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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

No it isn't. It's better not to have old people dying in mass numbers on the street. That makes it worse for the old people who are dying and for the people who have to see it. Therefore, it is better to avoid that .

[Jaguar]

Old people die anyway.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Old people die anyway.

Yes. We're working on solving that problem.

[Sandman]

The problem with insisting that only the really needy people can collect welfare is that you penalise those who are thrifty or have found limited work. If a poor person finds a part-time, low-paying job, should their benefits be cut by an amount equal to their earnings? Doing so discourages them from seeking work. It's the same with pensions.

[SlowwHand]

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

Originally posted by 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".

1st - Was democrats who screwed the pooch by allowing illegal aliens to collect social security.

2nd - Have an alternative, other than whining?
Or is that pretty much your gift? Slamming without viable alternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Slow... not quite: It was only a few illegals:

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/totalization.htm

U.S. law bars aliens living here illegally from receiving social security benefits. However, until 2004, the law permitted aliens to claim credit for work performed while here illegally if the aliens either left the United States or obtained legal status in the United States. If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and dependents) would receive full benefits.

In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

[SlowwHand]

A democratic president made it where they could.
If after the fact they tried to get the cow back in the barn, swell.
My point stands.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No it doesn't. Did you even read it? They get SS if they become legal citizens or if they left the US. That's it. If they are still illegal, they don't get it.

[David Floyd]

No it isn't. It's better not to have old people dying in mass numbers on the street. That makes it worse for the old people who are dying and for the people who have to see it. Therefore, it is better to avoid that

In the days before Social Security, there weren't herds of homeless old people wandering around, dropping like flies in the street at random. New York in 1889 wasn't paved by the bodies of old people.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

You would have to show that people contribute less to society because of SS. Then you would just have to avoid the argument of diminishing utility. I doubt if you will convince anyone.

[David Floyd]

You would have to show that people contribute less to society because of SS. Then you would just have to avoid the argument of diminishing utility. I doubt if you will convince anyone.

Huh? I never made that argument. I was responding to the "utility" argument as it generally applies to welfare, and explaining why the same argument can't apply to Social Security.

I think we can all agree that SS recipients contribute little, if anything, to society as a whole, and I think that we can all agree that this will be the case, by and large, whether or not they receive SS.

[JohnT]

vesayan is complaining about structural problems in the program that have been existent for over 50 years. The Dems don't want to means-test it because to do so eliminates the fiction that it's not "relief" or "welfare." The Repubs don't want to means test it because it hits their supposed support base disproportionately and it's a killer politically.

However, Ves, if you want to campaign on this platform, go ahead and try. I agree, but I just don't think it's the Republican's fault any more than it was Clinton's fault.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Huh? I never made that argument. I was responding to the "utility" argument as it generally applies to welfare, and explaining why the same argument can't apply to Social Security.

I think we can all agree that SS recipients contribute little, if anything, to society as a whole, and I think that we can all agree that this will be the case, by and large, whether or not they receive SS.

Oh. That arguments pretty obvious. The whole idea is to provide for retired people, because they are retired.

[David Floyd]

Oh. That arguments pretty obvious. The whole idea is to provide for retired people, because they are retired.

Yeah, so why try to fabricate evidence for a position by bringing in an irrelevant utility argument? That was my point to begin with.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yeah, so why try to fabricate evidence for a position by bringing in an irrelevant utility argument? That was my point to begin with.

I thought you were making a utilitarian argument because of the word utility.