• 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!

Is Social Security Currently A Good Thing?

Is Social Security A Good Thing

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 73.8%

  • No

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • Total voters
    42
P

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am curious of what everyone thinks about the current overall function and integrity of the social security program in the USA.
 
Pozessed said:
I am curious of what everyone thinks about the current overall function and integrity of the social security program in the USA.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's insurance, we pay into it. It doesn't come from the budget. It's our money put aside for when we retire. It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets, which is what was happening before social security and what will happen again if the $&@*ing Republicans destroy it like they are trying to destroy everything good about the govt.
 
Pozessed said:
I am curious of what everyone thinks about the current overall function and integrity of the social security program in the USA.
Click to expand...

It is, what we have and what most Americans plan their retirements around. So it is not so much a question of its being a good thing. The question should be how to structure its replacement by an economically more sustainable system without doing the citizens too much damage by correcting the historical system.
 
Astonished said:
Yes, it's insurance, we pay into it. It doesn't come from the budget. It's our money put aside for when we retire. It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets, which is what was happening before social security and what will happen again if the $&@*ing Republicans destroy it like they are trying to destroy everything good about the govt.
Click to expand...

You are living in the past, social security has now become a scam

Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get in benefits - Apr. 14, 2013

Up until now, Social Security has been a windfall for many retirees: They collected far more in benefits than they shelled out in taxes.
That's changing. Many of those retiring will have paid more into the coveted entitlement program than they will get back.

"Younger generations are paying much higher tax rates for the same benefits," he said.
Click to expand...
 
It's definitely a good thing and a financial asset to the baby boomers now at retirement age.
 
Astonished said:
Yes, it's insurance,
Click to expand...

No, it's essentially a defined benefit pension.

It doesn't come from the budget.
Click to expand...

Bizarre thing to say.

It's our money put aside for when we retire.
Click to expand...

It isn't "put aside for" anything.

It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets,
Click to expand...

Any number of means- and/or asset-tested welfare programs could target the populations of seniors at risk of living on the streets. Social Security doesn't even begin to make that its priority.
 
Keep the GOP hands off SS.
 
Moot said:
Keep the GOP hands off SS.
Click to expand...

The Social Security Trustees are the ones informing us of the need for significant policy changes to address long-term funding shortfalls, and only through a grand bargain is the burden of those necessary policy changes shared even remotely fairly between the generations the program affects. That fact is not a function of any political party.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The Social Security Trustees are the ones informing us of the need for significant policy changes to address long-term funding shortfalls, and only through a grand bargain is the burden of those necessary policy changes shared even remotely fairly between the generations the program affects. That fact is not a function of any political party.
Click to expand...

There will be a geritol jiihad if they mess it up.

I think the main point of SS is so people can have some dignity in their old age and not become a burden on their children or society.
 
First of all, the purpose of the Federal government should not be to provide social security, IMO. It is a state issue at best. Second of all, when social security was implemented, the life expectancy of people was 63 when it was implemented. Compared to 77 today. However, as life expectancy has gone up, the age for being able to claim social security has not gone up as well, resulting in a huge shortfall for social security. Third, social security is the number one lender to the United States government. What happens when there is no more money to lend the government?

Politicians, career liars for the most part, should not be in charge of a huge ponzi scheme, which is all social security is.
 
Pozessed said:
I am curious of what everyone thinks about the current overall function and integrity of the social security program in the USA.
Click to expand...

I will leave you to do the math. However, you can't bequeath what you paid in, so it's not really your money. Also how old does one need to live just to break even? What if you expect a nominal return on what you paid in? Social Security is just not a good deal.
 
For decades SS actually ran in the black. Now? It needs some tweaking, but it still runs well and it does EXACTLY what it suppose to do.
 
Moot said:
There will be a geritol jiihad if they mess it up.
Click to expand...

Geritol? I don't get it.

I think the main point of SS is so people can have some dignity in their old age
Click to expand...

You're wrong of course. The program has nothing to do with anyone's subjective feelings about dignity, that is just empty rhetoric used by people who can't develop coherent arguments in support of the current structure of Social Security.

and not become a burden on their children or society.
Click to expand...

Poor seniors are going to be a burden either way, with or without social security, because we don't condemn them to the streets or let them starve. Social Security already imposes a much bigger burden on their children's generation and society than there need to be, which is due to the fact it's structured like a pension.
 
Astonished said:
Yes, it's insurance, we pay into it. It doesn't come from the budget. It's our money put aside for when we retire. It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets, which is what was happening before social security and what will happen again if the $&@*ing Republicans destroy it like they are trying to destroy everything good about the govt.
Click to expand...

It may be money put aside for retirement but I am guessing they drew out what people put into it years ago. A very interesting read.....Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

Could give me a link to where republicans/trump are trying to destroy SS?
Did you know that when SS was presented by FDR to congress in 1935 he proposed along with 1: 'non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance' 2: Compulsory 'contributory annuities' and 3: it should include a 'Voluntary contributory annuities' and his democratic colleagues in congress rejected it who wanted a 'supplemental private investment accounts funded by non-social security funds'. Both were rejected in the final SS bill.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Geritol? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Urban Dictionary: Geritol Generation


You're wrong of course. The program has nothing to do with anyone's subjective feelings about dignity, that is just empty rhetoric used by people who can't develop coherent arguments in support of the current structure of Social Security.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're wrong...of course...

Honoring our commitment to the dignity of older Americans - United Church of Christ

Everyone Deserves to Retire in Dignity: Let's Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

Social Security Allows Us to Age with Dignity - AARP


Poor seniors are going to be a burden either way, with or without social security, because we don't condemn them to the streets or let them starve. Social Security already imposes a much bigger burden on their children's generation and society than there need to be, which is due to the fact it's structured like a pension.
Click to expand...

You are extremely naive and have no sense of historical background. It's best you leave these matters to your elders.
 
Moot said:
Actually, you're wrong...of course...

Honoring our commitment to the dignity of older Americans - United Church of Christ

Everyone Deserves to Retire in Dignity: Let's Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

Social Security Allows Us to Age with Dignity - AARP

You could not find a less objective source of opinion about the true meaning of Social Security than AFL-CIO, AARP and the Church of Christ.

You are extremely naive and have no sense of historical background. It's best you leave these matters to your elders.
Click to expand...

The way you leave a fox to guard a chicken coop. Ask the Social Security Trustees how that's worked out for us.
Click to expand...
 
Astonished said:
Yes, it's insurance, we pay into it. It doesn't come from the budget. It's our money put aside for when we retire. It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets, which is what was happening before social security and what will happen again if the $&@*ing Republicans destroy it like they are trying to destroy everything good about the govt.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. its not exactly insurance but that doesn't matter. But it is part of the budget .. the biggest part of the budget. Its money put aside yes. however
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html
The Social Security Act provides that the funds are maintained “on the books of the Treasury.” The Treasury manages the Social Security accounts in much the same way that a bank manages a checking account: Accurate accounts are kept of the cash deposits and the accruing interest; cash (plus interest) withdrawals are allowed whenever needed; and in the meantime, the bank can put the cash to other uses.
Until the invested amounts are needed to pay benefits, the cash is intermingled with the Treasury's cash operations for the rest of the government. The size of the accumulated reserves is tracked by special Treasury securities.

So yes its put aside. however government can borrow from it and do other things with it... which they have been doing a lot of.
 
I'm self employed, which means 12.4% of my earned income goes towards Social Security. It sucks. BUT, I did a few calculations because I was curious. It turns out that if I bought all of the benefits that it pays for: disability, life insurance for wife & heirs, retirement, spousal benefits etc. It would cost me even more in the private market. I haven't done the calculation in years, and it wasn't too far off, some 15-20% if I remember. But regardless, it IS worth it.

I have a twinge of guilt though, forcing people to buy benefits they may not want though. Ideally, people should have that choice. However, before SSI when people had that choice, they didn't pay for it. Generally, the population is irresponsible. In the end, I think it's worth it to take away people's freedom of choice to increase the living conditions of society as a whole.
 
Pozessed said:
I am curious of what everyone thinks about the current overall function and integrity of the social security program in the USA.
Click to expand...

It's not matterof whether it's a good thing or not (that WAY over-simplifying the issue), it's a matter of "Is the way SSI is currently being ran the best way to accomplish the goals of SSI?" Everyone wants to frame the discussion in a binary "keep it exactly the way it is" or "throw it out completely" and that's not the answer to the problem that SSI is turning into. We need an SSI that works for everyone and that isn't going to become such a burden to younger people that it becomes unsustainable. So the question shouldn't be "Is ti good or bad?", it should be "What changes do we need to make to make it sustainable, equitable and be able to protect those who are the most vulnerable?" (still over-simplified)
 
Astonished said:
Yes, it's insurance, we pay into it. It doesn't come from the budget. It's our money put aside for when we retire. It prevents a lot of old folks from living in the streets, which is what was happening before social security and what will happen again if the $&@*ing Republicans destroy it like they are trying to destroy everything good about the govt.
Click to expand...

Instead of an answer, we get a hate spew-fest....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom