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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

In the days before SS, the elderly consisted most of the 'poor'. And during the Great Depression 50% of elderly people were living below the poverty line.

Let's see... no money for food or health care... hmmm... what do you think was going to happen?

[David Floyd]

No, I never make utilitarian arguments - in my opinion, they never address the fundamental issues.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, I never make utilitarian arguments - in my opinion, they never address the fundamental issues.

I thought you were trying to make the point that others couldn't make a utilitarian argument.

[David Floyd]

In the days before SS, the elderly consisted most of the 'poor'. And during the Great Depression 50% of elderly people were living below the poverty line.

Let's see... no money for food or health care... hmmm... what do you think was going to happen?

I expect them to die, if they can't get help from their families or support themselves - but I don't expect a public health epidemic resulting from herds of old people dropping like flies in the street.

Jesus, this debate is chock full of utter bull****. First someone tries to apply an argument from utility, and then the old "but they'll all die in the streets" crap gets bandied about (as if that was ever actually what happened before SS).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I expect them to die

Expect in one hand and **** in the other. See which one fills up faster.

[Mr. Harley]

David Floyd : 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.

Actually, they did die, just mostly not in the streets. Look at the history of paupers graves, and the large numbers. Hell, look at how many they bury there today in NYC. They starved to death, or died from disease and lack of health care, or died like we have street people dying today but in alleys and in slums - nicely out of the way of the middle and upper class. However, you did have children often taking up the slack, and the elderly parent often became a source of childcare for the working poor. If you don't believe it happened, read this funny guy named Dickens. You know, one of the Dead White Males that wrote - (whisper) classics.

However, there are a ton of confusers, including Vesayen's initial post with the underlying premise. It was Social Security Insurance, not accounts, not investments, et al. As an insurance program it worked, it was when they started using it to buy votes (primarily done by the Democrats, FYI), and started adding new recipients, as well as raiding it for general revenue while issuing IOU's, that the system started to break down.

Actually Reagan and the Democrats in Congress made the first modern fixes. The problem is that right now the system is so partisan that any changes will be filtered through the lens of who will gain the advantage. The Democrats are not paticularly in a mood to compromise when, after 9/11, many of those moderate Democrats who were bipartisan were instead targeted by Republican operatives. Since bipartinship meant you were targeted as vulnerable (moderates were defined as vulnerable) - guess what, many Democrats stopped being bipartisan. What a surprise. Sort of like conservatives during the Vietnam Era (get villified and then refuse to compromise with liberals). What a surprise. (do I really need to post rolleyes - nah, he's smart enough to figure it out).

This is not the first time either party has done this, however it comes at a hideously bad time for Social Security. The only quick fix, which makes sense IMHO after the debacle of the so-called tax cuts (a freshman in econmics could do a better job targeting tax cuts for growth, and if you don't think these tax cuts were not laden with presents for contributors then you are genuinely stupid) would be to eliminate the ceiling on salaries, wages, and benefits that are taxed for SSI. If you factor in that and the Alternative Minimum Tax, we will be slowly moving towards a convergence that gives the majority of taxpayers a flat tax. Mr. Forbes wins anyway.

Imran's short historical overview of SSI and why it came into being.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Expect in one hand and **** in the other. See which one fills up faster.

Everyone dies. My expectation is 100% accurate.

shawn,

Actually, they did die, just mostly not in the streets. Look at the history of paupers graves, and the large numbers. Hell, look at how many they bury there today in NYC. They starved to death, or died from disease and lack of health care, or died like we have street people dying today but in alleys and in slums

Yes, that was sort of my point. I'm aware that without Social Security life expectancy would go down, but I'm not so sure that's necessarily a bad thing. All I'm saying is that the scaremongreing argument of "they'll all die in the streets and create a health epidemic" is pretty well bull****.

As an insurance program it worked, it was when they started using it to buy votes (primarily done by the Democrats, FYI), and started adding new recipients, as well as raiding it for general revenue while issuing IOU's, that the system started to break down.

Well, that, and the greatly increased life expectancy - which is partly fueled by another social program, Medicare, which I also oppose.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Old people die anyway.

But they vote quite a few times before doing so.

[Jaguar]

If I were in charge of things, they wouldn't.