Is Social Security Welfare?

[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.

 

[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.
[h=1]Global food prices skyrocketing; up 10 percent in month of July alone[/h]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037091_food_inflation_world_bank_warning.html#ixzz2Hp3KnzQ1

(a few months old, but still relevant)

[h=1]Skyrocketing Prices Point To Looming Global Food Crisis[/h]http://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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[klamath]

Since I keep hearing the term screwing the young with ssi it might be of interest for people to know that 33% of ssi ARE young people, people under 64 and children. The same can be said about the medicare/medicaid program. A huge portion of that is young people and people under 45. Now what is the biggest screwing going on here? The people that never paid a dime into the system or only a few years or the people that worked 45 years paying into the system.

 

[Origanalist]

But there is current record youth unemployment and thousands of "boomerang kids" (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 seems to me that this generation has a lot of people with no desire to go out and make it on their own. It's not any harder for them now than it was then.

There I go being a collectivist again.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It seems to me that this generation has a lot of people with no desire to go out and make it on their own. It's not any harder for them now than it was then.

There I go being a collectivist again.

I'll play my "when I was young" card on this point. When I was young, you didn't have kids living in their parents basement, getting high all day and playing video games till they were in their mid 20's. Sure it is stereotypical, but you all know they do exist in quite decent numbers.

Most kids worked during high school. When you got out of school you either went into the military, college or went into the workforce. Yes, we had factory jobs back then, but entry level jobs were still entry level jobs. While we don't have the factory jobs today in those numbers, there are still jobs out there where you can start out from the bottom, learn and work your way up. I tend to think that the instant gratification of today's society contributes to the reason there are a lot of young folks spinning their wheels - ie. they want the big money jobs right from the start and don't want to put the time and work in to building a career. Again, stereotypical, but they do exist.

 

[dinosaur]

Oh my, so if you can find character flws in the current generation it is ok to steal from them, because that makes them no better than you right?

I'll say it again, if the president were to make a special speech in January 2013 and announce that SS would be eliminated this year in order to save us from a debt crisis, pretty much all of the churches in America would respond, and generously, and we would be a better nation for it. But if people who depend on government checks to live lose them during a crash, people will starve and die. And it will be on the conscience of people who defended the system in the name of compassion.

 

[Origanalist]

Oh my, so if you can find character flws in the current generation it is ok to steal from them, because that makes them no better than you right?

I'll say it again, if the president were to make a special speech in January 2013 and announce that SS would be eliminated this year in order to save us from a debt crisis, pretty much all of the churches in America would respond, and generously, and we would be a better nation for it. But if people who depend on government checks to live lose them during a crash, people will starve and die. And it will be on the conscience of people who defended the system in the name of compassion.

Why should we depend on the churches? The libertarian community would surely show it's humanitarian stripes.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh my, so if you can find character flws in the current generation it is ok to steal from them, because that makes them no better than you right?

I'll say it again, if the president were to make a special speech in January 2013 and announce that SS would be eliminated this year in order to save us from a debt crisis, pretty much all of the churches in America would respond, and generously, and we would be a better nation for it. But if people who depend on government checks to live lose them during a crash, people will starve and die. And it will be on the conscience of people who defended the system in the name of compassion.

You are living in fantasy land - it will never happen. When you come back down to reality then maybe it is worthwhile discussing this with you. There are a few realistic things that will happen over the next few years:

1) Business as usual, FICA tax will gradually increase and Congress will keep kicking the can down the road on SS.
2) A compromise plan which will raise the retirement age, lower the increase in benefits, i.e. a "save" SS plan that will only kick the can down the road further
3) A phase out plan similar to what Ron Paul has proposed offered by Rand, Amash, Massie, etc

No one in Congress is calling for the immediate elimination of the program, only people like yourself sitting behind a keyboard are doing so. It's not going to happen, so honestly debating it is pointless.

 

[dinosaur]

You are living in fantasy land - it will never happen. When you come back down to reality then maybe it is worthwhile discussing this with you. There are a few realistic things that will happen over the next few years:

1) Business as usual, FICA tax will gradually increase and Congress will keep kicking the can down the road on SS.
2) A compromise plan which will raise the retirement age, lower the increase in benefits, i.e. a "save" SS plan that will only kick the can down the road further
3) A phase out plan similar to what Ron Paul has proposed offered by Rand, Amash, Massie, etc

No one in Congress is calling for the immediate elimination of the program, only people like yourself sitting behind a keyboard are doing so. It's not going to happen, so honestly debating it is pointless.

When did I ever say that it is likely to happen or realistic? You have been disagreeing with me, and arguing that it would be a BAD THING if it happened, and I have been arguing that it would be a GOOD THING if it happened. What can be realistically done is a different discussion and you know it. Therefore I see your response as a dodge.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

When did I ever say that it is likely to happen or realistic? You have been disagreeing with me, and arguing that it would be a BAD THING if it happened, and I have been arguing that it would be a GOOD THING if it happened. What can be realistically done is a different discussion and you know it. Therefore I see your response as a dodge.

It would be a bad thing because while solving one problem it creates another problem which therefore needs a solution. If conservatives and libertarians want to take control of the government, we cannot simply wash our hands of the mistakes made by those who came before us. We need to address the situation and find a workable solution that addresses the core problem and solves it without creating much greater problems on society. We simply cannot say this, that or the other thing is unconstitutional therefore we eliminate it and damn the consequences. That is why Paul and others like him have always provided solutions to resolve the mess that we are in.

 

[Confederate]

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.

Hmmm...just a random thought, but a way to get a lot of people off SS could be to offer a tax credit in lieu of SS benefits. In essence it would have the same effect on the budget, but if instead of sending an extra $50k in taxes to DC and then receiving checks for $50k over the course of the year your tax liability is simply cut by $50k...

The positive part of this is it gives the government less in tax revenue.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It seems to me that this generation has a lot of people with no desire to go out and make it on their own. It's not any harder for them now than it was then.

There I go being a collectivist again.

That hasn't been my experience. I started sending out resumes as soon as I finished my CCL, no bites. The only thing I was able to get was a secretary job. (and the only thing that had in common with my CCL was basic computer skills. It was mostly general secretary work) It's really impossible to make generalizations about entire generations, but most young unemployed folks in my experience would rather be working (which is why they went into debt to go to school-to get a job!). Like every generation, there are probably some who went to school because they felt pressured by family and various other bad reasons, but probably not that many. /end ramble

ETA: If what you say is true, why does the youth unemployment problem exist? I remember plenty of lazy teenage bums and parents complaining about it when I was a youngin in the 80s-90s. Yet there wasn't massive youth unemployment then. If you wanted a job (just about everyone did because job=$), you just went to the grocery store or whatever and got one.