Social Security: Needs to strengthened not dismantled

[Immanuel]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

The problem with "educating" them is that most people don't see the need to save, until it is really too late to start. Kids think, I can start saving when I am forty and then when they are forty life has already thrown them a curve and they put it off until they are 45 etc. etc. etc.

We would serve our children much better if we forced them to start early and keep on saving.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

People may not good fuckers either.. but that does not make it the government's job to provide them sex toys... people may not be good home repair people, it does not mean the government should give them a fund to upkeep their house

What it comes down to is that we have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail..... and it is not the job of government to determine that for us in a free society

 

[RDD_1210]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

People may not good fuckers either.. but that does not make it the government's job to provide them sex toys... people may not be good home repair people, it does not mean the government should give them a fund to upkeep their house

What it comes down to is that we have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail..... and it is not the job of government to determine that for us in a free society

Yeah, but then what do you do with millions of seniors and disabled who can't afford basic living expenses? Let 'em go homeless?

 

[RDD_1210]

If social security is such a great system and good thing... why is it not voluntary and not mandatory???... I mean, if it were so superior and great and run so superbly by government, people would inherently chose it over self investment...

Social security is a joke and needs to be phased out of existence

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

The problem with "educating" them is that most people don't see the need to save, until it is really too late to start. Kids think, I can start saving when I am forty and then when they are forty life has already thrown them a curve and they put it off until they are 45 etc. etc. etc.

We would serve our children much better if we forced them to start early and keep on saving.

Immie

Exactly. People tend to be very short sighted and if given the option, most people would want a bigger paycheck today rather then worry about how they'll live in 30, 40 years from now. Social Security is that forced safety net that so many people can't seem to do for themselves....as unfortunate as that is.

 

[Immanuel]

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

The problem with "educating" them is that most people don't see the need to save, until it is really too late to start. Kids think, I can start saving when I am forty and then when they are forty life has already thrown them a curve and they put it off until they are 45 etc. etc. etc.

We would serve our children much better if we forced them to start early and keep on saving.

Immie

Exactly. People tend to be very short sighted and if given the option, most people would want a bigger paycheck today rather then worry about how they'll live in 30, 40 years from now. Social Security is that forced safety net that so many people can't seem to do for themselves....as unfortunate as that is.

And my big problem with SS is not the idea of forced savings but rather that it is an extremely poor savings device. It would be much better if it were designed to actually assist a family that has lost its breadwinner. The fact is that if the breadwinner croaks before retirement age or even several years after reaching that age, the family is devastated and losses all but $255. Now, that is obscene as far as I am concerned. When they need it the most, it is refused to them.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

I think part of it is because people in general are not good savers and unfortunately can't be trusted to think long term. Can we educate people? Sure. But that only goes so far.

People may not good fuckers either.. but that does not make it the government's job to provide them sex toys... people may not be good home repair people, it does not mean the government should give them a fund to upkeep their house

What it comes down to is that we have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail..... and it is not the job of government to determine that for us in a free society

Yeah, but then what do you do with millions of seniors and disabled who can't afford basic living expenses? Let 'em go homeless?

And what do you do with people who don't get what they want in other aspects of a free society?? Sorry charlie, but government is not your mommy....

We have people who cannot take care of themselves (very different than ones who won't take care of themselves or do what it takes)... and those are called wards of the state when family does not take care of them or does not exist to take care of them... you know, those orphans, those mentally challenged people who cannot do anything for themselves..

Life has no guarantees... unlike what you wish for... and there is no reason in a free society that someone else is to pick up your burden for you by force or by hook and by crook

 

[editec]

I understand that it went annually net negative this year and, assuming the government pays it for the money it borrowed, it's still solvent until 2036.

But I certainly agree that it needs revamping in light of the fact that most of us are living much longer than our grandparents did when it was first launched.

 

[DiamondDave]

I understand that it went annually net negative this year and, assuming the government pays it for the money it borrowed, it's still solvent until 2036.

But I certainly agree that it needs revamping in light of the fact that most of us are living much longer than our grandparents did when it was first launched.

It was never intended to be a catch all, nor to be something that people drew out of for 30 motherfucking years...

revamped?? Hell.. it needs dismantled and made into a voluntary system at minimum or eliminated at best

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We should all have the opportunity to opt in or out of paying into SS.

 

[Bern80]

Making people more dependant on government and at the same time less free (freedom is money), is never a good idea for maintaining a healthy society. Dismiss the article out of hand? Of course, he's a socialist. He doesn't get it and never will. My defintion of a socialist is someone single mindedly compassionate to a fault. They don't understand the difference between helping and enabling.

What would I do about SS? I wouldn't expand it. I would modify it. I would make it mean what it's called. Emphasis on security. There will always be people that can't or have not taken care of themselves. So as a compassionate society maybe we make social security just for these people, rather than everyone. Bill Gates, or indeed the avg. middle class worker with a 401k is not going to have much need for that relatively small SS payment. Taking care of fewer people with it ought to allow us to at least reduce the amount of money we collect from John Q Taxpayer for it.

 

[RDD_1210]

People may not good fuckers either.. but that does not make it the government's job to provide them sex toys... people may not be good home repair people, it does not mean the government should give them a fund to upkeep their house

What it comes down to is that we have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail..... and it is not the job of government to determine that for us in a free society

Yeah, but then what do you do with millions of seniors and disabled who can't afford basic living expenses? Let 'em go homeless?

And what do you do with people who don't get what they want in other aspects of a free society?? Sorry charlie, but government is not your mommy....

We have people who cannot take care of themselves (very different than ones who won't take care of themselves or do what it takes)... and those are called wards of the state when family does not take care of them or does not exist to take care of them... you know, those orphans, those mentally challenged people who cannot do anything for themselves..

Life has no guarantees... unlike what you wish for... and there is no reason in a free society that someone else is to pick up your burden for you by force or by hook and by crook

That's great and all, but that doesn't answer the VERY real world question of how do millions of senior survive when they are not able to work enough to support their living costs? I'm totally on board with the concept of you get what you deserve, but that doesn't answer real life problems of today and the foreseeable future. What is your plan and what do seniors today do or people who are not far from reaching that age?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah, but then what do you do with millions of seniors and disabled who can't afford basic living expenses? Let 'em go homeless?

And what do you do with people who don't get what they want in other aspects of a free society?? Sorry charlie, but government is not your mommy....

We have people who cannot take care of themselves (very different than ones who won't take care of themselves or do what it takes)... and those are called wards of the state when family does not take care of them or does not exist to take care of them... you know, those orphans, those mentally challenged people who cannot do anything for themselves..

Life has no guarantees... unlike what you wish for... and there is no reason in a free society that someone else is to pick up your burden for you by force or by hook and by crook

That's great and all, but that doesn't answer the VERY real world question of how do millions of senior survive when they are not able to work enough to support their living costs? I'm totally on board with the concept of you get what you deserve, but that doesn't answer real life problems of today and the foreseeable future. What is your plan and what do seniors today do or people who are not far from reaching that age?

It does not answer the real governmental question of where does that responsibility for people's personal situation get forced onto others thru a governmental system in a free society??

Whether you can afford something is your personal problem... not anyone else's... why while you like to feel good about helping others, you do not get to relieve your guilt thru government and the contributions of others

My plan... you phase this out... and you finish with the ones currently in the system who are drawing... and eliminate the system part by part, piece by piece as people leave the system....

Just because you have a real life problem does not make it someone else's problem too

 

[RDD_1210]

And what do you do with people who don't get what they want in other aspects of a free society?? Sorry charlie, but government is not your mommy....

We have people who cannot take care of themselves (very different than ones who won't take care of themselves or do what it takes)... and those are called wards of the state when family does not take care of them or does not exist to take care of them... you know, those orphans, those mentally challenged people who cannot do anything for themselves..

Life has no guarantees... unlike what you wish for... and there is no reason in a free society that someone else is to pick up your burden for you by force or by hook and by crook

That's great and all, but that doesn't answer the VERY real world question of how do millions of senior survive when they are not able to work enough to support their living costs? I'm totally on board with the concept of you get what you deserve, but that doesn't answer real life problems of today and the foreseeable future. What is your plan and what do seniors today do or people who are not far from reaching that age?

It does not answer the real governmental question of where does that responsibility for people's personal situation get forced onto others thru a governmental system in a free society??

Whether you can afford something is your personal problem... not anyone else's... why while you like to feel good about helping others, you do not get to relieve your guilt thru government and the contributions of others

My plan... you phase this out... and you finish with the ones currently in the system who are drawing... and eliminate the system part by part, piece by piece as people leave the system....

Just because you have a real life problem does not make it someone else's problem too

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I feel like the government should be there to help people when there is an obvious need. Especially when there is no viable alternative.

And thanks for your proposal, I get that you want it eliminated. At least you're willing to let it happen over time. But what about people who are near retirement age now and have no other real savings to live off of. What does everyone else do? Put their money in the market and cross their fingers?

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Privatize it. Then asswipes like you won't get to mock people who have paid into it for 40 years.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Dave, I really wonder if you would have the stomach to actually live in a sink or swim society. Is that really how you want your fellow Americans to live? Most do not make enough to save adequately for retirement - the average salary is between 40 & 50K and salaries are DECREASING due to the glut of people looking for work. That's just the way it is, and costs of living never, ever go down. I really, really hope that you never get the country you are wishing so hard for. What a terrible place to live and die, it would be!

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Privatize it. Then asswipes like you won't get to mock people who have paid into it for 40 years.

I mock people like you who still expect to get your government assistance, but nobody else should.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sure you'll be tempted to immediately attack the source being that he is an actual socialist, but how about discussing the actual topic itself. What are your thoughts?

Social Security: The program needs to be shored up, not dismantled - latimes.com

Privatize it. Then asswipes like you won't get to mock people who have paid into it for 40 years.

I mock people like you who still expect to get your government assistance, but nobody else should.

No you are a hypocrite. I don't get government assistance. I get money from a program I was forced to pay into. Send me my money and I won't take any. got it??

 

[NYcarbineer]

But if they do not dismantle it we will have to pay back the 2+ trillion of surplus we have spent. And pay it back out of general funds.

It's the rest of the government's spending that is the problem, not social security.

2 trillion? That's a nice representative figure - of the money we borrowed to fight the Iraq war...

...borrowed so far, I should say.

 

[RDD_1210]

Privatize it. Then asswipes like you won't get to mock people who have paid into it for 40 years.

I mock people like you who still expect to get your government assistance, but nobody else should.

No you are a hypocrite. I don't get government assistance. I get money from a program I was forced to pay into. Send me my money and I won't take any. got it??

Forced to pay in to...just like everyone else who paid in to SS yet you want it to go Private. You get Medicare, unemployment and would surely take SS once you can. That is the definition of hypocrite. Should I get back all my money I've paid in even though I don't get SS or medicare, or unemployment, or food stamps, etc...?

 

[WillowTree]

I mock people like you who still expect to get your government assistance, but nobody else should.

No you are a hypocrite. I don't get government assistance. I get money from a program I was forced to pay into. Send me my money and I won't take any. got it??

Forced to pay in to...just like everyone else who paid in to SS yet you want it to go Private. You get Medicare, unemployment and would surely take SS once you can. That is the definition of hypocrite. Should I get back all my money I've paid in even though I don't get SS or medicare, or unemployment, or food stamps, etc...?[/QUOTE]

You are a flat out bald faced liar. not to mention a hypocrite. and have made my case for privatizing social security. Thank you much.