Tea Partiers Say They Would Absolutely Abolish Social Security

by sammielee24 108 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  thomas15

  There is however a solution to the mess we are in. I call it Tom's two part solution to the mess we are in.

  First, we define a taxpayer as an individual who after all is said and done pays more into the system than they receive back in refunds/credits whatever.

  Second, Congress passes one (1) law that says if you want to vote you must be a taxpayer.

  Six years after the law is passed, problems like illegal immigration, welfare, crime, government overspending and debt, term limits, government overregulation, taxes and so forth are a distant memory. The economy is humming, everyone who wants to work is working, everyone who doesn't want to work is SOL. Those who have jobs that would like to support those who don't want to work will be free to do so, as they are now but don't.
• 

  JWoods

  Social Security is NOT a free hand out.

  It is if it pays you more than you put in - and that was the case in the beginning. Made possible because they were many more people paying in than taking out money.

  That can no longer be the case because too many are due for benefits and too few are paying in to sustain the cash flow. As mentioned, the surplus is an illusion because that money has in reality been spent and promissory notes written for the funds.
• 

  sammielee24

  Social Security is a welfare program paid for in current taxes and a redistribution of wealth

  ------

  Soooooooooo.....based on that statement, I guess that you think all State or somehow, taxpayer assisted or funded pensions aka public servants, police, teachers, nurses, firemen, ambulance, some doctors etc are all welfare programs. Medicare or State healthcare payments go toward nursing and services in every State and so are not exempt from taxpayer funds; ditto all other pensions, since the government subsidizes or funds so many programs in the country. Is your solution to stop all government money from being paid to every single organization in the country? Including research and development? Including space programs? Including parks and environment? FDA? Do you support government payments instead to companies like Black Water or Haliburton? Private companies paid by taxpayer dollars with that money making the retirement of those who benefit, a form of tax subsidized welfare? sammieswife.
• 

  sammielee24

  Second, Congress passes one (1) law that says if you want to vote you must be a taxpayer.

  ---------

  So, women who aren't in the workforce couldn't vote? A disabled person who doesn't pay taxes - doesn't vote nor is he eligible for financial help? A college student without a job couldn't vote? You really think that would save this country? Wow...now that's progressive...sammieswife.
• 

  JWoods

  Technically, any publicly funded pension which pays a recipient more than he invested in it (plus any interest increases to his payments) is indeed a form of welfare.

  A government-guaranteed pension plan for a company which recklessly blows their private pension funds is a form of welfare.

  The bottom line is this: If someone is getting money that someone else had to pay into the system (more money than the person being paid himself put in) - then this is welfare.
• 

  sammielee24

  I would also add that other welfare programs that are increasingly funded by the taxpayer, rising in numbers yearly, are the food stamp and housing programs. They are welfare programs and yet, private individuals are getting rich off of them. So let's cancel those programs out as well - after all - for every dollar paid to a landlord by the government for a person using section 8 housing - the landlord is a welfare recipient and using part of that money to support their own family, increase their private pension funds and increase their own investments. There are a lot of ways to paint a kettle black but everyone here that thinks they are exempt from any government welfare - think again. sammieswife.

  ======

  Chris from PA... (on buying houses to rent)

  I have had no problems.I only rent to Section 8 tenants...With Obama in office, I even got a 3% increase this year!!! I hate the free loaders,but I figure it is one way to profit on this administrations poor judgement...My advice would to buy many houses at a discount and rent them Section 8..
• 

  betterdaze

  thomas15, you have a PM.
  
  ~Sue
• 

  daniel-p

  Social Security is not currently sustainable. Love it, hate it, the facts show that it cannot last with current inflow and outflow. Either it stays and retirees get their benefits later and later (and thus undermining the entire purpose of it), or there needs to be some sort of "opt-out" system. At 7.5% of everyone's income, the more prudent among us could surely make good retirement choices in lieu of the government doing so. And it's not like any of this is redistributed... it's not even about that, since this stays YOUR money, not someone else's. Really, SS is simply for those who do not set their own savings limits. It is unfair for everyone to have to relenquish their own methods for investing that 7.5% just because some don't know how to save money.

  To me, the obvious choice is to have an opt-out program, where those who want to can do what they like with that 7.5%. Maybe a solution would be for everyone to have to legally demonstrate they saved or invested (in reasonably long-term bonds, etc.) a specific percentage, and if they can't demonstrate it, "do it for them" through SS.

  But on the whole, I don't see why Tea-Partiers would stake anything on SS. It's not like it's an income re-distribution (and therefore "socialist") program in the first place. The thing that is screwing SS is changing demographics.
• 

  JWoods

  I would also add that other welfare programs that are increasingly funded by the taxpayer, rising in numbers yearly, are the food stamp and housing programs. They are welfare programs and yet, private individuals are getting rich off of them.

  Welfare programs indeed. I am not so sure that someone who owns a house for which there is a housing program paid is "getting rich" off of it.

  I have a rental house for which the housing authority pays part of the normal rent. I get no more money than I would for a non-subsidized tenant.

  I never said here that all welfare programs should be eliminated. I said that there has to be a fiscally sound way to pay for them, and that the total of them simply has gotten too large to be sustained by constant tax increases.
• 

  sammielee24

  Technically, any publicly funded pension which pays a recipient more than he invested in it (plus any interest increases to his payments) is indeed a form of welfare.

  --------

  But it isn't just publicly funded pensions - private pensions, private investments of any sort, when the holder is paid by the government aka taxpayer, is welfare. The Doctor who accepts Medicare is getting money from the taxpayer and his income without that might not provide as much in his investment or retirement fund. Thus his private funds are secured by public money. Welfare. Government paid subsidies to hospitals or colleges that do research and pay those engineers, scientists, teachers - some of that does inevitably find it's way into the private sector within that organization. How about private farms? Subsidies up the whazoo there and to the richest go the largest share. Michelle Bachman's own family is just one example in point - and yet, many of the richest owners of those farms have hedge funds and investments they are happy to retire on - thanks to the taxpayer.

  When we point fingers at the social security fund and call it welfare - a fund that remains a program that benefits the average worker in America - we choose to ignore the welfare operations that cost far more all over the rest of the country.

  The average wage in the USA is $32,000 annually - and that's high in many parts of the country where it is thousands of dollars lower. A lot of squirrels aren't out playing in the sunshine but out working in the dead of night to earn a buck for today..the ability to save is most often comparative to the cost of living and income and as income continues to drop in this country as the cost of living rises, saving for anything other than emergencies becomes a novel idea. sammieswife.