Should Social Security be eliminated entirely?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking recently about social security/medicaid/medicare. A lot of my paycheck goes to these programs, and they are constantly being touted in the news as in "crisis". Meanwhile, some of my FICA withholdings are going to rich retirees on some golf course community somewhere. Plus I know several rich seniors who simply paid a lawyer to hide their assets so they could qualify for free health care under Medicare. So, instead of trying to fix the supposed crisis, would it be better/more efficient to just eliminate these programs entirely and stop taking the money from our paychecks?

I think my gut reaction is yes, I'd rather have that money and be responsible for my own retirement and health care when I'm older. But how would this impact those who really need the safety net provided by these programs?

Isn't there some other option, that would basically eliminate social security as we know it, but still provide for those who really need it to live on or get medical care? And why wouldn't something like this be a popular platform for a politician? I can't imagine people being against getting all that FICA money every week in their paychecks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are u kidding???? Boxer Clinton Reid Pelosi Kennedy will all be out beating the "tax cuts for the rich drum" and blowing the "draconian cuts horn".

SS medicare medicaid are the holy grail of the dem platform. You will never shrink them...only expand. They will lie cheat and steal to keep these programs alive and growing. The more poor and elderly dependent on govt, the better as far as dems are concerned.

The press will also play soundbite after soundbite of the dem leadership pounding on the repubs for even suggesting this.

This will be a pipedream unless we get a non dem supermajority....they will filibuster this for decades ... it will not even get a vote.

The repubs probably dont have enuff sack to even suggest it anymore after the assault they have taken in the past.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Are u kidding???? Boxer Clinton Reid Pelosi Kennedy will all be out beating the "tax cuts for the rich drum" and blowing the "draconian cuts horn".


[/ QUOTE ]

Which would be hilarious to watch as if anything SS is a transfer system from the poor to the rich.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you are the head of some govt department that manages this stuff. You can make plans for the future. One such option is scrapping the entire department based on the idea that it causes harm. Would you do it? Think about all those people around you and the powerful forces that creates. These are your buddies, your colleagues. Lots of moneys and interests are involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but imagine a true outsider ran for office on a platform of eliminating these programs entirely (except perhaps for the most basic coverage for the truly needy). My guess is that the American public would be outraged as the mere mention of eliminating SS/Medicare. But why? Wouldn't most people like to keep all that extra money they are working for? Don't people care that they are paying for some rich guy to go to the doctor for free, or to get a monthly SS check in addition to his investment returns /pension payments?

The whole concept seems out of whack to me. I am all for helping those who really need help, but I'm just not understanding why the average American not only doesn't mind social security, but seems outraged by any talk of eliminating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The propaganda has worked by the left and the press. (is there really a difference? the press is the left)

They have demonized everyone who has ever wanted to examine other options than soc sec.

It is the absolute worst retirement plan you could find....but the dems love it because it is their child.

Watch anyone who suggests privatization get torn to shreds by the dems like he is suggesting genocide. They are vicious to anyone who dares to threaten and expose soc sec for what it is...."a big steaming pile of expensive crap"

The dow over a 30 year span has never lost money....ever. But the dems have their "risky sceme" montra they ALL use whenever investing soc sec funds is brought up. Yes dems think ALL Americans are too dumb to find companies that will get a return of 1% per annum over a 30 year period.

Safe soc sec is better than GE, Coca Cola, Dow, Microsoft, Cisco and the like according to the dems...what a f ing joke. The whole mentality of "we know whats better for you" the dems have really pisses me off. Big Govt 101....control the populace by having them rely on you.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking recently about social security/medicaid/medicare. A lot of my paycheck goes to these programs, and they are constantly being touted in the news as in "crisis". Meanwhile, some of my FICA withholdings are going to rich retirees on some golf course community somewhere. Plus I know several rich seniors who simply paid a lawyer to hide their assets so they could qualify for free health care under Medicare . So, instead of trying to fix the supposed crisis, would it be better/more efficient to just eliminate these programs entirely and stop taking the money from our paychecks?



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you are rich and you see the hundreds of thousands or even millions you have paid in taxes to a country, maybe you want to recoup some of that money or at least get a crappy healthcare insurance in your golden years for the decades of dues paid.

[pokerbobo]

I was hoping i would get some replies from some of you dems out there with my posts... WTF nothin?

I guess you cant get away from all the video we have all seen of the "tax cuts for the rich" "draconian cuts" "social security lockbox (myth)" and "risky scheme" snipets. They are like a broken record with these phrases.

Do any of you dems actually think SS is a good retirement program, or do you "look the other way" just because you like to see your party score political points by misleading the American public?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

The safety net needs to be there. Not so much for the young, but older people (the workers and taxpayers of years gone by) definitely both need and deserve it. If you wanted to do this, the only fair and orderly way to do this, that causes the least amount of suffering, is to slowly phase it out by abolishing free health care for current under 20s.

Still, I'm of the opinion that a decent percentage of the population cannot adequately care for themselves and plan for the future, and I think society is better off is we spend a negligible portion of resources (5% of the GDP) on protecting them. It's no different to a tribe which takes care of its sick and old members. Just on a larger scale.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most eloquently and humanely put, Phil!

[bocablkr]

Pokerbobo,

I usually don't respond to questions like this because it is obvious you don't know the first thing about social security. It is a SAFETY NET period.
It is not meant to be a good retirement plan. It is there as a last resort, to supplement anything else you may or may not have been able to save. It will keep you from starving and being on the street. It is not intended to make you rich.

You probably have no idea what the situation was like when social security was first set up. You don't have any knowledge of the millions who were destitute and starving because they lost all their savings in the stock market and banking crashes of 1929. You did not see all the people lined up at shelters or soup kitchens. You did not see all the homeless people or the sick and dying in the streets. You did not see all the poor children that were hungry because their parents did not save properly. All that puts a burden on society - one way or the other. The government decided to force people to save for a rainy day even if they did not want to or did not know how. People that say we should get rid of social security are ignorant of history and its roots.

[oldbookguy]

The real reason as I see it that the Dems hate even a partial privatization is three fold:

1. 25% given to citizens to invest = 25% less to ‘borrow’ at a cheap 2% rate they actually do not pay back.
2. Say is a person dies at age 64, now the government keeps All the S. S. payments made (unless there is an underage child then they get a little bit).
3. God forbid you can ‘WILL’ a portion of your social security to someone, which you could do if you were granted the ‘OPTION’ on investing a portion privately or putting it all in the S. S. program.

Many posters are correct, just another way of the government-controlling citizen’s lives.

The Dems however are amicable to investing a portion, only they want Congress to do it and all profits then go to, guess whom?

obg

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokerbobo,

I usually don't respond to questions like this because it is obvious you don't know the first thing about social security. It is a SAFETY NET period.
It is not meant to be a good retirement plan. It is there as a last resort, to supplement anything else you may or may not have been able to save. It will keep you from starving and being on the street. It is not intended to make you rich.

You probably have no idea what the situation was like when social security was first set up. You don't have any knowledge of the millions who were destitute and starving because they lost all their savings in the stock market and banking crashes of 1929. You did not see all the people lined up at shelters or soup kitchens. You did not see all the homeless people or the sick and dying in the streets. You did not see all the poor children that were hungry because their parents did not save properly. All that puts a burden on society - one way or the other. The government decided to force people to save for a rainy day even if they did not want to or did not know how. People that say we should get rid of social security are ignorant of history and its roots.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES,

and even FDR himself knew that it should be a temporary solution to last a decade or two. Yet here we are 60 plus years later and the system has not only not gone away, it has gotten huge.

If this is a safety net as you claim....then why are the taxes so f ing high for it. If that money was used to invest in 401ks or mutual funds via the individual, hardly anyone would require the safety net.

When it first started you had multiple people paying the way for one senior. We are now working toward 2 people paying for one senior. WTF? you dont see the HUGE flaw in this? It is not affordable. It was a crap idea to start, and now decades down the road it is so far worse tha even FDR could have imagined.

So if the father of soc sec knew it shouldnt last ....what makes you think we should keep pouring money into a crap system? Surely you dont hold FDR in such low regard that your opinion should count more than his.

[bocablkr]

Pokerbobo,

Please show me the links that supports your claim that FDR thought it should be a temporary plan. I have read many links that have disputed that and claimed it is a misquote.

Regardless, investing in the market is a poor idea. My money market fund is still down 40% since 2001 and that is with the dow at record levels. What if I had the choice and invested my social security in 2001 and now I am ready to retire. Doesn't do me any good if over a 30 year period it is up if I happen to retire in the period where it is down.

If you are so in favor of investing in the market then do so with your own discretionary funds. If you are such a wise investor then you will make so much that the little you lose to social security taxes won't matter.