i mean, it has some socalism ideals to it, think about it, those people that elderly worked most of their lives and payed lots of taxes to the government (most of them) and now the government is taken care of them. Isn't this kind of like Socalism? if it is, do you think it should be taken away? because people like Mitt Romney's supporters said Obama's socalist views were bad. I am just wondering about your opinion on this.
filler text
At what point something is "Socialist" or just plain ol' government control is beyond me. Social Security is arguably Socialist, at the same time it operates as any insurances company or retirement plan does, in the sense that people pay into the system so present users can get payments, so that in the future they'll be on it too. In that sense is it necessarily Socialist? Because it sounds more like an investment or a retirement program.
It's actually one of the more efficient programs the government has, the problem tends to be demographics. If you look at a population pyramid of the US there is a huge bulge from the Baby Boom population, they're now beginning to retire and they now are going to increase the amount of people taking in money while keeping the amount of people putting in money the same. The SSA had prepared for this by raising payroll taxes (which pay for Social Security) but much of its savings were loaned out to pay for the Iraq War. Currently the SSA is supposed to go bankrupt in 2050, Medicare is much sooner however so it's taking on more attention.
Overall it could be worse, the costs won't be that bad because more immigrants are coming to make up for the declining birth rate of domestic born Americans, countries like Japan in particular which don't let in as many immigrants are having a hard time paying for their elderly because women are having fewer children (that's a natural consequence of a modernized economy).
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
filler text
I thought it leaned toward socalist because Social Security leaned more toward government controlled and the government how much you would get a month.
filler text
At 2/15/13 10:34 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I thought it leaned toward socalist because Social Security leaned more toward government controlled and the government how much you would get a month.
Socialism is more or less redistributing the wealth so that it's more equal. In that sense I guess you could make the argument that it is Socialist. But the argument originally for Social Security was economics; if you gave the elderly some money they can then spend it in the economy thereby growing it and they above all people needed the money so they would readily spend it (this was back during the Great Depression). I guess you could argue that it's Socialist and most people would, the problem is where you draw the line because Government control existed long before the idea of Socialism did and so obviously not all forms of government control are Socialist. The Federal Reserve certainly isn't for example.
It's not a system people want to take away because it's not giving it to people who don't "deserve" it as people usually argue against other welfare provisions (the people on Social Security had payed into it their entire lives and can't work), it also is run pretty efficiently much more or so than other government agencies as pretty much all the people there do is figure out ways to make it better every day, on top of this it's a retirement plan that's more or less secure, Unions and Companies give pensions but if they go belly up those pensions go away. So no one's arguing to get rid of it, but they are arguing to reform it. Bush wanted to let people have the option to put their payments into private accounts so they can be reinvested into companies (this is how banks work essentially) and Democrats opposed this. At the end of the day they decided to put it off until later because it's estimated to work until 2050.
As for Socialism in general it's not something that was ever that popular in America. The Socialist Party itself peaked in around 1912 right before WWI, they had won House seats local government positions but not too much on the national scale, but after WWI Socialism was essentially doomed in America. Accusations of being a Socialist had suddenly become an insult, ironically it was first used by the Democrats against Hoover, but they've always been there and it's not something grounded in reality. Obama is not a Socialist by any means, it's merely an accusation that's made at every Left wing politician by right wing extremists but politicians especially on the scale of running for President are so centrist that a guy or girl will never be elected if he said he was an outright Socialist. Now Vermont elected someone who calls himself a Socialist but he's not a major player in politics.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
Yes.
A) It's insolvent
B) It's theft
It's impractical as well as immoral/illegal
At 2/16/13 01:06 PM, Warforger wrote:
Socialism is more or less redistributing the wealth so that it's more equal. In that sense I guess you could make the argument that it is Socialist. But the argument originally for Social Security was economics; if you gave the elderly some money they can then spend it in the economy thereby growing it and they above all people needed the money so they would readily spend it (this was back during the Great Depression).
This is trickle down economics. Give one class a break, so they can pump money into the economy, and grow it.
Trickle down economics, time and time again, is a failure.
At 2/16/13 01:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: This is trickle down economics. Give one class a break, so they can pump money into the economy, and grow it.
Trickle down economics, time and time again, is a failure.
That's not Trickle Down Economics. At all. Why do I even try, any notion of people exchanging money is "trickle down economics" to you and you'll never admit you're wrong.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/16/13 03:03 PM, Warforger wrote: That's not Trickle Down Economics. At all. Why do I even try, any notion of people exchanging money is "trickle down economics" to you and you'll never admit you're wrong.
That isn't what trickle down economics is. Trickle down economics, as democrats so beautifully like to criticize (except when Obama does it, of course) is when one class of people holds on to more money (at the expense of others) so that they can use it to stimulate the economy.
Are you not familiar with the concept? Ron Reagan was a big proponent of it, as was Bush.
What, just because the favored group is old people, it isn't trickle down economics anymore?
At 2/16/13 03:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote: That isn't what trickle down economics is. Trickle down economics, as democrats so beautifully like to criticize (except when Obama does it, of course)
When did he do it? In fact the last couple of months has been the exact opposite.
is when one class of people holds on to more money (at the expense of others) so that they can use it to stimulate the economy.
No it's when businesses get lower taxes so they can pay more people.
Are you not familiar with the concept? Ron Reagan was a big proponent of it, as was Bush.
Ronald Reagan, Ron Reagan is his liberal son. I am very familiar with it, I just know that you aren't.
What, just because the favored group is old people, it isn't trickle down economics anymore?
Um what? Well thanks for proving me right.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/19/13 07:02 PM, Warforger wrote: No it's when businesses get lower taxes so they can pay more people.
That's on the right track, but not a very good definition. Trickle down economics is more broad than that. It isn't just the giving of money to businesses in the hopes they will spend it, but to all wealthy people. The idea is that wealthy people will all spend their massive wealth and that will thus trickle down through the classes to the middle and poor. (However, we all know this is bullshit as for one the wealthy don't spend their money in the economy that much, andtwo when they do, they spend it in the high sector which mostly funnels back to wealthy folks, only benefitting a few middle and lower class people on the way.)
At 2/19/13 07:02 PM, Warforger wrote: When did he do it? In fact the last couple of months has been the exact opposite.
When he handed out money to corporations.
No it's when businesses get lower taxes so they can pay more people.
The justification for the bailouts was the same. "We need to give them this money so they can keep the econ. going"
Ronald Reagan, Ron Reagan is his liberal son. I am very familiar with it, I just know that you aren't.
Giving money to one class so they can keep the economy going. I know what it is.
Um what? Well thanks for proving me right.
I didn't ;)
At 2/27/13 03:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote: When he handed out money to corporations.
Not really, because it's something that economists across the board support.
The justification for the bailouts was the same. "We need to give them this money so they can keep the econ. going"
Every economic policy is focused on giving people more money. You yourself support those kinds of policies.
Giving money to one class so they can keep the economy going. I know what it is.
You just demonstrated again that you don't.
I didn't ;)
Why do I bother?
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/27/13 08:15 PM, Warforger wrote: Not really, because it's something that economists across the board support.
Right. so why did they blast Bush for it?
Every economic policy is focused on giving people more money. You yourself support those kinds of policies.
no it isn't. Economics has never been based on "here, take this money for no reason". At least not stable ones.
You just demonstrated again that you don't.
I'm just going by the definition of it
At 2/15/13 10:04 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: i mean, it has some socalism ideals to it, think about it, those people that elderly worked most of their lives and payed lots of taxes to the government (most of them) and now the government is taken care of them. Isn't this kind of like Socalism? if it is, do you think it should be taken away? because people like Mitt Romney's supporters said Obama's socalist views were bad. I am just wondering about your opinion on this.
I lean more towards the opinion that Social Security should be updated, rather than done away with it. If you update it so that it operates the way it was intended to, issues of insolvency will be solved with ease.
You see, Social Security was setup with a minimum requirement age of 65 at a time when the average lifespan was 63. The idea was that you would pay into the system for years and years, but never gain the full benefit from having paid into it. Sure, statistically speaking, you might just live long enough to get the benefits, but the plan was that you would be around long enough to get all that money back. The idea wasn't that the government would fund your retirement, the idea was that you would die, and the money would be kept by the government.
Now, you've got people living well into their 80's and beyond, often times taking more out in monthly benefits than they paid in with their payroll taxes. In order to make this system solvent again, the minimum age for benefits should be readjusted to two years past the average lifespan, so... you would have to be 80 or so before you could get benefits.
After we do that, then we can address the issue of whether or not the system should be dismantled.
I live on Social Security and still I live with my parents. The answer to that is no.
Social Security should not be taken away (unless a better program replaces it), but it does need to be reformed. It needs to adapt to the change in demographics, such as people living longer these days. It also needs to be designed to be more efficient. One of the major contributors to this high government spending on Social Security and other entitlements is waste.
We should focus on improving the system as much as we can, and then we could minimize cuts to more essential services or changes to eligibility age.
I believe in the ultimate triumph of evil over good in this world.
It doesn't help that we keep funding our enemies.
At 3/6/13 09:45 PM, Th-e wrote: Social Security should not be taken away (unless a better program replaces it),
;;;
Well you got a popular foodstamp program 40 + MILLION people are on it !
http://constitutionschool.com/2012/10/06/why-are-47-million-
people-on-food-stamps/
But with all of that, millions of kids went to bed hungry tonight & will be hungry again tomorrow
http://usdailyreview.com/in-us-16-million-children-in-povert y
I recently read that the money America spends in 1 day of war mongering around the world, would pay for child health care in the USA for 400,000+ children for a year ! (that means you'd have to give the troops 40 days off a year to take care of 16 million kids) then you could get right back to warmongering!
Modern America ...Livin' the Dream
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
Social security, among other things, are pulling us into debt. Yeah, I admit that defense spending is quite high, but our #1 expense right now is social security and welfare spending. You'd think the armed forces are our biggest expense...but NO, it's social and welfare expenses. As the current social security benefits rate goes, this program will more or less bankrupt the American pockets within 40 years...and future workers retirees will receive less in benefit (much, much less) than those being given out now.
I'd say we lower the social security spending down and try to get employers' wages up. I do not want to finish college and law school, go get a job, and then retire...only to see negligible social and welfare security incomes...I'd much rather save up money when I am working. Also, our future social security tax reduction from paychecks will increase exponentially to pay for the current elder folks...
TracyJackson
The Art of Warfare gaming community Member
Apply into one of our dozen supported clans today! (TAW Clan)
Alright, before you go any further OP, tell me what is socialism and why is it apparently a bad thing?
