Is Social Security Welfare?

[lx43]

I agree with the article that Social Security is welfare for the reasons stated below. This program should be ended or at the very least the process should be started to end it, along with all other welfare programs.


http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/is-social-security-welfare/

Most Americans would never consider Social Security to be welfare because they think that they paid, or are paying, into the system their whole working lives and therefore earned, or are earning, their benefits and are just receiving, or will be receiving, their contributions back with interest.

Social Security is welfare because there is no connection between the taxes paid and the benefits received. Take two men who are the same age and have identical incomes. One works for exactly 35 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. The other works for 45 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. Since Social Security benefits are based on the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings, as related above, the benefit amount that these two men receive every month will be substantially the same. The fact that each man paid vastly different amounts into the system yet received basically the same benefits is irrefutable proof that there is no connection between Social Security taxes and benefits.

Social Security is welfare because Congress may, at will, change the Social Security benefit schedule at any time. According to Title XI, section 1104 of the Social Security Act, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress.” That means that Social Security taxes can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security benefits; conversely, Social Security benefits can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security taxes. According to the Social Security Administration website,


Social Security should be considered welfare because it is not an investment with a rate of return. Roosevelt falsely promoted Social Security to Americans as a “savings account for the old age of the worker” with contributions made by employers and employees through payroll taxes “held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.” The first beneficiary to receive a Social Security check was Ida May Fuller in 1940. After paying in just $24.75 in Social Security taxes, she went on to collect $22,888 in benefits. According to a 2002 Congressional Research Service report on “Social Security Reform,” workers who retired at full retirement age in 1980 got back all they paid into Social Security, with interest, in 2.8 years. On the other hand, someone can pay into the system his whole working life and, if he dies upon retirement without dependents, his “savings account” dies with him. Even George W. Bush recognized the nature of the system:

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, it's welfare. But it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes. It's called the "third rail of politics" for a reason.

[pcosmar]

Yes, it's welfare. .

I believe Ponzi Scheme is more accurate. But welfare will do.

[kcchiefs6465]

Well, a lot of people paid into the program their entire life and were promised it, so I'd say the government is pretty damn obligated to give them it. The system is unstainable and will definitely not be around when I would be eligible to receive so I would love to not have my money taken. (that I need in the present, not when the dollar is determined to be ample shit paper) Quite honestly, the whole damn system is so big it will collapse and many, many people will die. (Particularly the eldery who rely on the benefits and have no means of providing for themselves elsewise) I don't want to see it happen any more than the next man but it is inevitable. As Ron Paul has stated, "Those that live above their means are destined to live beneath their means." It's a sad topic actually, and there really isn't a solution in sight. Other than, printing more money, which is not a solution at all. As to whether or not it's welfare, in my opinion I do not think so.


ETA: Ponzi scheme is a very good analogy.

[loveableteddybear]

Yes. Anything that pays people not to work and encourages irresponsibility is bad.

[lx43]

Yes, it's welfare. But it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes. It's called the "third rail of politics" for a reason.

How do you change that though so people start to want to end it?

[CaptLouAlbano]

My wife and I both get our checks every month. They are a pittance compared to the annuity we have set up for ourselves as well as the income stream we still receive from rental properties. Nonetheless, I do not consider it to be welfare - a bad idea from the start for sure, but not welfare in the traditional definition of the word.

[lx43]

My wife and I both get our checks every month. They are a pittance compared to the annuity we have set up for ourselves as well as the income stream we still receive from rental properties. Nonetheless, I do not consider it to be welfare - a bad idea from the start for sure, but not welfare in the traditional definition of the word.

Would you be willing though to start the process of ending it? If so, a person who is on Social Security how would you want it to be ended?

Also, what about my right to keep the money I make? I have more of right to the money I earn than someone who just votes for a living. By that I mean I physically had to earn my money by actually doing the work in my opinion trumps your right to take what some elected official promised you.

[loveableteddybear]

Everyone is libertarian besides the stuff they like that the gov't gives 'em.

[erowe1]

How do you change that though so people start to want to end it?

What you're doing here is a good start.

We need to shift the rhetoric when it comes to Social Security. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling it welfare. That's what it is, period, with no asterisk. So we need to call it that often enough that the label gets accepted and then taken for granted. Along the same lines we need to attack the mentality that people are owed it. They aren't. It's not their money, and it's not paying them back for anything they paid into it or did. It's money taken from one group of people and given to another. When SS recipients lobby against any cuts in SS, they're being greedy and immoral. They should be called out on that.

Also, one rhetorical move I think we should make with this, and really with any other government program, is to say we don't want to cut it, we want to voluntarize it, meaning the people who pay for it should be allowed to continue to pay for it if they choose to, as long as they aren't being forced to, and as long as they aren't promised that they will be paid back anything in the future.

[lx43]

Also, one rhetorical move I think we should make with this, and really with any other government program, is to say we don't want to cut it, we want to voluntarize it, meaning the people who pay for it should be allowed to continue to pay for it if they choose to, as long as they aren't being forced to, and as long as they aren't promised that they will be paid back anything in the future.

I could live with this. Let anyone who wants to stay on SS stay on it and let those who want out get out on the condition they forfeit all the money they paid into the system and cannot enroll in it when they become eligible.


In all honesty, I want the option of opt-outing of paying all taxes and then you'd really see how much support taxpayers gives to these govt programs

[erowe1]

I could live with this. Let anyone who wants to stay on SS stay on it and let those who want out get out on the condition they forfeit all the money they paid into the system and cannot enroll in it when they become eligible.

Actually, I meant something more extreme than that. People currently receiving SS would only get as much as those paying in voluntarily choose to give them.

[lx43]

Actually, I meant something more extreme than that. People currently receiving SS would only get as much as those paying in voluntarily choose to give them.

Even better IMO, but I doubt any politician or beneficiary would agree with this unless you have more people opting-out than wanting to stay in the system. Then the tide would be in our favor.

Are there any politicans brave enough to propose a bill to allow people to opt-out? I doubt even Rand, Amash, or Massie are that brave to propose something like that.

[James Madison]

Yes, it's welfare. Yes, it should be ended.

You work everyday of your life and lose a sizable portion of your paycheck evert pay period in the hopes of getting your money back in your old age. Oh, you just qualified for SS? That's good. But you're gonna die of cancer within six months? Well, that's the breaks. All that money you paid won't be going to you or your family. Have a nice life.

[lx43]

I had an uncle that passed away several years ago before receiving a cent of his SS. He paid in the maximum amount and received nothing in return.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Would you be willing though to start the process of ending it? If so, a person who is on Social Security how would you want it to be ended?

Also, what about my right to keep the money I make? I have more of right to the money I earn than someone who just votes for a living. By that I mean I physically had to earn my money by actually doing the work in my opinion trumps your right to take what some elected official promised you.

I think Paul's proposal to phase it out was a decent one. I'd like to see it privatized for a certain portion of upcoming retirees, along with an opt out option for younger workers. Keep in mind, we paid our SS tax from the first day we worked, so for 46 years I paid the tax, and nearly always paid the maximum since for most of my working life I was a high earner.

The issue is though, that there are a lot of folks my age who depend on it wholly or in part for their survival. The fact that they were taxed on their income for the SS program all those years made it difficult for many to save adequately for retirement. Between the employee and employer it's 15% if I recall. That's a lot of cash that can be saved and invested had not the gov't been funding the ponzi scheme. So pulling the rug out from those people is not just.

And it really is unfair to say that you "physically earn your money" do you think that all of us did not? 46 years of paying that tax, and even today I am still taxed to death. My tax liability for 2012 will be in excess of $200K, so while I do get that small check every month we are paying a ton of our income in taxes. When you think about it, the SS check we get every month, is really just a deduction on the overall tax that we pay, and not that large of a percent to be honest.

Something needs to be done, but we need to do something that gradually phases out the program as people pass on, privatize it for people in the middle and phase it out for younger workers.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

ETA: Ponzi scheme is a very good analogy.


I don't think it's an analogy... but more of a definition.

[dinosaur]

People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back. Well, guess what, your money was spent, and the money that you are getting back is someone else's money.

There has been a huge societal change in that elderly parents and children live apart. Maybe we can't afford the luxury of living apart anymore. Maybe families need to take care of their own from now on.

[CaptLouAlbano]

People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back. Well, guess what, your money was spent, and the money that you are getting back is someone else's money.

There has been a huge societal change in that elderly parents and children live apart. Maybe we can't afford the luxury of living apart anymore. Maybe families need to take care of their own from now on.

So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- fuck em all, go live with your kids?

The gov't were the ones that screwed up, not the people. I worked my whole life and did well for myself. We get about 4 grand from SS each month - so all that money I paid 15% of both our incomes for a lot of years amounts to a measly 4 grand a month. Conversely I generate over 1 million per year from my assets and investments. I was fortunate enough to have money well over and above to set myself up, but the milkman, carpenter and store clerk that worked their whole lives weren't as fortunate as I was. They shouldn't be punished for the government's screw up. There are a ton of things we can cut out of the budget and gradually phase the SS system out.

But attitudes like the one you have - good luck selling that.

[dinosaur]

So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- fuck em all, go live with your kids?

Good luck selling that.

I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.

But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation. Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them? The point is the money was spent. It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it. Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?

[truelies]

For 70 years SS has been presented to four generations of Americans as an insurance program. Now it may well be that the politicians were committing fraud all along but it would be unjust to chance the goal posts for folks for whom it is to late in life to make other arrangements. Still the younger generation caught by the scheme is also being harmed by the taxes.

My Solution-

1) Immediately end the 6.2% tax for employees and the 12.4% tax for the self employed. Corporations would continue to pay the 6.2% tax which would be extended to 100% oc corporate payroll including perks, bonuses and stock options.

2) Give current taxpayers over age 60 the option of receiving SS under the current rules OR a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments. Payments to be funded thru the medium of treasury notes in lieu of federal reserve notes. So banks no more TARP for at least 10 years. Treasury notes to be backed by the public land assets of the USA.

3) Current taxpayers age 30 - 60 to receive a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments starting in 10 years or at age 67 whichever is earlier.

4) Current taxpayers under age 30- $10,000 T-bill plus interest which accrues payable at age 60

[UpperDecker]

I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.

But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation. Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them? The point is the money was spent. It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it. Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?

This is a very good point. It is a fuck you to the younger generation that those who will actually get money from social security aren't willing to budge to help them out. They are taking the money from the younger generation who aren't going to get social security, which is crap situation.

[truelies]

So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- fuck em all, go live with your kids?

........................................But attitudes like the one you have - good luck selling that.

Captain I think you will find that the SS is welfare crowd are largely the ungrateful children of those who paid the SS taxes. Children who feel the need to be excuse from their student loans and who will never admit that their education from kindie on has been by their Rules - 'welfare'.

[truelies]

[QUOTE=UpperDecker;4818194]................ They are taking the money from the younger generation who ..................QUOTE]

was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.

[dinosaur]

Captain I think you will find that the SS is welfare crowd are largely the ungrateful children of those who paid the SS taxes. Children who feel the need to be excuse from their student loans and who will never admit that their education from kindie on has been by their Rules - 'welfare'.

Attack the argument, not my character. I have never defaulted on a loan, and have paid into the system for 20 years. I don't want anything back for that. I just want us to stop spending more than we have for the sake of the generation after me.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

[QUOTE=UpperDecker;4818194]................ They are taking the money from the younger generation who ..................[QUOTE]

was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.


Some things cannot be repaid.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.

But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation. Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them? The point is the money was spent. It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it. Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?

It's not we need to phase it out, which is why I liked Paul's proposal for it. But there are so many other areas of the budget that can be cut before we say to the 85 year old widow living in a one bedroom apt that the check she gets every month in gone. We're Americans, we clean up our mistakes the right way.

[erowe1]

was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.

Exactly. Or, better yet, reverse the order. Get rid of SS, and let people decide for themselves how to go about helping their parents. Cut out the middle man of the government.

[erowe1]

People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back.

When were they sold on this? And who sold it to them? The law never told them this. I doubt that any official government literature did. The people who have been spewing this propaganda have been the AARP and others of their ilk. The American taxpayer has no duty to make good on those make-believe promises.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Exactly. Or, better yet, reverse the order. Get rid of SS, and let people decide for themselves how to go about helping their parents. Cut out the middle man of the government.

For folks like myself who continue to earn an income after retirement and/or draw off a pension or annuity, elimination of SS equates to a massive tax increase. Personally (and I know many folks like myself that aren't at the income level I am at) we pay more to the gov't in taxes than we get in SS payments annually and for others its a wash.

[UpperDecker]

[QUOTE=truelies;4818202][QUOTE=UpperDecker;4818194]................ They are taking the money from the younger generation who ..................


Some things cannot be repaid.

Agreed.

I don't find it necessary to paint those against SS as somehow ungrateful brats. The younger generations are getting screwed when they are losing out on all of this money that they will never get back while nobody is willing to compromise. You can't touch SS with out people freaking out, but something has to be done.

[erowe1]

So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- fuck em all, go live with your kids?

Why do you have more of a problem with what you describe here than you do with having some third party enter the relationship and forcibly take money from their kids and give it to them?

[dinosaur]

It's not we need to phase it out, which is why I liked Paul's proposal for it. But there are so many other areas of the budget that can be cut before we say to the 85 year old widow living in a one bedroom apt that the check she gets every month in gone. We're Americans, we clean up our mistakes the right way.

But what is really the right way? Do the people who allowed the money to be spent bear no responsibility? The people who will be paying it off were not even around to protest when it was being spent.

[loveableteddybear]

The fact that they were taxed on their income for the SS program all those years made it difficult for many to save adequately for retirement.
This is lie number 1. People who didn't save weren't going to save, as simple as that.

[erowe1]

I don't find it necessary to paint those against SS as somehow ungrateful brats.

That would be the irony of ironies if anyone tried to do that...."How can you be so greedy that you won't let me take your money and give it to someone else?!"

It's the opposite. The people fighting to keep SS are greedy (they're the ones thinking they're entitled to other peoples' money), and they need to be called out at every opportunity. This needs to happen until SS isn't the third rail of politics any more, but instead is so unpopular that people would be ashamed to defend it.

[ClydeCoulter]

This is lie number 1. People who didn't save weren't going to save, as simple as that.

That really makes we want to say FU!

[CaptLouAlbano]

But what is really the right way? Do the people who allowed the money to be spent bear no responsibility? The people who will be paying it off were not even around to protest when it was being spent.

The societal impact of the elimination of SS will be huge. There are a lot of people who need the payment to live, they will be screwed. Folks like myself and those who saved for retirement will in essence be getting a massive tax increase by the elimination of the payments. Where do you think that extra 50K per year is going to go?

You see what I am saying here. Many people who receive SS pay taxes still, or the SS payments wash out their tax liability. We aren't living large because of the gov't check. All it does for many is offset the taxes on their pensions, annuities and other investments.

[CaptLouAlbano]

This is lie number 1. People who didn't save weren't going to save, as simple as that.

That's bullshit.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is lie number 1. People who didn't save weren't going to save, as simple as that.And you know this....how, exactly?

[erowe1]

Folks like myself and those who saved for retirement will in essence be getting a massive tax increase by the elimination of the payments.

This is the kind of propaganda that we need to defeat.

When the government stops taking money from someone else and giving it to you, that's not an increase of your taxes. It's not taking anything at all from you. It's leaving the money with the people who earned it. Those payments never were yours.

[ClydeCoulter]

Everyone is falling for the BIG LIES.

You can't talk about how to fix this without talking about inflation, monetary policy, etc...

Yea, you kids are paying devalued dollars and we (I'm not drawing yet, but soon) will be getting back devalued dollars (worth a lot less than it was when we paid).

The government stole the money, but they bailed out the banks instead of paying SS back. Now they/we are paying interest on it.

[heavenlyboy34]

That would be the irony of ironies if anyone tried to do that...."How can you be so greedy that you won't let me take your money and give it to someone else?!"

It's the opposite. The people fighting to keep SS are greedy (they're the ones thinking they're entitled to other peoples' money), and they need to be called out at every opportunity. This needs to happen until SS isn't the third rail of politics any more, but instead is so unpopular that people would be ashamed to defend it. Winning post, sir! :) +rep

[UpperDecker]

That would be the irony of ironies if anyone tried to do that.....

That already happened.


The societal impact of the elimination of SS will be huge. There are a lot of people who need the payment to live, they will be screwed. Folks like myself and those who saved for retirement will in essence be getting a massive tax increase by the elimination of the payments. Where do you think that extra 50K per year is going to go?

You see what I am saying here. Many people who receive SS pay taxes still, or the SS payments wash out their tax liability. We aren't living large because of the gov't check. All it does for many is offset the taxes on their pensions, annuities and other investments.

I don't think people are saying to just end it right now. We know that it is impossible to end it and stop sending money to those already on SS, so we need to find a way to begin phasing it out.

[CaptLouAlbano]

This is the kind of propaganda that we need to defeat.

When the government stops taking money from someone else and giving it to you, that's not an increase of your taxes. It's not taking anything at all from you. It's leaving the money with the people who earned it. Those payments never were yours.

My tax liability for 2012 will be around 250K. We received 50K in SS payments throughout the year. Take away that 50K and instead of paying the gov't 200 net, I'll pay them 250 net. And since we all know SS is paid from the general fund (ie there is no special account), I am through my taxes paying a lot of people's SS.

Class envy much?

[heavenlyboy34]

This is the kind of propaganda that we need to defeat.

When the government stops taking money from someone else and giving it to you, that's not an increase of your taxes. It's not taking anything at all from you. It's leaving the money with the people who earned it. Those payments never were yours.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again. :(

[erowe1]

The government stole the money, but they bailed out the banks instead of paying SS back.

This myth gets repeated so often. Where does this idea even come from?

There never was any "paying SS back." Nothing the government ever spent money on was "instead" of that.

The day SS started, it took money from some people and gave it to others. Today, that's still what it does. It was welfare then, and it's welfare now.

[ClydeCoulter]

Noone is taking money one and giving it to the other, it's a fucking racket, that's why we are going into debt. We are all being stolen from.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

This myth gets repeated so often. Where does this idea even come from?

There never was any "paying SS back." Nothing the government ever spent money on was "instead" of that.

The day SS started, it took money from some people and gave it to others. Today, that's still what it does. It was welfare then, and it's welfare now.


Definition = Ponzi Scheme when they pretend that people are "investing" and then pay them with the proceeds from new "investors." Welfare, sure, but this is a more specific crime that is prosecuted.

[erowe1]

My tax liability for 2012 will be around 250K. We received 50K in SS payments throughout the year. Take away that 50K and instead of paying the gov't 200 net, I'll pay them 250 net.

Great point. This is another thing we need to hammer on. SS isn't just welfare, it's a special kind of welfare that redistributes wealth from those who have less to those who have more. All that talk about old people living in poverty is such rubbish.


And since we all know SS is paid from the general fund (ie there is no special account), I am through my taxes paying a lot of people's SS.

Another good point. You shouldn't be paying a lot of other peoples' SS. And there's only one way for you not to. That's if the government stops giving it to them. That's your money. If you want to give it away to others who need it, more power to you. But it should be up to you to decide to do that and in what way you go about it.

[James Madison]

Why do people on fixed income need SS? Because of excessive taxation and monitary inflation. Why do we have excessive taxation and monitary inflation? Because people on fixed income need SS.

'Round and 'round we go...

[erowe1]

Definition = Ponzi Scheme when they pretend that people are "investing" and then pay them with the proceeds from new "investors." Welfare, sure, but this is a more specific crime that is prosecuted.

But who's pretending that? The government isn't. It's just the SS defenders who keep telling themselves that.

[ClydeCoulter]

I guess I could live in a trash can.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-pulled-off-the-greatest-fraud-ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

[erowe1]

I don't think people are saying to just end it right now. We know that it is impossible to end it and stop sending money to those already on SS, so we need to find a way to begin phasing it out.

I absolutely am saying to end it right now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that could happen. But that's what ought to happen. And when we come to the negotiating table, we should be clear about that.

[ClydeCoulter]

But who's pretending that? The government isn't. It's just the SS defenders who keep telling themselves that.

It's not SS defenders, it's pissed of people who have been screwed, made by force to pay into something that will likely return very little. Now, the young are falling for the lies that are meant to divide.

Look, I'm not going to take back much, I paid a goodly sum, and will probably die long before I see much of it since the average lifespan for a male in my family is 72.

[UpperDecker]

I absolutely am saying to end it right now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that could happen. But that's what ought to happen. And when we come to the negotiating table, we should be clear about that.

If there was any possibility of it working out to where it doesn't leave people to die I would be all for it, but I think that would do too much harm right now. Wouldn't we have to pay for them anyway when they have to go to the hospital or things like that?

[dinosaur]

The societal impact of the elimination of SS will be huge. There are a lot of people who need the payment to live, they will be screwed. Folks like myself and those who saved for retirement will in essence be getting a massive tax increase by the elimination of the payments. Where do you think that extra 50K per year is going to go?

You see what I am saying here. Many people who receive SS pay taxes still, or the SS payments wash out their tax liability. We aren't living large because of the gov't check. All it does for many is offset the taxes on their pensions, annuities and other investments.

The societal impact of the elimination of ss can be absorbed if we band together. Tough times aren't necessarily the worst of times. And the tough times that you are describing are nothing compared to the tough times ahead if we don't change.

As to the taxes, taxes and spending should both be cut. I know that people aren't living large, but we need to perform some surgury, and live a little leaner if we want to save the country. I believe that if americans could see the need for this surgury, that they would also be willing to make sure that people in their immediate communities who could no longer work and who didn't have families would be taken care of. It's just what we have to do.

[erowe1]

If there was any possibility of it working out to where it doesn't leave people to die I would be all for it, but I think that would do too much harm right now. Wouldn't we have to pay for them anyway when they have to go to the hospital or things like that?

Yes. We would have to pay for them anyway. And we would pay for them. Get the government out of the equation. That can't happen fast enough.

[heavenlyboy34]

Definition = Ponzi Scheme when they pretend that people are "investing" and then pay them with the proceeds from new "investors." Welfare, sure, but this is a more specific crime that is prosecuted.
The Ponzi scheme analogy is pretty good, but not quite right. With SS, the dollar is depreciating and costs are rising at the same time, so no one actually "wins" the scheme as happens in traditional ponzi scams. Pretty sad when your scam is not even honest enough to be compared to a pyramid scheme. lolz.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The societal impact of the elimination of ss can be absorbed if we band together. Tough times aren't necessarily the worst of times. And the tough times that you are describing are nothing compared to the tough times ahead if we don't change.

As to the taxes, taxes and spending should both be cut. I know that people aren't living large, but we need to perform some surgury, and live a little leaner if we want to save the country. I believe that if americans could see the need for this surgury, that they would also be willing to make sure that people in their immediate communities who could no longer work and who didn't have families would be taken care of. It's just what we have to do.

Agreed, but we are so far from that at this point. Let's start with the Pentagon, the Fed, the litany of unconstitutional depts we have and cut, cut, cut. At the same time structure a system where we can phase out SS entirely. Though I do not think we have to "live a little leaner" the simple reduction of taxes and spending will kick start the economy and we will be just fine. The biggest drain on our economy is the govt - the only people that have to live leaner is the Feds

[erowe1]

The Ponzi scheme analogy is pretty good, but not quite right. With SS, the dollar is depreciating and costs are rising at the same time, so no one actually "wins" the scheme as happens in traditional ponzi scams. Pretty sad when your scam is not even honest enough to be compared to a pyramid scheme. lolz.

If you want to use the Ponzi scheme analogy, then the people who started getting paid SS back in 1935 were the winners.

But again, it never was the case that anybody paying into SS was investing for their own future. I don't think the government ever told that lie.

[CaptLouAlbano]

If you want to use the Ponzi scheme analogy, then the people who started getting paid SS back in 1935 were the winners.

But again, it never was the case that anybody paying into SS was investing for their own future. I don't think the government ever told that lie.

Actually is was. FDR proposed it so that it could protect Americans from a "poverty ridden old age". At the time a lot of people did not have a private pension, of course back then few people lived to my age. It was a mistake from the beginning which is why the Old Right opposed it.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

But who's pretending that? The government isn't. It's just the SS defenders who keep telling themselves that.


There's no shortage of government stooges who have presented it in that way. There's no shortage of people who have believed it.

I prefer to present it as a Ponzi Scheme because that's a scam people recognize. And this scam will end the same way that Ponzi Schemes end, which is also useful for people to understand.

[tony m]

An excellent article by Walter Williams puts SS into a perspective.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams101.html

excerpt:

The very first Social Security check went to Ida May Fuller in 1940. She paid just $24.75 in Social Security taxes but collected a total of $22,888.92 in benefits, getting back all she put into Social Security in a month. According to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Social Security Reform" (October 2002), by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, workers who retired in 1980 at age 65 got back all they put into Social Security, plus interest, in 2.8 years. Workers who retired at age 65 in 2002 will have to wait a total of 16.9 years to break even. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years. Workers entering the labor force today won't live long enough to get back even half of what they will put into Social Security. Social Security faces Ponzi's problem, not enough new "investors." In 1940, there were 160 workers paying into Social Security per retiree; today there are only 2.9 and falling.

[dinosaur]

Agreed, but we are so far from that at this point. Let's start with the Pentagon, the Fed, the litany of unconstitutional depts we have and cut, cut, cut. At the same time structure a system where we can phase out SS entirely. Though I do not think we have to "live a little leaner" the simple reduction of taxes and spending will kick start the economy and we will be just fine. The biggest drain on our economy is the govt - the only people that have to live leaner is the Feds

It can't be fixed until we are willing to give up the things that we feel entitled to. Try cutting those unconstitutional departments without cutting entitlements...I actually tried to run the numbers once. It isn't so easy and clean as all that. You can't do it without hitting the people will starve and children will be out on the street arguments.

[CaptLouAlbano]

An excellent article by Walter Williams puts SS into a perspective.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams101.html

excerpt:

The very first Social Security check went to Ida May Fuller in 1940. She paid just $24.75 in Social Security taxes but collected a total of $22,888.92 in benefits, getting back all she put into Social Security in a month. According to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Social Security Reform" (October 2002), by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, workers who retired in 1980 at age 65 got back all they put into Social Security, plus interest, in 2.8 years. Workers who retired at age 65 in 2002 will have to wait a total of 16.9 years to break even. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years. Workers entering the labor force today won't live long enough to get back even half of what they will put into Social Security. Social Security faces Ponzi's problem, not enough new "investors." In 1940, there were 160 workers paying into Social Security per retiree; today there are only 2.9 and falling.

That would be me right there. So I have 7 years left to break even still, if I live that long.

[ClydeCoulter]

If you want to use the Ponzi scheme analogy, then the people who started getting paid SS back in 1935 were the winners.

But again, it never was the case that anybody paying into SS was investing for their own future. I don't think the government ever told that lie.

Call it what you want, it was a lie, Social Security Insurance.

Call me naive, studpid or whatever, but I and others based their investments (home, etc) on the lie.

I worked my ass off and was among the best of whatever I did. I started from a poor family, worked bailing hay and milking cows after school/summer, got married, worked as lawnmower mechanic, appliance mechanic, building golf course greens/driving ranges, carpenter, at 26 went to a 2 year college for communication and digital electronics, learned to program and became a Software Systems Prinicipal Architect.

Yep, I was uneducated in the ways of economics and assholes. I worked hard to do the right thing for my employer, and I thought those that were politicians were doing their job right for their employers, us. Boy, was I wrong.

[CaptLouAlbano]

It can't be fixed until we are willing to give up the things that we feel entitled to. Try cutting those unconstitutional departments without cutting entitlements...I actually tried to run the numbers once. It isn't so easy and clean as all that.

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

And I like Walter's solution, "Here's what might be a temporary fix: The federal government owns huge quantities of wasting assets – assets that are not producing anything – 650 million acres of land, almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. In exchange for those who choose to opt out of Social Security and forsake any future claim, why not pay them off with 40 or so acres of land? Doing so would give us breathing room to develop a free choice method to finance retirement."

[ClydeCoulter]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

Yep, give me back my devalued $136,000.00+ and we'll call it even.

[dinosaur]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

And I like Walter's solution, "Here's what might be a temporary fix: The federal government owns huge quantities of wasting assets – assets that are not producing anything – 650 million acres of land, almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. In exchange for those who choose to opt out of Social Security and forsake any future claim, why not pay them off with 40 or so acres of land? Doing so would give us breathing room to develop a free choice method to finance retirement."

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay...someone other than the entity who stole it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yep, give me back my devalued $136,000.00+ and we'll call it even.

Imagine how well off you would be right now, if instead of paying that tax every week you would have put money down on an income producing asset instead?

[CaptLouAlbano]

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay.

Well sadly my friend, you'll never sell that to the public. Maybe the idea will gain some steam on libertarian forums, but in the real world it will never happen. We need a phase out solution, and something that takes care of the people who are in some way dependent on the money, and also doesn't cause disruption to the economy by sucking all the money out of the economy as it does in my case. Like I said earlier, my SS payment is less than my total tax liabillity, so in my case I would simply pay more to the feds, and that is never good.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay...someone other than the entity who stole it.


If you steal something from me, and then parade it around in front of me, we're going to have an interesting few minutes together.

I do feel that if you steal something from me, you should return it.

[dinosaur]

Well sadly my friend, you'll never sell that to the public. Maybe the idea will gain some steam on libertarian forums, but in the real world it will never happen. We need a phase out solution, and something that takes care of the people who are in some way dependent on the money, and also doesn't cause disruption to the economy by sucking all the money out of the economy as it does in my case. Like I said earlier, my SS payment is less than my total tax liabillity, so in my case I would simply pay more to the feds, and that is never good.

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

[dinosaur]

If you steal something from me, and then parade it around in front of me, we're going to have an interesting few minutes together.

I do feel that if you steal something from me, you should return it.

Right, but if I steal it, then would you go collect what you are owed from someone innocent? That is the question.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

I don't have a solution per se. I believe what Ron Paul proposed is pretty damn good and something Congress should look at.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Right, but if I steal it, then would you go collect what you are owed from someone innocent? That is the question.

My apologies. After re-reading what you actually said to start with, it is more complicated. Sounds like you'd require the entire organization disband. I'd prefer a solution where restitution is made in some way. They won't be disbanding either way, not willfully, and they fear no authority that would make them disband for a crime such as theft.

[Yieu]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that?

You appear to feel entitled to the money earned by current workers -- money they could use, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, partly because you and others take a portion of their paycheck. Your money is long gone, spent on previous retirees.

I just want out of the system. I will not see any of what I pay in, so it is not any more fair for others to get the money I'm paying in now.

It is stealing from the young and poor to give to the old and rich.

[James Madison]

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

To be honest, suffering at this point is pretty much inevitable. You can't build a house of cards without it crumbling to the ground.

[loveableteddybear]

That really makes we want to say FU!Why, because the truth bomb blew up in your house?

[loveableteddybear]

And you know this....how, exactly?
Because saving is a behavior, it has nothing to do with how much money someone makes necessarily. Savers will work even menial jobs and have good savings. Social Security essentially gives people a false sense of security that they should spend the money they make now like drunken sailors.

The fact that the average citizen of CHINA, where the average income is much lower, has much higher personal savings proves what I said is fact.

Now go cry somewhere else you old geezers, if it were up to me I'd pull your life support plug right now, I don't care if you think social security is payback. You're robbing from me, because some geezer before you robbed from you. Boy, that's fair.

[klamath]

This is the kind of propaganda that we need to defeat.

When the government stops taking money from someone else and giving it to you, that's not an increase of your taxes. It's not taking anything at all from you. It's leaving the money with the people who earned it. Those payments never were yours.
Do you take tax refunds? If you paid those taxes it is gone. Getting a tax refund is getting other peoples money, not yours.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You appear to feel entitled to the money earned by current workers -- money they could use, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, partly because you and others take a portion of their paycheck. Your money is long gone, spent on previous retirees.

I just want out of the system. I will not see any of what I pay in, so it is not any more fair for others to get the money I'm paying in now.

It is stealing from the young and poor to give to the old and rich.

As I stated before. We receive about 50K in SS payments, but have a tax liability of 250K. Eliminating those SS checks would in effect mean that I will be sending 50K more to the government each year. That is 50K less that I will spend and invest here in my state. Multiply that by all folks like myself who have done well in their lives and you are potentially talking billions of dollars that will be removed from the economy and given back to the feds

[ClydeCoulter]

Why, because the truth bomb blew up in your house?

"I know you are, what am I?" Do you not remember what I responded to?

You were making blantant statement against those that have been stolen from, like saying "She should have screamed louder and kicked him in the nuts, it's her fault she got raped".

[ClydeCoulter]

This discussion is like most discussions that deal with our problems here in the U. S. of A. It is too specialized and short sighted.

But you can't disreguard one aspect of freedom from all of the others and then expect to see any light at the end of the tunnel. We the People have been being raped for the past 100 years, slowly, and in every aspect. That is why Ron Paul includes all freedoms, including economic, together and also foreign policy.

[loveableteddybear]

"I know you are, what am I?" Do you not remember what I responded to?

You were making blantant statement against those that have been stolen from, like saying "She should have screamed louder and kicked him in the nuts, it's her fault she got raped".
You're an accomplice in raping my wallet as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see my money back used for killing brown people, but you don't see my crying for it like an entitled baby.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You're an accomplice in raping my wallet as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see my money back used for killing brown people, but you don't see my crying for it like an entitled baby.

klamath asked this of someone else, but I think it is germane to ask you the same, "Do you take tax refunds? If you paid those taxes it is gone. Getting a tax refund is getting other peoples money, not yours."

[ClydeCoulter]

You're an accomplice in raping my wallet as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see my money back used for killing brown people, but you don't see my crying for it like an entitled baby.

You might look back at my comments, I already said that I am not on SS, yet. So, like I said, FU.

[loveableteddybear]

Sorry, but that sort of lame sophistry does not work on me.

Simply pay as little as you can and don't expect anything of value from the gov't. I'll take a refund but I'm not gonna try get money back from 7 years ago or something.

[loveableteddybear]

You might look back at my comments, I already said that I am not on SS, yet. So, like I said, FU.
But you want the SS otto von bismark.

[Yieu]

As I stated before. We receive about 50K in SS payments, but have a tax liability of 250K. Eliminating those SS checks would in effect mean that I will be sending 50K more to the government each year. That is 50K less that I will spend and invest here in my state. Multiply that by all folks like myself who have done well in their lives and you are potentially talking billions of dollars that will be removed from the economy and given back to the feds

That is money that was stolen from younger people who work. If they stopped paying the tax, that money most certainly would not be "taken out of the economy". The money would belong to those who earned it, and they would use it.

[klamath]

You're an accomplice in raping my wallet as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see my money back used for killing brown people, but you don't see my crying for it like an entitled baby.
And by that logic you are an accomplice to raping my wallet as well.

[ClydeCoulter]

But you want the SS otto von bismark.

Have you entered into any sane conversation with me concerning it? Am I willing to just say, ah, shit, I'm at the bottom of the ponzi scheme so I'll just lay down and be the loser? Are you asking me to take it, laying down? Are you gonna force me to take it laying down?

[klamath]

Sorry, but that sort of lame sophistry does not work on me.

Simply pay as little as you can and don't expect anything of value from the gov't. I'll take a refund but I'm not gonna try get money back from 7 years ago or something.
Who appointed you the one to determine when the time limit is up for when you can get your money back? If you paid it into the system YOU don't deserve it BACK! It is NOT YOURS anymore, IT is my taxes you are taking!

[ClydeCoulter]

Excelent job PTB, you stole all the wealth and have convinced all of us to accuse one another. It seems, so far, that you will get away, scott free.

[LibForestPaul]

Would you be willing though to start the process of ending it? If so, a person who is on Social Security how would you want it to be ended?

Also, what about my right to keep the money I make? I have more of right to the money I earn than someone who just votes for a living. By that I mean I physically had to earn my money by actually doing the work in my opinion trumps your right to take what some elected official promised you.

Ending of Social Security Theft could occur tomorrow, if it were not for the peoples greed and envy. Simply convert SSA benefits into US Treasury bonds. Create a formula to decide how many Treasury bonds each person receives:
Example:
Future years of earning potential (someone near retirement,( or disabilty) receives a larger payout of US Treasury bonds at an earlier time)
Ladder the payouts (bonds mature at different rates)

I am sure somehow this will get turned to "Why should 'rich' people get a payout" so it will never get off the ground."

This does nothing to address the REAL third rail, medicare theft.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That is money that was stolen from younger people who work. If they stopped paying the tax, that money most certainly would not be "taken out of the economy". The money would belong to those who earned it, and they would use it.

And what about the money stolen from me? For 2012 a total of 250K of my money went to the IRS, that is money that I earned through my investments, annuity and rental properties. The theft is the same regardless of who earned it, when it was earned or how they earned it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

This does nothing to address the REAL third rail, medicare theft.

Oh that's a whole other can of worms. We cannot opt out of Part A, if we do so we would not only forfeit any future SS payments, but also would have to pay pack the SS payments we have received over the last 10 years.

[ClydeCoulter]

Oh that's a whole other can of worms. We cannot opt out of Part A, if we do so we would not only forfeit any future SS payments, but also would have to pay pack the SS payments we have received over the last 10 years.

What? For real? This is nuts, crazy batshit. I had planned on opting out of getting on medicare.

[CaptLouAlbano]

What? For real? This is nuts, crazy batshit. I had planned on opting out of medicare.

Nope they got you by the balls. So we pay for the medicare through taxation, then we go out an buy a supplemental plan for the gap coverage. My wife handles that stuff, so I am not up on all the details. But it isn't cheap. What makes matters worse is that a lot of seniors also have to pay for long term care insurance. We are well off enough that if one of us had to go into a home it wouldn't wipe us out, and we do have great kids that would gladly take us in if need be. But even short term care can be very expensive for people. Our neighbor (widow) had to have a visiting nurse come in every day for about 2 months when she was healing from surgery, as well as a home health aid to bathe her, etc. Her insurance covered it, but had it not she would have been looking at about 100 bucks per day for the care.

[lx43]

I think Paul's proposal to phase it out was a decent one. I'd like to see it privatized for a certain portion of upcoming retirees, along with an opt out option for younger workers. Keep in mind, we paid our SS tax from the first day we worked, so for 46 years I paid the tax, and nearly always paid the maximum since for most of my working life I was a high earner.

The issue is though, that there are a lot of folks my age who depend on it wholly or in part for their survival. The fact that they were taxed on their income for the SS program all those years made it difficult for many to save adequately for retirement. Between the employee and employer it's 15% if I recall. That's a lot of cash that can be saved and invested had not the gov't been funding the ponzi scheme. So pulling the rug out from those people is not just.

And it really is unfair to say that you "physically earn your money" do you think that all of us did not? 46 years of paying that tax, and even today I am still taxed to death. My tax liability for 2012 will be in excess of $200K, so while I do get that small check every month we are paying a ton of our income in taxes. When you think about it, the SS check we get every month, is really just a deduction on the overall tax that we pay, and not that large of a percent to be honest.

Something needs to be done, but we need to do something that gradually phases out the program as people pass on, privatize it for people in the middle and phase it out for younger workers.

Thank you Capt and everyone else for the good discussion.

Social Security/Medicare to me is a discussion over property rights. It started over a 100 years ago when they came (they meaning the evil govt) for our incomes by promising to take only the super rich (a lie everyone then fell for) they now come for all of our incomes, then they came for our gold and in return giving us counterfeit paper, then they came for our businesses who they smothered in tons of regulation, and now they are coming for our guns. Soon after they take our guns they will come for us.

In my opinion Social Security should immediately be taken away from the hands of Congress/given to the people. By that I mean, whoever wants to opt-out of Social Security/Medicare may do so; thereby restoring their property rights to all the FICA taxes that are being taken from them, while at the same time allowing those who want to remain in the system do so. What I would then do for those that want to remain in the system is gradually increase the age of eligibility by 1/4 of year each year so that it will not affect those that are on the system and then probably means test it so that someone superrich like Buffett will not be given any SS and I would cut the offensive budget of the defense department, eliminate foreign aid, and other cuts to help the system remain solvent for as long as possible.

Also another thing I would do is say that if you are of eligibility age I would say that if you choose to not accept SS/Medicare that if you continue to work or want to live off you investment income you may do so and will not be subject to capital gains, FICA taxes, or federal income taxes. This would be another way to have people stay off the system for as long as possible or maybe if their own the system to go back off. That means you wouldn't have to pay the 200K in yearly liability you are now subjected too Capt. :)

That seem fair enough. :)

[CaptLouAlbano]

Thank you Capt and everyone else for the good discussion.

Social Security/Medicare to me is a discussion over property rights. It started over a 100 years ago when they came (they meaning the evil govt) for our incomes by promising to take only the super rich (a lie everyone then fell for) they now come for all of our incomes, then they came for our gold and in return giving us counterfeit paper, then they came for our businesses who they smothered in tons of regulation, and now they are coming for our guns. Soon after they take our guns they will come for us.

In my opinion Social Security should immediately be taken away from the hands of Congress/given to the people. By that I mean, whoever wants to opt-out of Social Security/Medicare may do so; thereby restoring their property rights to all the FICA taxes that are being taken from them, while at the same time allowing those who want to remain in the system do so. What I would then do for those that want to remain in the system is gradually increase the age of eligibility by 1/4 of year so that it will not affect those that are on the system and then probably means test it so that someone superrich like Buffett will not be given any SS and I would cut the offensive budget of the defense department, eliminate foreign aid, and other cuts to help the system remain solvent for as long as possible.

I like it, all but the means testing. As I see it, the SS payments I receive just offset the taxes I pay to the IRS. In reality all it does is reduce my rate, which is a good thing.

[lx43]

I like it, all but the means testing. As I see it, the SS payments I receive just offset the taxes I pay to the IRS. In reality all it does is reduce my rate, which is a good thing.

I added this to my plan too.


Also another thing I would do is say that if you are of eligibility age I would say that if you choose to not accept SS/Medicare that if you continue to work or want to live off you investment income you may do so and will not be subject to capital gains, FICA taxes, or federal income taxes. This would be another way to have people stay off the system for as long as possible or maybe if their own the system to go back off. That means you wouldn't have to pay the 200K in yearly liability you are now subjected too Capt.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I added this to my plan too.


Also another thing I would do is say that if you are of eligibility age I would say that if you choose to not accept SS/Medicare that if you continue to work or want to live off you investment income you may do so and will not be subject to capital gains, FICA taxes, or federal income taxes. This would be another way to have people stay off the system for as long as possible or maybe if their own the system to go back off. That means you wouldn't have to pay the 200K in yearly liability you are now subjected too Capt.

I like it, when are you running? You have my vote.

[ClydeCoulter]

I added this to my plan too.


Also another thing I would do is say that if you are of eligibility age I would say that if you choose to not accept SS/Medicare that if you continue to work or want to live off you investment income you may do so and will not be subject to capital gains, FICA taxes, or federal income taxes. This would be another way to have people stay off the system for as long as possible or maybe if their own the system to go back off. That means you wouldn't have to pay the 200K in yearly liability you are now subjected too Capt.

We need to negotiate with the states to get rid of property tax once you are a certain age/retired or something, so we can prepare to die in peace.

[Yieu]

Means testing would cause it to be used for what you stated earlier was its intended purpose -- to keep old people out of poverty, and end the abuse of the system of having the younger and poorer workers who will see none of the money back subsidizing the old and rich, which was not its intention.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Means testing would cause it to be used for what you stated earlier was its intended purpose -- to keep old people out of poverty, and end the abuse of the system of having the younger and poorer workers who will see none of the money back subsidizing the old and rich, which was not its intention.

But you still have the issue of the increase in taxes for folks like myself. However you spin it, removal of SS payments is less money in my pocket and more money in the gov't pocket. Granted, I am well off, but you have a lot of people out there of modest income where the SS payments merely offset the taxes they pay on their annuities and investments.

[ClydeCoulter]

But you still have the issue of the increase in taxes for folks like myself. However you spin it, removal of SS payments is less money in my pocket and more money in the gov't pocket. Granted, I am well off, but you have a lot of people out there of modest income where the SS payments merely offset the taxes they pay on their annuities and investments.

Income tax is the problem then. No taxes for the retired/aged, to start with, then no income for anyone. Reduce government to it's intended function.

[Yieu]

But you still have the issue of the increase in taxes for folks like myself. However you spin it, removal of SS payments is less money in my pocket and more money in the gov't pocket. Granted, I am well off

Then why do you need it? And what is said in this quote is incorrect. The money going into your pocket is the money coming out of the pockets of current workers who may not be as well off, so no, it would not result in more money in the government's pocket. It results in more money in the pockets of those who earned it rather than having the tax taken out of their paycheck.

[ClydeCoulter]

Then why do you need it? And what is said in this quote is incorrect. The money going into your pocket is the money coming out of the pockets of current workers who may not be as well off, so no, it would not result in more money in the government's pocket. It results in more money in the pockets of those who earned it rather than having the tax taken out of their paycheck.

The government's pockets get away with his money that he paid in. We can negotiate with him? Like, he doesn't have to pay capitol gains or income tax (since he's retired).

edit: Or, at least reduce his payments by the amount he gives up, for starters.

[Yieu]

The government's pockets get away with his money that he paid in.

Some of it, yes, but that is history -- and some if it went to those who were currently receiving SS payments at the time that he was paying in. So it is all gone. It is just a tax, not a savings program. I accept the fact that the same is happening to me right now, and I accept the fact that when I am old enough to retire I will not see a benefit from the program.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Then why do you need it? And what is said in this quote is incorrect. The money going into your pocket is the money coming out of the pockets of current workers who may not be as well off, so no, it would not result in more money in the government's pocket. It results in more money in the pockets of those who earned it rather than having the tax taken out of their paycheck.

Do you think I take the money and burn it? No I spend it and invest it thus creating work and wealth for others. Maybe that 50K is your job that I created, and without that money in the economy your job is gone.

I'm all for getting rid of the checks, but eliminate some of my taxes so that I break even. Same for the others like me where the SS payments offsets their tax liability.

[ClydeCoulter]

Some of it, yes, but that is history -- and some if it went to those who were currently receiving SS payments at the time that he was paying in. So it is all gone. It is just a tax, not a savings program. I accept the fact that the same is happening to me right now, and I accept the fact that when I am old enough to retire I will not see a benefit from the program.

But, he was looking forward to it. We can call the scheme whatever, but there is reality in the minds and actions of those that paid. He planned better or was in a better position than I was/am, but we still both considered it during our lifetimes with how we prepared.

Believe me, I want the youth to not be stolen from either. Let's work this out and find how the theives can pay what they owe.

[CaptLouAlbano]

But, he was looking forward to it. We can call the scheme whatever, but there is reality in the minds and actions of those that paid. He planned better or was in a better position than I was/am, but we still both considered it during our lifetimes with how we prepared.

I owned businesses my whole life, so yes I did very well for myself. American dream and all that good stuff. But I started out with a regular old job, bought a business and grew from there.

[ClydeCoulter]

I owned businesses my whole life, so yes I did very well for myself. American dream and all that good stuff. But I started out with a regular old job, bought a business and grew from there.

And that is to be admired, and taught to the youth.

My parents were so poor that I lost my trumpet when I was in jr. high. I was never introduced to business or how it worked or the advantages to others. So, I pretty well always worked to reach a point to where I could take care of myself, pay what I owed, keep my word. My "American Dream" was a home that I owned, a shope to work on things for people, and paying my own way. But SSI was one thing I had planned on being there, since I had to pay it. I was thinking that if I received it back I could repair things and invent things and then keep myself above water.

I never did understand, when young, how wages and prices could keep going up without harm to everyone. So, I refused to join a union. It didn't make sense. You get paid more so people have to pay more for what you do, so prices go up, then they have to be paid more, so prices go up, etc. etc. etc. How much is enough?

[seraphson]

I believe Ponzi Scheme is more accurate. But welfare will do.

As Stefan Molyneux put it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_KJ0HXu7D0) to call SS a ponzi schemes is an insult to ponzi schemes. At least you have the freedom to enter or leave a ponzi scheme.

[Yieu]

Do you think I take the money and burn it? No I spend it and invest it thus creating work and wealth for others. Maybe that 50K is your job that I created, and without that money in the economy your job is gone.

Are you arguing that you would spend the money, and the young people who worked for that money would not, thus it is better to take the money from them and give it to you?

Personally, I'm for no income tax, and no federal tax at all. But SS is simply a tax. I do not expect to see any of it back, because it is simply a tax. I think it would be just as silly to feel entitled to see all of your income tax you had paid be returned to you. No one expects that, because they understand that it is just a tax. SS is similarly a tax.

[ClydeCoulter]

Are you arguing that you would spend the money, and the young people who worked for that money would not, thus it is better to take the money from them and give it to you?

Personally, I'm for no income tax, and no federal tax at all. But SS is simply a tax. I do not expect to see any of it back, because it is simply a tax. I think it would be just as silly to feel entitled to see all of your income tax you had paid be returned to you. No one expects that, because they understand that it is just a tax. SS is similarly a tax.

You know, that's fine and dandy for those that have been educated, somewhat recently, by Ron Paul and others while they were young. It's just a tax...okay, if you have no problem with that then keep paying it? I don't want you to, but....

[klamath]

Are you arguing that you would spend the money, and the young people who worked for that money would not, thus it is better to take the money from them and give it to you?

Personally, I'm for no income tax, and no federal tax at all. But SS is simply a tax. I do not expect to see any of it back, because it is simply a tax. I think it would be just as silly to feel entitled to see all of your income tax you had paid be returned to you. No one expects that, because they understand that it is just a tax. SS is similarly a tax.
No, he paid 200 grand in taxes last year. He took nothing from from YOU or young people. How much taxes did you pay last year?

[Yieu]

You know, that's fine and dandy for those that have been educated, somewhat recently, by Ron Paul and others while they were young. It's just a tax...okay, if you have no problem with that then keep paying it? I don't want you to, but....

I don't have a choice on whether or not to pay it -- I am required to, until such a time that they allow me to opt out. Until I am allowed to opt out, it is just an additional % on top of the income tax.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Are you arguing that you would spend the money, and the young people who worked for that money would not, thus it is better to take the money from them and give it to you?

Personally, I'm for no income tax, and no federal tax at all. But SS is simply a tax. I do not expect to see any of it back, because it is simply a tax. I think it would be just as silly to feel entitled to see all of your income tax you had paid be returned to you. No one expects that, because they understand that it is just a tax. SS is similarly a tax.

No, but are you arguing that the government should have 50K more of my income than they do now? Because if, as you suggest, my SS payments disappear that is essentially what is occurring. I am all for finding a way of getting rid of SS, but simply saying folks like myself shouldn't get the payments, is in effect saying that our taxes should go up by that amount. It all comes from the same kitty, whether it is Federal Withholding or FICA it's all the same, just on different lines of your check.

[CaptLouAlbano]

No, he paid 200 grand in taxes last year. He took nothing from from YOU or young people. How much taxes did you pay last year?

Exactly, any money I received in SS payments is simply a discount on the taxes I pay. It's the same for any retiree who has a decent income stream. The average SS benefit is around 1200 per worker (that would be a person who earned a decent, but modest amount their whole life). So let's say that retiree was smart, saved and invested a little to take care of himself when he retired. He sets up an annuity for himself and draws off it around 8000 per month, that's not an obscene amount of money - probably close to what he made when he retired. Well at 15% tax on that guess what it comes out to be? You guessed it - the 1200 he gets in SS payments.

Basically, this guy is living tax free - that's a good thing, and he is hardly someone who is "rich". They aren't taking the money from anyone, don't be fooled by that - it's all a big fricking shell game. If they eliminate the SS tax, they will raise other taxes to offset the cost.

[Yieu]

No, but are you arguing that the government should have 50K more of my income than they do now? Because if, as you suggest, my SS payments disappear that is essentially what is occurring. I am all for finding a way of getting rid of SS, but simply saying folks like myself shouldn't get the payments, is in effect saying that our taxes should go up by that amount. It all comes from the same kitty, whether it is Federal Withholding or FICA it's all the same, just on different lines of your check.

No -- I am saying that the taxes on current workers should go down by the amount they are being taxed by the SS tax. The payments ending would be a side effect of being relieved of the tax, because the payments come from the current SS taxes being taken in. I would also like the income tax to be ended, and I find it to be immoral.

[squarepusher]

Ok, so you guys realize this is a Ponzi scheme, yet continue to support and pay into it?

[Yieu]

Ok, so you guys realize this is a Ponzi scheme, yet continue to support and pay into it?

We don't have a choice. The money is taken right out of our pay. That doesn't mean I support it other than by force, though.

[ClydeCoulter]

Ok, so you guys realize this is a Ponzi scheme, yet continue to support and pay into it?

Yea, I don't want to loose my house, at the point of a gun, that I built with my hands.

edit: King George will surely come for it, otherwise.

[ClydeCoulter]

Yea, I don't want to loose my house, at the point of a gun, that I built with my hands.

edit: King George will surely come for it, otherwise.

Perhaps I need to get rid of attachments.

[Origanalist]

Everybody here want's it ended, otherwise we wouldn't have supported Ron Paul. But telling those that had their money confiscated by force that they are taking welfare when they get some back isn't going to do anything but make some people feel morally superior and piss off others

This needs to be done, but sitting here pointing fingers isn't going to do it.

[klamath]

Pretty much that is it. When a smartass punk tells a guy that he should have paid 250 grand and was a thief because he was only paying 200 grand a year in taxes it pretty much a personal insult.

[KrokHead]

Ultimately with Social Security we got to cut our losses. I'd rather see more useless things like warfare, welfare, and "education" spending cut first but any cut is a win, any compromise the liberals win.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Yes. Anything that pays people not to work and encourages irresponsibility is bad.
you want senior citizens to work until the day that they die?
Their SS checks don't even pay the bills anymore

[stu2002]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42

[loveableteddybear]

you want senior citizens to work until the day that they die?
Their SS checks don't even pay the bills anymore
No, I want people to save while they're working.

[helmuth_hubener]

But it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes. It's called the "third rail of politics" for a reason. Oh, nothing lasts forever, HB. Especially enormous, top-heavy, arrogant, extremely expensive (and extremely broke) empires like the United States. The empire will collapse eventually. This could very conceivably -- though not necessarily , sorry survivalist doomsayers-- happen within our lifetimes. This collapse would cause Social Security, and all the other state trappings, to be radically changed.

Now what these changes are, depends on how well we've done our job -- how many of the populace believe in and understand the ideas of liberty. If the collapse were to happen tomorrow, our existing system would likely be replaced by something quite a bit worse, something highly regimentized, militarized, and authoritarian. :(

We have work to do.

[helmuth_hubener]

you want senior citizens to work until the day that they die? I want senior citizens to be free to do whatever they want. But I also want their gravy train to end immediately, of course. That is the only decent course of action. Stop robbing the poor and the young to pay the rich and the old. Socialist Security is the most regressive income redistribution scam around.

[helmuth_hubener]

The only people morally justified in taking the SS's blood money are libertarians, that is, people who firmly believe the money should not be being stolen, and would gladly push a button to end the SS immediately if such a button existed.

Those taking the stolen money who do not believe that the system of theft should be ended -- and immediately! -- are indeed just accomplices to the crime. They are happy to take food out of the mouths of the very poorest demographic and use it to pay for their high-dollar cruises and flat screens and prescription pills. They need to educate themselves on why theft is evil, even if done on a massive scale by people calling themselves the state, why the SS is indeed theft, even though it's never called that, and why it must be ended immediately, even if that means they get nothing to show for all the money that was taken from them through the years.

[CaptLouAlbano]

So there are a few here that want to see if eliminated immediately. So let me pose these stats and see what solution you have for the issue:

According to this article (http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/strapped-seniors-trying-to-hang-on.aspx) and others 23% of people 65 and older live in households that depend on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Now we know the average SS payment is around 15 grand per year. So let's say that you can have your way and you eliminate SS overnight. As was previously quoted, seniors who have retired within the past 10 years wait 17 years before the "get back" what they "put in". What do you do with those 23% (which amounts to around 8.5 million people) who now go from having about 17 grand per year to having 2 grand per year to live on?

Now I am not saying that SS is a problem. I have opposed it my whole life, as did my father who was part of the Old Right and was a political activist at the time of its implementation. But the fact is, we do have the program, and there are people who, right or wrong, rely on it for their existence. So how do you, who support its immediate elimination (as helmuth_hubener said above me he would "would gladly push a button to end the SS immediately if such a button existed") address the fact that at its elimination you will have around 8.5 million Americans trying to live on $2000 per year? What is the solution for the greater problem that would then exist?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Double post

[helmuth_hubener]

Taking in the big picture of reality as a whole makes the whole "looming disaster and abject poverty for millions" fade into a much smaller threat than would seem from the numbers you posted, CLA. "Income" may be zero, sure. But what's their net worth? On average (median): $170,000 (see http://www.quizzle.com/blog/2012/02/the-elderly-are-getting-richer-the-young-not-so-much/ ). So what could they do with no income but a $170,000 nest egg? Well, invested at a 5% rate of return, which is a very attainable long-term average, they'd be making $8,500 per year. They also could just cash it out for $17,000 per year for ten years. If they are thinking they're going to live for more than ten more years, then yeah, maybe they should do something productive and earn some income. If they anticipate living for ten more years, they are clearly in fairly good health. Humans are built to be productive, to take on challenges. Laying about or recreating aimlessly for decades on end at the end of life is not natural and not, in my opinion, healthy. This is when you could be the most productive, the most valuable! You've spent a lifetime gaining knowledge and skills. Put them to use! Your body may be deteriorating, but the skills and mastery programmed into your mind and hands are still there and are priceless. Why waste them? What a tragedy! What if Michelangelo had retired? Or Mozart? Or Steve Jobs? The last ten years of true masters are almost always their most phenomenal period of productivity. People seem to have this idea that it is kind of shameful or ignominious to be working when you're 80; that as a society we somehow shouldn't allow this to be the most attractive choice for old people, or maybe even permitted. We would be embarrassed to have a situation where the old had to work for a living. We should be proud, instead, that we give them a stipend, like children, allowing them to lounge about and enjoy "retirement". Sorry, I don't buy into this.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Taking in the big picture of reality as a whole makes the whole "looming disaster and abject poverty for millions" fade into a much smaller threat than would seem from the numbers you posted, CLA. "Income" may be zero, sure. But what's their net worth? On average (median): $170,000 (see http://www.quizzle.com/blog/2012/02/the-elderly-are-getting-richer-the-young-not-so-much/ ). So what could they do with no income but a $170,000 nest egg? Well, invested at a 5% rate of return, which is a very attainable long-term average, they'd be making $8,500 per year. They also could just cash it out for $17,000 per year for ten years. If they are thinking they're going to live for more than ten more years, then yeah, maybe they should do something productive and earn some income. If they anticipate living for ten more years, they are clearly in fairly good health. Humans are built to be productive, to take on challenges. Laying about or recreating aimlessly for decades on end at the end of life is not natural and not, in my opinion, healthy. This is when you could be the most productive, the most valuable! You've spent a lifetime gaining knowledge and skills. Put them to use! Your body may be deteriorating, but the skills and mastery programmed into your mind and hands are still there and are priceless. Why waste them? What a tragedy! What if Michelangelo had retired? Or Mozart? Or Steve Jobs? The last ten years of true masters are almost always their most phenomenal period of productivity. People seem to have this idea that it is kind of shameful or ignominious to be working when you're 80; that as a society we somehow shouldn't allow this to be the most attractive choice for old people, or maybe even permitted. We would be embarrassed to have a situation where the old had to work for a living. We should be proud, instead, that we give them a stipend, like children, allowing them to lounge about and enjoy "retirement". Sorry, I don't buy into this.

I am 74 years old. I know many people in my age bracket that would be screwed in your scenario. And net worth typically includes their home, so that's bullshit. Basically, you are saying to the 90 year old widow - screw you, sell your house and go back to work. So much for the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

The comforting thing is that ideas like yours only get bantered about on internet forums where self-styled political philosophers can spew their "wisdom". In the real world there are traditional conservatives and libertarians who are working on real solutions. Ron Paul's was one of them.

[klamath]

I am 74 years old. I know many people in my age bracket that would be screwed in your scenario. And net worth typically includes their home, so that's bullshit. Basically, you are saying to the 90 year old widow - screw you, sell your house and go back to work. So much for the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

The comforting thing is that ideas like yours only get bantered about on internet forums where self-styled political philosophers can spew their "wisdom". In the real world there are traditional conservatives and libertarians who are working on real solutions. Ron Paul's was one of them.
Pretty much what you are talking to are the libertarian la la land people. They live in their dream world of libertarian philosophy, quoting the books of their demigods. They cannot look at human nature and deduct that their utopia might not just mesh with it. Their mind set pretty much matches that of Mao and Stalin, to hell with the short term consequences of their forced immediate conversion to the utopia libertarian state. If 8 million old people unable to work die, to bad! It very much reminds me of the cultural revolution Mao inspired with the youth in China. Kill the old people they are a drag on society and are to fault for all the problems in society. Instead of Mao's little red book, they wave Mises etc.
Human nature just seems to keep repeating itself from one generation to the next.

[cheapseats]

Pretty much what you are talking to are the libertarian la la land people. They live in their dream world of libertarian philosophy, quoting the books of their demigods. They cannot look at human nature and deduct that their utopia might not just mesh with it. Their mind set pretty much matches that of Mao and Stalin, to hell with the short term consequences of their forced immediate conversion to the utopia libertarian state. If 8 million old people unable to work die, to bad! It very much reminds me of the cultural revolution Mao inspired with the youth in China. Kill the old people they are a drag on society and are to fault for all the problems in society. Instead of Mao's little red book, they wave Mises etc.

CIRCULAR REFERENCING, someone once called their debate-via-links.

There is no trick to making theories work IN THEORY. Who subscribes to theories that don't even work IN THEORY?

My father used to dismiss it as "BOOK SMART, LIFE STUPID."




Human nature just seems to keep repeating itself from one generation to the next.

History repeats because Human Nature abides.

[dinosaur]

Pretty much what you are talking to are the libertarian la la land people. They live in their dream world of libertarian philosophy, quoting the books of their demigods. They cannot look at human nature and deduct that their utopia might not just mesh with it. Their mind set pretty much matches that of Mao and Stalin, to hell with the short term consequences of their forced immediate conversion to the utopia libertarian state. If 8 million old people unable to work die, to bad! It very much reminds me of the cultural revolution Mao inspired with the youth in China. Kill the old people they are a drag on society and are to fault for all the problems in society. Instead of Mao's little red book, they wave Mises etc.
Human nature just seems to keep repeating itself from one generation to the next.

Exactly the opposite. There is nothing utopian about ending SS, when throughout most of history people have lived without it. You can't say something is a dream world, when it happens to be the normal way of life throughout most of history. And the death and chaos will not come from ending it, it will come when we have a severe crisis brought on by our destructive addiction to spending.

How can you say that it is force to end force? An example of force would be the confiscation of people's property from the SS tax. End it and the economy gets better and people return to their traditional state of taking care of parents without the government middleman telling them exactly how to do it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Pretty much what you are talking to are the libertarian la la land people. They live in their dream world of libertarian philosophy, quoting the books of their demigods. They cannot look at human nature and deduct that their utopia might not just mesh with it. Their mind set pretty much matches that of Mao and Stalin, to hell with the short term consequences of their forced immediate conversion to the utopia libertarian state. If 8 million old people unable to work die, to bad! It very much reminds me of the cultural revolution Mao inspired with the youth in China. Kill the old people they are a drag on society and are to fault for all the problems in society. Instead of Mao's little red book, they wave Mises etc.
Human nature just seems to keep repeating itself from one generation to the next.

I suppose the only thing that concerns me is that some of these folks are part of the political movement. The last thing I want standing next to me at a GOP committee meaning is someone saying that the way to solve the SS issue is for 90 year old widows to go out and get a job.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Exactly the opposite. There is nothing utopian about ending SS, when throughout most of history people have lived without it. You can't say something is a dream world, when it happens to be the normal way of life throughout most of history. And the death and chaos will not come from ending it, it will come when we have a severe crisis brought on by our destructive addiction to spending.

How can you say that it is force to end force? An example of force would be the confiscation of people's property from the SS tax. End it and the economy gets better and people return to their traditional state of taking care of parents without the government middleman telling them exactly how to do it.

You still are speaking in hypothetical terms. What do you do with the 8 million or so seniors I referenced before who in your "end it now" approach who are left to live on 2 grand per year? I am giving you a very realistic consequence to the elimination of SS. Solve it.

[klamath]

Exactly the opposite. There is nothing utopian about ending SS, when throughout most of history people have lived without it. You can't say something is a dream world, when it happens to be the normal way of life throughout most of history. And the death and chaos will not come from ending it, it will come when we have a severe crisis brought on by our destructive addiction to spending.

How can you say that it is force to end force? An example of force would be the confiscation of people's property from the SS tax. End it and the economy gets better and people return to their traditional state of taking care of parents without the government middleman telling them exactly how to do it.
In the past people didn't plan, pay and base their life on a system to a point in their lives where they can no longer work and change things.

[dinosaur]

In the past people didn't plan, pay and base their life on a system to a point in their lives where they can no longer work and change things.

Why on earth would people plan and base their lives on a government promise? Seems to me a recipe for failure.

[klamath]

Why on earth would people plan and base their lives on a government promise? Seems to me a recipe for failure.
Why do people make mistakes?

[dinosaur]

Why do people make mistakes?

Right, and sometimes consequences happen. It would be nice to protect people from these consequences. But we can't. We can not protect people from the consequences, but we can make them less horrible if we stop digging the hole.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Right, and sometimes consequences happen. It would be nice to protect people from thise consequences. But we can't. We can not protect people from the consequences, but we can make them less horrible if we stop digging the hole.

But if we (meaning libertarians and traditional conservatives) wish to take over the government and change things, we need to clean up the mess that those before us left behind. We don't wash out hands of it and say, "oh well this program was unconstitutional, screw everyone who has been effected by it"

If someone had a cancerous tumor in their leg, the proper thing to do would be to remove the tumor, treat any remaining cancer, and have the patient go through rehab so that he is restored to his normal life.

The "end SS immediately, damn the consequences approach" is akin to taking the same cancer patient, cutting off his leg with a hacksaw and walking away saying "I got rid of the cancer" ignoring the fact that he is lying there bleeding to death.

[dinosaur]

But if we (meaning libertarians and traditional conservatives) wish to take over the government and change things, we need to clean up the mess that those before us left behind. We don't wash out hands of it and say, "oh well this program was unconstitutional, screw everyone who has been effected by it"

If someone had a cancerous tumor in their leg, the proper thing to do would be to remove the tumor, treat any remaining cancer, and have the patient go through rehab so that he is restored to his normal life.

The "end SS immediately, damn the consequences approach" is akin to taking the same cancer patient, cutting off his leg with a hacksaw and walking away saying "I got rid of the cancer" ignoring the fact that he is lying there bleeding to death.


I agree, but that is not what I have been saying. I've been trying to make the point the there will be less suffering endured by people if we end it now. I've been trying to argue, that ending it is the life-saving surgury we need.

[TomtheTinker]

Yes.

[klamath]

Right, and sometimes consequences happen. It would be nice to protect people from these consequences. But we can't. We can not protect people from the consequences, but we can make them less horrible if we stop digging the hole.
And this is why I can never be a libertarian. If I see someone that made a mistake that will cost them their life if I don't help I can't turn my back. You obviously can. I can't. In this case it is life or death.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree, but that is not what I have been saying. I've been trying to make the point the there will be less suffering endured by people if we end it now. I've been trying to argue, that ending it is the life-saving surgury we need.

Ok so answer the consequence I posed above. What about the 8 million or so people who would go from about 20K per year to around 2K per year.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And this is why I can never be a libertarian. If I see someone that made a mistake that will cost them their life if I don't help I can't turn my back. You obviously can. I can't. In this case it is life or death.

Agreed. I am not one for labels, but I have long viewed libertarianism as being a philosophy far more so than being solution.

[dinosaur]

And this is why I can never be a libertarian. If I see someone that made a mistake that will cost them their life if I don't help I can't turn my back. You obviously can. I can't. In this case it is life or death.

OMG, no! I will not and would not turn my back! We will take care of people! But if we want to survive as a country, we have to man up and do it without a government middle-man.

[dinosaur]

Agreed. I am not one for labels, but I have long viewed libertarianism as being a philosophy far more so than being solution.

I've never considered myself libertarian, more of a Buchanan-type paleo. But there isn't much difference, those are only labels.

[klamath]

OMG, no! I will not and would not turn my back! We will take care of people! But if we want to survive as a country, we have to man up and do it without a government middle-man.
What IS your solution for the millions that suddenly have no means of support or the ability to work?

[dinosaur]

What IS your solution for the millions that suddenly have no means of support or the ability to work?

Cut out the government middle-man, and have children directly take care of their parents. Cut out the goverment middle man, and have communities directly take care of the elderly who have no children to take care of them.

Is the concern that we might not do it as well as government does, really worth flushing our country down the toilet over?

Edit: Or does the presence of a government middle man, give people the illusion of independence that they crave?

[klamath]

Cut out the government middle-man, and have children directly take care of their parents. Cut out the goverment middle man, and have communities directly take care of the elderly who have no children to take care of them.

Is the concern that we might not do it as well as government does, really worth flushing our country down the toilet over?

Edit: Or does the presence of a government middle man, give people the illusion of independence that they crave?

And when they aren't taken care of by the local community of their children and are dying? It is fine to say but many children didn't give a sh*t if their parents live or die and many have shown that very attitude on these forums.

[Katt]

Excelent job PTB, you stole all the wealth and have convinced all of us to accuse one another. It seems, so far, that you will get away, scott free.

Exactly.

The fact remains that this will end badly no matter what we do about it now. Our actions now can only contribute to or ease the suffering later, but there will be suffering either way.

Cut all the BS out of the federal budget (excessive military spending, corporate welfare, etc.) and start phasing out all entitlement programs, including social security, NOW.

[dinosaur]

And when they aren't taken care of by the local community of their children and are dying? It is fine to say but many children didn't give a sh*t if their parents live or die and many have shown that very attitude on these forums.

Look, it is utopian to put government in charge of collecting the money to make children take care of their parents, and then expect good things to come of it.

As people go, americans are still generous. If they can do it in poorer countries, we can do it here too.

[klamath]

Look, it is utopian to put government in charge of collecting the money to make children take care of their parents, and then expect good things to come of it.
Quit avoiding the direct question.

[squarepusher]

We don't have a choice. The money is taken right out of our pay. That doesn't mean I support it other than by force, though.

but are you forced to work?


Yea, I don't want to loose my house, at the point of a gun, that I built with my hands.

edit: King George will surely come for it, otherwise.

So I assume you have a big loan to the bank that you have to pay off every month and have to work to pay your debt to the bank for your house?

[dinosaur]

Quit avoiding the direct question.

I wasn't. Bad things tend to come of putting the government in charge of these things, and you are worried about the bad things that might come of not putting the government in charge. I've answered this question over and over again. Society suffers more when the government is in charge.

[heavenlyboy34]

The only people morally justified in taking the SS's blood money are libertarians, that is, people who firmly believe the money should not be being stolen, and would gladly push a button to end the SS immediately if such a button existed.

Those taking the stolen money who do not believe that the system of theft should be ended -- and immediately! -- are indeed just accomplices to the crime. They are happy to take food out of the mouths of the very poorest demographic and use it to pay for their high-dollar cruises and flat screens and prescription pills. They need to educate themselves on why theft is evil, even if done on a massive scale by people calling themselves the state, why the SS is indeed theft, even though it's never called that, and why it must be ended immediately, even if that means they get nothing to show for all the money that was taken from them through the years.
Indeed. From the libertarian view, it is perfectly legitimate to use the system to bankrupt it-thus at least partly diminishing the regime's power. (IIRC, Block has made this argument as well) I know RP justifies his earmark policy as sort of "stealing back" money stolen by the feds.

[klamath]

I wasn't. Bad things tend to come of putting the government in charge of these things, and you are worried about the bad things that might come of not putting the government in charge. I've answered this question over and over again. Society suffers more when the government is in charge. So in otherwards you are willing to turn a blind eye to the old people dumped off SSI and dying.
I believe we can phase SSI out without killing millions to do it.

[JK/SEA]

I wasn't. Bad things tend to come of putting the government in charge of these things, and you are worried about the bad things that might come of not putting the government in charge. I've answered this question over and over again. Society suffers more when the government is in charge.

your attitude is too idealistic. I turn 62 this year and will be eligible for Soc Sec that i have been paying into since 1968. My paycheck deductions help pay for my parents Soc Sec. My Dad passed 10 years ago and mom in 1992. If we take your idea to eliminate soc sec, and say my only income will be from soc sec...btw it isn't but for the sake of others who haven't invested for reasons that may or may not meet with your approval, what are baby boomers who's only income would have been soc sec supposed to do? walk into a river or jump off a bridge?

Reality sucks sometimes. Hope you have a plan, but maybe your plan won't be able to get you through your golden years. If you don't have an answer then please refrain from mis-guided attitudes.

[heavenlyboy34]

And this is why I can never be a libertarian. If I see someone that made a mistake that will cost them their life if I don't help I can't turn my back. You obviously can. I can't. In this case it is life or death.
What makes you think libertarians oppose voluntarily helping people? I don't know of any. The only helping I would oppose is being forced to "help". Charity is great, and the most rational way to truly help people.

[heavenlyboy34]

your attitude is too idealistic. I turn 62 this year and will be eligible for Soc Sec that i have been paying into since 1968. My paycheck deductions help pay for my parents Soc Sec. My Dad passed 10 years ago and mom in 1992. If we take your idea to eliminate soc sec, and say my only income will be from soc sec...btw it isn't but for the sake of others who haven't invested for reasons that may or may not meet with your approval, what are baby boomers who's only income would have been soc sec supposed to do? walk into a river or jump off a bridge?

Reality sucks sometimes. Hope you have a plan, but maybe your plan won't be able to get you through your golden years. If you don't have an answer then please refrain from mis-guided attitudes.
For most of American history, people considered his attitude common sense. You're right, reality sucks. You, in reality, can't reasonably expect complete strangers to support your (relatively, by world amd historical American average) bourgeois lifestyle. That is a sense of entitlement handed down to you from a sadly dysfunctional society. :(

[tod evans]

Look at this realistically, boomers own more guns per capita than all other generations combined.

[erowe1]

I believe we can phase SSI out without killing millions to do it.

Whatever it is that causes someone to die, it's not that they weren't given something that was never theirs and was stolen from someone else.

Do you feel sorry for old people without kids to take care of them, and you want to give some of your earnings to help them? Then good. Do it. Just keep the government out of it.

[erowe1]

Look at this realistically, boomers own more guns per capita than all other generations combined.

There you have your answer. Let them sell their guns.

[JK/SEA]

For most of American history, people considered his attitude common sense. You're right, reality sucks. You, in reality, can't reasonably expect complete strangers to support your (relatively, by world amd historical American average) bourgeois lifestyle. That is a sense of entitlement handed down to you from a sadly dysfunctional society. :(

so i take it you'd approve of mass suicide of boomers who in your world were too stupid to plan for old age, and not being able to work any longer because they beat their bodies against the wheel of hard work...

[JK/SEA]

There you have your answer. Let them sell their guns.

gun buy back program?...yeah...great answer.

[awake]

The old enslave the young through force of violence.

[klamath]

Whatever it is that causes someone to die, it's not that they weren't given something that was never theirs and was stolen from someone else.

Do you feel sorry for old people without kids to take care of them, and you want to give some of your earnings to help them? Then good. Do it. Just keep the government out of it.
Ok, your payroll taxes were never yours. Get over it.

[JK/SEA]

The old enslave the young through force of violence.

hmmm...ok...'us' boomers should sell or turn in all our guns and let you young people experience real tyranny...

[heavenlyboy34]

so i take it you'd approve of mass suicide of boomers who in your world were too stupid to plan for old age, and not being able to work any longer because they beat their bodies against the wheel of hard work... :rolleyes: Srsly? Lovely strawman there. :P I said in this very thread I support charity for such people. It wasn't all that long ago that local churches helped the elderly with the necessities of life. Such virtue is one of the things that used to make Americans great. I don't think the short-sighted boomers are entitled to the welfare hammock they believe they are, though.

[erowe1]

:rolleyes: Srsly? Lovely strawman there. :P I said in this very thread I support charity for such people. It wasn't all that long ago that local churches helped the elderly with the necessities of life. Such virtue is one of the things that used to make Americans great. I don't think the short-sighted boomers are entitled to the welfare hammock they believe they are, though.

The pro-SS people here seem to be convinced that we could never care for people through some means outside the government in a way that approaches the efficiency of this government program.

If they really think that, then why say anything negative about SS at all? It would seem to be a great thing if that were the case.

[heavenlyboy34]

The pro-SS people here seem to be convinced that we could never care for people through some means outside the government in a way that approaches the efficiency of this government program.

If they really think that, then why say anything negative about SS at all? It would seem to be a great thing if that were the case.
You'd think so! IOU a +rep when I get more ammo.

[heavenlyboy34]

And another thing-while we're bailing out the elderly because they believed the government lies and didn't save, we should also bail out the young who fell for the government lies and took college loans they couldn't afford. YAY, utopia! Great Society, here we come! ~jumps up and down in glee~

[CaptLouAlbano]

The pro-SS people here seem to be convinced that we could never care for people through some means outside the government in a way that approaches the efficiency of this government program.

If they really think that, then why say anything negative about SS at all? It would seem to be a great thing if that were the case.

erowe1, I believe that charity would pick up the slack, but in the long term. I don't believe, as some have advocated, for an immediate pulling of the plug. In that case charity would never, ever be able to make up the difference. I think we need a gradual transition off the system.

[heavenlyboy34]

erowe1, I believe that charity would pick up the slack, but in the long term. I don't believe, as some have advocated, for an immediate pulling of the plug. In that case charity would never, ever be able to make up the difference. I think we need a gradual transition off the system.
Why would that be worse than pulling the plug on the FED-which most people here favor? (that would affect almost everyone, especially in the short term)

[JK/SEA]

:rolleyes: Srsly? Lovely strawman there. :P I said in this very thread I support charity for such people. It wasn't all that long ago that local churches helped the elderly with the necessities of life. Such virtue is one of the things that used to make Americans great. I don't think the short-sighted boomers are entitled to the welfare hammock they believe they are, though.

charity?....just words. Sure, there 'may be' some who take in a relative, or some philantrophy thrown in, but you cannot say with 100% certainty that this will cover the millions who will be thrown into the void because 'we' want to end SSI payments to boomers.

[tod evans]

My vote goes to cutting all federal spending not specifically authorized in the constitution, every dime not piecemeal or gradually.

Rip the damn bandage off and either hemorrhage or heal.........This seeping/festering wound of government we have will kill the country if we don't do something...

[JK/SEA]

And another thing-while we're bailing out the elderly because they believed the government lies and didn't save, we should also bail out the young who fell for the government lies and took college loans they couldn't afford. YAY, utopia! Great Society, here we come! ~jumps up and down in glee~

college loans and SSI?....apples and oranges. Nice try.

As to 'not' saving...SSI is taken out of your paycheck, assuming you make one.

[JK/SEA]

I've said this before but WHY are some people, apparently younger ones, so damn hell bent to trash boomers and their SSI?...why isn't the Military spending for bullshit wars and nation building not the main focus?...perhaps SSI should be put into the military budget, and to balance things out cancel these wars and nation building crap.

[tod evans]

I've said this before but WHY are some people, apparently younger ones, so damn hell bent to trash boomers and their SSI?...why isn't the Military spending for bullshit wars and nation building not the main focus?...perhaps SSI should be put into the military budget, and to balance things out cancel these wars and nation building crap.

I'm a boomer and I'll gladly eat my loss if it makes a better world for my son....

Many won't though..:o

[JK/SEA]

I'm a boomer and I'll gladly eat my loss if it makes a better world for my son....

Many won't though..:o

eat your loss?...ok, if your budget can allow for that then go for it. Personnally i like a roof over my head, food to eat, and way to keep warm. Is that asking too much for someone like me who worked his effin ass off for everything i have?

[klamath]

charity?....just words. Sure, there 'may be' some who take in a relative, or some philantrophy thrown in, but you cannot say with 100% certainty that this will cover the millions who will be thrown into the void because 'we' want to end SSI payments to boomers.
Some people have a hard time figuring out where they stand. Here is a quote from HB34 just a few weeks ago.


Every welfare state/empire collapses in one way or another. This is a good thing. I don't see a problem with people using the system to expropriate money from the regime.

[erowe1]

Some people have a hard time figuring out where they stand. Here is a quote from HB34 just a few weeks ago.

I agree with what HB34 says in that quote.

I have no qualms about taking government benefits that I advocate eliminating. Obviously if they were eliminated I wouldn't get them any more. But until then I'm not going to pretend they aren't there. If I were eligible for SS I absolutely would collect it while I continued to argue for its total immediate elimination.

[JK/SEA]

I agree with what HB34 says in that quote.

I have no qualms about taking government benefits that I advocate eliminating. Obviously if they were eliminated I wouldn't get them any more. But until then I'm not going to pretend they aren't there. If I were eligible for SS I absolutely would collect it while I continued to argue for its total immediate elimination.

i can agree with that. Now keep working, i want my SSI check.

[heavenlyboy34]

charity?....just words. Sure, there 'may be' some who take in a relative, or some philantrophy thrown in, but you cannot say with 100% certainty that this will cover the millions who will be thrown into the void because 'we' want to end SSI payments to boomers.
Nothing is 100% certain. Not even SSI. So? At least charity is sustainable and moral.

[klamath]

I agree with what HB34 says in that quote.

I have no qualms about taking government benefits that I advocate eliminating. Obviously if they were eliminated I wouldn't get them any more. But until then I'm not going to pretend they aren't there. If I were eligible for SS I absolutely would collect it while I continued to argue for its total immediate elimination.
Of course you would, you have no problems stealing my money taken with force:rolleyes:.

[heavenlyboy34]

Some people have a hard time figuring out where they stand. Here is a quote from HB34 just a few weeks ago.
Except that quote was in the context of unemployment/food stamps. What I said there was consistent with not only the libertarian position but the position of contemporaries like Block and RP. And this is an entirely different discussion. SSI is inter-generational theft, whereas unemployment just takes back what's already been taken away. (remember, SSI is just a ponzi scheme, rather than a funded liability) Nobody is trying to live the lies regarding unemployment and such as they are with SSI (that I know of).

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course you would, you have no problems stealing my money taken with force:rolleyes:.
IIRC, you support standing armies and the various levels of beaurocracy allowed by the Constitution. The pot is calling the kettle black. ;)

[erowe1]

Of course you would, you have no problems stealing my money taken with force:rolleyes:.

Yes I do have a problem with it. Otherwise I wouldn't be for eliminating it.

ETA: Say you're a coach in the American League, and you lobby the league to get rid of the designated hitter rule. Until you succeed, I'm guessing you'll keep using a designated hitter.

[heavenlyboy34]

While I'm here, I would like to mention that back in the 30's, the average person only lived to ~60. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html To make SS work the way it theoretically should, the retirement age needs to be pushed up to ~90 and the boomers should stop collecting till they reach that age.

[klamath]

Except that quote was in the context of unemployment/food stamps. What I said there was consistent with not only the libertarian position but the position of contemporaries like Block and RP. And this is an entirely different discussion. SSI is inter-generational theft, whereas unemployment just takes back what's already been taken away. (remember, SSI is just a ponzi scheme, rather than a funded liability) Nobody is trying to live the lies regarding unemployment and such as they are with SSI (that I know of).

I am sure it is the libertarian position to take what you can while you can all under the pretext of breaking the system and another reason I am not a libertarian.
"unemployment just takes back what's already been taken away" If you can't see the hyprocracy in this you never will. SSI just takes back what already was taken away........

[klamath]

IIRC, you support standing armies and the various levels of beaurocracy allowed by the Constitution. The pot is calling the kettle black. ;)
Not exactly because it was sarcasm at the people that were saying exactly that about people getting SSI.

[TheTexan]

There's no way I'm continuing to pay into this ponzi scheme. I'll give it 2 years max for them to come up with an opt-out solution, then I'm packing my bags, and I'm opting out of this country.

[tod evans]

eat your loss?...ok, if your budget can allow for that then go for it. Personnally i like a roof over my head, food to eat, and way to keep warm. Is that asking too much for someone like me who worked his effin ass off for everything i have?

My budget can't allow for it but if it'd free my child from having to pay in then I'll forego the entitlements I've paid in to.

I can't ask anything of you or anyone else, it's not my place...

We can both see the mess our government is in and I would like to see it reigned in drastically.....My line in the sand if you will is welfare and medicare/aid........I'll give up SSI after these programs are totally eliminated..

[klamath]

My budget can't allow for it but if it'd free my child from having to pay in then I'll forego the entitlements I've paid in to.

I can't ask anything of you or anyone else, it's not my place...

We can both see the mess our government is in and I would like to see it reigned in drastically.....My line in the sand if you will is welfare and medicare/aid........I'll give up SSI after these programs are totally eliminated..
What i would like is the suplimental security income program looked at real closely. In my neck of the woods it is by far the most abused system. I know many people that receive full ssi for disability yet work under the table at jobs they should never be able to do. I know one woman that gets ssi because she couldn't stand crowds and therefore couldn't work.

[opal]

Last to the thread again.. only read page one.. for those that did NOT pay in and are collecting SS.. YES.. welfare, for those that did pay in .. not welfare but also not fair

[Humanae Libertas]

Social Security is an outdated primitive system that the dinosaurs don't want to admit doesn't work at all. People still think there is a savings account with their names in this social security trust fund, when there is no such thing. Definitely a Ponzi scheme.

[truelies]

Last to the thread again.. only read page one.. for those that did NOT pay in and are collecting SS.. YES.. welfare, for those that did pay in .. not welfare but also not fair

Agreed. However the desire of some of the young here to transferr ALL of the unfairness to the older generation just ain't gonna fly. Again whiny Gen Useless types- ya wanna be free of thee burden of SS for your elderly parents/grandparents? Fine. BUT FIRST- ya need to pay back every cent plus interest they spent bringing your worthless caress to 'maturity'. Can't have any 'free loaders' now can we.

[truelies]

There's no way I'm continuing to pay into this ponzi scheme. I'll give it 2 years max for them to come up with an opt-out solution, then I'm packing my bags, and I'm opting out of this country.

and go where? LMAO. Fool ya wanna trade $10,000 income taxed at 6% for SSI in for $1000 taxed at 0% for SSI (but all other prices unchanged) go for it. You won't be missed.

[dinosaur]

Agreed. However the desire of some of the young here to transferr ALL of the unfairness to the older generation just ain't gonna fly. Again whiny Gen Useless types- ya wanna be free of thee burden of SS for your elderly parents/grandparents? Fine. BUT FIRST- ya need to pay back every cent plus interest they spent bringing your worthless caress to 'maturity'. Can't have any 'free loaders' now can we.

Why don't you place the blame on the people who stole the money from you in the first place? Getting mad at the children and grandchildren who will suffer through an economic collapse because of this foolishness isn't cool.

[TheTexan]

and go where? LMAO. Fool ya wanna trade $10,000 income taxed at 6% for SSI in for $1000 taxed at 0% for SSI (but all other prices unchanged) go for it. You won't be missed.

Huh? English, do you speak it?

The bottom line is I won't ever see a dime of the money I'm paying in. That's just a fact. At least in other countries with similar tax rates you usually get at least something with the money stolen from you. Here I won't get shit.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Huh? English, do you speak it?

The bottom line is I won't ever see a dime of the money I'm paying in. That's just a fact. At least in other countries with similar tax rates you usually get at least something with the money stolen from you. Here I won't get shit.

How old are you, because if I remember it correctly, the Paul plan would have provided some sort of transition to a private investment account for what you have put in.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've said this before but WHY are some people, apparently younger ones, so damn hell bent to trash boomers and their SSI?...why isn't the Military spending for bullshit wars and nation building not the main focus?...perhaps SSI should be put into the military budget, and to balance things out cancel these wars and nation building crap.
I don't think anyone is "hell bent to trash the boomers and their SSI". SSI just happens to be the subject of the thread. As you said, there are better places to start slashing, but that's off the thread topic.

[heavenlyboy34]

Social Security is an outdated primitive system that the dinosaurs don't want to admit doesn't work at all. People still think there is a savings account with their names in this social security trust fund, when there is no such thing. Definitely a Ponzi scheme.Yup.

[TheTexan]

How old are you, because if I remember it correctly, the Paul plan would have provided some sort of transition to a private investment account for what you have put in.

26. I believe I was just over the cut-off point of his plan. But yes any kind of opt-out or transition would be good.

[klamath]

Why don't you place the blame on the people who stole the money from you in the first place? Getting mad at the children and grandchildren who will suffer through an economic collapse because of this foolishness isn't cool. Or better yet why not blame the people that haven't paid much of anything in scooping up as much government monies as they can in order to "break the system".......

[erowe1]

I've said this before but WHY are some people, apparently younger ones, so damn hell bent to trash boomers and their SSI?...why isn't the Military spending for bullshit wars and nation building not the main focus?...perhaps SSI should be put into the military budget, and to balance things out cancel these wars and nation building crap.

In my case, I make a point of demonizing Social Security because I'm trying to counteract its popularity. It shouldn't be the third rail of politics that it is. It should have the same stigma as welfare in general (which itself should have more of a stigma than it does now). And when groups like the AARP defend it, they should be called out on it and treated like cigarette companies used to be. I hope that I can help make negative talk about SS normal.

[squarepusher]

Social Security is a BIGGER cost than defense (800 billion in 2012), but more importantly will be ballooning in the upcoming years

[dinosaur]

Or better yet why not blame the people that haven't paid much of anything in scooping up as much government monies as they can in order to "break the system".......

We can agree on that one. The ends don't justify the means. And I"m not particularly keen on hastening the resulting human suffering.

[Yieu]

but are you forced to work?

In order to survive? By nature, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to get by.

[klamath]

We can agree on that one. The ends don't justify the means. And I"m not particularly keen on hastening the resulting human suffering.
Unfortunately many of the people with this attitude don't know how well they have it. I live in an area with a lot of gold mining relics. When you find shovels worn down to a few inches and rock picks the same and you survey the miles of water ditches cut by hand through solid rock you start getting a clue just how hard people worked. When I hear how horrible people say their lives are I want to ask them how many rock picks they have worn to the head. They were doing it so they could eat.

[LibForestPaul]

I don't think anyone is "hell bent to trash the boomers and their SSI". SSI just happens to be the subject of the thread. As you said, there are better places to start slashing, but that's off the thread topic.

Because we are tired of hearing old people complain about illegals, complain about negroes, complain about everyone else sponging off the government, yet they always have excuses why they should have their bennies.

[dinosaur]

Unfortunately many of the people with this attitude don't know how well they have it. I live in an area with a lot of gold mining relics. When you find shovels worn down to a few inches and rock picks the same and you survey the miles of water ditches cut by hand through solid rock you start getting a clue just how hard people worked. When I hear how horrible people say their lives are I want to ask them how many rock picks they have worn to the head. They were doing it so they could eat.

Yep, be careful what you wish for people. We don't even know the meaning of hardship. But doesn't that make my point a little? Wouldn't the hardships that many would face if we ended SS be so much less than the hardsips we would face if we do nothing and let it collapse the system? At least we would get an economic boost from getting rid of that tax, and we would be in a position to be able to take care of our elderly.

[klamath]

Yep, be careful what you wish for people. We don't even know the meaning of hardship. But doesn't that make my point a little? Wouldn't the hardships that many would face if we ended SS be so much less than the hardsips we would face if we do nothing and let it collapse the system? At least we would get an economic boost from getting rid of that tax, and we would be in a position to be able to take care of our elderly. I am for getting rid of SSI however I don't think you can dump millions into abject poverty overnight. People live 30 days without food, and even less if you are over 70. Economies don't readjust fast enough to pick up the slack to feed millions of people unable to work for themselves.
I am not on SSI and started out 33 years ago with the idea that I would NOT get anything from the system in my old age. That is not a new concept. I do believe many old people do feel entitled to every giveaway because "WE did good by our country". (told to me by a old person 35 years ago on getting SSI and foodstamps.) AARP very much reinforces that idea.
But I find that every age group has their hand out to the government trying to get something and justifing it like the "I am breaking the system people". Also not a new concept. I lived through the hippy back to the earth generation. Thousands moved into the woods around me and guess what they were living on welfare and food stamps, growing pot and living in communes because they were trying to break the horrible corporate system of capitalism.
So I draw a deep breath and mutter the more generations change the more they stay the same.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am for getting rid of SSI however I don't think you can dump millions into abject poverty overnight. People live 30 days without food, and even less if you are over 70. Economies don't readjust fast enough to pick up the slack to feed millions of people unable to work for themselves.
I am not on SSI and started out 33 years ago with the idea that I would NOT get anything from the system in my old age. That is not a new concept. I do believe many old people do feel entitled to every giveaway because "WE did good by our country". (told to me by a old person 35 years ago on getting SSI and foodstamps.) AARP very much reinforces that idea.
But I find that every age group has their hand out to the government trying to get something and justifing it like the "I am breaking the system people". Also not a new concept. I lived through the hippy back to the earth generation. Thousands moved into the woods around me and guess what they were living on welfare and food stamps, growing pot and living in communes because they were trying to break the horrible corporate system of capitalism.
So I draw a deep breath and mutter the more generations change the more they stay the same.
Is RP justifying welfarism/handouts when he earmarks various projects to get federal money for his state? Most critics have called that hypocritical of him.

[klamath]

Is RP justifying welfarism/handouts when he earmarks various projects to get federal money for his state? Most critics have called that hypocritical of him. I am not sure of the point of this? Trying to do a major derail?

[heavenlyboy34]

I am not sure of the point of this? Trying to do a major derail?
No, I'm wondering if you are able to justify RP's welfarism for his state (taking money away from the feds) while calling those who want to do the same at the individual level wrong. Note in your previous post you said
But I find that every age group has their hand out to the government trying to get something and justifing it like the "I am breaking the system people".. It strikes me as inconsistent for you to criticize the "I am breaking the system people" while not criticizing RP.

[dinosaur]

I am for getting rid of SSI however I don't think you can dump millions into abject poverty overnight.

Won't millions be dumped into abject poverty if we do not get rid of it? How can you prevent millions from being dumped into poverty at this point? I'd rather it happened pre-collapse because communities will then at least have the option of preventing people from starving, even if the economic rebound wasn't fast enough. I'd rather be poor in the economy we have today, than the one that is coming.

[klamath]

No, I'm wondering if you are able to justify RP's welfarism for his state (taking money away from the feds) while calling those who want to do the same at the individual level wrong. Note in your previous post you said . It strikes me as inconsistent for you to criticize the "I am breaking the system people" while not criticizing RP.
Really:) I took a lot of heat for doing exactly that, disagreeing with RP's over earmarking justification. Rather recently for that matter.....

[klamath]

Won't millions be dumped into abject poverty if we do not get rid of it? How can you prevent millions from being dumped into poverty at this point? I'd rather it happened pre-collapse because communities will then at least have the option of preventing people from starving, even if the economic rebound wasn't fast enough. I'd rather be poor in the economy we have today, than the one that is coming. because I believe we can still avoid a complete colapse with proper fiscal restraint. This is not a new concept either. In the late 70's and early 80's All I heard was the coming imminent colapse. Maybe it is maybe it isn't but nobody knowns. This was a time when there was interest rates in the double digits, inflation at 16% and unemployment of 11% and gas had tripled in price. I actually saw more personal hurting then than now. Inflation was devistating the lower income people right at the supermarket.

[TheTexan]

because I believe we can still [delay] a complete colapse with proper fiscal restraint.

Fixed that for you

[dinosaur]

because I believe we can still avoid a complete colapse with proper fiscal restraint. This is not a new concept either. In the late 70's and early 80's All I heard was the coming imminent colapse. Maybe it is maybe it isn't but nobody knowns. This was a time when there was interest rates in the double digits, inflation at 16% and unemployment of 11% and gas had tripled in price. I actually saw more personal hurting then than now. Inflation was devistating the lower income people right at the supermarket.

You justify it by saying that it is not literally destroying the country, or that some tweaking of our spending (which will result in suffering for no one) will fix our trajectory. I guess that is how the average AARP member must be justifying it also.

[klamath]

Fixed that for you
every country eventially collapses. Watch the animated video of the the rise and fall of countries of europe for the last 2000 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkmZhCyg3G0

[klamath]

You justify it by saying that it is not literally destroying the country, or that some tweaking of our spending (which will result in suffering for no one) will fix our trajectory. I guess that is how the average AARP member must be justifying it also.
Please find where I say there would be suffering for no one and post it.

[heavenlyboy34]

because I believe we can still avoid a complete colapse with proper fiscal restraint. This is not a new concept either. In the late 70's and early 80's All I heard was the coming imminent colapse. Maybe it is maybe it isn't but nobody knowns. This was a time when there was interest rates in the double digits, inflation at 16% and unemployment of 11% and gas had tripled in price. I actually saw more personal hurting then than now. Inflation was devistating the lower income people right at the supermarket.
But there is current record youth unemployment (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107124580) and thousands of "boomerang kids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_Generation)" (kids who leave the nest and return back to the parents' house because of unemployment and generally unaffordable everything). Was that a problem in the late 70s/early 80s? I'm quite sure it wasn't, but I was only born in the early 80s.

[TheTexan]

every country eventially collapses. Watch the animated video of the the rise and fall of countries of europe for the last 2000 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkmZhCyg3G0

If by eventually you mean within the next 20 years at MOST. Then yes I agree with you. We have a debt crisis that will not and cannot be fixed. And delaying this debt crisis will just make it that much worse when it finally does come crashing down.

But, 20 years is a stretch. 2-4 is actually a more reasonable estimate... believe it or not.

[dinosaur]

Please find where I say there would be suffering for no one and post it.

My point was that you said that you are for ending it BUT we can not dump people into poverty (paraphrase). It sounded like you were only for solutions that didn't involve taking the medicine we need to take, only for solutions that wouldn't result in suffering.

[klamath]

But there is current record youth unemployment (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107124580) and thousands of "boomerang kids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_Generation)" (kids who leave the nest and return back to the parents' house because of unemployment and generally unaffordable everything). Was that a problem in the late 70s/early 80s? I'm quite sure it wasn't, but I was only born in the early 80s.
It is a meaningless statistic as age means nothing. If you are unemployed you are unemployed.

[dinosaur]

It is a meaningless statistic as age means nothing. If you are unemployed you are unemployed.

The amount that we are spending isn't meaningless, though. It is unsustainable. The thought of brushing this whole thing off as just one of those inevitable facts of life that happens to all countries sickens me. We know what the problem and the solution is. We inherited something that we should not have destroyed....people payed a blood price to give it to us, and we whine about giving up welfare in order to save it.

[klamath]

My point was that you said that you are for ending it BUT we can not dump people into poverty (paraphrase). It sounded like you were only for solutions that didn't involve taking the medicine we need to take, only for solutions that wouldn't result in suffering. Killing poverty. Cutting benefits raising the retirement age and allowing current worker to start taking a part of their payroll taxes and saving it privately is going to hurt but hurt it must. Hurting and dead are aways apart.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is a meaningless statistic as age means nothing. If you are unemployed you are unemployed.
That doesn't answer the question I posed to you.
Was that a problem in the late 70s/early 80s? I'm quite sure it wasn't, but I was only born in the early 80s.
You said
I actually saw more personal hurting then than now. Inflation was devistating the lower income people right at the supermarket. but the statistics seem to make your anecdotal evidence irrelevant.

And btw, inflation is devastating lower income folks at the supermarket now too.
Global food prices skyrocketing; up 10 percent in month of July alone

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037091_food_inflation_world_bank_warning.html#ixzz 2Hp3KnzQ1

( (http://www.naturalnews.com/037091_food_inflation_world_bank_warning.html#ixzz 2Hp3KnzQ1)a few months old, but still relevant)

Skyrocketing Prices Point To Looming Global Food Crisishttp://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133565708/Skyrocketing-Prices-Point-To-Looming-Global-Food-Crisis

[dinosaur]

Killing poverty. Cutting benefits raising the retirement age and allowing current worker to start taking a part of their payroll taxes and saving it privately is going to hurt but hurt it must. Hurting and dead are aways apart.

Dead won't happen. No way are children, neices and nephews, or even neighbors going to let someone die of starvation or exposure. I don't buy it.

[Anti Federalist]

It's not we need to phase it out, which is why I liked Paul's proposal for it. But there are so many other areas of the budget that can be cut before we say to the 85 year old widow living in a one bedroom apt that the check she gets every month in gone. We're Americans, we clean up our mistakes the right way.

Ummm, no there isn't, really.

Medicare/Medicaid/SS combined make up 43% of all federal spending.

Combine that with another 19 percent of "defense" spending and 6% of interest on the debt, and 68% of all federal spending is SS/MM/DOD and interest.

And nobody will touch any of these.

So, over the edge we go.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

[klamath]

The amount that we are spending isn't meaningless, though. It is unsustainable. The thought of brushing this whole thing off as just one of those inevitable facts of life that happens to all countries sickens me. We know what the problem and the solution is. We inherited something that we should not have destroyed....people payed a blood price to give it to us, and we whine about giving up welfare in order to save it. That is true. A 10% actual budget reduction would be a huge step though. We have never had that. A huge reduction of crippling business regulations would spur a giant GDP surge.

[klamath]

That doesn't answer the question I posed to you.
You said but the statistics seem to make your anecdotal evidence irrelevant.

And btw, inflation is devastating lower income folks at the supermarket now too.
Global food prices skyrocketing; up 10 percent in month of July alone

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037091_food_inflation_world_bank_warning.html#ixzz 2Hp3KnzQ1

( (http://www.naturalnews.com/037091_food_inflation_world_bank_warning.html#ixzz 2Hp3KnzQ1)a few months old, but still relevant)

Skyrocketing Prices Point To Looming Global Food Crisishttp://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133565708/Skyrocketing-Prices-Point-To-Looming-Global-Food-Crisis
Global food prices.... what are the US food prices.

[klamath]

Dead won't happen. No way are children, neices and nephews, or even neighbors going to let someone die of starvation or exposure. I don't buy it.
Dump 62 million people overnight and yes it is going to happen.

[Anti Federalist]

Dump 62 million people overnight and yes it is going to happen.

New Orleans, Katrina, 2005.

You're damned right it will happen, and it will happen in a matter of weeks.

It was estimated that over 10 million people died in Russia when the USSR collapsed.

[dinosaur]

Dump 62 million people overnight and yes it is going to happen.

No, it will only happen if we wait until the economy gets worse to try to wean people off of it. Your compassion is misplaced, it would be more compassionate to wean people off government assistance before that happens. What are people who depend on a government check going to do, when everyone is affected, and neighbors don't have the resources to help them out? Nevermind, we've gone around this circle before....I forgot, the crash won't happen.:rolleyes:

[helmuth_hubener]

I am 74 years old. I know many people in my age bracket that would be screwed in your scenario. And I know many young people being pummeled in the current situation. You have an unrealistic propagandistic apocalyptic hypothetical, not grounded in common sense at all. My solid, concrete, right-now, go-out-and-look-at-it, day-in-day-out reality trumps that. I feel. You feel differently.

The SS is pummeling young people into the ground. As we speak. Fact. You think that unspecified and probably unrealistic bad things might, maybe, possibly happen if we young folks cut off a bunch of very wealthy dependents. Again, my reality trumps your imaginary Chicken Little scenario. That is how I see it.


What do you do with the 8 million or so seniors I referenced before who in your "end it now" approach who are left to live on 2 grand per year? I am giving you a very realistic consequence to the elimination of SS. Solve it. Here is what I do: I let them solve it. If these folks do in fact have a problem, who is the one best suited to solve it: me, you, or them? I don't know enough to solve their problems. I'm not smart enough. It would be insulting and paternalistic for me to presume to do so. Certainly I'm not going to solve any of their problems by stealing money from random unrelated young people and mailing it to them every month. I trust in good, old-fashioned American rugged individualism. I believe in individual dignity. I believe that it's insulting and degrading to old folks to put them on the dole; to give them a stipend like little children.

Capt., do you also believe, like me, that people should be left alone rather than meddled with, coddled, and treated like children? Even, and perhaps especially, when they have lived a good many years longer and have a great deal more wisdom and experience than those presuming to solve their problems?

Show a little respect for your fellow elders, CLA. Just a little respect.

[truelies]

And I know many young people being pummeled in the current situation. ........................


Your 'solution' of handing the entire screwing the older generation and keeping the gains entirely for your generation besides being utterly unjust will never ever fly politically.

For 70 years SS has been presented to four generations of Americans as an insurance program. Now it may well be that the politicians were committing fraud all along but it would be unjust to chance the goal posts for folks for whom it is to late in life to make other arrangements. Still the younger generation caught by the scheme is also being harmed by the taxes.

My Solution-

1) Immediately end the 6.2% tax for employees and the 12.4% tax for the self employed. Corporations would continue to pay the 6.2% tax which would be extended to 100% oc corporate payroll including perks, bonuses and stock options.

2) Give current taxpayers over age 60 the option of receiving SS under the current rules OR a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments. Payments to be funded thru the medium of treasury notes in lieu of federal reserve notes. So banks no more TARP for at least 10 years. Treasury notes to be backed by the public land assets of the USA.

3) Current taxpayers age 30 - 60 to receive a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments starting in 10 years or at age 67 whichever is earlier.

4) Current taxpayers under age 30- $10,000 T-bill plus interest which accrues payable at age 60

[klamath]

No, it will only happen if we wait until the economy gets worse to try to wean people off of it. Your compassion is misplaced, it would be more compassionate to wean people off government assistance before that happens. What are people who depend on a government check going to do, when everyone is affected, and neighbors don't have the resources to help them out? Nevermind, we've gone around this circle before....I forgot, the crash won't happen.:rolleyes:
Why are you using the word "wean". We are not talking about any weaning here.

[truelies]

.................It sounded like you were only for solutions that didn't involve taking the medicine we need to take, only for solutions that wouldn't result in suffering.

In truth we DON'T NEED for millions to starve and freeze just to get to that holy grail of a 'balanced budget' and a 'gold standard'. Neither in fact are even of particular value to ordinary folks. What ordinary folk value is production in the economy sufficient to meet needs, satisfy a few wants and is equitably distributed between providers of labor and owners of capital.

Functions of government (at all levels) need to be sorted into three baskets-

1) Clearly useful activities the State does better than private business- a military or courts for example. Even here a close watch on the check book is always in order

2) Things the State does which while useful are done wastefully- management of public lands, various comsumer safety regs, issue of the currency and social insurance for example

3) Functions the State executes in a manner consistently subject to abuse or which actually harm the general public- armed police are at the top of the list here starting with TSA/FBI/DEA on down to can't shoot straight Barney who spends his time at the donut shop, except when using your Fido for target practice, followed by all law and regulation which does not address specific and likely harm of some by others, all attempts at social engineering of the population by the State, military expense to support current and future wars of aggression, foreign aid, UN membership.

Number 3 type functions can and should be shutdown by the electorate in a relatively brief span-say 5 years. To avoid extreme dislocation of the economy a sliding scale buyout of ordinary State workers to help them shift to other employment would be wise.

Expect a winddown of number 2 type activities to take 20 - 40 years to get rid of the effects of 80 years conspiracy to render the population docile to control by the 1%.

look far more to Iceland as a model rather than the eat the poor austerity imposed on Greece & Latvia. Look also for a society/economy where the relative portion of wealth/income of the 1% has declined by around 2/3's by the end of the restructuring. THEN the ordinary sot will be well able to educate the kids, deal with family emergency and prepare for old age without a need to bow before the State & its 1% owners.