NationStates Jolt Archive

To those critical of Bush's Social Security reformation proposal, what would you suggest in the alternative? Democrats have criticized, but not given a proposal of their own. I can't think of any other way to do it without raising taxes, and I suspect that's why the Dems won't say what they're thinking. Thoughts?

Perhaps some partial privatization, but we should raise the retirement age a few years as well as take away the salary cap, or raise it at least.

To those critical of Bush's Social Security reformation proposal, what would you suggest in the alternative? Democrats have criticized, but not given a proposal of their own. I can't think of any other way to do it without raising taxes, and I suspect that's why the Dems won't say what they're thinking. Thoughts?
Bush's Social Security reform goes deeper than his rhetoric. Waaayyy deeper. Do you know why he wants to privatize it? Because he has deep contempt for the very idea of Social Security--just like many modern conservatives--and he loathes FDR.

"Geroge Herbert Walker had helped contribute to another success for the New Deal, which he despised almost as much as the New Deal President.
'Oh, Pop [HW Bush] hated Roosevelt,' recalled his daughter Dotty. 'Hated him. Roosevelt just made him see red.'"

This is why Bush wants to "reform" Social Security. Because it's his chance to destroy it and make his father proud. I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. So here's your solution, we raise the cap to incomes over $150,000 and cease the needless tax cuts for the richest 1%. That would create enough revenue to keep Social Securty afloat at least until the baby boomer generation dies off.

http://readythinkvote.com/vote_taxcut.html

Do we really need to hand out billions of dollars to elderly citizens every year?

I would say just phase out social security, since there are already 401(k) plans that can cover retirement without the government spending money on it.

*snip*
And the problem with eliminating Social Security is...?

This is why Bush wants to "reform" Social Security. Because it's his chance to destroy it and make his father proud. I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. So here's your solution, we raise the cap to incomes over $150,000 and cease the needless tax cuts for the richest 1%. That would create enough revenue to keep Social Securty afloat at least until the baby boomer generation dies off.

http://readythinkvote.com/vote_taxcut.html

Typical. Criticism without a long term plan. He's not destroying social security. He's merely providing a long term reform package.

We need to increase taxes on the rich and use that $$$ to pay for the elderly, who need it. Just cause you are a heartless bas*ard does not mean that old people don't need it. Food and medicine and shelter should be manditory to be provided by the government.

Typical. Criticism without a long term plan. He's not destroying social security. He's merely providing a long term reform package.
...By totally destroying the very basis of it by replacing it with something totally different. :rolleyes:

And the problem with eliminating Social Security is...?And the problem with helping poor/elderly people is...?

See, they would have to raise taxes.

See, they would have to raise taxes.


Because a couple people on a message board said so?

I like teh idea of raising the retirement age as well as raising the salary cap.

I like teh idea of raising the retirement age as well as raising the salary cap.

Yes.

Let's raise the cap slightly and index it to inflation. And then let's raise the retirement age slightly and index it to life expectancy.

And the problem with helping poor/elderly people is...?
People should help themselves, family members, and coworkers when the job calls for it.

To those critical of Bush's Social Security reformation proposal, what would you suggest in the alternative? Democrats have criticized, but not given a proposal of their own. I can't think of any other way to do it without raising taxes, and I suspect that's why the Dems won't say what they're thinking. Thoughts?

In the narrow sense, I'm not a policy expert on the subject, so I couldn't really suggest anything except a vague notion that maybe, just maybe, we should actually all be willing to pay for the ample services that our government provides. Payroll taxes should be hiked on the young, as well as the cap lifted on the amount that is taxed on the rich, and the elderly should be willing to wait a year or two longer before they receive benefits. A perfect compromise. . .which is precisely why my plan will never be enacted, because it only makes everyone unhappy.

In the larger sense, the reason why the Dems haven't suggested their own policy is because bills aren't written on the Senate or the House floor, where people actually vote on them. They are written in the conference committee that is officially supposed to bridge any difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill, and unofficially allow the radical right that actually controls the conference committee to rewrite any bill so it is a) more suitable to their interests, and b) do so out of sight of the public. So any bill that gets passed is only going to be a carte blanche for right-wing Republicans to write Social Security out of existence. As Dems don't want Social Security out of existence (for that matter, neither does the American public, but that's beside the point), letting the Republicans punch themselves out with Bush's Social Insecurity plan is the only viable political strategy.

See, they would have to raise taxes.

Only on the rich who don't need the extra money for their third yacht

Perhaps some partial privatization, but we should raise the retirement age a few years as well as take away the salary cap, or raise it at least.
These are wonderful ideas except when they are applied to people that earn more than the cap and are near retirement age.

The first reasonable step is to make sure Congress can't spend any more Social Security payroll tax revenue. The only exception would be for payments to Social Security recipients.

Nothing will ever work as long as Congress can use it as additional revenue for the general fund.

Only on the rich who don't need the extra money for their third yacht
And who are you to decide who and who doesn’t need money? They earned it; it’s theirs. Wealth redistribution does not have a very happy history.

Because a couple people on a message board said so?

I like teh idea of raising the retirement age as well as raising the salary cap.
Raising the retirement age is reducing benefits. Raising the salary cap is raising the payroll tax. Neither of those is more than a temporary fix.

Only on the rich who don't need the extra money for their third yacht
What is this _need_ business? Don't the yacht company employees deserve a job? When rich folks buy yachts, guess who makes them?

I hear my wife calling. It's time to drive the Maybach to Sonic for a Limeade.

Be back later.

To those critical of Bush's Social Security reformation proposal, what would you suggest in the alternative? Democrats have criticized, but not given a proposal of their own. I can't think of any other way to do it without raising taxes, and I suspect that's why the Dems won't say what they're thinking. Thoughts?
Just as one need not know how to cook filet mignon to know it's not served at McDonald's, one need not know how to fix social security to know a bad idea when they see one. "B-But...you didn't offer an alternative!" is merely a smokescreen.

That said, raising taxes wouldn't be necessary if we could cut spending elsewhere. But with the tax-and-spend Democrats and the borrow-and-spend Republicans in power, the odds of that happening are essentially nil. Raising the cap and raising the retirement age are essentially taxes in themselves, but with the near-inevitability of raising taxes these are probably the best ways to do it. Not that raising taxes is necessarily a bad thing -- even the Gipper did it in his time.

What is this _need_ business? Don't the yacht company employees deserve a job? When rich folks buy yachts, guess who makes them?
China?

:D

What is this _need_ business?
Beats me. Even the need for food is solely driven by the want to live. I guess some people's wants are just more important than my own, thus I should give up my money to them, thus making me a slave.

I would rather let it die out. Social Security is a pyramid scheme that offers minimal returns, bloates the federal bureaucracy, and is a drain on individual income. You get zero return on your money, and benefits are minimal. If I was allowed to have only a private account, that would save me money, and guarantee a real return on my investment. We have to let it die for the sake of the economy, or at least partially privatise it. Like any government scheme, it's a lesson in failiure.

I would rather let it die out. Social Security is a pyramid scheme that offers minimal returns, bloates the federal bureaucracy, and is a drain on individual income. You get zero return on your money, and benefits are minimal. If I was allowed to have only a private account, that would save me money, and guarantee a real return on my investment. We have to let it die for the sake of the economy, or at least partially privatise it. Like any government scheme, it's a lesson in failiure.

Social Security is not about individuals getting a return on their investments; it's a pay-as-you-go program that sets a reasonable income floor for seniors.

And, for a "lesson in failure," it certainly has been extraordinarily popular and successful.

Social Security is not about individuals getting a return on their investments; it's a pay-as-you-go program that sets a reasonable income floor for seniors.
That the federal government somehow sees fit to take money out of and spend on other things.

Social Security is not about individuals getting a return on their investments; it's a pay-as-you-go program that sets a reasonable income floor for seniors.

And, for a "lesson in failure," it certainly has been extraordinarily popular and successful.

So I should pour money in to a program clearly inferior to a private account that gives me zero return on my investment to have a "reasonable" income floor that does not accrue any additional money?

If I were to put money in to Social Security, my return would be a whopping 1%. So, after years of wasting income on the program (probably 30-35 years), I actually lose money because the returns are less than the rate of inflation, and my living standards fall.

If I invest it, I can get incredible returns and maintain an excellent standard of living with lower contributions. Why should I fund a pyramid scheme that I get nothing out of?

Popular does not equal successful. Junk bonds and dot-coms and pyramid schemes were popular, yet all of them collapsed and resulted in financial ruin for millions of people. Social Security doesn't work, and is nothing more than a pyramid scheme that steals my money to fund a program I don't want to partake of. Is that fair?

Get rid of SS and cut taxes. It'll help the economy and force people to take responsibility for their retirement individually.

So I should pour money in to a program clearly inferior to a private account that gives me zero return on my investment to have a "reasonable" income floor that does not accrue any additional money?

If I were to put money in to Social Security, my return would be a whopping 1%. So, after years of wasting income on the program (probably 30-35 years), I actually lose money because the returns are less than the rate of inflation, and my living standards fall.

If I invest it, I can get incredible returns and maintain an excellent standard of living with lower contributions. Why should I fund a pyramid scheme that I get nothing out of?

Popular does not equal successful. Junk bonds and dot-coms and pyramid schemes were popular, yet all of them collapsed and resulted in financial ruin for millions of people. Social Security doesn't work, and is nothing more than a pyramid scheme that steals my money to fund a program I don't want to partake of. Is that fair?

Get rid of SS and cut taxes. It'll help the economy and force people to take responsibility for their retirement individually.

My credit union pays 1.5% on money market savings accounts. That means my money will double in 48 years. But I can do far better than that. My government gives me 1% and that means I'm lucky to get any of my original principal back.

How is that a good deal? How is that a lesson in success?

My credit union pays 1.5% on money market savings accounts. That means my money will double in 48 years. But I can do far better than that. My government gives me 1% and that means I'm lucky to get any of my original principal back. How is that a good deal? How is that a lesson in success?

And that 1% is less than even the government's own bonds! I could get 4.223% on a 10-yr, and 4.32% on a 30-yr (when they reinstate them), or even more if I invest in the stock market.

All it is is you loaning the government money and getting it back 40 years later; the whole system is really a bunch of IOU's, with each new generation supporting the previous one.

Just a question that will help me fix the participants in this discussion.

How many of you received a Social Security statement this year?

Of those that did, how many just laughed at the paltry amount you would be "guaranteed" at retirement age, then threw the piece of trash away?

Of those that didn't, how many even know what the burden of Social Security taxes are on your gross pay?

By the way, I put the word guaranteed in scare-quotes because there was some fine print at the bottom of my statement. Essentially, it said that these were the current pay-outs, but Congress has altered benefits in the past and could do so again. It kind of sounds like the disclaimer on a prospectus, doesn't it? Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Let's just can the system and keep our own money.

Only on the rich who don't need the extra money for their third yacht

These same rich people that give you a job to own your own home, food, and clothing.

Damn them to hell for being successful.

And that 1% is less than even the government's own bonds! I could get 4.223% on a 10-yr, and 4.32% on a 30-yr (when they reinstate them), or even more if I invest in the stock market.

All it is is you loaning the government money and getting it back 40 years later; the whole system is really a bunch of IOU's, with each new generation supporting the previous one.
I'm sure if GE or GM replaced it pension system with something like Social Security, there would be a lot of new folks in jail. The argument against Social Security reform is the silliest argument I've ever seen.

I'm sure if GE or GM replaced it pension system with something like Social Security, there would be a lot of new folks in jail. The argument against Social Security reform is the silliest argument I've ever seen.

They would be convicted of fraud, no doubt. Social Security is a government sanctioned pyramid scheme; it requires continuous growth in contributers relative to beneficiaries to sustain itself, and will collapse if new money doesn't keep coming in.

China?
He's right you know.
You can expect less and less of that extra money in everyone's (read: rich people's) pockets to actually go to Americans.
We're only at the beginning of Globalisation...

=======================================================

Private Social Security, eh?
It's clear that there is a need for reform, our population is ageing. But complete Privatisation is probably not it.
Sure, there are no returns on your investment in a state-run scheme, but the idea was Social Security. Your left with your money, it's not gonna be lost all of a sudden.
And that is perfectly likely to happen if you have your money with a private company, or even worse, you invest it yourself.
This whole conservative agenda just stinks to heaven like corporatism again. What Bush is doing is shifting trillions to finance firms for them to do what they want with. I would be surprised if you wouldn't find exactly those firms on his donour lists.
So Privatisation? Doesn't exactly have a perfect track record either, Chile under Pinochet would be a great example (as always).
The Government needs to keep its fingers in there, if only to stop all that money from being lost in the next stock market crash.

What Bush is doing is shifting trillions to finance firms for them to do what they want with.
As opposed to the federal government doing whatever they want with it?
I’ve got the solution to Social Security right here, don’t allow Congress to use the money that people put into Social Security for anything but Social Security returns.

And who are you to decide who and who doesn’t need money? They earned it; it’s theirs. Wealth redistribution does not have a very happy history.

Technically, he's a member of the voting public who decides whether the needs of the superrich outweigh the needs of everyone else, so rhetorical questions might not have been the best way to answer that question.

And actually, wealth redistribution has a fairly good history, considering that the emergence of the middle class in most Western industrialized nations, as well as their zenith in purchasing power, happen to coincide with eras of progressively higher taxation.

Not to say that high taxes=prosperity, but your theory seems to have a hard time explaining why real purchasing power has been on the skids since the high-water mark of tax-and-spend liberalism: 1968.


So I should pour money in to a program clearly inferior to a private account that gives me zero return on my investment to have a "reasonable" income floor that does not accrue any additional money?

If I were to put money in to Social Security, my return would be a whopping 1%. So, after years of wasting income on the program (probably 30-35 years), I actually lose money because the returns are less than the rate of inflation, and my living standards fall.

If I invest it, I can get incredible returns and maintain an excellent standard of living with lower contributions. Why should I fund a pyramid scheme that I get nothing out of?

Popular does not equal successful. Junk bonds and dot-coms and pyramid schemes were popular, yet all of them collapsed and resulted in financial ruin for millions of people. Social Security doesn't work, and is nothing more than a pyramid scheme that steals my money to fund a program I don't want to partake of. Is that fair?

Get rid of SS and cut taxes. It'll help the economy and force people to take responsibility for their retirement individually.

1) You are somewhat underestimating the return of investment from SS and overestimating it from the private sector. SS technically is used to pay for long-term Treasury bonds, and IIRC they average a rate of return of around 2-3%. Now, the average yearly RoR for the stock market is around 4-5%, which is higher, but the problem is that of use of the term "average". In the same way that you can still drown in a lake that "averages" three inches deep, you can easily lose money in a stock market that "averages" a 4-5% annual return, and historically this has been true over very long periods of time. If you invested in the Dow in Sept. of 1929, you'd have had to wait until the mid-'60's before your investment broke even. If you invested in the late '60's, you'd have had to wait until 1987 before you broke even. Don't think it can happen again? Not only can it; it's happening right now: if you invested in the Dow in early 2000, you are still waiting for your money to break even, and as such, there have been many historical instances where the low, guaranteed return for your money was actually a better investment than the market.

2) Treasury bonds are, I'm fairly certain, indexed for inflation, or at least, their interest rate is heavily influenced by the RoI. So to say that their return is outpaced by inflation is misleading at best.

3) Retirement isn't the only purpose of Social Security, you know. It also pays out things like survivor benefits. So if you get rid of SS, you are going to hurt a hell of a lot of poor widows and children out there.

There are two ways that must both be used to fix it:
1. Make sure the federal government is unable to take money out of it
2. Raise taxes to pay off the bonds that we already owe

Privatization will mean that we have an immediate 2 trillion dollar added debt. That sounds pretty crappy to me.

1) You are somewhat underestimating the return of investment from SS and overestimating it from the private sector. SS technically is used to pay for long-term Treasury bonds, and IIRC they average a rate of return of around 2-3%. Now, the average yearly RoR for the stock market is around 4-5%, which is higher, but the problem is that of use of the term "average". In the same way that you can still drown in a lake that "averages" three inches deep, you can easily lose money in a stock market that "averages" a 4-5% annual return, and historically this has been true over very long periods of time. If you invested in the Dow in Sept. of 1929, you'd have had to wait until the mid-'60's before your investment broke even. If you invested in the late '60's, you'd have had to wait until 1987 before you broke even. Don't think it can happen again? Not only can it; it's happening right now: if you invested in the Dow in early 2000, you are still waiting for your money to break even, and as such, there have been many historical instances where the low, guaranteed return for your money was actually a better investment than the market.

2) Treasury bonds are, I'm fairly certain, indexed for inflation, or at least, their interest rate is heavily influenced by the RoI. So to say that their return is outpaced by inflation is misleading at best.

3) Retirement isn't the only purpose of Social Security, you know. It also pays out things like survivor benefits. So if you get rid of SS, you are going to hurt a hell of a lot of poor widows and children out there.
You need to put that old saw about the pre-crash investments away. If I had invested in the market during the 30's, I'd be really well off. People that invest will invest periodically, smart people, anyway.

Widow, orphans, and disabled folks could be covered by an insurance program without the problems of Social Security. We could even privatize it and make it more efficient.

People should help themselves, family members, and coworkers when the job calls for it.
Because it's my money and I'm going to spend it however I like until I die, right? Those poor people should've gotten rich while they had the chance. Even though I have no idea what their life was like and if they even had a chance or not, I say that they had a chance and they didn't take advantage of it. And their poor family members should help them too. It's their fault for not getting rich and worshipping money.

There are two ways that must both be used to fix it:
1. Make sure the federal government is unable to take money out of it
2. Raise taxes to pay off the bonds that we already owe

Privatization will mean that we have an immediate 2 trillion dollar added debt. That sounds pretty crappy to me.
I think the transition costs are overestimated. The Cato Institute has published a number of analyses that make it look much smaller. Smaller in fact than the budget-busting prescription drug fiasco.

1) You are somewhat underestimating the return of investment from SS and overestimating it from the private sector. SS technically is used to pay for long-term Treasury bonds, and IIRC they average a rate of return of around 2-3%. Now, the average yearly RoR for the stock market is around 4-5%, which is higher, but the problem is that of use of the term "average". In the same way that you can still drown in a lake that "averages" three inches deep, you can easily lose money in a stock market that "averages" a 4-5% annual return, and historically this has been true over very long periods of time. If you invested in the Dow in Sept. of 1929, you'd have had to wait until the mid-'60's before your investment broke even. If you invested in the late '60's, you'd have had to wait until 1987 before you broke even. Don't think it can happen again? Not only can it; it's happening right now: if you invested in the Dow in early 2000, you are still waiting for your money to break even, and as such, there have been many historical instances where the low, guaranteed return for your money was actually a better investment than the market.

2) Treasury bonds are, I'm fairly certain, indexed for inflation, or at least, their interest rate is heavily influenced by the RoI. So to say that their return is outpaced by inflation is misleading at best.

3) Retirement isn't the only purpose of Social Security, you know. It also pays out things like survivor benefits. So if you get rid of SS, you are going to hurt a hell of a lot of poor widows and children out there.


1,2). Not normal Treasury Bonds, only the "IOU" ones issued to the trust fund to pay for spending the money that goes in to it. The government spends other tax revenue to pay for normal Treasury bonds. Treasuries yield from around 3% to 4.5% at present, and only certain issues are TIPS; these are issues in 5,10 and 20 year bonds, while all others are not protected and tend to offer more upside and downside risk.

The Dow of 1929 was different than today. A crash of that magnitude cannot happen again; even at the bottom of the 2002 bear market, it fell only 38% as opposed to 80%+, and that was over almost three years. Same with the 1987 crash. However, from 1929-1941 and from 1967-1982 there were secular bear markets that resulted from the oil crisis and Depression. Average rates of return are usually 10-12% nonadjusted, or about 8-10% adjusted.

Furthermore, investments would not be poured in to Dow stocks, which are very cyclical in nature; more likely ETFs would be the target of investment rather than individual stocks. You would also be able to redirect money from losing funds and reinvest them; many individual stocks have done very well over the past few years (Genentech, Amgen, Google, Exxon, et.) while the markets have been somewhat flat. It would require more work, but would pay off much more than the subinflation rate of SS return. Even in the event of a crash, the government would have insured the investments with a relatively small tax, and so they would be protected.

3). The survivor benefit is a whopping $255. That would be great in 1939, but not today; monthly benefits aren't even guaranteed unless you qualify. The same goes for funeral expenses and other costs. The government could run a smaller TIPS program for those who don't want to invest in more volatile systems and for survivor benefits, although details would have to be worked out. If we do that, these people would have a real shot at overcoming their loss rather than the disgrace they recieve today.

I think the transition costs are overestimated. The Cato Institute has published a number of analyses that make it look much smaller. Smaller in fact than the budget-busting prescription drug fiasco.
The Cato Institute has an agenda though.

Delenda Carthago...

I can only repeat the question somebody has asked earlier on...

What exactly is wrong with the current system? There appears to be ample money in it, even too much for what is currently needed.

Before Mr. Bush proposed reforms to it, there was no talk of any problems with it.

He's proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist.

I can only repeat the question somebody has asked earlier on...

What exactly is wrong with the current system? There appears to be ample money in it, even too much for what is currently needed.

Before Mr. Bush proposed reforms to it, there was no talk of any problems with it.

He's proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist.
That's what he usually does. Creates a fake threat, then says he's fixing it.

What exactly is wrong with the current system? There appears to be ample money in it, even too much for what is currently needed..
The problem with it is that Congress can and does take money out of it and uses it for other things.

I can only repeat the question somebody has asked earlier on...

What exactly is wrong with the current system? There appears to be ample money in it, even too much for what is currently needed.
Before Mr. Bush proposed reforms to it, there was no talk of any problems with it.

He's proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist.

It's a future problem. The generations coming in to the workplace are smaller than the generations leaving; Social Security is funded on the belief that each generation will be progressively larger and will pay the benefits for those leaving, and that is not the case. Our debt prevents us from preemptively funding this obligation, and so it will eventually run out of cash to pay its benefit recipients. The economic effects will be severe unless something is done; it's a time-bomb.

Remember Gore's "lock-box"? That was meant to shore up SS (albeit with pipe-dream surpluses that could never happen); Clinton talked about insolvency back in the 90's, and others before him. It's a problem that is fairly well known, but only revived itself when Bush brought it up again.

The problem with it is that Congress can and does take money out of it and uses it for other things.
And that is where the reform should happen.
That doesn't mean Privatisation though, and all the risks associated with it.

The problem with it is that Congress can and does take money out of it and uses it for other things.

That's why there isn't a trust fund, just a pile of (figurative) IOU's.

And that is where the reform should happen.
That doesn't mean Privatisation though, and all the risks associated with it.

Privatization would solve some of its long term flaws without crimping the economy through higer taxes. Some kind of new method is necessary, or the problem will continue to worsen after our temporary fix is strained.

The problem with it is that Congress can and does take money out of it and uses it for other things.
That's a problem with the handlers, not the program. They reach into SS, they should pull back a bloody stump.

And that is where the reform should happen.
That doesn't mean Privatisation though, and all the risks associated with it.Exactly. Social Security is one of the few socialist policies I can dig, but only if its done correctly. Which means not turning into the financial playground for politician's pet projects. Admittedly, I voted to phase it out all together, because I didn’t see the other option before I had already clicked. :p

Privatization would solve some of its long term flaws without crimping the economy through higer taxes. Some kind of new method is necessary, or the problem will continue to worsen after our temporary fix is strained.
A fully privatised System would be hugely more variable than the current one, no?
The risk is much higher, and the potential returns are too. You might be willing to take that risk, but I bet you that many future retirees aren't.

A fully privatised System would be hugely more variable than the current one, no?
The risk is much higher, and the potential returns are too. You might be willing to take that risk, but I bet you that many future retirees aren't.

Well, that's why we cannot totally privatise (although I personally would, it isn't possible for everyone to follow the markets like me :D ), only enough to maximise returns the most without serious risk and keep the program self-sustaining.

We could have an option where you can either invest privately or put money in to government bonds/traditional Social Security; that would let those who want to take the risk do so and those who don't pay for their traditional benefits.

I voted to phase it out because there is no justification for it unless your a congressman or senator who needs to buy some quick votes. Bassically, the government says to you, "we don't think you can make the right investments with your retirement, so we're going to take this portion by force and "invest" it for you." Meanwhile on capitol hill, you representatives are thinking, "what's the best way to buy some votes without taking it from the actual budget." And you end up with politicians wasting not tax payer money, but social security funds.

The only people who would suffer from no social security are the stupid, not the poor, because your benefits are tied to your lifelong income. If granny wants to blow her retirement savings in Vegas, she should be allowed to, but current workers shouldn't have to bail her out.

The only people who would suffer from no social security are the stupid, not the poor, because your benefits are tied to your lifelong income.
Only stupid people are poor?

Only stupid people are poor?
of course, they had the chance to get rich but they didn't take advantage of it. Even though I have no idea what their life was like, I say they didn't take the chance to get rich.

Only stupid people are poor?
Well, them and lazy people. The reason why I agree with Social Security is because any able bodied person can earn enough money in the US, as long as they are careful about not having to many kids etc. However, some people are not qualified enough to make enough to save money for retirement, and they can lack a support network. So, they can put money into a system throughout there lives to save the money for them. Cool, as long as politicians don’t touch it.

I think the transition costs are overestimated. The Cato Institute has published a number of analyses that make it look much smaller. Smaller in fact than the budget-busting prescription drug fiasco.
The Cato institute is the worst place to look for that kind of info. The official source that congress uses has put the immediate losses at 2 trillion.

of course, they had the chance to get rich but they didn't take advantage of it. Even though I have no idea what their life was like, I say they didn't take the chance to get rich.

How old are you?

Chance to get rich? Oh mannnn.

Ok smart guy. How does a newly divorsed woman with two children and no job skills get rich?

Cool, as long as politicians don’t touch it.

That is the WHOLE problem with SS. Both parties view it as an open account to draw on......

I voted to phase it out because there is no justification for it unless your a congressman or senator who needs to buy some quick votes. Bassically, the government says to you, "we don't think you can make the right investments with your retirement, so we're going to take this portion by force and "invest" it for you." Meanwhile on capitol hill, you representatives are thinking, "what's the best way to buy some votes without taking it from the actual budget." And you end up with politicians wasting not tax payer money, but social security funds.

The only people who would suffer from no social security are the stupid, not the poor, because your benefits are tied to your lifelong income. If granny wants to blow her retirement savings in Vegas, she should be allowed to, but current workers shouldn't have to bail her out.



No one can keep track of this kind of thing. You'd have to be a financial stiff and/or genius to work a crappy job and manange to save enough money for your retirement.

The system has been updated once before, and it was never meant to have money taken out of it by the government. Technically, the Social Security fund is completely independent of the Federal Budget, but people were bad spenders and tapped into it.

No, the only solution is to smack congress on the hand for trying to pull money out, and raise taxes to pay off the bonds that we currently owe.

You need to put that old saw about the pre-crash investments away. If I had invested in the market during the 30's, I'd be really well off. People that invest will invest periodically, smart people, anyway.

Widow, orphans, and disabled folks could be covered by an insurance program without the problems of Social Security. We could even privatize it and make it more efficient.

1) That's assuming you had money in the '30's to invest.

2) The point of my argument was to say that even if you were a "smart" investor, in that you didn't fall for one of those schemes that promises to "beat the market", and even if you selected a good mutual fund that over time had paced the Dow, there have been very extended periods of time where your money would have done nothing. You'll also note that I didn't just include dry spells dating from pre-Stock market crash. I also included the 20 year dry spell that went from the end of LBJ's term to the end of Reagan's. If you had been a person looking for retirement investments, you would have waited a long time for the market to provide you with a profit on which to build a nest egg; much longer than most people are actually willing to wait. So in that sense, SS does provide a valuable, and often even a profitable service.

3) Pray tell what happens to the people who aren't so "smart" in your system? In mine, they are still guaranteed their money by the federal govt. (which is one of the major reasons why it is not a pyramid scheme). In yours, what, they work until they die?

4) And insurance companies exist to make money, which means if said widows and orphans were connected to a Dad who didn't make enough money to pay for insurance (of which there are quite a few families) they are, for the lack of a better term, royally screwed. The few hundred dollars they might have saved from the elimination of the payroll tax was for them not anywhere near worth it, was it?


1,2). Not normal Treasury Bonds, only the "IOU" ones issued to the trust fund to pay for spending the money that goes in to it. The government spends other tax revenue to pay for normal Treasury bonds. Treasuries yield from around 3% to 4.5% at present, and only certain issues are TIPS; these are issues in 5,10 and 20 year bonds, while all others are not protected and tend to offer more upside and downside risk.

The Dow of 1929 was different than today. A crash of that magnitude cannot happen again; even at the bottom of the 2002 bear market, it fell only 38% as opposed to 80%+, and that was over almost three years. Same with the 1987 crash. However, from 1929-1941 and from 1967-1982 there were secular bear markets that resulted from the oil crisis and Depression. Average rates of return are usually 10-12% nonadjusted, or about 8-10% adjusted.

Furthermore, investments would not be poured in to Dow stocks, which are very cyclical in nature; more likely ETFs would be the target of investment rather than individual stocks. You would also be able to redirect money from losing funds and reinvest them; many individual stocks have done very well over the past few years (Genentech, Amgen, Google, Exxon, et.) while the markets have been somewhat flat. It would require more work, but would pay off much more than the subinflation rate of SS return. Even in the event of a crash, the government would have insured the investments with a relatively small tax, and so they would be protected.


You neglect to mention that one of the primary reasons why a "crash of that magnitude cannot happen again" is because of government intervention in the markets: the Federal Reserve controls long-term interest rates, providing a very crude rudder to the money supply. That being said, I see no particular reason why a crash like that cannot happen again. There are already weaknesses in the market that seem far beyond Greenspan's ability to control or correct: which is why, for instance, the housing market continues to bubble despite the fact that Greenspan has been significantly raising interest rates over the last several quarters.

Moreover, your response basically says that I've underestimated the strength of annual market returns, which says little or nothing about the argument I originally presented: average rate of returns is misleading, because there are extended periods in the time period considered when developing the "average annual rate of return" where the lowly 3-4% return on investment of SS bonds would have beaten the market over the same period. In fact, we are going through one such period right now. The only thing that comes close is saying "Well, there are stocks that are outperforming the market." To that I say, okay, but how does that help people who don't pick those stocks, and secondly, if you want to talk crapshoots, aren't there also a significant number of perfectly good companies who are underperforming relative to the market? If so, then why should we be willing to risk a national retirement program on something that may not pay out? You don't seem to understand the value of a guaranteed investment in this situation.


3). The survivor benefit is a whopping $255. That would be great in 1939, but not today; monthly benefits aren't even guaranteed unless you qualify. The same goes for funeral expenses and other costs. The government could run a smaller TIPS program for those who don't want to invest in more volatile systems and for survivor benefits, although details would have to be worked out. If we do that, these people would have a real shot at overcoming their loss rather than the disgrace they recieve today.

For your average working mother, it doesn't replace a husband's income, but its better than the nothing you are risking by making it beholden to a risky market. I know when my dad died, that $255 and not any stocks was what kept food on the table.

As a side note, I'm kind of curious to know why people who are so adamant against corruption, going so far as to call a program that averages a rate of corruption or fraud of about .1 or less percent per annum and with a government-guaranteed return a "Ponzi scheme", at the same time propose as an alternative to dump huge sums of money directly into the market. Am I the only one that realizes how likely it is that companies will lobby to get SS funds invested into their stocks? How willing they will be to use any means necessary to get that kind of pump-up to their stock prices?

Only stupid people are poor?
There is nothing stopping the determined from getting rich and being a success. We offer scholarships and all sorts of offers in order to help these people out, and a smart person would save up money early or invest it in a way to get more money.

Really, it does not seem illogical that people should be responsible for getting enough money for their retirement.

How old are you?

Chance to get rich? Oh mannnn.

Ok smart guy. How does a newly divorsed woman with two children and no job skills get rich?
It is easy, she doesn't. That is because she decided to have 2 children and to ignore any consideration that some ability to be independent is important. She did not make the best choices when it came to men, money, and parenting. Obviously those who make mistakes will be in greater danger of failure.

Her kids probably could get rich if they tried and had ability. :)

can someone explain to me how you can privatise social security?

How old are you?

Chance to get rich? Oh mannnn.

Ok smart guy. How does a newly divorsed woman with two children and no job skills get rich?
lol I guess I should've put a ":rolleyes:" or a "[/sarcasm]" I guess there are people crazy enough to post crap like that seriously.

and how could someone with my pol compass scores post something like that? I'm not Eutrusca! :D

It is easy, she doesn't. That is because she decided to have 2 children and to ignore any consideration that some ability to be independent is important. She did not make the best choices when it came to men, money, and parenting. Obviously those who make mistakes will be in greater danger of failure.

Her kids probably could get rich if they tried and had ability. :)

you, sir/madam, are an arsehole.

can someone explain to me how you can privatise social security?
You can't. You can destroy Social Security and create something totally different and tack on the same name to make it look like it was reformed, but you can't "reform" it by privatization.

lol I guess I should've put a ":rolleyes:" or a "[/sarcasm]" I guess there are people crazy enough to post crap like that seriously.

and how could someone with my pol compass scores post something like that? I'm not Eutrusca! :D

*Looks at his control panel*

Damn it! Somebody switched off my sense of humor\.

Sorry about that. ;)

You can't. You can destroy Social Security and create something totally different, but you can't "reform" it by privatization.

thats what i was thinking... it seems idiotic to trust money required by many to live off due to craptastic wages to private business. mainly because private buiness would only accept it if they felt they could get richer out of it, and if they can get richer out of it, why isnt the money they are getting richer off going into social security? its a moronic idea (as i understand it).

I'm getting a lot of the "If you don't like social security, you're an asshole" kind of thing. Sorry, but many of us just don't want the government telling us we have to help out others. Personally I've got nothing wrong with giving large sums of money to charity, I just don't want someone telling me I have to.

It is easy, she doesn't. That is because she decided to have 2 children and to ignore any consideration that some ability to be independent is important. She did not make the best choices when it came to men, money, and parenting. Obviously those who make mistakes will be in greater danger of failure.

Her kids probably could get rich if they tried and had ability. :)

Ohhhhh do explain yourself more.

The question offered is a real situation.

The woman didn't make the best choice in men. Well the man was a supreme bullshit artist and fooled quite a few people.

Do explain the independent part. Divorse was not as high back then as now. Women still had the opportunity to do the stay at home thing.

How do you judge her parenting from what little was offered?

How old are you and are you religious? Just getting an idea here.....

To those critical of Bush's Social Security reformation proposal, what would you suggest in the alternative? Democrats have criticized, but not given a proposal of their own. I can't think of any other way to do it without raising taxes, and I suspect that's why the Dems won't say what they're thinking. Thoughts?
I don't know if anyone else has addressed this or not, but here's my piece.

If the economy grows at the same average rate it has for the last forty years, then Social Security isn't in any danger, no matter what the doomsayers in the White House say. The assumptions that Social Security will be in trouble in 75 years are based on very pessimistic outlooks for the economy, and besides, trying to figure out what the economy will look like in 75 years is a fool's game. Worry about it when it's a real issue is the way I feel about it.

Besides, Medicare is a far larger concern and a far more immediate one. That's where we need to look at reform, and to be quite blunt, we need to look at more than Medicare--we need to look at a single-payer universal health care sytem, because we're starting to lose manufacturing jobs to places like Canada over it.

I'm getting a lot of the "If you don't like social security, you're an asshole" kind of thing. Sorry, but many of us just don't want the government telling us we have to help out others. Personally I've got nothing wrong with giving large sums of money to charity, I just don't want someone telling me I have to.

fair enough then. but for simplicities sake lets just have the one charity to donate to, so it doesnt end up giving all its money to one group all at once by accident, and leaving others out. oh, and to help stop the people who run it playing favorites, lets make it so that the people who decide how the money is distributed are accountable. the best way for that is for it to be democratic, yes? hows this for an idea: instead of doing your taxes, and then figuring out how much you can give to this democtratically elected body for helping look after people, why not give your money for helping people in with your taxes, to save time?

so we have a single, democratically elected charity that recieves its money through tax, then gives it all away to poor people. but seeing as how the people able to give the most are rich people, and rich people are unlikely to give money away (part of the reason they have a lot of it), lets just make sure people give a certain amount based proportionally on income, just to make sure that people receiving have enough to live off.

so we have an elected body that gets its income from tax, of which a fixed pecentage is reserved for them, that gives out its money to poor people, to make sure they can live. this stops the organisation being inefficient in its giving, keeps it accountable to people, and still has enough money to actually have an effect.

sounds good to me.

It's a future problem. The generations coming in to the workplace are smaller than the generations leaving; Social Security is funded on the belief that each generation will be progressively larger and will pay the benefits for those leaving, and that is not the case. Our debt prevents us from preemptively funding this obligation, and so it will eventually run out of cash to pay its benefit recipients. The economic effects will be severe unless something is done; it's a time-bomb.

Remember Gore's "lock-box"? That was meant to shore up SS (albeit with pipe-dream surpluses that could never happen); Clinton talked about insolvency back in the 90's, and others before him. It's a problem that is fairly well known, but only revived itself when Bush brought it up again.
Funding Social Security is a problem that has faced administrations since the program's inception. The payroll tax in 1935 was a percent or so of the gross income. That's not true anymore. To keep the program solvent, tax increases have been the stopgap measure of choice.

I dont see what really is wrong with giving people the OPTION to put some of their SS in the stock market.

It is not like they are forcing people, plus it lessons the load on the government at the same time.

Since when did Americans believe that having another freedom of choice was a bad thing for them? In my mind anybody supporting the democrats in this debate is admiting they are fucking retarded and cant make choices for themselves what to do with their money...

geezus let people decide if they want to keep their money in SS or not, not force them into a shity system.

I say get rid of it, it sucks. It was first introduced in 1935 as the Social Security Act so as to help out those in dire need during the Great Depression. It worked great then, but it's bad now. We don't need it, we just need to lower prescription drug costs; that's the main problem with the elderly. We can achieve this by allowing Canada to send some since it's so much cheaper, but our pharmaceutical companies, like the blood sucking fiends they are, will whine and complain.

Ohhhhh do explain yourself more.

The question offered is a real situation.

The woman didn't make the best choice in men. Well the man was a supreme bullshit artist and fooled quite a few people.

Do explain the independent part. Divorse was not as high back then as now. Women still had the opportunity to do the stay at home thing.

How do you judge her parenting from what little was offered?

How old are you and are you religious? Just getting an idea here.....
Well, the woman should have probed deeply and figured out what she was getting into, people usually slip up and can not keep their stories straight and if you date someone for a good period of time and get married at a reasonable age then usually the bad ones are weeded out. I am not responsible for her mistakes, if she picked a bad husband that does not mean that she should be a charity case. Besides her husband does have to pay child support for these children.

I am talking about modern social security, not then and now. Now there is a high divorce rate and women do not have as much of an opportunity to stay at home. I might not have been aware of the context.

I did go a little far on the parenting thing. I figured that a good parenting strategy would take into account most factors that would be a problem. I guess I may have jumped the gun and figured she was some trailer trash that pops one out every year or so despite her husband being a bad choice.

Although this is a horrible lesson, I do not think we should spare her the fact that the most important thing in life is to not allow yourself to be screwed. I would feel bad for her for what has happened if this was all honest mistakes it usually isn't and the occasional case of allowing myself to be screwed does not outweigh the prevalent case of I screwed myself.

My thoughts on the poor are that we should try to rehabilitate them and the like, not give them free money. People should be forced to take responsibility for their own lives and mistakes though efforts should of course be made so that those mistakes are eliminated before they are made.

You neglect to mention that one of the primary reasons why a "crash of that magnitude cannot happen again" is because of government intervention in the markets: the Federal Reserve controls long-term interest rates, providing a very crude rudder to the money supply. That being said, I see no particular reason why a crash like that cannot happen again. There are already weaknesses in the market that seem far beyond Greenspan's ability to control or correct: which is why, for instance, the housing market continues to bubble despite the fact that Greenspan has been significantly raising interest rates over the last several quarters.

Moreover, your response basically says that I've underestimated the strength of annual market returns, which says little or nothing about the argument I originally presented: average rate of returns is misleading, because there are extended periods in the time period considered when developing the "average annual rate of return" where the lowly 3-4% return on investment of SS bonds would have beaten the market over the same period. In fact, we are going through one such period right now. The only thing that comes close is saying "Well, there are stocks that are outperforming the market." To that I say, okay, but how does that help people who don't pick those stocks, and secondly, if you want to talk crapshoots, aren't there also a significant number of perfectly good companies who are underperforming relative to the market? If so, then why should we be willing to risk a national retirement program on something that may not pay out? You don't seem to understand the value of a guaranteed investment in this situation.

For your average working mother, it doesn't replace a husband's income, but its better than the nothing you are risking by making it beholden to a risky market. I know when my dad died, that $255 and not any stocks was what kept food on the table.

As a side note, I'm kind of curious to know why people who are so adamant against corruption, going so far as to call a program that averages a rate of corruption or fraud of about .1 or less percent per annum and with a government-guaranteed return a "Ponzi scheme", at the same time propose as an alternative to dump huge sums of money directly into the market. Am I the only one that realizes how likely it is that companies will lobby to get SS funds invested into their stocks? How willing they will be to use any means necessary to get that kind of pump-up to their stock prices?

The housing market isn't in a true nationwide bubble, but rather a regional one. There are areas growing out-of-control that will come down, but at present the rate-hike policy is working. Inflation is under control, and the housing sector is slowing (on the supply side), and demand will eventually slow as supply catches up.

Furthermore, investments do not have to go in to stocks, or even ETFs (which are more stable but can still proft very well); you would be able to choose your own investments in any field rather than let the government do it for you, but there would still be traditional systems available for those who don't want the risk. The individual would make the determination of what they want to invest in, and would either oay SS tax for benefits or invest on their own; this gives you flexibility as well as the opportunity to collect traditional benefits if you want t pay SS tax. Private accounts would pay no or less tax based upon need to fund the program.

Well, if we have private accounts you could still get that $255, but if you wanted the risk and its reward there would be a private account option as well. These benefits would be voluntary based upon your choices; you could waive SS tax and go private with no benefits, or keep SS tax and go private and get benefits as well, or just pay SS tax and get benefits.

Again, the government would have no control over the investments other than those who opt for SS; the difference being you could waive/reduce the payroll tax if you decide not to collect Social Security benefits and invest on your own. The individual would choose their investment, and go from there. The government can not possibly be trusted to invest wisely; look at their chartered corporations to see the US government's fiscal management. Politics would play no part, because your choice of investment would be totally your own.

The system would no longer be mandantory, that's the change I propose. Let us decide what is best for our money, and leave the government out of it unless you want it to decide.

Well, the woman should have probed deeply and figured out what she was getting into, people usually slip up and can not keep their stories straight and if you date someone for a good period of time and get married at a reasonable age then usually the bad ones are weeded out. I am not responsible for her mistakes, if she picked a bad husband that does not mean that she should be a charity case. Besides her husband does have to pay child support for these children.

I am talking about modern social security, not then and now. Now there is a high divorce rate and women do not have as much of an opportunity to stay at home. I might not have been aware of the context.

I did go a little far on the parenting thing. I figured that a good parenting strategy would take into account most factors that would be a problem. I guess I may have jumped the gun and figured she was some trailer trash that pops one out every year or so despite her husband being a bad choice.

Although this is a horrible lesson, I do not think we should spare her the fact that the most important thing in life is to not allow yourself to be screwed. I would feel bad for her for what has happened if this was all honest mistakes it usually isn't and the occasional case of allowing myself to be screwed does not outweigh the prevalent case of I screwed myself.

My thoughts on the poor are that we should try to rehabilitate them and the like, not give them free money. People should be forced to take responsibility for their own lives and mistakes though efforts should of course be made so that those mistakes are eliminated before they are made.

sorry, all you arseholes out their, for comparing this thing to you.

sorry, all you arseholes out their, for comparing this thing to you.
Oh shut up and stop being a bitch. I disagree with you, do not be an ass and insult my view without arguing against it. I do not want some crappy welfare state that allows or encourages people to make mistakes. I want a state where mistakes are punished horribly and cruelly but also a state that tries to help rehabilitate people who make these mistakes so that it does not happen and can be recovered from. The foolish acts of a minority should not weigh heavily on the majority of people who do not need such aid. We should be responsible for our own financial situation and be somewhat economically independent(giving more to society than we get).

Oh shut up and stop being a bitch. I disagree with you, do not be an ass and insult my view without arguing against it. I do not want some crappy welfare state that allows or encourages people to make mistakes. I want a state where mistakes are punished horribly and cruelly but also a state that tries to help rehabilitate people who make these mistakes so that it does not happen and can be recovered from. The foolish acts of a minority should not weigh heavily on the majority of people who do not need such aid. We should be responsible for our own financial situation and be somewhat economically independent(giving more to society than we get).
Genius!!! You're BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!11!!11111!!!!We could just shoot anyone with an income of under $30,000 a year! Hey, if they're too lazy to go out and get a promotion, why do they deserve to keep living?

Oh shut up and stop being a bitch. I disagree with you, do not be an ass and insult my view without arguing against it. I do not want some crappy welfare state that allows or encourages people to make mistakes. I want a state where mistakes are punished horribly and cruelly but also a state that tries to help rehabilitate people who make these mistakes so that it does not happen and can be recovered from. The foolish acts of a minority should not weigh heavily on the majority of people who do not need such aid. We should be responsible for our own financial situation and be somewhat economically independent(giving more to society than we get).

do i need to even argue against a person who wants horrible cruel punishment for poor people for the unforgivable sin of being poor? surely youve done my argueing for me right their. normally you capitalist scum are more subtle.

how can you be so uncaring as to the fate of people who make one mistake (assuming their social position is even their fault, which it usually isnt)? not everyone can be rich, the only way you could feasably get rid of social security would be get everyone employed (which would be bad for capitalism, because of the next bit), so that unions could go on strike without fear of them all being fired in return for unemployed people desperate for work, to get a decent wage from the multi million pound wage packet the ownergrants him/herself.

look at england, we have welfare: look! people have jobs! good lord! your crazy,capitalist nonsense is evidently wrong!

Genius!!! You're BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!11!!11111!!!!We could just shoot anyone with an income of under $30,000 a year! Hey, if they're too lazy to go out and get a promotion, why do they deserve to keep living?
Well, there we go. Maybe the solution you suggested is a bit comical but the members of society are meant to contribute to society. That lesson should be taught and remembered. I do not mind society helping those in need but I do not think a socialist state where everyone is supported regardless of laziness and incompetence is a good idea at all. I am in support of measures to improve employment and to improve employabilty, after all ambition and self-sufficiency are virtues and weakness is a sin within a society that needs strength to support it.

Genius!!! You're BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!11!!11111!!!!We could just shoot anyone with an income of under $30,000 a year! Hey, if they're too lazy to go out and get a promotion, why do they deserve to keep living?
The real beauty of the Social Security system is that these same folks can keep living at an even lower standard of living than before they retired, if they can really retire.

On the other hand, there are places like Galveston, TX, where the city opted out of Social Security. The folks that retire from that city end up with a bigger paycheck than when they were working.

Non-Social Security accounts just make sense. Just look at the Federal Government for an example of a well run retirement plan. No, civil servants don't pay into Social Security. They invest in managed funds.

Looking at the messages here I wonder if any of them happen to be old, divorced with kids and unemployed or in some way in need of government support. It seems doubtful.

do i need to even argue against a person who wants horrible cruel punishment for poor people for the unforgivable sin of being poor? surely youve done my argueing for me right their. normally you capitalist scum are more subtle.

how can you be so uncaring as to the fate of people who make one mistake (assuming their social position is even their fault, which it usually isnt)? not everyone can be rich, the only way you could feasably get rid of social security would be get everyone employed (which would be bad for capitalism, because of the next bit), so that unions could go on strike without fear of them all being fired in return for unemployed people desperate for work, to get a decent wage from the multi million pound wage packet the ownergrants him/herself.

look at england, we have welfare: look! people have jobs! good lord! your crazy,capitalist nonsense is evidently wrong!
I did not say that welfare is going to undermine all of society and cause it to fall into ruin. As well, I do not buy into pinko-commie garbage of supporting everyone no matter if they deserve it, nor do I buy the idea that the market is perfect and self-regulating. The government has a place in the market and that is to make sure it works well. I support people who work, I support people who contribute to society, I do not particularly care about the people who are a strain or detriment to society and would wish to try to get them back into a job first and if that fails due to their own incompetence then I do not care.

Social position is often the fault of the person who gets there. Intelligent and ambitious people do not belong there and can avoid it by getting a higher education that is highly employable. Intelligent people can even get full scholarships at universities. If a person truly strives and gets themselves a degree in business or engineering or any other money making field they are likely to end up just fine because people employed in those fields make on average $40,000 or $50,000 starting salary after college(depending on the major). Those who do not go into college can always earn money in other ways, even trade school is a good way to get good money(like plumbers and such). To claim that there are no tools to advance is ridiculous, most people in America only have a problem because they are idiots.

People within a society rise and fall according to their merits, if you make a horrible mistake then that mistake is your duty to rise above, I do not mind society trying to help by giving a poor person some help to be better with money and at staying in a job but I do not want society to pay for every stupid person who decides to get knocked up, or every stupid person who gets into drugs, or every stupid person who did not use their talents to be the best that they could.

Well, there we go. Maybe the solution you suggested is a bit comical but the members of society are meant to contribute to society. That lesson should be taught and remembered. I do not mind society helping those in need but I do not think a socialist state where everyone is supported regardless of laziness and incompetence is a good idea at all. I am in support of measures to improve employment and to improve employabilty, after all ambition and self-sufficiency are virtues and weakness is a sin within a society that needs strength to support it.

well, its just a good thing most people actually care about each others well being then isnt it? other wise you and the rest of the amoral, uncaring twat brigade would be able to get some of your idiotic ideas in. maybe the "Burn people i dont like Act", or the "People i judge as work shy (ie unemployed through no fault of their own) need shooting Act".

surely these incompetant people need helping most, as they are, as you say, incompetant, so cant do any better for themselves. or would seeing someone you regard as inferior starving and homeless give you a thrill? because thats what its about right? its all about you not having to help people. youve already admitted your support for cruel, horrible punisment of people who are basically unlucky.

Looking at the messages here I wonder if any of them happen to be old, divorced with kids and unemployed or in some way in need of government support. It seems doubtful.
Of course not.

I did not say that welfare is going to undermine all of society and cause it to fall into ruin. As well, I do not buy into pinko-commie garbage of supporting everyone no matter if they deserve it, nor do I buy the idea that the market is perfect and self-regulating. The government has a place in the market and that is to make sure it works well. I support people who work, I support people who contribute to society, I do not particularly care about the people who are a strain or detriment to society and would wish to try to get them back into a job first and if that fails due to their own incompetence then I do not care.

Social position is often the fault of the person who gets there. Intelligent and ambitious people do not belong there and can avoid it by getting a higher education that is highly employable. Intelligent people can even get full scholarships at universities. If a person truly strives and gets themselves a degree in business or engineering or any other money making field they are likely to end up just fine because people employed in those fields make on average $40,000 or $50,000 starting salary after college(depending on the major). Those who do not go into college can always earn money in other ways, even trade school is a good way to get good money(like plumbers and such). To claim that there are no tools to advance is ridiculous, most people in America only have a problem because they are idiots.

People within a society rise and fall according to their merits, if you make a horrible mistake then that mistake is your duty to rise above, I do not mind society trying to help by giving a poor person some help to be better with money and at staying in a job but I do not want society to pay for every stupid person who decides to get knocked up, or every stupid person who gets into drugs, or every stupid person who did not use their talents to be the best that they could.

well, having read your posts, i dont doubt americans are idiots. only a certain amount of people can get rich/successful, yes? as in your society, you have the most skilled, talented people running everything (and coincidentally doing least work), and theirs a limited amount of stuff to run. the best way for he people at the top to stay at the top would be to make sure no one can get their position, which can be achieved by giving crap wages, so people work long hours and are too tired to be able to chase their jobs. so, how are all the people at the bottom supposed to climb when theirs no room to climb to? and if these people see theirs no room to climb into, they will become depressed. they will then either try to escape their woes through drink, drugs, sex or religion (personnally id go for the first three, at least youre not lying to yourself). or would you rather they bottle up their depression and go quietly mad and get locked in a cell due to menta collapse, as they cant afford to go to a psychiatrist, due to havign a crap y paid job? either way, its a fairly direct result of this wonderful society of yours.

i could go on, with more examples, find real life examples and so forth, bu hey.

i almost hope you get fired, fail to find work, go insane and become a heroin addict. fortunately, im not a shit.

well, its just a good thing most people actually care about each others well being then isnt it? other wise you and the rest of the amoral, uncaring twat brigade would be able to get some of your idiotic ideas in. maybe the "Burn people i dont like Act", or the "People i judge as work shy (ie unemployed through no fault of their own) need shooting Act".

surely these incompetant people need helping most, as they are, as you say, incompetant, so cant do any better for themselves. or would seeing someone you regard as inferior starving and homeless give you a thrill? because thats what its about right? its all about you not having to help people. youve already admitted your support for cruel, horrible punisment of people who are basically unlucky.
I have also admitted that I would like the government to help them get jobs. I do not really care about these people if they do not work, if they are so incompetent why do I want them in my society? Cruel and horrible punishment is meant to teach them not to make these stupid mistakes. I do not want to support others any more than I want to be supported, if I screw up I do not want the government bailing me out with a welfare check. When I forget my lunch(or money necessary to buy lunch) I do not ask friends for money or meal and prefer to starve. I do not see why we should go around bailing out people for mistakes that they made and could probably correct if they had the will to do so. I do not mind helping people, I just hate sponges and those who need constant help and would prefer to get those people into jobs of some form.

Looking at the messages here I wonder if any of them happen to be old, divorced with kids and unemployed or in some way in need of government support. It seems doubtful.

if they were, they woulnt be being arseholes to them. whereas my family satisfies 3 of those criteria (or has a one point), so i actually have an understanding of at least one set of cases, clearly unlike "holyawesomeness".

well, having read your posts, i dont doubt americans are idiots. only a certain amount of people can get rich/successful, yes? as in your society, you have the most skilled, talented people running everything (and coincidentally doing least work), and theirs a limited amount of stuff to run. the best way for he people at the top to stay at the top would be to make sure no one can get their position, which can be achieved by giving crap wages, so people work long hours and are too tired to be able to chase their jobs. so, how are all the people at the bottom supposed to climb when theirs no room to climb to? and if these people see theirs no room to climb into, they will become depressed. they will then either try to escape their woes through drink, drugs, sex or religion (personnally id go for the first three, at least youre not lying to yourself). or would you rather they bottle up their depression and go quietly mad and get locked in a cell due to menta collapse, as they cant afford to go to a psychiatrist, due to havign a crap y paid job? either way, its a fairly direct result of this wonderful society of yours.

i could go on, with more examples, find real life examples and so forth, bu hey.

i almost hope you get fired, fail to find work, go insane and become a heroin addict. fortunately, im not a shit.
Well, I do not believe in your philosophy. People are made by their own choices. The people at the top do not really care that much, there is no oppression in America. I think that your philosophy is bullshit because most people in America do fine, even some of those who do not have college. Just because there are some failures does not mean that our society is a joke. Really, we do very well, I am not rich, my family comes from white trash. 2 of my cousins had shot-gun wedding at a young age and a third is not going to even have the shot gun wedding. I am studying for an engineering degree, my brother is studying for an engineering degree, my parents were never college educated and my family(other than my parents and siblings) is as crappy as hell, yet my parents lived good lives without debt or burden and even were able to secure a good future for their offspring. The American system of capitalism works. The majority of people are not drug addicts and seem decent. I do not see where your twisted line of thinking even comes from. But if I fail in life then I will just simply accept it as my mistake, I do not want pity from anyone, I do not wish to be a charity case and would prefer to die before I become some piece of scum living on welfare.

I have also admitted that I would like the government to help them get jobs. I do not really care about these people if they do not work, if they are so incompetent why do I want them in my society? Cruel and horrible punishment is meant to teach them not to make these stupid mistakes. I do not want to support others any more than I want to be supported, if I screw up I do not want the government bailing me out with a welfare check. When I forget my lunch(or money necessary to buy lunch) I do not ask friends for money or meal and prefer to starve. I do not see why we should go around bailing out people for mistakes that they made and could probably correct if they had the will to do so. I do not mind helping people, I just hate sponges and those who need constant help and would prefer to get those people into jobs of some form.

so what would you like doing with people who are incompetent then? and what do you mean by people who need constant help? disabled people, for instance? how would you like them "removng" from your society? some sort of "final solution", perhaps?

cruel punishment isnt going to make someone supercompetent, and even if it did, they would have to kick someone down into their previous position to ascend to a level you thinks worthy of existence.

and you will find that the vast, vast majority of people who earn benefits and social security are in fact,not sponges at all, just normal people fallen on hard tmes because their boss theatened to move your job to india to pay someone 1/50th of the wage you earn, unless you reduce your wages drastically, for instance.

if they were, they woulnt be being arseholes to them. whereas my family satisfies 3 of those criteria (or has a one point), so i actually have an understanding of at least one set of cases, clearly unlike "holyawesomeness".
My family sucks too, but it is because of the choices that they made. I do not excuse their decisions or even like the fact that they were such idiots. I do not even care if my policies fall upon them if they deserve it. I have seen that academic potential pays off and I know that there are many places where people can get educations if they only put their minds towards it. If you join armed forces they will even pay for your education so that you can go to college, get a good job and lead a good life. Life is life, this is true anywhere. Also, our employment rate is not 25% or anything else ridiculously high. I do not see the effects of massive unemployment in my city and there are usually employers somewhere, I mean the armed forces offer employment to those who need jobs.

Well, I do not believe in your philosophy. People are made by their own choices. The people at the top do not really care that much, there is no oppression in America. I think that your philosophy is bullshit because most people in America do fine, even some of those who do not have college. Just because there are some failures does not mean that our society is a joke. Really, we do very well, I am not rich, my family comes from white trash. 2 of my cousins had shot-gun wedding at a young age and a third is not going to even have the shot gun wedding. I am studying for an engineering degree, my brother is studying for an engineering degree, my parents were never college educated and my family(other than my parents and siblings) is as crappy as hell, yet my parents lived good lives without debt or burden and even were able to secure a good future for their offspring. The American system of capitalism works. The majority of people are not drug addicts and seem decent. I do not see where your twisted line of thinking even comes from. But if I fail in life then I will just simply accept it as my mistake, I do not want pity from anyone, I do not wish to be a charity case and would prefer to die before I become some piece of scum living on welfare.

well if you beleive that the electrical impulses moving around your neural pathways make a choice as to which way it goes around then yes, people do make their own choices.

you say just becasue their are some failures doesnt mean it doesnt work. i would say just becasue their are some success doesnt mean it works (ignoring, of course, the fact the failures vastly outway the success).

i never said the majority of people were addicts, their are non addictive drugs out their, and all addictive ones are less addictive than nicotene. of course, you forgot to mention the thriving alcohol industry, and i dont know the american stats, but the drugs trade in britain alone i think is worth 4bn pounds (6bn dollars? 8? i dont know) a year, which seems to me a lot of drugs if no ones taking them. oh, and theirs the big sex industry, and religion of course. so you see, my point about escapism stands.

anyway, for the "capitalism works" thing to work, you also need to click your heels together 3 times and say it repeatedly (as well as wear the magic shoes), otherwise it wont come true. just keep ignoring the widening rich poor gaps, the squalid conditons you live in compared to your societies elites, and the fact that things happen to people that arent their fault (eg if every job requiring engineering collapses, it wont be your fault you cant be an engineer, will it?), and all will seem well, im sure.

out of interest, whats a shotgun weddng?

My family sucks too, but it is because of the choices that they made. I do not excuse their decisions or even like the fact that they were such idiots. I do not even care if my policies fall upon them if they deserve it. I have seen that academic potential pays off and I know that there are many places where people can get educations if they only put their minds towards it. If you join armed forces they will even pay for your education so that you can go to college, get a good job and lead a good life. Life is life, this is true anywhere. Also, our employment rate is not 25% or anything else ridiculously high. I do not see the effects of massive unemployment in my city and there are usually employers somewhere, I mean the armed forces offer employment to those who need jobs.

well, maybe your family did do stupid things. id still sacrfice the high life for myself to look after them. because im what we call "not a bastard". and academic potential pays off so well, that a lot of my friends who passed through university with degrees cant get jobs better than trolly pusher or library assistant. and it isnt for lack of trying (as you would of course say that, having not seen their attempts). if you join the armed forces you can also end up getting called on to, you know, fight. and many people wont join the army on principle. i dare say in this time of increasing american invasions the army is lookingto expand, yes.

i never said you had massive unemployment, you only need a bit, enough so its a threat to working people big enough for them to accept the latest wage cut.

and yes, i imagine it is true that life is life, as that is a tautology (if thats the right word), and so would be true anywhere.

you say just becasue their are some failures doesnt mean it doesnt work. i would say just becasue their are some success doesnt mean it works (ignoring, of course, the fact the failures vastly outway the success).

i never said the majority of people were addicts, their are non addictive drugs out their, and all addictive ones are less addictive than nicotene. of course, you forgot to mention the thriving alcohol industry, and i dont know the american stats, but the drugs trade in britain alone i think is worth 4bn pounds (6bn dollars? 8? i dont know) a year, which seems to me a lot of drugs if no ones taking them. oh, and theirs the big sex industry, and religion of course. so you see, my point about escapism stands.

out of interest, whats a shotgun weddng?
A shotgun wedding is where a pathetic bitch gets pregnant and because of that she marries the dude that impregnated her out of a desire to keep the damn rat growing inside of her from being a bastard, it is in most(if not all) cases an act caused by stupidity.

Religion is not escapism, religion is a dignified thing that ultimately instills societal virtues. Most people that I know do not get involved in escapism and are relatively healthy, I do not know many people that are not healthy in the head other than the people that are meant to be the next lower class(I had to throw this in to mock you) no one is forced into drugs and most of the people who do drugs are idiots seeking short term pleasure despite the fact that in the long term it will hurt them. That is why much of the drug abuse happens in those that are already poor. Usually drug abuse starts off in young C students who barely pass most of their classes to begin with. In fact, I have heard them called by a friend as being the future welfare recipients(I try not to be that judgemental but it is hard). The system ultimately fails these people because they made stupid decisions and are stupid people.

well, maybe your family did do stupid things. id still sacrfice the high life for myself to look after them.
I am not responsible for the fact that they are morons. They should look after themselves and I will do the same. If they were in trouble and it was not because they were morons then the situation would be a bit different but it is not different at all.

Besides, hippyism and extreme pacifism are stupid(or at least impractical in this situation), why not join the armed forces if you needed a job? Sure there is death but at least you are dying for your country and not from anything else.

What did your friends major in?

The real beauty of the Social Security system is that these same folks can keep living at an even lower standard of living than before they retired, if they can really retire.

On the other hand, there are places like Galveston, TX, where the city opted out of Social Security. The folks that retire from that city end up with a bigger paycheck than when they were working.

Non-Social Security accounts just make sense. Just look at the Federal Government for an example of a well run retirement plan. No, civil servants don't pay into Social Security. They invest in managed funds.
Not everyone agrees with you about Galveston. (http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-05socsec2.htm)The Galveston plan does not provide any benefits for spouses or other dependents of retirees. Nor does it provide any redistribution from higher earners to lower earners. In addition, the Galveston Plan fails to provide an inflation-indexed annuity — participants can choose a combination of lump-sum payments or a variety of fixed annuities that do not increase with inflation (and thus that erode in value over the course of a beneficiary’s retirement years). Finally, the Galveston plan allows early withdrawal of account balances in several cases (such as serious illnesses or certain other problems), which reduces the ability of the plan as a whole to provide income for as long as beneficiaries live and thereby increases the plan’s costs. (This is one of the reasons that the tax rate is higher under the Galveston plan than under Social Security, even though the retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston plan.)

The Social Security Administration’s Office of Policy conducted a study of the Galveston plan. It found that benefits under the plan are generally inferior to those that Social Security provides:[6]

*

The Galveston Plan “offers a lower initial ongoing benefit than Social Security for single workers with low earnings and for married workers at the low, middle, and high earnings level” (emphasis added).

*

The Galveston offers lower subsequent benefits for nearly all workers because the initial benefits are eroded by inflation: “after 15 years Galveston’s benefits are lower than Social Security’s for all family/earner types with the exception of single, very high earners. After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”

The Social Security Administration study also found that the comparison of disability and survivors benefits under the Galveston plan to those that Social Security provides depends on an individual’s specific circumstances, but that in general, people who receive these benefits for longer periods of time would be worse off under the Galveston plan because the benefits under that plan fail to keep pace with inflation.

I am not responsible for the fact that they are morons. They should look after themselves and I will do the same. If they were in trouble and it was not because they were morons then the situation would be a bit different but it is not different at all.

Besides, hippyism and extreme pacifism are stupid(or at least impractical in this situation), why not join the armed forces if you needed a job? Sure there is death but at least you are dying for your country and not from anything else.

What did your friends major in?
Nothing like forcing the desperate to serve in the armed forces!

Since I live in southern Arizona, my high school has a majority of minorities. About 80% latino. There were military recruiters there at least once a week. They even have a big "fair" where each branch sets up booths with information about themselves. I talked to several of my friends who go to "richer" schools with a large white majority, and they hardly ever see military recruiters. Hmmm...

A shotgun wedding is where a pathetic bitch gets pregnant and because of that she marries the dude that impregnated her out of a desire to keep the damn rat growing inside of her from being a bastard, it is in most(if not all) cases an act caused by stupidity.

Religion is not escapism, religion is a dignified thing that ultimately instills societal virtues. Most people that I know do not get involved in escapism and are relatively healthy, I do not know many people that are not healthy in the head other than the people that are meant to be the next lower class(I had to throw this in to mock you) no one is forced into drugs and most of the people who do drugs are idiots seeking short term pleasure despite the fact that in the long term it will hurt them. That is why much of the drug abuse happens in those that are already poor. Usually drug abuse starts off in young C students who barely pass most of their classes to begin with. In fact, I have heard them called by a friend as being the future welfare recipients(I try not to be that judgemental but it is hard). The system ultimately fails these people because they made stupid decisions and are stupid people.

i can see your parents did a good job raising you. applause for them, everyone.

so you mean it is what happens when a man pressures and pressures a woman into having unprotected sex, then to stop him running away, she gets him to marry her? or when birth control fails?

religion is escapism. what is not escapist about dreaming of this fantasy land waiting for you in the next life after this shit life? religion is a crook of shit. if you think the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the burning of athiesists, the oppression of women and of men througout the ages as well as the current islamic terrorist atrocities, are all dignified, then yes religion is dignified. if however, you have a mind, you will see it clearly isnt. were those good examples of societal values? was the holding back of science, to the detriment of humankind?

i fail to see how that is mocking me, unless your trying to claim being poor is a mental illness, or something.

you say drug users are seeking pleasure. would they be seeking it if they found it in reaity? no they would not. so it is people who have no realistic access to pleasures that turn to them, as you say, poorer people.

i fail to see how you can claim to try not to be judgemental! you are the most judemental person i have ever met, as well as the worst.

your statement of how drug abuse starts off in people not doing well at school: they see (or think) they have no real future, which is fairly accurate, so they turn to escapes. hell, id do the same, bearing in mind alcohol is a drug.

to use your logic, the system fails them, becasue it is a bad system. it shouldnt go blaming others for its failings. it should change to fit them, just as you think people should struggle to fit it, surely?

Nothing like forcing the desperate to serve in the armed forces!

Since I live in southern Arizona, my high school has a majority of minorities. About 80% latino. There were military recruiters there at least once a week. They even have a big "fair" where each branch sets up booths with information about themselves. I talked to several of my friends who go to "richer" schools with a large white majority, and they hardly ever see military recruiters. Hmmm...
Let me introduce this sad truth. Minorities tend not to do as well as rich white people. I do not know why this is but the minorities at my school are in regular classes for the most part while the white people and the asians are often in the honors classes. This does not mean that there is no intermingling because there are white people in regulars and minorities in honors. This implies for the most part that these people are not trying because at our school there does not appear to be any racism on the part of the students or the faculty. The fact is that the rich white people will have their college paid for by their parents or their own efforts while the minority students do not have rich parents nor do they look to the future and try to succeed quite as much for the most part.

Nothing like forcing the desperate to serve in the armed forces!

Since I live in southern Arizona, my high school has a majority of minorities. About 80% latino. There were military recruiters there at least once a week. They even have a big "fair" where each branch sets up booths with information about themselves. I talked to several of my friends who go to "richer" schools with a large white majority, and they hardly ever see military recruiters. Hmmm...
What is wrong with that? You'd agree that poorer kids have less opportunities than richer kids, right? Joining the military is a great way for those poorer kids to get some of those opportunities that they'd otherwise not have. You get a job, experience, and contacts that will pay off later in life. Become an officer, and the military will pay for bachelors and masters level education.
Yes, I know, I'm heavily biased for the military. I have reason to be. The USAF has provided for my family for more than two decades, and provided well.

I am not responsible for the fact that they are morons. They should look after themselves and I will do the same. If they were in trouble and it was not because they were morons then the situation would be a bit different but it is not different at all.

Besides, hippyism and extreme pacifism are stupid(or at least impractical in this situation), why not join the armed forces if you needed a job? Sure there is death but at least you are dying for your country and not from anything else.

What did your friends major in?

i never said you were responsible for them (though you are). the decent thing would be to help them though.

oo, wow. dying for your country, wonderful. its always the people that never do that say its so wonderful. their is nothing great about dying for your country, and if you think their is, enlist and get yourself shot. its not extreme pacifism to refuse to join our army. extreme pacifism would be, i dunno, lying in front of a tank.

one of them did a joint history/theology degree. before you laugh out loud, and say he should have done dog maintainence or somesuch bullcrap, he could at least be expected to be able to get a job as a history or RE teacher, logically, and the fact he has a degree would qualify him for much else, regardless or results.

cant immediately remember t'other guys course.

What is wrong with that? You'd agree that poorer kids have less opportunities than richer kids, right? Joining the military is a great way for those poorer kids to get some of those opportunities that they'd otherwise not have. You get a job, experience, and contacts that will pay off later in life. Become an officer, and the military will pay for bachelors and masters level education.
Yes, I know, I'm heavily biased for the military. I have reason to be. The USAF has provided for my family for more than two decades, and provided well.

becasue its not fair that the military should be formed essentialy of poor people, fighting of the interests of the rich. maybe wed believe that our leaders beleivd in the war if it was their son on the front line, but no, its not and never is.

What is wrong with that? You'd agree that poorer kids have less opportunities than richer kids, right? Joining the military is a great way for those poorer kids to get some of those opportunities that they'd otherwise not have. You get a job, experience, and contacts that will pay off later in life. Become an officer, and the military will pay for bachelors and masters level education.
Yes, I know, I'm heavily biased for the military. I have reason to be. The USAF has provided for my family for more than two decades, and provided well.
It's the ethics of recruiting. The recruiters automatically go for the desperate and the poor, and they are ultimately forced into serving in the military. Not that serving in the military is bad, but I'm sure many of those kids would rather go one to get a higher education than fight in a war that I'm not going to get into right now. The benefits pay off only if you make it back home. Although there is a low chance of dying on active duty, I see all too often that another Arizonan was killed in combat and that they were aspiring to high levels and all those dreams abruptly ended.

Let me introduce this sad truth. Minorities tend not to do as well as rich white people. I do not know why this is but the minorities at my school are in regular classes for the most part while the white people and the asians are often in the honors classes. This does not mean that there is no intermingling because there are white people in regulars and minorities in honors. This implies for the most part that these people are not trying because at our school there does not appear to be any racism on the part of the students or the faculty. The fact is that the rich white people will have their college paid for by their parents or their own efforts while the minority students do not have rich parents nor do they look to the future and try to succeed quite as much for the most part.

let me introduce ths sad truth: the reason is that if your rich, your child can have a better upbringing, more books, toys and so forth. this encourages learning and mental development. therefore they end up on average smarter than the kids who sat in front of the TV and never moved for 12 years for lack of anything to do.

i can see your parents did a good job raising you. applause for them, everyone.

so you mean it is what happens when a man pressures and pressures a woman into having unprotected sex, then to stop him running away, she gets him to marry her? or when birth control fails?

religion is escapism. what is not escapist about dreaming of this fantasy land waiting for you in the next life after this shit life? religion is a crook of shit. if you think the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the burning of athiesists, the oppression of women and of men througout the ages as well as the current islamic terrorist atrocities, are all dignified, then yes religion is dignified. if however, you have a mind, you will see it clearly isnt. were those good examples of societal values? was the holding back of science, to the detriment of humankind?

i fail to see how that is mocking me, unless your trying to claim being poor is a mental illness, or something.

you say drug users are seeking pleasure. would they be seeking it if they found it in reaity? no they would not. so it is people who have no realistic access to pleasures that turn to them, as you say, poorer people.

i fail to see how you can claim to try not to be judgemental! you are the most judemental person i have ever met, as well as the worst.

your statement of how drug abuse starts off in people not doing well at school: they see (or think) they have no real future, which is fairly accurate, so they turn to escapes. hell, id do the same, bearing in mind alcohol is a drug.

to use your logic, the system fails them, becasue it is a bad system. it shouldnt go blaming others for its failings. it should change to fit them, just as you think people should struggle to fit it, surely?
Shotgun only means that the woman gets pregnant through some means due to premarital sex and therefore gets married to the person that impregnated her. It is mainly something that is for the baby as being a bastard carries negative connotations.

I still tend to disagree with you on the religion and I do not really care to argue that bullshit with you.

The goal in life is not necessarily pleasure and to be poor and doing drugs is to be a fool. I do not care about their reasoning, they are still morons. I think that the drug abuse is really more because of their environoment rather than any real lack of potential, these people often never apply themselves to the learning process.

I am less judgemental than that friend because she promoted drug use as a means of social darwinism and promoted the idea of social darwinism many times. That friend of mine was worse than I am I assure you, she even made jokes about the loser-types of the school and how they should be euthanized.

The system should change to fit them by tightening its grip and forcing them to succeed. More efforts should be taken to improve our education system and to make sure that people are successful. I have no problem with us putting a lot of money into getting people to work and to be contributing members of society. I just hate the members of society that do not contribute.

Shotgun only means that the woman gets pregnant through some means due to premarital sex and therefore gets married to the person that impregnated her. It is mainly something that is for the baby as being a bastard carries negative connotations.

I still tend to disagree with you on the religion and I do not really care to argue that bullshit with you.

The goal in life is not necessarily pleasure and to be poor and doing drugs is to be a fool. I do not care about their reasoning, they are still morons. I think that the drug abuse is really more because of their environoment rather than any real lack of potential, these people often never apply themselves to the learning process.

I am less judgemental than that friend because she promoted drug use as a means of social darwinism and promoted the idea of social darwinism many times. That friend of mine was worse than I am I assure you, she even made jokes about the loser-types of the school and how they should be euthanized.

The system should change to fit them by tightening its grip and forcing them to succeed. More efforts should be taken to improve our education system and to make sure that people are successful. I have no problem with us putting a lot of money into getting people to work and to be contributing members of society. I just hate the members of society that do not contribute.

certainly people who take heroin are fools, but most have the sense to want to stop. if you think drug use has a lot to do with environment, then surely it is a causal factor, and not therefore, entrely their fault! they didnt choose to be brought up in a bad environment, did they? and environment can cause lack of potential.

you seem fairly social darwinist to me. you seem to be the type for forced euthanasia, anyway.

tell me, how do you force someone to suceed? you cant. you can make them more likely to be interested in learning, whch requires them to have a nice environment and books, toys, and suchlike stuff to play aroud with as kids, something which social security and such could help provide which a shitly paid job could not. then after theyve had their good upbringing theyd be more likely to want to learn and such, and become functoning members of society, even if its because they know that unemployment is shit.
however, get rid of soclial security and such, and you take away this opportunity for them.

i dont see why you hate them, frankly. i dont mind people not working when i do.

let me introduce ths sad truth: the reason is that if your rich, your child can have a better upbringing, more books, toys and so forth. this encourages learning and mental development. therefore they end up on average smarter than the kids who sat in front of the TV and never moved for 12 years for lack of anything to do.
What about the asian population? Asians did not start out in America as a rich people yet they dominate our academics. I have an asian friend who was the product of his mother being raped by some guy in vietnam, he works hard has a high GPA and might consider engineering himself. He is not the type who would ever do drugs and is a very moral person.

Richness does not always mean intelligence. There are libraries to satisfy the want of books in people who can not afford them and there are all sorts of ways for people to get along and improve their station that do not involve giving every poor person a check. I would say that the poor have an adequate ability to improve their station. There is always the military, it is a very good option for those who could not otherwise go to college. I have not seen any amount of oppression created by capitalism, all I have seen are weak people who do not take advantage of the opportunities they are given.

Finally, I am not responsible, I am not indebted to them and they made their choices. I will not be a sponge for anyone especially not those who made their choices and so obviously made the wrong ones and they are independent enough to live without my family giving them money. I think that to give people like that money only enables them anyway.

certainly people who take heroin are fools, but most have the sense to want to stop. if you think drug use has a lot to do with environment, then surely it is a causal factor, and not therefore, entrely their fault! they didnt choose to be brought up in a bad environment, did they? and environment can cause lack of potential.

you seem fairly social darwinist to me. you seem to be the type for forced euthanasia, anyway.

tell me, how do you force someone to suceed? you cant. you can make them more likely to be interested in learning, whch requires them to have a nice environment and books, toys, and suchlike stuff to play aroud with as kids, something which social security and such could help provide which a shitly paid job could not. then after theyve had their good upbringing theyd be more likely to want to learn and such, and become functoning members of society, even if its because they know that unemployment is shit.
however, get rid of soclial security and such, and you take away this opportunity for them.

i dont see why you hate them, frankly. i dont mind people not working when i do.
You can force people to succeed by making it evident that the punishment for not doing so will be severe . People hate suffering and if they realize that the better path lies in doing what is taught to be right then they will do so. The only problem is that no one beats them into submission like they should(exaggeration of course). I am taking into account that environment is a factor, that is why I have repeatedly stated that I seek to get them to a point where they are employable by improving their education system and the like.

I do not support outright charity. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, give a man a choice between learning how to fish or letting him starve and you solve the problem of his needing fish from you. I do not care what is required to get these people to work but their weakness is disgusting, they should not be a drain on society, no one should be a drain on society(in the long run, I am not talking about kids and others that are in special categories).

What about the asian population? Asians did not start out in America as a rich people yet they dominate our academics. I have an asian friend who was the product of his mother being raped by some guy in vietnam, he works hard has a high GPA and might consider engineering himself. He is not the type who would ever do drugs and is a very moral person.

Richness does not always mean intelligence. There are libraries to satisfy the want of books in people who can not afford them and there are all sorts of ways for people to get along and improve their station that do not involve giving every poor person a check. I would say that the poor have an adequate ability to improve their station. There is always the military, it is a very good option for those who could not otherwise go to college. I have not seen any amount of oppression created by capitalism, all I have seen are weak people who do not take advantage of the opportunities they are given.

Finally, I am not responsible, I am not indebted to them and they made their choices. I will not be a sponge for anyone especially not those who made their choices and so obviously made the wrong ones and they are independent enough to live without my family giving them money. I think that to give people like that money only enables them anyway.

well, i cant comment on how asian people have done well (in some cases) because im not an american socioligist. perhaps its something to do with coming for a cultural background of collectivism as opposed to individualism, so each family memeber supports the others more. that would undoubtably elp.

i never said richness ment intelligence,and as far as i can tell, its the opposite. look at paris hilton. thing is though, whilst the libraries are their, being able to go to a library is different to being baby growing up in an environment of learning. most of the time, poorer families wont have the time to take their children to libraries, or wont see the point. if the latter, you can hardly say it is the babies fault they didnt go to the library and become an avid learner. again, back to the army again. their are reasons peopl wot joint he army, the main one being its the army, and your at war.

if you cant see whats around you then clearly your not very smart. i cant be arsed pointing out more than the cases that sping to mind: frstly, thiers coca colas hiring of mercenaries for executig trade union members in columbia (i think its clumbia), and subsequent intimidation of other workers into accepting lower wages. this keeps foreign workforce wages down. theirfore, workers back in your country can be told to lower wages, or lose their jb to a foreigner. either way, other bosses can use this as an excue to lower others wages, either "or well move it abroad" or "you wages are disproprtionately high compared to other peoples, so were lowerin it". the bosses wages however remain untouched, maybe even growing, which wdes the rich poor gap.

alternatively, theirs how all media outlet end up controlled by a handfull of people with very similar views.

or, how big copanies donate tobot democrats and republicans to ensure the legislation they want is put through, whlst the average guy cant afford these "donations".

theirs instances such as Bhopal, in india, a direct result of for profit industry cuting back on safety measures to save a few quid.

i could go on, but i cant be arse, its 6 in the morning.

yeah, it does enable them. to buy food, a house...

You can force people to succeed by making it evident that the punishment for not doing so will be severe . People hate suffering and if they realize that the better path lies in doing what is taught to be right then they will do so. The only problem is that no one beats them into submission like they should(exaggeration of course). I am taking into account that environment is a factor, that is why I have repeatedly stated that I seek to get them to a point where they are employable by improving their education system and the like.

I do not support outright charity. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, give a man a choice between learning how to fish or letting him starve and you solve the problem of his needing fish from you. I do not care what is required to get these people to work but their weakness is disgusting, they should not be a drain on society, no one should be a drain on society(in the long run, I am not talking about kids and others that are in special categories).

what, like the death penalty stops all crime you mean? you cant stop someone doing something if their environment forces them to.

yeah, but if you teach him how to fish, its no good firstly if he starves from lack of fish in the meantime, and second if you wont let him fish at he best spot, where all the fish are. also, they arent being a drain on society, because whilst they create nothing of real value, aside from possibly new people, equally ever penny they get in welfare goes back to the governemnt in tax eventually anyway. it equals out.

seriously though, you are talking like a fascist, and i mean mussolini style, proper fascism.

in which case... :mp5:

anyway, ive been arguing fo 6 hours, and i grow weary of your intolerence and idiocy. plus its half 6 i the morning where i am. so, ill answer your next stupid statement, then im gone.

EDIT: bugger this, im off to bed.

well, i cant comment on how asian people have done well (in some cases) because im not an american socioligist. perhaps its something to do with coming for a cultural background of collectivism as opposed to individualism, so each family memeber supports the others more. that would undoubtably elp.

i never said richness ment intelligence,and as far as i can tell, its the opposite. look at paris hilton. thing is though, whilst the libraries are their, being able to go to a library is different to being baby growing up in an environment of learning. most of the time, poorer families wont have the time to take their children to libraries, or wont see the point. if the latter, you can hardly say it is the babies fault they didnt go to the library and become an avid learner. again, back to the army again. their are reasons peopl wot joint he army, the main one being its the army, and your at war.

if you cant see whats around you then clearly your not very smart. i cant be arsed pointing out more than the cases that sping to mind: frstly, thiers coca colas hiring of mercenaries for executig trade union members in columbia (i think its clumbia), and subsequent intimidation of other workers into accepting lower wages. this keeps foreign workforce wages down. theirfore, workers back in your country can be told to lower wages, or lose their jb to a foreigner. either way, other bosses can use this as an excue to lower others wages, either "or well move it abroad" or "you wages are disproprtionately high compared to other peoples, so were lowerin it". the bosses wages however remain untouched, maybe even growing, which wdes the rich poor gap.

Whatever, my country is doing fine. If you do not wish to take a chance then don't, your life and death is your affair, just so long as I do not have to pay for either. I do not really care about your rantings about the flaws of capitalism, it does not seem to be failing right now and I do not really care about capitalism because I am not a real capitalist, I do not care how the economy works so long as it does and guess what? The American economy works, the soviet economy didn't, welfare for everyone is the dumbest economic strategy ever devised.

The asians succeed because they are told to succeed. If we try to instill that value in all of our Americans we probably would not have problems with these idiots. I do not care about how you view welfare programs to be good for society, bailing out the poor in such a manner is only enabling them to continue being stupid. We do not have a big employment problem, if you are unemployed there is always the armed forces and if you do not like your opportunities then TOUGH LUCK. I do not see welfare as being beneficial I can only see ways to enable the poor to be self-sufficient(and yes human beings can be self-sufficient if they get a good job and handle their money properly) and such ways usually require education and perhaps even punishment to motivate these people.

If you want a welfare state where no one has to work at all and we all can go around smoking on the bong then my response is to go fuck marx. Because that utopia is stupid. I am leaving this discussion.

I would rather let it die out. Social Security is a pyramid scheme that offers minimal returns, bloates the federal bureaucracy, and is a drain on individual income. You get zero return on your money, and benefits are minimal. If I was allowed to have only a private account, that would save me money, and guarantee a real return on my investment. We have to let it die for the sake of the economy, or at least partially privatise it. Like any government scheme, it's a lesson in failiure.

I, me, my, mine, me, my, me, mine, me, me, me, me, me, me...

Sad...

There is no need to do anything with Social Security at the moment. It will continue to pay out in full until 2050, and even after that, it will still pay 80% of the benefits. There is no crisis.

I am indifferent to the fate of people who refused to take advantage of their situation. Social Security is corrupt, socialist, beauracratic and pointless. One can get a better return by placing the money put into it into a bank. If people are too lazy to save for a retirement, then they should work for the remainder of their lives.

I support complete removal of this system that encourages lazyness and nonproductiveness.

The solution isn't as hard as everyone is making it out to be.

1) Get rid of the combined budget. SS surplus shouldn't be dumped into general funds.

2) Raise the retirement age. The average person died at age 65 when the plan was introduced.

3) Raise SS taxes.

The asians succeed because they are told to succeed.
Oooh...a social darwinist who uses racial differences in his arguing and is fiercely anti-communist.
And what do we call this, everyone?

I call it the future of the American Right-Wing...

I am leaving this discussion.

Oh come on you are giving me a great laugh.

I certainly hope you are over 50 because it's rather pathetic to be so nasty and cynical if you are young.

So I figure you are a young bible thumper who has views of the world and really hasn't gone out and done anything yet.

Well when you get out there, you will find people who just had some dumb bad luck.

You see making mistakes and having regrets are what give us our character. You don't have any because you really haven't done anything yet.

I have lived amoung both spectrums of humanity. I lived the poverty level and I lived the wealthy level. Well when I visit my sister(penthouse in Mahattan).

In my career I have met some rather wealthy people. I have gone to school with their children. A good percentage of these people I wouldn't allow them to wipe my dogs ass.

I have known some amazing people who have little or nothing. Two that come to mind are my old Priest and an farmer I once met. One was the kindest wisest soul I have ever known. The other the most brilliant. As he once said "Only thing to do in winter is read"

There is more to life then making money. Some realize that making a fortune means working to keep it and choose not to pursue it.

One piece of advice that you will probably ignore, find something you love to do. Money won't be a factor when you do find it.

Ahh well.

Now back to our regularly scheduled entertainment.

Not everyone agrees with you about Galveston. (http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-05socsec2.htm)
Despite what the SSA thinks of the program, it's hard to argue against the Time Value of Money. That pesky rule of 72s is fact, not speculation.

But, if you don't like Galveston as an example, then there is always the Federal Employees Retirement System to consider. That's another non-SSA program that seems to suit a few million participants. And you know what? There are low wage earners in that program, too. It's just not the confidence scheme that SS has become.

Personally, if I made 30k/year until retirement and I had the choice of putting my $3500/year retirement contribution in a government program that would pay me a $1200-$1300 a month or in an index fund that would double my money every 6-8 years, there is really no choice. So, personally, I do put 14%, or whatever the max is into my 401K. If you don't look out for yourself, no one else will.

But then I realize that someone only making 30K/year at the end of their working years hasn't had much ambition, anyway. That's only $15/hr. You have to actually try and try hard to avoid making more than that after 40 to 50 years of work. Maybe they would be satisfied with their $1200-$1300/month from the government. Good thing the country isn't populated with a majority of folks like that.

Money would enable me to do what I want to do. I will try to get money and to keep a high percentage of it(I do not like spending money). With my saved up earnings I will be able to retire and the like, this includes doing whatever I want to do. Money is not the most important thing in the world but it comes very close.

I see mistakes and regrets as they are, problems that need to be rectified and/or learned from. A mistake is not an indelible mark that needs to stick with a person for life, only an error that needs to be surpassed.

The asian comment is sort of true. The asian population is very successful and this is mostly because of their attitudes towards success. I am actually slightly alligned with the left when it comes to economics. I want an efficient economy even if it does require state ownership and maximum wage limits as well as progressive tax on income, I also see the economy's purpose as to provide employment for society and to provide for society's needs rather than being a monster with a life of its own. Is it not fair that I would also ask that people actually do work for their money? I do not support a welfare state at all because I think that people should have to work for their money. I also tend to have difficulty seeing why people shouldn't just save their own money for their retirement. After all, if we have another crash then everyone is screwed and the government has to intervene no matter what.

After all, if we have another crash then everyone is screwed and the government has to intervene no matter what.
There won't be another crash. That was part of FDR's New Deal. It's called the SEC, if the market drops 150 points in 24 hours, it closes. Also, the FDIC insures deposits up to $100,000 so if there is a crisis in the market, and people go to get money, they'll get something; it won't be loaned out to someone else who invested in the stock market and is now broke like what happened last time.

There won't be another crash. That was part of FDR's New Deal. It's called the SEC, if the market drops 150 points in 24 hours, it closes. Also, the FDIC insures deposits up to $100,000 so if there is a crisis in the market, and people go to get money, they'll get something; it won't be loaned out to someone else who invested in the stock market and is now broke like what happened last time.
I did not think that the market would crash, but some individuals would probably say something about how the market can not be contolled.

Really, I think our economy is somewhat stable. Other people may not think the same however so I was just covering my behind.

Because it's my money and I'm going to spend it however I like until I die, right? Those poor people should've gotten rich while they had the chance. Even though I have no idea what their life was like and if they even had a chance or not, I say that they had a chance and they didn't take advantage of it. And their poor family members should help them too. It's their fault for not getting rich and worshipping money.

Aye. I feel sorry for no one other than the ultra-rich, knowing that the poverty rate is decreasing despite growing ignorance in America, and knowing that they are the ones who are providing the wealth to create this lifestyle.

you, sir/madam, are an arsehole.
Aye, forcing people to surrender their money to the unproductive is moral behavior, and all those who want to keep what they worked for are simple fools.

you say drug users are seeking pleasure. would they be seeking it if they found it in reaity? no they would not. so it is people who have no realistic access to pleasures that turn to them, as you say, poorer people.
People don't have a right to pleasures, they must earn them through back-breaking labor. I feel no pity for poor drug users.

I, me, my, mine, me, my, me, mine, me, me, me, me, me, me...

Sad...

What I earned is yours.
Sad to me...

I do not think that there is anything wrong with being responsible for your own life and its workings. If I work and get whatever money, that is a good thing, sure I should yield some to help better society but I should not have to pay for someone who does not want to work. If I am having problems succeeding then I should apply myself to something, there are opportunities to get more education, there are opportunities to get jobs including the armed force(not the best job but I should not be responsible for you not taking advantage of your opportunities). Is thinking that it is wrong to be giving something to someone who does nothing a sin? Is wanting to relax and not do any work while subsisting on welfare a virtue?
(the correct answer should be no :) )