If social security is not a form of socialism, then what is it, a form of capitalism?

I just don't get it. Before this whole debt ceiling fiasco people (except for the liberals) want to eliminate social security because it's such a budget buster, including the libertarian Mr. Ron Paul, who wants to phase it out. But now people actually have the chance to eliminate social security for good, they chicken out, now they want to keep it. What's the matter here?

reply to post by Jazzyguy


The problem is that it's our money. Think of it as a savings account. We put money in our whole life and expect to be able to withdraw it at a certain time. It's not the govenment giving us something we haven't paid for and it's not an investment.

75% of the people in this country don't want Social Security touched.

It's also NOT a budget buster. It's generated surpluses since its inception.

Actually, Social Security is a 'form' of socialism. Mixing a little socialism in with the 'free market capitalism' has a tempering effect...not all bad.

Socialism involves taking money that one taxpayer pays in and giving it to another who is in need. Social Security is set up so that a person pays into it and then has the opportunity to get it back when they reach a certain age. It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I just don't get it. Before this whole debt ceiling fiasco people (except for the liberals) want to eliminate social security because it's such a budget buster, including the libertarian Mr. Ron Paul, who wants to phase it out. But now people actually have the chance to eliminate social security for good, they chicken out, now they want to keep it. What's the matter here?

Social security is a savings program. The only problem with it is that the money hasn't actually been saved. That said, without social security this country would have a bunch more debt, as social security surpluses have been spent instead of borrowing. Social security currently brings in more money than it pays out each year. You folks that bash social security generally have very little idea what you are talking about. You are a politicians wet dream, spreading their false propaganda around.

reply to post by kro32

So, why people want to eliminate it in the first place then?
Is it better to keep the program or not?

it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

Social Security is a beautiful thing. It is our way of saying we won't turn our backs on you when you age. Some day we will all be old and unable to provide for ourselves. Then we will know the importance of SS. The problem is the politicians who mismanage the funds.

Your facts are wrong, your opinion HEAVILY biased, and you generally don't know what you are talking about. Just because glenn beck says something, doesn't mean it's factually correct (actually he has been known to outright lie more than tell the truth). FoxNews lied to you.

Savings program my ass.

What savings program puts a gun to your head and threatens jail time for lack of participation?

What savings program constantly has to cook the books to create some false sense of security that you just might get back at least what you put in? Except for Madoff's savings plan.

I dont care if I get what they took back. It's gone and I've lived my life as though it were simply stolen. I'd be happy if they just stopped stealing. They can keep what they took.

I dont want the mugger to give me my wallet back. I just want him to stop mugging so other people wont have to go through what I've gone through.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Did you know that when you put money into a bank, they don't put ths stuff in the vault and let it sit. They loan the money as investment.

The same principle applies to SS. The government invests the money for growth.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


I'm not an expert on this, but there are several problems with the system and the way it was set up. For one, population growth is not consistent. During some generations, less babies are born than in others. We are now in a situation in which the "baby boomers" are all ready to collect. The problem is, the government isn't too good at holding onto money. It's not as though they actually held this money for the people. It has already been used to pay social security to the elderly while the baby boomers were paying it. It has also been used to fund other programs (which I feel is fraudulent use). Now that the baby boomers are ready to receive, the funds need to come from the payments the newer generations are making, but if there are more on the receiving end, then obviously there is a problem there. I would rather see this money being held for the particular person paying it in and accumulating interest.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

The problem is that it's our money. Think of it as a savings account. We put money in our whole life and expect to be able to withdraw it at a certain time. It's not the govenment giving us something we haven't paid for and it's not an investment.

Hey, that's twice we agree in one day! Common ground. Since social security seems to bring both sides of the masses together more often than not, I think our government should really, really be paying attention to that!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I never said it was a savings program I was simply answering the question of what it more resembles. It more resembles a savings plan than it does socialism though you could certainly find elements of that in it also.

I do think it's a good idea if it's run the way it should be. Alot of people who would rather have that money now oftentimes will wish it was there when they reach the age to receive it.

Originally posted by Crakeur
it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

Originally posted by notquiteright
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

I'm not an expert on this, but there are several problems with the system and the way it was set up. For one, population growth is not consistent. During some generations, less babies are born than in others. We are now in a situation in which the "baby boomers" are all ready to collect. The problem is, the government isn't too good at holding onto money. It's not as though they actually held this money for the people. It has already been used to pay social security to the elderly while the baby boomers were paying it. It has also been used to fund other programs (which I feel is fraudulent use). Now that the baby boomers are ready to receive, the funds need to come from the payments the newer generations are making, but if there are more on the receiving end, then obviously there is a problem there. I would rather see this money being held for the particular person paying it in and accumulating interest.

I see, so this thing is basically a pyramid scheme run by the government. It's a lie then, it's not really a social security program. A social secutity program usually uses a social subsidy financed by taxes. That is why it's called a social program.

Social Security it's just Social-Democracy en.wikipedia.org...

This understandable confusion may explain why some people consider Europe a socialist continent when it's not, at all.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I just don't get it. Before this whole debt ceiling fiasco people (except for the liberals) want to eliminate social security because it's such a budget buster, including the libertarian Mr. Ron Paul, who wants to phase it out. But now people actually have the chance to eliminate social security for good, they chicken out, now they want to keep it. What's the matter here?

Social security is neither socialism, nor capitalism.

Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production', it has nothing to do with social programs supplied by a government. Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production'.

Socialism is an economic system that does not require government, thus you have political systems like 'Libertarian Socialism' (Anarchism). Without government you can not have government handouts.

Social programs are the result of capitalism and the unfair distribution of wealth it creates. Social programs are required in order to maintain a healthy population. If they were to allow the population, that can not work for whatever reason, to fend for themselves you would have a huge increase in crime and health problems. The results of not having social programs would be far worse than the burden we have now to maintain them.

Also capitalism requires a healthy labour pool, unemployment, in order to keep workers having to compete with each other for jobs. True capitalists like welfare because it keeps the population appeased. Without it they would have revolutions to have to deal with. Poverty is the largest trigger of social unrest.

Where all the money is really going is war, stop the wars to spread capitalist interests and social programs would seem like chump change. Remember this is money YOU are making for the government to spend spreading capitalist interests into countries we shouldn't be in. Stop trying to take away from the people, and learn to see the wealth has been taken from the people already by capitalists through years of exploitation, we are all owed that money, and more.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I see, so this thing is basically a pyramid scheme run by the government.

basically, that's all a ponzi is. I contribute now so the folks who contributed yesterday can get paid today

Social Club

Originally posted by Crakeur
it's the biggest, longest running ponzi scheme ever.

What would you know? Are you an accountant or something?*

The Federal Reserve is bigger and has been running longer, so I put that Ponzi scheme up against your Social Security.

Meanwhile, the word "Socialism" gets bandied around a lot here in the U.S., but I think the term is often misused.

Definitions of Socialism vary widely, even among Socialists, and are something of a semantic quagmire. My best general description:

Socialism is common ownership of the means of production by the people as a whole, and managed by some form of government.

Of course that doesn't apply to every variant (Anarcho-Socialists?), and they are legion, but that's a pretty straightforward way to put it for the concept overall, I think. Even Communism would meet this description if a communal council of any form exists, even if it consists of everyone in the commune.

The key issues are "ownership" and "means of production".

Anti-Social Behavior

As "Socialist" as Social Security might seem (just look at the name), I don't think it actually qualifies as Socialism because it doesn't actually produce anything, even if we consider mythical investment returns, because those investments support the means of production owned by others rather than asserting ownership of them directly.

In practice, Social Security operates as a mandatory, tax-based benefits program run, and routinely plundered by, the U.S. government. Probably the best private example of a similar system would be the pension plans run, and routinely plundered by, labor unions.

Despite the often tortured arguments of defenders of these programs, the way they are managed do seem to be based on the philosophies and practices of Charles Ponzi.

But so-called "generational theft" is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Just commenting on the Socialism thing.




* Yes.

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production', it has nothing to do with social programs supplied by a government.

Ah, yes, the classic definition of socialism. Americans seem to have a different perspective on what socialism is though. It's anything that involves a social program. Thanks for the post, very well put, starred.

Originally posted by Crakeur
basically, that's all a ponzi is. I contribute now so the folks who contributed yesterday can get paid today

Someone definitely need to put a stop to the ponzi scheme for good.