I think we should stop offering it to the elderly. Why? It is a drain of the United States' money and since many of the baby boomers are going to be in retirement soon, imagine how much money will be wasted on the old.
695 million dollars have been spent on social security in 2010. That is more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that the old are abusing a system since most of them people depending 100% on government money have never saved a penny of their money in their lives.
We keep giving them medication that makes them live longer, and the government has to keep paying them.
I am not saying that we should get rid of social security, but to have a cut off of at most five years into retirement.
The unemployment rate has been going up like crazy The unemployed keep getting government that they would otherwise spend on worthless things, such as beer, smokes, and electronic devices, and it is just too much.
The government is giving money to people who are too stupid, unable, or unskilled to function in society, and that is just wrong.
I understand people who have disabilities and war veterans should have social security because it is not their fault that they have the problem, but when you become a drain to society, and your excuse is that you can't get a job or are too old, you should be cut off.
I'm all for Socialism, but Social Security is just too generous. Food stamps and welfare should be given to those who really need it, not the old. They had all the time in the world to build up their savings, but if they chose not to, then they should not be given money.
I'm for Social Security, but just to the people who need it.
You give the government money so that when you retire they can give the money back to you. That makes perfect sense.
You spend your whole life working, paying your taxes, and as soon as you stop working the government leaves you out to die?
What if you saved your money to start a business and it failed? What if you lost your savings due to medical bills or house payments? What if you weren't able to get a good enough job that payed enough for you to save your money?
Everyone should have money, and it's not fair that the rich hogs it. The poor who would rather sit around and do nothing than to find a job deserve money because that money will influence them to work. Those drug dealers won't have to sell drugs if we give them money. Maybe the old will be able to work at charity services if we give them money. We should give that man some money, it's not his fault his business failed, it's because it was impossible for him to compete with the bigger businesses.
No, the government should give everyone money except the rich, because the rich don't need it.
Someone told me that if you take money from the rich, they will find ways not to pay, or that they will stop working to make so much money (because they are going to lose it anyway), but this isn't true. If you take money from someone who is rich, they will understand that they are helping others, and they will work even harder so that they can give even more of their money to the poor.
I don't see why anyone has to suffer when there are rich people out there. And when we finally reach a point where there is no rich people, and everyone is middle class and gaining government benefits that depend on the rich... uh... it will all pay for itself!
You give the government money so that when you retire they can give the money back to you. That makes perfect sense.
What you pay in taxes for social security is not even close to what the government gives you.
You spend your whole life working, paying your taxes, and as soon as you stop working the government leaves you out to die?
You leave yourself to die because you don't know how to save money.
What if you saved your money to start a business and it failed? What if you lost your savings due to medical bills or house payments? What if you weren't able to get a good enough job that payed enough for you to save your money?
Well medical bills wouldn't be a problem if universal healthcare existed. Also, you shouldn't buy a house you can't afford. Sure, houses have flipped, but if you quit while you're ahead, you actually would lose some money, but none that involves your savings. I'll do the math, if you want.
Everyone should have money, and it's not fair that the rich hogs it.
I'm pretty sure you once said that the rich are what drive an economy. On that, I agree, but anybody can save money. Community college is almost free compared to private universities, and there is no reason why you can't get an education, and earn more money.
The poor who would rather sit around and do nothing than to find a job deserve money because that money will influence them to work.
How will they find work if they do nothing? Also, how will it force them to do anything?
Those drug dealers won't have to sell drugs if we give them money.
So then the government just gives him money for free for the rest of his life?
Maybe the old will be able to work at charity services if we give them money.
Most charity services are nonprofit, and those old people I was referring to are usually the ones who will die without any medication. I doubt you'll see them at charity services.
We should give that man some money, it's not his fault his business failed, it's because it was impossible for him to compete with the bigger businesses.
I believe that the old are abusing a system since most of them people depending 100% on government money have never saved a penny of their money in their lives.
The system reduces what you get or cuts you off if you save up to much money. So the system really doesn't allow you to save money if you can. It's set up to give you the amount you will spend, though it doesn't even give that much most of the time.
I'm pretty sure everyone who uses social security falls into this category.
There are some who slip through the cracks and abuse the system, though given what it takes to get on and stay on I can't imagine there would be too many in comparison to those who need it.
The government is giving money to people who are too stupid, unable, or unskilled to function in society, and that is just wrong.
That's pretty much the whole point of it.
Can't say I agree with you on cutting off the elderly. Most people can't save up money for the future and need to continue to receive some sort of income and if they can't then they are screwed. Even if they managed to save some money up there are plenty who end up losing it from having to take care of problems that arise later in life.
No, the government should give everyone money except the rich, because the rich don't need it.
I'm pretty sure this goes against Libertarianism.
Someone told me that if you take money from the rich, they will find ways not to pay, or that they will stop working to make so much money (because they are going to lose it anyway), but this isn't true. If you take money from someone who is rich, they will understand that they are helping others, and they will work even harder so that they can give even more of their money to the poor.
The why the hell did you defend the argument taxing the rich for their hard work is a bad thing?!
I don't see why anyone has to suffer when there are rich people out there. And when we finally reach a point where there is no rich people, and everyone is middle class and gaining government benefits that depend on the rich... uh... it will all pay for itself!
The system reduces what you get or cuts you off if you save up to much money. So the system really doesn't allow you to save money if you can. It's set up to give you the amount you will spend, though it doesn't even give that much most of the time.
That doesn't justify people relying 100% on it.
Can't say I agree with you on cutting off the elderly. Most people can't save up money for the future and need to continue to receive some sort of income and if they can't then they are screwed. Even if they managed to save some money up there are plenty who end up losing it from having to take care of problems that arise later in life.
I am not saying cutting them off, but having a cut off time. After five years into retirement, no more money for them. The average life expectancy is 78 anyway and retirement is 65. When they are 70, they only have to live eight more years.
Which is kind of odd because just about everything he said was logical.
Anyway, the elderly are one of the most needy groups in the country often through no fault of their own. I'm not saying that we should give them enough money to live a life of affluence but we shouldn't leave them out to dry.
but anybody can save money
Not if the individual is living paycheck-to-paycheck.
I was pointing out that people on the system can't save up there money easily. So if the elderly are on it for even a limited amount of time they can't save up their money. Also if you already have lots saved up from when you could work they often deny you the service.
Anyway, the elderly are one of the most needy groups in the country often through no fault of their own. I'm not saying that we should give them enough money to live a life of affluence but we shouldn't leave them out to dry.
They don't do that, but they have children to rely on. If they don't people without children save about one million more dollars than somebody with only one child.
Not if the individual is living paycheck-to-paycheck.
True, but like in Stick RPG, you can get an education whenever you want.
I was pointing out that people on the system can't save up there money easily. So if the elderly are on it for even a limited amount of time they can't save up their money. Also if you already have lots saved up from when you could work they often deny you the service.
Why would you need the service if you have the savings already?
I don't think many people rely on welfare 100% and even of those that do I'm not sure many are actually capable of working, some may have sever disabilities, illnesses, or may be elderly and be financially screwed in the past.
I'm less concerned with those who can't work or find work being on welfare than those that simply choose not to work.
True, but like in Stick RPG, you can get an education whenever you want.
Some may not have time, I know it's a fairly crappy excuse but some people may need to be constantly working. Also, many elderly individuals did not have the same educational opportunities that we do.
Why is sarcasm necessary if we both agree?
I've no idea, but unless he's had an extreme shift in political views he has to be being sarcastic.
If they don't people without children save about one million more dollars than somebody with only one child.
Why would you need the service if you have the savings already?
You might not have enough savings to get you through. If you have already hit that point where you can no longer work your screwed. And if I remember correctly the amount is like only $2,000.
I don't think many people rely on welfare 100% and even of those that do I'm not sure many are actually capable of working, some may have sever disabilities, illnesses, or may be elderly and be financially screwed in the past.
People who are past the retirement age should not be under social secutiry for very long. Those who were actually born with an illness or disability should be provided it, long past the retirement age since they had the incapability before they became senior citizens.
I'm less concerned with those who can't work or find work being on welfare than those that simply choose not to work.
I don't know. I am not as strongly opposed too that, but I just thought I would throw that in there. People who are senior citizens with no prior disability shouldn't be on social security.
Some may not have time, I know it's a fairly crappy excuse but some people may need to be constantly working. Also, many elderly individuals did not have the same educational opportunities that we do.
If you kill yourself working, than why bother living?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
I am saying that people who have children, should use those children to help them through their final days.
