SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Foxfyre,

Why is it PARTISAN to disagree with the Cato Institute? I posted a rather lengthy dissertation disputing some of their numbers and you said you would check it out and then never did. What I do find "partisan" is relying on only one source and considering every other source to be partisan. Do the math yourself. Don't take any numbers, that are the basis for opinions, as real without checking it out.

As for CI's discussion with you Fox. I agree with CI. it is not laziness or lack of planning that causes much of the pain in this world. God forbid that you ever have a catastrophic illness in your immediate family but it seems to be something you can't imagine happening to anyone else. It happens. The best planning in the world won't prevent it.

0 Replies

Thanks for the responses McG! I'll go one-by-one on 'em (let me know if this is annoying; I know some people don't like the confusion.)

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
- 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.

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.

Sure, you can buy supplemental insurance if you can afford it. It's actually quite expensive. And in many cases, people who don't know any better are recommended not to buy it, as it really isn't a good investment in many places which are categorized as flood plains but haven't seen any actual floods in many, many years.

In my parents neighborhood in Houston, we had bad flooding b/c they refused to open certain floodgates downriver for fear of flooding some very expensive neighborhoods. There had never previously been a flood in our neighborhood before this in the history of the development. It turns out that the guy in control of the floodgates owned a house in the neighborhoods that they were trying to keep dry; while he lost his job, many of the families in the 'hood were screwed, and got nothing.

Quote:
- 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.

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 the US today. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

So gov't grants, which come out of our taxes, are okay to help people, but paying taxes to help people through SS isn't okay?

And your answer to people who go bankrupt through medical expenses is 'tough sh*t' ? Seriously?

Quote:
- 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.

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 should have been clearer. Coming from Houston, many many people's pension plans were affected by Enron. Was it their fault? What do we do with these people, more importantly?

Ignoring the fact that life can completely turn on any one of us at any moment allows you to say that people don't deserve money from others to help them out in the face of adversity; but it is hardly a realistic situation for a moral society to ignore the plight of those who need help the most.

If that means you have to pay a few percentage points higher on your SS taxes than before, to help others keep from starving to death, so be it. You can't see this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't complain about my taxes because this country has afforded me the opportunities to have a successful career. As a citizen of this country, I believe in universal health care, and will gladly add to our taxes to pay for it. I also believe most governments at the federal, state and local level waste our tax dollars, but that's another issue.

0 Replies

Parados, I doubt if I dug deep I would agree with your take on taxes and revenues because I have been taught the opposite all my life. But a discussion on tax revenues really is diversionary to thise topic, so I may start a thread just to discuss the pros and cons of taxation and tax cuts. As for CATO not being required to consider any point of view of their own, well what think tank IS required to consider any point of view than their own? What point of view do any of us have to support other than that which we hold?

We can however acknowledge and understand differing points of view and that CATO does very very well.

I continue to resist any who presume to insert their own bias into my motives as they are always wrong. So those who presume to do that will please understand if I respectfully ignore you and will discuss the issues with those who are not attempting to divert the thread. I welcome differences of opinion related to social security as without them we won't get anywhere.

I think the whole issue of personal choices is going to be critical to any solution re repair of the social security system and most particularly to any privatization of the system

McG, bless his heart, got the point I was making immediately. A moral society does take care of the truly helpless, those who suffer dibilitating misfortune through no fault of their own, and those who are victimized through no fault of their own. Such care can either be voluntary or can be done collectively through representative government.

But where is it written that the person who makes right choices should be forced to support or rescue the person who make wrong choices? If I build my house on the San Andreas fault, should I not expect earthquakes? If I build on the Florida coast, should I not expect hurricanes? If I build on an unstable hillside in California, should I not expect landslides when the rains come? If I build on the Kansas prairie, should I not expect wind and hail damage and the possibility of a devastating tornado? If I build in the forested canyon, will not there be a greater risk of fire?

What is the moral thing? Expect homeowners to purchase insurance to cover the risks they will occur in their chosen homesite? Or is it moral to figure oh well, I won't buy insurance because if I get wiped out, the government will restore me? I can even rebuild and if I get wiped out again, the government will restore me again. How can anybody support this kind of attitude as moral? And how can anyone think it moral that the responsible be forced to restore or rescue the irresponsible?

Along those same lines, where is it written that Cyclop should be forced to turn over up to half his earnings or more and severely restrict his own opportunities to support me in my old age just because I didn't prepare for my old age? Especially when us old geezers are the majority and hold all the clout at the polls, we can make a virtual slave of the young folks and require that they support us in grand style. How long can that keep up before there is complete rebellion and the whole system collapses?

That's the problem, people. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that we have no right to social security; that the government is not required to return to us a dime of the social security money we have paid in. When it becomes politically impossible for the government to do so, it is almost a given that the government won't.

Nevertheless, for decades the government has been taking big chunks of my income - way over six figures by now - in social security taxes and I expect promises made to me by my government to be kept regarding incremental repayment of those substantial contributions I have made.

It's just that we can't keep it up with a swelling population of retirees against a shrinking workforce paying into the system.

So the best way to go seems to me to start easing into privatization now and make it possible for more people now to prepare for their own retirement on down the road. It is the practical thing, the moral thing, and the greatest insurance we have that most people won't be poor or disadvantaged or victimized.

0 Replies

"The moral thing?" Who's morals you talking about? You don't make assumptions about other people's motives?

0 Replies

McG writes:

Quote:

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.

Yeah and anyone that has a broker that steals their assets deserves it. The facts about the market are that with millions of people invested SOME will lose money. It is like the lottery, I can't say WHO will win but I can guarantee that someone will. It is the same with the market. I can't say who will lose but I can guarantee the numbers show that even some that are well diversified will lose.

McG.. I have to say. You have obviously never seen a real catastrophe in anyone's life or if you have you have no empathy at all.

I have a friend who's husband died 3 months ago from ALS. He was a successful chiropracter. Over the course of 2 years he spent all their savings and borrowed against his life insurance chasing his hope and an early diagnosis that he had Lyme disease. (His health insurance refused to pay for that extraordinary treatment.) Now she is left with 4 kids, SSI payments and a job at Walmart. I guess I should tell her she should have "planned better." This is PRECISELY the situtation that SOCIAL SECURITY was designed for.

0 Replies

Quote, "Nevertheless, for decades the government has been taking big chunks of my income - way over six figures by now - in social security taxes" It seems you've been paying maximum into the social security pool for at least 30 years to have paid in "over six figures by now." Do the math, and it doesn't even come close.

0 Replies

CI writes

Quote:

"The moral thing?" Who's morals you talking about? You don't make assumptions about other people's motives?

The moral thing is always the right thing to do. And I never talk about who's morals or who's values but rather what morals and what values. And No, I don't make assumptions about other people's motives. I don't presume that kind of insight and do not wish to be guilty of that kind of arrogance.

0 Replies

Well, good! Now answer my question on your social security contriubtions, PLEASE!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thanks for the responses McG! I'll go one-by-one on 'em (let me know if this is annoying; I know some people don't like the confusion.)

I don't mind.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
- 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.

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.

Sure, you can buy supplemental insurance if you can afford it. It's actually quite expensive. And in many cases, people who don't know any better are recommended not to buy it, as it really isn't a good investment in many places which are categorized as flood plains but haven't seen any actual floods in many, many years.

In my parents neighborhood in Houston, we had bad flooding b/c they refused to open certain floodgates downriver for fear of flooding some very expensive neighborhoods. There had never previously been a flood in our neighborhood before this in the history of the development. It turns out that the guy in control of the floodgates owned a house in the neighborhoods that they were trying to keep dry; while he lost his job, many of the families in the 'hood were screwed, and got nothing.

They took a calculated risk and lost. Why should others be burdened by those who use bad judgement? Have they tried a class action lawsuit againt the guy that controlled the floodgates and the (government controlled?) employer of that guy?

Quote:

Quote:
- 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.

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 the US today. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

So gov't grants, which come out of our taxes, are okay to help people, but paying taxes to help people through SS isn't okay?

And your answer to people who go bankrupt through medical expenses is 'tough sh*t' ? Seriously?

Yes, that is my answer. A bit insensitive isn't it?

My brother had his neck severly sprained by a student (he was a teacher in a school for undisciplined students). His medical bills were outrageous. He also has a genetic hip problem that he naver had fixed and now has 2 artificial hips. He is on severe pain meds that keeps him so doped up I don't think he even knows what year it is any more. He had to claim bankruptcy a while back because the bills were too far out of hand.

He should have had better lawyers and never settled his disability case. He was an idiot. Tough sh!t.

I do not feel that it is the governments job to act as parent to people that make bad decisions or fall upon hard times. That's life. The government is there to provide protection, law and certain high level beaurocratic crap that needs done. Giving people (tax) money should not be one of the federal governments responsibilities.

Quote:

Quote:
- 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.

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 should have been clearer. Coming from Houston, many many people's pension plans were affected by Enron. Was it their fault? What do we do with these people, more importantly?[/quote]

No. Those people should have been paid from the coiffers of what was left of Enron and the repossession of all Ken Lay's assets and whomever else was responsible to ensure those people where taken care of. It's a shame they were allowed to keep anything while thousands ended up with nothing.

Quote:

Ignoring the fact that life can completely turn on any one of us at any moment allows you to say that people don't deserve money from others to help them out in the face of adversity; but it is hardly a realistic situation for a moral society to ignore the plight of those who need help the most.

If that means you have to pay a few percentage points higher on your SS taxes than before, to help others keep from starving to death, so be it. You can't see this?

Cycloptichorn

I pay enough into SS. I do not wish to pay anymore to afford others a better lifestyle. I work to provide for myself and for my family. I invest into my own retirement and have all my working life. I do not expect nor will I rely on others to take care of me.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have a friend who's husband died 3 months ago from ALS. He was a successful chiropracter. Over the course of 2 years he spent all their savings and borrowed against his life insurance chasing his hope and an early diagnosis that he had Lyme disease. (His health insurance refused to pay for that extraordinary treatment.) Now she is left with 4 kids, SSI payments and a job at Walmart. I guess I should tell her she should have "planned better." This is PRECISELY the situtation that SOCIAL SECURITY was designed for.

This is the exact situation that Fox and McG want to ignore; someone who didn't do anything wrong, and is still in need of assistance. Apparently, they are screwed and that's it.

Quote:

McG, bless his heart, got the point I was making immediately. A moral society does take care of the truly helpless, those who suffer dibilitating misfortune through no fault of their own, and those who are victimized through no fault of their own. Such care can either be voluntary or can be done collectively through representative government.

Hmm. Isn't that a major part of what SS does? Takes care of those who have nothing through no fault of their own by collective gov't?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Nowhere close C.I. My husband and I are not wealthy people. But together we have paid a handsome sum into the social security system over the five decades we have been working. How does the amount paid in change anything I have suggested re the system however?

0 Replies

And you know, when Cyclop says stuff as nonresponsive to anything else that has been said and presumes such an arrogant superiority, I could almost enjoy making him my slave. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

As for CATO not being required to consider any point of view of their own, well what think tank IS required to consider any point of view than their own? What point of view do any of us have to support other than that which we hold?

ROFLMBO.. Then don't sit here and DEMAND that the rest of us be NON PARTISAN when you REFUSE to look at any facts outside your own opinion.

Foxfyre, You are complete morass of contradictions. You pretend that you are attempting to be open minded yet when anyone does question your beliefs you prove you really have no open mind at all.

Of course Cato is PARTISAN.. so is EPI. but they are OPPOSITES. if you REALLY want to be open minded then you would read them BOTH. I have read CATO AND HERITAGE even though I disagree with them. You refuse to read or even look at anything let alone dispute it if you disagree with it.
Cato and Heritage use SS numbers and then the SS administration states that Cato and Heritage are MISSUSING the SS numbers. Who do you believe? Cato hardly deals with "both sides of the issue" as you claim.

THere is no "fix" for SS if the fix is in and we have to do it your way or nothing at all.

SS does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the government as a whole. The fact that we have huge deficits plays a big part in fixing SS. We can't cover any of the trust fund if we don't fix the deficits. That means the deficits are an integral part of any fix.

The thing I find most telling about this is when I actually present numbers you brush them off as not meaning anything. THis only means one thing to me. You really don't want to find a real solution that will work. Numbers are the only thing that will create a solution. Numbers show us that there is a problem. Numbers show us what solutions might or might not work. Numbers are the only NON BIASED way to look at a budget and SS.

Quote:

That's the problem, people. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that we have no right to social security; that the government is not required to return to us a dime of the social security money we have paid in. When it becomes politically impossible for the government to do so, it is almost a given that the government won't.

Here again. I disputed this LUDICROUS claim by Walter Williams and provided links to the court rulings that OBVIOUSLY DO NOT say what Williams claimed yet here you are trotting it out again as if it was written in stone. Foxfyre, get your own brain for a change. Read the REAL RULING. You are free to ignore me in the future Fox, but that won't prevent me from disputing things that are obviously false.

0 Replies

I am the one inviting all points of view Parados, and thus I am not ready to discard any source, opinion, facts, data just because my opinion is currently taking a different direction. You seem to be the one who gets angry if challenged. Why the sudden belligerance and assumptions of my motives or what I think?

Williams and Cato have cited a specific supreme court case. Please show how their opinion re this case is wrong. You can even do that without being insulting towards another member.

0 Replies

You're the queen of non-responsive posts, Fox.

People question your numbers? You tell them they are wrong to question.

People question the CATO institute (which, btw, is not even close to being impartial; sheesh) and you tell them they are wrong to question.

YOU wrote this:

Quote:

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.

After which, I responded to your stupid question with this:

Quote:

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: <snip>

You didn't address the point about illness or Enron at all. Instead,

Quote:

But where is it written that the person who makes right choices should be forced to support or rescue the person who make wrong choices? If I build my house on the San Andreas fault, should I not expect earthquakes? If I build on the Florida coast, should I not expect hurricanes? If I build on an unstable hillside in California, should I not expect landslides when the rains come? If I build on the Kansas prairie, should I not expect wind and hail damage and the possibility of a devastating tornado? If I build in the forested canyon, will not there be a greater risk of fire?

Basically stating that those people who have disasters happening to them, it's their own fault for not having insurance. Never mind the fact that some forms of insurance are extremely expensive for families who can barely afford the home they are living in to begin with. It's their fault, and now, they are screwed, and they deserver nothing from anyone else to help them out, b/c we simply don't care about other people in our society...

As for 'enjoying making him my slave,' this is a completely idiotic line of thought; as at no point will anyone have to pay as much in SS taxes as your ludicrous example promotes.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about, Fox. I've said it before and I will again. You exist in some strange bubble world where everyone is responsible for exactly everything that happens to them in life; except the Iraqi people, of course. They deserve BILLIONS of our dollars and thousands of lives. Heaven forbid we pay a little extra in taxes to help people out, though....

Can't you see the dissonance in your own positions?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,

This is one of those philosophical divides between conservatives and liberals.

As a conservative, I believe people should work for what they get. That means getting an education (paid for by taxes), then getting a job.

Higher education (not paid for by taxes except for things like pell and TAP and a few other govt grants like GI Bill) is an excellent way to get a better job.

Anyone that really wants to work, will have no problem finding work. I've held down 3 jobs at once trying to make ends meet. If I can do it, I expect everyone else to.

Now, before you start throwing the handicapped and others as examples of people that can't do that, let me point out that those people hardly live in a vacuum. They have family to support them and a multitude of govt programs to assist them.

Now, you, and many liberals like you want to "pay a little extra in taxes to help people out,". That's fine, you should. Give to charities, give to your church, hell, pay more taxes if you want, but don't require me to do the same. I am a selfish prick and I believe the welfare of my family far outweighs the welfare of your family. Just as I hope you would.

0 Replies

"Handsome sum" hardly equates to "over six figures." When you exaggerate, be ready to respond with answers. Otherwise, leave them out of your posts. You, see, I actually did keep a record of our social security contributions since our marriage in 1963, and our total through last year (since my wife still works three days a week) was $123,075 (for the both of us). I've worked in management for most of my relatively short career (32 to be exact), and retired early at 63. Please stop making statements you're not willing to back up.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

This is one of those philosophical divides between conservatives and liberals.

I agree, so let's cut to the chase. What do you and Fox really want to see happen to social security? You don't agree with its basic function. Anyone who is able to save money can save for their retirement without government help, so the purpose of social security is not to provide the best return on retirement savings. So wouldn't it work for you if it just completely went away?

0 Replies

Quote:

I am a selfish prick and I believe the welfare of my family far outweighs the welfare of your family. Just as I hope you would.

An inability to seperate personal issues with policy issues is a serious problem. I love my family; but believe that they should be treated just like everyone else. They aren't special, neither am I, neither are you.

As for the rest of your post, surprisingly, I agree with the vast majority of it, except I think that this part

Quote:

Anyone that really wants to work, will have no problem finding work. I've held down 3 jobs at once trying to make ends meet. If I can do it, I expect everyone else to.

May be a little out of date, as jobs are a little harder to come by than they used to be.

I agree with you that people should be responsible for their own lives; but what do we do as a society for people without family to support them when they hit hard times? Or with a family who has no money to give the people b/c they are barely making it themselves?

What about the number of people who do everything right, and still get screwed over by circumstance? I happen to know quite a few of the 'Enron Pensioners' that you described earlier who don't have a clue what they are going to reitre on now. Many of these people had excellent plans before the whole thing caved. What about them?

SS is designed to help everyone; even you, McG, no matter how bad things get in your life.

I sometimes think that those who haven't experienced true tragedies, outside of their control, that really lay people low, don't understand that many things aren't peoples fault, yet have to be dealt with....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know