Social Security should only go to those who NEED it

[mefordis]

By the way he talks, he probably has more than a life insurance policy. He's willing to give up his social security, other wealthy, retired people should be so selfless and start thinking about future generations and get off the dole. I consider social security a glorified welfare program. You are taking in way more than you paid out. Add it up. People are living longer and longer.

What if the insurance companies go bankrupt? Something you have paid into for years and years hoping for a return for your family to help them. Then when it comes time they say "too bad so sad"

 

[MrsPete]

Fair? Only those crying that they "deserve" to get back because they paid in are crying about "fairness".

I can't even get my head around this sentence. Only those who paid in are concerned about getting back what's theirs. Yeah? I just don't understand in the least why you think I shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits for which I've paid, benefits that have been promised to me. I guess it's because I don't believe in socialism.

When your children and grandchildren are begging in the streets, look in the mirror for someone to blame. Are you slefish? I do not know you. But if you think that you are doing the right thing by making these types of demands of your government - that you have "earned" it - then you are a part of the problem. Of that, I have no doubt.

You've said this kind of thing a couple times, but it's far from the truth. You're implying that if we could just manage to fix SS, everything would be roses and sunshine again. That's not even close to reality.

SS is ONE of America's problems, but we have numerous other ones affecting our economy: the large number of Americans who have overextended themselves and are heavily in debt, the large number of Americans who've bought more house (and more car) than they can afford (or lease), the trade deficit, the large numbers of people on generational welfare, the problems with health care . . . the list goes on, and SS isn't at the top.

I'm quite sure my children will not be begging in the streets. I'm pushing them academically, and I've saved for their college education -- save your math; I know what you're saying, but I do not agree that your solution is the only one out there. The government has made this more difficult by holding back a fairly good bite of every paycheck I've ever earned. I'm not willing to say, "Oh, just keep it."

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

By the way he talks, he probably has more than a life insurance policy. He's willing to give up his social security, other wealthy, retired people should be so selfless and start thinking about future generations and get off the dole. I consider social security a glorified welfare program. You are taking in way more than you paid out. Add it up. People are living longer and longer.

LOL - most of what I have made I have given away. I am not wealthy. I hope to die penniless. I do enjoy a few indulgences. Mostly, I just try to be worthy of the gift of life that I have been blessed with time and again.

Not everyone that disagrees with social programs does so out of cruelty or lack of empathy. Some do so because they really believe that everyone would be better served - including those who seemingly have the most to lose...

 

[S. C.]

That is what we have family for. Nothing in this life is promised to us - not even tomorrow...

If me and hubby had to depend on our families we would all be living under a tree. The rest work but barely make it, not saying they don't work hard because they do and they would share. They just do not have the extra to help anyone.

See not all families are as fortunate as yours.

 

[MrsPete]

But see, this is what you're missing. I'm demanding nothign from the governmnet. Instead, the government is MANDATING that 15% of my salary get dumped into this program--a retirement program that will, at best, return to me 2% on my investment. I didn't ask for the program. If I could opt out right now, on both paying and receiving, I would do so. I would give up all that I've "invested" over the last 20+ years, for me and my husband. I'm only owed because that was the "deal" that was made when they took the stupid money in the first place. it's a lousy investment, one that I would never have chosen if I had a choice, but I didn't. So, yeah, that makes me greedy because I upheld my end of the deal, and I'll expect the other side to hold up theirs, as well.

We save on top of this. When we started in the work force, we knew SS was unsustainable. We'll have millions to retire on despite the government's best efforts--money that we'll use, and pass on to children and grandchildren. So, if they're begging in the streets, it won't be due to our "greed", thanks for your concern!

This has been a crappy program that is a poor investment for decades. The retirement age should have been indexed to life expectancy. Politicians are too chicken to say what needs to really be done to fix this problem.

I'm just getting really, really tired of people blaming the achievers for having more.

Did I write this? No, but I could've -- it matches my opinion 100%.

 

[MrsPete]

I consider social security a glorified welfare program. You are taking in way more than you paid out. Add it up. People are living longer and longer.

I don't agree that it's a welfare program. Why? Because you have to work and qualify for it. People who earn more receive more -- not a whole lot more, maybe, but some.

I agree that there are big problems with the administration of the program, and that today's longer life expectancy is one of the big issues . . . however, denying benefits to those people who've paid in the most and who have been the most successful is not a sensible way to fix the problems.

 

[Charade]

According to experts, the shortfall in Social Security is manageable. Medicare is more critical problem.

They're either wrong or lying.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I can't even get my head around this sentence. Only those who paid in are concerned about getting back what's theirs. Yeah? I just don't understand in the least why you think I shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits for which I've paid, benefits that have been promised to me. I guess it's because I don't believe in socialism.

This is not personal. It is about the continuation of our nation.

You've said this kind of thing a couple times, but it's far from the truth. You're implying that if we could just manage to fix SS, everything would be roses and sunshine again. That's not even close to reality.

SS is ONE of America's problems, but we have numerous other ones affecting our economy: the large number of Americans who have overextended themselves and are heavily in debt, the large number of Americans who've bought more house (and more car) than they can afford (or lease), the trade deficit, the large numbers of people on generational welfare, the problems with health care . . . the list goes on, and SS isn't at the top.

Wrong - SS and Medicare are at the very top.

I'm quite sure my children will not be begging in the streets. I'm pushing them academically, and I've saved for their college education

And what happens when their education means nothing? When freedom disolves along with this country?

-- save your math; I know what you're saying, but I do not agree that your solution is the only one out there. The government has made this more difficult by holding back a fairly good bite of every paycheck I've ever earned. I'm not willing to say, "Oh, just keep it."

Fine - you don't have to read my posts. They are not for the faint of heart, or those who do not wish to hear the truth.

Tell me - what is my agenda? Am I trying to scare you?

All I want to do is open people's eyes. Have people see this issue from a perspective other than their own...

 

[pls5286]

I am 33 y/o and on disability. I have had 3 brain operations and 4 strokes. I also have 2 children and am a single mom. My kids also collect on my SSD and have to just so I can make ends meet every month. I am on Mecdicare, and the cost of it is taken from my disability check every month. My kids however, are uninsured. I make too much money for them to be on medicaid, and too little money for them to be on peach care, our state low income, but paid for insurance and there is no way I can afford private insurance on them. I was let go from my job right before my last brain operation and had no choice but to file for SSD. If the program wasn't out there, my kids and I would be homeless. I barely make ends meet each month, but I do manage. I don't want to drain the system, but please tell me, what else am I to do. I will soon be having another operation, as my lasts test results showed my shunt not working again. If you point me in the right direction, I will quit draining the system.

 

[Allison]

What do you mean by supposedly?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

If me and hubby had to depend on our families we would all be living under a tree. The rest work but barely make it, not saying they don't work hard because they do and they would share. They just do not have the extra to help anyone.

See not all families are as fortunate as yours.

As long as you have love, you can endure anything. Poverty is not something to be feared. Lack of freedom is...

 

[MrsPete]

I would sacrifice everything for my boys...

Okay, let's think about the next step in that thought process . . . let's say that the government decides that you've saved enough to fund your own retirement, and you're not going to receive any SS . . . but retirement is expensive, and things get tight . . . what're you going to do? You're not able to work, at least not full time. You're probably going to move in with your children. They'll have to buy a larger house or add on another bedroom for you -- and you can't help them do this because you're broke. Their income must now stretch a little farther to cover your food, utilities, and medical needs.

How is this benefiting your children? You're not taking deductions from their paychecks, but they're still spending a good bit to support you.

Ideally every American should save enough for a comfortable retirement, but we all know that many (most?) will not do so. SS is there to make sure that everyone has a minimal amount to live upon. Everyone who pays in should be able to draw out. I simply cannot grasp the other side of the argument.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I am 33 y/o and on disability. I have had 3 brain operations and 4 strokes. I also have 2 children and am a single mom. My kids also collect on my SSD and have to just so I can make ends meet every month. I am on Mecdicare, and the cost of it is taken from my disability check every month. My kids however, are uninsured. I make too much money for them to be on medicaid, and too little money for them to be on peach care, our state low income, but paid for insurance and there is no way I can afford private insurance on them. I was let go from my job right before my last brain operation and had no choice but to file for SSD. If the program wasn't out there, my kids and I would be homeless. I barely make ends meet each month, but I do manage. I don't want to drain the system, but please tell me, what else am I to do. I will soon be having another operation, as my lasts test results showed my shunt not working again. If you point me in the right direction, I will quit draining the system.

Consider this, before SSD existed, before SS and Medicare existed, families and communities took care of families like yours so much better than the government pretends to do today.

SS was, and continues to be, the greatest bane to the American family ever devised...

 

[MrsPete]

Almost everyone in America was among the "working poor" before these social programs were "born". Somehow they managed to take care of their loved ones without government help...

That's a good point, but people didn't always manage to live by today's standards back in those days.

Thinking of my own family -- in my pre-school years -- I grew up living with my parents, a set of grandparents, one great-grandfather (who came to live with my grandmother after he was injured and couldn't take care of himself anymore), and a great-great aunt and uncle. I shared a bedroom with my grandparents. My great-grandfather and my uncle sharead the small sunroom (oops -- I forgot the uncle; he was away at war during much of my childhood years). I remember over-hearing talks about money (and how there wasn't enough of it). It was far from ideal.

And perhaps the biggest question of all: What about those who have no family, or those whose families refuse to take care of them?

 

[eliza61]

As long as you have love, you can endure anything. Poverty is not something to be feared. Lack of freedom is...

You know how I feel about this. I've lived in both conditions (lack of freedom from the early 60's. I'm a civil rights baby.) Both of them are conditions to be avoided at all cost.


I have a question for every one. Quite a few of us (myself included) blame politicans but do you know the fine members of both the house and senate enjoy a 90% re-election rate?
So really who's to blame. If we keep rehiring these bozos year after year what incentive is there to change?

Just a thought.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

1) Social Security takes in money from new customers and pays it out to older customers. How is that different from a ponzi scheme like Madoff?

2) Social Security claims to have a trust fund. The trust fund is in government bonds. For the government to pay social security for those bonds, it will have to use tax money or money from the sale of new bonds. When the trust fund runs out, the government will have to make up the shortfall from tax money or the sale of new bonds. How is that different? Is it really meaningful to say that there is a trust fund?

3) Social Security runs a surplus today, in the sense that they take in more money than they spend. The excess is "loaned" to the federal government, who spends it. So the social security surplus is essentially used like other general revenue. Given that Social Security taxes are a flat rate and are capped on incomes over about $100,000, doesn't that make it an extremely regressive tax?

4) If Social Security is a good idea, why isn't it voluntary? If we are concerned about people not saving enough for retirement, why not make it mandatory for everyone except those that can show that they are saving appropriately. I'm in my mid-40s and I think it is such a bad investment that I would probably walk away from my contributions if I was given the option.

 

[mefordis]

"Should" has nothing to do with it. The money will not be there. There will be too few people paying into the system to pay your generation's social security. There needs to be a fix. I believe what I proposed in my OP is a good start.

Okay, let's think about the next step in that thought process . . . let's say that the government decides that you've saved enough to fund your own retirement, and you're not going to receive any SS . . . but retirement is expensive, and things get tight . . . what're you going to do? You're not able to work, at least not full time. You're probably going to move in with your children. They'll have to buy a larger house or add on another bedroom for you -- and you can't help them do this because you're broke. Their income must now stretch a little farther to cover your food, utilities, and medical needs.

How is this benefiting your children? You're not taking deductions from their paychecks, but they're still spending a good bit to support you.

Ideally every American should save enough for a comfortable retirement, but we all know that many (most?) will not do so. SS is there to make sure that everyone has a minimal amount to live upon. Everyone who pays in should be able to draw out. I simply cannot grasp the other side of the argument.

 

[MrsPete]

Tell me - what is my agenda? Am I trying to scare you?

All I want to do is open people's eyes. Have people see this issue from a perspective other than their own...

I've read enough articles across the years on this subject to be sufficiently scared -- but the majority of the experts do not agree with your conclusions.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

That's a good point, but people didn't always manage to live by today's standards back in those days.

Thinking of my own family -- in my pre-school years -- I grew up living with my parents, a set of grandparents, one great-grandfather (who came to live with my grandmother after he was injured and couldn't take care of himself anymore), and a great-great aunt and uncle. I shared a bedroom with my grandparents. My great-grandfather and my uncle sharead the small sunroom (oops -- I forgot the uncle; he was away at war during much of my childhood years). I remember over-hearing talks about money (and how there wasn't enough of it). It was far from ideal.

I understand. But if America collapses, freedom will no longer be taken for granted. If hyper-inflation becomes a reality, only the very, very wealthy will be able to continue to live as we live today. What good will a check for $1500 be if a loaf of bread costs $100 dollars? or $1000 dollars? or more?

If we can preserve America, we can rebuild. If we let America or our currency collapse, we lose our children's future...

 

[pls5286]

Consider this, before SSD existed, before SS and Medicare existed, families and communities took care of families like yours so much better than the government pretends to do today.

SS was, and continues to be, the greatest bane to the American family ever devised...

I am not willing to put this burden, espc this financial burden on my family. Maybe you can do this, but I cannot. The financial strain it would put on my family to have to take in me and my two kids is unfathomable. (Not to mention the stress of combining two households back into one...we have done that)