I will predict the next American civil war.

[Onetimehard]

Ummm? Not sure I get that. The Civil War came after the Revolution.

I never said American revolution, I said pre-revolution world which means pre-world war one, all civil wars after this point are from the third world. The most you will ever see is a riot and even that is very unlikely but that is absolute max unless another world war breaks out then anything can happen. An American civil war is impossible at this point.

[Onetimehard]

So you think that right wingers and tea baggers who HATE the government and hate all government programs will start a civil war in your  imagined future when the Federal Govt announces they are ending social security.   

How old will these civil warriors be when they start this war.  Do you imagine 15 - 25 year olds going to war (with who again) because of social security.    What will be their objective.  To take over the federal government and then start handing out social security checks?

This^^^  lololololol Sorry shizzo but you argument sounds sooooooooooooooo funny, no hard feelings bro 

[240 is Back]

Social Security is an ENTITLEMENT.

I think the average american pays in 300k to social security?

So I wouldn't call the first 300K they collect at entitlements.

I'd happily call welfare, medicare, all that entitltments.  But I have a hard time telling a guy who worked in a factory for 40 years that the $ he paid in is a GIFT from the govt.  MAYBE if he makes it to 90, and that 300k + interest has been spent my him, maybe THEN it becomes a gift.  But if I chip in 300k over 40 years, you get to keep all the interest, then I show up as an old man- politely ask not for a lump sum, but just for a small monthly stipend - and some snot nosed politician who is 30 years old screams "it's not your damn money!" ...

Well, to me that isn't an entitlement, if the person paid in.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

I think the average american pays in 300k to social security?

So I wouldn't call the first 300K they collect at entitlements.

I'd happily call welfare, medicare, all that entitltments.  But I have a hard time telling a guy who worked in a factory for 40 years that the $ he paid in is a GIFT from the govt.  MAYBE if he makes it to 90, and that 300k + interest has been spent my him, maybe THEN it becomes a gift.  But if I chip in 300k over 40 years, you get to keep all the interest, then I show up as an old man- politely ask not for a lump sum, but just for a small monthly stipend - and some snot nosed politician who is 30 years old screams "it's not your damn money!" ...

Well, to me that isn't an entitlement, if the person paid in.

This^^^ My neighbor lost 3 out of her 5 "children"....I say children but they were all in there late 40's when they died together in a car crash. 2 of them never married and had no kids. They all paid into the social security system for almost 30 years. That money never to be seen by anyone in her family. And is she supposed now feel guilty herself for collecting her social security that she paid into?

[Primemuscle]

This^^^ My neighbor lost 3 out of her 5 "children"....I say children but they were all in there late 40's when they died together in a car crash. 2 of them never married and had no kids. They all paid into the social security system for almost 30 years. That money never to be seen by anyone in her family. And is she supposed now feel guilty herself for collecting her social security that she paid into?

This is the way all socialized programs work; not everyone gets back everything they pay into them and some get back much more. Here are some examples from PolitiFact:

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan research institute in Washington, produces statistics on this topic annually. Institute researchers figured out what people turning 65 in various years have already "paid in" to the system and what can expect to "take out" after they reach age 65. (See our charts below)

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

For an average-wage-earning, two-income couple turning 65 in 2010, the pay-in, pay-out ratio for Social Security by itself will actually be slightly negative —- the couple will have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive only $579,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. (Remember, the couple didn’t literally pay out $600,000; that’s the current value of what they paid out over the years, plus an additional 2 percent they may have gotten had it been invested.)

And even so, the Social Security shortfall will be more than evened out by the extra dollars the couple gets back from Medicare. The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in.

By the time today’s middle-aged workers reach retirement age, only two workers will be around to support their benefits. Promised benefits will exceed revenues by about 30 percent, and there will be no money in the trust fund to rely on.

Thus, Social Security is — and always has been — a transfer system from younger generations to older generations.

"We’re not really entitled to get our money back since we didn’t save it but rather spent it on our parents," said C. Eugene Steuerle, who helped assemble the Urban Institute’s calculations. "Moreover, when ‘things happen,’ like a decline in kids per adult, society has to adjust regardless."

[Jadeveon Clowney]

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

hey, quit taking our money old dude.

[Primemuscle]

hey, quit taking our money old dude.

Try and stop me! LOL.

Honestly, I have nothing to complain about, my retirement income is actually slightly higher than my final average salary. However, it is important to note that my entire income is not solely derived from Social Security benefits. I planned and saved for my retirement for over 30 years. Social Security income constitutes only about 1/3 of my total income. As for Medicare, I purchase supplemental medical insurance which provides additional coverage and benefits that I would not otherwise have if I were only covered by Medicare.

I don't know how old you are, but I would guess you are fairly young. When I was a young man, I didn't think about retirement, so I too probably would have resented the government taking my money to pay for old strangers' retirement income and medical benefits. My advice to you is to start planning for you retirement as soon as possible. The sooner you begin investing in retirement, the less you will have to put into it each month and the more you will have when you retire. Some people wait too long to start investing. When this happens they sometimes end up taking a huge cut in income when they retire.

Just so you know, SSI income is far less then what most people made working. The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire.  For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513.  This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21. As you can see, if you had a six figure income, you will be taking a huge income reduction. The average monthly SSI benefit is around $1,000. Try and live on that.

[Jack T. Cross]

I'm poor and hate poor people.

Perhaps you should turn off FOX for a bit.

[Primemuscle]

I'm poor and hate poor people.

I am neither poor nor rich. I don't hate any people. I do sometimes envy those who seem to have more than I do, but then who knows if they are happy.

[Teutonic Knight]

The next Civil War will be fought over race - whites against whomever.

Neither you nor I will be alive to see it.

I like to see : India vs China war, 2 billions dead  would be good  
White man vs White man, NO more !.

[doison]

Bro civil war is on par with public hangings and conquest to predict a civil war is like predicting that the US will bring back public execution or like predicting China will invade India for it's territory. If you know anything about history a reformed world is not capable of civil war. The days of civil war are in the pre-revolutionary World where governments are not fully established and laws are still being created.

This is not the third world and it is not the days of conquest, this is now a civilized world where Politics run the show not putting bullets in peoples head especially a divided army. What you are suggesting is so outrageous and the chances of it happening is 1 in a trillion. Just imagine a divided US armies, not a million years.

A lot of people forget that the civil war was before the revolutionary war...way back before the government was created.  Good post

[shizzo81]

I think the average american pays in 300k to social security?

So I wouldn't call the first 300K they collect at entitlements.

I'd happily call welfare, medicare, all that entitltments.  But I have a hard time telling a guy who worked in a factory for 40 years that the $ he paid in is a GIFT from the govt.  MAYBE if he makes it to 90, and that 300k + interest has been spent my him, maybe THEN it becomes a gift.  But if I chip in 300k over 40 years, you get to keep all the interest, then I show up as an old man- politely ask not for a lump sum, but just for a small monthly stipend - and some snot nosed politician who is 30 years old screams "it's not your damn money!" ...

Well, to me that isn't an entitlement, if the person paid in.

This is the exact thinking that will be the spark.

[muscularny]

This is the exact thinking that will be the spark.

a spark that will create more blogs

this civil war talk is idiotic, maybe a civil war between blogs, one will write this the other will write that, one will have 50mil twitter followers and the other 45 million, one will have a facebook page with more likes etc

[Primemuscle]

A lot of people forget that the civil war was before the revolutionary war...way back before the government was created.  Good post

What are you talking about? The Revolutionary War was fought from (1775-1783), The Civil War years were from (1861-1865). Do not make up history to suit your thinking.

[Onetimehard]

What are you talking about? The Revolutionary War was fought from (1775-1783), The Civil War years were from (1861-1865). Do not make up history to suit your thinking.

I am not sure if doisin was being sarcastic or not towards my post which stated that civil wars take place in pre-revolutionary world, a term used by historian to discuss pre-world war 1. Of course the American revolution took place before The American civil War but for a civil War to take place in an established civilized nation is outrageous,it is near impossible unless in the third world, I think muscularney summed it up perfectly with his post below here;

a spark that will create more blogs

this civil war talk is idiotic, maybe a civil war between blogs, one will write this the other will write that, one will have 50mil twitter followers and the other 45 million, one will have a facebook page with more likes etc

[Primemuscle]

I am not sure if doisin was being sarcastic or not towards my post which stated that civil wars take place in pre-revolutionary world, a term used by historian to discuss pre-world war 1. Of course the American revolution took place before The American civil War but for a civil War to take place in an established civilized nation is outrageous,it is near impossible unless in the third world, I think muscularney summed it up perfectly with his post below here;

You win. You have managed to completely confuse me and this is relatively hard to do. There have always been those who do not agree with the law an act accordingly. This is normally considered civil disobedience.

[Groink]

You win. You have managed to completely confuse me and this is relatively hard to do. There have always been those who do not agree with the law an act accordingly. This is normally considered civil disobedience.

the industrial revolution

[freespirit]

What are you talking about? The Revolutionary War was fought from (1775-1783), The Civil War years were from (1861-1865). Do not make up history to suit your thinking.

Any stories to share?

[Jadeveon Clowney]

A lot of people forget that the civil war was before the revolutionary war...way back before the government was created.  Good post

you sir are rendering yeomans service in the fields of getbig.

[Onetimehard]

You win. You have managed to completely confuse me and this is relatively hard to do. There have always been those who do not agree with the law an act accordingly. This is normally considered civil disobedience.

Historians such as myself use this term all the time. My professor used to say this every 2 seconds.

Industrial revolution means where people went from the transition of making things by hand to using machanical parts or machines. This period is in the early to mid 19th century

Pre-revolutionary world means before mechanical travel, before cars and flight. So horse and buggy. The main turning point was between WW1 and WW2.

Revolution does not mean war like 90% of the people think, it is just a term that some wars have been coined for or named after, let's not try to confuse the 2  .

[Jadeveon Clowney]

Historians such as myself use this term all the time.

you're a roofer, not a historian, my large-craniumed friend.

[Onetimehard]

you're a roofer, not a historian, my large-craniumed friend.

I am booth   

[BILL ANVIL]

clowney on the ragu lately holy shyte..

[Jadeveon Clowney]

clowney on the ragu lately holy shyte..

ragu? not familiar with the term. just trying to cram in some trolling before i head to the office.

[BILL ANVIL]

ragu? not familiar with the term. just trying to cram in some trolling before i head to the office.

period