1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Social Security, or Socialist Insecurity?

Discussion in 'Singles (Only*)' started by GQ Chris, Jul 5, 2010.

  1. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single
    disclaimer *another political thread.

    To discuss the ethics or non-ethics of the social security system.
     
  2. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single
    Stolen money that's not going to be there for me in the future.
     
  3. Blackguard_

    Blackguard_ Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    +336
    Lutheran
    ^^^
    Yep. Someone once called Social Security "the world's largest Ponzi scheme", and they were dead on.
     
  4. CoachR64

    CoachR64 Awesome, with a side order of amazing

    +632
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I have no problem with helping those in need, but the system we have now is so corrupt that it is being abused way more than it is being used in a positive manner. Also, I think the churches have to shoulder some of the blame here. IF we, as churches, were doing our job meeting the needs of orphans and widows in their distress, serving "the least of these," we wouldn't seed social security.

    Coach
     
  5. jameseb

    jameseb Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

    +2,183
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    I'm not so sure the churches deserve blame. I've never conducted a survey, but I get the impression that most people don't look to churches for help, particularly given our ever growing secular society. Even those that go to church are probably too embarrassed to ask people they see every week for help.
     
  6. scraparcs

    scraparcs aka Mayor McCheese

    +4,387
    Private
    Churches seem less likely to help, but government so far seems to be a bad solution.

    Maybe we need a radical change in how economic support systems work.
     
  7. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +8,856
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    A house built on demographic sand, and the tide is rising. It could have theoretically worked a bit longer IF the Boomers had more babies rather than less babies, AND the government hadn't aggressively expanded the benefits. But even then, somebody had to know that eventually, people would start having less babies, and the whole thing would come tumbling down.

    As if it would even be moral to cultivate a culture of dependency by advertising a safety net for everybody, so they don't do for themselves what they ought to do for themselves. That's how you get the people weak and dependent on you.

    It works the other way around. The greater the welfare state, the lesser the church attendance, and as welfare state spending goes up, religious charity goes down.

    God Will Provide -- Unless the Government Gets There First - WSJ.com
     
  8. IzzyPop

    IzzyPop I wear my sunglasses at night...

    +394
    Atheist
    Single
    Or tax money progressively instead of putting a cap on it.

    I don't see a problem with ensuring minimumiving standards. If someone is fine with the minimum, more power to them. Sounds pretty crappy to me, though.



    Corrolation does not equal causation. It could well be that the churches quit giving and these governments stepped in rather than the other way around as presented in the article.
     
  9. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single
  10. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single
    A ponzi scheme of forced redistribution of something (saving for the future) that people should be doing for themselves anyways.
     
  11. trentlogain2

    trentlogain2 Guest

    +0
    i just want to thank all those in the workfield for the food stamps. its appreciated.
     
  12. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single
    Hahaha.:doh:Oh man. I guess this is why I sweat, and slave away, and labour with great distress, so that I can support those that believe that working is too much of a bother.:doh: :D
     
  13. trentlogain2

    trentlogain2 Guest

    +0
    what about people who push out children just for the welfare checks? there will always be people who abuse the system.
     
  14. MacFall

    MacFall Agorist

    +997
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    How anyone can label a fund of money taken by the threat of force as "social security" is pure absurdity. Such a thing is both antisocial and completely insecure.
     
  15. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single

    That posits the question are we morally obligated to support criminals, the lazy, or people who've made a lifestyle of making extremely bad decisions.
     
  16. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,725
    Calvinist
    Single

    Certainly, that's true. And when is the state going to stop being an "enabler", probably never.
     
  17. trentlogain2

    trentlogain2 Guest

    +0
    it wouldn't be America if they did.
     
  18. scraparcs

    scraparcs aka Mayor McCheese

    +4,387
    Private
    Whatever happened to the Bush-era idea of redistributing a portion of SS taxes into private retirement investments anyway?

    You think America's bad? Try Europe. :eek:
     
  19. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +8,856
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    The AARP managed to scare the Republican Congress away from passing it. Which is ironic, because they were voted out the next year anyway. It's a shame, since the Boomers would have been able to help shoulder the burden they had a major part in creating, while at their peak income.

    "Progressively" adds all kinds of administrative costs and problems. But I don't agree with the cap. If we're going to have a payroll tax at all, there should be no cap. Of course, I would have liked to see the system privatized so we could eventually eliminate the payroll tax completely.

    But it fails at ensuring minimum standards, and the price we pay for having it to begin with is a dumbed-down population which is taught that they don't have to be vigilant and take care of themselves. And for a democratic republic to remain a democratic republic, the people need to be vigilant. To say nothing of the coming economic crunch that it will put on us in our lifetime.


    The Gruber-Hungerman study found that the New Deal spending was the likely cause of churches giving less money.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2010
  20. Im_A

    Im_A Legend

    +1,359
    Humanist
    In Relationship
    This is a tough one for me. The economic issues that people here bring up are big concerns for me.

    Yet, for everyone that is anti it, I would love to see their reactions if the government stripped all of Social Security in every way shape and form for their aging family member, or for their aging family member who is ill in health and who's treatment requires the assistance from the government. Let's try and see if all this small government, so called 'fiscal responsibility' rhetoric of nothing but fantasized purists actually stand up when they see their loved ones die quicker and suffer quicker because the money isn't there that is from the tax payers.

    I don't believe there are any gods to take care what we go through, no church to take care of the ills of the world. The church as a whole, with all the denominations combined are extremely wealthy and if the excuse of actually helping humanity instead of being on their knees for humanity is, "well the government is spending more" and we get some aid and not fixes with the labels of Mary and Jesus on it and what else in all reality? Since we have to pay taxes, what reason would we have to pay taxes for unless it is getting distributed back into the country we live in? I really don't like the idea of my tax paying money sitting around in a treasure chest while good people are suffering. I don't mind my tax paying money being used for individuals who worked their entire lives hard.

    Since I do have economic concerns, I can't answer at this current time about how I feel. I do not believe the world is ideal to make complete moral claims on things like this. If others do, their mind works entirely different than mine.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2010
Loading...