Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare = WELFARE

[JMortensen]

In our primarliy capitalisitic society there will a need for some social programs. Social Security, and Health Care is something that must not be taken away.

 

I disagree with the idea that Social Security and health care should be provided by the government. You want to talk about Fire and Police Departments and infrastructure like roads and such OK, I think we can agree there. But I think there should be systems like welfare and social security, but they should be private enterprises. Once again even HeavyZ has come forward with the idea that the gov't can't spend money wisely (seems to come up in EVERY political argument--ever notice that?). So why are you all so eager to leave your well being in their incompetent hands?

 

My uncle was bankrupted about 15 years ago. Lost his job and due to his age couldn't find another job for over a year. He finally moved in with my parents and I after selling everything he owned but some clothes and a car. He tried really hard to get a job for quite a while, then finally the hardship overcame the pride and he went to the welfare office. He was REFUSED welfare because HE OWNED A CAR. Apparently owning the car meant that he was too wealthy to deserve welfare. Can you imagine a 60 year old 6'5" 280 lb man walking 2 miles to the bus stop to try and find a job? Our family took him and my aunt in and they lived with us for a year until he was able to find a job and move out. So even in the only situation I've ever been around where someone tried to collect welfare it was screwed up and didn't happen.

 

I just think that charities exist to serve these functions, not the gov't. As to our society's throw away elderly, that is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but not by the government.

[Tim240z]

Anyone who thinks that the government has the best interests of the general public in mind is sorely naiive!!

[Guest tony78_280z]

I disagree with the idea that Social Security and health care should be provided by the government...

 

...So even in the only situation I've ever been around where someone tried to collect welfare it was screwed up and didn't happen.

Sounds like you are arguing both sides of the fence. Your uncle was refused' date=' but you didn't tell him that health care and social security should not be provided for him by the government? He didn't agree with you? These safety nets are in place for good reason. [b']Some abuse them[/b], and that is the issue that needs to be taken care of. What kind of car was that BTW? I wonder if the value of the car was more than what he owed. Perhaps they didn't want him carless, they just had issues with giving a man who ownes a rolls royce financial assistance.

 

My mother was on welfare for four years while she raised 3 kids and went to school. She graduated, got a great job, and paid hefty taxes. This is what social programs are for.

 

I just think that charities exist to serve these functions, not the gov't. As to our society's throw away elderly, that is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but not by the government.

This is an incredible naive statement. There is no charitable organization to handle all the people who need social security or medical coverage. Not only that, charitable organizations tend to screen those who will recieve their money, and a person might find it far harder to qualify for these private charities than for government welfare. Also, there might be hundreds of small charities and one would starve before they applied to one that might take them. Your uncle would have been even worse off.

 

So why are you all so eager to leave your well being in their incompetent hands?

This is just amazing. If the government is so incompetent, why is this the most powefull and prosperous country on the planet? How can this mighty nation be so incompetent. I sense an amazing double standard here. Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other.

 

Anyone who thinks that the government has the best interests of the general public in mind is sorely naiive!!

Unfortunatly "the general public" is rather stupid, shallow, wishy washy, and don't realy know what is best. This is the reason we have representatives, and don't all vote to pass laws. By definition, a democratic nation should have the interests of the general (masses) public in mind. I will have to quote myself at this time. "Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other."

 

Please notice that in my previous post I did not mention Welfare at all and only mention it now in response to jmortensen. I made my previous post state a few researched facts.

1. Social security is and was allways intended to be an entitlement and not a handout or welfare program and that those individuals that were told they would recieve back this social security tax should get it back.
   
2. Explain how the social security program was suposed to be financed.
   
3. A reason why one should not depend on private retirement funds. And why the social security system needs to stay in place.
   

Lets keep the discussion on track

[Guest KEINoze]

LOL, I have to agree with Tim. The social security system in the US is a bad joke.

If they think they have problems with it, they should just abolish it and have people set up private accounts. There are people who can take care of their own money and save for their own future. I don't see why a portion of our paycheck has to go to paying retired individuals unrelated to me. I'm sure many have done their duty to our country and contributed greatly to our country's growth. However, the money they receive from social security is more like bonus cash than something they can really lay back on.

 

The welfare system is probably widely abused. This abuse takes away from the unfortunate people who actually need the funding. (i.e. laid off workers, widowed mothers, etc.) If the government has money set aside to help these people, it's in the interest of them to aid their citizens.

 

These are "socialistic" ideas. (not exactly, but it leans more towards that) Although the US condems socialists and communists, we recognize that some of their ideas are indeed good. If we were truly a completely "free" country, we won't have the government budding their nosing into every aspect of our lives! We should only pay taxes only for the services we want from the government. Like an insurance premium, we can pay for "welfare" or "social security" coverage. Since we opt to use interstate freeways, we'll pay for that service too. If you want cops to protect you, you will have to pay a premium for that as well. Otherwise, you're screwed when you need them. LOL

 

The bottom line is that we, as normal citizens, don't know jack about what's actually going on it the government's checkbooks. Although we can have opinions, we really don't know the situation to the extend our government does. If it's an easy fix, there are people in the government who are more than smart enough to fix it immediately. They rule over us because they are obviously smarter than us . . . at least in regards to money and politics. Do we really know why the hell we had to invade Iraq? The world will never know . . . (I heard that Sadam was threatened to be taken over by a coup--and Sadam was an American puppet.)

 

The US is the most powerful country in the world, but that power is always swaying in a delicate balance. Our country is chock full of flaws and weaknesses. These weaknesses are held in check only by the market power of the US and its governments international influence. If any country is bold enough, they can take advantage of them and screw us over! (i.e. OPEC nations, China, etc.) The reason most countries opt not to is because the US has puppet governments in control, generating an international empire.

We use "the spread of democracy" to set up these puppet government in places like Latin America. And we send in troops when these puppet officials are threatened by a coup.

 

I might sound a bit naive. I'm not a poli-sci major. Biochem is my specialty!

[Sean73]

But I think it's a plausible way to ween EVERY retired person off the system and just pay the retired folds that NEED it.

 

How do you define "NEED"?

 

Let's say you have two guys that work the same job and make the same salary their whole life:

 

Mister A makes 50K a year, and lives below his means. Shops at yard sales, pays cash for everything. Religiously contributes to retirement account every year. At 65, he has 1 million dollars in the bank.

 

Mister Z makes 50K a year, and lives above his means. Pays double for everthing as his credit cards are constantly maxxed, and he only makes the minimum payment. Always buys brand new cars, and brand new stuff. Never contributes to retirement account. At 65, he is 100K in debt.

 

Both Mister A and Mister Z paid the same amount of social security taxes. Who deserves a social security check?

 

I don't think Mister A should have to forfeit his benefits, just because he was smart enough to save. I also don't think Mister Z should forfeit his benefits, even though he's stupid, because he made the same contributions through his salary deductions.

 

For saving well, Mister A will already be punished through taxation when he withdraws funds from his retirement account to buy a vacation home. I don't think it's fair to force him to forfeit SS benefits, even though he doesn't actually need the money.

 

I am by no means rich, but I aspire to have a nice nest egg when I retire. When I am 65, you better believe I'll be pissed if someone takes away my benefit, because some other dummy who never got his finances in order, "needs" it more than I do. If anything, I'll donate my benefit to charity.

[JMortensen]

Sounds like you are arguing both sides of the fence. Your uncle was refused, but you didn't tell him that health care and social security should not be provided for him by the government? He didn't agree with you? These safety nets are in place for good reason. Some abuse them[/b'], and that is the issue that needs to be taken care of. What kind of car was that BTW? I wonder if the value of the car was more than what he owed. Perhaps they didn't want him carless, they just had issues with giving a man who ownes a rolls royce financial assistance.

Well he had paid into the system for 50 years and was a social security proponent. I guess he figured that the gov't should help him. He definitely did not save for his own retirement, or have any kind of a back up plan in place when he lost his job. I certainly wasn't in a position to tell him to change his mind on welfare, I was 15 years old at the time. The car he owned was an early 80's diesel Blazer. It was not a nice vehicle by any stretch. He was told that he would have been refused help regardless of what kind of car it was FWIW.

 

My mother was on welfare for four years while she raised 3 kids and went to school. She graduated, got a great job, and paid hefty taxes. This is what social programs are for.

There are MANY such success stories. That doesn't change the fact that the gov't shouldn't be involved. Your mother could have been getting help from a church, or a woman's charity for the 4 years just the same. I have a friend who went through college on the Mormon church's dime. Same sort of thing. He had a family and little skills, now he is a computer programmer making 6 figures thanks to an organization that stepped up to help him. That organization DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE GOV'T.

 

This is an incredible naive statement. There is no charitable organization to handle all the people who need social security or medical coverage. Not only that, charitable organizations tend to screen those who will recieve their money, and a person might find it far harder to qualify for these private charities than for government welfare. Also, there might be hundreds of small charities and one would starve before they applied to one that might take them. Your uncle would have been even worse off.

My uncle got help ONLY FROM HIS FAMILY, so he wouldn't have been worse off at all since the gov't did NOTHING for him. I'm sorry if you disagree with me about the gov't's role in society, but I don't think my stance is naive at all. We clearly have a disagreement about the level of gov't interference in our lives that is acceptable. But I have that disagreement with most people so that is not so unusual. It doesn't change the fact that I could have invested 5 TIMES as much money in my IRA this year if I didn't have to pay into social security, and still had money to give to charity. I'm 30 BTW, and I HAVE started thinking about retirement.

 

This is just amazing. If the government is so incompetent, why is this the most powefull and prosperous country on the planet? How can this mighty nation be so incompetent. I sense an amazing double standard here. Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other.

I would argue that the country is not successful due to government intervention. It is successful DESPITE the gov't intervention. People have the power, not the gov't. I'm sorry that you feel that the gov't has you in their hand. I'm under no such illusions. Look at the countries that have MORE gov't intervention than the US. Some people look to Europe as an example of the way it should be. Lots of entitlements, lots of taxes. It's an anathema to me.

 

Unfortunatly "the general public" is rather stupid, shallow, wishy washy, and don't realy know what is best. This is the reason we have representatives, and don't all vote to pass laws.

Wow you're an elitist. Sounds like the typical democratic argument for social security though: the general public is too stupid to plan for their own retirement. Well I'm not, so what does that do to your theory? Or am I the only non-retarded American?

 

By definition, a democratic nation should have the interests of the general (masses) public in mind. I will have to quote myself at this time. "Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other."

From dictionary.com:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Since your so politically savvy, maybe you might try reading the Constitution and telling me where it mentions the "interests of the general public." EDIT--Mistake removed. Many of the New Deal laws were deemed unconstitutional because they were too socialistic and communistic. Social Security and Welfare and Medicare unfortunately were not among the overturned laws, so I will continue to pay into them until we realize the mistake made there too. Won't keep me from arguing against them every chance I get.

[Pop N Wood]

But let me be clear on why I think SS is screwed up: Social Security is WELFARE for the rich. If we can't agree on that point' date=' then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

 

My opinion on SS: SS is welfare for old people who didn't have the ability to save enough for their retirement. My HUGE beef with SS is that there ought to be some kind of mechanism to keep people who have huge bankrolls at retirement from collecting on SS!!!! If it is WELFARE, then the rich retiree shouldn't be getting it!!![/quote']

 

 

Boooo. Exactly the attitude I worry about. Also, Pete, you do realize that you are "rich"?

 

If you want to give people money based on need, then do so. But that is not the intended purpose of SS.

 

BTW, my SS statements lead me to believe my wife would get $2400 a month toward the support of my kids should I die. That is nothing to sneeze at and it is a part of my shhort term financial planning.

 

Also keep in mind not everyone pays SS. Railroad workers and cops (to name a few) pay into pensions and don't pay a dime of SS. Simply not fair to expect some of us to pay obscene amounts into SS and get nothing out of it while others get to keep theirs no matter what.

 

And why should Iget penalized for having the good forture and foresight to plan for the future when others did not?

[Pyro]

SS was never intended to be a retirement program for all the people in the country. But somehow it developed into one (sort of). It was intended for widows and people who lived a few years past the average life span.

 

Lets face it, it is welfare program paid for by more income tax.

 

I wish the government would just drop SS and increase income taxes to pay for this welfare program (SS) and quit promising everyone a retirement. Then maybe people will get the idea that they should plan for their own retirement instead of letting the grovenment do it for them.

[Guest tony78_280z]

There are MANY such success stories. That doesn't change the fact that the gov't shouldn't be involved. Your mother could have been getting help from a church, or a woman's charity for the 4 years just the same. I have a friend who went through college on the Mormon church's dime. Same sort of thing. He had a family and little skills, now he is a computer programmer making 6 figures thanks to an organization that stepped up to help him. That organization DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE GOV'T.

Being a devoted athiest, church assistance was out of the question. So now you are saying that only those who belong to a church deserve assistance?

 

I would argue that the country is not successful due to government intervention. It is successful DESPITE the gov't intervention. People have the power, not the gov't. I'm sorry that you feel that the gov't has you in their hand. I'm under no such illusions. Look at the countries that have MORE gov't intervention than the US. Some people look to Europe as an example of the way it should be. Lots of entitlements, lots of taxes. It's an anathema to me.

Like I said, too much capitalsim is bad, too much socialism is bad. Those in Europe have too much. I definatly agree. And I never said I feel that the gov't has me in their hand. Far from it, trust me. On very few issues am I liberal minded. Most I am quite conservative. I'm all for reforming social programs. They do stink. Abolishing is not the way because there are those few, (like my ma) who needed the system, and used it, and everyone profited from it.

 

 

Wow you're an elitist.

I'm not elitist, I'm simply stating a fact. This is the reason we have representatives. Take an American history class. The average Joe worker has only a fraction of an idea what is going on in the world. Some even less. Should they all take place in making laws? Some of my family members have such a screwed perception of the world it is scary to think they actually get to vote for representatives, imagine if they were the representatives.

Sounds like the typical democratic argument for social security though: the general public is too stupid to plan for their own retirement. Well I'm not, so what does that do to your theory? Or am I the only non-retarded American?

And I have a friend who could drive perfectly well sh!t faced. (I seen it when I was sober) Should he be exempt from getting a DUI? By the way.. Why did you use the word democratic in the first sentence in that quote? Is that a Freudian slip?

 

By definition, a democratic nation should have the interests of the general (masses) public in mind. I will have to quote myself at this time. "Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other."

 

From dictionary.com:

 

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Thank you for supplying the definition of a democracy. By that definition, If a nation is governed by the people for the people then one could make the assumption that those same people would have their own best interest in mind. (That is the point I just made.) If the best interests of those people are not in mind you might doubt that the government is a true democracy.

Since your so politically savvy, maybe you might try reading the Constitution and telling me where it mentions the "interests of the general public." EDIT--Mistake removed.

 

First paragraph of the constitution

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the people,... insure domestic tranquility...promote general welfare...do ordain and establish this contitution... This constitution, and its government, was established with the best interests of the general public

 

Since I am so politicaly savvy I will also inform you that the constitution is a living document in that it can be changed to suit the times. It is not like the ten commandments. It is not set in stone. In fact, I'd say we were past due for an amendment.

 

FDR's programs were actualy started BEFORE WWII. Before the major communist scare. Before the Communist witch hunts (I forget the name of that scandal.) FDR was also the only president to be elected to four terms. Some (myself included) would say that we are still suffering from that alphabet soup. But I simply can not see how Social Security should be done away with. Changed yes. Abolished, no.

 

SS was never intended to be a retirement program for all the people in the country. But somehow it developed into one (sort of). It was intended for widows and people who lived a few years past the average life span.

This is true to an extent. But you can not blame those who were told the money would be there for them and they expect it to be. If your bank told you that you had x amount in the bank for your retirement and then turned around and said they didn't, wouldn't you be upset? Alot of people did/do look at this SS money as "their" money simply waiting for them to retire. And as I stated previously, that was actualy the intent when it was first founded. The system is badly in need of an overhaul. Abolishing it is not the way.

[JMortensen]

Being a devoted [/b']athiest, church assistance was out of the question. So now you are saying that only those who belong to a church deserve assistance?

No, not at all. There are plenty of charities that have nothing to do with the church. By the way I'm VERY agnostic for the record.

 

Like I said, too much capitalsim is bad, too much socialism is bad. Those in Europe have too much. I definatly agree. And I never said I feel that the gov't has me in their hand. Far from it, trust me.

So what was this?

Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other.

There is a balance to be struck. We just disagree on where the balance point is.

 

On very few issues am I liberal minded. Most I am quite conservative. I'm all for reforming social programs. They do stink. Abolishing is not the way because there are those few, (like my ma) who needed the system, and used it, and everyone profited from it.

You lost me here. Are you telling me that I will profit from the social security system? I would argue that I won't, or at least not as much as I would if I could opt out or not pay for that system.

 

I'm not elitist, I'm simply stating a fact. This is the reason we have representatives. Take an American history class. The average Joe worker has only a fraction of an idea what is going on in the world. Some even less.

I was awarded a history scholarship by one of my professors. I know that many people don't take the time to learn about the issues and all that. But THAT is the issue to be addressed. Again, the government doesn't have to be involved, other than maybe by improving the schools. If you read "The Language Police" then you'll know why, ONCE AGAIN, an incompetent government bureacracy is failing miserably in solving this problem.

 

Should they all take place in making laws? Some of my family members have such a screwed perception of the world it is scary to think they actually get to vote for representatives, imagine if they were the representatives.

This is elitism. Sorry to break it to you. Dictionary.com to the rescue again:

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)

n.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

 

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

 

And I have a friend who could drive perfectly well sh!t faced. (I seen it when I was sober) Should he be exempt from getting a DUI? By the way.. Why did you use the word democratic in the first sentence in that quote? Is that a Freudian slip?

From another post:

Come on guys' date=' there's only one effective way to deal with this isuue...DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!! How simple is that? [/quote']

 

I don't, but I don't because of the fear of being caught, not because I think that after a beer I'm an inherently dangerous driver.

 

I think drinking and driving is a problem, but it is also a huge revenue generator for the govt, and that's why my sister got pulled over. She did get pulled over just after the bars closed...

 

2126, I wonder if you feel the same way about speed traps. JUST DON'T SPEED AND YOU WON'T GET A TICKET! While that is TRUE, it is also a big steaming pile of BS and the govt shouldn't be doing it.

Yes, I think if you are capable of driving safely at a .2 BAC you should be allowed to. I also think if you are a teatotaller and have some cough syrup and are ACTUALLY "under the influence" you should get nailed.

 

Thank you for supplying the definition of a democracy. By that definition, If a nation is governed by the people for the people then one could make the assumption that those same people would have their own best interest in mind. (That is the point I just made.) If the best interests of those people are not in mind you might doubt that the government is a true democracy.

 

Well they could also decide that their "best interests" are served when they take care of their own retirement and the government doesn't get involved. Nothing in the definition fits your description, nothing in the Constitution fits your description.

 

First paragraph of the constitution

We, the people,... insure domestic tranquility...promote general welfare...do ordain and establish this contitution... This constitution, and its government, was established with the best interests of the general public

Stretching are we? That's the preamble first off, and still nowhere in there is the establishment of any sort of entitlement.

 

Since I am so politicaly savvy I will also inform you that the constitution is a living document in that it can be changed to suit the times. It is not like the ten commandments. It is not set in stone. In fact, I'd say we were past due for an amendment.

NOW WE'RE TALKING!!! If it required an amendment to establish Social Security in the first place we wouldn't have had any of these problems. But in reality legislators circumvent the Constitution all the time, and the only recourse then is the Supreme Court. Sometimes that works out for the best, sometimes it doesn't.

 

FDR's programs were actualy started BEFORE WWII. Before the major communist scare. Before the Communist witch hunts (I forget the name of that scandal.) FDR was also the only president to be elected to four terms. Some (myself included) would say that we are still suffering from that alphabet soup. But I simply can not see how Social Security should be done away with. Changed yes. Abolished, no.

Well that's marginally closer to agreement...

 

This is true to an extent. But you can not blame those who were told the money would be there for them and they expect it to be. If your bank told you that you had x amount in the bank for your retirement and then turned around and said they didn't, wouldn't you be upset? Alot of people did/do look at this SS money as "their" money simply waiting for them to retire. And as I stated previously, that was actualy the intent when it was first founded. The system is badly in need of an overhaul. Abolishing it is not the way.

I don't blame them at all. In fact I said previously that I think we should see all of those people through to their deaths. But we shouldn't keep making the same dumb promise to our generation when we know its not going to work out. I am for an overhaul, since it is the best I'm going to get. But I'd really prefer at least an option out of the whole f'ed up system.

[CableSrv]

I'm sorry but i didn't read alot of the post yet but I plan to..

 

My mom is on SS not because she is a free loader or could not save for her retirement.. she is on SS because the doctor claimed her as disabled and stated he could not clear her to WORK EVER AGAIN!! because of this she was PUT on SS.

 

I do not see this as a welfare type system! She would gladly work if she could but having cronic pancreatitis keeps her from doing so.

 

I will agree that SOME and by some I mean the majority of ppl that are on SS are money grubbin bastards that give nothing back to our society and should just drop dead. However you cannot say SS is in it's all bad! because it's there for ppl that where told NO they cannot work and for them to deal with it!! and SS is there to save you from being homeless since she paid what she has paid in it she is only getting what she paid back, nothing more!

 

To me SS is a backup plan that you started when you started working on incase ANYTHING terrible happened to you and you can no longer work.

 

welfare is hey i'm broke... and i can't get a job for no reason and i need help supporting my family of 8 kids or else we go homeless.

[Guest KEINoze]

There's a guy in my neighborhood that rides around all day in his electric wheelchair. I see him night and day going up and down the main street of town with a cup of soda on his little table.

 

He lives in a nice apartment ($900/month 1 bedroom). I know this because we lived in the same complex for a year. I moved out because it was becoming too costly for our group of college buddies.

 

I really wonder who pays for his wheelchair, his daily runs across town, his apartment, and his private driver w/ van.

 

It makes me a little annoyed to think of the possibility of my money paying for his lifestyle. I'm a full time student that barely make enough to be eligible for tax returns. If they actually gave back my Medicare and SS deductions, I would be MUCH better off. I haven't even gone clothing shopping since I've gotten my Z! The deductions from this past year alone could have bought me a lavish wardrobe of clothes! (at least to my standards, LOL)

 

We know how to spend our hard earned money much better than any government. I would be glad to still be deducted the same amount from my income if I can choose what exactly they invest it on! (i.e. public roads, public school funding, etc.)

 

Again, we don't know the whole picture so who are we to judge what the government does with our tax money?

[fredtam]

Without arguing points in other post in this thread I'll just give my .02:

 

1. The Government is not using/ stealing SS security money anymore than the bank steals the money in your savings account. The "surplus" is put into special Treasury Bonds. It isn't in a box somewhere. It is now the Governments money to spend as it sees fit until the bonds are called in. The Government has yet to default.

 

2. It is not "welfare for the rich". As with anything else the "rich" carry most of the load. If you were to cut out their ability to receive benefits you should also cut the requirement to pay in (it is capped) or otherwise it really is welfare.

 

3. Social Security has been working fine for blah blah blah and will continue to do so. Yeah that was true with the demographics of the '30s. Some people have already stated that there are far fewer workers to be paying in than receiving benefits, the life expectancy at the introduction of SS was actually less than the age to receive benefits. The math doesn't lie. SS is a problem.

 

4. SS is fine and we'll still be able to pay 70% benefits in the future. What a crock. Who that is going to hurt the worst...THE FRIGGIN PEOPLE THAT DEPEND ON SS.

 

5. Oh nnnnooooeeeess Private accounts will be be taking away from the people who are close to retirement. BS . To my knowledge noone has suggested anything that would lessen the benefits at any end of the spectrum. It will simply incur cost. The same arguement was had at the induction of SS.

 

I for one am for private accounts if properly structured.

[Guest tony78_280z]

Like I said, too much capitalsim is bad, too much socialism is bad. Those in Europe have too much. I definatly agree. And I never said I feel that the gov't has me in their hand. Far from it, trust me.

 

So what was this?

 

Yes things aren't perfect, but I'd rather be in this incompetent governments hands than any other.

*sigh* Both of those statements make perfect sense. Allow me to rephrase it for you. I do not feel safe and comfortable and "taken care of" in the governments hands. Far from it. But should I have my choice of any government on the face of the planet, I'd choose to be in this one. I feel far safer here than say in France, Germany, Brazil, Thailand, China (for god sakes, China) any country in Africa, etc etc etc.

 

Somehow I became an elitist because we have a system of government by representation. I see how representation can be flawed (special interests, campaigne donations etc) but I can see far worse problems if every person who is hardly educated in the subject got an equal vote in making every descision. Our countrys founders fore saw this problem and set up this democracy in that way.

 

Well they could also decide that their "best interests" are served when they take care of their own retirement and the government doesn't get involved. Nothing in the definition fits your description, nothing in the Constitution fits your description.

But they didn't. The descided that the best interest of people was to establish a few social programs. My "description"? All I said was that, A body of government established "of the people for the people" would have the peoples best interest in mind. I'm tired of repeating that statement. If the peoples best interest are not in mind then it can not be "of the people for the people", instead it becomes "of a few special people for the people".

 

Stretching are we? That's the preamble first off, and still nowhere in there is the establishment of any sort of entitlement.

I believe you asked where in the constitution it said anything about "serving the best intrests of the people". And I found just the right quote for that question. You didn't ask about where the constitution made provisons for entitlement in your previous statement.

 

Well that's marginally closer to agreement...

Wha? I never changed my position, and neither did you.

 

NOW WE'RE TALKING!!! If it required an amendment to establish Social Security in the first place we wouldn't have had any of these problems. But in reality legislators circumvent the Constitution all the time, and the only recourse then is the Supreme Court. Sometimes that works out for the best, sometimes it doesn't.

Social Security did not require an amandment because it was not unconstitutional. Where, in the constitution does it say that the government can not establish Social Security?

 

I feel that I'm just rephrasing myself. Either I am very poor at expressing my thoughts, or my readers don't want to read what I have typed. My only statement in this post that is not repeating/rephrasing something I already said in a previous post is the last sentence in the last paragraph in which I say... "Where, in the constitution does it say that the government can not establish Social Security?" Crap, I did it again. Up until this point it has been an interesting discusion, but when it gets to a broken record discussion, it is a good sign that it is time to give it up.

[Z-Dreamer]

I am under no illusion that SSI will be there for me when I retire as it was for my parents. Example, my father is currently in the hospital and is dieing of congestive heart failure. He was a corrections officer in the state of California for 28 years and opted out of SSI in favor of a pension. He retired in 1982 and used up his pension a few years later. The state has continued to pay his pension benefits long after his retirement ran out! And that does not upset me because he served many years as a public servant.

 

Unlike my father, I'm a business owner, self-employed if you will, I must pay for ALL of my retirement as well as provide for my family. The last time I checked I had paid something over $60K into SSI and I would forfeit it all tomorrow, IF, the government would stop taking it from me.

 

Yes, you heard me right, forfeit it all to the government, so they could help someone else.

 

But let me out of the system!!!

 

Mark

 

p.s. I know the government will never let me go......

[zdmz]

Some Questions.

 

What were the poverty levels of seniors prior to Social Security???

 

IF we never started Social Security what would poverty among seniors be like today???

 

IF Social Security were to end today what would poverty levels be???

 

When did 401k's, IRA's and other retirement plans start???

 

IF you could start with a clean sheet of paper - what type of plan could the governmtent start that would work for retirement???

 

There will always be complaints about just about everything the government does - it is really hard to make 250+ million people happy. It must really be a PIA to try and keep track of each person, how much they contributed, how much to pay out, disabled people, dependants and on and on...... and making sure that the money is not given out incorrectly.

 

Even with all the warts and blemishes, count it as an entitlement-welfare-socialism or earned, I'm content that the government steps in to make people put money in for thier retirement because without it a HUGE chunk of that 250+ million people would retire with NOTHING. There needs to be some kind of plan for those that don't know how to save, don't have the discipline, or don't think they will live that long or whatever reason....or maybe there will be a market crash and you will lose everything.... who knows... but there are too many people that do - and will- need it for very valid reasons to throw the whole thing out.

 

That said, I understand that there needs to be A Lot of fixing for it to continue working. I am not sure individuals investing portions of their SS tax is going to work because some people will invest better than others or be luckier than others and will have more money at retirement time. Those that don't do as well will feel "cheated" and will want to sue for thier "fair" share. The plan does not seem people (fool) proof enough.

 

Anyway, sorry for the long ramble. Interesting topic.

[JMortensen]

Ok Tony, we're WAY off track now. Let's back up and see if we can agree to disagree where we originally had a problem.

 

Originally I said that I didn't agree with social security being provided by the govt, then we started talking about my uncle and your mother. Bottom line is those arguments had nothing to do with the premise that I don't agree with the govt providing this for us. My premise is that charities should handle charity functions, and the government should stay out of it. This is a pretty popular premise among libertarians. Charities exist for this exact purpose, but during the Great Depression the government forced the New Deal on the populus, and the Supreme Court failed to rule parts of it unconstitutional. That is what I'm taking issue with.

 

Then we got into the government's incompetence. I can point you to hundreds of examples of government incompetence, and I would offer up the opinion that they are especially incompetent with our money. As HeavyZ said, they're paying $1.50 for a single round of .223. That's retarded. $30K toilet seats? Retarded. $15K screwdrivers? Retarded. I can go on and on with examples of bad spending. My point is that I can deal with my finances better than the government. You can feel free to disagree.

 

Then you made an elitist statement. It's OK to be an elitist, I'm just pointing out that that's the argument you were making. But you seem to want to deny that 3 times you've made statements that are the very definition of elitism.

 

Then we got into the constitutional argument. There are many different takes here, but the bottom line is that this is a sidetrack, and I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. My point was that the democracies aren't set up to take care of the elderly by definition, and your point was that the laws were enacted, so then the government took on that responsibility. You're right. It did. And I still disagree with the laws that were put in place. So we disagree. Fine. Let's agree to disagree.

[BrandonsZ]

IMO...

 

Step 1 personal retirement accounts pushed by Bush into law.

 

Step 2 Stockmarket Booms again.

 

Step 3 Fat cats take the stock market for all it's worth.

 

Step 4 Stock market Busts again.

 

Repeat steps 2 through 4 untill 80.

 

Step 5 50 years from now, 80-year-old People wonder why they can't afford dog food to eat on the measily retirement check. Can't afford property tax, become homeless, beg for food.

 

Step 6 DIE and pass your debt onto your kids!

 

(your alternate universe may vary)

[JMortensen]

More proof that government entitlements are a bad idea: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=2&u=/nm/20050325/us_nm/economy_treasury_medicare_dc

 

These guys can't do anything right.

[Michael]

Today’s elderly paid a disproportionately small amount of money into the Social Security system, compared to what today’s workers are having to pay. Essentially, the ratio of lifetime benefits to lifetime payments decreases with decreasing age; the later your birthday, the less you benefit from Social Security. Today, the Social Security tax is essentially a surcharge for being young.

 

The modern welfare state has erased the distinction between assuaging the plight of the outright destitute and improving the standard of living of those who are merely “financially disadvantaged†– or, worse yet, of increasing the per capita income of everyone fortunate enough to claim membership in a particular group. Social programs do have value – in helping those who truly can not help themselves, either due to their having suffered some horrible tragedy, or to their having had no opportunity in the first place. But social programs that offload income “from those with the ability to those with the needs†are, well, you know – the C-word.

 

Modern American capitalism is a curious animal. It’s capitalism at its purest, straight out of a Charles Dickens novel, when it comes to preserving the interests of certain well-connected businesses. But it’s a particularly perverse socialism when the so-called “needy†also happen to be a powerful voting block (farm subsidies are an excellent example). Social Security definitely falls under the latter.

 

I agree with GWB’s plan in principle, but I vehemently disagree with the implementation. The most pressing challenge is to contain the federal debt – and his plan, with its “transition costsâ€, will make the federal debt only worse. To contain the Social Security monster, the only solution is to cut benefits. Maybe the answer is to raise the retirement age, or to means-test benefits, or something else – but it MUST be a net reduction in benefits, a net reduction in the flux of money from the “able†to the “needyâ€. As Samuelson points out in the article cited by Pparaska, even if solvency of Social Security could be preserved indefinitely through various “reformsâ€, its burden on the nation’s economy will become unacceptably high, unless the basic concept of welfare – getting something for nothing – is excised from the program.

 

We should help and we can help those who are truly in need. But that’s a very, small percentage of today’s elderly.

 

The fact that social programs can be a legitimate and humane help to SOME does not imply that they should provide guaranteed benefits to ALL.