Are you for or against Social Security Reform?

Originally posted by cavscout

Picture our nation is a car with no brakes traveling 100 mph toward a wall of impact high explosives.

The liberals are in the passenger seat saying there is no explosives, speed up. The Republicans are saying if we let off the gas and slow it down to 75 we will be OK. The Libertarians are in the back, getting ready to jump out; they realize there is no safe way out, your going to get hurt bailing out, but in the end you will probably survive.

Where do you want to be, speeding toward the explosives, slowing down a little, or getting hurt jumping out and healing your wounds after.

There is no longer a safe way out. We need to hit the pavement and then lick our wounds.

Well, actaully the brick wall is about 100 miles away, and the Democrats actaully think downshifting would slow it down faster and avoid the collision so everyone who wants to get out, can. When the republican gets out of the car the democrat can drive down there and push the wall down and keep on driving.

Go ahead and think you need to hit the pavement, and lick you wounds when in reality there is no need to do that until 2042 and then it will be only paying out at a reduced rate as it is now.

Originally posted by boogyman
I think the previous poster is being a tad dramatic about the situation...

Lets be realistic here.

Yes, let’s be realistic. Realistically, the average American pays half of his income to support the government, largely because of programs like social security. Without those programs, people would have more money to save. Remember, when you scale back government you save money. It is not as if you will have the same net income and have to find some money to pinch into savings. Your net will increase. Like I said, if we cut government spending in half, you will have, on average, 25% more available funds. What could you do with 25%? Save some of it? Pay for your children to have a better education? Spend every dollar of it and help the economy? The choice is yours what you do with it, but that is just the point; the choice is yours!

The system is costing you half of your money. From January to June, your paycheck goes to Uncle Sam. Wouldn’t it be nice to get that money back? I don’t think I am being dramatic about it at all, unless the fact that I am amazed that you don’t mind losing HALF your money is dramatic.

I'm sorry but I dont want to go back to the good old days of the industrial revolution when taxes were low, government programs were nonexistant, big business thrived and people starved to death in the street!

Ok, and you accused me of being dramatic? We are not the same economy now; we are not the same people. We are no longer a nation of European immigrants fresh off the boat with nothing and willing to work for almost enough money to feed our children. We are a fat, lazy and comfortable society, where even those below the "poverty line" have two cars and 5 TVs, plus an x box and playsation 2 to go with it. The problems then didn’t stem from lack of government regulation, but government regulation was still used to try and fix it and that is part of the reason we are in this mess (mess being relative.) The problem was that when you 10,000 jobs and 20,000 people competing for them, you can treat your employees how you want and they will just take, because they are starving at a slower rate than those who aren’t working at all. Now... fast forward to modern times ... we are a different economy, and we are a different people with different needs and desires. Your comparison is a little dramatic, sorry to say. Remember, if you don’t make enough money to purchase 5 TVs and 2 cars and $1000 worth of Christmas gifts (even if you are below the poverty line), you are no good to the economy, and corporations loose money. They know this. You are no good to anyone when you are poor.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by cavscout]

Yes perhaps I am being a bit dramatic...

However I dont think times have changed all that much, we still have immigrants willing to work slave wages and drive down the wages of everyone else, we still have companies willing to break the rules and pursue profits at the expense of all ethics. People are only "lazy" now a days because they can afford to be take that safety net away and watch people stab each other in the back to keep a roof over their heads.

You forget that the key strength of capitalism is its adaptability. The same way that capitalism adapted to a world of government regulation it can adapt back to a world with out. If a company changes its business model to one based on quality and not quantity then it should be more then competitive in a world where the majority can not afford its products. Your assuming the Industrial revolution model is unsustainable in a modern world where people are acustomed to high wages and material plenty. What happens when there are no high paying jobs?

You may say it can't happen but I think it most definetly can. Look at companies now when they find a decreased demand for their products they dont raise the wages of their workers to increase demand they cut back on production and decrease the wages of their workers to maintain profits. So what if the majority of people cant afford their products there will always be people who can.

I have to agree with Cavscout here, the government has no business funding citizens retirement, especially when most citizens are too lazy or short sighted to plan for it themselves. IMHO if your retirement isn't important enough to plan for you deserve to be on the street. Even with Bush's most recent tax cuts I still pay over 100k per year in taxes, a percentage of which is going to pay the benefits of someone who didn't care enough about thier own lives to do something about it. The simple fact is even with a very conservative investment plan, Ie UIT's, dividend reinvestment programs in blue chips, etc. anyone who starts early enough can retire with a better standard of living than they had when they were working. Why should I pay just because when you were 24-25 you were dumb enough to think you would never get old or decided going to clubs was more important than providing for your future? You made that decision you live with it.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by mwm1331]

Originally posted by cavscout

Picture our nation is a car with no brakes traveling 100 mph toward a wall of impact high explosives.

The liberals are in the passenger seat saying there is no explosives, speed up. The Republicans are saying if we let off the gas and slow it down to 75 we will be OK. The Libertarians are in the back, getting ready to jump out; they realize there is no safe way out, your going to get hurt bailing out, but in the end you will probably survive.

Where do you want to be, speeding toward the explosives, slowing down a little, or getting hurt jumping out and healing your wounds after.

There is no longer a safe way out. We need to hit the pavement and then lick our wounds.

I don't think I've seen a post on these boards that I've agreed with more.....

I am seeing bush's plan as just a way to increase the pot that the cooporate scroundrals can rip off!!! why doesn't someone ask the employees and stockholders of enron and all the other companies that have gone belly up due to mismanagement and basically unethical practices. Ya!! Let's give them a government program that gives them more!!!

as I understand it, the social security has the money to keep itself solvent until close to the middle of the century. It is held in government treasury bonds, so there shouldn't be any risk. unless of course our government has mismanaged this money as badly enron has....it just needs a little tweaking. meanwhile, they have been spending money on so many pork barrel projects that are not only unneeded, a majority of the taxpayers, if asked if they wanted their money spent this way would more than likely say that they would like it in their pockets. And, maybe if they had it, they would be saving a little more. I'm in my mid forties, and my husband is a little older, we have helped our parents in their old age, we have helped our neighbors feed our kids, we have helped people half away around the world have medical care we cannot afford ourselves.....all government mandated. We have just been skimming by ourselves. Have moved out of the HUD subsidized housing that we couldn't afford even though our taxmoney was being used to help our neighbors and bought a trailer that we are now tied down in a dead part of the country with simply because the payments were closer to what we could afford. I, being a women, have not worked as much in my lifetime as my husband, and thus have less earning potential. But, well, we have three kids, who will be adding to the tax pool of the future, so is that time well spent? or should we all have been like some and just avoided the kid thing all together, which would have just made the situation worse. This plan does more harm to women than to men! that's one point. And, well, for an administration who is so into family values, this one is sure making me pay for my mistake of chosing to have one now, aren't they?

as far as the dems having a lead foot and the republicans being cautious drivers, well, normally I would agree. But nothing seems to be normal at this time. Clinton slowed that car down considerable, even had a nice little nestegg stashed....Bush seems to have sped that car up faster than even the manufacturers thought it could go.

ooops!!! we goofed!!! well, everyone is on their own...good luck, oh, ya, could you please invest in my company for me.......I like my 2 million dollar/year salary and don't want to see it shrink any now, when I need it the most!!!

To me, the plan stinks, and this seems to be what Bush is really saying....


oh, ya, and well, we almost hit bottom last week. my husband's car died, electrical...without it he couldn't get to work, so he missed two days...three if they wanted him to work saturday also...and well, we had to buy a new (used) one so we are even further into debt now....three cars, one we can actually use, and well, we don't have the spare change to put another one on the road... oh, ya, we are so pampered.
actually, I wish he would have just taken my advice, gone down to the corner store which is in walking distance for most of us and not the 30+ miles he is driving now. We wouldn't need a car then. there's probably be more food in the house. and gee, medical care wouldn't be an issue....of course, it would be your taxmoney paying for almost everything too. but that is beside the point.

I one of the ones just wanting to jump out of the speeding car. This society and the government they have placed in office stinks, and well, I would rather live in a cave, and eat the polluted fish in the streams than to put up with the crap anylonger. I'd do better if I was truly on my own, without anyone else to take care of just me.....like so many others are chosing to do now.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 18-1-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by cavscout
Yes, let’s be realistic. Realistically, the average American pays half of his income to support the government, largely because of programs like social security. Without those programs, people would have more money to save. Remember, when you scale back government you save money.

Oh i see, this is like those 10% off sales where they say "the more you spend the more you save." The United states is one of the only industrial nations that do not have univseral Health and welfare. Granted you might be having more taxes to support it, but it is nice to know when you go to a hospital you don't ahve to bring your credit card or check book.

Most people in the wrold have no way to save money, nor do they know how, and often a major unplanned expense or lose of a job can leave them homeless and bankrupt withen a month.

Live on 12k a year working a fully time job and see what happens to you when you lose your job after a year. And how thankful you will be that there are governemnt programs like food stamps and SSI to help you

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Oh i see, this is like those 10% off sales where they say "the more you spend the more you save." The United states is one of the only industrial nations that do not have univseral Health and welfare. Granted you might be having more taxes to support it, but it is nice to know when you go to a hospital you don't ahve to bring your credit card or check book.

Most people in the wrold have no way to save money, nor do they know how, and often a major unplanned expense or lose of a job can leave them homeless and bankrupt withen a month.

Live on 12k a year working a fully time job and see what happens to you when you lose your job after a year. And how thankful you will be that there are governemnt programs like food stamps and SSI to help you

Bullcrap. Most people in the world have a way to save money, but it takes effort and sacrifice. Something that most people don't like today. What we have is a society of victims now that refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Even living on 12k per year, you can put away money each month. Granted it take giving up beer or cigarettes of movies on Saturday night but it can be done.

The U.S. does have welfare by the way. Welfare that is too easy to get and too easy to stay on forever.

In regards to universal healthcare. Do you live in a country with it? I am from the U.S. but currently living in a country that has universal health care. IT DOESN'T WORK!! There are waiting lines, rationing of care and the norm is sub-par care. All for higher tax dollars -- what a bargan. Almost every country with universal health care has also had to implement a private pay-per-use system because of the simple fact that their universal system goes close to bankrupt and can't continue to offer services to everyone.

Originally posted by boogyman
However I dont think times have changed all that much, we still have immigrants willing to work slave wages and drive down the wages of everyone else, we still have companies willing to break the rules and pursue profits at the expense of all ethics.*SNIP*
You may say it can't happen but I think it most definetly can. Look at companies now when they find a decreased demand for their products they dont raise the wages of their workers to increase demand they cut back on production and decrease the wages of their workers to maintain profits. So what if the majority of people cant afford their products there will always be people who can.

Let's not forget that, in addition to losing jobs to immigrants, we are also losing jobs---many jobs---to foreing/offshore companies. One reason these jobs leave: higher wages demanded by the American worker.

I think the govt. should keep putting their greedy little hands out of this of this giant cookie jar. I feel that they should let the people say invest 25% of their S.S. payments in a fund that can be controlled by only by the taxpayer. The govt. could not touch this fund under any circumstances and leave it up to the individual in the time of a fiancial crisis to have access to it. This is one way of insuring the younger pouplation here in the U.S.A. that they will have something to look forward to when they reach retirement age. But these days, they are extending life by leaps and bounds. I would venture to say that in the near future, the retirement age will be up in the middle 70's in age.I do not know why Bush is declaring this program is in a critical condition. Do you wonder why every time the govt. needs money and fast, they raid the S.S. fund? It is one thing to borrow money but it is another to pay it back and they have'nt done this in a good while.

flyin high-

good point. That sounds rational. Give us a portion, but not all. Even the most skilled investor is still going to loose from time to time. Thats why its called, "playing the market" and not "winning the market"..lol

I dont feel stupid, but Im not a heart surgeon, therefore I wont operate on anyone. Soooo, if Im not a stockbroker.........

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by boogyman
However I dont think times have changed all that much, we still have immigrants willing to work slave wages and drive down the wages of everyone else, we still have companies willing to break the rules and pursue profits at the expense of all ethics.*SNIP*
You may say it can't happen but I think it most definetly can. Look at companies now when they find a decreased demand for their products they dont raise the wages of their workers to increase demand they cut back on production and decrease the wages of their workers to maintain profits. So what if the majority of people cant afford their products there will always be people who can.

Let's not forget that, in addition to losing jobs to immigrants, we are also losing jobs---many jobs---to foreing/offshore companies. One reason these jobs leave: higher wages demanded by the American worker.

But don't forget that this same pattern has happened over and over again -- that is one of the reasons why people in the U.S. have one of the highest standards of living in the world overall. Jobs that can be done by unskilled or untrained or lower trained labor are lost and ultimately replaced by higher paying, more specialized jobs that have higher value.

I also remember seeing a news report recently (I wished I have saved it, so I can't back this statement up with proof) that the total number of jobs being sent overseas has been dramatically over estimated. A lot of new jobs are being created by companies overseas instead of creating them in the U.S., but in total, not a lot that are firing/laying off U.S. employees to replace them with foreign workers overseas.

Bullcrap. Most people in the world have a way to save money, but it takes effort and sacrifice. Something that most people don't like today. What we have is a society of victims now that refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Even living on 12k per year, you can put away money each month. Granted it take giving up beer or cigarettes of movies on Saturday night but it can be done.

12000 a year
1000 a month

subtract 700 a month in rent

300 a month

subtract 150 amonth for utilities

150 dollars a month

subtract 100 dollars a month for food

50 dollars a month left for savings

After a years savings you'll have 600 dollars not even enough to cover the rent for a month if you lose your job.

'Are you for or against Social Security Reform?'

Loaded question. What the heck is social security, anyway?

Its life insurance, for the rich.

What? That's right, look at the historical context. American workers were unionizing like crazy in the 1930's and starting to think about a Worker's Revolution. Social Security was a buyoff of that generation by the rich to forestall reform- reform of the inequitable social order.

The rich have continued to buy off every succeeding generation. They'll buy off you guys too, if you act a little 'radical'.

But if you just flat out surrender, they won't even bury you for free.

Cry if you want milk, son.

Originally posted by Chakotay


Cry if you want milk, son.

And this sums up exactly what is wrong with america today.
Not Work if you want milk son.
cry if you want milk son
whine, cry, complain, anything but getting off your ass and working for it.

Originally posted by mwm1331

Originally posted by Chakotay


Cry if you want milk, son.

And this sums up exactly what is wrong with america today.
Not Work if you want milk son.
cry if you want milk son
whine, cry, complain, anything but getting off your ass and working for it.

ok, i cant take it anymore. You can sit and judge EVERYONE else, based upon your little insignificant lifes ordeals. You can assume that EVERYONE else has the EXACT same situation as yourself. Its easy to judge, isnt it?

Remember what Sinatra sang..Thats Life! flyin high in April, Beggin in May. Its all gravy untill you wear someone elses shoes my friend...

Heres an example for ya: My sister-in-laws husband died last year. They have 3 kids. He worked a good job, and they needed no assistance from the governement what so ever. He was killed by a drunk driver, who was single and uninsured. My SIL is 42 and hasnt worked in about 20 years. Now shes left alone with a 15 year old, a 9 year old and a 3 year old. Not only is dad gone, so is the income. All the bills are still there as well. (not to mention aprx $80,000 worth of medical.

Hmmm, should she quit whining and go get a job at Mcdonalds? What is she qualified to do? Or wait, according to YOUR philosophy, its her own fault for not getting an education while raising them kids, right???

dude, seriously, i can only hope that your just an ignorant 18 year old kid who has yet to work. I SERIOUSLY hope that a grown adult does not have this closed of a mind.

or better yet..your just out to flame...either way-- this is my post and its a simple question. Not a loaded one, as has been suggested.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by spliff4020]

[edit on 19-1-2005 by spliff4020]

if people educated themselves what the social security deduction on thier paycheck did and how those funds are used they might be a little more concenned about a system that all repected finacial analysist have been saying doesn't need to majorly overhauled and eventaulyl privatised.

Privatisation is the worse thing you can do to any type of sufferage or welfare program. because then there is no security in the program. in fact, the Social security program is as stable and secure as the dollar bills you use and put in your wallets

Originally posted by Jehosephat
in fact, the Social security program is as stable and secure as the dollar bills you use and put in your wallets

OMG, I can’t believe you just said that!

FRNs aren’t worth ANYTHING! They are play money with nothing to back them up other than "they are worth something because I SAY they are worth something."

Talk about a poor argument. FRNs could be valueless next week, so I guess you win; they are just as stable.

spliff4020, sorry to hear about your sister-in-law's situation, but how does this justify armed robbery?

Originally posted by cavscout
spliff4020, sorry to hear about your sister-in-law's situation, but how does this justify armed robbery?

who said armed robbery? did i miss something?

Originally posted by cavscout
spliff4020, sorry to hear about your sister-in-law's situation, but how does this justify armed robbery?

P.S. - You were wondering about everyone’s situation. I am a 24 year old combat vet with 4 children and a mother-in-law to take care of. My income is right on the poverty line. Not only have I never used welfare or un-employment, but I still manage to save $250 per month. Oh yeah, and I am a high-school drop out with ninth grade education (some college, no degree.) I have never made more than $31,000 per year, yet I have two late model, paid off cars, a TV for every room of the house, 3 computers, ect., ect. I still manage to care for my family and save!

There are no excuses! You live in the world you make for yourself. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. Armed robbery is never OK, not even to help poor people. I could easily qual. for food stamps and other forms of thievery, but I do things on my own, my own way. NO excuses!