Social Security, or Socialist Insecurity?

[scraparcs]

It can't be ended drastically, within a year or two. There would have to be a phase-out period or such so people didn't die from inability to work but they were sure SS would be their retirement income.

 

[GQ Chris]

I'm still trying to figure out how the people decided its okay for the government to steal from our neighbor so we could have the plunder, but the real deal is that the government takes a huge cut and gives us a pittance.

 

[Im_A]

It can't be ended drastically, within a year or two. There would have to be a phase-out period or such so people didn't die from inability to work but they were sure SS would be their retirement income.

That there should be the moral complexity that any right wing(either extremists or just a right wing person) should face everyday.

If one can't phase it out drastically, as in reality, there should be no concern for the purist, the one that believes in so called fiscal responsibility, that believe in so called, 'small government intervention' but the drastic. It isn't realistic, but it is idealistic and it is pure small government intervention and pure fiscal responsibility right? Why care about people's dieing family members with all the taxes we pay because we are robbing healthier people of their income by forcing them to pay taxes and then the people we elect distribute the money to various of areas that our countries face, so why care about those that would die from a drastic ending of SS, or not worry about the issue of poverty in our nation, since of of course the poor will always be there and since their retirement is dependent on SS but they just go out because, 'It's robbing Peter to pay Paul'?

Not meaning to be mean, but why care or why worry about the affects of drastic measures?

 

[trentlogain2]

social security is probably one of the smartest things the democrats ever put out. too bad it's likely not to be there by the time i retire (if i ever get around to that)

God provides either way though.

 

[GQ Chris]

That there should be the moral complexity that any right wing(either extremists or just a right wing person) should face everyday.

If one can't phase it out drastically, as in reality, there should be no concern for the purist, the one that believes in so called fiscal responsibility, that believe in so called, 'small government intervention' but the drastic. It isn't realistic, but it is idealistic and it is pure small government intervention and pure fiscal responsibility right? Why care about people's dieing family members with all the taxes we pay because we are robbing healthier people of their income by forcing them to pay taxes and then the people we elect distribute the money to various of areas that our countries face, so why care about those that would die from a drastic ending of SS, or not worry about the issue of poverty in our nation, since of of course the poor will always be there and since their retirement is dependent on SS but they just go out because, 'It's robbing Peter to pay Paul'?

Not meaning to be mean, but why care or why worry about the affects of drastic measures?

Well when Obamacare kicks in, social security will have been saved by denying care to the ones needing the social security, basically everyone 65 and over.

 

[GQ Chris]

social security is probably one of the smartest things the democrats ever put out. too bad it's likely not to be there by the time i retire (if i ever get around to that)

God provides either way though.

No, its a massive ponzi scheme that won't be there in the future.

 

[trentlogain2]

Well when Obamacare kicks in, social security will have been saved by denying care to the ones needing the social security, basically everyone 65 and over.

what are you talking about? republicans are going to take back control of the house and senate and it will be repealed.

 

[Im_A]

Well when Obamacare kicks in, social security will have been saved by denying care to the ones needing the social security, basically everyone 65 and over.

Ok Teabagger.

Prove it.

I want government documents proving this because any counter is going to be given from government sources that ACTUALLY explain the health care plan instead of the radical responses that are up in arms over this.

 

[trentlogain2]

No, its a massive ponzi scheme that won't be there in the future.

millions upon millions who have put into it their entire lives and have long since retired would disagree. and no, it probably will not be there in the future.

 

[GQ Chris]

Ok Teabagger.

Prove it.

I was being sarcastic; dude, how did you go from thoughtful Libertarian to Democrat? What happened there, you've totally turned politically it looks like.

 

[Im_A]

I was being sarcastic; dude, how did you go from thoughtful Libertarian to Democrat? What happened there?

I don't care if your being sarcastic. You started a serious thread and actually a good question until this nonsense so why be like that when you know damn well, you can't prove your sarcasm?Change We Can Believe In is a catchy slogan and so is the Tea Party's drivel.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an American political movement. Ayn Rand was against the Libertarian party and I'm sure she is not the only one so I'm not the only one out there that has been against what America has formed as the political party for Libertarianism. Reason why I have went back to the way I stood before with, Libertarianism and Democratic political views do match just as anything else can. There are plenty of Libertarian Democrats and after researching those individuals, I actually realized that I actually do stand there because I will not be found anywhere with a 12 inch stick close to the Republican party and the Libertarian Party now just seems the extreme version of the Republican Party, or they just complain about Bush and Obama and keep their extremities...not much of a 'progressive step'. There's even a rift between conservatives and libertarians. Libertarianism is more than a reactionary response to Obama to me. Here's a link to explain this more:
Libertarian Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[scraparcs]

That there should be the moral complexity that any right wing(either extremists or just a right wing person) should face everyday.

If one can't phase it out drastically, as in reality, there should be no concern for the purist, the one that believes in so called fiscal responsibility, that believe in so called, 'small government intervention' but the drastic. It isn't realistic, but it is idealistic and it is pure small government intervention and pure fiscal responsibility right? Why care about people's dieing family members with all the taxes we pay because we are robbing healthier people of their income by forcing them to pay taxes and then the people we elect distribute the money to various of areas that our countries face, so why care about those that would die from a drastic ending of SS, or not worry about the issue of poverty in our nation, since of of course the poor will always be there and since their retirement is dependent on SS but they just go out because, 'It's robbing Peter to pay Paul'?

Not meaning to be mean, but why care or why worry about the affects of drastic measures?

Politics is messy. Ideals can't always ideally be implemented immediately. Can you imagine trying to implement a sudden end to SS? Yeah, that would never fly, the opponents of such a measure would spin that one as people wanting the retired to drop dead on the streets or something equally ludicrous. I don't think a sudden halt to SS could ever be politically feasible.

Also, it would possibly be worse for the economy in other areas to have a bunch of retired folks suddenly without income than to do a more gradual phase-out of Social Security.

what are you talking about? republicans are going to take back control of the house and senate and it will be repealed.

I think the GOP will eventually take control of both houses again (probably one house this cycle and one later), but politically, do you realize how difficult it is to undo a big government entitlement program like Obamacare? I don't think the GOP would have the political capital to repeal Obamacare if it works at all.

 

[GQ Chris]

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[GQ Chris]

Politics is messy. Ideals can't always ideally be implemented immediately. Can you imagine trying to implement a sudden end to SS? Yeah, that would never fly, the opponents of such a measure would spin that one as people wanting the retired to drop dead on the streets or something equally ludicrous. I don't think a sudden halt to SS could ever be politically feasible.

Either way, I think SS will be useless in a good ten years or so.

 

[scraparcs]

Either way, I think SS will be useless in a good ten years or so.

Quite likely. I hope there's a way to phase it out instead of having to cut off everyone all at once. Wait, we can always borrow more money from China.

 

[MacFall]

There are plenty of Libertarian Democrats and after researching those individuals, I actually realized that I actually do stand there because I will not be found anywhere with a 12 inch stick close to the Republican party and the Libertarian Party now just seems the extreme version of the Republican Party, or they just complain about Bush and Obama and keep their extremities...not much of a 'progressive step'.

I'm not exactly a run-of-the-mill libertarian either, but I find I have more in common with libertarian Democrats than with the LP lately. Libertarian Democrats seem to be a resurgence of true classical liberalism, whereas the LP has become the Weed-Smoking Republican Party, despite its classical liberal and even quasi-anarchist roots.

 

[GQ Chris]

Quite likely. I hope there's a way to phase it out instead of having to cut off everyone all at once. Wait, we can always borrow more money from China.

Nah. We'll just print more. SS is nothing but a bunch of IOU's sitting in a file drawer in some state anyways that's already a huge part of the federal deficit.

 

[IzzyPop]

Nah. We'll just print more. SS is nothing but a bunch of IOU's sitting in a file drawer in some state anyways that's already a huge part of the federal deficit.

Better yet, we can cut military spending by 50% and pay for it all. There is no reason for us to spend more than half of the rest of the rest of the world combined on fancy guns.

 

[Oddish]

There are some Herbert Spencer's here lol.

 

[jameseb]

The Tea Party actually deserve a lot of credit for realizing that the out of control spending is more than just an existential threat. This spending is something we simply cannot sustain lest we suffer economic collapse, and I'm not talking about something 5-10 years off in the distance either - 2 to 3 years at most.

Sustained spending over the next couple of years will simply erode our credit rating, and investor confidence. The dollar will collapse, and investors will sell off their stocks and either put their cash inside the mattress or put it in commodities like gold (which is already at historical and astronomical levels) - which won't help a whole lot since the dollar is no longer gold-backed.

No, 5-10 years down the road and we're no longer talking about economic ruin - we're talking about revolution.

This, of course, assumes we keep irrationally spending more money than we're receiving, and I simply don't believe our politician's are that ignorant.