Social Security is NOT a Ponzi Scheme ?

That MP FDR post led to some very interest comment strings.  Here is one discussing Social Security, and the opinions vary greatly.

“Just One Little Minor Correction

…I can't speak for Libertarians, but most Repubs I know (geezers and others) expect to get what they've paid for; no more, no less.”

What most Repubs (and Dems, Libertarians, Independents, Innocent, Oblivious, etc.) will get from SSI and Medicare is far in excess of what they contributed. Most retirees get back from Social Security in 3 or 4 years the sum total of what they (and their employers) put into the system. After that, unless they're independently wealthy, they're living on someone else's dime.

And, of course, if all you expect to get back is what you've paid for, we can eliminate the "return" on a whole host of investment vehicles, from passbook savings (where the return comes close to being eliminated already) to T-Bills to real estate to whatever substance you want to buy "futures" in, be it oil, hog bellies, or chicken feed. I look forward to meeting the Republican who insists that charging interest on a loan is usury, and expecting to get back more than she's put into a low-risk bond is simply greed." Ray

"Most retirees get back from Social Security in 3 or 4 years the sum total of what they (and their employers) put into the system. "

Like all Ponzi schemes, that was true for the earliest "investors". We're reaching the bottom of the pyramid...or have reached it.

"Social Security has reached another critical threshold: For the first time, a typical husband and wife retiring today can expect to collect less in benefits than it paid in payroll tax over the course of their life." Yahoo SS Not the Deal

If you're comparing SSI as an investment, I'd be remiss not to point out it's an extremely poor vehicle.

As for true investments, getting a positive rate of return certainly falls under the category of getting what you pay for, since an investment inherently implies a gain of some type. Expecting others to subsidize a loss falls short of the definition, and that is what the left is suggesting." Thomas

"Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme:

Once again a claim is being made here that is contrary to fact. A little research on the matter will lead to the conclusion that the title of this comment is correct.  For example, from the Economist, a slightly conservative but respected publication on Finance
"Social Security: A monstrous truth"

"NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years."

"Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound."

Please read the entire article for more information. Mr. Swift's disparaging and incorrect questioning of Social Security as an investment is also addressed:

"If you wanted to call Social Security an investment, you would say it is a play on the proposition that America's GDP will continue to grow over the long term. This is the safest play one can imagine making, which is why the returns are so modest. Like any investment, it could go bad. But if it goes bad, if the economy of the United States ceases to grow over the long term, it is inconceivable that any other investment large enough to feed a pension plan covering the entire working population could do better."" Bill
 

"What would you call a government program that taxes the well to do the highest premium and then to stay solvent pays them the lowest benefit? I am not sure if Ponzi is the correct term, however it sounds a lot like typical welfare.

"Those costs are limited and, measured as a percentage of GDP, will flatten out. They can be absorbed through a modest, gradual increase in Social Security taxes and modest reductions in benefits for wealthier recipients."

By the way, the big problem isn't SS Retirement... It is SS Disability and Medicare... The premiums paid in the past do not cover the planned benefits." G2A

 Thoughts?

G2A Life Expectancy and SS
G2A FICA Income or Benefit
G2A Just Say NO to Programs
G2A The Magic of THEY
G2A Debt the Gift to our Children
G2A Prodigal Son Revisited

Some interesting quotes from the SS Medicare Fund Trustees

"Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits. "

"Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the Trustees’ long-range test of close actuarial balance nor their short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds. DI Trust Fund reserves expressed as a percent of annual cost (the trust fund ratio) declined to 85 percent at the beginning of 2013, and the Trustees project trust fund depletion in 2016, the same year projected in the last Trustees Report. DI cost has exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the trust fund ratio has declined since peaking in 2003. While legislation is needed to address all of Social Security’s financial imbalances, the need has become most urgent with respect to the program’s DI component. Lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries three years from now. "

"A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate in 2011 and 2012 reduced payroll tax revenues by an estimated $222 billion in total. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers from the General Fund to the trust funds in order to “replicate to the extent possible” payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those General Fund reimbursements amounted to about 15 percent of the program’s non-interest income in 2011 and 2012. The temporary payroll tax reduction expired at the end of 2012. "

"While the combined OASDI program fails the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range (ten-year) financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund asset reserves at the beginning of each year will exceed that year’s projected cost through 2027. "

"Conclusion
Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

Family Money and Values Matter

I posted a couple comments at MinnPost McFadden On Raising Age for Medicare Benefits and they led to some interesting responses.  Then the usual happened...  My response was moderated... So here we go again.

"Welfare:

So is this group advocating that we replace social security and medicare with welfare for the elderly?

I have seen multiple comments that recommend we maintain or cut benefits for the well to do and increase the amount they pay for these benefits.

Why don't we totally eliminate payroll taxes altogether, eliminate medicare, eliminate social security and care for our elderly via Medicaid and welfare?

It would eliminate similar agencies and ensure that the savers/investors pay and the unfortunate/unwise receive." G2A


"Savings:

A couple of people mentioned that we should encourage earlier enrollment to take advantage of receiving premiums from younger/healthier people. I think most of the premiums are paid via the payroll tax. If this is the case, the earlier people "retire" the earlier they stop paying premiums (ie FICA) and start taking money out of the trust fund." G2A


"Your ignorance of how Medicare works (and I presume your ignorance also of how Social Security works) is appalling.

Medicare beneficiaries pay monthly premiums. In addition to all the Medicare tax they paid during their active working years.

Medicare is partially means-based: If you have a healthy, beyond-Social Security retirement income, your Medicare premium goes up. It doesn't take much income for that to happen. The whole system is geared to providing all retirees with basic health care, and with a basic income

That income is also means-based: Higher-wage workers receive higher Social Security benefits per month and per year. However, if you have any retirement income beyond Social Security, which most higher-wage workers do, you pay taxes on your Social Security benefits, with those taxes going right back into the SS trust fund.

To advocate eliminating carefully-drawn plans like Medicare and Social Security in favor of charity-based insecurity in retirement is to deny social safety nets as a concept. I can think of nothing more selfish." Connie


"Hi Connie,
So apparently you support the current use of means based testing to reduce the benefits received and increase the taxes paid for those who paid the most into the programs?

Do you also support removing the cap like the rest of these commenters seem to? Thereby increasing the amount paid by those who pay the most already?

By the way, I never said "charity based"...

Now think of the benefits:
- Low income people wouldn't have to pay those high tax rates. (ie payroll taxes)
- It would be perfectly means based, no one with significant savings would get a penny from the system.
- People would need to spend their wealth before receiving benefits. Less need to worry about that pesky inheritance tax." G2A


"Ah, yes, the 'pesky inheritance tax.'  The estate tax only applies to deceased individuals with an estate of 5.3 million, or couples with an estate of over 10 million in worth. 99.8 percent of American households don't pay any estate tax. The estate tax is supposed to exist so that America isn't saddled with a worthless caste of landed aristocrats." Jonathan


"Jonathan,
Do you support people spending their money waste fully?
Or do you support people saving and investing?

Why would people save invest and create jobs just to give it to the government at their end of days? Would the death tax encourage you to work hard, save, invest, etc.

Just curious." G2A


" Why would they care what happened to their money after they're dead? It's not as if their heirs will be sleeping under bridges with an estate of "only" $4 million.

By the way, very few people with that kind of wealth got it merely by "working hard." If hard work were the only road to wealth, then hotel maids and migrant farm workers would be the richest people in America. Some won the parental lottery--the Waltons and the Kochs and Mitt Romney, for example--while others just happened to get support from the right people at the right time or started out merely affluent and clawed their way to the top through cheating, bribery, treating their employees like slaves, driving all their competitors out of business, etc." Karen
 

"I support the Estate tax.

Q: "Do you support people spending their money waste fully?
Or do you support people saving and investing?"

A: I support the estate tax. People can choose to spend or save the rest of their money as they see fit.

Q: "Why would people save invest and create jobs just to give it to the government at their end of days?"

You seem to be operating under the incorrect assumption that there is some magical machine that you put money in the top of, and out of the bottom come jobs. The idea that you just' invest money and make jobs' is provably false. I guess by that logic, Stuart Mills is a great job creator, But to answer your loaded question, I would imagine that people invest and save in order to spend money on things they need and want... like most humans do. When they die, they don't really need it anymore. I guess that if you are motivated to not work hard because you won't get to keep your money when you are dead, then you have some other issues you need to work through.

Again, 99.8 percent of American households pay no estate tax... I number I quoted because you labeled the estate tax as 'pesky,' when it only affects .02 percent of the population. Something that only affects super-rich dead people doesn't qualify as pesky in my book.

Long story short, the estate tax would have zero effect on my fiscal and work habits were my wife and I worth over 10 million bucks.

Or do you believe that "he who dies with the most toys wins?" Just curious." Jonathan

 Now my response should be familiar to my readers.  And I sure don't think it is any worse than Karen's comment that says people with money "started out merely affluent and clawed their way to the top through cheating, bribery, treating their employees like slaves, driving all their competitors out of business, etc"  Yet the Moderator chose differently.

So my comment went something like this...

Family money and values matter, it is the way in which I have been taught to show my respect for my ancestors who worked hard, saved hard and invested wisely.  For generations the parents in my extended family have helped their kids get a start, and have worked to grow the family's wealth.  During which they modeled learning, continuous improvement, working, saving, charity and investing.  Personally I think these are good values that more American citizens should adopt.

Now my Parents have been married for 51 years, they don't smoke, don't take glamorous vacations, don't gamble much, only had 3 children, they saved, they invested and consistently gave to charities.  Yet for some reason Jonathan and Karen seem to think our family's wealth should be forfeit upon their passing.

This I will never understand. Do we want to encourage the making of poor financial decisions by taking from the savers / investors and giving to those who enjoyed/ spent?  I mean it is hard to get ahead when you are dragging some of these anchors: divorced, single head of household, low education, unambitious, gambling, smoking, drinking, drugs, lavish travel, new cars often, etc.

Now I understand that some folks truly have bad luck, and we need to help them out.  Unfortunately I think some Liberals want to help out everyone who is poor whether it was bad luck, poor decisions or laziness.

Thoughts?

Life Expectancy and Social Security

So 4 things aligned perfectly to motivate me to write this post.  Big E at MPP posted that deficits and SS were not related.  My Father noted that the SS age needs to be raised.  Minnesota Liberal commented at MPP that "The discussion over Social Security (an earned annuity) is on the disbursement side, so the so-called payroll tax holiday is irrelevant". (see MPP link/comments for more detail) And I helped my daughter solve a math problem to determine how many percent the avg life expectancy has increased since 1940. 

This was my summary at MPP regarding the annuity comment.

"Now I agree that Social Security should be a self funded pension plan. However we know that it's balance + ongoing contributions are not adequate to pay its forecasted disbursements. Therefore we either need to raise it's contributions (higher payroll tax), make transfers from the general fund (wealth transfer) or cut it's disbursements. (lower payments or raise age)"

This seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.  And then after looking at links 2 - 4 below it becomes pretty self evident that what we payed for and what we are expecting to receive are out of whack and Father's correct.  The eligible age has to be increased greatly or we need to raise the payroll tax significantly.  Thoughts?

MPP Reagan's Advice on Social Security
Intellectual Takeout Life Expectency Change and SS Benefits
Carpe Diem Retirement Age vs Life Expectancy
Life Expectancy History chart

4 Topics Americans Must Resolve

'The Politics of Problem Solving': Four big topics Americans need to discuss is a pretty good piece. The writer claims the following 4 topics are important to resolve:

• More and better jobs in the future. Job creation and our future workforce is a complex issue that includes work readiness of those now perceived as difficult to place, including providing early education assistance with a focus on literacy by third grade and adult one-on-one mentoring. Too many current workers have been both underemployed and unemployed, dating to the Great Recession of 2008. Joblessness is a national crisis short-changing people who want to invent, innovate, create and contribute. Simply decreasing taxes and regulations or increasing current taxpayer spending is only part of the answer.
• Deficits and debt. America’s debt-to-GDP ratio is around 74 percent; that is higher than at any time in U.S. history, except for a short period after World War II, and more than double what it was a decade ago. The annual federal deficits that regularly top $1 trillion (that’s with twelve zeroes) and the $21 trillion collective federal debt demonstrates that our nation’s spending has consistently outpaced the money we generate. The burden of our increasing debt — including the interest we pay on it — will eventually crash the system unless we can phase in responsible and growing budgets while preserving the safety net to those most in need. We must do this while dealing with an aging, longer-living population, with falling birthrates and rising short- and long-term health-care costs.
• Long-term Social Security and Medicare solvency. Americans need assurances that the solvency of Social Security and Medicare will help provide necessary lifelines for recipients for decades into the future. Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable on their current trajectories. There are no easy answers to this very important challenge, and the discussion must not deteriorate into an annual political football.
• Energy security is a global challenge. America and the world need a lot more energy in the future; and that energy must be increasingly clean to mitigate the effects of climate change. That’s why American energy independence is no longer sufficient. What we and the rest of our interdependent world need is energy security. When the U.S. and other nations are energy-secure, it becomes far more likely that nations can manage unexpected but inevitable surprises in prices, an environmental crisis or an outbreak of war. America must strive for more energy supply from domestic sources; more efficient uses; modern, reliable and resilient electrical generation and transmission; and a more sustainable and cleaner fuel mix.

Of course the Liberal commenters jumped to attack, so here is the comment I left there.

"It seems to me that Chuck's problem statements are pretty good and challenging. And his bio seems good. Chuck's Bio What fascinates me is that the usual Liberals continue to propose their same old tired solutions to these challenging problems.  

• "Just tax successful people more and give it to unsuccessful people"  
• "Just mandate higher wages via Unions or laws"...  

I have yet to understand how that is going to increase the capabilities of the American work force, encourage US consumers to spend money in this country, grow the wealth of America, pay down our debts, etc.  

Where as Chuck seems to be promoting better educational outcomes, working to attract employers, growing our economy, spending wisely, etc. I wish Chuck and the group success." G2A

Losing Faith in Social Security

This was an interesting piece regarding how retirees see the future of social security.  CNN Money: Retirees Losing Faith In SS  And it explains the problems that face the social security program.


And here are some interesting associated pieces.
CNN Money Will Women Outlive Retirement Funds?
CNN Money About  Annuities

What is "Socialism"?

MinnPost What programs constitute socialism? Dems’ and Republicans’ answers differ

This was somewhat interesting especially since my favorite Far Right folks love to use that word to describe almost everyone including myself...  I especially liked Eric's summary:

"My conclusion, based on the poll results: Republicans think things that use tax dollars to help people like them are NOT socialism. Programs that use tax dollars to help the poor or the non-white ARE socialism.

• For example, is Medicare socialism? 44 percent of Democrats said yes, but only 29 percent of Republicans agreed.
• Would free health care for all be socialism? Republicans said yes by 77 percent; but only 55 percent of Democrats agreed.
• Is Social Security “socialism?” 42 percent of Democrats said yes, but only 27 percent of Republicans agreed."

I mean we all know that Social Security Retirement, Medicare and Social Security Disability are just welfare for the old, disabled and/or young.  And yet I do not see any old Conservatives refusing their Government provided Checks or Services. :-) 

SS and Medicare Update

Well the Trustees have issued a new report and things still look bleak for folks who are going to be reliant on Social Security and/or Medicare.

"The trustees estimate that by 2034 the combined trust funds for Social Security — which help fund the old age and disability programs — will run dry. At that point Social Security will be able to pay only 79% in promised benefits to retirees and disabled beneficiaries." 

"The trust fund for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital and nursing home costs for seniors, would run dry by 2026, three years earlier than last year's projection. At that point the program would only be able to pay out 91% of promised benefits."

Thankfully I will not be in that group, however since I did save hard for my retirement...  I assume Liberals will look at my nest egg as part of the solution for continuing payments to others. :-(

The correct solution would have been to raise the pay roll tax rate many years ago. (ie premium matches benefits)  Unfortunately as is often the case, the voters back then were happy to leave their rate low and push the problem off into the future.  As we continue to do even now. :-)

Social Security Update

 I sure am happy that I will not be highly reliant on SS dollars.

https://www.yahoo.com/.../social-security-6-years-left...

https://www.ssa.gov/.../will-social-security-be-there-for...

Social Security Report

Brookings: Why Everyone Should Care About These Trustee Reports

Annual Trustees Reports provide estimates of the financial status of Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds under current law. Recent Reports call for informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislation to address expected future deficits. Many policy makers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem. Listed below is a broad range of policy options that would address Trust Fund solvency and other issues related to Social Security benefits and financing. Many of these options are part of comprehensive proposals intended to restore Trust Fund solvency.
We group the options into categories, as shown below. We also provide a summary list of all options (PDF version).

Fair and Logical ?

Here are some very non-Conservative ideas from Mr Gunyou. These comments were made to help us understand the significant amount of "out of the box" thinking that is needed to resolve this financial disaster. I am curious what the readers think?

Topic 1
Social security is not a savings account where you put your money and expect to get it back out. It is a system where the working people pay for those that are unable to work. Therefore, does it really makes sense the Richest Minnesotans receive the same social security payment as a poor citizen. How can this make sense?

Topic 2
College tuition is high, however shouldn't it be raised significantly? This way the 25% that can easily afford it will pay more. And the 75% that can't would get additional financial aid that would offset the increase. (ie wealthy pay more, non-wealthy pay the same..) How can this not make sense?

My Opinion

• Everything he says makes perfect sense. Why are we spending tax dollars where they are not needed? On people that don't need them....
• Everything he says makes absolutely no sense. Why would we punish people for having led a conservative life style and accumulating some degree of wealth? Where is the wealthy/non-wealthy line? Won't this incent people to not save? Wouldn't these be the equivalent of additional taxes?
• Maybe he is a Closet Liberal after all...

Your Opinion

• ????

What is McConnel Thinking?

Newsweek Mitch McConnell Calls to Cut Social Security, Medicare

"After instituting a $1.5 trillion tax cut and signing off on a $675 billion budget for the Department of Defense, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the only way to lower the record-high federal deficit would be to cut entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

"It’s disappointing but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem: Unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future." The deficit has increased 77 percent since McConnell became majority leader in 2015.

New Treasury Department analysis on Monday revealed that corporate tax cuts had a significant impact on the deficit this year. Federal revenue rose by 0.04 percent in 2018, a nearly 100 percent decrease last year’s 1.5 percent. In fiscal year 2018, tax receipts on corporate income fell to $205 billion from $297 billion in 2017."

Maybe he has decided to start supporting the DEMs in this years election? I can already hear the attack ads...

"Don't vote for Senator ??? because he will support the Republican agenda of cutting your benefits and kicking you out of your home!!!"

Thoughts?

Photos on Social Security Cards?

So I had an epiphany while discussing identification and trust with Dog. MPP Seniors Fed Up with GOP  Since our social security number is like our primary personal identifier while we are alive in the USA, why don't we put a photo on the card.  Granted we may have to update it every 10 or so years as we age.  But just look at all the problems it could solve....

One ID could be used for voting, gun access, welfare benefits, proof of citizenship and a host of other things.  And all of us citizens are supposed to have one anyway.  Thoughts?

And kind of related, in a very weak way...  What do you think of Dog's idea to make voter registration compulsory and Rat's resistance to doing so?  (sorry in advance for their bickering) Personally I think all of these ideas really drive towards a "national ID", and an accurate running record of who is legally in our country, a few details about their sex, citizenship, criminal, mental health, etc status. With modern computers and servers it should be pretty easy to do, besides then the States could use this database instead of maintaining 50 unique ones...  Maybe the NSA already has it running???? (hahahaha)

Too "Big Brother" or a very good idea?

Ryan Not Bad For Women?

This an interesting perspective with a twist.  Anita seems to think that Ryan's economic policies will make up for his anti-Choice (ie ProLife) beliefs.  I can't argue that if he can save the USA way of life and reverse the National Debt trend, she may be right for many women.  However, I am pretty sure the single Mothers with dependent children, and those that want an abortion won't feel very supported as he is cutting their supports systems and rights.  CNN Not Bad for Women

Now the twist is that apparently the author and Ryan both were beneficiaries of the Social Security death benefit.  Which I perceive as one of those Government programs that would go away if Social Security was privatized.  I mean normal Conservative folks buy life insurance, they don't rely on Government insurance.

Since I picked on Obama about his skimpy giving in the past, it appears that Ryan may have been even worse.  He may need to confess his stinginess the next time he goes to church now that it is public record.  Reuters Ryan Returns  He definitely tarnishes the concept of charitable Conservative Christians.

Thoughts?

Social Security Myths

On a somewhat less serious topic, I found this article interesting.
MSN Money Social Security Myths


So I started looking for other versions of the article:
Forbes SS Myths
SSA Myths and Misinformation Part 1
SSA Myths and Misinformation Part 2
RR Myths Debunked


Thoughts?

Social Security: It is even worse than you think

Here is an uplifting article...  Not...

Social Security: It is even worse than you think

Busting Social Security Myths

From Laurie:  Here is an article that might interest you:
Real World Economics: Busting the Social Security myths we choose to believe


Laurie, Yes I thought it was excellent!!!  Especially the point that the systems are already very progressive.  And that a lot of people who think they "earned it", are probably getting a LOT MORE than they paid for. :-)

Punishment, Gift or Reward

Matt and my comments took an interesting twist on the MP GOP Doomed article.  It is a very interesting look into what social programs are from different perspectives.


Matt seems to believe that the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they want to "punish" the recipients.  Kind of like when a Parent sends a Child to bed without supper...


Whereas I see the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they are aware that it is  a "huge gift / investment" from the other tax payers in the country.  And that it is only fair to expect the recipients to do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personnel situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.


My point is that poverty is the natural consequence of keeping a single parent household, squandering the huge K-12 investment our society made in the recipient, having more children than you can afford, having children too young, etc.  Therefore any public assistance one receives is a blessing that one is not entitled to.  Therefore one should be very thankful and work their butt off to use as little of it as they can, not complain that they are entitled to more.  Thoughts?

"Please do tell. Name a societal level economic and or social ill eliminated by charity. Charity is wonderful for its purpose, targeted relief for specific problems. It can never be the panacea that conservatives wish it to be, due to the fact that too many competing interests are after the same dollar. Societal level problems require societal level solutions, not well intended half measures from a nonprofit community unequipped to address that level of need." Matt

"I am unsure. I may agree with Medicaid, however I don't think charity could have done any worse than the government intervention... Forbes War on Poverty" G2A

"There's a reason for the term "poorhouse." There's also a reason we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to. You live in a world which has never seen the way things used to be, a world that is, on average, utterly ignorant of its own history. It's reflected in nearly all aspects of life and only grows more obvious with each passing year. Would that folks pause to speak with even one person who actually experienced the past before the sweeping victories of the New Deal and Great Society, perhaps minds might change, but as fewer and fewer remain (at least those who were in a position to understand the implications, sorry boomers) that opportunity will soon pass." Matt

"Choices. "collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to."

It is interesting comparing families here to families in Asia. Over there it is more likely to have grand parents, parents and children living together. Whereas here we seem to have outsourced child raising of our young and elder care to the government in many cases. Maybe it is our self centered independent American way...

Maybe this is part of why there are so many single parent households out there. I mean why would anyone choose to deal with their Parents or a Spouse, and their expectations of us, when Uncle Sam is out there handing out checks without judgment, advice or expectations? Why would we choose to help care for Mom or Dad in their old age when there are government funded nursing homes available?

I agree whole heartedly that we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to resolve many personal and family issues. Unfortunately it came with a big price tag for our society and some terrible consequences for our most vulnerable children. On the upside is very convenient and let's us delegate some of those family responsibilities elsewhere..." G2A

"Always a punishment. It's really the only card conservatism knows how to play isn't it. Couldn't afford to save for retirement? Starve, or bankrupt your children. Can afford health insurance? Die, or bankrupt your entire lineage. Want to give your kids an education? Better have the funds or else.  

The problem with your entire mindset was never that it didn't, or could still today, work for SOME people. It's that it would be disastrous for MOST people.  

If you'd like an example, let me suggest ME. My mother's father died 6 months after I was born. She and my father were 20 something's, married young with my seven year old sister already around. They had just begun to get their heads above water, with my mom having just landed the job she'd hold until last year, and my Dad getting through tech school. My grandmother was a lovely lady, but being rendered deaf at a young age by scarlet fever had never gotten advanced education, being considered too disabled by the general consensus of the times. She was completely dependent upon my grandfather, unable even to drive. As she aged her diabetes consumed ever more of her budget. Did I mention my mother's sibling were still in high school at the time?  

Under your worldview, responsibility for my grandmother and her minor children should have been assumed by my parents, which would have cost them two homes, as well as any hope to save for their own future. It would have cost my aunt and uncle the college degrees they both earned later and the success they enabled. It would have cost my sister and I ours as well, and likely cost my younger brother his chance to be born.  

What prevented all of this, not charity, we come from poor families in a poor town, in a poor county, in a backwater state. There was no one else not to busy trying to survive themselves, to assist us. Social security, Medicaid, and later Medicare SAVED my mother's family, and by extension saved me the success I have enjoyed in my life. Spare me the condescension about caring for my elders, we have, by enabling programs to ensure they have what they need even if we can't provide it." Matt

"You call not offering social support systems a "punishment", where as I see having social support systems as a "huge gift / investment" that the recipients should be incredibly thankful for. In fact they should be so thankful that they should do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personal situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.

Do you in someway believe that society owed your family the help you received?
What do you think your family did to earn the tax dollars from the pockets of your neighbors?
If you in no way earned that "gift / investment" from the other tax payers, how could putting conditions on your receipt of it be considered a punishment?

As I have said before, I am happy to see tax dollars used to help people improve. (ie learn to fish) However I am not happy to see tax dollars used to help healthy capable citizens stay sitting in the US Social Support hammock. (ie buying fish)

So it sounds like your family made good with "huge gift / investment" that the other tax payers in the country gave you from their wallet. That is excellent news, now why are you resistant to demanding that from the other recipients across the country?" G2A

What is Fair?

So in the comments of G2A Hold Fast or Compromise, Laurie told me what she thinks of my ideology.

"In my church we talk about the dignity and worth of each person, whereas you seem to want to include a dose of shame about receiving any form of financial assistance."

 

"What makes SS security a great program is the benefits are paid in a way that allows each person the dignity of feeling they are entitled to what they receive. It seems like you would like to change the program to include a dose of humiliation if possible. What's wrong with asking those who can afford it to pay a bit more. You could go on feeling superior to everybody and you could even blog about it."

Of course I disagreed.

"And Liberals would blatantly lie to them just as the Democrats do today?

 

They say that the rich aren't paying their fair share, even though that minority is paying the majority of this country's bills. And instead of being thankful, they would incite people to hate them and demand even more.

 

I wouldn't try to speak from the moral high ground here. It seems that the whole Liberal argument is about trying shame the successful into submission. I mean check out Grace's latest attacks...

 

You really need to read Atlas Shrugged. There is a point when Hank Rearden finally gets it. He finally understands that he is allowing his mooching lazy family to use his own morality against him. This frees him to walk away from their attempts to shame, guilt and coerce him into giving them something for nothing. 

  

I am a huge fan of showing people respect. To do this you need to be open and honest with them. You need to empathize with them and truly care about them.

 

One only lies blatantly when they are out to manipulate another person. Telling people that they earned social security and medicare once the trust funds are gone is like saying "you can't handle the truth!!!"

 

Now that would seem "superior and condescending" to me." 

Now we discussed this before and I am interested to see if anything has changed.  G2A What is Fair?

• What do you think is fair with regard to taxation and redistribution?
• When someone or a family succeeds through luck and/or hard work should society squeeze that golden goose for all the eggs they can get?
• What happens to our society as the Producers get squeezed and the Looters benefit?

Thoughts?

World Around Us: Looter or Producer?
Daily Caller: Moocher or Maker?
Daily KOS: Humanism vs Objectivism
Forbes: It is Time to Give Back

Disabled or Just Desperate

A gift from Laurie...

"An off topic link... Although a tiny bit related as John so loves to put down people he judges as irresponsible. So who are a large group of the so called takers?" WP Rural Americans: Disabled or Just Desperate?

Well I am happy to not let you down.  It is sad that so many people somehow qualify for SS Disability, but maybe Bureaucrats running the system feel they need more mouths to justify their jobs...

"There are 13 million working-age Americans — ages 18 to 64 — receiving disability payments. This number includes every working-age person who receives benefits through the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program or both."

And look...  These folks are happy to help find your ailment for you... How did our country and it's citizens get here?


No wonder SS Disability was and will again be insolvent.  It looks like we had better raise that FICA tax rate higher to help pay for these great benefits. Comic Source

Entitlement or Gratitude

I found my buddy Jason's comment very thought provoking.

"You've got some good points. Also, depending on who you get the money from, also determines what you feel about the gift:

1. A sense of Entitlement 2. Gratitude"

The question that it raised in my mind was:

Does anyone feel Gratitude when receiving money or a service via the Government?

I mean, the "Government" is just a pass through like PRISM, Sharing and Caring Hands, Feed My Starving Children, St Judes, United Way, Red Cross, etc. "They/we" take other people's money and distribute it to folks that need help. (And yes J, they forcibly gather/steal it if citizens resist society's mandate/norm/law) {ie society's enforcers} "They/we" feed the needy, fund medical procedures, rebuild homes, rescue people, pay bills, educate, provide Global Policing and hundreds of other beneficial services and products.

So do the citizens and other beneficiaries that benefit from this charity feel Gratitude. Do they feel a desire to minimize their draw on this gift and the giver?

OR

Do they rationalize that they have paid taxes in the past, and that this in some way Entitles them to maximize the benefit to themselves?

Using 2 examples from the last post, will these folks feel Gratitude for what their fellow citizen's gave up to give them a head start or retirement security? Will they think they succeeded all by themselves? Will they think their fellow citizens should pay for their being irresponsible and not having a diverse savings plan?

"child who came to kindergarten unable to speak English, and who graduates from
high school with honors."

"person whose pension was wiped out by the mismanagement of their employer, and who is now dependent on a government job now, to put food on the table, and who will be dependent on the nanny state's retirement benefits, and the nanny state's Social Security to put food on the table in the future."

By the way, this does not apply only to the poor and needy... Do we feel Gratitude for our safe streets? Do we feel Gratitude for the great roads? Do we feel Gratitude for Tax Deductions? Do we feel Gratitude for Unemployment funds? Do we feel gratitude for subsidies that support our industry? Do we feel gratitude for being able to chase the American Dream? Etc Etc Etc

OR

Are we entitled to maximize our personal benefits at the expense of ourselves and other tax payers?

Thoughts?