• 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
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 agree with part of your post....but...
Having luxuries that you can't afford is where people start to fail, especially if carrying credit card debt.
Get the security first, then the fun....
if your retirement funds collapsed twice, try more eggs in different baskets....
 
I love to hear people say that some of us are too poor to save for our own future.
Fact is, the number of truly poor in this country is miniscule. My wife and I have always had savings, and spending money, even when just an E5 in the Navy. Some of my siblings are jealous of our success, but at the same time won't do what we did.
Earn it, save some of it....

One sister was telling us she can barely pay her grocery bills for her kids while she was opening a fresh carton of cigarettes.

I have been around a few decades and can repeat some funny and stupid excuses I have heard from people who simply have their priorities wrong.
Your future is up to YOU, deal with it....
 
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.

Although I am a con I am for Social Security, but it need be reformed an to help poor go back in jobs.
 
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.

Well saying your wealth is already somewhat redistributed and has been. I just believe in a extremely progressive tax system like we had back in the 50's. Now that still kept the rich working to get their money now didnt it?
If that is your whole beef on socialism is the progressive tax system that often comes with a socialist economy then:doh
 
ah. so you prefer to live in low tax, free market economic systems like what we had during the 1920's?

I believe he is talking about the 50's................
 
Eliminate it completely and don't replace it. We're all big boys and girls. We can save for our own retirement.
 
Eliminate it completely and don't replace it. We're all big boys and girls. We can save for our own retirement.

no, everyone can't save enough for retirement. not to mention disability, survivor benefits, etc.
 
no, everyone can't save enough for retirement. not to mention disability, survivor benefits, etc.

I have no problem helping people who are disabled. Let's do just that instead of money for everyone.
 
I have no problem helping people who are disabled. Let's do just that instead of money for everyone.

it's not "money for everyone". ss is quite important to lower income and poverty level retirees. it's also important to families that have lost their breadwinner.
 
Eliminate it completely and don't replace it. We're all big boys and girls. We can save for our own retirement.

if that were actually the case, there would never have been observed a need to initiate the social security program in the first place
 
if that were actually the case, there would never have been observed a need to initiate the social security program in the first place

People need to realize they have to plan ahead. If they don't, they get left out in the cold. Its sad, and its horrible, but eventually, people will learn to think ahead. If everyone was more thoughtful about their futures, the world would be better off. Thats one of my biggest problems with SS, it coddles people, and sets the precedent that we don't have to worry about retirement as much as we really need to.
 
if that were actually the case, there would never have been observed a need to initiate the social security program in the first place

That is naive.
 
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.

God bless ya, Bernie!
 
I love to hear people say that some of us are too poor to save for our own future.
Fact is, the number of truly poor in this country is miniscule. My wife and I have always had savings, and spending money, even when just an E5 in the Navy. Some of my siblings are jealous of our success, but at the same time won't do what we did.
Earn it, save some of it....

One sister was telling us she can barely pay her grocery bills for her kids while she was opening a fresh carton of cigarettes.

I have been around a few decades and can repeat some funny and stupid excuses I have heard from people who simply have their priorities wrong.
Your future is up to YOU, deal with it....
my (wise) aunt grew up like my Dad, with the commitment to put aside 10% of everything she earned, no matter what. not easy to do working on the floor of a textile mill while putting three kids thru college. but she did it. then she began getting interested in wall street week (Rukeyser). turns out she became one hell of a savvy investor in a very short order. now a multi-millionaire. still living comfortably in the home she bought while raising her family
it's a matter of self discipline. salting away that 10%, no matter what, gave her the seed money to make her fortune
my son saves/invests about 80% of his (net) income. based on what i have seen thus far, my college aged daughter will likely be a spendthrift. some people just 'get it' and then have the ability to put themselves on a budget. for others, their budget is whatever they have earned plus whatever they can borrow

it is that latter group who is always going to need an imposed system, such as social security, to assure they have basic means in old age; a time when they can no longer earn a living wage. recognition of that behavior was the very problem which launched the social security system as the answer
if you dismantle the solution we will be revisited by the problem. one which the members of this board have never seen or experienced, and thus know not to avoid its return
 
an interesting misunderstanding of representative government

Oh you know how these are, they think cleverly getting people concede on something makes them actual winners. Let the children have their fun.
 
Today wealth is an image thing, not a substance thing. It is perceived value of homes, cars, toys instead of real value of money stashed away for the future.
I can have sympathy for some, but most of the poor I know, mostly relatives, simply aimed low and hit the target.
Odd thing is, I have heard parents complain about their kids wanting more out of life than "just getting by"....
As my sig implies, every new generation should have more than the previous one, if they want it. There should be no impediments placed in their path, especially the impediment of having to pay for the mistakes of previous generations or borrowing from future generations. Kinda hard to undo the past, but we should be able to determine our own future.
I fully intend to help fund the education of our 7 grandkids, but while doing so I will be teaching them how grandma and grandpa got "rich", and it wasn't by borrowing money we didn't need, and I will be making sure they understand that if they decide to live foolishly, there will be no college money, and no inheritance.
 
if that were actually the case, there would never have been observed a need to initiate the social security program in the first place

There's a need to do many things, but it's not the government's job to play nanny to the people.
 
Some socialists CAN recite the correct answer when told!



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



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.



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.



You obviously are a stranger to the Constitution.



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.

What are you talking about? What is the orm of government was in USSR under Stalin and what not.
No that whole answer that i am a socialist and love freedom is all correct.
You obviously think socialism is some totalitarian regime like the USSR under Stalin or you probably even think that NAZI Germany was socialist. Socialism is pretty much democratic control of the workplace, meaning workers have a say in the workplace. It would give people democratic control over political as well as economic matters, rather than the system we have now that concentrates the control of these areas into the hands of a small group of people at the top of the socio-economic ladder. It means giving you control over your workplace rather than in the hands of some board of trustees, the stock holders, or the bosses who are only interested in profit and not your livelihood. And under socialism people have the right to a job with a living wage, decent housing, health care, education, etc.

Yea i do realize what happened in France. People were murdered. So going by your example because France had a bloody revolution that makes socialist that just kills people left and right for no reason? Right of course mass murder. Its like capitalism is just so non violent and what not, like its the perfect system of pacifism.. Right.....
I believe you are thinking of communism not socialism. Communism and socialist two different things. And second off most of those people murdered under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (pol pot was supported by the US) were actually considered red fascists..

You call yourself "The Mayor"? Seriously what rock do you live under? And nope once again you have this elementary education of socialism... You think that socialism is this im guessing: Teacher says in 8th grade; "Socialism and communism are pretty much the same thing, the government owns everything: you have a fridge that is not your's its the governments, you have a TV that is not yours its the governments. Everyone is paid the same and its very brutal regime. They have a dictator that rules over everything." Am I correct the "Mayor"?

Ok You do realize you can still have an economic policy such as socialism and secure Liberty right....? You do realize this right? Remember this "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" It is interpretation. Tell me what is unconstitutional about worker control of the workplace? You do realize that in a socialist economy you will make your money the same way you make it now (i.e., by going to work). People do have different wages. You probably think personal property will be shared by everyone right? Total myth. Socialists do not wish to take away your personal property such as your car, house, fridge, TV, and waht not. What Socialists do desire, however, is worker ownership of utilities, communication, and transportation entities, etc. We also believe that workers must be in control of their work environment. Also small businesses is almost a perfect example of a socialist economy. Today many small businesses operate in a manner similar to what Socialists envision for all enterprises. That is, the "owner" works side-by-side with the "employees," and the whole staff has a say in how the enterprise operates.
What about the 13 amendment? Are you saying under socialism you are forced to work? You are forced to be a slave?:doh Seriously? Do we seriously have to go over this again(if we do tell me so)?:roll:
You have the right to property under socialism....
No i am not a stranger to the constitution i am currently studying it buddy.
Bernie Sanders does not have a voting record to the right of the Democratic caucus! Jesus! Cmon man! (Bernie Sanders on the Issues)

Please please try to come out of your "Mayor" rock:lamo
 
communism is to socialism as AIDS is to HIV
 
ah. so you prefer to live in low tax, free market economic systems like what we had during the 1920's?

Since I do not think economic depression is a good thing, I of course prefer the 80 year period when the middle class was the strongest?
 
except of course, that if we don't fix it, America fails. and nobody is big enough to bail her out.

There is no crisis, there is an easy fix. When it is neccesary, it will be implemented.
 
You can't assure liberty with socialism. It is a pipe dream.
 
People need to realize they have to plan ahead. If they don't, they get left out in the cold. Its sad, and its horrible, but eventually, people will learn to think ahead. If everyone was more thoughtful about their futures, the world would be better off. Thats one of my biggest problems with SS, it coddles people, and sets the precedent that we don't have to worry about retirement as much as we really need to.

You are speaking of an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world, and I refuse to throw our elderly and the disabled to the street. That would make our world even less ideal.
 
Back
Top Bottom