Lengo: Its not the states job to baby its citizens. The states purpose is to maintain order and national security and conduct forigen affairs. It is social responsibility but the state isn't the one who should implement it. Supporting the poor should be based on charity and the willful action of the people. If your on welfare your obviously not able to support yourself by your own means and therefore don't give much back. Its a drain on society. I shouldn't have to pay taxes just so someone who doesn't can live their lives. By giving people money for nothing your giving them no encouragement to work. Why should they? Social Security is broken. More people are taking money out of it as the US population grows older and fewer people are paying into it. In 40 years when I'm old enough to collect Social Security the system will probably be bankrupt. Why should I pay into it for 40 years when I'll recieve nothing for my charity? In 2020 projections say people taking money out of Social Security will exceed those paying into it. Thus the system becomes bankrupt. Its a flawed system simple as that. As far as me needing Welfare? Unlikely. There will never be a shortage of need for computer sciences. Not for a long time. Demand for such jobs is up and will be up for awhile. Besides, if I needed to I'd join the army to get by. I've got no problem with that. Free bed, free food, and having been an army brat I'm well equiped for it, especially since I wanted to be a soldier long before I wanted to be a computer programmer. If I get disabled? As long as I don't lose my arms or my eyes I can still be a computer programmer. If I lose either of those I can assure you my family, being old fashioned as it is, will take the responsibilty to care for me just like we did for my grand parents and great grand parents until their death(s). We don't need the government to do it for us, we take care of our own. I wouldn't even be unable to give back depending on the severity of the disability. There are alot of kids in my family, much younger than me, as long as I'm concious I'm capable of helping in some way with homework, life troubles, or just watching while their parents are off. If I'm not concious? Well, I've already left specific instructons concerning such matters. Its not the governments job to do these things. You're going to tell me that if the government suspended all welfare prgrams tomarrow we wouldn't have hundreds of charity organizations popping up to help? The people are those socially responsible not the government who should have other issues to worry about. I'm tired of everyone complaining about poverty when there is an education crisis, immigration problems, and a war to fight. The government's job is to protect and serve, not to cater and provide for every need. Its not their business. Government should only provide law enforcement, and method of providing punishment for those found guilty, the maintainance of a standing military force to defend the nation, and to serve as a liazon for the American people to foriegn nations. We have an education crisis, but I think society is capable of educating itself without government intervention so I don't see why the government has to do that either. Everything else is not their business.
There already are hundreds of charitable organizations. They can't affford to pay people's rents. They can only do so much. And many of them take away a person's autonomy. People are on disability roles because they can't work. Do you know how hard it is to qualify? It's incredibly difficult! It takes over a year, and during that time you can't make any income in order qualify. Once you do, there are incentives to get you back to work. These are in place to 1. Test the water, and 2. To get you back on your feet. These vaporize, however, if you use them up. Still, you can earn x amount of money and still get disability benefits. Over that x, you can still recieve partial benefits and you have to pay taxes. These are all in place so that you can return to the workforce if you can. However, many can't. They cannot work! They can't keep regular hours. They can't report on time. They can't perform when expected. Yeah, they can contribute, but they'll never satisfy an employer. SSD benefits are minimal. I know some people that get less than $800 a month. This is no gravy train! These people hate thier condition. They live in the poorest neigborhoods. Their landlords are slumlords. And they lose all their autonomy -- the other agencies, either government based or faith based, place requirements on them, yet they can't keep these appointments either, and the stress literally is killing them. They get their apartments inspected. They have dress codes, and time schedules. These are the poorest of the poor who are not homeless. You are required to have a street address to get Social Security Disability or SDI! Rents are putting these people in dire straits. And no church can afford to pay rents for 5% of the population. They simply don't have the money! Now, how are you gonna loan these people money? They can't even afford to pay their rents? And they do pay back. Staying home all the time is totally boring. Many of them volunteer their time. This gets them out of the house, and they can call in sick without fear of punishment. Some work in hospitals. Some work in museums. Some work for shelters, and second hand clothing stores. And they have other gifts to share. They teach on the internet. They have their own websites. Others help out on message boards, and offer up teaching materials or good advice. Some help others like them. Others help people who have all the opportunities in the world! Then again, some do nothing. Those people have little self respect left, and don't have the understanding or IQ to get it back, and I gauranty you that they don't like themselves very much. A totally Faith based welfare system does not work. It is inadequate. Likewise, a totally government based welfare system does not work -- there's too much beaurocracy which sucks up the dollars. Both kinds of welfare are needed. Did Faith based welfare work during the 30s? Not very well! And most of the recipients are not sitting on their butts all day drinking whiskey. They can't afford it! They are honest people who struggle through the beurocracy, depend on many others, and are willing to give what they can back. You can't and shouldn't equate it all in dollars and cents. And don't, for a minute, think that Social Security will dry up. The government can't afford that! That would be more detrimental to our society than to leave it in place. It does need streamlining, and that will happen. But you will not be left out in the cold. It would be far too embarassing for the Feds to let that happen. They will overhaul it and repair it (hopefully). After all, we keep saying we're the greatest nation in the world. Could we make that claim if people were dying in the streets? No. And as a nation, we couldn't live with ourselves. And those who are not disabled would be outraged! Wouldn't you? Or would you tell the police to 'get that bum outta my neighborhood'? There are entire books on this subject. It's a very complicated thing. There's a lot of room for improvements in the system, because there's a lot of problems with it. And likewise, there's a lotta problems with the human condition. Some people are dumber'n a stump! A lot of people, even though they're working, don't know how to invest their money for retirement, and there's plenty of people that would (and already do) take advantage of them. There's many things to consider. Nobody has a good answer. We can only move forward in small steps. Claiming it's not government's job takes a blind eye at the situation. So, don't worry -- there'll be money in the system for you when you need it. But start saving right away. You'll need plenty of money to retire, and plenty more if you're forced to retire because you become disabled prematurely. Thank goodness that there's some help from the government. Paying a small percentage of your income for this insurance is a good thing. But if you think you need more insurance, go out and buy some. You can afford it! SSD recipients buy all thier clothes at Walmart and second hand stores, or they take handouts; they forget about buying a late model car and the necessary insurance, and many of them ride the bus; they choose one but not both if they can afford it -- an internet connection or cable tv; they go out to dinner once per month if they're lucky; and they forget about the latest computer games, iPods, stereos, GPS gizmos, vacations in Europe (or even in the next county), and absolutely forget about getting a loan for anything! They can't afford payments on a loan! This is the way SSD recipients live. Do you really have it all that bad after the government takes what, 15% of your income? You can still save and have a lot more than SSD recipients do. If SSD recipients can get by, surely working people (the national average income is now about $44,000) can while paying SS premiums. Now doesn't it feel good to know that you're doing your part to help, and if something happens to you, you have some coverage? You're getting something for your money: There are few people on the streets -- far fewer (including dead ones) than there would be if there was no social security! SS is at least keeping your neighorhood cleaner, and you're helping make this happen. Be proud.
Hmm. I see your points Lengo, well played. Of course as with any debate no one changes their position but you've certainly beaten me when it comes to supporting your viewpoint. One comment: Not once in my life have I ever sat back and "hoped" for something. Hope is pointless. Get up and do something about it (Which I do). That's all I got.
I could spend ages counter pointing different things you said, but I don’t think we will end up agreeing and it’s a nice sunny day , so here are just a few points. -You say US is one of the successful countries – of course in wealth and power it is I won’t argue with that, but in inequality and social problems I am not so sure. -I’m pretty sure that most, if not all western European countries have better health care systems than the US? I do think that the government will do the job better although of course not perfect, they are accountable to us, whereas private business is after what is more profitable. Private business tends to create inequalities and I don’t think this is right when it comes to someone’s health. I also don’t think welfare in the health service destroys competition completely as various pharmaceutical companies compete over who can provide a drug at cheapest price to the government. I am glad you disagree with subsides to farmers, as do I. I’m no economist but I am not sure the lowering of tariffs and subsides would help the economies of the US or the EU, as we would likely have to get more imports from third world countries. Europe does quite similar things to US like stock pile various foods. In many third world countries their markets are flooded with US/EU products and because of the subsides local third world farmers and producers are put out of business because even with their lower labour and transport costs the subsides make US/EU products much cheaper. They also can’t develop and sell their products abroad as they are met with high tariffs. I think if subsides were dropped and tariffs reduced the global economy might do better on the whole, although I guess when in a position of power countries get a bit protective, which is really quite hypocritical of the west if they are selling the benefits of capitalism to others….anyway I’m going on to another topic, and deviating further away from the original topic.
Lengo, While what you say is true, that $800 is a month is not a gravy train, there are other benefits and supplements available to those disabled. The problem is that many of the disabled are not really disabled, but playing the system and that uses up the resources for those truly in need. There is also disability insurance one can purchase. As the major income earner in my family, I have it. There is also long term care insurance. While they are not dirt cheap, if such is a concern, then they are affordable. But so many choose not to purchase such things because there is that 'safety net'. While what you say may be true about many volunteering, that is not my experience, nor is it my wife's. I have taught for years, and part of my career in some inner city neighborhoods where my students and I could watch from the windows, the rats run from one condemned house to another, and where I turned on the overhead projector and got to squish a few roaches when it got too warm inside due to the bulb. My wife's career as a social worker and therapist, but in rural and urban settings has demonstrated similar observations. There is not a lot of giving back to the community, of course we may be talking about different communities. Those that give back and volunteer are in the minority. The political system feeds off of the misery, promising more and building larger and more complex bureaucracies, and serving the targeted population--those truly in need--less effectively. And sure, there will be some money in the system...but the expense has gone up drastically (since the 1950s for social security and later medicade payments for median income earners, nearly 40 fold) and is unlikely to stop. A personal example, I have paid in to social security for years, but since I happen to now have an alternative retirement system, all that I have paid into the system is really now a forced donation. Five years ago, if I were of an age to retire, I could've collected in addition, a maximum of 40% of the benefits. Today it is less than 25%--maybe if I qualify. When I do retire, it will not be there. Seriously, 15% of what I took in (half from me, half paid by my employers), could be described as a charitable donation. In the end, I'm not bitter about it. It's part of life, but an example used to illustrate. As for charity, why should people donate when the government takes the money from them and is supposed to provide for those in need? I know that is a cynical view, but it is a common one. I personally donate plenty to charity beyond paying taxes (both in time and money). As I type my wife is volunteering at the local food pantry. Neighborhood kids that are struggling or behind in school, I tutor them at the local library. I believe a major part of the problem is that the system does not weed out effectively those who are truly in need and those that are not. There are so many reasons for this, I would go well beyond the lost length limit in characters to get into them all). What happens then is human nature. If and when you go to a restaurant and get decent service, you go on about your business, but get terrible food or crappy service--and you'll remember. I can recall the time I got a shard of glass in a meal...and that was when I was in college. People seem to recall the bad more than the do the positive, and that is what is fixed in their mind. I've had students come in to school in crisis or bemoaning the fact that their electricity was turned off, or there was no food in the house. "They're busy before school, text messaging it to their friends, or asking if they can take their X-Box to their friends house to play tonight, or their cable's out and they wanted to watch this HBO movie this weekend if their mom can't get the power turned back on. I've asked, "Maybe you should sell the fancy rims on your car to help out?" Do I need to indicate the response was not, "Hey, that's a great idea. I'll get right on it." This is the image many people have. While I believe it is negatively distorted, and I'd like to believe more in the view you put forth, Lengo, I think the reality is in between, and unfortunately more toward the negative end. Unfortunately the truly disabled get lumped into the group of those that are not. Many of the poor are poor by choice--poor choices they have made (often repeatedly), where as those that are there due to circumstances beyond their control and work hard to rise above difficulties life has thrown at them get lost in the shuffle. Also, back to the political view--welfare, as a % of the government's budget (not counting social security and medicare/medicade) is pretty small. And Lengo, you are so correct that saving for retirement or unforseen circumstances is very important. Here is a very good article that discusses what the poor in the United States have, compared to previous generations and also compared to average (not poor) households in other places, such as London, Athens, Paris, etc. How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the Plague of Poverty in America PrincessGarnett wrote: If that is true, why do those who can, come to the USA for surgery and treatments instead of waiting to be served in their own country? Why do citizens purchase supplemental insurance, if what is offered by the government is sufficient? I will admit that it is expensive in the USA. That is why I've seen a trend where some individuals, and even insurance companies, now will pay to go to another country, such as India, to receive treatment and surgery. In the USA, nobody is denied medical treatment. If you're sick, or in medical crisis, get to a community hospital emergency room and you get treated, and if you cannot pay the hospital absorbs the cost. Is the treatment equal to someone who has top of the line insurance? For example, No private rooms, and generic drugs, the doctor, surgeon or specialist on call as opposed to one selected by the patient...among a many other things. Should people be coerced to buy (or have employers provided) mandated insurance coverage with mandated specifications of what must be included? In my opinion, no. People should have the freedom to choose--but not be free from consequences of their choices. For example, in many states there are not mandatory helmet laws for riding a motorcycle. However, I believe that if someone chooses to not wear a helmet while going 65 mph down a highway or 35 mph down a city street and gets in an accident and a head injury occurs (which is the unfortunately common result), and does not carry insurance (or adequate insurance due to the resulting additional trauma caused by a conscious choice not to wear a helmet), that their assets should be tapped before the government should pay out. Should they be treated? Yes, the best medical services can offer. Should the population in general foot the bill before the intentionally helmet-less motorcycle rider chips in? No. Just as I think it is fair, that if someone smokes, their insurance rates should be higher to compensate for the likely sooner cost of a disabling or deadly consequence from the chosen lifestyle. Wow, that was a lot of typing for a Saturday morning. Terry
Terry, this has been a very interesting thread -- more so than most I've seen on this subject, and the writing here is better than most of the pieces posted for review. Some very valid observations have been made: Some people abuse the system; The beaurocracy is bloated; Poverty is relative; People are forced to participate, and many people feel that they should have the right to choose. It's a huge problem and it's full of social implications that analysts and theorists have spent a lot of time on. But, SS is what we've got, and it's a necessary evil. The only way to make the system better is to get the legislators focused on it and working on solutions. All the writing done here is not making any progress. Only legislators will do that. All the text found here can only enlighten people. Make sure you have your facts right, and your logic too. I'm glad to see that people are thinking about this subject. There's arguments for changes in all directions. But we gotta be realistic. Change is going to be glacially slow and no matter what changes are made, still, people will complain about one thing or another. You can't satisfy everyone. The best we can hope for is that people are at least realistic about their expectations, and are willing to settle for something over nothing at all. You cite an article that analyses how poor poor people are. Where is an analysis of how rich middle income people are? Many of them live in 2000 sq feet homes, drive cars with theater systems in them, and take vacations in Hawaii or Cancun, and shop at the more expensive shops in shopping malls. Then they complain that they're having a hard time getting their kids into college so that they can enjoy the same stressors that they are enjoying. The poor are surrounded by that society, not a third world economy! And lets not forget that the retirees that are living in paid for homes have paid into the system all their lives, so they deserve something back for paying into the system. And these people are still paying property taxes. Lets not forget that. I don't like the system either, just like you! But I don't like it for different reasons. For one thing, annual cost of living adjustments don't keep recipients up with inflation. They get poorer every year. In 1996, the Feds changed how they compute the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which the cost of living increases are based upon, and Alan Greenspan said it was unrealistic. He said when the price of beef goes up, people switch to chicken (or should). Since they changed the way the CPI is computed, SS recipients are getting poorer even more rapidly. And Congress is very pleased with themselves. They've saved hundreds of millions! But what happens when the price of chicken goes up? The recipients should switch to rice and beans, while the majority of people are gettting obese from overeating steak at Red Lobster? The Feds are saying be happy with what you get. They're also telling those who pay into the system to be happy with what they gotta pay. Neither group is listening! The biggest drain on the system is all the beurocracy. This accounts for many employees and all the beaurocatic 'safeguards' that add to the cost of administering the system. And there are abusers within that network, not only the recipients. Many people slack and don't work as hard as they could. And, wow! You should see thier benefits! They get Columbus day off, fer chrisake! Their annual cost of livinig increases are tied directly to inflation, not the CPI! LordofHats writes that it's not the state's job to baby it's citizens. I agree. Stop babying the beaurocrats! Look at the benefits that legislators enjoy. Talk about comparisons to third world! My only real complaint is that the rich are getting richer, and so is the middle class, while those who are recieving social security benefits are getting poorer and poorer, and the reason they're getting poorer is that those who are making more and more are unwilling to pay to keep them up. Instead, these people compare the poor to the third world, and then say they're rich compared to them, and this is their justification for keeping them so. They then tell their legislators, "what's mine is mine." They don't want to pay to support the disabled. "It should be faith based", and you shouldn't be forced to participate. "Faith based groups will pop up". Then why aren't more popping up already? Lets get real,eh? The only reason people don't want to participate is because they want that extra cash so that they can invest it themselves AND be able to afford the latest and greatest luxuries -- tee shirts for $20 from The Gap. That is the heart of this. People want to be allowed to volunteer, not forced to volunteer, but like you said, many people don't. This holds true in all economic sectors, not just the poorest. The majority of people don't volunteer! When those that can contribute aren't forced to, then what will happen? People are selfish. That's human nature. That's not the way they *should* be, and many of these Faith based supporters say that *should* be more generous. Well they aren't, and that's just a fact of life, so therefor they're forced to pay into the SS system. Perhaps they'd have more incentive to give if they weren't forced to, because they figure they're not already giving, just like those who are recieving are expected to expect less, because they're already getting too much compared to third world people. The poor are not really poor now, are they? Likewise, those middle class people are really rich, aren't they? You don't need $20 tee shirts, or need a $800 TV! But hell... if people don't buy these, then the media is all over economic recession and the terror the immediate future holds 'cause the economy is gonnna collapse! Like, ut oh! You'll have to resort to unemployment benefits and live like Social Security recipients. OMG! That's disaster! Yer right. It is! It's all about the ecomony. Social Security is imperfect. But you can do a better job of giving? Show me! You CAN afford it, with or without SS taking a chunk out of your paycheck. Start a Faith based relief fund and help lower the SS premiums people gotta pay! And please... I beg you... don't be telling me that medical groups and pharmas are losing money, and this is driving up your healthcare costs! Those that can't pay aren't driving up medical costs substantially. The ones driving up the costs are the medical groups and pharmas themselves. Why? Because they're greedy, just like the rest of us. Why aren't they driven by market forces -- supply and demand? Instead, they invented insurace (just like SS), so that they can get paid outrageous sums for what they deliver. Like everybody else, no matter how much they have, it's never enough! I don't see them giving up their vacations in Europe. They're not hurting! My God! To think how tough they have it really saddens me. Don't be swindled by their spins. They're not losing money. They're blaming others for minimal losses -- the poor, so that you'll help them sell more insurance, so that they get even richer. If you don't like paying SS premiums, then move! Move to the third world. You'll be fabulously rich there! If you wanna talk comparisons, compare apples to apples, and just think how well off you'd be if you lived in India or Mexico. Don't limit your comparisons of just the poor to the third world. Include everybody!
Let me appologize ahead of time. I had to remove some images - smiling, winking or other faces, and hyperlinks, because having them included spread out through the text = more than 4 and was disallowed. Lengo, I am quite sure of my facts and logic as well. I know this is a cynical statement but. then isn't that the current system...the $800 dollars a month, rent controlled housing, energy assistance, food stamps, free lunches...something over nothing at all? Retired folks paid property taxes before the current crop retired, but that's besides the point. So, what you're saying that there should be no rich individuals, or they should only be less rich? What is the motivation for them to go out and work hard, take the risk, start a business, hire other people (providing other jobs)? Have you ever gotten a decent job from a poor person? How much should income be capped at? While some of the rich inherited their money, the vast majority of those that are now rich or in the middle class earned it. Yep, they went to school, studied hard, and made a place for themselves. Or they learned a trade, worked hard, built a business or skills that others are willing to pay for. They made good choices. They didn't blow off their studies, drop out of school, get addicted to drugs, have children as teens out of wedlock, among many other things. In general the middle and upper class saved, invested, worked hard. Sometimes they failed, but more often than not, they didn't give up. Are all those who are poor or disabled there because of their choices? Of course not. But, just to list two examples: One of the biggest predictors of a child living in poverty is being born out of wedlock. One of the best predictors of income is education. Choices. Can every citizen attend Harvard or Yale? No. Can working through a community college first, then on the way up to finish at a respectable four year college work? Yes. Is college the only route? No. Some students where I teach go right into the workforce, and sometimes within 5-10 years, without a college degree, earn more than I do. I think that's great! That's why I work there. Does everyone have the same difficulties (or lack of them) to overcome? No. Do some have or incur disabilities that bar thier success, yes. Those are the individuals that should most be looked out for. So, what you're suggesting to be fair is that SS should be enough that everyone can eat lobster? Well, that's cool. Sign me up. Or are you suggesting since everyone can't eat lobster, nobody should eat lobster? In a previous post, you indicated that people should save for retirement. People should invest. As an investment, Social Security is a very poor investment. The payback over the years is nothing. The current generation of retires is getting back far more than they 'paid in'. That is okay. They were promised it. But it shouldn't be portrayed that they're getting cheated out of their money. Think about it today: Self employed and middle class, pays 15% of their income to social security. If one is employed, that is split between employer and employee. Fifteen percent over a lifetime of work, and what is the result? What if that were conservatively invested at say 8% over 45 years, instead of to the government to redistribute (after spending it on other programs to keep the books 'balanced'...or should I say hide the deficit spending more). There was recently a proposal to take 2% of the social security and give it to the individual to invest in their own accounts...but still allow those who did not want to do this, the option to stay on the current system. I listened to the demagoguery, and scaring people into thinking that they couldn't take any control over their future, and how they would end up broke in their retirement years. Leave it to the government instead, right? It's worked out well so far? It ties in with your comment below. I agree. There is necessary and there is duplication and there is plain wasteful. Government is not run like a business. If so, there would not be as much waste...unless the government set regulations and rules to mandate it. If the rich and middle class are getting richer, but those left on social security are getting poorer and poorer, where are the children and family members who are getting richer? This is a tricky sitiation. Part of the problem is the fact that if extra income is reported or discovered (the rules on this change) then SS benefits to the indivduals can be cut, and Medicade spend-downs can be increased, for example. Obviously families assist their older members on fixed incomes...or they should. The government, in its wisdom, makes it more difficult. Although admitting you or I do or don't, probably shouldn't be a part of this conversation Could you tell me what % of Federal income tax is paid by the bottom 50% of income earners--those earning an income? Less than 4%. The top 5% of wage earners pay over 53%. That looks like a sizeable share of the tax burden is lifted off the poor and a fair amount shifted to the poor from the wealthy. Personally, I think the entire tax system is beyond help and hope and I support the fair tax. Basically a 23% sales tax...no federal income tax at all. Taxed only on the end purchase, not along the way. There would be a prebate to every citizen, which would cover repay for the monthly minimum for food, clothing, and other necessary resources, so that the poor would pay nothing. What it would do, however, is take power away from the government. See: Americans For Fair Taxation: Added Bonus: Gets rid of the IRS . A good book on the subject is The Fair Tax Book: The Fair Tax The faith based groups are not popping up because: A. The government has taken over that roll--note I mentioned this before. And B. The government wants to regulate them when they do pop up. And there are faith based groups out there, and I agree there are not enough of them. But that is the direction our society has taken. Nevertheless, I mentioned one that my wife and I financially support and work at in my previous post. I believe you are incorrect in saying that people don't want to pay to support the disabled. People don't care to support those who have made poor choices and continue to make poor choices and refuse to support themselves. In the end, what right does the government have to go into citizen A's pocket and take money and give it to citizen B? I'm pretty sure it's not in the Constitution/Bill of Rights Do I have money in the bank? I have some. Shame on me. I should be giving it to a poor person right now! I just read an article the other day, in the NYTimes I think, that indicated that with the economy slowing down, and richer people not spending money on things like they used to...it is adversely affecting the working poor and middle class. The waiters, limo drivers, etc. are suffering. Employers that hire workers to make and distributing up-scale of clothing...are cutting back and laying off workers. Sorry, I don't have the link. Being forced to volunteer? Boy, that's an interesting thought. I have some nice clothes...not a lot mind you but, shame on me! That $30 should've gone to a poor person or someone on social security or disability. That's what you're saying right? Under your suggestion, I had one nice suit (I've had it for about 10 years) that I wear to funerals, weddings, and other such situations. But when my father died, I purchased another, so I had two (I didn't want to wear the same thing and traveling etc, on two hot days). So that by your definition or explaination above is a luxury and the money should have gone to a poor person or to the government to distribute to a poor person, so that they could buy one nice suit. It's only fair and I am greedy. Nobody should buy luxuries because everybody can't afford the same luxuries? Or how the middle class and wealthy choose to spend their income should be dictated or mandated? Okay, so how much should people be allowed to spend and on what? How much should each individual be allowed to earn and of that earning, how much should they donate to charity--somewhere across the globe because nobody in the USA would be poor or in need, under what you're suggesting, right? That is what you appear to be advocating. To put the shoe on the other foot, of those who are poor but don't want to work because they're getting enough to get by...aren't they being selfish? I guess you didn't read the article I posted in a post above carefully enough, because it was not comparing the poor in the USA only to 3rd world countries...unless the average Paris, Athens and London citizen is a third world dweller. It also compared to what people in the USA had in the 1970s, for example. Or was the USA a third world nation in the 1970s too and we just didn't know it? As I stated, I already do contribute. Wait...do you have any money in the bank? Shame on you! You could be helping lower those social security premiums too! Wait, I've got internet and a computer and not every person does. So is my having it wrong? By the way, thank you for telling me what I can afford. I'll send the bank account and routing numbers your way right away, since you're probably better able to direct it where it's most needed. I can tell you about the hospitals closing up due to lack of funds. But wait. You're lauding Europe for their standard of living...but I was just comparing the average Paris resident to the USA's poor. Individuals and societies have their priorities. They prefer vacations and leisure time to having a big house I guess. Nothing wrong with that. To pick from your example, Pharmaceutical companies do very well. I bet you (and/or people you know) are also very happy about some of the medications they've developed over the years. And some are being sued because of their excesses and greed and suffering they've caused. Pharmaceutical companies are good lobbyists, but not good enough. Why do Americans want to go to Canada to get medicine? Because it is cheaper! US Pharm companies sell to them at a negotiated lower price with their government. In the USA many companies, states and government organizations are not allowed to do that by law. The 'arguement' is that the medicines are not regulated to come back into the USA, and might be dangerous, etc...Right. Same companies selling the drugs. I suspect that Canadian pharmacists and distributions and safeguards are adequate. We as Americans pay and through the nose, I agree, (part of the reason for the most recent government drug prescription plan for the elderly). The rest of the world, including the third world benefits. We do too, just pay for it vastly more. I already addressed the apples to apples comparison statement, but I'll quote a part of it here for others to see. They can click on the link above to get more details and the sources. Note, as 'middle class', I don't make the cut in a number of areas below. I agree, that this is an interesting conversation. And while it will not change the world, it does give people ideas to think on, and use them in selecting a politician (be it local or national) to support--which was the origins of this threat. Terry
I'm not saying shame on anybody. I'm saying that people on SS get by with a lot less. People who are working can too. THink about the positive side of it. Don't dwell on the negative. If you're complaining about paying SS premiums, think of the alternative. There would be a bigger mess than there already is! SS is not going to go away. But it can be made more efficient. You can do something about it, but realize that SS is necessary. Not only the US has some form of it. Many nations do. There's something right about it! Make it better, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. If, due to no fault of your own, or even if it's because you did something foolish, you became disabled, you'd appreciate what you get. No. It's not a lot. But complaining "It's not fair" isn't going to do you any good at all. People who receive benefits, learn to deal with it. They have to. They learn to want less, and eventually find some peace. People who are working can do the same. What is asked of them is very little! And what they're providing not only benefits those who are disabled. It's helping the working people too by keeping the cities free of tents. And realise that no matter what you do, there'll be some people that are incorrigible. Count your blessings. Time spent saying "It's not fair" is ruining your life. That is time you can spend counting your blessings. This is a choice, and choices is what you brought up! Choose either to make the most of it, or find fault with it. Or, if you have a solution, fix it. So far, I've seen no proposals on how to do this. All I see is "It's not working" (which is incorrect), and "it's not fair" (which is time spent making yourself angry). And "We don't need it" is totally blind to reality. Finding fault is easy. Even 6 year olds do that! Finding solutions is the most difficult. Counting your blessings is somewhere in between. Surely, you can see some good in the current social security system.
I know I said I was done but I guess I'm a bit of a liar XD. Of well. Don't create a strawman arguement. That's not what I meant and you know it (Utmost respect intended in my saying so). The reason we have all that beaurocracy is because the governemnt babies people and has expanded beyond its constitutional duties. This is a logical fallacy. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it good. Our Social Security is a mess. It needs to be scrapped and rebuild from the bottom up. Sometimes something is to messed up to be fixed. When I program something sometimes I make a big mistake tha tis so big I can't debug it. I have to delete the program (Or the function depending on how far the problem stretches) and start again just because its more cost effective. Why do you think the Military would rather build a new base than refit an old one? Because its more cost effictive to build a new airfield to accomadate jets that need a longer runway than to tear up an old one to expand an airfield thats already been built. Why refit something (Which involves taking it apart and putting it back together) when you can just let it die and rebuild something from scratch. Its cost effective. Trash what doesn't work right and get something better. I think its perfectly fair for me to say I shouldn't have to pay for someone else. I would gladely donate money to the poor but with the government forcing me to do so I don't see why I should give more. I return to my point that it is not the government's right to but into my life and say I have to give them money so they can give it to someone else. I earned that money and I should be able to do with it as I please. Buy a new hosue for my family, get my children through college, start a criminal empire maybe, its my money I earned it with hard work and sweat and just maybe a little blood. The government has no right to take it from me or send me to prision if i refuse. My money I earned it. I'm willing to bet many people would be more sympathetic to others if the government get out of the way. Of course my philosophy has always been get off your butt and start working to get what you want so I pretty much refuse to help others when it comes to lending money or doing homework for them (Sure I'll lend you a pencil but I'm not giving you $50 so you can bet on the Patriots to win the Super Bowl XD, or because you lost your lunch money buying drugs. Just an example). Lengo, it sounds to me like you think that I should suffer poverty just because others suffer poverty? Well since half of Africa suffers from Aids and Ethnic Clensing I suppose I should have Aids too and break out my shotgun and start killing every non-white christian male I come across eh? Yes I am blessed not to be poor, but I shouldn't be forced by the government to support human beings who can't support themselves. You know what happens to animals that can't support themselves in the wild? They die. Natural Selection. Well, that's a little cruel... but it gets the point across. Giveing free money to the poor for nothing is basically pulling dead weight. However being human, we should put ourselves above our animal brethern and support those who can't support themselves. Again its not the governments job. I think you underestimate human beings ability to be compassionate Lengo. I know hundreds of people who give willing. I know hundreds more who would give willing if the government did take away from them. I got a story for ya: I was walking to walmart one day with my dad and there were people outside trying to collect money for the poor. Naturally they stoppe dus at the door and wouldn't let us pass till we donated (They're a bit mor eforceful than most I'm sur enot every group does this.) After a few minutes my dad got fed up and said "I already give money to the poor. You know what its called? Welfare! Now get out of my way I need eggs and milk! (Yes he said that, I'm serious)." The cops showed up fifteen minutes later and forced this group to leave as the manager of the walmart complained they were hurting business and disrupting the flow of people into and out of the store. Now I know my dad. If the government didn't take money from him and give it to the poor He'd probably just redeligate the same amount to charity. But he doesn't see why he should give more when he's already giving. My point is this: The government should get out of the way and let society care for its own especially since they don't have the constitutional authority to take my money and give it to someone else. People would give if the government didn't force them, and some people will give alot just cause their nice. My church regularly donates to charity, and about 75% of the time its charity for the poor (Other charities include AID's research, education, and supporting the families of dead soldiers). Either way the government shouldn't be forcing thing son people. That's why we had the American Revolution in the first place! The government only has power because we let them. I don't remember giving them the right to be Robin Hood, stealing from those of us who rightfully earned our way and givning to those who quiet often don't. I'm done with my rant now... EDIT: My Solutions: Destroy Social Security and create Private Security (I never trusted an organization with the initials SS anyway. Thank about it.). When I make payments into PS That moeny serves to fund my own retirement rather than paying for someone else. Of course then we already ahve things for this don't we? Their called retirement plans. maybe everyone should get one! If you dont? Well tough luck for amking a stupid choice there pal. People who make stupid choices usually don't get paid. They die, wind up in prison, or have horrible lives. Why shoudl you e any different? Welfare? Take it out for the governments hand sand give it to the people who are the ones socially responsible. I'm willing to bet the poor will get along just as well if charity takes care of them (Rather than the government forcing it down my throat at no expense to them). Better yet lets set some requirements for these charities! How bout instead of just giving them money, lets find some work for them to do and pay them for it! I ahve a few ideas: Public Beautification projects! Lets plant some trees some flowers, clean up the trash and make everything a little prettier. Here you go there's your pay for a good days work. Don't you feel good now? I know plenty of places that could use a little beautifying and on top of that when things look better property values go up and people tend to be in a better mood when the places looks cheerier! You can always clean up graffitti. Never going to be a shortage of that! Town Watches! Instead of sitting in your house doing nothing, how about I pay you to patrol the streets and look out for crime? People are less likely to rob a house or small business when there's a steady patrol walking through that might spot them and call the cops! See a crime in progress? Call the police! How about mowing lawns for the hard working man? While he's away at work and the kids are at school maybe you can mow the lawn or water the grass! hey maybe the misses is still home to share some fresh lemonade and a sandwich! We can always use more crossing guards for the streets! Keep those kids from getting hit by more cars, no one wants that! Hell I'll pay you to go to the schools and talk to kids about why an education and college is important! They don't want to end up like you do they? Here's an idea. BOARDER PATROL! I'll pay someone for that. The disabled and the elderly? Well for one thing families should take some responsibility and care for eachother when they ahve to. If they don't well we have insurance, charity, and savings accounts to deal with it. With welfare gone and the poor being paid for working there will be even more charity that can be redelgated toward helping them instead of those perfectly capable of working!
Lengo, As I re-read the series of posts, it appears to me that the "it isn't fair" refrain (or statements along the same line) is often brought up by you. How the rich and middle class seem to be getting richer, or how they spend their money while others cannot. Also, questions posed based upon your statements remain unanswered. Instead you redirect along another avenue, which is fine as it moves the conversation forward. I suggested and support a correction to the unfair and broken tax system...and one that would benefit the poor and disabled. In essence they would not pay any Federal taxes...medicare, social security and the whole lot. (See link to the Fair Tax: Americans For Fair Taxation: ). My answer to your question about correcting the social security mess? I recommend something similar to what Chile has done. Below are several links to articles/information on the topic (I'd put more but there are limits on the # of hyperlinks can have--learned that last post). The Success of Chile's Privatized Social Security Chile's pension plan aging well You asked, and that's my solution. But, if the American people can be driven to believing as too risky and too dangerous, and told they can't handle the responsiblity and would end up being cheated, by allowing 2% of their earnings (from the 15% taken by Social Security in taxes) for a private investment account, until the politicians stop efforts to demagogue such issues, and the public is willing to take individual responsiblity, it isn't going to happen any time soon. (I discussed this in part in the post above) Social Security is only legislation. There is nothing there for anyone--no money set aside by the government. The law and benefits can be rewritten at any time. In essence, there is no true security in it. There is good in the social security system, but it is broken and going to go bankrupt (or going to cost a lot lot more...or benefits are going to be a lot lot less). I guess when individuals begin stating that the rich and middle class are earning too much and shouldn't be allowed to earn that much...or should be forced to give it to someone else in compensation--and the poor have a right to that money, it rings similar to, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Terry
Sheesh! All I'm saying is that you CAN afford it until it gets changed. This makes me a bad guy? Quit picking on me! I haven't hurt you! I'm only saying that it is'nt gonna go away; that it can be streamlined; that it is necessary; that you CAN afford it; and you can let it ruin your day or look for some good in it! SO FIX IT! That seems to be your calling in life. You certainly do enough complaining about it to make me think your'e motivated to get it done. Go do it! I'm all for it! Get on it. All your rants are only hurting you by getting you all upset. What are you wasting your time here for? Go save the US from social security with your better plan. Have a nice day! I can't stop your discontent for you. Only you can! I'm done here.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone, i just thought it was correct. i am sure according to the world health organization, and various other health organizations that western European countries come out better than the US. I'm not saying it's perfect, in the case of UK far from.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone, i am just led to believe it's correct. i am sure according to the world health organization, and various other health organizations that western European countries come out better than the US. I'm not saying it's perfect, in the case of UK far from. Also i don't think it's a question of what is provided not being sufficient, but if you're rich and can afford the best and quickest procedures then no one is going to stop you spending you're money. I personally don't know anyone, or of anyone who has private insurance.
PrincessGarnet, No offense taken. When one enters a discussion, if they have thin skin, they shouldn't post. Having ideas challenged is part of the process of learning and making sense (in this case) of politics and the world as best we can. I understand your arguement. For example, the infant mortality in the USA is higher than that of more than a couple European nations. I would argue that much of that results from cultural rather than quality and availibility of medical care. To me, those that have the ability and choice, selecting to come to the USA for treatment, says volumes--be it due to quality or availibility or both. Lengo, It was an interesting discussion, and in the end I did not get many questions answered based on your assertions. I provided answers, factual data and links to answer your questions and concerns. There was no response other than to move on. While you throw it back in the lap of those who support and have solid ideas for change, I would put forth that change is difficult because of individuals who are satisfied with the status quo. Although the discussion started elsewhere, it ended on social security. The system is broken and headed for a wreck. The demographics show it very clearly. Your view is simply for those who earn money to simply pay more into the system, no matter the cost or futility of trying to keep the sinking ship (system) afloat. Nobody is picking on you! I am sorry you felt that way. I was simply doing my best to pick apart your ideas. To show that while emotionally attractive, they do not stand up. Whether I have done that effectively is for each individual who reads the thread to decide. Challenging your assertions and statements should not be interpreted as picking on you. As for such ruining my day? Don't worry, it never has and never will. Just because someone disagrees vigorously with a point of view someone puts forth, doesn't mean it is the focus of their life, nor should it be misinterpreted as a rant. Terry
I think this was addressed to Lordofhats, who was harsher than you and who did call his post a 'rant'.
