AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Social Security

26 3785
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

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.

  • 26 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

If you kill yourself working, than why bother living?


Most people working the,selves stupid don't do it because they want to. They do it so that they or their children can survive.

For what?


As I said to possibly be denied the service.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Why? Most of them probably led very beneficial lives when they were active we can't just let them die.


Haven't I already talked about savings?

What if they gain a disability?


I said prior to being 65.

To support others, or because you've made work your life.


I would never kill myself working to help others.

Eh, I agree but not all children are able or willing to care for their parents.


Too bad. The government shouldn't worry about the few who don't.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I am saying that people who have children, should use those children to help them through their final days.


Many people wouldn't want to burden their children in such a way. Doing so could screw over the kids future for saving money to support themselves in their later years as well.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Haven't I already talked about savings?


And again, saving was not as common or easy in for older generations and some may have had to spend it in the face of unknown problems.

I said prior to being 65.


So if their 66 they're let to die?

I would never kill myself working to help others.


Not your wife? Not your kids?

Too bad. The government shouldn't worry about the few who don't.


We should judge countries based upon how they treat their, sick, old, and worst off citizens. Not by the size of their GDP.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Most people working the,selves stupid don't do it because they want to. They do it so that they or their children can survive.


Well, if you can't save because you have children, then when they are old enough to care for you, they should help you. It is mutual.

As I said to possibly be denied the service.


$2 000 to apply for social security?

Many people wouldn't want to burden their children in such a way. Doing so could screw over the kids future for saving money to support themselves in their later years as well.


I would rather burden my children than be society's burden as a whole. Either way, you are a burden to someone.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

And again, saving was not as common or easy in for older generations and some may have had to spend it in the face of unknown problems.


Most old people now were adults during the blooming days of the in 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s.

So if their 66 they're let to die?


Hmm. I suppose that sounds a bit harsh. If they develop a disability, no matter what age, they are under social security.

Not your wife? Not your kids?


I meant as random people.

We should judge countries based upon how they treat their, sick, old, and worst off citizens. Not by the size of their GDP.


Why should we do that?
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Why should we do that?


Why shouldn't we? Money is faceless, money has absolutely no intrinsic without humans ergo humans are more important than money.

I meant as random people.


I meant your family, that's much more important and likely.

If they develop a disability, no matter what age, they are under social security.


I can see this absolutely destroying healthcare, people would want to contract diseases.

Most old people now were adults during the blooming days of the in 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s.


Eh, I would say 1950's through the 1970's. My point remains the same.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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.


Rewarded for having problems? You should be rewarded for being healthy. Everything should be rewarded.

If you're healthy and fit and you work, you deserve money for all that you have done.

If you're poor, you're considered to be a victim of society and therefore you deserve more help than the healthy person because they can work for themselves. However, shouldn't those who provide for themselves have benefits since they are the ones holding the weight of the poor?

The sick and mentally ill can generally work, but those who don't are nothing but a burden to society. However, they couldn't help it. We feel pity for them and therefore we want to help them.

So, who really needs government funding the most? Those who carry all the weight? Those who were born poor? Or the complete opposite of providers, those who couldn't provide for others?

This is why I don't like entitlement programs, because EVERYONE is entitled to the money, and the government can only hand out so much.

Without entitlement programs, the healthy are rewarded when they work, the poor will have to work for a living (isn't that what we want?), and the ill will have friends and family who take care of them, as well as many organizations where funding comes from donations.

Everything I said on the first page was sarcasm.

It makes no sense to give the government your money, so they can give it back to you when you're older. There's no logic behind that at all.

I don't see how you can support national health care, but not social security. National health care uses tax dollars to make sure everyone is healthy, including the elderly. Social Security makes sure the elderly can live comfortably. Either way, the elderly are being taken care of through tax dollars. I don't understand how you can support one but not the other.


Why shouldn't we? Money is faceless, money has absolutely no intrinsic without humans ergo humans are more important than money.


It's not that simple. I would burn a pile of cash to save someone, but the reality is that future generations will have to work off the debt created today. If we keep allowing debt to pile up, we will eventually have a generation who will become slaves to government debt.

We can save lives, but it will cost more than paper, it will cost the well being of future generations.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Why shouldn't we? Money is faceless, money has absolutely no intrinsic without humans ergo humans are more important than money.


Without money, countries don't work. Also, a GDP is a gross domestic product. That's how much is earned in the US from exports and imports.

I meant your family, that's much more important and likely.


Then they can help me after I've helped them.

I can see this absolutely destroying healthcare, people would want to contract diseases.


I meant disabilities such as handicaps. Also, it is already destroying healthcare.

Eh, I would say 1950's through the 1970's. My point remains the same.


Both were goods times.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

NoName, unless you state you're being sarcastic, I won't respond to you.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

and the ill will have friends and family who take care of them, as well as many organizations where funding comes from donations.


Not everyone has that. Even if they do there are many still who still can't get such help from their family.
under such a system as you think of as ideal these people would be punished for something they can't not help. Many do wish to work and support themselves but simply can't and have no other place to turn.
Showing 16-26 of 26