• 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!

Are YOU willing to give up YOUR Social Security?

Would you give up your Social Security?

  • Total voters
    45
I actually agree with HG. If I could have opted out a long time ago, I would have. HG is absolutely correct.

I don't think it is intended to be any kind of wealth distribution system, it was intended as a safety net for people who did not have pensions and were very poor etc.
 
It is a safety net based on a ponzi scheme and it is borrowing from the next generation with no real apparent ability to pay the debt, both are redistributing wealth; from payers to current poor and from tomorrow to today.
 
Nonplussed said:
Old people weren't dying slow painful deaths prior to the advent of social security. They were living with their children, actively taking part in the raising of their grandchildren, supporting their families by being around. And they saved and worked longer. Now, our people live lives far beyond their means instead of saving and when time comes to retire, it's still taken care of for them. And you see the breakdown of tight family bonds because of it...all the interdependency of generations of family has been undone. That's what government interference will get you.
Click to expand...
This is a great example of a good conservative argument... i like, just the problem is there are a lot of people that just want to break that system to it's very core; people try to get away as far as possible from the "the son bears the sins of the father" deal... people want to be absolute individuals where family doesnt really exist or play a part in it's original way, because there are f'd up families out there... But i think this way of thinking actually makes it worse then actually better( looking at other cultures like Japan)... idk im borderline conservative in this fashion.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I put money into it, and I am going to get money out. It's good to be older.



And yet I will get it back until I am long, long gone.



I am glad I am retired.



And you mite as well get used to the fact I am over 40. ;)
Click to expand...

I understand those people who still don't like the system, but paid their money into it all these years because they had to and have planned to rely on it. Hell, i would want my money back, but me as a young person... i don't want this when i am older... i don't want it to take my money... i want to plan my own retirement with that money and not leave it up to the government.

I don't think it is fair to take it away for people over 40(?!), but i think people under that should not expect to have SS when their older... the country is bankrupt, and it is a flawed system that isn't really fair, and i support a periodic decline in SS to the point where it just goes away to help boost the economy and reduce spending.
 
Well possibly now that I think about it. I am only 19 and have paid very little into SS so I would not be losing very much, and have no problem contributing a fair amount of money toward entitlement programs. However, I plan on being self employed in the future as a farmer.
 
I'm 23, I'll never see it at this rate, anyway, so yes, I would.
 
Blackdog said:
I put money into it
Click to expand...

no, you didn't. you payed taxes. those taxes were immediately spent on everything from roads to pork projects to others benefits. SS is a tax - the FDR administration set it up that way when it put it into place and the Supreme Court has verified that on multiple occasions. so you 'put money into it' no more or less than you did, say, agricultural subsidies.

now - this isn't what you've been told. generations of politicians have kept themselves safely seated by telling us it was some kind of savings, or insurance, or retirement program. they even had the SSA send out nifty little yearly statements pretending to show people what 'they' had earned.

only problem was that those 'statements'' were built on the same model that bernie madoffs client account statements' were. and they were both lies.

and I am going to get money out.
Click to expand...

that depends on how old you are, how much money you have, and how long you intend to live.

It's good to be older.
Click to expand...

actually its about to start being harder to be older.

And yet I will get it back until I am long, long gone.
Click to expand...

you intend to continue to draw benefits post mortem? are you a chicago voter?

I am glad I am retired.
Click to expand...

if you are retired then you'd better hope like hell the Ryan plan passes come 2013. because otherwise you are looking at possibly getting thrown off of both SS and Medicare cold turkey in the not-nearly-as-distant-as-we'd-like future.

And you mite as well get used to the fact I am over 40. ;)
Click to expand...

but are you over 70?
 
cpwill said:
no, you didn't. you payed taxes. those taxes were immediately spent on everything from roads to pork projects to others benefits. SS is a tax - the FDR administration set it up that way when it put it into place and the Supreme Court has verified that on multiple occasions. so you 'put money into it' no more or less than you did, say, agricultural subsidies.

now - this isn't what you've been told. generations of politicians have kept themselves safely seated by telling us it was some kind of savings, or insurance, or retirement program. they even had the SSA send out nifty little yearly statements pretending to show people what 'they' had earned.

only problem was that those 'statements'' were built on the same model that bernie madoffs client account statements' were. and they were both lies.



that depends on how old you are, how much money you have, and how long you intend to live.



actually its about to start being harder to be older.



you intend to continue to draw benefits post mortem? are you a chicago voter?



if you are retired then you'd better hope like hell the Ryan plan passes come 2013. because otherwise you are looking at possibly getting thrown off of both SS and Medicare cold turkey in the not-nearly-as-distant-as-we'd-like future.



but are you over 70?
Click to expand...

But we have a legal claim to social security depoosits in our name, No? And can't we claim a resonable interest on that money? And can't we claim as ours all deposits never returned due to death? I think we know what happens when things go very wrong. Government bailout.

They should hire me to run the whole mess. I can do it! This stuff is right up my alley. I'd sort it all and have a statue of Lord Royal Highness Square Pants erected on Wall Street. There would be a national Lord Squarepants Day. Nobody would work or go to school. Parades would be Mardi Gras style as commanded by the Mighty Lord.
 
Nonplussed said:
How so? You actually end up getting out much more than you put in dollar for dollar.
Click to expand...

This is true. But I've got to tell you, I wasn't exactly making a small fortune in 1968.
 
All I see here is a bunch of young spoiled punks that don't want to help their elders. Of course, a message board is a horrible example of a cross section of the country's population. Combine that with the fact that SS isn't going to go away and all the young punks are going to have their payments deducted from their checks, or their tax returns audited, and they are going to pay into SS for their whole working lives.

And there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it except cry like babies.

Edit: Now get off of my lawn!
 
Last edited:
sazerac said:
But we have a legal claim to social security depoosits in our name, No?
Click to expand...

no. The Supreme Court was quite clear on this - you have no legal claim whatsoever to any social security benefit of any kind.

They should hire me to run the whole mess. I can do it! This stuff is right up my alley. I'd sort it all and have a statue of Lord Royal Highness Square Pants erected on Wall Street. There would be a national Lord Squarepants Day. Nobody would work or go to school. Parades would be Mardi Gras style as commanded by the Mighty Lord.
Click to expand...

well now that, too, is an idea. we should write Paul Ryan :)
 
Mickey Shane said:
All I see here is a bunch of young spoiled punks that don't want to help their elders.
Click to expand...

:D whereas what we see is a bunch of hippy boomers who didn't save for their own selves, and so want to foist the costs of their extravagant lifestyles off on us.

the fact that SS isn't going to go away
Click to expand...

actually, one way or the other, it is. the question is whether we reform it ourselves in a manner of our choosing, or whether our creditors alter it as they see fit, our desires bedammed.

And there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it except cry like babies.
Click to expand...

:D or wait for ya'll to get too old to read your pill labels :D
 
liblady said:
Discuss.

i vote no, and i am over 40.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to see an alternative to SS, but the same % of one's payroll must be contributed and that money cannot be touched, even through bankruptcy until retirement. However, it would be up to the person to choose their investment.
 
megaprogman said:
I would be willing to see an alternative to SS, but the same % of one's payroll must be contributed and that money cannot be touched, even through bankruptcy until retirement. However, it would be up to the person to choose their investment.
Click to expand...

what we receive from ss when we retire is NOT what we paid in. so how would you fund the poorest, and the disabled, and survivor children?
 
liblady said:
what we receive from ss when we retire is NOT what we paid in. so how would you fund the poorest, and the disabled, and survivor children?
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Yes and I'm under 40.

I say "yes" as long as the entire SS branch is revamped to ONLY help those who cannot help themselves. Lazy, fat asses and illegal aliens aren't included here.
 
megaprogman said:
I would be willing to see an alternative to SS, but the same % of one's payroll must be contributed and that money cannot be touched, even through bankruptcy until retirement. However, it would be up to the person to choose their investment.
Click to expand...

You can do that on your own. Why would you need the government to keep your money for you?
 
Mellie said:
You can do that on your own. Why would you need the government to keep your money for you?
Click to expand...

I am not everyone, some people need to be protected from themselves. There are people who would immediately spend a bunch of saved up money and if such a system were to work, those people would have to be prevented from doing so.
 
Henrin said:
Its a crap question based on if personal greed will come into account. I have no personal greed when it comes to my principles. I have never wanted social security nor do I desire it now and if I live to be hundred and have nothing to show for myself I will think the same.

Btw, I'm 28.
Click to expand...

I started working full time at 17 and "paying" into SS, did you catch the key word "paying" . SS benefits are not a gift from the government they were deducted from our pay checks every pay day, no one said you can chose whether or not you want to contribute. Many people have paid into SS for most of their life, paid to educate our children and now you have the gall to call us greedy because we want a return on our SS investment. I have a better idea why don't you and those who think like you increase the amount you pay in to insure that the SS program continues

Btw I am 64
 
megaprogman said:
I am not everyone, some people need to be protected from themselves. There are people who would immediately spend a bunch of saved up money and if such a system were to work, those people would have to be prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...

Oy. :doh I really don't get why the nanny government is so appealing to people.
 
Mellie said:
Oy. :doh I really don't get why the nanny government is so appealing to people.
Click to expand...

Because some people recognize that a great number of decisions someone makes has an affect on other people's lives for right or wrong, deserved or undeserved. Other people seem to think they are an island and everything in their life, good or ill, is their doing. Why wouldn't you want to be protected from the devastating affect of other people's bad choices?
 
Last edited:
Mellie said:
Yes and I'm under 40.

I say "yes" as long as the entire SS branch is revamped to ONLY help those who cannot help themselves. Lazy, fat asses and illegal aliens aren't included here.
Click to expand...

um.......do you get a pension and ss when you retire, mellie?
 
megaprogman said:
Because some people recognize that every decision someone makes has an affect on other people's lives for right or wrong, deserved or undeserved. Other people seem to think they are an island and everything in their life, good or ill, is their doing.
Click to expand...

Okay, so how about make it an option. If you choose to have SS taken out of your paychecks and saved for you until you're at retirement age, go for it. If you choose to do it on your own, go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom