It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you for or against Social Security Reform?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
thanks , St. My opinion is that is should be voluntary. Those idiots who think they can get rich investing it, go right ahead. If they do well, congrats. If they fall on their rear and end up broke, thats their problem. Im doing my part to insure that I'm ok, but Id like to have the nest egg to help things along. thats all


I bet anyone 1000 that if you give me 100,000 and you give that to the federal government I can have 1 Million in 10 years (being conservative) where the US Fed will have 98,500 (they borrowed 1500 to buy a new toilet seat).


I can make anyone on this site money, and a healthy amount of it to.

Screw the government. If you don't have skills you make no money, if you have no knowledge you make no money, if you have no motivation you make no money and will probably be hurtin for retirement if you even make it that far.

I'm sorry, but we can no longer afford for the government to handle anything financial.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
KrazyJethro,

You say we can no longer afford to allow the government to handle anything financial. Just wondering why? Its not because Bush said SS is in a crisis is it? Because if you believe that, then I've got some WMDs I'd like to sell you...



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
KrazyJethro,

You say we can no longer afford to allow the government to handle anything financial. Just wondering why? Its not because Bush said SS is in a crisis is it? Because if you believe that, then I've got some WMDs I'd like to sell you...


No, I don't say that at all. I could give two... (well you know) what Bush says.

The fact remains that every aspect of the Federal government is wasteful in the extreme and there is little to no oversight in spending or operation.

Almost all social programs would be better suited at the lowest possible level (meaning local) for many reasons which I can go into if you have missed my case in other threads.

The federal government should not collect income tax, should cut defense spending by at least 50 %, should privatize all schooling, among other things.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I know I'm a Noob, but I would suggest doing some research on social security reform at sites like the Cato Institute and also some other sites like the Heritage Foundation.
This so-called security blanket is an out-dated and abused Ponzi scam. According to several court decisions the money you have put into Social Security is not even considered your private property and if you don't believe me do a quick Google search and do a little digging. You cannot will this money to your family upon death.
Reform of the system is so contested because it's Congress's private Piggy Bank. They cannot keep there hands off it and unless there is near revolt at the grass-roots level there is precious little hope of getting this "Private Property" back in the hands of those of us who have rightly earned it.
There are several good alternatives,ie, the government in Chile reformed their system in the 80's. It is a model of free-market success and their system uses protected accounts, with very stringent rules of operating to protect the retirees accounts.
The US gov't. also uses a well regulated retirement system that is quite successful and also well protected and regulated. Federal employees also Do Not pay Social Security taxes, Go Figure!
It's long over due to change this Scam. IMO



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
thnks sharkman, ill do some digging. any chance you can post a link? something you said intrigued me though. Gov. employees--no ss tax, huh? interesting indeed.....



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Dawnstar you still don't get it do you?
If the company you work for is not paying you enough to live on then the solution is simple find another job It is not the responsibility of the company to pay you what you think you deserve, it is your responsibility to find a job whose compensation meets your needs.
The fact is your wages are determined by the same forces which determine the price of milk, supply and demand.
Take a register clerk at McDonalds for instance, should McDonalds be required to pay that person 15 dollars an hour simply because they have a family? No they pay the register clercks 5.75 an hour because it is a job anybody can do.
You keep blaming companies for not paying a decent wage when the fault lies with those working at jobs that do not support thier needs. If you don't like your job, don't feel you are getting paid enough then find another, you have that freedom.


Therefore, that work should be paying enough to meet those family needs. Period
Your compensation is based on what you do not what you need. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

spliff4020 - I am neither placing myself on a pedastel nor porteaying myself as perfect. However your pathethic attempts for sympathy are falling on deaf ears, I'm not some rich liberal who is going to feel guilty that I was raised to believe in self responsibility nor will I apologise for my success. What your sister in law is gong through is her own damn fault. Why should I feel sorry for her when she is in a situaton she and her late husband created? Yes the unexpected does happen or to be blunt # happens thats why you have to be finacially discliplined when times are good. So her husband had a 50,000 dollar life nsurance policy why so little? I would bet it is beacause they made a decision to instead spend the money they could have put into a 1000,000 dollar policy on something else. Now in retrospect it is easy to see that decsion was flawed, but it was still thier decision.
Christ didnt any of you get told the fable about the ants and the grasshopper when you were kids? Well I got news for you spliff, your sister in law is the grasshopper.

You see the simple fact is I am no smarter than the average american citizen, I am no better than anyone else and I am far from perfect, which is why I have no sympathy for those who spend thier money on TV's and DVD's one year and then go on welfare the next because they didn't plan ahead. If I can do it anybody can do it.

SSI is a flwaed concept, which is directly responsble IMHO for the fact that most people now a days dont plan for rainy days or thier retirement. By taking the responsiblity for thier future out of thier hands the government has contributed to a culture of "live for today don't worry about tomorrow" It needs to be scrapped entierly.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
By taking the responsiblity for thier future out of thier hands the government has contributed to a culture of "live for today don't worry about tomorrow" It needs to be scrapped entierly.


I agree, but I would take it further to say that I think that charitable donations would increase if we were to make major cuts in other social programs.

People might say "God, the government isn't helping the homeless or poorer families. My church has a program, and I should give more. After all, we have all this extra money coming in from our income tax cuts"



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

You cannot will this money to your family upon death.


Actually, they have survivors benefits for children and spouses.

The reason why it doesn't pass a substantial lump sum to heirs is because the system acts like any other annuity program. If you want a more substantial guaranteed lump sum benefit for heirs, then you have to accept a much lower annuity value for the Social Security retirement benefits.

The problem with Social Security is that it now acts as more than a safety net by providing for those that don't require the annuity to augment their own retirement savings. They need to implement a means test to screen out those who don't need it and place a cap on the amount of benefits to provide for only subsistence needs. With the savings, the plan would be solvent much beyond the 75 year span and the payroll tax could be cut by a third. There's no need to borrow the money for a government-sponsored 'savings' plan. The only thing that's really needed is to spin off SSA as a private corporation with a budget that can't be touched by the federal government.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
www.socialsecurity.org... www.heritage.org...
spliff4020 here's some good reading that will surely put most folks too sleep, LOL
If you can sift through this then you are ready for upper level economics. But really this information can better help you understand the options and the Real fixes that can work if the administration and congress together want to spend the political capital to do the job. This sysytem can be fixed and profitable to us the citizens and the country as a whole. More money in your pocket translates into more investment and spending, thus increasing taxes collected by the Treasury, a fact lost on most socialist and all communist!
I am completely against the federal government stealing my hard earned money and then squandering it and leaving IOU's in their place.
Politicians have a disease called OPM, Other Peoples Money, they become infected with this disease just prior to filing their candidacy papers for their first run for elective office. The only known cure or inoculation is a severe case of successful entreprenuership.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I resent the statement that any financial misfortune people encounter is due to their own negligence and because they failed to think of tomorrow. I know plenty of people who scrimped and saved over the years and are suffering right now because they lost their savings in the market. Its kind of hard to plan for catastrophic injury or illness.

One question for all you small govt. people why is it the responsibility of the govt. to protect you physically but not to look after the financial well being of its citizens?

Also why is private industry more efficient then government?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I resent the statement that any financial misfortune people encounter is due to their own negligence and because they failed to think of tomorrow. I know plenty of people who scrimped and saved over the years and are suffering right now because they lost their savings in the market. Its kind of hard to plan for catastrophic injury or illness.


Does "#" happen? Sure, but there are many ways to get assistance other than going to the government. I don't know how it's possible to lose all your money in the market unless you are an idiot. Period.


One question for all you small govt. people why is it the responsibility of the govt. to protect you physically but not to look after the financial well being of its citizens?


No one ever said that the government should not look after the welfare of it's citizens. In fact, that is exactly what we are looking for in the first place.

If you allow business to grow and operate safely (meaning without obsene restriction, red tape, and buracratic BS, then you will be providing jobs. If you allow people to utilize their own money, then small business will pump more money into the market place than you could imagine (again creating jobs).


Also why is private industry more efficient then government?


Private industry has done a better job than the government always because they would not be in business if they were extremely wasteful. This is contrary to the federal government which has to take in order to fix problems because it can NOT go out of business.

Congress has no vested interest in it's operation and has no oversight.

Small government does not mean little to no government. But I bet you, if we moved all possible government functions to the local governments (where possible) and otherwise delegate to the state (aside from national security and military), then we would see many things happen that haven't happened in a long time.

Is it not obvious that the government controls the economy? The Federal Reserve is one of the most Unconstitutional BANKS in this country. That is all it is is a bank that regulates the power of our money within certain guildlines.

That is not capitalism, it is a controled market that could be used for who knows what and it needs to end.

Money based on government promise eliminates one of the basic tenants of the Constitution. That being the ability to overthrow that government if needed.

There are many things that we could base it on other than the American govenment.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Playing the stock market is a risky venture, but for long-term investments like retirement, stock index funds are the way to go. Why? 11% interest rate (average). If the average person were to take the 2000 a year he would be puting into SS into one of these, he could have over a million dollars by retirement. For a great majority of people, this would be better than Social Security.

I am of the opinion that a third House of Congress needs to be created, with the express purpose of repealing laws, and the necessary power to do so.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
.
I have thoughts that run several opposing directions.

When SS was running short they decided to shore it up. So now in a filing cabinet somewhere are a lot of IOUs that are your retirement savings. Could it be that government spends/squanders everything you give it for any reason and in fact spends your children's and grandchildren's money?

Government 'Trust' Fund = oxymoron

[Warning side-note: BTW deficit spending is selling Bonds to China and other foreigners that indenture future generations of Americans into servitude. Selling future generations into economic slavery to foreigners does not strike me as the moral highground.]

The use of the term 'Reform' here is a very special meaning of the word you won't find in the dictionary. It won't be streamlining or becoming more efficient. You may find it in the Orwellian speak dictionary.

This kind of reform is when You spend billions in consulting fees on how to run it, hire 10s of thousands of additional government employees to run it, hundreds/thousands of rules and complications you will be required to make decisions on.

Can you say, 'A Brand New more bloated government bureaucracy!'? Try not to jump with joy please.

This reform also comes with a price tag. Estimates range from 1 to 2 TRILLION dollars. This is not one cent in additional benefits, this is just addtional money that will have to be spent on implementation.

This so-called reform is based on the fantasy that SS is an investment program. It is not. It has from day one been a socialist program to re-distribute the wealth from the working young to the old.

Bush is hoping you are foolish enough to think SS is an investment program.
Guess what! You have been investing in those IOUs in that filing cabinet somewhere. [note: I believe it is a locked filing cabinet, just for your security, otherwise they couldn't call it social security. Does anyone besides me feel insecure about SS? If you do remember you are the proud owner of those IOUs. Can you say,'Suitable for wallpaper'?

Why do we need this when IRAs are already available for those who bother to use them? IRAs don't require Trillion(s) of dollars being spent to implement. IRAs don't require any addtional government employees to operate. IRAs don't eat away at the returns you get from your SS payments.

I hated and bitched when i was paying into this forced communist program, but blowing 1 to 2 trillion on this boondoggle is just a waste of what returns i may someday get from it.

I think this could be the issue that loses Bush a huge portion of his followers. They don't call Social Security 'the third rail of politics' for nothing.
.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I can argue though that if a goverment operates in too wasteful a fashion it will also go out of business. Any government that blows it money quickly gets replaced so politicians do have an impetus to keep their nation in the black and not operate in too wasteful a manner.

Privatization spooks me for the simple fact that it seems to be about replacing democratic government with corporatization. I dont recall taking part in any elections to decide the CEO of Time Warner. Also corporations have no national loyalty. The primary drive in capitalism is the pursuit of profit not patriotism. All of a sudden these companies that are willing to move jobs over seas to cut costs and move their headquarters to the caymans for tax reasons are going to grow a patriotic backbone?

I'm not saying that executives are bad just that I trust them even less then politicians.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
One question for all you small govt. people why is it the responsibility of the govt. to protect you physically but not to look after the financial well being of its citizens?


There is a difference between getting mugged (something someone chooses to do to you) and making fiscally responsible decisions (something you choose to do.)

It is not the job of government to get involved in your personal life, so long as you don’t harm others, because they do not own you. It is their job to protect as much as they can without interfering in your activities. This means trying to find the guy that caused you physical harm, but not stopping you from causing yourself physical harm (i.e. drugs, junk food and suicide.) Along the same lines, it is the responsibility of government to stop a con man stealing your money, but to allow you to make your own legitimate decisions for yourself. When government takes from you to give to someone else, it has now become the aggressor, and has ceased to fulfill it's role as protector.




No one ever said that the government should not look after the welfare of it's citizens.


This of course depends on your meaning of "the welfare of it's citizens." If this means anything other than protecting against victimization, then I say that "government should not look after the welfare of it's citizens."



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
One question for all you small govt. people why is it the responsibility of the govt. to protect you physically but not to look after the financial well being of its citizens?


It is not the responsibility of the government to protect me personally. It is the government's responsibility to respond to threats against the people as a collective, but it is the individual's responsibility to protect himself from personal threats.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm not gonna go into the it wont be broke and will be broke thing. Obviously it is going to go broke eventually. I am all for reforming it. I think we should be able to completely opt out of it if we would like. Now here is my thing. Those who choose to go the private route are going to be facing risk associated with it. Should the stock market go down I do not think the government should bail them out, which is something that would probably end up being part of the new system. I know the democrats would probably want that, not dissing anyone, its just you know democrats are more of the helping hand, while republicans are more of the handle it on their own type. Of course then again I don't think government should be involved in retirement at all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join