Social Security as a product.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

I never said gov was the only answer. Just said that I believe part of the government's purpose to take care of the needy.

Not the federal government. Do you really believe that self preservation, family, friends, churches, charities and state and local governments cannot see to the poor?

Wow. That's the best you've got? Some guy sent out a "Biblical" newsletter? What are his credentials again?

It is not the writer that matters, it is the verses he is refering to. Who exactly has the proper credentials to your answer? Tithing was only from the increase of the land, not personal earnings. Charity is to be given freely and not of government redistribution.

I disagree.

Whether you agree or disagree has no relevance here. This thread is not to discuss theology, it is to discuss the merits of SS. Anyone with any honesty knows that SS is a failure and a huge burden for future Americans.

We could battle for years over political ideologies, but that will not correct the path our country is on. Finding a solution to the problem of old age is. The government model is a failure. I'm advocating a private model with proper government oversite. You appear to be advocating the government model no matter the poor results and consequences.

Most of the problem here is what exactly people think they are entitled to. IMO, healthcare is nothing more than a luxury that should be atained in the free market under proper government regulations. Retirement itself is not a right either. I'm betting you believe it is a right to all. Same with food, shelter etc.

Society has an obligation to its needy, but not through the federal government. For you to believe so is unconstitutional. General welfare was not and is not a free ticket to socialism.

[cooliemae]

[QUOTE=maat55;333606]

Whether you agree or disagree has no relevance here. This thread is not to discuss theology, it is to discuss the merits of SS. Anyone with any honesty knows that SS is a failure and a huge burden for future Americans.

It's funny how sidetracked a conversation can get and I agree that the thread was started to discuss the merits of SS, but I find myself wavering on any continuation of that discussion. I disagree with you that SS is a failure, which must mean that I am a man without honesty.

I assume that you didn't mean it that way, but the point is that you are obviously not going to change your mind and are vehement in your dislike of government intrusion so why continue to discuss it.

[jpg7n16]

Not the federal government. Do you really believe that self preservation, family, friends, churches, charities and state and local governments cannot see to the poor?

I disagree. As I believe the fed gov also has a part in helping the needy. All of the groups you listed also play a part.

It is not the writer that matters, it is the verses he is refering to. Who exactly has the proper credentials to your answer? Tithing was only from the increase of the land, not personal earnings. Charity is to be given freely and not of government redistribution.

The guy is a journalism major in college, not a Christian scholar/authority.

The verses don't say anything for/against the government's role in helping the needy. They all relate to personal responsibility. Just because Jesus advocates individuals helping the poor, does not mean He is against a government doing the same.

Whether you agree or disagree has no relevance here.

Do what?? Okay, apparently nothing I say or do matters. You're right, the only thing of relevance here is YOUR belief system about how the nation should run. My bad. This is your world, we're all just living in it. Whether we agree/disagree with your belief has no relevance, your ideas are all that matter.

This thread is not to discuss theology, it is to discuss the merits of SS.

That's a very odd statement from a man who listed an entire list of Bible verses, with commentary, to support his opinion...

I'm advocating a private model with proper government oversite.

Your advocating that the Fed Gov mandate us to contribute to the same programs, just run by private profit-driven companies. In either case, you are arguing for the Fed Gov to help the needy, just through different methods.

Which is odd because I thought was your belief that the Fed Gov should play no part. So how can you advocate that the Fed Gov should mandate individuals to contribute 12.4% to the private system?

You appear to be advocating the government model no matter the poor results and consequences.

No, you made that up. I have only argued that the gov should continue to have programs in place to help the needy. You have your own warped ideas about what I've said here.

Society has an obligation to its needy, but not through the federal government. For you to believe so is unconstitutional.

I disagree.

Although you don't care, because only YOUR opinion matters, so what difference does it make?

I'll just unsubscribe from this thread, since nothing I contribute is of value. Have fun debating with yourself, and being pissed off at the world.

General welfare was not and is not a free ticket to socialism.

I agree. Although apparently that doesn't matter either.

There is a huge difference between helping the needy and socialism.

[UnknownXV]

I have two points I would like to make:

1. To break even...money paid in vs. money out is only approx two years. (even lower if you are a lower income individual. Two years is for the top tier of earners)
2. How much money would it cost to buy an annuity that will pay you approx 1k -2500 per month with inflation protection. Quite a bit.

Seems like a great deal to me.

It's not a bad deal, if it were sustainable. It's not. That is the core issue here. Agree or disagree with the morality of a forced retirement plan, what we have now simply cannot function for much longer. It is bankrupt, with so many unfunded liabilities it equates to nearly the entire annual GDP of the planet.

There's no way in hell it will last.

The main argument is simply that the government is far too inept in financial planning to properly manage the fund. Personally, I would be okay with an opt-out option. People who pay into it are allowed to withdraw from it, and people who don't, can't. They keep the extra for themselves and invest it how they wish.

Fair is fair, down to freedom of choice.

I always wonder if these people calling for the privatization of things have ever actually worked in the private sector. I have spent the last 10 years working with over a dozen international companies all over the world and I can tell you these companies don't have much of a better sense of anything being done.They only have to show a certain profit each year. And they do that often despite themselves. And they do it because, unlike the government, their driving concern isn't public roads, schools and providing services to their electorate, their driving concern is to MAKE MONEY. Sure, you need to 'provide a quality product to continue to make money' but many large companies have shown time and time again that isn't really the truth of the matter, nor is it that simple.

I would MUCH rather have an elected official, who I vote for every several years, who has to have a certain degree of transparancy be responsible for a portion of my retirement funds, than a private organization. I say that despite the fact that private companies hire my company and I enjoy working with international companies. But in my experience, they do not have a friggin clue. And I cannot name names here, but they are all well known brands and I am pretty sure you have at least 4-5 in your house.

The thing about the issues the government deals with is that they shouldn't be about business, they should be about humans. Private industry has destroyed the American health system and took what could have been a decent system and made it into a monster. People pay into health insurance for decades and are then denied coverage thru any loophole available, medical decisions are not made between patients and doctors they are made between doctors and insurance providers.

Nah, I trust my government more. Tell me, do you want to privitize the military too? Because they are also run by those government crazies.

The current electoral process has been proven to be faulty if not completely rigged. There's rampant voting fraud and rule manipulation going on in the Republican race this year. The two party system is ridiculous. If we had a fair, clear, transparent voting system designed for the modern era, not a time before electricity, sure.

To win you need lots of money, connections, and a smooth charismatic flow with words. It doesn't really matter what you say, or even if you lie consistently and do the opposite of what you say when you win.

The reason I trust a corporation more than government is for those reasons. Government is much harder to get any sort of genuine change of out. It would take decades to fix our government. It would take all of 4-5 days of major boycotting to bring even the biggest corporation to their knees begging for forgiveness.

You cannot believe an entity with unfathomable guaranteed income would ever treat it with respect and care. The government cannot be efficient. It goes against human nature. Very few people are efficient and selfless when they can get away with being the opposite.

The only Politician I know of since JFK who I truly believe is in it to help US, the American people, is Ron Paul. And we all know how that turned out. The government is corrupt, and what is worse is even if the voting system was perfect, most people are too stupid to even understand the proper candidate to vote for. So it wouldn't even matter anyways.

I'm a bit cynical, but I don't know how not to be when looking at the United states in all its faces and aspects. It's crumbling down slowly. The entire system built is woefully unsustainable in every imaginable facet.

This is about way more than just Social security.

One last tidbit to add here, most of you arguing here seem to be using emotions and morality as your guide, not hard cold calculating math.

The numbers do not lie. The government sucks at managing retirement. The private market does not, as most people investing in it turn a healthy profit, far more than the government could provide sustainably. It does not matter if it's morally wrong not to provide for the needy and elderly when it's not possible to sustainably do so. We can only do it now by passing the burden to the next generation, and eventually that debt will hit a critical mass and we will have to default. That will not be pretty on an international or domestic level.

[jpg7n16]

You know what, I think I actually will unsubscribe from here. I believe this is a fair summary of our converstion:

jpg: I believe the gov should take care of its people.
maat: so you believe the gov is God?? do you worship the Fed?

jpg: I believe the SS program should continue to exist, but needs to either increase revenue or decrease expenses to be sustainable
maat: so you believe the SS system is perfect, and that the Gov should raise taxes on all of us?? Why do you want to live in a socialist government controlled society?

jpg: The gov should have programs for the needy of its society
maat: So you're saying that all charities are worthless? And individuals won't contribute to the poor at all?
jpg: I didn't say anything about charities or individuals.
maat: Why do you think Gov is the only answer? What about charities and individuals?
jpg: I don't think Gov is the only answer, or even able to "answer" the problem of the poor, only that there should be programs to help. I believe charities and individuals should help too.
maat: Why do you think Gov is the only answer?? Why do you want to live in a socialist country??

jpg: I am fine paying taxes to support programs for the needy.
maat: It's unconstitutional for the Gov to require my money to go to social programs for the needy. The gov should not ever force me to give my money to help others.
jpg: What would you do then?
maat: I think the gov should force me to give my money to private companies, who would help others.

maat: Do you have any Bible verses to support that?
jpg: Verse 1, verse 2
maat: This is no place to debate theology

maat: The Bible condemns gov programs. See -> quote-- journalism major: God completely condemns any program to help the poor. Here are Bible verses to prove it. --
jpg: I disagree. The Bible never says that, as those verses are not talking about gov responsibility at all.
maat: No one cares if you agree or disagree, your opinion is not relevant. And we're not here to debate theology.

maat: SS is a terrible use of retirement dollars.
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program
maat: Yeah, but a private company could provide me a better retirement than SS will
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program
maat: Yea, but I'd do better investing that money on my own, and have a better retirement
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program

maat: If the system were run by private companies, things would be better.
jpg: Private companies already provide solutions in every program SS provides for, but people don't take advantage of them
maat: The gov has no right to run any programs like that, and should leave it the private sector. People would take advantage of the programs if the private sector ran things.
jpg: The private sector already does have programs, and people don't take advantage of them, how would that change?

maat: SS is being run inefficiently, and should not exist
jpg: SS is being run inefficiently, but should exist
maat: Socialist!! Liberal!! Stop trying to take my freedom!!


Yeah... that about sums it up.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

You know what, I think I actually will unsubscribe from here. I believe this is a fair summary of our converstion:

jpg: I believe the gov should take care of its people.
maat: so you believe the gov is God?? do you worship the Fed?

Where in the "Bill of Rights" or amendments does it say that Americans are entitle to food, shelter, healthcare, incomes or retirements?

If you were to read the Constitution and the learn the reason for its existence as provided by the Founders, you would learn that it has limited powers and was not designed to control the peoples personal lives. Promoting the general welfare is addressed by many founders and does not give the federal government the powers it has usurped today.

jpg: I believe the SS program should continue to exist, but needs to either increase revenue or decrease expenses to be sustainable

At what to cost? The whole point of this thread is to discuss the viability of the current system to even do this efficiently and fairly. The current system has proven it cannot.

You asked me earlier if there where any way I see place for a government role in this. Yes I do. As apposed to accepting further total control and failure by the current system, I would accept its role as proper regulator of a private system. This would allow it to police private providers while not controling the assets.

Increasing revenues and lowering benefits has been the ongoing solution and is leading to full control of ones discretionary personal property. This is not healthy. The system is mimicking a drug addiction plan. It started cheap with good benefits to get us hooked and has led to a higher cost and dependency.

maat: so you believe the SS system is perfect, and that the Gov should raise taxes on all of us?? Why do you want to live in a socialist government controlled society?

You do not think it is perfect, you just think it can be fixed with more government controls. I disagree. It has proven othewise. You accept its failures and temporary bandaids because you believe the government has to do this. I do not.

m

aat: So you're saying that all charities are worthless? And individuals won't contribute to the poor at all?
jpg: I didn't say anything about charities or individuals.
maat: Why do you think Gov is the only answer? What about charities and individuals?
jpg: I don't think Gov is the only answer, or even able to "answer" the problem of the poor, only that there should be programs to help. I believe charities and individuals should help too.
maat: Why do you think Gov is the only answer?? Why do you want to live in a socialist country??

I could make the case that SS is causing more problems that it is solving.

jpg: I am fine paying taxes to support programs for the needy.

That's fine for you, but I do not agree with the government welfare model.

maat: It's unconstitutional for the Gov to require my money to go to social programs for the needy. The gov should not ever force me to give my money to help others.

It should use my money to provide constitutional duties which do help other people, but not in the way you wish it to.

jpg: What would you do then?
maat: I think the gov should force me to give my money to private companies, who would help others.

I do not think the government should force me or anyone else to pay for unconsitutional programs, beit welfare or SS. My argument for a private system, with proper government oversite, is a compromise for something better than what we have currently.

I do not believe we have the right to deminish the prosperity of future Americans to support current status quo. I also do not believe it is moral to pass them a failing program that is getting much worse. They should not have to pay more and get less.

maat: No one cares if you agree or disagree, your opinion is not relevant. And we're not here to debate theology.

The debate over SS is not over whether it is moral, it is over whether is a viable product. Your or my opinion of its morality is mute. I'm asking you if it is a viable product that you would pay for voluntarily and how you would change it to make it work in a way that does not deminish in fairness with time.

maat: SS is a terrible use of retirement dollars.
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program
maat: Yeah, but a private company could provide me a better retirement than SS will
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program
maat: Yea, but I'd do better investing that money on my own, and have a better retirement
jpg: SS is not just a retirement program

Neither would be a private solution. A private solution would likely have a disability and term insurance built in.

[QUOTE]

maat: If the system were run by private companies, things would be better.
jpg: Private companies already provide solutions in every program SS provides for, but people don't take advantage of them

So, the solution is to force them? OK, but why not with private accounts with proper government oversite?

maat: People would take advantage of the programs if the private sector ran things

.

Never said this, re-read my second post.

jpg: The private sector already does have programs, and people don't take advantage of them, how would that change?

IMO, the country does not go off a cliff without SS/medicare. But, for you government control advocates, a mandated private accounts system would at least be viable. It does not pass unfair debts forward.

maat: SS is being run inefficiently, and should not exist
jpg: SS is being run inefficiently, but should exist

Yes, it is run horribly and should not exist in its current form. I have advocated for a compromise this whole time, not complete elimination.

maat: Socialist!! Liberal!! Stop trying to take my freedom!!

A little dramatic aren't we? More important is my granchildrens freedoms and prosperity which you blindly ignor in your dedication to the current failed system.

Here are facts. It is a very good read which provides government sources.

Social Security - Just Facts

Just Facts.com --> The Impact of Social Security on the National Debt