Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it'

[Japher]

http://www.jascc.org/hall/hfazaffaroni.htm

he's 82, and still going strong...

[Agathon]

Ain't viagra great!

[Arrian]

The real problem is, as usual, that people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not as if there is a lack of wealth in our society, it's that people would like to spend theirs on consumer goods and hope that someone else pays for the upkeep of the elderly.

I... agree... with... Agathon.

*gulp*

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

cake and eat it too works against both sides here.

We are not talking about killing off old people. For some reason people assume medical care to be a right as opposed to the consumer service it is.

I have nothing against providing basic medical care to all, because as was stated we are wealthy enough to do it. What the 90 year old elderly person consumes in health care, in the vast majority of cases, is in no way basic.

And if dignity is what your going for Agathon, the first step would be to take away the Canadian cocktails so they can die as people instead of bed ridden meat sacks clinging onto the coat tails of life for ten years.

Having 90 year olds that can still get hardons is in useless as an ABM system with no targets. Spend the money somewhere else.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'd rather money be spent on something like education, or healthcare for a young, otherwise healthy person, than on extending some 90-year-old's life six months.

Maybe that 90 year old is actually a 65 year old who watches over the kids so that Mom can go to work to provide for the family 'cause all the good jobs went somewhere else years ago and now it takes two breadwinners to support them. If you let granny die then they have to go on welfare. Hows about them apples? ....or maybe like in so many countries in the world Mom stays at work and the kids run free in the streets and join gangs by the time they're eight. City of God anyone?

Maybe Granny and Gramps are the only ones in the family with an iota of emotional stability. I have seen that time and time again. In the not too distant past gandparents were often the primary child caregivers of the family. You'd be surprised how much work it took to etch out a subsistance living on a farm or in a city prior to the successful development of electrical appliances and the internal combustion engine. Often 2 people, a man and a woman, working a farm would work beyond sun-up to sun-down just to make ends meet. Until some of the kids got old enough to lend signicant assistance having the old folks around to care for and teach the young ones was worth the food needed to sustain them. This basic pattern goes all the way back to the hunter - gatherer cultures.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
This isn't a lifeboat choice.

We live in the most productive era in history. We can easily afford to keep people in reasonable health and ensure them a decent retirement income until they die.

The idea that we suddenly can't afford it is just false. If we remove funding for welfare programs, then individuals will be left to prop up their elderly parents, which will annoy the hell out of them and their elderly parents.

The real problem is, as usual, that people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not as if there is a lack of wealth in our society, it's that people would like to spend theirs on consumer goods and hope that someone else pays for the upkeep of the elderly.

Welfare programs are cheaper for the vast majority of people than taking care of their parents themselves. They give older people the dignity of their own income, which they have paid for by their lifetime's work.

If you want to replace this with private retirement schemes, then go ahead; but we will end up paying a lot more individually down the road when grandma gets thrown out of her apartment and turns up at your house.

What are you going to do? Tell her to piss off?

These words are completely true

[Lawrence of Arabia]

fine, can you let me keep my money instead and let me opt-out of SS?

[Agathon]

fine, can you let me keep my money instead and let me opt-out of SS?

Because people will try to free ride.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon

fine, can you let me keep my money instead and let me opt-out of SS?

Because people will try to free ride.

that's not the reason, and you know it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
since taking drugs doesnt mean instant death, your homie gangbangers would survive longer, and thus would be better off than your 90 year old research doctor who i dont even think exists.

The life expectency of a gang bangander in Chicago is the age of 19... the 90 year olds would probably last longer... and those homie gangbangers are killing people... but I guess that's ok from your perspective, as long as it isn't your family

Oh... and while I might agree that drugs should be legal, I don't think it should be legal to sell them to grade school kids... but I guess that it's ok by you.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
that's not the reason, and you know it.

At the contrary, that's the reason. We live in civilized societies, and we don't tell to **** off to those in need. Imagine you opted out of police protection. Do you really think the police will tell you to **** off if you're ever raped (hint: the police even protects illegal aliens in dire circumstances) ?

This is the reason why we use taxes instead of "opting in" and "opting out" possibilities. because when the crap hits the fan, we'd do help those in need, even if they didn't pay their taxes. This would make free-riding extremely easy, and everybody would do so.

[Berzerker]

Imagine you opted out of police protection. Do you really think the police will tell you to **** off if you're ever raped (hint: the police even protects illegal aliens in dire circumstances) ?

Because we have a Constitution, that affords them some protections. But let us assume we are not bound by that contract, the police will protect whom they are told to protect. If the people paying a tax for police protection want those police to protect everyone in the area, that's for them to decide. But if I don't want to pay the tax and I refuse protection, you cannot morally force me to accept protection much less pay a tax to pay for it. That is stealing even if it is "legal". That's why, while I have no problem supporting the local sheriff and would do so if free to choose, I oppose forcing my neighbors to pay for it too.

This is the reason why we use taxes instead of "opting in" and "opting out" possibilities. because when the crap hits the fan, we'd do help those in need, even if they didn't pay their taxes. This would make free-riding extremely easy, and everybody would do so.

Then the people actually paying the tax can tell those who aren't they will no longer receive the service and most of them will see the wisdom of having the service. It is illogical to argue that everyone (a large majority?) will free ride if allowed given that a large majority of voters support forced taxation over the option to free ride. There is another moral component to this, I hate the fact my taxes are being used to incarcerate millions of people for using drugs. Many pro-lifers hate the fact their taxes are used to abort babies. Many liberals hate the fact their taxes are being used to invade Iraq. If we agree some action by government is immoral (and it is after a logical analysis), is it moral for us to compel our fellow man to pay taxes for that immoral policy?

How do "democrats" feel about letting voters earmark their taxes so they won't be forced to fund what they find immoral?

[Agathon]

that's not the reason, and you know it.

It's exactly the reason. It's the same reason why private car insurance is compulsory in many countries.

Welfare systems don't really have that much to do with egalitarianism when you think about it. They are just the cheapest way to pay for certain kinds of insurance.

It's a practical matter. In addition, most people don't like the idea of their fellows living like dogs, and they don't like walking through crowds of insane homeless people. So welfare helps us satisfy those needs to.

But why not think of the consequences?

If you want to make welfare private, then lots of people will go without. But they won't just go away (why people on the right believe this is beyond me) or get living wage jobs (where the people on the right believe these jobs will magically come from is beyond me).

No. They'll engage in criminal activity like shoplifting and burglary.

"So what?", say the righties, "We'll stick them all in jail if they commit crimes!"

OK. Who's going to pay for all these incarcerations?

"We'll make them work in prison!!!"

Great! You've just reintroduced a form of slavery. More to the point, the prisoners will be taking jobs away from ordinary citizens, who will then find themselves in the same position as the criminals used to be in.

"Well, we need to increase the penalties for these sorts of crimes!!!"

When you are stealing in order to maintain a basic standard of living, the penalty has to be pretty stiff to be effective.

"OK. Let's reintroduce the death penalty for theft!!!!"

If you wanted to take us back to the 18th century with its workhouses and the death penalty for stealing bread, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

[Agathon]

How do "democrats" feel about letting voters earmark their taxes so they won't be forced to fund what they find immoral?

It's a pointless waste of time and money. Part of living in a society is that you occasionally have to do things you don't like, have to put up with things you don't like, and suffer people you don't like.

But hey, everyone else is in the same position. Accepting it is called "growing up".

[pchang]

On the other hand, for the cost of one hip replacement, you could provide vaccinations for over 1,000 kids.