Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Sandy Landers
719 Followers
Officer Barbrady
2147 Followers
Professor Peak
673 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12956 Followers
Madrigalian
589 Followers
Genghis Khan
834 Followers
sandylandersMar 8, 2011Submitter
This is the Obama regime's vision for America. Spiraling energy costs, deficits that cannot be resolved, higher taxes, govt run healthcare, more public sector unions and millions out of work due to his anti-business policies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vectorbMar 9, 2011
Yep, all of this was instilled and set up the day after Bush left office.
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
Yes, there was no deficit or imbalanced budget or recession until the day Obama took office.
omgscienceMar 10, 2011
Bush left office? Wow! I just thought he got a tan!
texanrudeboyMar 10, 2011
Nobody burying you can point to major, concrete differences in policy between the two.
rudegarMar 10, 2011
bush started handouts to companys
bugsy187Mar 10, 2011
Wait, what? We pay into Social Security and get it back. We pay into Medicare and then get it back. If you're going to bitch about government spending then bitch about the military. About half of your federal taxes go to the military. Stop falling for every line of corporate propaganda as if you lack a brain.
yibbutkeenMar 10, 2011
About 15-20% go to the military. It makes up half of DISCRETIONARY spending, not half of the entire budget.
bugsy187Mar 10, 2011
What are your thoughts on this chart?
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
yibbutkeenMar 10, 2011
It just removes ss/medicare from the picture. However, it lumps in interest due on the existing debt (10% of the entire budget, not of the smaller chart you linked to) as military spending.
In any case, the social security "lock box" is a giant hoax. It doesn't exist, it's merely a paper fiction. The money is gone, stolen by corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerMar 10, 2011
Then make it the system clean again. The way we rid ourselves of the amount of corruption that can take place with a king and a class of lords, we must do again with the accumulation in the power of the current corporate government.
Social Security is an amazing program and has been funding Reagans bizarre tax-low/spend-high dream for the last 30 years.
It provided (and provides) for our grandparents in old age, and will provide for our parents. And not in its current form. In the way it did in the 1960s, when at least war came with financial responsibility.
bugsy187Mar 11, 2011
Money WAS stolen from Social Security... by Ronald Reagan. He pulled out billions for tax breaks. Now republicans cry that Social Security is broke. Congratulations, you've learned nothing from history and you're effectively defending the criminals.
yibbutkeenMar 11, 2011
@bugsy187
Reagan didn't write the budget to take the money. The budget bills are written by congress, and more specifically the house ways and means committee. At that time Tip O'Neill ruled the house. Under Reagan, we took a huge increase in social security taxes, up to 12.5% (6.25 from our paycheck and another 6.25 match from our employers).
bdbrMar 10, 2011
What you pay into Social Security is much less than you are given. It depends on a worker growth rate that they already knew wasn't possible. People like to think the baby boomers "broke" it, but it was broken when most of us were children and none of our yelling about fixing it can be heard over the retirees who vote in droves to keep it as is.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
It was allegedly fixed by Reagan and Greenspan when they raised SS taxes 30-odd years ago specifically to cover the cost of the boomer retirement.
spongya77Mar 10, 2011
Well, you should count yourself lucky. You pay into it, and some poor sod on the other side of the world gets it instead of you.
Count your blessings, I say.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
The productive don't want to pay into social security and medicare and get it back. Why pay in the first place, using your logic. We don't need others to carry our water.
tomorrowthesunMar 10, 2011
so who is this "the productive"? guy working at a big bank pulling 6 figures? construction worker? McDonald's employee?
I have only ever encountered one couple who I would definitely call unproductive (they were both on disability but functioned just fine for what i could tell and should have at least a part time job doing something but just sat on their gov't checks, which no liberal approves of by the way we should improve the system to get people like that out of it rather than cut people who do need it)... sry got a little ranty there :D
njdoo7Mar 10, 2011
This is not Obama's vision for America. Obama endorses and advances it, but it is not his vision.
This is the globalists' vision for America, and the entire world.
Do a google search of "UN Agenda 21."
Every president we have had for years has been a puppet for the same globalist interests which is why nothing significant has changed for decades.
This is also coupled with a plan called the New World Order, or global economic control.
Some people that have openly talked about this new world order:
- George Soros
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/george-soros-united-states-must-stop-resisting-orderly-decline-dollar-coming-global-currency
- George Bush Senior
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
- Head of International monetary fund
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2010/120810.htm
It's funny how the mainstream media will say this is a "crazy conspiracy theory" when these people in positions of power are calling for it on national tv. I guess they think people are dumb enough to believe any lie they put out.
This has been a globalist plan for a while now, and we are reaching the final stages of this plan.
Globalist Henry Kissinger made this very clear when he made this comment about the Egyptian revolution:
"only the first Scene of the first act of a drama that is to be played out."
http://videos.bloomberg.com/66352026.flv
They will use the hegelian dialectic to create "order" out of the chaos they are fostering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
Zbigniew Brzezinski is a key architect in this field, and even wrote a book about where he compares the world a giant chessboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
njdoo7Mar 10, 2011
I guess I should have been more clear about what the objective is.
The objective is global economic control. All countries would be in debt to the IMF or similar central bank, debt that is not possible to pay back. The IMF agenda is one where they force countries to yield control over certain policies such as economical and welfare policies.
Since the debt is impossible to pay back, the IMF gets gradually increasing interest payments from these countries. Then by wielding their control over fiscal policy, the IMF forces austerity on the people.
We have seen this happen already to a number of third world countries that the IMF has already taken over. It has most recently happened to Ireland where the IMF took control of 20% of retirement accounts, and in greece where the IMF is cutting benefits.
The end result is one where the IMF siphons a percentage of wealth off all economic activity, in the form of interest payments and global taxation.
The IMF is really a proxy for certain financial interests; the same ones that are behind the federal reserve cartel system. They are in their final push for worldwide economic dominance.
dirtyfriesMar 11, 2011
You should read Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I think it'd speak to what you're saying.
BTW, thanks for a post with citations. I appreciate that on here, it's a rarity.
laborerMar 12, 2011
Always a pleasure reading your infobombs njdoo
bluto36Mar 8, 2011
we are so close to becoming that "progressive" haven
way to go 0!
WWZMar 8, 2011
...and this is why I hate paying taxes and I get so f**king pissed off every time I receive a hard EARNED paycheck.
bugsy187Mar 10, 2011
Then bitch about the military. About half your federal taxes go to the military.
endomlikMar 11, 2011
Good luck getting your new iphones and HD TVs shipped for affordable prices when trading lanes are taken over by crime states. Military power is key to global economy. It does suck, we police so many areas that shouldn't be our responsibility.
There are times we over step our limit though (Iraq). I do think we should cut back spending but I don't think generalizing military as a waste is intelligent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Mar 11, 2011
If we produced our own electronics here in the US rather than outsourcing the majority of manufacturing and labor jobs, we wouldn't have to worry so much about trade routes, now, would we?
bugsy187Mar 11, 2011
We have nukes. I think we'll be ok. Aside from that we're spending, i think, half our GDP on the military. We spend as much as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. That's bombs not books, rockets not roads, howitzers not hospitals, missile defense not... something that's actually produced a functioning technology from billions of dollars. Bravo, buddy. You're parroting the dumb arguments for defense spending we've heard from from dim-wits like you for decades. Come back when you've done ANY research at all.
endomlikMar 11, 2011
Way to come back with personal attacks. I made a civil comment. Where in my argument did I say military spending is fine? I doubt that the research you do means anything, if you can't read my comment and see that I was agreeing with you. Spending needs to be cut. I'm sure the military spending had no effect on your ability to write comments on digg.com. Technology from military has no effect on the economy. I'm sure GPS doesn't rack in a bunch of money for our citizens. I wonder how these airplane NAV systems got put into place. LORAN C which provided nav and precise frequency for growing technology fields which later was decommissioned when GPS took it's place. The military is putting SATs in space that are updated versions of GPS that will some day be availible for commercial use. I'm sure during you extensive research you didn't come across any of this.
stackoleeMar 10, 2011
You don't think you benefit at all from the status quo? You have no relatives collecting social security or enjoying Medicare? You're business is completely isolated from all of these "welfare" dollars?
The most curious line in the article reads: "Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population", so are they including wages paid to government workers in this tally? I'd certainly like to hear more on this distribution.
professorpeakMar 8, 2011
This has got to stop!
meribianMar 10, 2011
So stop it then.
justlisteningMar 8, 2011
The worst programs are those that give to people that have made those programs a way of life, and have never earned their keep. Have you ever stood behind a couple of parents with three or four kids with a couple of carts full of food.... The parents (and sometimes even the kids) have multiple tattoos, body piercings with diamond studs, gold chains, watches, and jewelry, each has a state of the art cell phone, the kids all have NBA or NFL jackets, caps, and sneakers... and they pay with a welfare card? Those are the payout programs that need significant reworking... starting with drug testing!
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
That's where I'm confused by this article. I don't see how the kind of welfare you are referring to equates to social security which you get by paying into it. I think of the term welfare as referring to what you are talking about - free assistance for poor people. If I work 35 years paying into social security every week, I don't think that my ss checks I receive after retirement should be called welfare.
justlisteningMar 9, 2011
I agree 100%. Programs that people work and contribute to are NOT assistance programs. Most of those people also have a 401K, and other retirement alternatives that they acquire on their own. Personal responsibility is pehaps another key difference!
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
Yea, but that basically invalidates this whole article. It doesn't split out what percent is ss. I'd like to know if they didn't count ss as welfare, then what the percent. A hell of a lot less I'd say.
People should keep in mind that social security has never added to the deficit. It has always been paid for by the ss contributions out of people's paychecks. That's what's so ironic about people wanting to cut ss to reduce the deficit.
stackoleeMar 10, 2011
Look at the first line "Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population". I think the authors are including wages for government employees, which I wouldn't qualify as "welfare" spending.
So yeah, shady article is shady.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
It all depends on how you define welfare. If you define welfare as one group of people being taxed to support another group, then social security is welfare. The benefits that people are receiving from social security now are not from what they paid into the program, but what people working now are paying into the program. The social security program is a huge Ponzi scheme. If you are under the age of 40, you will be lucky to receive half of what you pay into the program. So, you should start thinking of social security as a tax with possibly no future benefit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/03/the_social_security_ponzi_sche.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html
d4nie1Mar 10, 2011
"If you define welfare as one group of people being taxed to support another group, then social security is welfare."
But that seems to suggest that the group being supported did nothing to deserve it, when in fact they contributed money out of their paychecks for decades and are just being paid back. The welfare label doesn't fit at all.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
I'm not even trying to make the argument that Social Security is welfare for people that receive no more than what they paid into the system. I've been paying into the system for the past 15 years and I certainly wouldn't call any future payments received welfare. My post was simply to state that this discussion on Social Security being welfare depends on how you define welfare. If the system is not able to payout the full benefit to you in the future, how would you categorize the earnings that you were taxed and received by someone that did not pay fully into the system due to disability etc?
d4nie1Mar 10, 2011
I would call it insurance.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
You may call it insurance but insurance is a way to manage risk and implies that you have something of value that you are trying to protect. I optionally pay insurance on my house, car and health. The government requires me to be taxed for SS and admits that before I retire that it cannot payout the full benefit.
ofoarheffinsakeMar 10, 2011
I have never seen that in my life, and I've lived in some pretty poor areas.
I suspect you've never seen anything close to that either, but you've heard people saying it happens so much that you've convinced yourself you actually have.
justlisteningMar 10, 2011
Any day of the week while grocery shopping, or at Walmart. I have seen it first hand.... many, many, many times!
miklkitMar 10, 2011
Walmart? EEEWWW...
chilidogsMar 10, 2011
And somehow you magically know what the situation is for all of those people? Just keep lying.
justlisteningMar 10, 2011
You need to wake.... or get off of welfare!
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
This is just how the GOP wants you to react. Blame the poor people while the bankers, and all the wealthy take the biggest share in one way or another. Corporate welfare is the biggest scene stealer of all.
chilidogsMar 12, 2011
I think that cons like you actually believe this. You believe that you can tell who is on welfare by looking at them and you believe that if some disagrees with you or does not disparage and blame the poor then they must be on welfare too. I am not on welfare nor have I ever received any government assistance. I worked my way through college as a janitor. I was offered a job as soon as I graduated and I have been there since. I am a home owner and a tax payer and I can't imagine the bizzaro world in which I would ever vote for a republican as a national representative.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
I too haven't seen the Welfare Card (food stamps) being used very often. But, I don't doubt there are some that fit your definition. Unfortunately, some who see that pay 'special attention' and then apply this 'view' to all in need. Look up 'Confirmation Bias'.
audiomodderMar 10, 2011
i just saw something similar the other day...someone buying a case of Busch Light with food stamps...
while i understand that at least he's buying Busch, it's still not right that you can buy beer with food stamps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
Wait, I thought you could not buy alcohol with Food Stamps in most states....
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
you cannot buy beer with food stamps anywhere in America. Go educate yourself on the issues before posting.
chilidogsMar 12, 2011
How does it feel to lie with no other intention than to hurt poor people? What kind of black soul and dead heart does it take to do that?
No where in this country can you buy alcohol with food stamps.
jhw539Mar 10, 2011
"The worst programs are... "
The welfare queens were ended by Newt and crew, didn't you get the memo? That's why the last Republican Congress (under Bush - it wasn't that long ago they were in complete control) had to find something else to do.
markglMar 8, 2011
My butt hurts.
WWZMar 9, 2011
That's because you are taking it in the ass from 1/3 of the country.
chilidogsMar 10, 2011
"Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. "
I know it's hard for cons to read but you can go slow and sound the words out. This is the first sentence of the article.
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
Here's a novel idea. Just keep the money we now give to the government, rather than giving it to them so they can give it back to us. Hard to understand?
bc1358Mar 8, 2011
Statistics like these are a liberal's wet dream. Barry and his criminal gang want nothing more than to have most Americans beholden to the state for their support. When that happens there will be no turning back because people will become psychologically dependent on the state "providing" for them and the thought of being self-reliance will become so foreign that they won't even want to consider it. We are on a slippery slope to ruin if this is not reversed soon.
The Republicans in Congress must stand firm and push back, even to the point of a shutdown. If fiscal conservatives are not in the majority after the 2012 elections, plus the White House, I fear the US as a Republic will be over and the tyranny of the majority (of welfare recipients) will drag us to ruin and those who are productive into servitude to the state.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jacquelynekMar 12, 2011
Your ignorance is a Republicans wet dream.
bc1358Mar 14, 2011
Wow, you are very articulate. Typical of a lefty.Well done.
leogodin217Mar 8, 2011
Social Security isn't welfare. We are all forced to pay into this mandatory low yield retirement plan. It's silly to include it with Medicare and Unemployment. Even much of unemployment is covered by mandatory taxes.
bc1358Mar 8, 2011
Actually it is welfare. For the vast majority of those on Social Security, they are getting back in benefits far more than they and their employers put into the system. For those high earners, the benefits they receive and will receive will be far less than what they and their employers put in over the years. Social Security is a massive transfer of wealth from high earners to lower earners and from the young to the old. If that's not welfare, I don't know what is.
As for whether it is a good system, I think it is not. People should have been allowed to invest their own contributions and that of their employers in some real investments that earned a return for their benefit. Instead the state took these funds to pay for current programs. It was build from the beginning as a huge Ponzi scheme, which was fine when there were far more workers that benefit recipients and people didn't live long after retirement. But now the demographics are bankrupting the system and hence the country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leogodin217Mar 9, 2011
So some of it is welfare and some is not. It's still silly to lump all social security spending as welfare. When I retire and receive my pathetic social security "benefits" I will receive far less than what I would have if I'd been allowed to invest it, or even just stick it in the bank. I will not be receiving welfare.
spectecjrMar 12, 2011
But on the other hand, it's there as a low-water mark for your future. The market can't crash and nuke it - as many people saw happen to their retirements in 2008. And you can't take it out of the bank and spend it before you retire. Or use it to buy a house.
jhw539Mar 10, 2011
"For the vast majority of those on Social Security, they are getting back in benefits far more than they and their employers put into the system. "
Citation please. Bear in mind that working age people have been paying into social security for almost 70 years at this point.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
This may be of interest about payments and benefits received.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/03/the_social_security_ponzi_sche.html
jhw539Mar 10, 2011
That's a pretty simplistic argument that completely fails considering that just about everyone now receiving benefits paid into it their entire lives. But cute how he dotes on how a few old folks in 1939, before my mother was even born, got a windfall.
I'm puzzled at how conservatives can argue that social security provides a worse return than a private option would, yet at the same time they argue that people who paid in their whole lives are now getting out more than they paid in. BOTH CAN NOT BE TRUE.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
The article illustrates that what people receive in benefits has little to do with what is paid into the system. People retiring in future are the ones that are going to get the raw end of this deal.
Here's an article http://www.american.com/archive/2011/march/is-social-security-middle-class-welfare that cites the work done by Bommier, Lee, Miller and Zuber that shows that "...throughout much of Social Security’s life the net tax rate paid by the average participant was negative, meaning that they received more in benefits than they paid in taxes, even after accounting for interest." The numbers after 2010 would require making assumptions about employment rate, interest rates etc. so that trend line could be very different.
My most recent social security statement regarding my taxed social security earnings stated "the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's young workers are ready for retirement.
In 2016 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."
I hold out little hope that the system will be able to payout 76 cents on the dollar in 2037 considering the under estimation of costs and over estimation on tax revenue that the government makes year after year. The Social Security system is a ponzi scheme. Even one of the Social Security Trustees, Charles Brahous, couldn't explain the difference between the way Social Security is funded and a ponzi scheme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NI5L7vQ4cU
To pour more salt in the wound of those paying into the system is that you cannot even name beneficiaries that could receive your benefits upon death. The only family members that are eligible are your spouse age 60 or older or your unmarried children younger than 18, still in school and younger than 19 years old, or adult children disabled before age 22. If it was truly my benefits then I could name anyone as the beneficiary.
If given the choice I would opt out of the system and allow those that wanted to continue making contributions, to do so.
jhw539Mar 11, 2011
"The article illustrates that what people receive in benefits has little to do with what is paid into the system."
You can't really be this stupid. I hope people bother to actually read your link. It does not say what you appear to think it does.
And ponzi scheme does not mean what you think means, no matter how cool a bumpersticker it makes.
jhw539Mar 10, 2011
This is a fun toy:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/01/approximating-social-securitys-rate-of.html
SS gives 1%-3% (best if you're poor) rate of return. It is VERY hard for anyone to argue with a straight face that people alive now are receiving more than they put in. As it should be - the benefit of SS is it is 100% safe. It will give you enough money to live, but not a cent more. Private savings are so you can enjoy your retirement, SS is just to keep your starving ass off the sidewalks so that those of us who saved can get by.
hippomoeMar 10, 2011
I provided this link http://www.american.com/archive/2011/march/is-social-security-middle-class-welfare in a post above, it cites evidence that the average participant for most of SS's history has received more than they paid into the system.
It also makes the statement "The problem with Social Security isn’t that it’s welfare to the middle class of the future; it’s welfare to the middle class of the past."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Mar 11, 2011
"it cites evidence that the average participant for most of SS's history has received more than they paid into the system. "
It cites that people USED TO GET MORE than they paid it. It also quite clearly states THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE. people retiring now are expected to receive little more from social security than they paid in. We've gotten through the start up cost of freeloaders, everyone pulling benefits now paid for them.
jqp123Mar 10, 2011
"For the vast majority of those on Social Security, they are getting back in benefits far more than they and their employers put into the system."
If this were true, the system would have gone broke years ago.
The reason why it's not true --- the time value of money. The typical retiree is paying his money into the system years in advance.
Using standard accounting practices and a decent rate of return (say comparable to the historical average of the S&P 500), $1000 paid into the Social Security system in 1980 is worth around $18,000 today.
The vast majority of those on Social Security will never recover anywhere close to what they've paid in over their lifetime.
shwaavayMar 9, 2011
I haven't seen the numbers, but I think you find that much of social security's liability comes from things other than retirement payouts.
You can get yourself too fat to work and get a disability check for example.
leogodin217Mar 9, 2011
It would be interesting to see the numbers. I honestly do not know how much goes to pay off the mandatory retirement plans and how much is what you are talking about. I certainly will not feel like I'm on welfare when, or if, I receive social security.
Of course, I'd much rather have the opportunity to manage my own retirement account, rather than being forced to let the government do it.
rcook18Mar 9, 2011
Did you notice that this article is written by the executive producer of Fast Money? The motivation for the article may be for the author to make fast money.
Lots of people (such as myself) have a 401k -- how are those people doing? Are they financially secure with the investments they have chosen? Or, have they watched profits siphoned off year after year by the financial markets industry?
Who is doing very well these days? Who is getting rich? Is it because they are extra smart or work extra hard? Or, is it because they have stolen our money and hired a political party to drive the getaway car?
leogodin217Mar 9, 2011
Great point. Even those who have worked hard and invested may not be doing well. Unfortunately, neither party seems to care. A few Democrats fought for real healthcare reform, but not many. Republicans fight for lower taxes, and while I want lower taxes, the positive impact is far less than the damage done by intentional globalization and corporate sponsorship. Both of which are bi-partisan.
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
Yes this is a classic publisher trick to play Devil's advocate just to get more web traffic and tongues wagging.
roddackMar 9, 2011
No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in. But those on the high end of the wage scale pay proportionally more in taxes than the average wage earner, not surprisingly.
Example: A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).
A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.
Read more: Social Security benefits vs. taxes | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/#ixzz1G7kLoJoX
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/
leogodin217Mar 9, 2011
In either case, I'm receiving far less than I would with even a conservative retirement account. I'm also receiving money at the deflated value of the day. Taking inflation into account, I'm getting doubly screwed. This all brings us back to some of Social Security is welfare and some is not. Counting all of it as welfare is disingenuous.
jqp123Mar 11, 2011
"A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman)."
To be so "conservative", you certainly don't know much about money.
$345,000 paid over 35 years is $821 per month. Assuming a rate of return equal to the historical average of the S&P 500, the value of $821 per month for 35 years is about $2.5 million in today's dollars.
Receiving $417,000 after paying $821 per month for 35 years is actually receiving less than 20% of what you've paid in using standard accounting practices and the time value of money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stackoleeMar 10, 2011
Indeed, most people forget (or flatly ignore) that Social Security is fine, and will be for another twenty-or-so years if left in its current state. Even then it'll still be able to pay out a large percentage of its promised contributions for decades.
The larger problem is that every president since LBJ has flat out stole from Social Security to fund other areas of government (or wars).
taiyoryuMar 10, 2011
unemployment isn't welfare either. it's a state managed INSURANCE program. your company pays for it if you're employed---self-employed people are on their own---and so it's part of the overhead (like your desk and computer) when you are hired. your company pays for your insurance premiums and it is NOT taken out of your paycheck.
as for why the federal government is paying unemployment at the moment is because the economic advisers felt is was better to make sure people don't lose their homes, go hungry, or whatnot, and extend unemployment benefits as well as allow states that have run out of money (companies go out of business, move out of state, etc.) to BORROW from the federal government to keep paying out benefits.
I don't see how anyone can misconstrue insurance and loans as welfare.
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
It is welfare. I know a number of people who "choose" to collect unemployment rather than work a job that pays the same or a little more than unemployment. If a company offers 3 days of work to an employee and the employee doesn't want to work those 3 day, but rather collect unemployment, the employer is paying twice. He is forced to pay for someone to be unproductive when work is available. The lazy will stay lazy unless they must work to eat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
1) Even a child can understand the game of musical chairs.
THERE. AREN'T. ENOUGH. JOBS.
2) Even if what you say ("I know a number of people who 'choose' to collect unemployment rather than work...") is 100% true and accurate - that's NOT welfare, that's insurance fraud.
JustSayNoPartyMar 10, 2011
It realy isn't welfare. And, it is a good program. Calling all people receiving 'unemployment' lazy is ridiculous. In fact, for our economy, it is probably a good thing that people spend this time to retool and look for the next position. But, I wouldn't want unemployment to extend beyond 6 months in normal conditions. Then, it does start smelling more like 'welfare'.
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
We aren't in normal conditions now.. as much as the media would like to portray it as such.
JustSayNoPartyMar 12, 2011
Exactly, which is why I'm ok with 'extended unemployment'. But, Florida is not looking at reducing unemployment to 20 weeks.
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
People like you need to realize that there
1) ARENT ENOUGH JOBS
2) A lot of jobs aren't enough to survive
3) Even if its 3 days work or 5 days work doesn't mean its full pay. In fact its much less. Maybe its the same pay that someone might have received for the same job in 1 or 2 days pay a few years ago. Doesn't mean the cost of living is any less, in fact its increased and keeps increasing.
4) You can't pay your rent or your light/gas / food. If you are on unemployment in some states you might have been forced to move in with your family. Why? Because the unemployment is not enough to survive on. States like Mississippi and Arizona pay only $200 or so a week. Family/Friends only have so much patience. You get a job and so what? Now you are there forever cause you can't afford your own place?
5) Don't forget if you have a college degree loan that MUST BE PAID no matter what job you get. While you are on unemployment you can put it on hold but the minute you get that $3/hour job you gotta pay up!
6) People have children and other financial concerns as well. Perhaps they lost their primary mode of transportation or it might be breaking down and won't hold much longer.
7) Considering the schedule of some part time jobs, some people might turn them down because they have to figure in the time required of having 2 part time jobs just to get by.
I hope people like you face this issue on your own and then realize what its really like.
Stop drinking beer and see things for what they really are instead of whatever ignorant stuff you like to post.
monvalleyMar 12, 2011
No one works for $3 hour as you stated and collecting unemployment does not resolve any of the issues you whine about. I like most other people, have worked multiply jobs when required to meet my needs. I choose not to be in the 10% that claim they can't find jobs. I'm a member of the 90% club that provides for myself and unfortunately, for those that don't want to work. We 90 percenters face all the same issues you itemized but we do something about it rather than whining. Oh, and I don't drink beer, I prefer wine of the dry red variety. Final thought; NOT ENOUGH JOBS, well 90% of us found them, all you have to do is look.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jacquelynekMar 12, 2011
wrong. wait staff work at appx $2.90 /hour ... tips if they get any is extra. And you are wrong about the jobs. Consider yourself lucky you aren't looking for one right now.
You are DEAD WRONG about the jobs. Just go to the unemployed friends forum and see for yourself what some people go through.
jacquelynekMar 12, 2011
And you are most likely wrong about any 90% club either LOL. There are a lot more people unemployed/underemployed than you even realize. Again consider your ungracious ignoram-ass to be lucky
Collecting unemployment gives people the ability and time to look for another job. End of story.
jacquelynekMar 11, 2011
P. S. Its hard to believe that people are turning down part time jobs like you say. If they applied then they wanted the job.
If its a job that pays dirt s**t they wouldn't apply to begin with hence the (turning down never happens to begin with).
There's plenty of competition for every dirt s**t job out there believe me. Those little jobs paying what used to give some high school kids a little extra money to go to the movies and buy a pair of jeans have a lot of competition now.
You are full of s**t.
ghengiskhan1Mar 8, 2011
This would be unacceptable in a sane country devoted to self preservation and maximizing human potential.
rcook18Mar 9, 2011
The Bush administration gave business every advantage in this country and corporate management made themselves rich -- jobs were not created, manufacturing infrastructure was not created, oil independence was not even attempted. That approach was insane and that is the current Republican plan. You can say Obama has done no better ( and I won't disagree) but bankrupting people and fattening corporations is the road to ruin.
casf1bMar 9, 2011
When more and more of your budget and debt is totally devoted to just handing out money to a larger and larger segment of the population for just standing still, you have a dying society. Your children and grandchildren will have no incentive to work, create, improve or dream. They will just "exist" to pay the bills of others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
Receiving social security is not a "handout" when you have paid into it for 35 years.
yibbutkeenMar 10, 2011
But that is only part of it. SS pays benefits to lots of other people besides retirees. Disabled, survivors, children, etc. I'm not saying some of those aren't worthy of support, but they have all been added to social security. And there is a lot of fraud re disablility.
d4nie1Mar 10, 2011
Ok, but that does not make up a majority of where social security goes. The article is claiming that one third of US wages go to welfare, and is counting all of social security as welfare to support that statement. It just isn't true.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
Orphans, widows and the disabled are only a minuscule amount of SS recipients.
"And there is a lot of fraud re disablility [sic]."
Citation is needed for that irrelevant and separate issue.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
True and dugg. The mindless right wing zombies are drinking the f**king Kool-Aid again.
ferretmanMar 9, 2011
This is just *wrong*!
Not the way it's supposed to work by a long shot.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
You're right: referring to earned and paid-for wages as "welfare" is just *wrong*.
angrycat70Mar 9, 2011
socialist insecurity: we'll never see it.
we'll come of age in the ashes when the dollar is just a memory and people kill each other over an old can of cat food.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ewilkeMar 9, 2011
This type of spending is insane.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
It would be insane if true.
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
I fail to see why the writer says social security is a welfare handout when I pay into it in every paycheck. By the time I retire I will have contributed who knows how much money over my lifetime of work, and yet this person is saying when I receive my social security check I'll be receiving "welfare"?
roddackMar 9, 2011
Because you get more back than you put it
No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in. But those on the high end of the wage scale pay proportionally more in taxes than the average wage earner, not surprisingly.
Example: A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).
A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.
Read more: Social Security benefits vs. taxes | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/#ixzz1G7kLoJoXComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
Well but you could die before you reach 65 and never receive a dime. Not everyone gets more out of it than they put into it. It's only those that live long lives.
If I buy insurance on my house, and it burns down, giving me back much more than I had paid into it, would you say that I had received "welfare"?
I would not be opposed to ss being changed to a more 401k like system where everyone had their own private account with it's own balance ( as long as there was a good plan for transitioning to it that did not leave our elderly population high and dry )
In any case, I take issue with this idea that people that receive social security checks are receiving charity. I think that's a little insulting to our retired population. This is not the same as what we normally are talking about when we say "welfare".
roddackMar 9, 2011
I would say that in regards to the insurance situation presented it would not be classified as welfare because the agreement in of itself requires the consent of both parties involved also I can terminate that contract each renew period if I so desire.
Now Social Security is different in that I am required to partake in the system regardless of personal preference which is what sets the two apart.
I think the most of the complaints about Social Security as welfare are derived more from the disability benefits that people receive as opposed to the retirement portion. I think for most people since the system acts more of a transfer of payments from the current working populace to the retired populace they view it as welfare since it is taking from one and giving to another.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
"I think for most people since the system acts more of a transfer of payments from the current working populace to the retired populace they view it as welfare since it is taking from one and giving to another."
Ok well insurance plans work by taking from some people to give to another as well. Social security may be required, but that does not change the fact that it is basically retirement insurance. Yes, it is funded by the working population giving to the retired population, but that retired population did contribute back when they were working, and when the current working population retires they will receive the benefit.
It just seems so illogical the way people are looking at social security as welfare or charity and blaming it for our deficit problems. It is not welfare and it has not contributed anything to the deficit.
sandylandersMar 9, 2011Submitter
@d4nie1
You make a lot of sense and my first comment did not mean to include SS. I expect in a real investment to get back more than I put in via growth in the economy. That is why my 403B is invested in businesses that are expected to grow and be profitable. You make a good point that some will never see their SS, some who have paid a lot into it may see reduced benefits because they have a higher retirement income from their investments and some may get more back than they put into the system. In the end SS will be rationed in time.
The problem is SS is not an investment nor is the money "sequestered" to pay out for you at a later time. All of the payroll taxes go to immediate payouts. Another issue with SS is that when there were surpluses the politicians put disability and veterans benefits onto the system. SS was never intended to support all the groups that it is currently supporting.
I would love to have the $15,000 that I piss away in SS taxes and put it into a real investment that has the prospect of real growth over time.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
@sandielanders:
In addition to Social Security insurance, you also included unemployment insurance as welfare. That's two big mistakes in one sentence.
In the future try to be more careful before posting an article. I am told that if you contact digg, they will allow help you re-edit a description. Better hurry!
d4nie1Mar 9, 2011
Sandy makes a good point that in a normal 401k investment you would also expect to receive in retirement far more than you deposited. Even if a person lives a long life and receives back more than they contributed, are you taking into account what the interest would have been on that money? Compound interest of contributions over 35 years would no doubt add up to a lot.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
The problem is Social Security doesn't invest the money it takes in, meaning inflation will lessen the value of the money put into the system, whereas in a 401k you can expect to make 11.5% on your money invested in the long run. The more astonishing fact is that social security surpluses have never been saved period, they were just used to balance other budgets. It's an unsustainable program.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d4nie1Mar 10, 2011
"It's an unsustainable program."
These are all different arguments that whether or not it is welfare. By your arguments if anything people are receiving less than they deserve based on their deposits, not more than they deserve. I'd be fine with moving to private accounts as long as it could be transitioned to without leaving our current elderly population high and dry.
chilidogsMar 10, 2011
"The problem is Social Security doesn't invest the money it takes in, meaning inflation will lessen the value of the money put into the system"
They don't take the money and hold it. They take current payments and use them to pay the current retirees. When you retire the current works will be paying your social security. The whole point is to avoid inflation and it works.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
You guys are flaunting your ignorance. For years Social Security has taken in more money than it has paid out. It's a fact that those surpluses were never saved or invested, they were just used to balance budgets on other spending programs. This is a fact, you can check on the USA Comptrollers website.
"The whole point is to avoid inflation and it works."
Thats laughable, go ask someone living on Social Security vs. someone who retired on investments and ask them if they're beating inflation.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
@d4nie1
Your absolutely right, they are receiving less than they deserve based on their deposits, that was my point, and that is the tragedy of the SS program. We've given people a false sense of security, and politicians have abused the program and the money it takes in.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
You are required to partake in the system because you will eventually die, regardless of what your personal preference for immortality might be.
yibbutkeenMar 10, 2011
Remember, your employer matches your payment. So if you have paid $345k in taxes, your employers have paid ANOTHER $345k in taxes, ie $690k paid with $417k back.
Personally I'd love to just opt out of the whole system. I've made the maximum contribution for most of the last 30 years. All money down the toilet.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
It's INSURANCE. You may get more than you pay into it or you may not get anything at all.
novenatorMar 9, 2011
Funny, I didn't think *anyone* paid 33% taxes on these things since the top tax rate is only 34.5%
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
Your comment makes no sense, please elaborate.
cold0008Mar 10, 2011
Well even when I was making barely above the poverty line, once you included Medicare and social security taxes along with income tax, it was pretty close to a third of my paycheck.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
But if your making that small of an amount of money, you pay no income tax.
cold0008Mar 10, 2011
Being unmarried, having no children, owning my car, and renting my apartment, I still had to pay a little in income taxes. Not a whole lot I can deduct there. The "most people do not pay income taxes" statistics mostly come from the poor who have children, or young married couples who bought a house at the correct time and are paying off student loans.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
right, and those working poor with children collect credits, whereby the get back more money than they paid in in the first place, which is maybe the truest form of welfare by virtue of the discussions in this thread. The entire tax system needs to be re-imagined.
cold0008Mar 10, 2011
At that point in time society's investment in me hadn't paid off yet and likely still has not. I was a lost job, a case of pneumonia or defective condom away from poverty. What it comes down to is that even though I made very little I was able to pay my taxes and I thought it was fair (except for the home owners credit, that's some kind of bulls**t) whereas if I had a child I could not have paid my taxes. I'm not sure what options I would have had so that I was paying out more than I was getting in. What it comes down to is that we all benefit from a stable society, and if we aren't going to pay people enough to live, taxes are going to have to cover the basic needs of those who cannot provide them for themselves.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
If you have a child you know you get to claim a dependent and your paid income taxes go down. Also I guess if your one job wasn't covering your responsibilities I guess you would have had to have looked for a second one. There have been times in my life where I worked 3. Most people are too dependent on the government to cover their rainy days and thats part of the problem we're facing.
cold0008Mar 10, 2011
If I had a kid I could have saved a couple hundred dollars in income taxes, gotten food stamps, welfare and medicaid and even with all those things my standard of living would have went down. I know there are idiots out there who game the system, and they are few and far between, but that is not a good life for anybody. I've put in 60 hour weeks too, but those extra 20 hours still wouldn't have covered a kid at how much I was getting paid and even then, with a child working 60 hours would have been nearly impossible. If we hold the opinion that the only goal of corporations is to make a profit, and there is nothing wrong with that opinion, government has to make up for where capitalism fails.
retardIQ70Mar 11, 2011
A person not being able to support their kid is not a failing of capitalism. If you cant afford to take care of a child, or aren't willing to put in the extra hours or make the sacrifices, then don't have one. Simple as that. I have no sympathy for people who have children and aren't prepared for that responsibility.
cold0008Mar 11, 2011
Ok, so poor working parents don't have your sympathy, what do you propose we do? Let them starve? People have unwanted children, or get sick, or lose their job suddenly. I understand the viewpoint that if we did not give them food they would work harder, but that is just not realistic. When the market deems that a person's labor is not worth enough to scrape out a modest living, the government needs to step in.
wealthmanagerMar 10, 2011
We are almost there...
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
Oh yeah, entitlements aren't back breaking at all...
rudegarMar 10, 2011
as an European I get the feeling that Americans are
1. the people in the world who hate paying taxes the most
2. the people who mistrust their government most
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
And you would be absolutely right. Power corrupts as they say.
yibbutkeenMar 10, 2011
The sad thing is, as rotten and corrupt as the US government is, it is actually one of the better ones in the world.
meribianMar 10, 2011
And probably 4/5th of Maine's wages.
chilidogsMar 10, 2011
"Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. "
People pay into all of those things none of them are welfare.
drthunderMar 10, 2011
SS and Unemployment Insurance are not handouts. You pay into them. That is like saying taking money out your savings account is a handout from the bank. And once again a corporate shill uses the baby boomers lie. THEY ALREADY ADJUSTED FOR THE BABY BOOMERS IN THE 80s. The baby boomers didn't magical appear in the last few years. The only problem with SS is that wages have stayed flat for the last 30 years and the Government keeps "borrowing" money from it so they can spend money without rising taxes.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
You're like the 5th person to make this point so I am going to have to respond...you're half right. In reality everyone who has ever paid a tax(read everyone) has paid into a welfare program, so while yes you have paid into the system, it still becomes welfare when you take out more than you put in. That is the whole problem in a nutshell, we've created these unsustainable programs that people have come to depend on long term. Whether you agree with these programs or not, the fact has to be recognized that they are unsustainable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drthunderMar 10, 2011
Unemployment Insurance is insurance so some people will pullout more then other you know because it is insurance. That is kind of the point. And for SS most people will not pull out more then they put in because the whole death thing. And even if that was true I think not having elderly people leaving in complete poverty is a good thing. SS is not a retirement plan it is a keep you from eating cat food program when you are to old to work. The only program I have a problem with is MediCare. It is a handout to Insurance companies so they don't have to insure the people that would need it. 90% of health care cost comes from the elderly and 90% of the elderly are on Medicare. Get rid of health insurance companies put everyone on Medicare and you solve 2 problems. Medicare deficit would go away and the cost you would pay would go down.
retardIQ70Mar 10, 2011
The problem is most Americans have treated SS as their sole retirement plan.
These arguments about whether or not these programs constitute welfare are a waste of time really. The fact is, these programs are not sustainable in their current state and something needs to be done. As usual Americans will just fall back on finger pointing and trivial arguments.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
Agreed and dugg!
(May I suggest a rewrite though to tighten it up and make the points stronger?)
drthunderMar 10, 2011
I didn't read what I wrote before I hit Post. I have typing dyslexia.
nygenxerMar 11, 2011
No big. At least you thought about things before typing. Some of these other comments are from the shallow end of the gene pool.
al3efromanMar 10, 2011
I guess it's not important that Social Security is not welfare. I suppose it's also not important that states administer welfare. If they were important, it would probably make the title seem disingenuous
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
Please stop playing games with semantics, its fairly infuriating.
Welfare/Entitlements et al amount to the same thing. Pyramid schemes that are unsustainable. SS especially is a rigged game with the government making and changing the rules on a whim.
If they did something like a Superannuation program like Australia or some other Social Democracy then it wouldn't be welfare. Because its YOUR money. You get out what you put in.
SS doesn't work that way, they have formulas, they have restrictions, they don't allow you to make ANY choices with that money what-so-ever. And when it comes time for you, who may or may not have contributed to it over the course of your life to draw upon it, they may change the age limit and you would have to wait 4 more years to draw. Or perhaps they will start taking double digit % more of your paycheck to continue to fund at current levels. Or perhaps you won't get anything at all. Because you never once had control over any of it.
al3efromanMar 10, 2011
Your addition of "/entitlements" is a bit of a tacit admission that the description "welfare" by itself is insufficient. It would seem word games don't actually infuriate you. I suspect you are plenty intelligent and capable of understanding what a loaded word "welfare" is.
"Because you never once had control over any of it." The people I elect do. You can have the argument that those people that we do elect are spineless and won't change anything, but it is defeatist and disingenuous to claim "you never once had control over any of it" We don't live in an oligarchy, we chose these people.
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
The term welfare isn't nailed down to "a program", it is a term that encompasses ALL handout's for whatever reason.
Entitlement's encompasses "welfare" as a program that is provided by the States and/or Federal Govt. to those they deem as "in need".
Social Security, by the same token, is doled out similarly.
What part of this do you fail to understand?
As for choosing our representatives, yes they were chosen, and they usurped our liberty to pander to a generation (baby boomers) at subsequent generations expense. It continues to this day. If we were truly adherent to our principles, all of Congress, the Senate, and members of the Executive and Judicial branches from the last 60-80 years would all be thrown in jail for their subversions. I seriously doubt that the people were clamoring for an income tax in (the year it was ratified) 1913 (which took the federal govt. from 6% of our GDP to 25% of our GDP by 1918).
Unfortunately, there is no exit strategy short of collapse. It's going to be interesting times ahead, I seriously doubt the Republic will continue to exist in its current form and the people who have demanded so much of others to continue their existence will get nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
@drazen77:
Ha ha! al3efroman nailed you. It's fun to watch your intellectual tap dancing though.
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
This coming from John, the welfare entitlement kid, yes?
nygenxerMar 11, 2011
No..has getting called on your bulls**t messed with your head?
woollymittensMar 10, 2011
Quickly, let's use this as an excuse to justify giving everything to the rich elite so they can trickle something down over the poor.
samoht513Mar 10, 2011
here is an interesting article from columbia journalism review, basically calling this article b.s.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/cnbc_misleads_on_welfare_state_1.php
basically, he is just using numbers to prove a dishonest political point.
thubanMar 10, 2011
Just remember there is no free lunch. When the system becomes populated with more taker than makers, system fall down go boom.
casf1bMar 10, 2011
You can't say that! Do you know how many Obama voters and union members you would upset if you told them reality? As Michael Moore said, all our savings and pensions and 401Ks are not really ours. They are really a "national asset" that the government can seize and confiscate for the good of the unions and Democratic Party supporters.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
Social Security and unemployment insurance are NOT handouts since they are PAID FOR BY THE RECIPIENTS through their payroll taxes.
njdoo7Mar 10, 2011
"they are PAID FOR BY THE RECIPIENTS through their payroll taxes."
This isn't how it works though. They are paid for by *current workers that pay taxes.*
They paid at one time, and paid for retirees and elderly medical care at that time, while all excess money was spent by politicians they elected.
I think its more appropriate to classify them as handouts at this point in time. These people had every means available to figure out that this was a ponzi scheme, and that the money they paid in was being spent on things such as wars on drugs, vietnam war, war against communism, and so on. They elected and stood idly as the politicians pissed away their retirement and medicare funds.
njdoo7Mar 10, 2011
To add...
The banks made bad bets and failed; they got handouts from the gov.
The elderly made bad bets, by endorsing and supporting a ponzi scheme for decades, and failed. Receiving funding to make up for the failure is also a handout.
I am against all such handouts.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
No, you don't pay for handouts. Period. There's no need for a discussion regarding appropriate classification.
Money comes out of your paycheck for social security and unemployment coverage which one must then qualify for and pay taxes on. It is therefore an EARNED wage and an earned wage is the exact opposite of a handout. Nothing the gov't does/did/can do/continues to do with the payments can turn those earnings into a handout, ever, and It is irrelevant to the discussion.
*****
[Yes, the first recipients of social security who are long dead didn't pay into the system, and yes, there is a minuscule number of orphans and disabled people that qualify for benefits without paying into the system and are receiving a handout. I am glad tax money goes to help orphans and the disabled and I don't very highly of people who say, "f**k you" to orphans and disabled. That's not the American I know.]Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Mar 10, 2011
I never argued that people didn't pay into it. They invested their retirement and medical care in a ponzi scheme. I know this is unfortunate, but it's true.
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
I repeat: nothing the gov't does/did/can do/continues to do [or will do] with the payments can turn those earnings into a handout, ever, and It is irrelevant to the discussion.
njdoo7Mar 11, 2011
If it's their money, where is it? It was pillaged and spent long ago; right around when it was collected.
These people do not have a right to a percentage of my paycheck, or a percentage of anyone elses. A handout is someone entering a ponzi scheme, losing the money, and forcing the youth (who weren't even alive when they put their money into the ponzi..who never consented to entering the ponzi themseves) to cover the lost money. Actually, a handout may not be accurate enough as it hides the immorality and use of coercion/violence. "Theft", "Usury", or "Slavery" are much better words to describe what is going on here.
Just because you are ignorant enough to expect a ponzi scheme to fund your retirement, doesn't mean you are entitled to anything once the money is pillaged and pissed away.
nygenxerMar 11, 2011
@njdoo7:
My point is singular: something you pay for is NOT a handout.
Why do you keep trying to change the subject?
njdoo7Mar 11, 2011
I'm not changing the subject. You aren't following my point.
They did get what they paid for..They paid into a ponzi scheme, which pissed away all their money or gave it to people who should not have gotten it. They made a bad investment and failed. When you lose money in a company..do you take a gun and force other people to pay you back? Investing your retirement in a ponzi scheme is no different.
When you pay into a ponzi scheme and lose; it is a handout and armed robbery to use the state to extract money from the youth to make up for it.
nygenxerMar 11, 2011
@njdoo7:
You ARE changing the subject because all I'm saying is that the insurance is not free, and you keep coming back with how the insurance manages its funds.
WHATEVER your insurance company does with your payment IS NOT RELEVANT to the fact that you made the payment. When you buy car insurance, is it welfare when they pay to fix your car? When you pay for health insurance, is it a handout when they pay to fix your broken leg? When you buy X, X is not free. Whenever you make a payment, it is not free, it is not welfare, it is not a handout.
Welfare and handouts are free to the recipient; Social Security and unemployment insurance are earned/paid for by the recipient; therefore SS &UI are not free, they are not handouts, they are not welfare.
In response to that assertion, you mention (in order): semantics, Ponzi schemes, the war on drugs, Vietnam, communism, medicare, bank bailouts, Ponzi schemes (again), "These people do not have a right to a percentage of my paycheck", Ponzi scheme (3rd time), "immorality and use of coercion/violence, 'Theft', 'Usury', or 'Slavery' of theft"; you called me ignorant, Ponzi scheme (4th time), Ponzi scheme (5th time), bad investments, "do you take a gun and force other people to pay you back?", Ponzi scheme (6th time).
That's changing the subject.
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
So what then when the govt. decides to change the rules under which you have been contributing to your whole life? Suddenly, you need to be 72 before you can draw "your" contributions... now what?
Average life span of a white male is 70-78 years... Good going.
Or how when about they raise your SS tax to 20% in order to cover the looming baby boomer retirements?
Since under today's rate they can only cover their liabilities until 2042.
Or say they don't make any changes what so ever... will there be any money when you are set to retire?
The game is rigged... the powers that can make the law, force you in, and penalized or criminalize you, can change the rules on you at any time or deny you at any time.
They are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If it was truly "your" money you would have some control over it, or at the very least be able to get out what you put in. Superannuation funds do this... Social Security do not.
Furthermore, the argument is purely a sustainable, economical one. You can keep your moral relativity separate from the core issues. Which is, how do we fund the current liability?
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
How is your comment relevant to my assertion that Social Security and unemployment insurance is not welfare?
drazen77Mar 10, 2011
You assertion is not based in reality... and this I already covered in my other comment, which you have already LOL'dingly responded to.
/shrug
nygenxerMar 11, 2011
What part of my assertion is not based in reality? Do Social Security and unemployment insurance taxes not come out of people's paychecks? Yes. Does one have to qualify for SS and UI? Yes. Are those benefits taxable income? Yes.
Your comment said many things but none of them related to my assertion that that Social Security and unemployment insurance is not welfare.
monvalleyMar 10, 2011
You idiots are still blaming President Bush. It's time you start realizing that your idol president has taken so much from the productive that in two more years the goose that lays the golden eggs will have pooped his last. Then you will have no one to get your food and shelter from and you will have to forage on your own. You can only live like farm animals as long as there are farmers, and you have bled them dry.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
db8fanMar 10, 2011
You're wrong. It was your boy GWB's huge tax cuts for the rich and gettnig us into to two wars that he couldn't pay for or end that put us so far in the hole before Obama even got there. Learn the facts. Bet you voted for Dick Cheney even after he said "Deficits don't matter." Now, they're the end of the world because Obama spent money on putting America back to work and saving our economy, eh? How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."
George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.
db8fanMar 10, 2011
A huge percentage of "tea partiers" gets Social Security checks. I dare you to go tell them they are the "welfare state"!
nygenxerMar 10, 2011
Which ignorant statement is more appropriate to the discussion?
"Keep your gov't hands off my social security, morans!"
or
When Bush said his partial privatization of Social Security plan scares some people “because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security, like it’s some kind of federal program.”
phillymozartMar 10, 2011
We are screwed because the government is incapable of admitting some things are bad ideas and ending them in a timely fashion. In the private sector (the real world), bad ideas are unsustainable, period. Companies and individuals go broke all the time, taking their failed ideas with them.
bdtjpwMar 11, 2011
There are some things which are more effectively achieved through government action than through the market. Most people want some assurance of a basic income to protect them against ruin from unemployment, disability and medical expenses. They also want to secure some basic provision for retirement. They want this safety net to be guaranteed by an entity that they collectively control, an institution that is not subject to the volatility and speculative manipulation of the market. Private insurance cannot meet these basic needs.
Democratic government, with taxing authority, is the only way to get these needs met. The deal is that we participate as citizens by paying our taxes and in return we get the right (are entitled) to the services that we have paid for. The alternative to this deal would be no social security. Taxes would be lower, but we would have to save all that money to cover the risks of life on an individual basis, praying that we don't get thrown into the street by bad fortune or old age.
The growing control of government by corporate power since the late 1960s has led to ever-greater inequality of income and wealth. That inequality measures the success of the wealthy in sticking the rest of us with the cost of keeping our society healthy, while protecting themselves from paying their fair share of taxes. The failure to pay their fair share is a major cause for the current fiscal crisis of the state.
The attack on social insurance is an assault on the government's contractual obligations. It is actually an attack on our property rights. Without a responsible government that defends our rights and meets its obligations, we are just lunch for the predators.
It is time to recognize that we are under attack, and that we need a government that represents us if we are to stand a chance in this fight.
randonativeMar 11, 2011
In bad economics times. The best way to spark the economy is by giving money to the people because they will spend it in there local communities.
thynbelleMar 11, 2011
While government payouts "include social security, medicare and unemployment," they also include other types of welfare. Like corporate welfare (see the libertarian think tank CATO http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf) and other subsidies for those who really aren't needy per se. In addition, not all the money that goes to any particular entitlement program is given directly to recipients in the form of services, in kind benefits, or cash. A fair portion is spent paying the people who provide, distribute and regulate the service or benefits. Those jobs, as well as the actual "handouts," help fuel the economy as most of the aforementioned people are spending this money and not saving it.
Ultimately, I would hope most of us would agree we are better off with most of these services than without them. The majority of people in the U.S. see more than one income bracket in their lives, and there's a good chance that at some point in your life you will be receiving (or, if nothing else, profiting from) these social programs. Obviously in tough economic times the payout into these services will be greater than in prosperous times. But this is a good thing, as people are less likely to turn to crime when there is a safety net to fall back on and fewer businesses will fail, keeping more people in jobs.
Certainly, when the economy makes a full recovery and hardworking people have jobs, scale back to the previous levels, or even below. But I don't see how cutting services when people need them the most (both businesses and workers) is going to create the surplus of jobs and money that we need get us out of this mess.
elleesttroisMar 13, 2011
This is deceptive in that much of SS and unemployment is paid for by recipients.