To Social Security Privatization Supporters

[caspian88]

Quote by: Scribbler1 As for the constant drone of "end SS", "end SS" I keep hearing, I can't believe there are stiil intelligent Americans with that knee-jerk "all or nothing" mindset. It always seems that pork is not a problem with right-wingers, only "liberal" pork. After a lifetime of hearing the term "christian charity" I can't hear the word "charity" without automatically associating it with the usually unspoken "christian" as well. Now it seems the right-wing, which wants us to think they have an exclusive franchise on Christianity and morality, wants to eliminate SS because it is a government sponsored "charity". Aside from the fact that it is NOT a charity, their attitude is decidedly unchristian in the extreme. I can picture the so-called Christians standing at the pearly gates watching St. Peter go over the old clipboard and ask, "hey Bud, didn't you say 'let them starve' a few years back?" "Well, yeah I did but...er...um" "Next!" And for those why do not profess to be Christians but want to completely drop SS on the grounds that it is welfare, while you may not directly pay for your own benefits it is still NOT welfare. You don't pay for your own because you are not retired. But the next guy pays for you and the one after pays for him. It's a FUND and not a savings account. When you whine about your tax money going to anyone, just TRY and figure where YOUR part of the fund went. We MUST clean uo SS and take out some of these unnecessary add-ons, but if the right-wing is so outraged about THEIR hard-earned tax dollars going to welfare they might want to focus on other government giveaways that benefit only a few instead of a necessary and fixable program which benefits a LOT of people.

1. Pork is a big problem, being immoral and unconstitutional. Every member of the government who willingly adds pork or votes for a bill with pork in it should be impeached, if not shot.

2. Charity is for religious people and generous people. I am neither and shall stay that way, and I don't feel that I should be forced to pay for anyone else's well-being. I could care less where my money went - it went to other people, directly in violation of the Constitution and my right to do with my property what I wish. If people are too poor to live when they reach retirement age, tough luck. You should have thought about that beforehand and saved your money, invested it in the bank or the stock market, etc. You should have gotten a better job that earned more money. Your poverty is entirely your fault. As such, I should not be subsidizing you.

3. I focus on every unconstitutional act. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them.

4. Why is SS necessary? You being poor is your own fault. We live in a society where you can work your way up. Get a good job, work harder, don't invest heavily in ice farms, etc etc etc. People make enough money to retire on all of the time. Do what they did.

[bishop]

do you have any factual evidence showing that people living in poverty are there by their own fault?

what about when shit happens?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: caspian88 4. Why is SS necessary? You being poor is your own fault. We live in a society where you can work your way up. Get a good job, work harder, don't invest heavily in ice farms, etc etc etc. People make enough money to retire on all of the time. Do what they did.

First of all you seem to be confusing Social Security with welfare. People pay INTO SS specifically, but nobody specifically pays into welfare and welfare has NOTHING to do with retirement or old age.
I think your attitude is exactly why we NEED Social Security. It's just cheap talk to say we can rely on private charities because for one thing the private charities are stretched pretty thin as it is WITHOUT having anything else dumped on them. For another thing, the stuff I've been reading here tells me that if SS was abolished you and the others who share your attitude wouldn't come up off a DIME to help these people. The "private charity" cop out is false from the get go.

[caspian88]

Quote by: Scribbler1 First of all you seem to be confusing Social Security with welfare. People pay INTO SS specifically, but nobody specifically pays into welfare and welfare has NOTHING to do with retirement or old age. I think your attitude is exactly why we NEED Social Security. It's just cheap talk to say we can rely on private charities because for one thing the private charities are stretched pretty thin as it is WITHOUT having anything else dumped on them. For another thing, the stuff I've been reading here tells me that if SS was abolished you and the others who share your attitude wouldn't come up off a DIME to help these people. The "private charity" cop out is false from the get go.

As far as I'm concerned, SS is welfare. The government takes my money and pays you with it. Eventually, I might get some of my money back, but otherwise, I'm basically paying my money and getting no benefit out of it. The government keeps my money and gives some back later.

I could make the argument that the KKK is why we need to have total fascism and 1984 style surveillence. That doesn't make it right, but it sure solves a problem. SS is the same thing. What is the problem? People invest badly. They don't save their money in banks. They don't save it in a shoebox at home. They spend it on a plasma TV, or an Alaskan cruise. They didn't work hard enough and finish high school, so they have no job. They didn't go to college, and have a bad job. The "shit happens" argument doesn't work. What are we talking about? Did you get laid off? Go train yourself and get a job. Your investment fell through? Tough luck. Name a situation where you losing your money wasn't your fault. Go ahead, name a legitimate circumstance where you losing your money is your fault.

Being poor is your own fault. I can't think of a situation where you being poor is the fault of someone else. You can always get yourself out of a rut. If you choose not to, that's your own problem.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: caspian88 As far as I'm concerned, SS is welfare. The government takes my money and pays you with it. Eventually, I might get some of my money back, but otherwise, I'm basically paying my money and getting no benefit out of it. The government keeps my money and gives some back later.

I suppose it doesn't matter how many times this is repeated. The only thing correct about your opinion is that if I am older by a generation than you WILL pay into the fund that pays me when I retire. I have ALREADY paid for the generation before me. YOU will be paid by the generation AFTER you. And when you DO collect, you-get-what-you-pay-into-it. If you pay nothing you get nothing.
The money goes into a fund and you get the benefit when it is your time to get it.

Did you get laid off? Go train yourself and get a job. Your investment fell through? Tough luck. Name a situation where you losing your money wasn't your fault.

Oh let's see, being laid off when your job that you've had for 40-50 years is outsourced. Then you have to spend all your savings to keep things going until you run out because humanitarians like you insist they don't owe society a dime. I think that qualifies as one example, and it's not the only one.
You're spoiled rotten, that's all. A lot of us are. Everything that makes this country great was built and paid for by people before you. You contributed NOTHING and now you want it all and to hell with the people who actually paid into it. Growing this country was a slow process and was paid for by a lot of people over time, and none of them you, so the next time you cry about the government picking on you you might want to think about that.
You want to be fair about it, why not advocate YOU paying your way and abolish SS for the next generation. Somehow I doubt you'd go for that.

Being poor is your own fault. I can't think of a situation where you being poor is the fault of someone else. You can always get yourself out of a rut. If you choose not to, that's your own problem.

Sometimes that is quite true, but who decides which case is legitimate and which is not? You?

[caspian88]

1. I do advocate abolishing SS for my generation. I could care less about it. If my investments fail, sucks for me. At least we don't have a socialistic government stealing my money. My fairness system involves everyone who has paid in gets all of their money back, adjusted for inflation. But no one ever needs to pay in again. The government gives back what it stole, illegally. And it stops stealing.

2. The legitimacy argument is in the eye of the beholder. Name a situation, and we'll see if I can't prove, or at least make a damn convincing argument, that that was that person's fault.

[Pooeypants]

Caspian, is there any reason for you to live in a society and benefit from the sharing of resources? Sounds like you want to be a hermit, after all, they pay no taxes at all!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: caspian88 1. I do advocate abolishing SS for my generation. I could care less about it. If my investments fail, sucks for me. At least we don't have a socialistic government stealing my money. My fairness system involves everyone who has paid in gets all of their money back, adjusted for inflation. But no one ever needs to pay in again. The government gives back what it stole, illegally. And it stops stealing.

It needs fixing. There's no argument there. I just feel there are a lot of hard cases out there who don't believe we should all, as a society show a little charity to those deserving. I don't see it that way.
Maybe you could focus some of that outrage on some of the OTHER government handouts. Did you think it was worth the government "stealing" from you when they gave an unsecured $5 Billion-dollar loan to Saddam Hussein just prior to desert storm? How about paying farmers not to grow crops?

2. The legitimacy argument is in the eye of the beholder. Name a situation, and we'll see if I can't prove, or at least make a damn convincing argument, that that was that person's fault.

I just did. I don't see where I need to provide a specific instance (which will probably be ignored) but offshoring has hurt a LOT of people and caused them to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I'm not talking about the under 30 group who still have a working life in front of them but people who lose their jobs in their 50's and can't get another because of their age. They must deplete their savings, sell their homes and/or stocks and often wind up with nothing except SS to live on. How can you say this is the person's fault?

And Enron is another REAL example. People worked hard and saved and were hosed by the company big shots for their hard work and loyalty. Can you defend THAT situation?

And about those stocks I keep hearing about. How about stocks (your nest egg for retirement) that become worthless overnight?

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Maybe you could focus some of that outrage on some of the OTHER government handouts. Did you think it was worth the government "stealing" from you when they gave an unsecured $5 Billion-dollar loan to Saddam Hussein just prior to desert storm? How about paying farmers not to grow crops?

Although this may be in reference to another post that caspian88 made which would lead you to believe that he is a Republican (which I didn't see), you shouldn't assume that supporting the abolition (or partial-privatization) of Social Security is evidence that somebody is a Republican or a conservative. I support the complete abolition of Social Security and I am neither of those things.

I don't think it's too surprising that a person who opposes Social Security would also oppose farm subsidies and foreign aid. I don't understand why you ask him to focus on other government handouts in a discussion about privatizing Social Security. I didn't see where you made the logical connection between the other government transfer-payment programs you mentioned and the arguments in support of privatizing Social Security.

[bishop]

the issue as i see it is that while there seems to be broad agreement that something needs to be done about social security, people are wary of changing the system and screwing those who've paid into it in the process. society has proven time and time again that it's willing to pay for programs that serve the public good, to an extent of course. i take libertarian ramblings about the socialist government stealing their money with a grain of salt. libertarians have virtually no support nation wide, as evidenced by LP performance in presidential elections. hell, the greens have more support than the LP does.

i think the reason why scribbler asked him about farm subsidies and the like is because while bush is looking to screw retirees, and future retirees, israel's still getting their welfare check, and farmers are still being paid billions not to produce... and screw them he most certainly will.. for all the big talk about his prescription drug plan, it included no clauses regarding drug prices, so pharmaceutical companies simply increased prices so that they could eat up these drug cards, while still milking the same amount from consumers. all at the cost of the american public.

would you agree that given bush's past performance, one is justified in doubting his plan to reform social security? btw.. this "reform" agenda is jose pinera's brainchild, not bush's. this jose pinera has quite the shady background... are you ready for pinochet styled privatization?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit Although this may be in reference to another post that caspian88 made which would lead you to believe that he is a Republican (which I didn't see), you shouldn't assume that supporting the abolition (or partial-privatization) of Social Security is evidence that somebody is a Republican or a conservative. I support the complete abolition of Social Security and I am neither of those things.

Actually, the only time I even mentioned right-wingers was a day and a half ago, and the post wasn't directed at you or caspian anyway, so I wasn't applying any labels to either of you. But I do think the right wing is the most vocal about eliminating SS. However, I see this as a matter of decency and charity and political party means nothing in this case.

I don't think it's too surprising that a person who opposes Social Security would also oppose farm subsidies and foreign aid. I don't understand why you ask him to focus on other government handouts in a discussion about privatizing Social Security. I didn't see where you made the logical connection between the other government transfer-payment programs you mentioned and the arguments in support of privatizing Social Security.

I see this argument as plainly one-sided, which is why I suggested a little concern about other things. I keep hearing about "stealing my money" and "welfare" almost exclusively when Social Security or other entitlement program is discussed and NOT when other government giveaways are brought up. This shows a lot more than supporting fiscal responsibility. It shows a distinct snobbery toward those Americans less fortunate and a blatant callousness toward those people while paying no heed to massive giveaways to business and foreign countries.
If you or caspian want to appear more evenhanded and avoid just looking mean spirited and greedy, a more across the board condemnation of unfair taxes would work. I don't recall either of you doing that at any time. If you have posted against OTHER entitlements, my apologies of course. Forgive me if I'm wrong but for that reason it just looks as if you don't really have a problem with welfare unless it is for the individual and not for the rich and powerful. Of course, you can post as you wish but that is the vibe I'm getting here.

Again, I believe SS does indeed need fixing but not the way Bush is pushing it and I certainly don't want to see it eliminated, unless you actually KNOW of any charities which will take up the slack. My reasons for wanting it kept have been stated and I have yet to hear one solid argument against them.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop i take libertarian ramblings about the socialist government stealing their money with a grain of salt. libertarians have virtually no support nation wide, as evidenced by LP performance in presidential elections. hell, the greens have more support than the LP does.

That premise doesn't support your conclusion. You need to prove a connection between Libertarian Party support and the morality/economic theory involved in keeping or abolishing Social Security. The fact that not many people vote for LP candidates (I'm no fan of the LP myself) hardly proves that Social Security is not theft.

[bishop]

when i characterized it as "libertarian ramblings" i was referring to the statement that social security is some sort of theft. whether or not it's theft isn't something i feel is worth debating, but society's views on the issue are worth debating (imo). society has proven that it will accept paying into a system that can help them when they retire.

personally, i would like to see the system abolished, but i also want to ensure that retirees get what they were promised, and i will not accept $2 trillion in transitory debt. plus, since we've seen that corporate scandals can ruin someone's retirement savings, i would advocate something tantamount to fdic for all retirement accounts. to encourage savings, i would also like to see the government offer to match deposits (up to 3-4%) like virtually all major companies do with their 401k plans - using funds derived from income taxes and cutting wasteful spending (especially foreign aid to countries in the middle east).

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Actually, the only time I even mentioned right-wingers was a day and a half ago, and the post wasn't directed at you or caspian anyway, so I wasn't applying any labels to either of you.

The "right-wing"was the only connection I could make. Otherwise, I don't see how somebody opposing Social Security would lead you to believe that the person supports farm subsidies. Please tell me what the connection is, if not the Republican Party.

Quote by: Scribbler1 I keep hearing about "stealing my money" and "welfare" almost exclusively when Social Security or other entitlement program is discussed and NOT when other government giveaways are brought up.

Are you refering to threads that I never even posted in? If so, that would be kind of silly.

When the discussion is Social Security, I will respond that I think it's immoral and funded by theft. When the discussion is farm subsidies, I will respond the same way. I never said anything that contradicted this.

Quote by: Scribbler1 It shows a distinct snobbery toward those Americans less fortunate and a blatant callousness toward those people while paying no heed to massive giveaways to business and foreign countries.

You never asked my my position on massive giveaways to business and foreign countries. If you never saw what I had to say about these things, by what means did you conclude what my position was on them? It seems like a baseless assumption to me.

Quote by: Scribbler1 If you or caspian want to appear more evenhanded and avoid just looking mean spirited and greedy, a more across the board condemnation of unfair taxes would work. I don't recall either of you doing that at any time.

The fact that I haven't yet had a chance to state my opposition to something hardly means that I support it. For example; I wouldn't infer that, since I personally have never seen you make a post denouncing the Nazi Party, that you must support fascism. Especially if I have seen you make posts that contradict that conclusion. That would be irrational of me.

And you must not have been paying very close attention to the very discussion that you are making claims about. If you had looked into it before making your accusations, then you would have seen that in this thread, a mere four days ago and in response to your quote, I said;

"The issue should not be limited to abolishing SS. The discussion should be on the abolishment of all government transfer-payment programs."

If that's not enough to clue you in to the fact that I am opposed to all government transfer-payment programs and not just Social Security, then I don't know what is.

Quote by: Scribbler1 If you have posted against OTHER entitlements, my apologies of course.

Apology accepted.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Forgive me if I'm wrong but for that reason it just looks as if you don't really have a problem with welfare unless it is for the individual and not for the rich and powerful. Of course, you can post as you wish but that is the vibe I'm getting here.

It "looks as if [i] don't really have a problem with welfare unless it is for the individual and not for the rich and powerful?" How does it look that way? Show me the evidence that lead you to that conclusion.

Isn't that a rule around here? Allegations to the truth should be accompanied by a source? I don't accept your "vibes" as logical evidence- especially when they involved making (baseless) accusations against me.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop whether or not it's theft isn't something i feel is worth debating, but society's views on the issue are worth debating (imo).

Really? I feel just the opposite.

Whether or not Social Security is theft is the most important issue in this discussion. Morality isn't determined by majority opinion. The objectivity of the theft involved in Social Security is regardless to whether or not people realize/acknowledge it.

Quote by: bishop society has proven that it will accept paying into a system that can help them when they retire.

Is "accepting" it the same as doing it voluntarily? If so, then government-run Social Security isn't needed. It would be done just the same voluntarily, if your claim is true. If not, then why should people be forced to give their money to a cause that they would not give to voluntarily?

[bishop]

how about that they voluntarily accept the system and thus, they accept a portion of their total taxes going towards that system? judging by the public outcry over bush's "reform" agenda, it seems safe to say that the public supports the system - which entails being taxed to support the system.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop how about that they voluntarily accept the system and thus, they accept a portion of their total taxes going towards that system? judging by the public outcry over bush's "reform" agenda, it seems safe to say that the public supports the system - which entails being taxed to support the system.

Wouldn't this then mean that they would voluntarily give that same portion of their paycheck to a private charity?

Even regardless- most importantly, the fact that the majority of people support the system does not justify the theft involved in funding it. Even if I were the only person in the country who opposed giving a portion of my paycheck to fund Social Security, why should I be forced to give away my money to this cause that I wouldn't give to if I were not forced? How does the fact that the majority of people support this procedure mean that it is not theft?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit You never asked my my position on massive giveaways to business and foreign countries. If you never saw what I had to say about these things, by what means did you conclude what my position was on them? It seems like a baseless assumption to me.

More like an educated guess based on your boiler-plate rhetoric concerning this issue. I'm pretty sure opinions are allowed here and I never implied otherwise.

And you must not have been paying very close attention to the very discussion that you are making claims about. If you had looked into it before making your accusations, then you would have seen that in this thread, a mere four days ago and in response to your quote, I said; "The issue should not be limited to abolishing SS. The discussion should be on the abolishment of all government transfer-payment programs."

That is true, and I apologize fr lumping you in with the other guy. BTW, the post you responded to was not aimed at you, so anything I said of a personal natire in IT was not for you so getting defensive is unnecessary.

Isn't that a rule around here? Allegations to the truth should be accompanied by a source? I don't accept your "vibes" as logical evidence- especially when they involved making (baseless) accusations against me.

Opinions, or the resulting conclusions drawn from them are not "logical evidence" for anything. They are opinions and you should understand this. Just as your "truth" is your opinion and one I don't share.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit Wouldn't this then mean that they would voluntarily give that same portion of their paycheck to a private charity?

Do you honestly believe the people who oppose SS would voluntarily pay for it, PARTICULARLY those who think the people who recieve it are themselves to blame for their situation?
It would seem to be against human nature to vehemently oppose something run by the government and then offer to pay for it voluntarily.
For the good of society, perhaps some people SHOULD be compelled to pitch in.

[bishop]

Wouldn't this then mean that they would voluntarily give that same portion of their paycheck to a private charity? Even regardless- most importantly, the fact that the majority of people support the system does not justify the theft involved in funding it. Even if I were the only person in the country who opposed giving a portion of my paycheck to fund Social Security, why should I be forced to give away my money to this cause that I wouldn't give to if I were not forced? How does the fact that the majority of people support this procedure mean that it is not theft?

that is why i felt that discussing whether/not it's theft is a worthless debate. at the end of the day, it's the fact that the public either supports or opposes the system that really matters. do i see it as theft? not really because i'm fine with being taxed for programs that benefit the public good. will people voluntarily give the money to charity instead? i doubt it, i have little faith in people who call taxation theft, voluntarily giving that money to charity. it's a nice cliche people use, but if faced with the option, i think most people would be greedy and keep it to themselves.

if you were the one person in the country opposed to it, i'd say "too bad, the majority has already decided.". just gotta swallow those apples like we've had to swallow the fact that we have 4 more years of king shit to suffer through.