Political Crossfire Forums

[Aaron47pb]

Walter E. Williams, an extremely reputable economist, puts it well:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams110205.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022305.asp

This is a very informative site with a number of resources regarding the issue:

http://www.socialsecurity.org/

My view is simple: Congress doesnt know whats best for me. The more control I have over my life, and in this case my money, the better.

[pyrophasma]

I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

[Iriemon]

limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.

Questions:

1) How does the Texas plan guarantee a 6.5% ROR. That is better than govt T-bills pay.

2) What happens if someone outlives their investment account?

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote:
yes, it would solve the demographic problem as it would not matter if everyone were responsible for their own retirement. The demographic problem is the result of the current system relying on a GUARANTEED income to retirees which must be paid for (extracted/stolen from) current income earners. There is no such guarantee in a private system - those more successful at saving/investing/etc would have more goods to retire upon, and those less thoughtful/successful/or thrifty would have less to retire upon. Retirement is NOT a 'right'! It is a priviledge and a benefit to working hard and saving. There is nothing wrong with a person making the choice to NOT save his money, to spend it as it comes in, and continue working until death (or until someone, probably family/friends or possibly a mutual aid society, agrees to care for them). There is nothing immoral/unfair/unequal/etc about some people having a retirement because they provided for it themselves, and some people not because they didn't provide it for themselves.

The problem with hordes of people not having some vehicle for retirement is that many of them will end up on the streets.

[pyrophasma]

Iriemon wrote:
The problem with hordes of people not having some vehicle for retirement is that many of them will end up on the streets.

And this is my responsibility how?

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: Iriemon wrote:
The problem with hordes of people not having some vehicle for retirement is that many of them will end up on the streets.

And this is my responsibility how?

The same way the Iraq war is my responsibility. You want to live in a society you have to play by its rules, ie pay taxes. This society has decided as a whole that a system of social insurance is preferable to hordes of crones begging for food at stoplights.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

And who the hell is "society"?

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

And who the hell is "society"?

Us!
.......

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

And who the hell is "society"?

Us!
.......
Please define "society" for me.

[pyrophasma]

Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: Iriemon wrote:
The problem with hordes of people not having some vehicle for retirement is that many of them will end up on the streets.

And this is my responsibility how?

The same way the Iraq war is my responsibility. You want to live in a society you have to play by its rules, ie pay taxes. This society has decided as a whole that a system of social insurance is preferable to hordes of crones begging for food at stoplights.

No, my grand parents, or great-grand parents, or whatever, decided that they would promise away 7.65% of my earnings,on up to the first $94,000 earned a year to pay for people who were forced to pay for them. Before I was born, even.

Ponzi schemes are considered fraudulent for a reason, and the fact that this one is government-enforced and provides a measley 3% return, if that, does not change the nature of what it is.

And as for people dying in the streets and living under bridges? I doubt that would be the case. Even if these old people had no families, had they not been expecting a handout from current taxpayers, they would have planned for a retirement. And even if they hadn't, Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world.

But not when you want to force us to be charitable, with the threat of imprisonment if we do not comply.

When I am forced to subsidize someone else's existence, I feel as a slave,and I want to murder them. And the slave master that forced the fruits of my labor from my hand into theirs.

Viva la revelucion!!11one

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

And who the hell is "society"?

Us!
.......

And how do I benefit when the government steals from me?

You may not; if things like national defense, stability in society, and not having hordes of homeless crones don't matter to you.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

And who the hell is "society"?

Us!
.......

And how do I benefit when the government steals from me?

You may not; if things like national defense, stability in society, and not having hordes of homeless crones don't matter to you.

So only the government can provide defense?

So a stable society can only come about because of the government stealing from me?

Should I give a damn about "hordes of homelss crones" (aka "People who must rely on the State stealing from people")?

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: Iriemon wrote:
The problem with hordes of people not having some vehicle for retirement is that many of them will end up on the streets.

And this is my responsibility how?

The same way the Iraq war is my responsibility. You want to live in a society you have to play by its rules, ie pay taxes. This society has decided as a whole that a system of social insurance is preferable to hordes of crones begging for food at stoplights.

No, my grand parents, or great-grand parents, or whatever, decided that they would promise away 7.65% of my earnings,on up to the first $94,000 earned a year to pay for people who were forced to pay for them. Before I was born, even.

SS is not a contractual right or obligation. The Govt could end the program tomorrow with the simple passage of a law. Fact is, most people in our society like the benefits the program has provided, both on a national level (ie we don't have to deal with ancients begging at stoplights) and on an individual level (provides a bottom net to our own financial security).

Quote: Ponzi schemes are considered fraudulent for a reason, and the fact that this one is government-enforced and provides a measley 3% return, if that, does not change the nature of what it is.

A Ponzi scheme is a situation where investors pay into an "investment" in which a portion of the money is used to pay investment "returns" and the rest is stolen.

SS has one thing in common, for the past 20 years we have paid $2 trillion in extra taxes for SS benefits, which has been stolen to fund the $7.5 trillion in deficits and debt the Govt has run since 1980.

Quote: And as for people dying in the streets and living under bridges? I doubt that would be the case. Even if these old people had no families, had they not been expecting a handout from current taxpayers, they would have planned for a retirement. And even if they hadn't, Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world.

That was the case why SS was enacted. American are charitable. That's why SS was passed.

Not that I don't think there are some flaws with the system.

Quote: But not when you want to force us to be charitable, with the threat of imprisonment if we do not comply. [

Yep. That's the way govt works.

Quote: When I am forced to subsidize someone else's existence, I feel as a slave,and I want to murder them. And the slave master that forced the fruits of my labor from my hand into theirs.

Viva la revelucion!!11one

My advice is that you don't act on your feelings.

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote:

And how do I benefit when the government steals from me?

You may not; if things like national defense, stability in society, and not having hordes of homeless crones don't matter to you.

So only the government can provide defense?

So a stable society can only come about because of the government stealing from me?

Should I give a damn about "hordes of homelss crones" (aka "People who must rely on the State stealing from people")?

Yes; probably; it's up to you.

[pyrophasma]

That is, indeed, the way the government works now.

[pyrophasma]

This discussion brings up an interesting idea, though.

If we accpet that it is fair for the government to take money from Joe and give to Bob (with the government taking its cut for 'administrative' costs, of course), why would it not be fair for the government to take some cash from Joe and give to some dude in Russia, or Africa, or something? Is there something about taking the money from one citizen of America and giving to another citizen in America that is inherently more just or fair, than if you took from an American and gave to someone in another country?

If so, what would the rationale be for this?

*edit* And this isn't about S.S. specifically, so leave out the 'hordes of old people starving in the streets' assumption.

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: This discussion brings up an interesting idea, though.

If we accpet that it is fair for the government to take money from Joe and give to Bob (with the government taking its cut for 'administrative' costs, of course), why would it not be fair for the government to take some cash from Joe and give to some dude in Russia, or Africa, or something? Is there something about taking the money from one citizen of America and giving to another citizen in America that is inherently more just or fair, than if you took from an American and gave to someone in another country?

If so, what would the rationale be for this?

*edit* And this isn't about S.S. specifically, so leave out the 'hordes of old people starving in the streets' assumption.

We do this as a nation, to the tune of about $30 billion a year; tho' since the Iraq war I think it is over $40, with 10-15 billion going to Iraq alone as aid. Other major beneficiaries include Isreal and Egypt, at about $3 billion a year each.

That's a lot; and as a total, the US gives more foreign aid than any other. Japan was the leader a couple years ago until we decided to start giving generously to Iraq and Afganistan. However, on a per capita basis US foreign aid is about the lowest of all industrialized nations.

The rational is generally on humanitarian grounds, though an argument can be made that it greats goodwill for the United States.

[pyrophasma]

And at what point does this distribution go from being just, to unjust? We could bring up the standard of living of a good number of Africans, who are starving. Sure, we might lose our house, decent car, and other nice things like TV and internet access to afford the tax bill, but look at them over there, they're starving and dying of common diseases.

If the principle itself, taking money from one to give to another is justified, at what point, if ever, is it not justified?

Could they justifiably tax someone into the poorhouse, so long as it saved a life of someone else?

Would you ditch your standard of living for someone? Have you?

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

are you insinuating that this was the case BEFORE social security? you are wrong if that is what you think.