"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!"

[babylonsister]

Sharing from FB...

I DON'T THINK PISSED REALLY COVERS IT ! ! !
Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetent bxxxxds" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bxxxxxxt" to your incompetence.

Well, Captain Bxxxxxxit, I have a few questions for YOU:

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bxxxxxxt, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech.
That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bxxxxx.

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!
I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years “It's my money”-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks .

[rzemanfl]

1. K&R n/t.

[shraby]

2. Great post! My sentiments exactly.

[Caliman73]

3. Good rant.

One thing I would change. The word entitlement is not a dirty word, though it was made so by Republicans. The implication is that an entitlement is not deserved.

I think that Republicans capitalized on the psychological use of the word "entitled" which implies that a person has an attitude that they deserve something which they did not earn through their behavior. Even that phrase is incorrect as applied in popular culture.

An entitlement is something that is a legal right. When the Social Security Acts were passed, all American citizens became legally entitled to access the program within the statutes. We all have a right and are entitled to the benefits. Just as we are all entitled to free speech, freedom to practice, or freedom from being forced to practice a religion, etc...

Entitlements are just programs which we have a right to participate in, especially if we have contributed to them, but even if we have not they are part of the social contract for being American.

[onit2day]

13. Exactly. We are "entitled" to SS. It is ours, our money

our program. Of course we are "entitled" to it.

[Leith]

20. Let's Us the Phrase "Earned Benefits" from Now On

It means the same thing, but it frames it differently. It's like when the rethugs changed "estate tax" to "death tax," but we're honest about it.

[Caliman73]

38. Not a fan of that...

That puts programs like Medicaid and TANF on a chopping block and separates programs in the social safety net into categories of "this one is good, and this one is bad".

I think we need to challenge Republicans on "entitlement". We have a social contract in America. We help people plan for their retirement by having a basic income program (Social Security) and medical care (Medicare) we also help people who have been less fortunate, who are suffering from disabilities, or other life circumstances (Medicaid and TANF). Those are rights which Americans are entitled to by virtue of America being a country that cares about its citizens. If Republicans see that as a negative thing, then they need to evaluate their morals and ethics.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Agree Completely on Your Main Point

However, i don't think it a good rant. Here's why:

The writer keeps talking about spending too much. Keeps talking about raiding SS. Mentions "Ponzi" scheme, which it is not. In fact, it was NEVER an interest bearing account. It has always been pay as you go.

So, the writer is not only wrong about a lot of things that caused this, but i noted that there was no mention about 4 tax cuts for the very rich in 35 years. Not one mention of a refusal to raise the cap on SS. Not one mention of a bloated DoD budget that has now been inextricably linked to GDP. (Not an accident.)

This sounds suspiciously like a right wing crank who finally got fed up because the R's have finally gotten around to touching the third rail.

Until it directly affected this writer, no concern, no attention. Now with their ox being gored, it's rant time.

I question the motives.

[Caliman73]

37. Not sure.

Possibly you are correct, however it is up to interpretation.

Social Security was never an interest bearing account. That is a fact. However, it is also a fact that Social Security and Medicare have always been off budget items, meaning that they were created to be self sustaining. It was Reagan who actually opened Social Security up for attack when he and congress started borrowing against it and then as you said, cut the marginal tax rates on the wealthy, and then had to raise taxes to avoid a melt down. He proposed and passed a tax on Social Security as income.

I did not get the flavor of a right wing crank but more of "all politicians are crooks" type of crank, otherwise they would not have gone after Alan Simpson directly.

It is always good however, to question anything and I do not disagree.

[calimary]

56. Even so, if this IS another right wing crank who's suddenly outraged

because they only just now got the wake-up call, so be it. I’ll take it. Maybe one more soul saved, and one more vote that now won’t go to trump any longer.

With FAR too many “gee, sucks to be YOU” voters, they don’t bother to get involved until it directly hits them personally. If it hits anybody else, well too bad. Sucks to be those poor schmucks. Let’s all NEVER forget how dick cheney sneered - SNEERED! - over the very idea of empathy. Compassion was SNEERED AT.

My dad jokingly referred to this shameful syndrome as “IGMFU”. I’ve mentioned it here before. It’s an acronym for “I Got Mine, F-U.”

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Pal!

Yeah, we agree on a lot. This one, not so sure I see redemption
I fear this one would still vote for the orange thing.

[calimary]

62. Indeed, ProfessorGAC!

Frankly, I think you're more spot-on, on this, than I am.

I DO believe that souls can be saved, and in deathbed conversions and all that. But this bunch is hard to understand. WAY hard. I find them incomprehensible most of the time. And you're correct in that their default position is and will be to fall back into trump's arms. (ICK!!! Just the very thought of that triggers my gag reflex.)

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

4. K&R

[pandr32]

5. Excellent!

Every single one of the asshats proposing these cuts should be constantly confronted with all of these points and questions.

[BadgerMom]

6. K and R

[meow2u3]

7. Righteous rant!

[aggiesal]

8. Social Security is an entitlement ...

We have been paying into SS for years, so yes we are entitled to that money.

I have no qualms calling it an "ENTITLEMENT".

[notdarkyet]

12. My husband died fourth months before he could start getting the ss he paid over

40 years for. I get about one quarter of what he would have as widow benefits. I hope I live to get a fraction of the money he paid in back. Plus remember they doubled the tax under Reagan I think. So the generation just coming up paid more in contributions than any other. Big generation, lot of money. That why they want it so bad.

[aggiesal]

16. What happened under Reagan ...

They determined that the Baby Boomers were about to retire and there was not enough in SS cover obligations to the Baby Boomer generation.

So my generations was the first to pay for the previous generation and our generation.
I'm not a Reagan fan, but his administration did figure this out.

The extra money I paid into SS to cover my generation went into the SS trust fund, which the SS Administration invested those extra funds into US back government bonds. The trust fund grew into trillions of dollars.

It was determined that by 2011, the money being paid out, would exceed the money coming in so the SS Admin would sell some of the gov. bonds to cover the difference. This was all by design.

The SS admin determined that by doing this, the fund would eventually dry up in about year 2040.

Since the initial determination, the date has been modified so that the trust fund will be dry by 2038.

Unless changes are made to the SS withholding's, SS will only be able to pay 75% of their obligation after 2038, forever.
If SS withholding's are increased to $250,000/yr., SS would be available at 100% forever.
If the SS withholding's increased to $500.000/yr., everyone's benefit would double. Imagine that, a livable benefit is possible.

SS will never ever go away.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. The First Generation Did That Too

There was no money, so they paid into their own and the next generation. When that first generation started collecting there was money left over.

And i get your point, but we're not the first generation. We'd be the second one. We agree except on one detail.

[caraher]

9. Blast from the past here

https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/simpson.asp

The sentiments are right on target, even if the provenance is unknown and details can be questioned.

(Remember Al Gore calling for a "lock box?&quot

[marble falls]

15. This link would be good, too:

https://shadowproof.com/2010/06/17/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-to-take-care-of-the-lesser-people-in-society/

My take away is Simpson was asking for some sort of means testing which I agree with in some degree: My folks retired at 50 and were still spending 200 days a year cruising until my mom died at 86. They also got SS which they did not need, starting at 70.

[aggiesal]

17. The problem with means testing is ...

It becomes a welfare program.
If it becomes a welfare program then conservatives will most certainly make cuts to it,
which they will try to do regardless.

I prefer the way it is now, except that full retirement should be closer to 60 years old.
65 was bad, but 67 is criminal. They're asking us to work until 67 to get full benefits.
With age discrimination in full force, that is almost impossible to accomplish.

[marble falls]

19. Which is why I have some mixed feelings....

but the in the 60's when some of the first good changes were made to SS during LBJ's Great Society range of social programs, they made to keep retired folks from literally eating canned pet foods and living in SROs. It was never meant to subsidize my parent's cruising.

It was a social insurance program and it was meant to be kept out of the hands of private banks, insurance and investment companies and especially Congress.

It was run so well that during Reagan's administration it started being used as cash cow and borrowing bank.

[aggiesal]

22. Do you have a link on what the Reagan Administration did? ...

I don't remember them using it as you described other than to invest the
trust fund in government bonds, at which point the government could do
what they want with our investment as long as they paid on the bond
when they were cashed in.
Which they do.
Our government has always paid on every bond cashed.

And, yes I do believe that SS was meant to subsidize your parent's cruising.
It's their money, and they can use it anyway they want. Cruising available!

[marble falls]

24. https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/ ....

Those "investments" were IOUs to be paid from T-note sales which added to deficits as the T-notes matured 30 years later. And how we came to owe the Chinese among so many others so much money. Its become a pyramid as t-notes are sold to pay off t-notes.

[aggiesal]

41. There are so many things wrong with the info in your article ...

First, I don't know who or what FedSmith.com is.
Reading the article, reads like conspiracy theories.

Second, here is an article from CBSNews, a pretty well respected news source,
that uses multiple confirmed sources before they release their news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lets-debunk-this-social-security-myth/

[marble falls]

42. https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/09/23/18722254.php

[aggiesal]

46. Both articles in FedSmith.com and indybay.org of links that you supplied ...

are written by the same person, Allen W. Smith.

So, I'm deferring back to CBSNews.com over any other website that's publishing Allen W. Smith.

Sorry!

[haele]

26. No means testing, please!

There is no means testing for annuity disbursals or life insurance. There should be no means testing for Social Security insurance.

I have absolutely no problems with the thought of a wealthy retiree getting an extra $2000 or so a month they don't need starting at the age of 70. They'll probably need that money for a couple years before they pass, anyway.

Because out of every 10 "wealthy" retirees who quit working at the age of 50 to go on world cruises and live La Vida Dolce, there are a little over half who discover they've lost most of their disposable retirement income due to emergencies (medical or household), financial or real estate fraud, naively setting up trusts for heirs too early, or through the general financial drain of supporting kids or grandkids (who don't have the same economy to work and save in that the boomer generation had) by the time they're 70 - and they've still got a few years of life in front of them.

My Grandparents (and Great-Grandparents) thought they were well off - with property, pensions, and investments to live off of, but they still ended up depending on Social Security and Medicare in the final decade (in a couple cases, two decades) of their collective lifespans, and all of them left very little when the estates were finally settled and properties sold off to cover end of life Medicare and Medicaid expenses.

Seems that unless you're actually worth several millions of dollars around the age of 60, once you hit 80, that pension and the interest on principle isn't worth that much. So you start having to dip into the principle of your investments or selling things off, and you're beginning to run short of the money it takes to just live comfortably - not living lavishly, just maintaining comfort and well-being. By the time you're in your mid-90's, there's usually not much left.

Haele

[marble falls]

43. See above .....

marble falls (11,085 posts)
19. Which is why I have some mixed feelings....

but the in the 60's when some of the first good changes were made to SS during LBJ's Great Society range of social programs, they made to keep retired folks from literally eating canned pet foods and living in SROs. It was never meant to subsidize my parent's cruising.

It was a social insurance program and it was meant to be kept out of the hands of private banks, insurance and investment companies and especially Congress.

It was run so well that during Reagan's administration it started being used as cash cow and borrowing bank.



The object of having a nest egg is not to leave the kids something. Its to be able to take care of ourselves. Thats my personal opinion. My dad tells me occasionally what my "share" is worth and I tell him it would make me sad to think I would get a financial benefit from his death. I'd rather he blew it all running out just in time to draw his last breath in the comfort he earned and deserved.

I retired at 55 mainly because finding contract work at that age was not easy or fun, I started drawing SS at 63 and with my savings and my wife's pension from the government, she retired at 48, we do OK. We live modestly and we own our house.

I'll not be leaving much to my kids but then they've done well in life and the support we've given them to be happy and educated is plenty. They'll make and are making their own nest eggs.

[They_Live]

10. K & R

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. Alan Simpson left government service in 2010.

[Scarsdale]

25. How much has his pension

and benefit package cost taxpayers so far? WHY do we have to contribute to their benefits, when they line their pockets from the second they take office? They retire as millionaires, and STILL suck off taxpayers. Time to END this.

[LakeArenal]

30. How many of those what? 268 days in session did he attend each year?

I am off all politicians, but the hypocrisy just doesn't end.

[Left-over]

14. O am the same age as you and feel the same way!! Well said

[yonder]

18. amen!

[Ferrets are Cool]

21. I wish they cared what we think

[bdamomma]

23. social security is our right

and it is solvent for a very long time. They want everything for themselvies don't they? Stealing as usual from the American people. That is from elections to cutting taxes. Need anymore repigs you can't fucking take it with you!!!

God, I hate these guys, thinking that they are entitled????? Fuck that.

[CentralMass]

28. Nicely done.

[mountain grammy]

31. K & R

[pansypoo53219]

32. entitled MEANS you ARE entitled to get something. its NOT a bad word.

the RICH should NOT be called entitled as they do not DESERVE their tax cuts. maybe some, not all. welfare kings. RAISE THE CAP!!!!

[Progressive dog]

44. Entitled because we earned it

and those SOB's stole it.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

51. I keep pointing this out. Yes, Rs use it as a slur. But...

We shouldn't let that stand. They need to be reminded what entitle means.

[world wide wally]

33. That asshole is still around?

[JHB]

34. But they ARE entitlements. Simpson's ilk have have played on that for decades...

I recall from the 1980s how conservative propaganda mills (oh, gosh, silly me and my typos. I meant "think tanks" ) would provide "reports" that conservative politicians would wave around and point at with alarm. These reports gave big scary numbers about how much of the federal budget went to "entitlements", and then the politicians and propagandists would start wailing about Welfare.

The fact that Social Security and Medicare comprised -- by far -- the lion's share of those numbers was never actually mentioned, leading most listeners to believe that the big scary numbers were due to shiftless, lazy (and probably ... black) people on Welfare.

That's their framework: "It's ok for US, but THOSE PEOPLE are bankrupting us with their vast army of layabouts stealing my hard-earned tax dollars."

[malaise]

35. That's freaking perfect

Rec

[zentrum]

36. Brilliant.

[ProfessorPlum]

39. It's insurance

You pay in betting that you will live longer than you can earn money to support yourself. The government bets that you will die after you've paid all the money but right before you collect. Everyone benefits. Plus we get to live in a country where old people aren't starving to death.

[seta1950]

40. Thanks

Patti Myers is a hero , her words are the ones in my heart.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

45. Id love to meet this Party Myers! She is FIERCE!

[caraher]

50. More than that

She is apocryphal!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

52. Well, I didnt get an obscure biblical vibe from her, but as a FB post,

It sounds perfectly legit. Some woman has a very powerful response to repulsive repuke lies they use to cover their thefts.

Maybe I’ll search her on FB and see if she’ll be my friend!

[caraher]

55. What I mainly mean is, you won't likely find a real person

This was circulated widely about 7 years ago, originally as an anonymous post, and the Patty Myers name somehow got put in as one of many variants.

Since the letter reproduced above isn’t credited to any particular person (other than an “unknown fellow in Montana”), and a number of different people have claimed authorship, there is no particular attribution for us to verify as correct or incorrect.

I hope you just meet some other "Patty Myers" along the way - there are certainly plenty out there who gave that message a hearty "Amen!"

[BlancheSplanchnik]

60. Lol! Ohhhhh! Thanks for the explanation 😊

Now I get it!

Yes, maybe I’ll find the coolest Patty Myers iteration and become friends.

[YOHABLO]

47. Thank you so much for the post. Perfect.

[llmart]

48. I've been working since I was 17...

and am quitting work at the end of the year at almost 69 years old. I get a paltry $955 a month after they take out the $109 for Medicare. These wealthy assholes should try living on Social Security. They like to prey on the most vulnerable of our population. It's time for an uprising.

[summer_in_TX]

49. Framing is important

Sure, we are entitled to Social Security and Medicare. But it doesn't matter if that's the legal and moral truth. We're living with very sophisticated propagandists attacking our safety net.

They cleverly play on the negative imagery of the spoiled elitist feeling "entitled" to special treatment. It bypasses rationality. The RW has very effectively framed it (and the so-called Death Tax, and much more) so that it is the commonly held from for most Americans. If we don't adapt, we lose.

When it comes to deeply held frames, it will take much more than just trying to redefine them (back to their original meaning) to prevail. The term "earned benefit" is very clear, we EARNED it. And the beauty is that it is not a term that will be easy to manipulate or distort. No negative connotation that I'm aware of to those words.

[tomp]

53. This is Obama's legacy.

He created the commission that recommended this.

He gave the idea "progressive" cover.

Eternal shame on Obama for helping to create this situation.

[snowybirdie]

54. A good rant

But dated. This happened five or six years ago. Remember it well

[Moral Compass]

57. Why was this dredged up at this time?

This is from quite a few years ago.

Why post this now?

[Marthe48]

58. Snopes link

https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/simpson.asp

Snopes rates this as mixed.
but I can't tell if Simpson actually said SS is a milk cow with 310 million teats. Anyway, if he's a republican, his heart is in the wrong place, and his head definitely is.

SS is not an entitlement program. I have so many pay stubs from 1969 forward where my husband or I or both paid F.I.C.A. That is the contribution a worker makes to S.S. Employers hate it, because they are required to pay 6.2% of the employees' wages into F.I.C.A. Called 'payroll taxes' That's 6.2% that could be going right into their pockets. Pretty sure that they wouldn't increase pay rates.

[Grins]

59. This is old. I read this six years ago, in 2011!

So why is this one coming around again? (The commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform only ran between April and December of 2010 )

Simpson took his hits for his comments years ago, and gave some back, too. He criticized former supporters who later voted against the bill, saying hey voted against it to "stick it to the president" as in Obama.

So go after conservatism, and the GOP, and Trump, and Ryan, and the Reich-wing's Noise and Rage Machine that promotes this crap.

PS: This also is Alan Simpson, April 2011:

"Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says 'Have an abortion, they're wonderful.' They're hideous. But they're a deeply intimate and personal decision and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue."

..."You've got homosexuality. You've got Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have homophobes in our party. That's disgusting to me. We're all human beings. We're all God's children. Now, if they're going to get off on that stuff, Santorum has said some cruel things. Cruel, cruel things about homosexuals. Ask him about it. See if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago, foul. Now, you know, that's the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, 'stick with your folks.' But I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, you know, moral values while you're diddling your secretary, while you're giving a speech on moral values. Come on, get off of it."