Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

NokX wrote:

this is a whole other thread...but it should be up to us to take care of our neighbors - not government.  if my neighbor is hungry, i should want to help him - not be forced to through some mis-spent government "aid".  churches do this sort of thing all the time - $0 tax dollars.

we've built an ugly monster over the years and i don't believe there is a quick fix.  we've created laziness with our "you don't have to work" paycheck system and we've created a lack of respect and responsibility with our government attempting to be in every aspect of our lives.

John F Kennedy wrote:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

we've lost that.

and i've never agreed with how government spends money, nor do i now.  it's a bunch of people spending other people's money.  the government needs to be grossly scaled back.

Interestingly, government IS us.  And its much more effecient in distributing Social Security than ANY NGO will EVER be.

the government is us cause that's how we've made it.  i personally want to live my own life as much as i possibly can with as little intervention from the government as i possibly can.

JakeTheTall wrote:

There is NO "laziness" and no "you don't have to work" paycheck system.  Links ?  I'd imagine for every "welfare queen" there's a dozen people trying to make ends meet and using welfare as it was designed.

oh really...  ever worked in the projects?  turn on the TV to see the thousands in new orleans who have relied on welfare their entire lives complain about their living conditions when all they have to do is work for a change and build their own lives.  welfare should be for those who have no where else to turn for support (family/church/friends/etc...) and are simply in a bad spot and need help for a short period of time.  welfare is a crutch, not a lifeline.

JakeTheTall wrote:

How are you not livid at President Bush, then?  He's spending a lot of money, and running a deficit to boot.  The Prescription addition to Medicare (medicaid?) will cost plenty, and that's ON TOP OF a clearly seen coming deficit in Medicare and Medicaid.

i agree with the war and with SOME of the ways money has been spent in regards to homeland security - but not all of it!  and i'm assuming that's where most of the money has been going.  but there are countless programs that our government is involved in that they shouldn't be and it's really taking a toll on spending.

Sternum wrote:

NokX wrote:

this is a whole other thread...but it should be up to us to take care of our neighbors - not government.  if my neighbor is hungry, i should want to help him - not be forced to through some mis-spent government "aid".  churches do this sort of thing all the time - $0 tax dollars.

We tried that once -- it was called the Great Depression -- and it didn't work so well.

not having social security caused the great depression?  no - a gigantic stock market collapse created that.  and social security wouldn't fix that now if it happened again.  things happen in life.  life isn't fair.  you have to live and learn.  complaining and whining how life isn't fair isn't going to change a thing.

JakeTheTall wrote:

NokX wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

It's an insurance plan NOT a retirement account.  It pays for the disabled in this respect.

whatever you want to call it...  personal responsibility.  if i want to have a sound life when i get older, i better start planning now.  i could be out spending the money i've made over the last few years on crap like everyone else my age does, but i've chosen to invest my money.  that's my choice.  and when it comes time to support my family and retire i've earned it through my own work - not relying on other people paying for me.

So, what happens when, for instance, you're 57 and your child has a rare form of heart disease, and your health insurance doesn't cover all the costs, so you spend your retirement savings to pay for the medical costs.

Or say your house burns down when you're 53 and the insurance company figures it was only worth $50,000  ?


And where's your outrage at all the pork that the REPUBLICANS have been doling out over the past four years ?  That's coming out of the general fund, and I'm guessing you pay more in Federal income tax than on SocSec tax.

That's an even worse form of "you don't have to work"...its called "your corporation doesn't have to be competitive, the Federal Government will give you money."  And the scale of it drawfs anything any welfare queen could ever dream of.

i make sure i have health insurance that would cover such a thing.

i make sure i have a house that is insured for what it's worth.

and i'm not following you on the last part...   please explain

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Okay, but it's not like it's one-sided, right?

Humm, let's review history.

Republican-"I'd like to address SSI reform."
Dimocrat- " Republicans want to kill SSI !!!!! omg!!!!!!1111!!! and make you sleep in the streets"

Come on, Kev. That's dishonest.

It was more like, "I'd like to address SSI reform to include private accounts and maybe some other stuff that we'll eventually show you at some point, and by the way don't expect us to negotiate this stuff."

There was rhetoric and hyperbole on both sides, and that I think is the problem -- the partisan bug has bitten both sides and turned them into hysterical jerkmonsters.

Truthfully this has been going on for many years now, well before Bush.
Dems  claim repubs want to kill social security to get the old people vote.
Repubs claim Dems want to put homosexual child molesters in schools as your kids gym teacher.

It's all crap but people buy it time after time.

NokX wrote:

i don't want to pay for social security.  i'd rather take that $X/month i pay into it now and put it towards other investment opportunities that i feel would be better suited for my future.

Tough cookies. You live in a social country. We look out for our own. Don't like it?

:points to the door:

Once again: SS is not designed to be your retirement pension. That's what your 401(k) is for. SS is for helping take care of people who would otherwise be in the streets. Or dead. Or what have you.

I am so tired of the smurfing greed mongering by the supporters of the privatization of SS. It hasn't ever been about taking care of #1. EVER.

NokX wrote:

i make sure i have health insurance that would cover such a thing.

i make sure i have a house that is insured for what it's worth.

and i'm not following you on the last part...   please explain

Many health insurance plans have limits.  Yours doesn't?  Are you sure ?

You could be the person that thinks they're covered, and end up not being covered.

[edit: They might also drop you from their coverage if you are stricken by an incurable disease.]

Last edited by JakeTheTall (2005-12-12 5:19 pm)

bratboy wrote:

Are you really so naive as to believe that whatever has been attainable by you is likewise attainable by anyone?

Isn't this the definition of "Republican?"

JakeTheTall wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Are you really so naive as to believe that whatever has been attainable by you is likewise attainable by anyone?

I am, for the most part.

But I think that SocSec and welfare are less important, budget-wise, than other things paid for by the Federal Government.



[edit] shows what I know, if this is close to accurate: link

I don't know anything about your life personally, but are you completely discounting any effect that your parents might have had on where you are today, that your environment might have had, that your intelligence might have had...

bratboy wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Are you really so naive as to believe that whatever has been attainable by you is likewise attainable by anyone?

I am, for the most part.

But I think that SocSec and welfare are less important, budget-wise, than other things paid for by the Federal Government.



[edit] shows what I know, if this is close to accurate: link

I don't know anything about your life personally, but are you completely discounting any effect that your parents might have had on where you are today, that your environment might have had, that your intelligence might have had...

While I'm no idiot (in both my ability to succeed, and knowing that some people have the odds against them getting out of a bad situation when young), I think a lot of "getting ahead" in life is simply wanting to do it.  And not thinking some imaginary "Man" is going to keep you down.  A majority of my high school class (just had a reunion) didn't end up doing much...and I think the reason was evenly divided between sloth (too much work to go to college, etc) and apathy (who cares if I work at a gas station, I can buy beer to get drunk).

iBubba wrote:

NokX wrote:

i don't want to pay for social security.  i'd rather take that $X/month i pay into it now and put it towards other investment opportunities that i feel would be better suited for my future.

Tough cookies. You live in a social country. We look out for our own. Don't like it?

:points to the door:

we should look out for our own and there's nothing wrong with that!  i'm not saying "don't help each other out" because i'm not saying that at all.  i just don't think the method for helping out others should be through a "forced charity" under a blanket name called welfare or social security.

iBubba wrote:

Once again: SS is not designed to be your retirement pension. That's what your 401(k) is for. SS is for helping take care of people who would otherwise be in the streets. Or dead. Or what have you.

but they're telling us that it's for our future retirement.  that's one of the many problems with social security.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I get this sneaking suspicion that the folks now who say they don't need no stinkin' gubmint handouts when they're old will be demanding every red cent they can get their hands on when the time comes.

cause we're paying into it with our money.  what's wrong with that?  when someone tells me "put your money here and you'll get it back at this time in these increments, and then i'm forced to pay regardelss...of course i wanna get it back.

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

i make sure i have health insurance that would cover such a thing.

i make sure i have a house that is insured for what it's worth.

and i'm not following you on the last part...   please explain

Are you really so naive as to believe that whatever has been attainable by you is likewise attainable by anyone?

again - i'm not saying we shouldn't help out others.  i don't think that forced charity is the way to go.  especially forcing it through a system that's obviously not going to fulfill it's promise.

bratboy wrote:

Are you even completely "on your own" at this point in your life?

i have been since i was 21 and i'm 26 now.  paying for my own school loans (cause my parents made too much for me to qualify for a loan, but not enough to pay for my schooling), paying for my own house i bought when i was 21, and paying for my truck.

bratboy wrote:

Not everyone has health insurance, and there is certainly no rule that suggests that ANYONE can obtain ANY amount of health insurance for their family.  People lose jobs in one area and are not skilled to work in others, or must work for less pay.  People become injured and they cannot work.  People become sick and they cannot work, or they have to care for someone else who is sick.

You act as if people only come upon misfortune by their own doing (or lack of doing) . . . and I get the impression that you believe that anyone who doesn't have at least what you've obtained just hasn't been working hard enough.

I have difficultly buying the 'compassion' you strain to occasionally interject in these dicussions.

no - i know hard times fall on people.  please don't think i don't know this.  my dad was hurt at his job when i was young and couldn't work for a few years - but my mom worked fulltime and we didn't have much at all, but we made it through.

i know if i lost my job today - i wouldn't be able to live as comfortably - but i have family, friends, and a church i know would help me out.  that's social security in my mind.  and i understand not everyone has family/church/friends to rely on and i'm for welfare in the sense of helping someone get back on their feet.  but honestly - look on monster.com or your local paper or drive down the street.  there are more "now hiring" signs.  it might not be the job you had - but it's something.

Last edited by NokX (2005-12-12 6:30 pm)

Tetrachloride wrote:

The stock market is controlled by "people" who have years more experience in understanding prices and often manipulating them. 

The Social Security stock market plan would allow (force ?) people to make their own noob decisions.

Finally, in this stock market scheme, you could lose everything.

There are several very secure investment funds that perform better than social security.

iBubba wrote:

NokX wrote:

i don't want to pay for social security.  i'd rather take that $X/month i pay into it now and put it towards other investment opportunities that i feel would be better suited for my future.

Tough cookies. You live in a social country. We look out for our own. Don't like it?

:points to the door:

Once again: SS is not designed to be your retirement pension. That's what your 401(k) is for. SS is for helping take care of people who would otherwise be in the streets. Or dead. Or what have you.

Then why do I have money in a social security account that I am forced to pay into?

Dad - he never had to pay in. When SS first started, it was voluntary - but only those who put in would be able to take out. They then changed the law so that all new employees would have to go in - but Dad never changed jobs, never opted in - and though he just retired, can never receive social security because he never paid into the system.

A national retirement fund is EXACTLY what it was designed to be.
Yes - it is being used for welfare purposes, that isn't what it was designed for - and quite frankly, it shouldn't be. Welfare purposes should be covered by a tax, not SS - and really should be done by state, county, and city government - not federal, where cash hemhorages just because of the vast size of the organization controlling it.

Last edited by resedit (2005-12-12 6:48 pm)

BadNewsHokie wrote:

I want to bring this topic up because I'm not a Republican, but I don't understand why Democrats have been attacking the part of George Bush's plan to allow Americans to invest their social security money.

Are there any other countries that have done this with their retirement plans?

I for one would like the flexibility to earn returns on money that is coming out of my paycheck automatically. If the government set up the plan like a Money Market savings account where you can't lose money, what would be the problem? I think some Democrats (Barak Obama, for one) are underestamating the intelligence of Americans when fighting this.

What most Americans don't know is that a large portion of Government employees have ben investing their SS taxes for years now. One can do that if working for the USPS, or for any university that decides to create such a plan. I am certain that there are other government agencies other than the one I listed. I have been investing my portion of SS taxes for over ten years now. However, the transactions are done through the finance department of the agency I work for. The only options I have are on deciding what financial institutions and services I want to invest my money into. These institutions are the same that create 401K's and such. Before investing the SS tax deductions, one should analyze all the options presented by the employer. One should never invest the total sum on one stock, bond, etc. It should go in several directions, so if you lose on one you gain on another. If you could listen to Jim Cramer on his radio talk show, or even give him a call, he could give you free advise on how important "variety" is in relation to investing. By the way, Jim Cramer is a Democrat, and cofounder of "thestreet.com."

I like the idea, simply because it's my money, not the Government's.

I'm 25 years old, and have been working since I was fourteen, 11 straight years.  Last year I got my notice from social security, listing how much money I would be entitled to if I became permanently disabled, since I had worked 40 straight quarters. 

Frankly, I have no hope that the money I've already put in the system, and have to continue to do so, will be there.  I'd much rather take my chances investing the money myself.

I've been investing for my retirement since I was 18.  I understand how the market works, and since I am definitely in for the long haul (providing I don't get hit by a truck), I will come out ahead.  IRAs and mutual funds will grow, given time, and I have that.

NokX wrote:

yup - but apparently the government feels it's our duty (the people who actually work and strive to better themselves) to pick up everyone elses slack.

Isn't that the cost of living in a society such as ours?  The examples are endless.

Additionally . . . you're implying again (perhaps not intentionally) that those who make use of government assistance are not attempting to "actually work" or "better themselves," and that these faults are creating a "slack" which others are expected to cover.

again - i'm all for helping out those who have fallen on hard times.  but help me help you.  welfare, medicare/medicaid, social security/etc...  are in need of some major adjustments.

Are you of the opinion that the government offers too much in the way of assistance for medical care?