Is Social Security Welfare?

[Origanalist]

Trav? Rev9?

Doubt it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Get outta here with that shit. I'm not going to call it welfare, but it should be ended, period. The nanny state has to end, all forms of it.

When people reach adulthood they should be responsible for themselves. I don't expect my kids, or grandkids, to return anything to me. If the government would quit taking that money, people would be forced to assume responsibility for themselves. Which they should. Period. I don't know how to end this disaster, but it has to end and while I don't care for some of the rhetoric about "welfare" the points are valid.

I just keep hoping he, or someone who agrees with him, will reply to one of my posts sometime. Until then, I guess I can assume everyone is in unanimous agreement with me. Woohoo!

 

[truelies]

What say you about my solution? .........................

Typically silliness of a kid still living rent free with Mom & Dad.

 

[truelies]

I didn't see anything in there supporting what you said. ............................

Thats because you seem to be unable/too damned lazy to read, fool.

"Social Security still dominant: In 2005, Social Security was the largest source of income for
those currently age 65 and older, accounting for 40.1 percent of their income on average. Pension
and annuities income was 19.3 percent, income from assets 13.6 percent, and income from
earnings 24.8 percent."

Considering that the OASDI portion of the income of over 65's is in excess of 90% for the lowest income tenth and even for the most affulent 10% is still almost 20% of income - my off the cuff comment of 50% or more of income for 90% of over 65's is sufficient accurate for this thread. A figure of say 80% of seniors dependent on SSI for 40% or more of their income would change none of the arguements presented here. REALITY - stop OASDI and most over 65's are immediately driven into dire hardship. Politically this simply will not happen and economically there is no reason for it to happen. Most people other than greedy self-centered kiddies understand that government and hence taxation at some level are necessary to civilisation. Two way obligation between generations is the only reason you kiddies even exist. Fortunately for the future of civilisation kiddies of the sort found here are fairly rare and even most of those will wise up once they get of Momma & Papa's house and have to face the real world.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, the younger generation has an obligation to support their own parents and family elders. But they were doing that before, and apart from government programs. SS/SSI forcibly puts their money out to service other people's finances, leaving them with less resources to support their own folks.

SS/SSI is welfare, but was sold to the middle class as an insurance program, even though there is no company, no trust fund, or source of the profits as with a real insurance plan. It is a "pay seniors from current earnings of others, plus whatever China will keep lending us" program, just like openly titled welfare.

 

[truelies]

SS/SSI is welfare, but was sold to the middle class as an insurance program, .....................................

Not hardly give that SSI payout is very term insurance like in that payout is in practice tied rather closely to pay in. True it is a state mandated insurance but that is kinda like mandated auto insurance, eh. Mandate BTW to provide some assurance that people will meet their obligations.

Yes, the younger generation has an obligation to support their own parents and family elders. But they were doing that before.....................................

What may have been the case at the time the banksters pauperised big chunks of the middle and working class in 1929 is certainly not the case today. I would not count on a one of the whiners squealing about the burden of SSi tax doing a thing for their own elders no matter how great the need absent SSI.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You miss the point that using a government program to force people to pay for ALL OTHER people's retirement, impairs their ability to fund and support their own parents, which is the only obligation they really have (as a matter of societal decency). The imposition of a system that merely apes insurance, but is in fact welfare under the mask, is a population-wide initiation of force, and thus repugnant to any notion of a libertarian or voluntarist order.

Whether a given individual is a whiner or a winner, Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde in how they help their own elders, IS SIMPLY NOT YOUR BUSINESS, nor does it give you an authoritarian mandate to take their money and shuffle it around to suit your framework of 'fairness.' The taxation remains legalized theft, however the stolen money is used or characterized.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Typically silliness of a kid still living rent free with Mom & Dad.

Ah, typical insult from someone who doesn't have a counter argument-as you've been doing throughout this thread. Seeing as you have difficulty defending your position in any way that would pass the "reasonable man" test, it would be wise to change it.

ETA: I just reviewed the thread, and you spent most of your time insulting people who disagree with you instead of actually building a case. This sort of behavior is going to make it very difficult for people to take you seriously in the future in any debate. Just FYI.

 

[erowe1]

Considering that the OASDI portion of the income of over 65's is in excess of 90% for the lowest income tenth and even for the most affulent 10% is still almost 20% of income - my off the cuff comment of 50% or more of income for 90% of over 65's is sufficient accurate for this thread.

That was the lowest and highest fifths, not tenths.

But I still don't see how you conclude that 90% of all seniors get 50% or more of their income from SS from those facts.

I also don't see how you would take the next step of saying they'd be poor without that income. Most of the people you're talking about are pretty wealthy.

A figure of say 80% of seniors dependent on SSI for 40% or more of their income would change none of the arguements presented here.

That's because you haven't presented any arguments.

REALITY - stop OASDI and most over 65's are immediately driven into dire hardship.

There you go again. What do you base that on? It's just not true.

 

[gwax23]

Couldnt bother to read 33 pages of this. Why is this such a controversial and debated topic on the ron paul forums?

Yes Of course Social Security is welfare. End of story. Lets move on and continue to pay into a broken system that will probably be no more by the time many of us retire.

 

[acptulsa]

Couldnt bother to read 33 pages of this. Why is this such a controversial and debated topic on the ron paul forums?

If you could be bothered to read just a couple of the thirty-three pages, you wouldn't have to ask. Many long threads on this forum consist of one page of pro, one page of con, and thirty-one pages of refuting ad hominems and undisguised insults. This is one of them.

 

[truelies]

...........But I still don't see how you conclude that 90% of all seniors get 50% or more of their income from SS from those facts.

......................................

Kid you are hopeless. You have been shown the Facts and you choose to ignore them. Doesn't matter really. Rant as you will. You're still going to pay those SSi taxes. LMAO

 

[truelies]

Ah, typical insult ....................

No just a statement of Reality

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No just a statement of Reality

LOLZ!! Keep dreamin, pal. Just about rverything else you've posited is based on wishful thinking and unsupported opinions, so might as well enjoy the dreams while you can. Don't let me disturb you, but don't say I didn't warn you when you are rudely awakened.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If you could be bothered to read just a couple of the thirty-three pages, you wouldn't have to ask. Many long threads on this forum consist of one page of pro, one page of con, and thirty-one pages of refuting ad hominems and undisguised insults. This is one of them.

Indeed. I'm getting the feeling that truelies is Travlyr in disguise. They both share a lack of substance and preference for insulting people and being condescending rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

 

[Danke]

Sorry if already been asked, but truelies, what should be my punishment if I neither want to pay into SS nor collect from it?

 

[acptulsa]

Indeed. I'm getting the feeling that truelies is Travlyr in disguise. They both share a lack of substance and preference for insulting people and being condescending rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

I recall Travlyr as having a vocabulary and some style. So, I don't see it.

 

[beaven]

Elsewhere I posted, "When the State perverts the free market, State assistance is not a "benefit" - it is a messed up apology." Is Social Security welfare? Certainly. But so are public schools. They are education welfare. Most farmers are on welfare. And every corporation is on welfare. We don't have a free market, we have National Socialism. A reasonable person will reject the system but won't put himself at relative disadvantage by rejecting the State's screwed-up apology.

 

[truelies]

Sorry if already been asked, but truelies, what should be my punishment if I neither want to pay into SS nor collect from it?

sport cry me a river- until you manage to persuade a majority of Americans to end SSI (which ain't likely to happen any time soon) you will simply have to accept the deduction from your wage. You are of course free to be a fool & never accept a payment when the time comes.

As to penalties fore tax evasion- consult your attorney.

 

[truelies]

LOLZ!! Keep dreamin, pal. ......................

I just state the Facts. You are the kiddy buttwipe who stamps his wittle feet & squeals that Reality is not fair.

Maybe you should try holding your breath until the mean bad SSI goes away. LMAO