Why LAWMAKERS should be on SOCIAL SECURITY !

United States
January 17, 2008 8:50pm CST
The deceit and fraud connected with social security by our elected representatives removes from them any right to be treated with any consideration in this matter. In a heart beat, if I had the power, all present and former lawmakers (I'd throw in all government employees) would lose their special funded government retirement and be placed on the same social security as everyone else. Read this link and think of the enormity of the fraud that was perpetrated. http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1194.cfm Do you agree or disagree that our lawmakers, who have destroyed social security through stupidity and malfeasance, should receive only benefits in retirment from the system they destroyed? It seems fair to me! How about you?
4 people like this
7 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
18 Jan 08
I think so too. I have long believed that politicians should not have any form of retirement benefits as a result of the office that they held, that their retirement should be funded by other sources such as their real careers just like everyone else. Congress was never intended as a career, yet many congressmen have made careers of it. That is why Congress is so out of touch with the American people, and so tied up in Beltway Politics and special interests. They do not have the American publics best interests at heart, instead they only have the power and influence they can gain and how to best separate the taxpayers from their money as their main goals. They don't have to live with Social Security so it isn't their problem... they have their own retirement scheme carefully put into place on the backs of the taxpayers. Congress has been moaning about Social Security for years and every time someone mentions an alternative such as privatization they then cry foul. I guess they love those unfunded entitlements. As far as the IOU's, Congress was supposed to have stopped using the surpluses several years ago.... apparently they didn't. The biggest problem that I have always had with SSA is that it is nothing more than a legal ponzi scheme were new money is paying old money, and it has been that way from the very beginning. Itr was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now. The best thing we could do is figure out a way to phase Social Security out without screwing everyone who has paid into it expecting it to be there for them when it is needed.
3 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
Well, this response proves finally and forever that you are NOT my long lost twin. I still agree with you completely. I just had not thought this through this well and diligently. Anyone who was my twin could not have figured this out and expressed it so well.
3 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Jan 08
I read on another site that SS is first and formost a Tax and not a retirement plan that you are entitled to. Congress can end the program and not pay anyone. SS is a program that is totally controlled by the politicians and when it it to their political advantage to end it they can do that and the courts have upheld this. I agree with you that Electcted Officials should not have a retirement system other than Social Security. A good comprimise might be to meld SS into the Federal Retirement Program that the Politicians enjoy and cut the rate that the politicians receive to help makeup the difference. You know tax the rich to help the poor.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Iforgeot to post the link to the other article on SS. http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Social-Security-Systems-Achilles-Heel You may have to copy and paste if it doesn't link right.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Hello Red, The Federal Retirement plan is far from the only Congressional perk that ought to be done away with. Though, it's a very good start! Imagine working 2 or six years for a company, and having that entitle one for a full pension. Ugghhh, the arrogance is simply maddening! Before we make past & present Rep's suffer the reality of Social Security as their only gov't retirement benefit, the law (long ago passed) that allows Congressional Representatives to act on "insider information" without punitive S.E.C. action ought to be rescinded. These folks have been getting rich off of insider stock trading for decades. Before they're forced to experience what it's like for the average American, this sleezy loophole needs to be closed with a 40 ton boulder!
2 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
"Allows Congressional Representatives to act on "insider information" without punitive S.E.C. action." "Holy Unfair Advantage, BATMAN!" I've been investing in the stock market since I was 16. I had no idea Congress had this written in the law to protect themselves. Outrageous. I've always worried about the insider trading law because it has a particular general 'catch all' clause that says in effect that anything that gives a particular advantage to anyone is illegal. Well, what about those of us who write proprietary software for our own use and don't offer it for sale? I can technically be in violation of the law for writing my own investment software (if it is effective) but congressmen can flagrantly violate the law because they are exempt? Egads.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
"... but congressmen can flagrantly violate the law because they are exempt?" Yup, one of the many advantages to being able to write the law! How many Congressional Rep's have been middle-class when winning their first race, then ended up very much in the upper percentile as they approach retirement? Sad yes! Criminial, yes! And -- very, very true!
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Jan 08
I agree with you and think that they should have to follow all the laws and not exempt them. For example I do not get to deduct my mileage to work why should they get paid everytime they want to go "home" to tell everyone how great they are and what a good job they are doing for us. We should also cut their private dinning rooms, Barber shops, health clubs, etc. They are to work for us and not be a ruling class on to themselves.
• United States
18 Jan 08
Very few people agree with me. You might want to give that some thought.
3 people like this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Well, most lawmakers already have plenty of money anyway, don't they? They don't even really *need* their government retirement plan, although I doubt any would refuse it if they're currently accepting a salary they also don't need. So forcing them to be on the same Social Security as everyone else would change their attitude much. I didn't read the whole article that you posted. I did searches for words that indicated repairing SS by paying back the funds that have been taken from the program for other purposes, and I ended up stumbling on what the writer claims are the only solutions: increasing payroll taxes dramatically and/or reducing benefits dramatically. There are other options, but either the writer has a limited imagination or he's not all that interested in saving the program, anyway.
2 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
Boy, you sure are a party pooper, but you very well could be completely correct.
3 people like this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
18 Jan 08
OOPS! The last sentence in my first paragraph should read "would *not* change their attitude much."
1 person likes this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
18 Jan 08
With as much money as these people have why are we paying them in the first place? I've never heard of a poor ( moneywise ) congressman or senator. They don't need retirement plans, raises, expense accounts & such. Eliminate all those perks & maybe we could actually get a few people in there who ACTUALLY want to help people. The whole system is built on Greed & Power.
2 people like this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
20 Jan 08
Who could forget the Lord Hi Snake In The grass Lawmaker himself?
@Adoniah (7512)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Actually, I think they should combine their retirement funds with the social security funds. That should boost the SS fund a little bit. I just think about all the money my kids are paying in and the fact that their generation is not having very many kids so who in hell is going to pay for them? The whole thing is just stupid! My work history is hit and miss because my spouse was ill and I had to keep stopping and taking care of him. Actually this happened with both spouses. So my Quarters are all messed up. Then I became seriously disabled and could no longer work. If it were not for the VA, I would be on the streets.
2 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
Absolutely, any federal retirement funds should be rolled into the fictional non-existent social security 'lock-box' as mentioned by Al Gore in his presidential campaign.
3 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
I agree with this argument 100%! I also believe that lawmakers should have to make the equivalent of current minimum wage requirements. Even if we were to assume that they worked an average of 40 hours a week (which they do not!) that would mean federal lawmakers would currently get only around 15K a year instead of the nearly 70K Congress Reps receive and 170 K US Senators receive each year from taxpayers. I guarantee that they would suddenly be ever so eager to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Careful whatcha' ask for Dave! If you ever did see this wish come true, we'd be in big horse dookie!
1 person likes this