It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:03 AM
People seem to forget that the country kept on a runnin long before social security was even thought of. Now we can never get rid of it because everyone is going to be pissed off that they paid into this ponzi scheme and want to know where their money went.

I wouldn't be so critical of it, if the money paid into were locked down. That is, nobody is allowed to touch money paid into the social security fund, ever.

Unfortunately, both parties have been raiding it for years.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
Social Security Checks Are Not Guaranteed

People really do need to read Fleming v Nester, and Helvering v Davis

Social Security should be privatized.
edit on 2-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by neo96

I am aware of the case, but it's an awkward one since Nestor was deported.

Ephram Nestor challenged this Section after he was denied Social Security payments as a deported member of the Communist Party. He argued that a contract existed between himself and the United States government, since he had paid into the system for 19 years.
Nestor, an alien, became eligible for Social Security payments in 1955. In July 1956 he was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act provided for the termination of Social Security payments when an alien is deported for being a member of the Communist Party.


A gray area, but one I'll explore if I have time this evening.


posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:12 AM
reply to post by Darkrunner

it was called extended families...
they went out of style years ago.

now days, the kids are lucky if they can keep themselves above water, they can't afford to have mom and dad dropped on them, and they shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility.

privatize social security??? just where should the money be put???
in nice safe bank accounts where the people will be charged for the of giving their money to the banks to keep "safe" near 0% interest rates??
wall street, mutual funds, ira's? where they will just use the money to make their bets and if they lose, oh, well, tough crap!!!
just where should we be putting this money in a world where the hottest investment around, is other people's debts???

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Hefficide

This certainly is an issue that matters to most of us - one way or the other. Some feel that Social Security is a very necessary and valid program. Others feel that it's basically a free ride for the lazy. Still others say that they don't have any opinion other than that they should not have to pay for any of it.

My feeling is that a society that abandons its old, defenseless, sick, and disabled... well it doesn't merit being called a society at all.

it might boil down to just which 'safety net' programs are worth saving

compare the importance of Social Security & Medicare Tax paying benefits to programs such as Midnight Basjetball... or the pre-school and after school food & baby sitting services handed out to minorities, there are a slew of entitlement programs that could be reduced by 90% for true equability/ realistic pressing 'Need'...
there are oodles of vote generating give-away programs meant to obstentaciously give 'upward mobility' to some demographic....what ever happened to self-reliability

free cell phones for the 'poor', earned income credits of $4 K or more to single parent with a passle of kids that never had a formal father... iow.. they planned to scam the benefit system from day one

The savings realised from cutting-back those pumped up welfare & benefit programs would be my 1st factor (likely @ $10-20 billion per year) in preserving Social Security at least beyond 2033
edit on 3-10-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by St Udio

Many great general ideas and a good place to start looking, though the "Obama-phone" thing is really a meme or myth and is, in fact a program paid for by telecommunications companies - and they make a lot of money from it.

Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.
The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

Many of the things you cite, directly, are also varied and many are funded by community organizations or charities. But some of them do apply to be sure.

To me the answer is really simple and twofold:

1) Transparency in government.
2) Reform of both the House and Senate to abolish lobbying, better define conflicts of interest, and create mechanisms to prevent "pork barrel" spending and riders.

That last bit is, IMO the most important one. Riders ( additions to bills ) are so abused. If one actually reads bills ( a very boring process ) it becomes evident that most of them end up with riders that divert a LOT of money - and they don't even have any connection to the concept or basis of the bill that they're attached to.

Example: A bill to control medical costs might end up with a rider to build a eighty million dollar bridge somewhere.

It's absolutely amazing how flagrant and frivolous it all really is. To say that I long for the days when Washington was crooked behind our backs -is such an irony to me... but it's an accurate statement.


posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

The money paid into social security should keep going where it has always been going, but with the caveat that the fund is not to be pilfered by either party to pay for other programs.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Darkrunner

the notes that the fund holds are payable upon demand, when needed, well...
some of that money is needed now...
it's kind of not enough to say the money should go there and be locked down...
the money needs to start being put back.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in