• 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
15% of income per year for 40 years of work, with even moderate gain, is enough to live on for quite some time, assuming that the worker was smart enough to get completely out of debt before retiring.

While its always a going idea to pay off all debts before retiring and I would go as far as buy yourselves a nice present a nice trip, big screen TV, seasons tickets to whatever sport you enjoy... Don't attempt all three and don't do it at all if you can't afford it but, treat yourself one last time before retirement you deserve it.

However, to phase out SS is a mistake and assuming one will make even moderate gains on investments is foolish. Any and every type of investment can go bust in a hurry. While stocks out do all other types of investments over time they offer no secuity. Nor is property, T-Bills, CD's or anything for that matter. While I think people should have private investments along side their 401K's and SS we still need a secure government backed system as a safety net if all else fails.

What I tell people about investing is invest starting as early as you can and sock away as much as you can afford even if its only five bucks a paycheck because we all tend to spend everything we make and then some. But, even over 40 years if all you could sock away was 5K and the economy tanked so bad you were only left with 2500 bucks at retirement time its 2500 bucks more than you would have had if you didn't invest anything.

What retirement investors are presently asking those nearing retirement is "Well it probably a good idea to consider what kind of part time job you'd like after you retire." While the economy will recover and your 401K will recover the economy tanks about every 15-20 years and if you retire just before a down turn or just after a down turn you're in a world of hurt.

In the forty years I've been working I've seen my retirement funds collapse twice once in the early 90's and in the present and I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll have to work till I die.
 
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.

How about instead we pass a Constitutional amendment stating that Republicans and Democrats can't borrow out of it so they won't have to raise taxes elsewhere?
 
How he is he a "hater of freedom"?

He's a socialist.

Or hell even an "anti consitutionalist"?

He's a socialist.

He is not the "leader of the democratic party" either. Yea he caucuses with them. Last time i checked he has spoken out against Obama, much legislation the Dem's have passed or try to pass...
And man oh man. Never knew you where the decider of the "enemies of the Republic"...


Yes, it's really sad when the Democrat caucus is farther to the left and even more hateful of America than the self-proclaimed socialist.

Since, however, he is a socialist hates what America stands for, and hates individual freedom, because that's part of what socialism is about.
 
assuming one will make even moderate gains on investments is foolish

Combined Annualized Growth Rate for the S&P 500 (adjusted for inflation) between 1982 and 2010 - so including the Tech Bubble and the Real Estate Bubble - comes out to 8.13%. for nothing more fancy than buying an index fund.

Any and every type of investment can go bust in a hurry

yes, and i demonstrated in my Social Security Fix thread that even if the stock market went bust at the worst point in time for a retiree (just as they retired) and they then proceeded to make the worst possible set of decisions (pulling everything out at the very bottom of the trough and holding it in cash), the result would still be more than twice the benefit than they would receive from Social Security.

What retirement investors are presently asking those nearing retirement is "Well it probably a good idea to consider what kind of part time job you'd like after you retire."

yes. that's because the people who are retiring now are the Baby Boomers; and we have never yet seen a generation their like when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility. the vast majority of them have utterly inadequate savings and lots of them are still carrying debt.

While the economy will recover and your 401K will recover the economy tanks about every 15-20 years and if you retire just before a down turn or just after a down turn you're in a world of hurt.

again, you would still be better off in a privatized account than you would under Social Security.
 
How about instead we pass a Constitutional amendment stating that Republicans and Democrats can't borrow out of it so they won't have to raise taxes elsewhere?

they would immediately cease borrowing out of it and instead order the trustees to "invest" the proceeds in government bonds.
 
If people don't know what a CD is, how can you expect them to plan for their retirement.

It's THEIR problem. Not the Mayor's. Get it?

The government was not framed as it was to hold little children by the hand and guide them across the street, making sure they didn't step in the horse poo. The people who created the United States expected the people to be mature adults, not whiny little children in a perpetual state of immaturity and dependency.

That's the Mayor's expectation, also. That if they don't grow up and if they choose to fritter away their earnings, then when they're old, and even more feeble minded than when they were younger, they can die of whatever it is that kills them, but whatever that might be, it was never the Mayor's problem and the Mayor was never, not once, obligated to be their nanny, nor was the Mayor ever obligated to pay for their nanny, either.

Any taxation imposed to care for these idiots is clearly in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and all such taxes are collected under the direct threat of extreme physical violence perpetrated by the government upon the Mayor's body.

If all the government is doing is keeping your money in a lockbox and its a program where you can opt out, you have a serious concern against that?

Considering the government was supposed to do just that, and SPENT IT ALL, TWICE, yes, the Mayor has some small qualms about trusting the government with money.

It's nice to see you trust them...

I want SS to end, too, but your stance here is ridiculous.

No. You clearly do not want it to end, you still believe in the fairy tale.
 
It's THEIR problem. Not the Mayor's. Get it?

The government was not framed as it was to hold little children by the hand and guide them across the street, making sure they didn't step in the horse poo. The people who created the United States expected the people to be mature adults, not whiny little children in a perpetual state of immaturity and dependency.

That's the Mayor's expectation, also. That if they don't grow up and if they choose to fritter away their earnings, then when they're old, and even more feeble minded than when they were younger, they can die of whatever it is that kills them, but whatever that might be, it was never the Mayor's problem and the Mayor was never, not once, obligated to be their nanny, nor was the Mayor ever obligated to pay for their nanny, either.

Any taxation imposed to care for these idiots is clearly in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and all such taxes are collected under the direct threat of extreme physical violence perpetrated by the government upon the Mayor's body.



Considering the government was supposed to do just that, and SPENT IT ALL, TWICE, yes, the Mayor has some small qualms about trusting the government with money.

It's nice to see you trust them...



No. You clearly do not want it to end, you still believe in the fairy tale.

I would opt out.

If people voluntarily give their money to the government to save for them in a lockbox, it's their free choice to do so. Just like you're free to send any additional money you want to the IRS each year.

Voluntary means "extreme physical violence perpetrated by the government" to you?
 
He's a socialist.



He's a socialist.




Yes, it's really sad when the Democrat caucus is farther to the left and even more hateful of America than the self-proclaimed socialist.

Since, however, he is a socialist hates what America stands for, and hates individual freedom, because that's part of what socialism is about.

Wait so if your a socialist "your a hater of freedom"? I am a socialist and i love freedom... You obviously have no idea what socialism is..
Where in the constitution does it state what economic policy we have? I am a socialist and i agree with the constitution 100%. Still you obviously have no idea what socialism is..
Wait sense one socialist is in the Democratic caucus that makes all the democrats socialists and "far leftist"?
You sir sound truly ignorant. I truly hope that you are being just sarcastic........
 
Wait so if your a socialist "your a hater of freedom"? I am a socialist and i love freedom... You obviously have no idea what socialism is..
Where in the constitution does it state what economic policy we have? I am a socialist and i agree with the constitution 100%. Still you obviously have no idea what socialism is..
Wait sense one socialist is in the Democratic caucus that makes all the democrats socialists and "far leftist"?
You sir sound truly ignorant. I truly hope that you are being just sarcastic........

Give me one good incentive to work if all my income is being redistributed anyway.
Personal freedom means that if I work harder than you, I will end up better off than you.
 
The system needs to be restructured and replaced with a private system that is standardized and controlled strictly but absolutely not run the Government and have varying levels and allow people to choose one.

The system Must be affordable and open to everyone and companies must be allowed to operate in all 50 States and allow people of means to opt out upon proof they can take care of themselves without any help.

The current SS System needs to be shut down over a long time and new systems are put on line.
 
you clearly didn't understand the point of the person you attacked--you didn't understand that when he talked about individuals he was obviously incorporating their representatives

maybe we should have a poll-if you want to put my debate capabilities into question. I wonder who thinks your posts demonstrate a high level of intellect

Need you ask? There is no doubt your posts demonstrate a lower level of intellect than Justabubba!
 
Last edited:
Give me one good incentive to work if all my income is being redistributed anyway.
Personal freedom means that if I work harder than you, I will end up better off than you.

The same incentives all the rich people had for the 80 years we had a progressive tax system during one of the most prosperous periods in our history.
 
I would opt out.

If people voluntarily give their money to the government to save for them in a lockbox, it's their free choice to do so. Just like you're free to send any additional money you want to the IRS each year.

Voluntary means "extreme physical violence perpetrated by the government" to you?

It may be "their free choice to do so", but the Government does not have the Constitutional authority to create such a magical device nor maintain it.

Perhaps if people grew up they could figure out a way to save their own money and not spend it? It's really not the repsonsibility of the nation's goverment to play nursemaid. It's especially not supposed to be a wet nurse.
 
The same incentives all the rich people had for the 80 years we had a progressive tax system during one of the most prosperous periods in our history.

Just imagine how prosperous it could have been if the rich weren't being robbed.
 
Keep it and give people the option to opt out of it if they like. As someone that knows several that have been helped by ssi republican democrat disabled and elderly alike it should be always a right to all Americans.
 
Just imagine how prosperous it could have been if the rich weren't being robbed.

It's more than that - the progressive tax system violates the principal of equality.
 
Keep it and give people the option to opt out of it if they like. As someone that knows several that have been helped by ssi republican democrat disabled and elderly alike it should be always a right to all Americans.

SS goes into the general fund making it possible and pretty easy to just ignore any kind of opt out and use the money of the people that opted out anyway to pay for SS. What I'm saying here is SS taxes is nothing but smoke and mirrors and people like myself are aware of it. You just aren't really going to appease anyone that has a clue with such ideas.

Also dependence on others is never a right, its a liability.
 
anyway, so at present it looks like at least 10 DP members lack basic math skills.
 
Give me one good incentive to work if all my income is being redistributed anyway.
Personal freedom means that if I work harder than you, I will end up better off than you.

They'll shoot you if you don't work.

That's the nature of socialism.
 
It's more than that - the progressive tax system violates the principal of equality.

The Mayor only has so much desire to educate. Not much point in saying what you said when you'd then be forced to discuss the definition of "equality" with people who believe equality of outcome should be assured by government gunpoint.
 
Just imagine how prosperous it could have been if the rich weren't being robbed.

You mean like now that we have had 30 years of regressivity added to our tax system, with one in seven Americans officially poor. I prefer the strong middle class days myself. But then I don't live in Snorkumville.
 
Keep it and give people the option to opt out of it if they like. As someone that knows several that have been helped by ssi republican democrat disabled and elderly alike it should be always a right to all Americans.

The system can't work as well with an opt out option. The larger the pool the more effective it is.
 
It's more than that - the progressive tax system violates the principal of equality.

How's that? If a class owns 80% of the country's wealth, they should pay 80% of the taxes, if you are seeking equality.
 
Wait so if your a socialist "your a hater of freedom"?

Some socialists CAN recite the correct answer when told!

I am a socialist and i love freedom...

Well, one or the other part of that statement is true, if both are beleived true, you're having a serious comprehension failure.

You obviously have no idea what socialism is..

Socialism is "stealing from the haves to buy votes from the withouts". It's "Stealing from the successful to ruin their prosperity to give temporary goodies to our followers, the failures and the losers". It's "leveling the playing field with a guillotine". You must be aware that the first uses of the guillotine were in support of the socialists in France after the Revolution, right? France set the standard, most devoutly socialist societies wind up using mass murder to enforce ideologicial purity.

Russia.
Germany.
China.
Cuba.
Cambodia.
Vietnam.

The list is long, and nearly two hundred million people have been murdered in the name of socialism.

The Mayor is VERY aware of what socialism is. Socialism is a mechanism that transfers power from the individual to the leader of a collective to use as he sees fit. Not once in human history has that ever ended well for the people giving up their freedom.

Where in the constitution does it state what economic policy we have? I am a socialist and i agree with the constitution 100%.

The Constitution is riddled with Clauses and Amendments that protect individual freedom from the ravages of government's good intentions.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"

Naturally, the word promote in no way means "provide". And Liberty cannot exist in a socialist society, not when men are not free to keep what they've earned for themselves.

There's also the Thirteenth Amendment, if you could be bothered to look it up.

There's the Eminent Domain Clause that guarantees the right to property.

There's more. You should read the Constitution some time. It's never too late.

Still you obviously have no idea what socialism is..

You obviously are a stranger to the Constitution.

Wait sense one socialist is in the Democratic caucus that makes all the democrats socialists and "far leftist"?
You sir sound truly ignorant. I truly hope that you are being just sarcastic........

That one socialist has a voting record that's TO THE RIGHT of the Democrat caucus. So, yes, that makes the Democrats worse than socialists, and that condition is hard to imagine.
 
They'll shoot you if you don't work.

That's the nature of socialism.

Yes, I remember all the rich people being shot during our 80 years of progressive taxes before they were slashed in 1981. LOL!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom