SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Neither is universal health care, but I'm all for it.

Neither is universal health care what?

Quote, "For instance: Has it every occurred to you that if social security was such a great thing, people wouldn't have to be forced by law to participate in it?" We don't yet have universal health care being forced on us by our government, but we are the most developed country that doesn't. Many still do not think social security was such a great thing, except for those seniors now drawing social security to live on. Without it, many seniors will now be homeless. Just because government enforces something, it doesn't mean it's wrong just because some people think it's forced on them. Education is a good example.

When SS was set up they wanted to start paying benefits right away, to people who had never payed innto the system. If this hadn't been so SS would "own" a giant bank account, increasing rates of return.

Mandated savings is bushes plan as well. The Idea I think is to forbid shortsighted rapturists from screwing themselves over by not saving, and then leaching off the state or starwing when they get too old to work.

SS isn't just about helping yourself, it's about helping other people in your society around you.

This is another factor that the prez. seems to forget about....

Cycloptichorn

Ignoring Cyclops determination to make this a partisan debate, I will ask him:

How is it moral to require Citizen A who stayed in school, didn't do drugs or get pregant, learned a trade, and became a useful member of society and prepared for his retirement to support Citizen B who didn't?

Citizen A may also be one of those depending on their social security check to have shelter and buy food and necessary drugs.

and I do appreciate every dime I get.

Different question C.I. Now concentrate:

How is it moral to force Citizen A who prepared himself to be productive and to be self sufficient to support Citizen B who chose not to do that? It's a simple question that can be answered without diversion to any other issue.

No, it's not! Every one that have been responsible in their lives do not necessarily end up with "retirement savings" to support them in their retirement. When you assume that all Citizens As just support only Citizen Bs, you do not understand the reality of this world. To assume that all Citizen Bs have been irresponsible is not understanding what makes up our society. And I will go one step further and say it's heartless. When we had the high tech bust five years ago, many middle class families became homeless and had to go to public shelters and food banks to feed their families. Many included workers with advanced degrees. To say they are all irresponsible, and we have no responsibility for them is beyond my ability to fanthom.

And while you're mulling that one over, consider this: According to a discussion I was listening to just this morning, if there is no change in the current system, within the next 20 to 30 years, it is estimated that the mandatory employment tax for each worker will rise from the current 6.2% to about 30% in order to pay social security benefits for retirees to maintain the current sub-standard of living.

Are you willing to have 30% of your earnings confiscated by the government now to support a growing population of old geezers? I wonder how secure us old geezers are going to feel in an environment like like?

There is a fine line between promoting the national welfare and providing the national welfare. And there is a fine line between forced national welfare and slavery.

While I believe the government has to honor its promises to those who have paid into the system all their lives, I think we're going to have to rethink the whole program.

Foxfyre, thanks for not diverting this thread to C.I.'s ability to concentrate, for a minute I thought you might do that.

Thank you.

so your "non-political" statement about the non-productive drug addict members of society leaching off the really nice moral workers was not a diversion?

I'm already an old geezer, and the government already takes 30 percent of my income - and I'm retired. They also tax 80 percent of my social security benefit. So what else is new?

Making note Dys is unable to correlate an analogy to the issue and C.I. doesn't wish to answer the question at all. That's cool. Nevertheless, I believe it is a question that will need to be answered as we work through the various scenarios of repairing what seems to be a broken system or even as we decide what we wish to accomplish with the repair.

The argument you are making here shows how you really feel about SS. That those who are poor, are poor because it is their own fault. They have no money to retire, and it is always their fault.

This is a horrible argument, as it ignores the vast number of people who are destitute through little or no fault of their own.

Here's a few examples, that I am personally acquainted with, b/c it's either my family or our close friends going through it:

- Flood, fire, natural disaster. Many people lose everything in these cases, and don't get shite from the Fed. disaster relief programs (which pay far disproportionate amounts to the rich areas and in many cases almost nothing to the poor areas which are affected). The neighborhood I grew up in was badly flooded a few years ago; some people lost everything, as we were on a 'hundred-year flood plain' and flood insurance just wasn't available for a lot of people, who summarily had to liquidate their savings just to survive. Was that their fault, Fox? I'd like a specific answer.

- Sickness. You should know as well as anyone how major illness can completely eat up a family's financial resources as they desperately try to keep themselves alive. A child's sickness can completely wipe savings out as parents spend the years they SHOULD have been saving for college and retirement dealing with the health problems of their child.

When it comes down to hugely expensive operations to save the life of your child, or retirement, what do you do? Of course, you pick the child. Are these people responsible? Was that their fault, Fox? I'd like a specific answer.

- Economic hardship. I personally know many families who were heavily invested in Enron. Now they have nothing. Was that their fault, Fox? I'd like a specific answer.

You, like many of your political bent, like to ignore hardship in people's lives and blame their problems on, how did you put it? Pregnancy and lack of education. Right.

The fact is, whether you want to admit it, Fox, the only reason you are able to live your comfortable life and type in front of a neat computer to debate such things is b/c of the sacrifice of many, many, many people who aren't as fortunate as you. We all have a responsibility to help each other out in society. To pretend that you yourself haven't been assisted, every single day, by folks less fortunate than you in some way or another, is to completely live in a fantasy world. Seriously.

And what do you propose we do with people who have no funds to retire upon, but not because they were pregnant or lazy but because of circumstance? Let 'em starve? I'd like to hear what your solution is.

I somehow doubt you will be able to give me specific answers on how it is those people's fault that they no longer have retirement monies...

Cycloptichorn

Gosh darn it, Fox. I'll repeat it again; I've posted my recommendations to repair/improve social security many pages ago. We're discussing your assumptions about Citizen A supporting Citizen B. I don't agree with your assumptions, and if you can't understand that, there's nothing more to discuss.

How hard is it to realize that if you live in a flood plain, there may be a flood? There is always supplemental insurance you can buy. It is actually their fault for living there.



I understand and sympathize with anyone that has something like this happen. However, there are multitudes of programs designed to help people like that. Charities, govt grants, hospital grants, etc.

Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcies in trhe US today. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.



Yes, that was their fault. Anyone that invests heavily in the stock market and is not diversified is at fault if the stock goes belly-up. The only people whose fault it wasn't would have been those who had their pension plans effected by Enron.

I was away for the weekend but there is some stuff on here that I have to comment on.

Foxfyre:

This has to be one of the strangest statements I have ever seen. Based on the table you posted that isn't even close to being true. For 2004, the last year with real numbers:
Govt revenues from income tax as % of GDP, The LOWEST since 1945
Total On budget renenues as % of GDP The LOWEST since 1945
Corporate Income tax revenues as % of GDP The 10th lowest since 1945
(I don't know how you figure numbers but the lowest out of 60 years is NOT near normal.)
If you are talking the future projections it again isn't true.
Govt revenues on budget as % of GDP projected for 2010 is only the 3rd lowest from 1945-2000 and the 10th lowest if we include the 10 Bush budget years. 10th out of 65 is NOT near the center.
Income tax revenues for 2010 projections
Corporate income tax is 10th out of 65 years
Individual income tax would be close to historical avg
(combined individual and corporate is only 90% of average)

The tables can be found here in spreadsheet form - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html

I need to track down the figures on SS projections but several sources have stated that they use different GDP growth rates than the budget does. If that is the case, it raises some interesting questions. The budget assumes 4% growth or greater for the next 5 years and real growth of 2.5%.



Cato lists themselves as a non-partisan group but their philosophy is conservative/libertarian. They are not required nor do they look at any issue from the other side. That is why I suggested the Economic Policy Institute as another opposing source. EPI is also "non-partisan" but has a liberal philosophy. The nice thing about the EPI is they at least link to all the government sources. I find Cato doesn't provide those links. Perhaps because the govt sources conflict with their policy papers?
I found a rather comprehensive list of think tanks here:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/psthink.html