One of the REAL problems with social security(and why Republicans are hypocrits)

[Vesayen]

Someone pointed out something very wise to me a little while ago.

ALMOST everyone who *CAN* collect on social security, DOES collect on social security.


Social security was meant to help those who were disenfranchised, destitute and hit hard times. A large segment of the population which is eligible to receive it simply for being old, DOES take it. This includes lots of people who are NOT destitute! I don't know the % of the total social security budget but I am sure it is significant and the fact that so many people who don't NEED the money take it, is the reason benefits have been slashed on those who DO.

Isn't the Republican party the one that preaches against handouts, entitlements and for "personal responsibility".

It seems they only preach responsibility when it is politically advantageous to themselves, harm full to their enemies, meaningless or most important, EASY. On a tangent, I guess massive deficit spending is another word for responsibility!


Responsibility is a really sexy word which makes you sound like you have the moral mandate for goverment, ain't it?


Social security is none of those things so Republicans don't advocate that people who are NOT DESTITUTE not collect on social security.

I am WELL aware of the fact that I, you and everyone else pays for social security with our taxes but we also pay for alot of other things. Taxes are collected allow the government to function, and among its mandate is to promote the general welfare. Social security is a tax on society which is SUPPOSED to help the impoverished-the benefit you receive from this is a society with less poor people, and you get to collect if YOU become poor-it is also insurance.

But so many people who DON'T need the money, collect on it. Technically you are entitled to it but technically, you are also one huge part of the problem.

All I hear on the news is Republicans bashing democrats for not having an alternative. All I see is Republicans being gutless cowards because they won't advocate the most expedient and most efficient change to social security-telling people with a certain income level to not collect, or slightly more extreme, legislating that you have to have less then a certain annual income to collect.



For balance-Democrats suck too, though they never claim to be the party of "responsibility".

[MrFun]

Why do you hate freedom and your own country, Vesayen?

[Vesayen]

Social security is EITHER:


A. Social security as an investment and retirment plan system. Possibly the worst managed, poorest run, largest investment pyramid scheme in history, but one none the less.

OR

B. Social security is meant to give poverty relief.

If you try to do both, the system goes broke. If you advocate A, you might as well KEEP YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY. If you advocate B, either fund it properly and DON'T take the money if your not impovershed, or advocate disbanding the system. Any other view is hypocritical.




I don't hate freedom and my own country, I hate republicans who advocate higher taxes and needless wealth redistribution.

[MrFun]

I should have indicated the sarcasm in my post.

[DinoDoc]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

They won't be bored by daily threads stating how much you hate Republicans there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Social security is none of those things so Republicans don't advocate that people who are NOT DESTITUTE not collect on social security.

Actually when the debate was really hot a year or so back, the Republican suggested that those making over a certain amount should not be able to collect SS. The Dems said no and it never got anywhere after that.

[Ming]

If the Repubs are gutless cowards for not trying to make the change he suggests, what should he call the moronic democrats that set it up that way in the first place

[David Floyd]

People are hypocrites for accepting Social Security funds, when their paychecks were raided for the past 50 years to fund the Social Security system, and when, as a partial result of vague government promises, they were relying on the system to survive after retirement?

Do away with the whole system - absolutely!
Keep the system, but make it optional - absolutely!

Force everyone to pay into the system, but only allow some people to take money out of the system - well, that sounds pretty unfair to me.

[MrFun]

GASP!! There are idiots in both parties -- wow, what a revelation.

[David Floyd]

Taxes are collected allow the government to function, and among its mandate is to promote the general welfare.

The meaning of the word "welfare" has changed quite a bit between the writing of the Constitution and today. The Founders would certainly not have been in favor of the Social Security system.

I agree this isn't necessarily relevant, by the way, but you're the one who brought up the government's mandate.

Social security is a tax on society which is SUPPOSED to help the impoverished-the benefit you receive from this is a society with less poor people, and you get to collect if YOU become poor-it is also insurance.

What you are missing, though, is that Social Security benefits those who currently contribute next to nothing, not to mention the fact that in the 1930s, most of those collecting Social Security today would already long since died of old age anyway. Now, however, we have to pay to keep old people alive (Medicare, etc.), AND we have to pay old people for being alive (Social Security). It's a double whammy on the rest of us that isn't fair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that Social Security benefits those who currently contribute next to nothing

Yeah, that's kind of the point.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ming
If the Repubs are gutless cowards for not trying to make the change he suggests, what should he call the moronic democrats that set it up that way in the first place

Also, morons. However that does not make the republicans blameless. THEY HAVE THE SOLUTION right now and they choose to not use it. This makes them enablersand and as copable for the problem as the people who originally caused it.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Social security is none of those things so Republicans don't advocate that people who are NOT DESTITUTE not collect on social security.

Actually when the debate was really hot a year or so back, the Republican suggested that those making over a certain amount should not be able to collect SS. The Dems said no and it never got anywhere after that.

Republicans had the majority control, didn't matter.

Originally posted by David Floyd
What you are missing, though, is that Social Security benefits those who currently contribute next to nothing, not to mention the fact that in the 1930s, most of those collecting Social Security today would already long since died of old age anyway. Now, however, we have to pay to keep old people alive (Medicare, etc.), AND we have to pay old people for being alive (Social Security). It's a double whammy on the rest of us that isn't fair.

Stop the program, repay everyone over the course of the next 10 years-problem solved.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

I meant those who contribute next to nothing to society, nor will they contribute much of anything in the future. He was trying to make a welfare argument about helping those who can or are likely to contribute something, given the chance, but that doesn't really apply to the majority of old people.

Vesayen,

Stop the program, repay everyone over the course of the next 10 years-problem solved.

I agree! End Social Security now, except to repay everyone who has already been forced to buy in. Selling off federal land, for example, would be a great way to raise the money to do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Republicans had the majority control, didn't matter.

And? Do you think that all Republicans think alike? You realize if only 49 Republicans wanted to do it, it wouldn't pass?

I meant those who contribute next to nothing to society, nor will they contribute much of anything in the future.

Seeing as SS is for old people, I think we know that they aren't going to contribute much of anything in the future. And the poor is exactly who SS is for.

[David Floyd]

Seeing as SS is for old people, I think we know that they aren't going to contribute much of anything in the future. And the poor is exactly who SS is for.

No ****, but you are missing my point, which is that while a utility argument can be made for welfare, it's much tougher to make that same argument for SS.