Main Forums > The Roundtable
social security
Unisaw:
bountyhunter,
--- Quote --- It is socialistic welfare, but it may also be necessary in a society with a conscience filled with people who are fiscally irrational.
--- Quote ---
This is a problem. You are advocating using the force of government to take from those who did plan ahead and give to those who didn't. I don't have any problem doing that voluntarily, but a government taking is another matter.
bountyhunter:
Your point is valid: it is taking money from people who can pay (and as you say, planned better or were more successful in life) and giving it to people who were not. My point is: the government does that all the time for the greater good. I pay horrendous property taxes to support schools even though I have no kids. I pay taxes to support a war I knew was unnecessary (that is wrong as well).
So, there would be nothing new in taking taxes "without consent" and using it to keep dummies from starving.. I think that is basically what SS was conceived to be in overall principle, and I think it's OK to do that.
Fly320s:
Bounty, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
I understand your point about taxes being taken for causes that people find unfair; the government has plenty of those out there. I just can't agree that one person's money should be taken to be given directly to another.
Taxes for military and infrastrucure and even space exploration have some benefit to us all. Taxes for welfare don't. You could make the argument that keeping people fed and housed will keep them off of the streets and less likely to commit crimes to support themselves, but people should be doing that for themselves. At least the taxes going to the "general good" of infrastructure, et al., are paying for items that can be used by everyone. I can't get any money from the welfare or SS program.
--- Quote ---In the real world even upper middle class are living check to check carrying masive credit debt.
That is 100% their fault. No excuses can deflect the blame. I am in the upper middle class (I think; where's the cutoff?) and have only my house payment as credit debt. If I can do it; you can do it.
At the time Social Security was introduced, what percentage of the US population was poor/homeless/qualified for SS or Welfare.
Today, after all these years of social programs, what are the percentages? Really, I'm just curious; not trying to prove a point.
bountyhunter:
--- Quote ---Bounty, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
OK
--- Quote ---I just can't agree that one person's money should be taken to be given directly to another.The government does it all the time. We even pay taxes to give schooling and medical care to illegal aliens in our state. If you live on a border, you do too.
--- Quote ---
Taxes for military and infrastrucure and even space exploration have some benefit to us all. Taxes for welfare don't. That's been debated since the dan of time. Some claim welfare is responsible fior specific minority groups not advancing. I think guaranteeing a baseline income for old people is an OK use of my taxes.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---In the real world even upper middle class are living check to check carrying masive credit debt.
That is 100% their fault. No excuses can deflect the blame. It's not that simple. Some people get into trouble without it being 100% their fault. A woman marries a guy and has three kids... he dumps her and she finds out he left her owing back taxes. She is broke and the kids should starve? I don't think so. I have no problem "taking from some to give to others", but I admit the agencies don't do a good enough job differentiating who should get help.
--- Quote ---If I can do it; you can do it. I can do it, my point is not everybody starts at the same point and should not all be measured with a single yardstick.
--- Quote ---
Today, after all these years of social programs, what are the percentages? Really, I'm just curious; not trying to prove a point. I don't know about today, but I studied it back in high school (1970) and I was FLOORED to find out 40% of the families receiving AFDC (aid to families with dependent children, ie welfare) in kali had at least one parent working 40 hours a week or more... but at minimum wage so they could not live on it. I was a good old redneck back then and figured everybody on welfare was some fat-butt lazy woman popping out kids like crazy... maybe some are, but a lot of people getting welfare were busting their asses and still qualified.
As a matter of fact: we qualified for AFDC when we moved to Kali, because my father had just retired at full colonel after 30 in the Air Force. I think his retirement pay was maybe $650/month (?) back in 1966. For a family of six in kali, that qualified for AFDC back then. My parents would never take it because for them, being "on the dole" was the ultimate disgrace. So, he went straight out and got another job... that's how he spent his retirement: working until a heart attack dropped him and made him 100% disabled at age 57.
Summary: not everybody on "welfare" is a deadbeat.
Sean Smith:
--- Quote ---The government does it all the time.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the government doesn't do it all the time, they are arguing that it is WRONG to do so. Not the same thing.
--- Quote ---Summary: not everybody on "welfare" is a deadbeat.
True, but it doesn't follow that therefore welfare should exist. Just because some of the people who benefit from a program aren't scum doesn't mean that it is a good program, or that any program like it should exist at all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version