View Poll Results: Should we Eliminate Social Security

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, no replacement

    18 30.00%
  • Yes, but with a replacement

    11 18.33%
  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    1 1.67%
  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    26 43.33%
  • Other

    4 6.67%
Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 331

Thread: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

  1. #271
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Except when one group, absolutely refuses to let another, live their life as they see fit.
    Which group would that be?







    Not two different things at all.
    If it were well managed, then it would not have been taken from, by the managers.
    It's a contradictory statement.
    Too bad you didn't vote for the candidate that proposed locking those funds from that very thing, huh? We get the government we deserve.

    I was not old enough to vote for Al Gore, nor any other.
    Well, fortunately all that's needed is to lock the funds and increase the FICA cap.

    SS is all that stands between 40% of our elderly falling into povery. It is too important to not properly protect.


    "When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.

    As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.

    Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

    In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.

    The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.
    Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs."

    http://likethedew.com/2010/07/17/soc...ayed-solution/
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #272
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Which group would that be?
    Your group, the one so resistant to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Too bad you didn't vote for the candidate that proposed locking those funds from that very thing, huh? We get the government we deserve.
    Seeing that I wasn't allowed to by law and that even if I were, it would be a false dilemma, so it isn't a superior situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Well, fortunately all that's needed is to lock the funds and increase the FICA cap.

    SS is all that stands between 40% of our elderly falling into povery. It is too important to not properly protect.


    "When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.

    As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.

    Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

    In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.

    The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.
    Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs."

    Social Security and the
    With all that nonsense said, SS is inherently discriminatory against black males.
    See they have lower life expectancies and for a long time, it meant that on average they weren't even likely to receive it in the first place.

    There is no good reason why mandatory private accounts shouldn't exist, you just continue to make excuses to preserve the status quo, when that status quo has been horribly mismanaged.

    If both parties caused the mismanagement, change it so neither party can mismanage it ever again.
    You take it away from them.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #273
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Your group, the one so resistant to change.
    You mean the middle class?


    With all that nonsense said, SS is inherently discriminatory against black males.
    See they have lower life expectancies and for a long time, it meant that on average they weren't even likely to receive it in the first place.
    So your suggestion is to lowere the age to collect benefits for black males? I'll go along with you on that.
    There is no good reason why mandatory private accounts shouldn't exist, you just continue to make excuses to preserve the status quo, when that status quo has been horribly mismanaged.
    And what happens to those mandatory private accounts if the institution holding them declares bandruptsy? Makes much more sense to simply lock the funds as Gore proposed and raise the FICA cap. Problem solved without the risks for 40% of our elderly in the private market.

    If both parties caused the mismanagement, change it so neither party can mismanage it ever again.
    You take it away from them.
    That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water when it is not necessary. Beides, 80% of Americans want to keep SS, so scrapping it is just not going to happen.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #274
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You mean the middle class?
    No I mean the people who don't have any understanding of what the political economy is.
    Those that think they can continually band aid problems caused by legislation, with more legislation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    So your suggestion is to lowere the age to collect benefits for black males? I'll go along with you on that.
    No I suggest we stop having social security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    And what happens to those mandatory private accounts if the institution holding them declares bandruptsy? Makes much more sense to simply lock the funds as Gore proposed and raise the FICA cap. Problem solved without the risks for 40% of our elderly in the private market.
    All of these institutions are insured, all of them.
    They have private insurance beyond the measly 250k that the government grants.

    No it doesn't make sense, not at all it's just another band aid and wealth transfer scheme.
    The lock box will never be permanently locked, as we have already experienced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water when it is not necessary. Beides, 80% of Americans want to keep SS, so scrapping it is just not going to happen.
    It is necessary, because the politicians of both parties have shown that they can not be trusted with our money.

    Geesh, why do you propose to do things that have been shown not to work?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #275
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    [QUOTE=Harry Guerrilla;1059422027]
    No I mean the people who don't have any understanding of what the political economy is.
    Those that think they can continually band aid problems caused by legislation, with more legislation.
    80% of Americans think SS is important. I'm with them. Throwing half our elderly to the wolves as you propose is not a viable option.



    No I suggest we stop having social security.
    You are in a very tiny minority. Fortunately, we have a representative government.



    All of these institutions are insured, all of them.
    They have private insurance beyond the measly 250k that the government grants.
    So no pensions have been lost in private markets?

    No it doesn't make sense, not at all it's just another band aid and wealth transfer scheme.
    The lock box will never be permanently locked, as we have already experienced.

    A Constitutional Amendment will prevent it from happening.




    Geesh, why do you propose to do things that have been shown not to work?

    It has worked spectactularly well. When SS was created, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. Its not hard to see why there is no interest in returning to that situation.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #276
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    80% of Americans think SS is important. I'm with them. Throwing half our elderly to the wolves as you propose is not a viable option.
    Appeal to majority and a purposeful changing of my argument
    Is there ever a time when you don't make logical fallacies and purposeful mischaracterizations when discussing something?


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You are in a very tiny minority. Fortunately, we have a representative government.
    So you think "might makes right" is always good?

    My position as a minority makes no difference, did you support segregation because those people were in a minority?


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    So no pensions have been lost in private markets?
    Did I say that, no.
    How about this, has anyone not received SS benefits that they have paid for all their life, the answer is yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    A Constitutional Amendment will prevent it from happening.

    Really, so the living constitution suddenly becomes fixed when it applies to things you want, but not fixed in meaning when you want it changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It has worked spectactularly well. When SS was created, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. Its not hard to see why there is no interest in returning to that situation.
    For it to have worked well, it must be adequately financed while being able to meet the demands placed upon it.
    It has not been adequately financed.
    Your solution of course, to everything, is to tax wealthy people.

    Returning to mandatory private accounts, that never existed before SS?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #277
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Appeal to majority and a purposeful changing of my argument. So you think "might makes right" is always good?
    Not a believer in a representative government?



    My position as a minority makes no difference, did you support segregation because those people were in a minority?
    Segregation was defeated when a majority opposed it.



    Did I say that, no.
    You said all institutions have insurance to prevent personal loss. That is simply not true, or millions would not have lost their pensions in private market failures.

    How about this, has anyone not received SS benefits that they have paid for all their life, the answer is yes.
    That was never the goal of SS. The goal was to provide a safety net for our elderly, which it accomplished. Before SS, 50% of the elderly live in poverty.




    Really, so the living constitution suddenly becomes fixed when it applies to things you want, but not fixed in meaning when you want it changed.
    No, it is We the People that determine government policy as specified in our Constitution.



    For it to have worked well, it must be adequately financed while being able to meet the demands placed upon it.
    It has never missed a payment in 80 years, good times and bad. The private market cannot make that claim. Just ask the millions that lost their pensions in the private market.
    It has not been adequately financed.
    It was more than adequately financed. It developed a surplus which was robbed. That is why the funds will need to be locked as proposed by the Democratic candidate in 2000.

    Your solution of course, to everything, is to tax wealthy people.
    They are the ones that have skated during the last 30 years. If we are to solve our budget problems, they will have to once again carry their share again.

    Returning to mandatory private accounts, that never existed before SS?
    The majority of Americans are not interested in risking their retirement in private accounts. Sorry!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #278
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Sigh, harry you just dont get it...if you end social security and medicare..in the end there will be millions of people that didnt make enough to save for their oldage and you will pay through the nose for them anyway and they didnt pay a dime...with social security they are CONTRIBUTING their whole life at least.
    You and CPwill and turtledude have NEVER answered this question...Walmart a RETAIL STORE is the largest employer in the United States, half their employees are part time..how does a walmart worker pay for all of lifes necessities and save for their retirement and for senior health care...
    Why isnt paul ryan going after illegal immigrants that cost us hundreds of billions...why isnt the teaparty railing on ending foreign aid to 154 countries that we give it too....You nor anyone else could sell me Paul Ryans plan cuz it outright sucks.

  9. #279
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Not a believer in a representative government?
    No, it's just that you're inconsistent in your beliefs.
    One second you say might makes right, the next Bushes war is bad.

    Which is it chief?



    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Segregation was defeated when a majority opposed it.
    Right but before, a majority supported it.
    So were you in their camp?



    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You said all institutions have insurance to prevent personal loss. That is simply not true, or millions would not have lost their pensions in private market failures.
    This is a straw man, since I never, ever said pensions but I did say private accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That was never the goal of SS. The goal was to provide a safety net for our elderly, which it accomplished. Before SS, 50% of the elderly live in poverty.
    And those numbers are bunk, it measures the income level based on the individual and not on the household, which would show that not 50% were in poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, it is We the People that determine government policy as specified in our Constitution.
    So you completely side step my statement with a totally unrelated statement.

    When is the Constitution "living" and when it is fixed in meaning?


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It has never missed a payment in 80 years, good times and bad. The private market cannot make that claim. Just ask the millions that lost their pensions in the private market.
    Reusing the straw man.
    Never said pensions, did say private accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It was more than adequately financed. It developed a surplus which was robbed. That is why the funds will need to be locked as proposed by the Democratic candidate in 2000.
    And even though you keep parroting this, you can not reassure anyone that it won't be robbed again, even with your amendment, that will never be proposed or passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    They are the ones that have skated during the last 30 years. If we are to solve our budget problems, they will have to once again carry their share again.
    Skating would mean that they didn't pay, at least an equal share of the tax burden, but you already know that isn't true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The majority of Americans are not interested in risking their retirement in private accounts. Sorry!
    I know, it's the Catawba shuffle.
    Make a straw man, use logical fallacies and not debate the merits of a system or policy directly.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #280
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Sigh, harry you just dont get it...if you end social security and medicare..in the end there will be millions of people that didnt make enough to save for their oldage and you will pay through the nose for them anyway and they didnt pay a dime...with social security they are CONTRIBUTING their whole life at least.
    You and CPwill and turtledude have NEVER answered this question...Walmart a RETAIL STORE is the largest employer in the United States, half their employees are part time..how does a walmart worker pay for all of lifes necessities and save for their retirement and for senior health care...
    Why isnt paul ryan going after illegal immigrants that cost us hundreds of billions...why isnt the teaparty railing on ending foreign aid to 154 countries that we give it too....You nor anyone else could sell me Paul Ryans plan cuz it outright sucks.
    And you guys don't read.
    I did not say completely end something, I said private accounts for SS and reductions in spending for Medicare.

    Economic illiteracy will be the down fall of this nation.

    Hey, lets pay everyone $100 a hour, then no one will be poor ever again.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •