Is Social Security Welfare?

[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.

 

[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 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.

 

[TheTexan]

every country eventially collapses. Watch the animated video of the the rise and fall of countries of europe for the last 2000 years.

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 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 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.
[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

 

[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.