading for you, rj. Make your case after reading it.

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=68#
"The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions received by the Federal Government, and to send payments to recipients"

"Prior to Social Security, the elderly routinely faced the prospect of poverty upon retirement. For the most part, that fear has now dissipated."

There's nothing about supporting the wealthy.
 
Will be interesting to see if Gabbard can get to two percent in four polls. One of the early polls post-debate still has her at 1 percent.

Hickenlooper rumored this morning to be dropping out and running for Colorado Senate at the urging of staffers.
 
"The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions received by the Federal Government, and to send payments to recipients"

"Prior to Social Security, the elderly routinely faced the prospect of poverty upon retirement. For the most part, that fear has now dissipated."

There's nothing about supporting the wealthy.

You started one sentance too late in your quote.

The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security "insurance" was supported from "contributions" in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds.
 
Will be interesting to see if Gabbard can get to two percent in four polls. One of the early polls post-debate still has her at 1 percent.

Hickenlooper rumored this morning to be dropping out and running for Colorado Senate at the urging of staffers.

not sure which polls count, but according to 538, she drew 3% from a Harris poll on 8/2 (Yang got 2% so, if that poll counts, good news for him)

she's a fringe candidate, and her Assad connection is strange; best hope for her is to raise her profile for the next cycle. I am curious to see whether she'll be on the stage in September
 
Will be interesting to see if Gabbard can get to two percent in four polls. One of the early polls post-debate still has her at 1 percent.

Hickenlooper rumored this morning to be dropping out and running for Colorado Senate at the urging of staffers.

You just gave Chuck Schumer a semi.
 
Back
Top