Would you support privatized Social Security?

[The_Eviscerator]

If the same social security money you pay now was suddenly placed in an account which you could actually track and allocate between 5-10 options of how your money would be invested... would you be interested?

Also, you would be able to name a beneficiary to receive this money in case of your untimely death.

The current system is fucking bullshit. People who never pay a fucking dime into it can collect if they prove that they are a complete fuck up. That is just wrong.

 

[the nature boy]

why not just give me my money so I can do with it as I see fit?

 

[The_Eviscerator]

why not just give me my money so I can do with it as I see fit?

Are you a memeber of congress?

 

[the nature boy]

Are you a memeber of congress?

no. I don't have enough money and I don't have any felonies on my record.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

no. I don't have enough money and I don't have any felonies on my record.

me neither... Seriously what do you think if the government allocated money for the current system for anyone 35 and over and anyone younger than that would instantly be in the new system?

 

[Becoming]

I just want my damn money...

 

[the nature boy]

me neither... Seriously what do you think if the government allocated money for the current system for anyone 35 and over and anyone younger than that would instantly be in the new system?

it depends. who runs this system? are they a non-profit organization? if no, how are they making money? I guess more information is needed. I'd really just like to have my money and put it in a IRA or something.

People in washington need to be put in prison for what they've done with social security. they've taken hard earned money and spent it on everything except the way it was intended.

 

[rnch]

and have the social security system "enron-ized"? taken over by some greedy Gordon Gekko character and drained dry??

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

 

[atlantabiolab]

No... I am democrat and I only believe in choice if it means killing a fetus.

LOL...that is too true.

 

[juve]

me neither... Seriously what do you think if the government allocated money for the current system for anyone 35 and over and anyone younger than that would instantly be in the new system?

I agree with the general concept, but how do you suppose such a dispersement would occur? Not to mention there's already a deficit

 

[atlantabiolab]

and have the social security system "enron-ized"? taken over by some greedy Gordon Gekko character and drained dry??

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

And what do you think is the future of Social Security??

 

[The_Eviscerator]

and have the social security system "enron-ized"? taken over by some greedy Gordon Gekko character and drained dry??

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

I understand what your saying, but the stock market... despite the recent crash... is always on the rise. Do you actually believe that your money put in at 16 years of age and on... would depreciate over the course of 49 years? I seriously doubt it... if it did it would mean we are enduring the apocolypse and we have bigger problems than Social Security.

No one would invest in single stocks... these would be various funds that were balanced and fairly safe for the long haul.

 

[juve]

I understand what your saying, but the stock market... despite the recent crash... is always on the rise. Do you actually believe that your money put in at 16 years of age and on... would depreciate over the course of 49 years? I seriously doubt it... if it did it would mean we are enduring the apocolypse and we have bigger problems than Social Security.

No one would invest in single stocks... these would be various funds that were balanced and fairly safe for the long haul.

Agreed, while investment can be xtremely volatile regarded in short-term the general trend is that of increasing, which generaly accounts for economic expansion. The only thing though, is if the market converges (not sure if this ever happened), then gotta 'eat up' all the savings.

Another issue, private SS better be more scrupulous and secure than current mutual funds

 

[the nature boy]

No one would invest in single stocks... these would be various funds that were balanced and fairly safe for the long haul.

while I don't think this is a bad idea... you are in essence telling me what to do with my money.

as for these funds, who determines what funds are used? who manages these funds? when you say they are balanced, how are they balanced? and what criteria are used to choose what makes up these funds, because that could lead to lots of corruption IMO.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

while I don't think this is a bad idea... you are in essence telling me what to do with my money.

as for these funds, who determines what funds are used? who manages these funds? when you say they are balanced, how are they balanced? and what criteria are used to choose what makes up these funds, because that could lead to lots of corruption IMO.

True... but the current system is far more corrupt. I am not a finance major or a stock broker, so as for balancing... I know there are funds that basically cover foreign, domestic and various other markets to take advantages of down-turns and upswings. The managers of these funds would have to be held under scrutiny of course... but with the current system... who is being scrutinized? All I know is that we are all getting royally assfucked.

 

[Longhorn85]

I think it is a great idea. I think Bush will take this on in term number two.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

and have the social security system "enron-ized"? taken over by some greedy Gordon Gekko character and drained dry??

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!

Hey smart guy? what is happening now?

 

[Tiervexx]

If you put half of what you pay in social security into low risk mutual funds you can come out ahead. To make things even better privatizing social security could open the door for some deep cuts in the income tax that would make those investments even more profitable.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

If you put half of what you pay in social security into low risk mutual funds you can come out ahead. To make things even better privatizing social security could open the door for some deep cuts in the income tax that would make those investments even more profitable.

I think what you are saying is true. Ultimately I would like to see no forced retirement benefits, and merely more incentives for investing in IRA's etc. Also, lowering the age to 50-55 without penalties would be a nice touch for those who may have the means to retire early.

 

[Forge]

Personally, I'm not planning on having ANY social security for my retirement. The way it is now I just can't depend on it. I'm going to make sure I'm set on my own, that way if I actually do get anything from SS it will all be extra.

I wish I could just turn SS off for me and not have to pay anything into it.

 

[FitFossil]

Personally, I'm not planning on having ANY social security for my retirement. The way it is now I just can't depend on it. I'm going to make sure I'm set on my own, that way if I actually do get anything from SS it will all be extra.

I wish I could just turn SS off for me and not have to pay anything into it.

Agreed. If I'm never going to see my money again, I'd rather it be from my own stupidity than from the government's.

Social Security was always meant to be a retirement supplement, and a minimal one at that, but lots of people never understood that this meant they'd actually have to do some saving themselves. I'm certainly not going to trust the government on what constitutes a "good" retirement. So, if those checks ever make it to my mailbox, it'll be a nice surprise - maybe a dinner out, rent a movie, a pedicure...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

What argument is there against allowing people to keep what they earned?

 

[gotmilk]

why not just give me my money so I can do with it as I see fit?

Because your average person is irresponsible and would lose their money. Look at how many elderly fall for phone scams on a regular basis.

As screwed up as Social Security is, it's better than nothing. Any time the US wants to stop pissing away tax payer money to foreign countries, we could reduce our deficits and actually be able to stop looting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security was designed by people who never counted on such a huge population explosion. It's like a bad famine and not enough food to go around, yet, the population keeps growing until the whole area collapses.

 

[the nature boy]

Because your average person is irresponsible and would lose their money. Look at how many elderly fall for phone scams on a regular basis.

As screwed up as Social Security is, it's better than nothing. Any time the US wants to stop pissing away tax payer money to foreign countries, we could reduce our deficits and actually be able to stop looting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security was designed by people who never counted on such a huge population explosion. It's like a bad famine and not enough food to go around, yet, the population keeps growing until the whole area collapses.

I have to disagree with you here bro. because right now social security is nothing. it's not going to work. so basically all the money that's been put into it has been spent already. If social security actually worked, and people were going to get their money, then you have a case. but that is no the case. give me my money to put into an IRA and I can get a better return that social security will. Shit, let me invest my social security money into gold and I know I'll do better than the return on social security.

and if you want to talk about foreign aid spending, it is literally pocket change compared to the social security crisis.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Because your average person is irresponsible and would lose their money. Look at how many elderly fall for phone scams on a regular basis.
[/b]

So what are the criteria for judging who is capable and who is not? Should Donald Trump tell you that you can't handle your money because you're not as rich as he is? Of course not. So what is your criteria then? Think hard about it because you are giving MY money to Grandma and I am not really too happy about it.

As screwed up as Social Security is, it's better than nothing. Any time the US wants to stop pissing away tax payer money to foreign countries, we could reduce our deficits and actually be able to stop looting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Um, actually, about 50% of the national debt is caused by SS. The sum total of US foreign aid every year is less than 10% of the cost of SS.

Social Security was designed by people who never counted on such a huge population explosion. It's like a bad famine and not enough food to go around, yet, the population keeps growing until the whole area collapses.

You said it yourself, whole area collapses.

How can you argue for this shit? Don;t you employ people? Aren't you sick of matching their SS? DOn;t you realize what is going to happen? The $80K cap is coming off and you're going to have to pay the SS tax on all your income.....doesn;t that bother you????

 

[Robert Jan]

I believe in solidarity

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I just want my damn money...

I just want to be guranteed that what I payed in, My FAMILY can get out. Fair is Fair. And if the government needs to rework SS or quit spending so much on wars, then they should do what ever it takes to make it happen.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Because your average person is irresponsible and would lose their money.

Well, then all of those average people have been running congress for YEARS and stealing social security funds for other things.! They're so irresponsible that the chances of me ever seeing any social security is nearing zero.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Because your average person is irresponsible and would lose their money.

So why would responsible people have to pick up the slack for these morons?

I understand what you are saying that is why I think we should have some mandatory retirement system as a failsafe to catch the total morons. The last thing we need is a bunch of 65 year old retired cretins screaming about how the government screwed them... when really they screwed themselves.

 

[Becoming]

The last thing we need is a bunch of 65 year old retired cretins screaming about how the government screwed them...

This is what I plan on doing if I DONT GET MY DAMN MONEY!!!

 

[juve]

When SS was conceived the estimate was that per subsidiary there would be roughly ~30 subsidees, right now it's only 3, and it is estimated to decline to 2.25 by 2025. Meaning: I will have no SS by the time I retire, there's already a deficit and a national debt, accrued from borrowing to boost consumption (real smart, but whatever), all the while I'm 'feeding' some incognito's. (figures come from BizWeek sometime in Feb)

Naturally, I'd like, if not have my money directly transferred to me, then to be allocated into investment to foster aggregate expenditure and over all production output (GDP), and consequently reap the benefits of this expansion

 

[gotmilk]

So what are the criteria for judging who is capable and who is not? Should Donald Trump tell you that you can't handle your money because you're not as rich as he is? Of course not. So what is your criteria then? Think hard about it because you are giving MY money to Grandma and I am not really too happy about it.

You can't judge individuals...but do you cast off the fools who would piss away their money? People like you and I make money because we recognize the value in projects. What do we do for the people who cannot recognize a safe investment and their retirement money disappears?

Um, actually, about 50% of the national debt is caused by SS. The sum total of US foreign aid every year is less than 10% of the cost of SS.

True Matt...but it's a start. I do not mind paying taxes to help Americans. I get pissed when I see $166 Billion sent to places like Iraq or I see more American taxpayer funds used to finance crap holes like Israel. I pay a sick amount of State and Federal taxes on a yearly basis. Atleast take care of the people who live near me before you take care of foreigners.

You said it yourself, whole area collapses.

How can you argue for this shit?

I am all for privatization because it puts millions back into the pocket of myself and the people I work with. However Matt....again I ask....what do we do for the people who blow their money????? Free Health care? more food stamps? More homeless shelters? In the end..tax payer money is going to be used to bail out the foolish clowns who blow their funds. People like you and I will someday be paying taxes of like 50 to 60% of our annual intake to cover the people who cannot be funded by government.

Don;t you employ people? Aren't you sick of matching their SS?

1800 people and HELL YA...I am pissed about Social Security, workers comp, insurance, employee health programs, and rediculous little fees that I end up pissing away every month. I am also sick of invisible waste (stolen product and mislabled inventory). However, I am willing to deal with "NOW" versus taking the chance of paying huge taxes in the future. You and I and everyone else can see a failing Federal Government and governments always cover debts with increased taxes.

DOn;t you realize what is going to happen? The $80K cap is coming off and you're going to have to pay the SS tax on all your income.....doesn;t that bother you????

Hell Ya...and in Maine...we now have to cover the Dirigo Health Plan that gives free care to 300,000 people (30% of the population). However, my argument about letting people self-invest their SS money is that foolish people will blow their money and people like you and I will be covering the asses in the end anyhow.

 

[gotmilk]

I have to disagree with you here bro. because right now social security is nothing. it's not going to work.

It was working for the people who retired 10 years ago. It no longer works because the number of people retiring far exceeds what Social Security was intended for.

There are many elderly people who can still work and should work. My point is that you cannot expect people to properly maintain their money and taxpayers like us will end up footing the bill anyhow.

Even 40 years from now, when SS officially bites the dust, will the US Government step up and say something like "Sorry old people...you are on your own...good luck!"

 

[Apöllo]

What makes you think all Democrats are against reforms in Social Security?

There is a greater yield in private accounts then in Social Security which I think is only 1%. I think it could be done safely, but this would open up doors for more regulation as you're messing with the safety net of society. Perhaps a new watchdog group would have to be formed to make sure private accounts are not "enronized"

 

[gotmilk]

So why would responsible people have to pick up the slack for these morons?

I understand what you are saying that is why I think we should have some mandatory retirement system as a failsafe to catch the total morons. The last thing we need is a bunch of 65 year old retired cretins screaming about how the government screwed them... when really they screwed themselves.

Because that's the way our government works. Why do I have to foot the bill for free health care in Maine...or watch my hard earned money relocate 9 Million North Koreans to the US.....or pay for 1000 Somali refugees (some admitted members of Aidid's militia) relocate to Maine..

Have we ever had a choice how our government spends our money? Fuck..we had a revolution over taxation without representation.

The thing is...there will be huge numbers of people who will piss away their money....and we will still end up footing the bill to cover these people when they are too old to work and need food, heating assistance, health care, etc.

Do we allow people to invest in mutual funds only to see some fund manager steal retirement money? Do you know how much retirement money was lost in Enron, Kmart, and dozens of mutual funds? Money that will never be recovered.

 

[redshirt27se]

I would support privatized SS, but I don't see it working out. The whole reason the SS system was put into place was because people were stupid and didn't put away money responsibly and we had 100 year old ladies bagging groceries. Why would people now be any more responsible, the poor people will still not put money away and still leach off the government. But considering most of us will never be able to collect ours anyways I say go for it.

 

[Apöllo]

I would support privatized SS, but I don't see it working out. The whole reason the SS system was put into place was because people were stupid and didn't put away money responsibly and we had 100 year old ladies bagging groceries. Why would people now be any more responsible, the poor people will still not put money away and still leach off the government. But considering most of us will never be able to collect ours anyways I say go for it.

People did put money away, they put it in the stock market, especially after WWI. Once the market went down EVERYONE lost all they had saved and invested. People used to be much more responsible and self reliant back then.

What really ruins the average person is the interest they pay on their ever expanding credit. Now-a-days they get deeper into debt buy shit they don't need. We are comsumers Jim!

 

[juve]

Do we allow people to invest in mutual funds only to see some fund manager steal retirement money? Do you know how much retirement money was lost in Enron, Kmart, and dozens of mutual funds? Money that will never be recovered.

So far this is the only sensible argument against privatization. But even now, SEC is encroaching upon mutual funds and expanding its regulatory/audit base, barring further funds 'mis-circulation'. How effective they are - time will show, but at least since Putnam scandal there has been a hiatus in unregulated practices, for the most part.

 

[gotmilk]

So far this is the only sensible argument against privatization. But even now, SEC is encroaching upon mutual funds and expanding its regulatory/audit base, barring further funds 'mis-circulation'. How effective they are - time will show, but at least since Putnam scandal there has been a hiatus in unregulated practices, for the most part.

I disagree, the OTC market is still being short sold from offshore and the NASD could care less. 13000 illegal offshore accounts were caught naked shorting companies and the NASD refuses to force a buy-in on illegal short postions. Reg SHO is nothing more than a joke to make it look like the SEC is trying to fix the problem.

A majority of hedge funds offshore continue to operate without restrictions and continue to illegally short our markets. In some cases, companies were found with short postions 4 to 10 times their registered OS levels. Once in awhile you catch a TASR short cover which goes from $3 to $150 (split adjusted) but the majority will never be covered. The investors who bought lost their money and government will never help recoup the funds.

It's sad when scamming funds and market makers are fined but allowed to continue practicing the same fraud. The fines are so miniscule that they could care less how many times they get caught. Granted, the government is finally adding some decent jail time in the mix, but for the most part, the markets are continuously screwed with at the expense of Joe Investor.

I am all for privatization...BUT....what does happen to those who lose their money?

 

[The_Eviscerator]

what does happen to those who lose their money?

I would find it hard to believe that the money would dissappear.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I am all for privatization...BUT....what does happen to those who lose their money?

They lose their money...this is not brain surgery. What happens when I drive my car at 100 miles an hour with my eyes closed??? What should society be responsible for in this circumstance?? This "Well what about the stupids" mentality is what allows for the constant expansion of government power. There is always a new "group" who needs something, who demands to access the national treasury for their own benefit, so there is no end to such programs.

As for your idea of being "all for privatization", I don't see this. Your whole argument has been, "well if I am gonna pay for their healthcare, why not pay for their retirement too?" You have accepted socialism hook line and sinker. You are OK with this program and that, and well why not add another if I have to pay for them anyways. The answer to this problem is privatize as much back to personal responsibility, where it belongs.

Too many can't fathom that the US has only recently succumbed to socialism, there was a time when men were forced to be responsible for their actions. When you change the context of reality, man lives in this context...no social programs, then men work and save for their retirement. Change the context of his world to that of one where his retirement is provided for him, he does not save. In the context of a world where if he loses his savings, then his family provides for him. In the context of a world where a social program will provide for him, his family relinquishes its obligations onto others.

 

[Apöllo]

I would find it hard to believe that the money would dissappear.

Oh it doesn't disappear, but the chances of those who lose ever getting thier money back is zero.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Because that's the way our government works. Why do I have to foot the bill for free health care in Maine...or watch my hard earned money relocate 9 Million North Koreans to the US.....or pay for 1000 Somali refugees (some admitted members of Aidid's militia) relocate to Maine..[/b]

Generally thos who are against SS are also against other such forms of social welfare.

Have we ever had a choice how our government spends our money? Fuck..we had a revolution over taxation without representation.

We have had men who understood that our government was not granted such powers of tax and spend:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

The thing is...there will be huge numbers of people who will piss away their money....and we will still end up footing the bill to cover these people when they are too old to work and need food, heating assistance, health care, etc.

So, why not add one more burden to our backs?

Do we allow people to invest in mutual funds only to see some fund manager steal retirement money? Do you know how much retirement money was lost in Enron, Kmart, and dozens of mutual funds? Money that will never be recovered.

Such occurances happen, but the courts have the ability to punish such people and we see this happening -not to our likes, but to some degree. Have you ever seen government agencies or its members being prosecuted for squandering tax money; money in amounts that makes the above scandals paltry in comparison?? Business has a greater incentive to cater to the public than government. Business is accountable to the customers and laws, government has our money and makes and enforces the laws...who is the better choice? The DMV is the perfect example of government efficiency.

 

[gotmilk]

They lose their money...this is not brain surgery.

No politician in the United States is going to say something like "sorry...you blew it".

What happens when I drive my car at 100 miles an hour with my eyes closed??? What should society be responsible for in this circumstance??

Do honestly think this is a good analogy? If 40 Million people were driving a hundred miles an hour with their eyes closed, would society blow it off? A poor example but you are comparing one person with potentially millions who would screw themselves. If investing money is so easy, why are there so many people with financial problems?

This "Well what about the stupids" mentality is what allows for the constant expansion of government power. There is always a new "group" who needs something, who demands to access the national treasury for their own benefit, so there is no end to such programs.

And government always responds with some sort of program where the lazy and the stupid are covered....by those of us responsible enough to make money and pay taxes. We will always take care of the "stupids" because that's how our society works. Politicians get elected and re-elected by ensuring the "stupids" are taken care of.....all the more reason why privatization only benefits those who are smart enough to protect their investments.

your idea of being "all for privatization", I don't see this. Your whole argument has been, "well if I am gonna pay for their healthcare, why not pay for their retirement too?" You have accepted socialism hook line and sinker. You are OK with this program and that, and well why not add another if I have to pay for them anyways. The answer to this problem is privatize as much back to personal responsibility, where it belongs.

I am saying that either way...the people who make the money will still have to cover those who blow their money. I would rather pay a little now than pay a shit load in taxes a few decades from now. You simply cannot develop a system where you cast off the irresponsible people...

Too many can't fathom that the US has only recently succumbed to socialism, there was a time when men were forced to be responsible for their actions. When you change the context of reality, man lives in this context...no social programs, then men work and save for their retirement. Change the context of his world to that of one where his retirement is provided for him, he does not save. In the context of a world where if he loses his savings, then his family provides for him. In the context of a world where a social program will provide for him, his family relinquishes its obligations onto others.

I agree...but again I ask....do you think a President will set up a system where the irresponsible are simply cast off? Name one country that is thriving economically where they cast off the irresponsible. A country where crime is low, the economy thriving, and where the majority of citizens are happy.

I personally have a dozen relatives who are too lazy to work and have abused the system. These are people who can physically and mentally work but simply are too lazy to do so. In the end, their medical and health care bills will still be covered in one form or another. This will continue to happen as long as government exists because the politicians will be out of careers when they start ignoring the needy in mass.

 

[collegiateLifter]

I would take privatized Social Security over what we currently have.

And I would slowly phase the whole thing out completely, if given the choice.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I believe that the assertion that the government is looking out for our best interest is best defeated by the track record of the government itself. It seems they've clearly demonstrated year after year that they have no real interest in me or the populace in general.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Name one country that is thriving economically where they cast off the irresponsible. A country where crime is low, the economy thriving, and where the majority of citizens are happy.

Like too many, you are denying the history of America, which DID NOT have socialized programs throughout its years of existence. Social Security is relatively new; how did we survive without it?

 

[Tiervexx]

Volentary charity is actully a better way of taking care of the truely needy.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Quote:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

Awesome quotes! This really opens my eyes as to how out of whack we have become due to democrats being in power in congress for so many years. It may tak 80 years of republican rule to get somewhere near what the founding father's intended. Although, I feel Libertarians are the purest descendants of our founding fathers.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Volentary charity is actully a better way of taking care of the truely needy.

The role of the family has also been discarded in the Welfare State.

 

[gotmilk]

Like too many, you are denying the history of America, which DID NOT have socialized programs throughout its years of existence. Social Security is relatively new; how did we survive without it?

I'm not ignoring the past...in fact, I think it's ironic that people forget that the Indians did not hand out food stamps and welfare to the Pilgrims. On the otherhand, there were not 300 Million people in the US either at that time.

You're missing the point I am trying to make.....

We reached a point in time where the "stupids" will always have access to some kind of free care at the expense of those who bust our asses. Even with a privatized SS program, taxpayers will still be footing the bill for those who blow their money. No politician is ever going to tell people "tough luck" for not saving their money.

The same way we pay higher credit card interest to make up for the losses of those who screw the pooch.

 

[Tiervexx]

I'm not ignoring the past...in fact, I think it's ironic that people forget that the Indians did not hand out food stamps and welfare to the Pilgrims. On the otherhand, there were not 300 Million people in the US either at that time.

You're missing the point I am trying to make.....

We reached a point in time where the "stupids" will always have access to some kind of free care at the expense of those who bust our asses. Even with a privatized SS program, taxpayers will still be footing the bill for those who blow their money. No politician is ever going to tell people "tough luck" for not saving their money.

The same way we pay higher credit card interest to make up for the losses of those who screw the pooch.

You obviously don't understand the diffrence between private institutions and government institutions. Private charities save the trouble of using tax payer dollars.

As for the comment about politicians, they can tell people what ever they want if they make points of proposing alternatives (explain how privatization works for people that think starvation is the only alternative if the government does not help) and they be careful about how they phrase everything.

I am confident that people will support privatization after they get a chance to see it work if it is ever given a chance.

 

[atlantabiolab]

No politician is ever going to tell people "tough luck" for not saving their money.[/b]

Not as long as people continue to vote for candidates who PROCLAIM that they will protect the "poor" and "unfortunate".

The same way we pay higher credit card interest to make up for the losses of those who screw the pooch.

I can opt out of a credit card, I can't opt out of the tax system (legally).

 

[Apöllo]

America was a SHIT HOLE until after WWI America didn't need social programs then because it was an untamed mess, and don't any of you pretend that it wasn't. During WWI America made it's fortune off of the countries at war. Then we go and blow it all and continue to over produce and the stock market crashes. Then we realize, "Hey, government is the voice of the people, maybe it should do what the people want."

Of course pre WWI America didn't need social programs because people were out on their own in a NEW WORLD. God History should be clearly described when brought into arguments.

 

[atlantabiolab]

America was a SHIT HOLE until after WWI America didn't need social programs then because it was an untamed mess, and don't any of you pretend that it wasn't. During WWI America made it's fortune off of the countries at war. Then we go and blow it all and continue to over produce and the stock market crashes. Then we realize, "Hey, government is the voice of the people, maybe it should do what the people want."

Of course pre WWI America didn't need social programs because people were out on their own in a NEW WORLD. God History should be clearly described when brought into arguments.

This is not history, this is your perspective of today vs. yesterday. America, pre-1900's was still mostly rural, the massive industrialization had not yet taken over. During these days, rural life was much more haphazard than industrial life: families had to pretty much take care of most of their needs themselves. Build your own homes, grow your own food and more to sell at the market, hope your crops don't fail, hope you don't get some illness that could not be treated by the current medical practice, etc. Pre-1900's life was MORE in need of social programs, if you wish to claim, than today.

Our less secure free nation produced an industrialized nation and then realized that it could control it by democracy and take from the government cookie jar what it wished.

 

[Robert Jan]

Volentary charity is actully a better way of taking care of the truely needy.

I agree but its never going to work because people dont give a fuck if their 400 dollar shoes could have been helping the needy

 

[Apöllo]

Yes Voluntary Charity is great. Actually because of such generous folks here in America we currently have homeless population of virtually zero. Young People get to freely go to any university they qualify for. Any time a cancer patient needs an operation the voluntary charity always picks up the tab. Also there is no garbage on our roads and potholes are always filled because people here are so fucking eager to give back!

 

[onebigab]

And what do you think is the future of Social Security??

I don't think their is one. It probably will disappear by the time I would be able to collect. This is why I will not rely on it for my future.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Yes Voluntary Charity is great. Actually because of such generous folks here in America we currently have homeless population of virtually zero. Young People get to freely go to any university they qualify for. Any time a cancer patient needs an operation the voluntary charity always picks up the tab. Also there is no garbage on our roads and potholes are always filled because people here are so fucking eager to give back!

Such a filtered look at reality. This is pure horseshit. America has social programs AND numerous non-profit charitable organizations. Why would such charities exist if we were so "greedy" and "selfish", especially in a world where social programs exist? It is because many people wish to help others and always have. And many are those despised "religious" people, who help others...you know those "fools" who believe in God.

You seem to think that there exists some Utopia that exists or can be created, if we only strive hard enough, where no man ever has wants, no person ever dies, no person ever becomes apathetic and rejects assistance. The most centrally planned countries have some of the worst records of human existence and you think that they just didn't try hard enough. Because man can conceive of a "perfect" state of existence, he will always fall for the idiocy of social engineering, and deny its failures, as well as demonize the value of freedom, for it does not provide eqalitarianism.

 

[collegiateLifter]

I can opt out of a credit card, I can't opt out of the tax system (legally).

Actually you can.

America has free-travel.

Move to another country and change your citizneship if you choose.

You are thus only in America's tax system by your own choice.

 

[Tiervexx]

Such a filtered look at reality. This is pure horseshit. America has social programs AND numerous non-profit charitable organizations. Why would such charities exist if we were so "greedy" and "selfish", especially in a world where social programs exist? It is because many people wish to help others and always have. And many are those despised "religious" people, who help others...you know those "fools" who believe in God.

You seem to think that there exists some Utopia that exists or can be created, if we only strive hard enough, where no man ever has wants, no person ever dies, no person ever becomes apathetic and rejects assistance. The most centrally planned countries have some of the worst records of human existence and you think that they just didn't try hard enough. Because man can conceive of a "perfect" state of existence, he will always fall for the idiocy of social engineering, and deny its failures, as well as demonize the value of freedom, for it does not provide eqalitarianism.

Thank you.

There is absolutly no reason to have the disgusting view of human nature demonstrated by the fiscal left. Every free sociaty has always been very generous with charity, unlike the very cold sociaties that have always become very cold.

Real capitalism would also make everyone that works a lot richer. This will decrease ne need for charity and increase the ability of the generious to pay.

 

[Apöllo]

Why isn't charity filling the holes that social programs don't fill? I agree that my last comment was a bit harsh, but I'm having a hard time being convinced that charity will fill the huge hole that will be left if you cut social programs.

Before America had massive social programs why didn't charity cover the gaps? Were the goverment or private organizations running the majority of soup lines during the depression? I'm sorry but history fights your case. Why has every developed nation created social programs if they didn't need them?

 

[Tiervexx]

Why isn't charity filling the holes that social programs don't fill? I agree that my last comment was a bit harsh, but I'm having a hard time being convinced that charity will fill the huge hole that will be left if you cut social programs.

Before America had massive social programs why didn't charity cover the gaps? Were the goverment or private organizations running the majority of soup lines during the depression? I'm sorry but history fights your case. Why has every developed nation created social programs if they didn't need them?

Government control makes people more apathedic amoung many other things. It has happend time and time again.

In the many years before we hand a welfare state charity DID prevent people from starving.

Druing the great depression almost nobody had the money for that sort of thing, and all the government intervention deepend the depression which only caused more people to starve.

Social programs started out as tiny experiments, hardly anybody really thought that they would become very important at first, but once they were started they spread like an infection because government welfare only creates the need for more welfare.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Why isn't charity filling the holes that social programs don't fill? I agree that my last comment was a bit harsh, but I'm having a hard time being convinced that charity will fill the huge hole that will be left if you cut social programs.

Before America had massive social programs why didn't charity cover the gaps? Were the goverment or private organizations running the majority of soup lines during the depression? I'm sorry but history fights your case. Why has every developed nation created social programs if they didn't need them?

Freedom allows inequalities to exist; because inequalities exist, many desire positive actions to correct such inequalities, sometimes ignoring the inevitable problems that their "solutions" will cause and the immoral manners in which they must be enacted. The goal was so desirable, that the manner in which it applied was, to them, tolerable.

If charities exist to assist with inequalities of need, and provide what social programs can, with no coercion required, then what is the reason for social programs, especially when it demands servitude?

 

[Apöllo]

I think maybe you guys might try doing meals on wheels or another charity to get a better picture of what is really going on.

 

[Tiervexx]

I think maybe you guys might try doing meals on wheels or another charity to get a better picture of what is really going on.

Remove the income tax and the number and size of donations will explode like you never though possible.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I think maybe you guys might try doing meals on wheels or another charity to get a better picture of what is really going on.

What end result do you presume will occur with the existence of our social programs? What do you feel is the end goal?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Why isn't charity filling the holes that social programs don't fill? I agree that my last comment was a bit harsh, but I'm having a hard time being convinced that charity will fill the huge hole that will be left if you cut social programs.
[/b]

Charities do fill much of the holes. The concept of individual rights as pertaining to the founding and guiding principles of America do not entitle everyone to have all their needs met, rather, only an opportunity to freely try and meet those needs. Hence "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right, not "happiness".

There is absolutely no rational derivation of the concept of meeting other people's needs in any discussion of freedom.

Before America had massive social programs why didn't charity cover the gaps? Were the goverment or private organizations running the majority of soup lines during the depression? I'm sorry but history fights your case. Why has every developed nation created social programs if they didn't need them?

Actually, before the advent of social programs and government intervention, there was almost no such thing as unemployment. Government actually created the concept of unemployment by preventing individuals from entering into voluntary working agreements.

The Depression, as you may know, led to the creation of many of the social programs in place today. However, the Depression was also government created; the creation of a federal reserve was designed to create 'unlimited' assets against which to borrow, whereas the gold standard by definition limited what was available.

The result was the roaring twneties 'spend spend spend' followed by the depression. All due to government intervention.

 

[Apöllo]

Actually, before the advent of social programs and government intervention, there was almost no such thing as unemployment. Government actually created the concept of unemployment by preventing individuals from entering into voluntary working agreements.

The Depression, as you may know, led to the creation of many of the social programs in place today. However, the Depression was also government created; the creation of a federal reserve was designed to create 'unlimited' assets against which to borrow, whereas the gold standard by definition limited what was available.

The result was the roaring twneties 'spend spend spend' followed by the depression. All due to government intervention.

You're right Matt, you would think unemployement would be low during times of explotation. However, you might want to read up some more about the social climate during those times and check to make sure that statement is correct.

If you believe the goverment caused the depression of the 30's, what do you think caused the Depression of 1859? What about the Depression of 1883 that lasted through the 1890's? Do you believe those were created by goverment?

 

[atlantabiolab]

If you believe the goverment caused the depression of the 30's, what do you think caused the Depression of 1859? What about the Depression of 1883 that lasted through the 1890's? Do you believe those were created by goverment?

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1395&id=66

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

You're right Matt, you would think unemployement would be low during times of explotation. However, you might want to read up some more about the social climate during those times and check to make sure that statement is correct.

If you believe the goverment caused the depression of the 30's, what do you think caused the Depression of 1859? What about the Depression of 1883 that lasted through the 1890's? Do you believe those were created by goverment?

The "great" depression was so named because it surpassed all others, just as the federal reserve was the greatest intervention of government into business up to that point.

Government has been intervening since the beginning, it got worse with railroads, and continues to make things worse as we speak.

Poor people are voting themselves money from rich people, to the detriment of econimic growth; government supports this, people get screwed, who cares, right?

 

[the nature boy]

Poor people are voting themselves money from rich people, to the detriment of econimic growth; government supports this, people get screwed, who cares, right?

I do not support social programs, but you are making it sound like all the tax money is going to poor people. and you know that's not the case. in fact I'd wager that a larger percentage is going back to rich people, in terms of government contracts

 

[Apöllo]

The "great" depression was so named because it surpassed all others, just as the federal reserve was the greatest intervention of government into business up to that point.

Government has been intervening since the beginning, it got worse with railroads, and continues to make things worse as we speak.

Poor people are voting themselves money from rich people, to the detriment of econimic growth; government supports this, people get screwed, who cares, right?

Did you find any dubious govermental link within the depressions in the 1800's besides the goverment giving the railroads, which were private companies, all that land for free?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Did you find any dubious govermental link within the depressions in the 1800's besides the goverment giving the railroads, which were private companies, all that land for free?

If you just want to disagree, we can do that, I'll stop typing responses to you after this message; you're arguing against rudimentary econmic principles by citing small, out of context exceptions. It's like finding a handful of examples of government spending that is efficient and saying "what waste?"

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. Enjoy your perspective...I wonder what color the sky is in your world.

Every railroad that received government land-grants or monies failed at establishing a transcontinetal rail line. It was finally built by James Jerome Hill, with no government assistance.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I do not support social programs, but you are making it sound like all the tax money is going to poor people. and you know that's not the case. in fact I'd wager that a larger percentage is going back to rich people, in terms of government contracts

WRONG, Pilgrim!

First, I said that the majority of tax dollars is coming FROM rich people; they are. The top 1% pays almost 50% of the tax burden, the top 10% pays over 80%.

Second, I said poor people are voting to take money from the rich, what other conclusion can you draw from the above? Rich people aren;t voting to give it away.

Where does it go? Well, between SS and Medicare, about half of the money goes to old people. Old people are the wealthiest segment of society, but they are not "the rich" in the classic definition. Throw in another $100B for federal pensions annually too. Since SS is in theory a return on $$$ paid in, it 'favors' those who already paid the most.

The of course there is interest on the debt, good for approx $300B / yr. While a lot of bond holders are rich, many are also foreign governments, many are not rich, and regardless, this is a repayment of a debt, not a 'payout'.

Finally there is defense. While some people do get rich off of contracts, a good deal of this budget is used to pay the military....no rich people there....as well as all of the low level GS civilians that perform may on-post functions.

Out of a $2T budget, over 75% is spoken for before rich people, poor people, etc anyone, gets aything.

The difference is, the money comes FROM rich people, who are victimized by a government that has demonized them to garner votes from the poor and the middle class as well.

 

[Apöllo]

If you just want to disagree, we can do that, I'll stop typing responses to you after this message; you're arguing against rudimentary econmic principles by citing small, out of context exceptions. It's like finding a handful of examples of government spending that is efficient and saying "what waste?"

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. Enjoy your perspective...I wonder what color the sky is in your world.

Every railroad that received government land-grants or monies failed at establishing a transcontinetal rail line. It was finally built by James Jerome Hill, with no government assistance.

I wasn't trying to make you upset, I'm sorry. I was only trying to give examples. The depressions of the 1800's were on a smaller scale simply because urbanization was still low and our position in the global market, but they were no less devastating to those who lived in those times, especially in the late 1800's.

Again I'm sorry. Let's put this behind us.

 

[the nature boy]

WRONG, Pilgrim!

First, I said that the majority of tax dollars is coming FROM rich people; they are. The top 1% pays almost 50% of the tax burden, the top 10% pays over 80%.

Second, I said poor people are voting to take money from the rich, what other conclusion can you draw from the above? Rich people aren;t voting to give it away.

Where does it go? Well, between SS and Medicare, about half of the money goes to old people. Old people are the wealthiest segment of society, but they are not "the rich" in the classic definition. Throw in another $100B for federal pensions annually too. Since SS is in theory a return on $$$ paid in, it 'favors' those who already paid the most.

The of course there is interest on the debt, good for approx $300B / yr. While a lot of bond holders are rich, many are also foreign governments, many are not rich, and regardless, this is a repayment of a debt, not a 'payout'.

Finally there is defense. While some people do get rich off of contracts, a good deal of this budget is used to pay the military....no rich people there....as well as all of the low level GS civilians that perform may on-post functions.

Out of a $2T budget, over 75% is spoken for before rich people, poor people, etc anyone, gets aything.

The difference is, the money comes FROM rich people, who are victimized by a government that has demonized them to garner votes from the poor and the middle class as well.

pehaps I went to far for saying by saying the money goes rich people, I should say people who are not poor, which is as you stated (i know I'm splitting hairs here).
I realize rich people pay more taxes since they earn more.

2nd, you are using clever wording here, because poor people do not vote to get money, they vote for politicians to give them money. And truthfully they can vote for either party and get some cash. ALSO, a the poorer you are, the more likely you are to NOT vote.

Besides social security and welfare, people are not directly given money. The money is paid to clinics hospitals, and administrators and contractors that manage the welfare state. There is a massive infrastructure requred to run the welfare state, and it's not run and managed by poor people. The poor aren't the only ones making mone on social programs.

If half the money goes to old people who are not poor nor rich, then you are incorrect by saying the money goes to poor people (splitting hairs but you did say this in your other post).

If you look at defense, if the $396B spent, nearly half goes to R&D and procurement. And as for the $180B spent on operations and maintenence, it is hard to tell what is being contracted out to contractors such as Raytheon or similar companies.

Next we can look at Farm Subsides, or corporate welfare programs, and departments like NASA. That money isn't going to poor people.

I guess I'm agreeing with you, but I am adding that it's not only the poor people who are making money off the Federal Government. It appears like everyone except me is making money off Uncle Sam.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I wasn't trying to make you upset, I'm sorry. I was only trying to give examples. The depressions of the 1800's were on a smaller scale simply because urbanization was still low and our position in the global market, but they were no less devastating to those who lived in those times, especially in the late 1800's.

Again I'm sorry. Let's put this behind us.

no problem mang.

 

[atlantabiolab]

pehaps I went to far for saying by saying the money goes rich people, I should say people who are not poor, which is as you stated (i know I'm splitting hairs here).
I realize rich people pay more taxes since they earn more.

2nd, you are using clever wording here, because poor people do not vote to get money, they vote for politicians to give them money. And truthfully they can vote for either party and get some cash. ALSO, a the poorer you are, the more likely you are to NOT vote.

Besides social security and welfare, people are not directly given money. The money is paid to clinics hospitals, and administrators and contractors that manage the welfare state. There is a massive infrastructure requred to run the welfare state, and it's not run and managed by poor people. The poor aren't the only ones making mone on social programs.

If half the money goes to old people who are not poor nor rich, then you are incorrect by saying the money goes to poor people (splitting hairs but you did say this in your other post).

If you look at defense, if the $396B spent, nearly half goes to R&D and procurement. And as for the $180B spent on operations and maintenence, it is hard to tell what is being contracted out to contractors such as Raytheon or similar companies.

Next we can look at Farm Subsides, or corporate welfare programs, and departments like NASA. That money isn't going to poor people.

I guess I'm agreeing with you, but I am adding that it's not only the poor people who are making money off the Federal Government. It appears like everyone except me is making money off Uncle Sam.

LOL! This is the great efficiency of government programs; once every middle man (the infrastructure) gets his share, what goes to the "end user" is diddly, so next year the advocates clamor for more money. It never ends, because the more people working IN the beauracracy, the more they defend the system to promote their self-interest. It is always promoted with the idea of dealing with some problem of society, but more of it goes to those in the system than those they claim to assist.

"the powers of Congress are few and defined.." HA! We have interpreted this concept completely out of existence.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

pehaps I went to far for saying by saying the money goes rich people, I should say people who are not poor, which is as you stated (i know I'm splitting hairs here). I realize rich people pay more taxes since they earn more.
[/b]

Yes, the fact of the matter is the current tax code ass-pounds the rich, ignores the poor, and placates the middle class.

2nd, you are using clever wording here, because poor people do not vote to get money, they vote for politicians to give them money. And truthfully they can vote for either party and get some cash. ALSO, a the poorer you are, the more likely you are to NOT vote.

Agreed the poorer segments vote less. And yes both parties do this. Whether they vote "for money" or "for politicians who promise them money" is really semantics in terms of the ultimate outcome.

Besides social security and welfare, people are not directly given money.

True, however this represents in excess of 25% of the annual federal budget.

The money is paid to clinics hospitals, and administrators and contractors that manage the welfare state. There is a massive infrastructure requred to run the welfare state, and it's not run and managed by poor people. The poor aren't the only ones making mone on social programs.

You are correct, there are 17Million people employed by the federal government or government contractors. This is unbelievable. New York State itself has 250,000 emloyees / contractor employees. New York City has another 200,000. If you consider the amount of government employees across all states and municipalities, it is over 30 Million. It may be much higher, figures are hard to obtain for small town governments, which are legion.

Imagine, a workforce of 140M, 30-40M of which are there to "watch" the others. What a waste and inefficiency, huh?

On another note, with 40M working for the government, how close are we to socialism? The effective tax rate for the highest earners is well over 50% if you include local and property taxes, as well as sales taxes etc.

If half the money goes to old people who are not poor nor rich, then you are incorrect by saying the money goes to poor people (splitting hairs but you did say this in your other post).

The real point is that the money goes AWAY from those who have produced it.

If you look at defense, if the $396B spent, nearly half goes to R&D and procurement. And as for the $180B spent on operations and maintenence, it is hard to tell what is being contracted out to contractors such as Raytheon or similar companies.

Most of the money paid to contractors goes to employees. Senior execs make seemginly high salaries, but also have to guide a company that competes aggressively for the work.

Next we can look at Farm Subsides, or corporate welfare programs, and departments like NASA. That money isn't going to poor people.

These things are a minute portion of the federal budget. Farm subsidies kill the third world, I disagree with them. Corporate welfare is often needed after government gets involved with business. I say kill the corporate welfare, also kill the intervention into the economy.

I guess I'm agreeing with you, but I am adding that it's not only the poor people who are making money off the Federal Government. It appears like everyone except me is making money off Uncle Sam.

the plight of the american taxpayer.

 

[Tiervexx]

"The state is the great fiction by which everyone expects to live
at the expense of everyone else." -Fredric Bastiat