• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%
  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • Total voters
    51
If you want to look at the greater good, you have to be objective. I'd be willing to hurt people now to help more people later, and thats really what it comes down to.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of social programs are about creating a better world for everyone, right? Well, it just so happens that Social Security is inefficient compared to other uses of the same resources, and thus should be reformed.

Just wondering why you think it is inefficient. If you say it is because it collects funds and goes not itvest them wisely I wold agree. If that is the reason you want to stop it then I wold suggest a different manner than simply stealing the mney that paid into it. You surely would react a bit differently if Goldman Sachs had sold annuities to millions of people, who by definition are mostly poor and middle class, then have them decide they invested the annuity payments so poorly that they were just going to wipe the slate clean and pay no one. Would you be saying I agree Goldman made some bad decisions, but they are nice guys so we will let them disregard what they owe. My sense is that would not be the case.

I am just guessing that you are either are still in school or just beginning life in the real world. Id that is the case you might be accused of callous generational theft.
 
I was reading an article on Yahoo News, and it stated that 20% of your tax dollars go to Social Security. Now, given the fact that SS is going to go bankrupt in the future, and the way its set up is inherently wasteful, should we cut it completely before it dies on its own?

I'd say yes, but with the caveat that we should look into establishing a market in the private sector to replace it.

SS is efficiently run. The only problem is the fund has been robbed. As Gore proposed, the funds need to be locked legislatively to prevent that from happening. That, and an increase in the FICA cap solves the problem.
 
If your grandfather had been a union soldier he would have been given 300 acres. But then he would have been a no good damn yankee.

Funny you should say that because on my father's side, my great grandfather was a union soldier who fought at Gettysburg.
 
Yes, indeed! In this Capitalist America, it is not only pathetic, but shameful that American workers do not have full wage retirements, so there is no change in their lifestyles as they make the transition to retirement. The lack thereof must be caused by corruption and the idiocy of the American people who think useless wars are more important than their families lifestyle. Stupidity reins supreme in our country, so no need to cry about the bed we sleep in.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. America has many small businesses that are struggling to survive. Big pension plans cost money to support. The only think they are bound by law to support is to take out social security from their employee's checks. As a government employee, I don't get SS, but my wife can. At my death, she gets half of my government pension, but I get absolutely nothing of her social security pension. That is only fair because I paid nothing into social security. Then again neither have illegal aliens, yet law makers are arguing to pay social security to illegal aliens.
 
Saving Social Security
The highly successful program, under attack by Republicans and Wall Street, can easily be shored up for future retirees.


By Bernie Sanders

February 14, 2011
Social Security is the most successful social program in American history. It shouldn't be privatized; its benefits shouldn't be cut; and the retirement age shouldn't be raised.

Before Social Security was established 75 years ago, more than half of our elderly population lived in poverty. Because of Social Security, the poverty figure for seniors today is less than 10%. Social Security also provides dignified support for millions of widows, widowers, orphans and people with disabilities.

Since it was established, Social Security has paid every nickel it owed to every eligible American, in good times and bad. As corporations over the last 30 years destroyed the retirement dreams of millions of older workers by eliminating defined-benefit pension plans, Social Security was there paying full benefits. When Wall Street greed and recklessness caused working people to lose billions in retirement savings, Social Security was there paying full benefits.

Despite its success, Social Security faces an unprecedented attack from Wall Street, the Republican Party and a few Democrats. If the American people are not prepared to fight back, the dismantling of Social Security could begin in the very near future.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, wants to partially privatize Social Security, lower its cost-of-living adjustments and drastically cut benefits. An increasing number of his fellow Republicans agree. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the leaders of the "tea party" movement, has said that we need to "wean" everyone except current retirees off Social Security and Medicare.

There are threats on other fronts. A deficit-reduction commission established by President Obama called for increasing the retirement age to 69, reducing cost-of-living adjustments for today's retirees and deeply reducing benefits for future retirees who make as little as $42,000 a year.

Just about every day, one conservative or another tells us that Social Security is in crisis, that it is going bankrupt and that the Social Security Trust Fund contains nothing more than a pile of worthless IOUs. As a result of this barrage of misinformation, many young Americans have been convinced that when they reach retirement age, Social Security will not be there for them.

So what are the facts?

According to the latest report of the Social Security Administration, the program will be able to pay all of its promised benefits for the next 26 years. After 2037, Social Security will still be able to pay about 78% of promised benefits.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has come to a similar conclusion: Social Security will be able to pay full benefits to every eligible recipient until 2039, and after that, it will be able to cover 80% of promised benefits.

Although Social Security will be strong for more than a quarter-century, Congress should strengthen it for the longer term. That is why I agree with the president, who has called for raising the cap on taxable income. Today, that cap is at $106,800; no matter how much money you make, Social Security taxes are only deducted on the first $106,800. But by removing the cap on incomes of $250,000 or more, we can make Social Security fully solvent for generations to come.

Even with no change, the fact is that Social Security has a $2.6-trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion in 2023. Is this surplus, as some have suggested, just a pile of worthless IOUs? Absolutely not!

Social Security invests its surpluses, as it should, in U.S Treasury bonds, the safest interest-bearing securities in the world. These are the same bonds that wealthy investors and China and other foreign countries have purchased. The bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which in our long history has never defaulted on its debt obligations. In other words, Social Security investments are safe.

Further, despite the manufactured hysteria about a crisis, Social Security has not contributed one penny to the very serious deficit situation the United States faces. Social Security is fully funded by the payroll tax that workers and their employers pay; it's not paid for by the Treasury. Our deficit has been, in recent years, largely caused by the cost of two wars, tax breaks for the rich, a Medicare prescription drug program written by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and the Wall Street bailout — not Social Security.

Why has there been such a concerted effort to privatize Social Security, raise the retirement age or cut benefits? First, Wall Street stands to make billions in profits if workers are forced to go to private financial establishments for their retirement accounts. Second, as the Republican Party has moved far to the right and become more anti-government, there are more and more Republicans who simply do not believe government has a responsibility to provide retirement benefits to the elderly, or to help those with disabilities.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with both of those propositions. In my view, maintaining and strengthening Social Security is absolutely essential to the future well-being of our nation. For 75 years it has successfully provided dignity and support for tens of millions of Americans. Our job is to keep it strong for the next 75 years.
 
The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.......like all things the Democrat Party supports......is entirely unconstitutional and should never have been.

Eliminate it while we still can............
.
.
.
.

that should be the main #1 issue in the 2012 campaign. Line up all the politicians and have every Republican mouthing just those words. Have every Democrat fighting to defend and save the program by popping the $106K cap just like Senator Bernie Sanders proposes.
 
Last edited:
I was reading an article on Yahoo News, and it stated that 20% of your tax dollars go to Social Security. Now, given the fact that SS is going to go bankrupt in the future, and the way its set up is inherently wasteful, should we cut it completely before it dies on its own?

I'd say yes, but with the caveat that we should look into establishing a market in the private sector to replace it.

Yes, Social Security should be phased out.

Yes, a market in the private sector already exists to take it's place. Several, in fact. The stock market, the bond market, the commodities market, the real estate market...
 
Politicians should not be allowed any pet projects till they replace all the money they took out of SS then it would not be going broke

Politicians should not be allowed pet projects.

Period.

And, unless you mean "out of the Congressmen's personal assets" when you say "they replace" all that money, it means nothing, it's just coming out of the taxpayer's pockets anyway.
 
Yes, Social Security should be phased out.

Yes, a market in the private sector already exists to take it's place. Several, in fact. The stock market, the bond market, the commodities market, the real estate market...

... the old baseball card market, the comic book market, the old Playboy market, the Barbie doll market, the Beanie Baby market , the Coca-Cola collectibles market
 
If you want to look at the greater good, you have to be objective. I'd be willing to hurt people now to help more people later, and thats really what it comes down to.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of social programs are about creating a better world for everyone, right? Well, it just so happens that Social Security is inefficient compared to other uses of the same resources, and thus should be reformed.

No. Social Security is about hurting a lot of people in the future to buy votes from people today.

All social programs are about buying votes, first, the details of the programs are irrelevant.
 
... the old baseball card market, the comic book market, the old Playboy market, the Barbie doll market, the Beanie Baby market , the Coca-Cola collectibles market

Yeah, whatever investment floats your boat. Strangely enough, the Mayor's paycheck isn't an authorized investment tool for old fogies.
 
If a person squirreled away 15% of their income for 30 years and then was given a share of the benefits of those who contributed 30 years but died before collecting any money, would they be worried about their next meal? Do your job and fix social security and maybe stop using the pot to pay bills.

I like that it is not voluntarily. You are forced to prepare for your retirement whether you want to or not. Yes, that's what I said.

All you have to do is cite the clause of the Constitution that allows the federal government to force citizens to invest for their retirement.

You can't do that, so don't bother trying. Used to be a time when people saved for their retirements because they were resonsible adults aware that they didn't have a baby sitter. Now that the government has become the baby sitter, the national savings rate has become negative.

That's the effect of hammocks the so-called "safety nets" have provided.
 
The composition of the federal government is not static over decades. Moral culpability is more complicated than that.

Social Security was a good policy when Roosevelt introduced it, it was ruined by economic mismanagement at all levels of society, resulting from a general lack of vigilance.

No. It was both bad policy and unconstitutional when FDR foisted it on the nation, and neither of those facts have changed.
 
I would say social security is poorly run and always has been, It's a brilliant idea that should be fixed. I'm not sure means testing is such a bad idea.

Glad to see the Bernie Madoff fan club still has one member.
 
Personally, I don't want the government to have access to those funds in any way, shape or form.

The only way to do that is to not allow the government to place demands on the people's retirement plans in the first place.

Then, to keep the government's hands off private accounts, you people better stop whining about how unfair life is and how nice things would be if the government did something, and start demanding the government shrink itself back into the Constitutional boundaries it's supposed to be kept in.

Stop voting for liberals, people.
 
No. Social Security is about hurting a lot of people in the future to buy votes from people today.

All social programs are about buying votes, first, the details of the programs are irrelevant.

You keep telling yourself that.
 
No. It was both bad policy and unconstitutional when FDR foisted it on the nation, and neither of those facts have changed.

Funny, I don't recall the SC declaring it as such...so it must be your opinion that its unconstitutional, which in the grand scheme of things, like my opinion as well, doesn't matter.
 
The only way to do that is to not allow the government to place demands on the people's retirement plans in the first place.

Then, to keep the government's hands off private accounts, you people better stop whining about how unfair life is and how nice things would be if the government did something, and start demanding the government shrink itself back into the Constitutional boundaries it's supposed to be kept in.

Stop voting for liberals, people.

The entire reason Social Security started was as a backstop against poverty for the elderly who didn't plan for their retirement and that's exactly what it ought to be today. It is not, nor has it ever been intended to be a lifetime paycheck that you can live on, it's to keep you off the streets eating out of trash cans. As such, I have no problem with it, so long as it's a system where you get back what you paid into it, plus whatever interest has accrued over the years and nothing more. I really object to people who paid little or nothing getting the same cut as people who paid lots of money throughout their entire lives.

Trust me, I don't vote for liberals, but these days, I'm finding it harder and harder to vote for so-called conservatives either.
 
The entire reason Social Security started was as a backstop against poverty for the elderly who didn't plan for their retirement and that's exactly what it ought to be today.

Well, that's nonsense. The entire reason Social Security was proposed was to buy votes from the OLD, to establish an isolated class that could be pampered with special programs and in return those people would vote for the politicians pandering to them. Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as human conflict, and your failure to recognize new battle grounds speaks well of your naivete and baseless trust in the goodness of politicians.

That the OLD were harmed by the Depression is undeniable. So was everyone else. But it was a wonderful excuse to create a dependency program in violation of the strictures of the Constitution, wasn't.

It is not, nor has it ever been intended to be a lifetime paycheck that you can live on, it's to keep you off the streets eating out of trash cans.

That's what families are for.

That's what charities are for.

That's not what governents are for, and that's not what the Constitution allows.

As such, I have no problem with it, so long as it's a system where you get back what you paid into it, plus whatever interest has accrued over the years and nothing more.

You mean, getting a rate of return of 0.5 to 1.0 % on the dollar as opposed to the much greater rates of return on private investments, plus the added bonus of creating an inheritable estate to be handed down for private accounts versus a $255 dollar burial voucher when you croak from Social Security?

I really object to people who paid little or nothing getting the same cut as people who paid lots of money throughout their entire lives.[/qutoe]

The Mayor really objects to the government having first claim on a man's paycheck.

Trust me, I don't vote for liberals, but these days, I'm finding it harder and harder to vote for so-called conservatives either.

There's no reason, from your above post, you should feel any sort of ideological separation from the enemies of the Republic labeling themselves as "liberals", "progressives", or "socialists".
 
SS is a prime example of what happens when congress thinks it is smarter than the constitutional boundaries and the lapdog courts think that ignoring the tenth amendment will allow for the greater good
 
Saving Social Security
The highly successful program, under attack by Republicans and Wall Street, can easily be shored up for future retirees.


By Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders....self described Socialist.......Anti-Constitutionalist....Hater of Freedom.....revered leader of the Democrat Party.
.
.
.
 
That's not what governents are for, and that's not what the Constitution allows.

I agree, that's not what governments are for, which is why I already said that for people who are young enough to plan for their own retirement ought to stop paying into the Social Security program and just invest the money for their own future. Those who have been paying into the system for years and years and who cannot reasonably invest that money, even if given back to them, for a retirement ought to be grandfathered into the existing system. Eventually, the last people using the existing system will die off and we can rid ourselves of Social Security entirely.
 
The entire reason Social Security started was as a backstop against poverty for the elderly who didn't plan for their retirement and that's exactly what it ought to be today. It is not, nor has it ever been intended to be a lifetime paycheck that you can live on, it's to keep you off the streets eating out of trash cans. As such, I have no problem with it, so long as it's a system where you get back what you paid into it, plus whatever interest has accrued over the years and nothing more. I really object to people who paid little or nothing getting the same cut as people who paid lots of money throughout their entire lives.

Trust me, I don't vote for liberals, but these days, I'm finding it harder and harder to vote for so-called conservatives either.

That seems fair. If it is that way, too, I would allow an opt-out measure, but make sure the people who take it are very financially secure and really don't have to supplement their other retirement income.
 
Bernie Sanders....self described Socialist.......Anti-Constitutionalist....Hater of Freedom.....revered leader of the Democrat Party.
.
.
.
Anti Constitutionalist ? :roll:
Hater of Freedom? :roll:
Leader of Democratic Party? :roll:
WOW
 
Back
Top Bottom