-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Political Quiz Q8
- Thread starter Spiffy1
- Start date
Remember the 'poor house' ? These were privately funded places of welfare. It was a social disgrace to have to go there, therefore people survived on their own, learned the lesons to handle thier meager funds and survived.
Talk to someone who lived through the depression, once. My parents were children then (my Dad is gone now, but my Mother remembers and tells stories of how she didn't know they were poor, so it didn't bother them). They know. So do others. Government welfare is an addiction like any other. The only cure it to cut it off, completely.
Talk to someone who lived through the depression, once. My parents were children then (my Dad is gone now, but my Mother remembers and tells stories of how she didn't know they were poor, so it didn't bother them). They know. So do others. Government welfare is an addiction like any other. The only cure it to cut it off, completely.
No one wants to "glibly kill off so many people", at least I don't.
I do, however, think that paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to support people who are too LAZY to take care of themselves is both unfair and immoral. Why should I work? Why should I pay insurance? Why should I do anything, when the government is there to take care of me.
Why have the economies in Europe dissolved so badly? Socialism doesn't work. Proven time and again. Socialism is not the answer. There must be a balance. We are not there, yet.
I do, however, think that paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to support people who are too LAZY to take care of themselves is both unfair and immoral. Why should I work? Why should I pay insurance? Why should I do anything, when the government is there to take care of me.
Why have the economies in Europe dissolved so badly? Socialism doesn't work. Proven time and again. Socialism is not the answer. There must be a balance. We are not there, yet.
Unemployment. (30% + in France and Germany the two biggest economies there)
Thats a big measure. I've mentioned before a co-worker from the UK. He has may personal observations of the economic unrest and social upheaval from the 'continent.' It's no where near as good as the 'left' makes it out.
Thats a big measure. I've mentioned before a co-worker from the UK. He has may personal observations of the economic unrest and social upheaval from the 'continent.' It's no where near as good as the 'left' makes it out.
OkeeDon said:
If Social Security is so great, why doesn't Congress participate. Many people answer this that they have their own retirement system, and don't need it. Well, I have my own retirement system and don't need Social Security, so why can't I elect to not participate?
Bob
Who else?AndyM said:
The key is first deciding whether it's worth doing or not. If it is, then seek the best way to do it. Leaving it to the states might mean that people in, say, Oklahoma are treated differently than Colorado, when there is no other difference between them than the accident of a border on a map.
I've never quite seen the allure of states' rights. What it means to me is that the people of State "A" are not educated as well as the people in State "B", and that leads to the people in State "A" having to pay for their education system and help pay to keep the State "B" dummies in jail, bcause "B" can't afford it on their own, and "A" doesn't want the dummies crossing their border and causing problems.
If you're an American, your treatment should not depend on whether you are a Pennsylvanian or Floridian.
Spiffy1 said:
Some points about this that seems to be overlooked or missed by people in this thread is that the statement does NOT say to do away with Social Security. Nor does it say that there won't be a mandatory contribution by the employee or the employer. All is says is to privatize it.
To assume what is not written is a big mistake! To assume that Social Security would be eliminated is also a serious mis-read of the statement.
I suppose that would work as long as you didin't work for Enron. The chances of someone screwing up your private plan are much greater than the chances of SS going bust.rlk said:If Social Security is so great, why doesn't Congress participate. Many people answer this that they have their own retirement system, and don't need it. Well, I have my own retirement system and don't need Social Security, so why can't I elect to not participate?
Bob
Look, I was an independent contractor all my working life. I had no pension plan. I was totally on my own. I'm not going in to details, but I didn't pay much to SS. My retirement is financed by my investments. However, if I lost everything for one reason or another, I would still have that safety net of a small SS payment each month. It would be enough to keep me out of the poor house if I lived carefully. There is no way that I, or anyone else, should risk that and become a ward of society.
\
I agree with privatization of social security with limitations.
My understanding of the recent efforts by the Bush administration in this area was that contributions would be somewhat standardized or regulated by the gov't to help prevent any wildassed investments??? Seems to me that there would have to be some sort of regulation in this area. There are always going to be some who thru no fault of their own are unable to contribute enough to the system to pay for their unforseen needs. There should be some means to cover those requirements by the gov't.
With privitization options we could have better returns on our investments, but there remain some who are deserving who need help whose investments are insufficient to provide for them. I've known several of those types so far in my lifetime that weren't bums or deadbeats, but just had bad luck. They should be helped in whatever program we have (in my opinion).
As far as Congress participating, in my opinion they should be required to contribute just as every other segment of our society. And the federal civil service, mail worker, etc. should... if they have a separate retirement system that's fine, but that should be above and completely separate from SSA. I retired from the US Army and draw my retirement from there, VA benefits, etc., but I've paid into social security with every pay period I earned. If I'd had the option to "control" a portion of my SS investment and direct it into mutual funds, no doubt that I would be better off. But we can't ignore those who aren't able to be self-sufficient.
My understanding of the recent efforts by the Bush administration in this area was that contributions would be somewhat standardized or regulated by the gov't to help prevent any wildassed investments??? Seems to me that there would have to be some sort of regulation in this area. There are always going to be some who thru no fault of their own are unable to contribute enough to the system to pay for their unforseen needs. There should be some means to cover those requirements by the gov't.
With privitization options we could have better returns on our investments, but there remain some who are deserving who need help whose investments are insufficient to provide for them. I've known several of those types so far in my lifetime that weren't bums or deadbeats, but just had bad luck. They should be helped in whatever program we have (in my opinion).
As far as Congress participating, in my opinion they should be required to contribute just as every other segment of our society. And the federal civil service, mail worker, etc. should... if they have a separate retirement system that's fine, but that should be above and completely separate from SSA. I retired from the US Army and draw my retirement from there, VA benefits, etc., but I've paid into social security with every pay period I earned. If I'd had the option to "control" a portion of my SS investment and direct it into mutual funds, no doubt that I would be better off. But we can't ignore those who aren't able to be self-sufficient.
And, of course, that's the other great myth -- that one would be better off if one could control his own investment.
That shows a basic lack of understanding about how SS works. The first person who ever collected from SS paid in less than $1, then lived beyond age 100 and collected the entire tme. Your investments will always be limited by how much you have when you retire. There is no such limitation on SS.
Of course, the reverse is true -- your own investment value can be inherited by your heirs, while if you die early, your SS "investment" just disappears. However, even with my poor health, I choose to believe I'm going to live forever, and the SS will just keep coming in. I know my investments will not do that. I have the perfect example living in my house; my mother-in-law will be 102 in August. Her investments are running out; her SS just keep rolling in.
That shows a basic lack of understanding about how SS works. The first person who ever collected from SS paid in less than $1, then lived beyond age 100 and collected the entire tme. Your investments will always be limited by how much you have when you retire. There is no such limitation on SS.
Of course, the reverse is true -- your own investment value can be inherited by your heirs, while if you die early, your SS "investment" just disappears. However, even with my poor health, I choose to believe I'm going to live forever, and the SS will just keep coming in. I know my investments will not do that. I have the perfect example living in my house; my mother-in-law will be 102 in August. Her investments are running out; her SS just keep rolling in.
daedong
New member
Av8r3400 said:
I live in a country that has pretty good social welfare programs. These programs are probably as or more generous than any offered in most other countries. Yet our economy continues to be very buoyant. There is a need in my view to have a balance between the far right and the far left because history has proved time and time again that the extremes either to the left or the right do not work.
I generally try to look at these issues as a member of the Australian community. I owe them and they owe me because it is a partnership.
Your Fed government has been involved for 60 years in helping out the underprivileged or poor, in one form or another. You have been a prosperous country for the most part of these 60 years with handout schemes. This to me alone says it can work and does.
This page may be of interest http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/foodstamps.htm
Just my 2 cents worth
Not exactly. They receive a benefit, but they don't get the lump sum "balance" like they would with an annuity. The benefit may or may not be "beneficial". For example, my wife and I always structured our finances so she made more money than me. That's primarily because I was more able to structure a paper loss that offset her income tax. Therefore, I collect the minimum SS, she collects the maximum (it averages out to what we would both collect if we had chosen a more conventional financial arrangement).bczoom said:
If I die, she's entitled to my SS or hers -- but not both. Obviously, she would choose her own. On the other hand, if she dies, I would choose hers -- but then, I wouldn't get mine.
There are other rules about collecting benefits when a spouse dies before retirement age; they never applied to me, so I don't have them on the tip of my tongue. There are limits and choices to be made, however, as above. Children are entitled to benefits until they are 18, or 21 if a full time student.
After all the limits and choices are made, if there is "balance" in the account, it is lost and not passed down.
Don,
Interesting the way you set up your SS benefits.
That person's father recently passed away. The SSA split the father's SS benefits and 1/2 has been added to the surviving wife's benefits and the other 1/2 has been added to the disabled son's benefits. This is what prompted my previous post.
Brian
Interesting the way you set up your SS benefits.
A friend of mine administors one of his employee's benefits. The person is disabled and has been collecting SS benefits.OkeeDon said:
That person's father recently passed away. The SSA split the father's SS benefits and 1/2 has been added to the surviving wife's benefits and the other 1/2 has been added to the disabled son's benefits. This is what prompted my previous post.
Brian
I agree that we need privatization.. The reason being that we need to be more responsible for our own actions.. I have come to the realization that SS wont be there for me, or if it is, I would have a hard time living off of it.(I've got a ways to go)... Anyhow, the government could still be involved, it doesnt have to go away, but it should be a bonus to what you already have.. My point goes back to welfare, like was mentioned earlier.. The city of New Orleans is a prime example.. I understand there are some good folks there, but my news only showed the worthless, destructive, entitled element.. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives, now that their world has been turned upside down, you hear of them spreading crime to other parts of our country that they were sent to(on our dime)... These people have never ammounted to anything and likely never will.. They have been taught through generations that the government owes them something and will pay for everything...So, what is their incentive to help themselves? Remember all the reports of New Orleans being neglected and ignored by our government? How many did you hear about Mobile, Biloxie, Texas, All of Florida the over the past couple of years? If people believe that no one is there for them, they become more self sufficent, thats what we need in my opinion.... Maybe there could be a government sponsored 401k program that we have choices of where our money goes?? I dont have the answer, but everything I have heard shows that SS wont be there in 30yrs... People are living much longer than in the past, yet we still look forward to retiring in the mid 60's...
OkeeDon said:
Don, I realize on the surface you are correct.. However, if you spent any time watching the news(any channel you prefer), I would be failry confident that you heard all of the reports stating(from the good poeple in the projects of New Orleans) "Its the governments fault", "they left us stranded", "my welfare checks havent arrived", "FEMA cards spent in strip bars", "rescue helocopters shot at by looters","rape in the rescue centers", ect, etc, etc.....
Again, my point is directed and originates from the experience I have dealing with this element of society and going to an inner city school.. New Orleans(from what I have read) has the largest welfare housing area per capita than most anywhere else in this country.. Their behavior on the National media channels(not to mention what was broadcast throughout the world) proves where their heart and sole are.. They are happy being dependant, if not, they would attempt to better themselves.. They would use this as an oportunity to get out of their situation(as I'm sure some of them have)..
So, once again I stand by my statement and ask you if you have ever been to or spent any time dealing with this element of society? You have told us in other threads that you live in a good area with low crime rates and you dont feel the need fo a firearm to protect yourself.. Kudo's to you, not everyone can say that.. There are bad parts of town that most people refuse to drive through.. Can you find a comon denominator? Most people there are government assisted and rely on crime to make the difference.. Not everyone on this planet are good people that have been dealt a bad hand.. At some point we all become comfortable in our lives and reduce our effort to better ourselves... If this country continues to provide for the weak, indefinitly, they will never need to take care of themselves..
BTW, Don. I understand you live in Florida, as did I and much of my family continues to.. How much media time was spent on the trageties of lives and property lost there over the past year? Who was to blame? I think you misunderstood me and took it to be a cut and dry statement.. The tragety in New Orleans was just that, a tragety.. I feel for the good people everywhere that has had issues like that turn their lives on end.. But when you have something like that happen and without missing a beat turn into anamalistic criminals and point the blame on everyone but yourself for not leaving, I loose sympathy...
Also, I dont have a problem with government assistance to get someone on their feet.. However, to create a perminant way of life for them and continue to pay more per child they bring into a poor situation(again, without end) is something I cannot fathom.. This all started with my connection of the SS privatization and the welfare system failures.. Again, my point is that the American people need to have a strong government to protect them, but they must be weaned off the tit as soon as they are capable to care for themselves.. This is why I believe that it is much better form me to provide my own retirement and if there is something else, its a bonus..
That's true. However, I was raised in a lower class area on the North side of Pittsburgh. My Dad was a trolley motorman who died when I was 15 years old, in 1955. He did not graduate from high school. The first full year that I worked after high school, in 1959, I earned more in my warehouse job than my Dad ever did in a year in his life. We lived in rented houses and moved almost every year, into successively worse places, as the rent was raised in the old place. I can still remember one car we had which had a screen door hook to hold one of the rear doors shut.HGM said:
However, we were fortunate, because we were white, and my Dad could at least get a job. There were no black trolley drivers. There were no black workers at my warehouse job. In those days, in the city, blacks could only be janitors or dishwashers or such. In the South, most blacks were sharecroppers. They were lucky if they had a floor in their house. They were subject to strict segregation rules in the South and de facto segregation in the North. Equal education was a joke, and Jim Crow laws made it difficult, if not impossible, to take part in the democratic process.
These people could not possibly get ahead because the system was stacked against them, primarily by people who sound a lot like you, except in those days they often said that blacks were "less than human" and were "happier knowing their place". The bigots were as ignorant then as they are now; the tune was just a little different.
Somewhere along the line, someone decided that these people should be helped. Such compassion had never been done before, and those early do-gooders sometimes got it wrong. For example, public housing should never have been warehouses for stacking people.
But, even then, the efforts were muddied and messed up by conservatives. For example, ADC (Aid to Dependent Children, a form of Welfare) was only paid if there was no Father in the home. This was a result of conservatives insisting that they weren't going to help those lazy no-good Fathers, and if he was there, he could just provide for his family the old fashioned way, by work, and they wouldn't give a dime unless the Father was missing.
Of course, there were no jobs for the Father, and the kids had to eat, so what was the result? The Fathers left, the wives and kids got ADC, and the cycle started -- once on it, there was no way off. This is NOT the fault of the people getting the aid, it's the fault of the stingy, ignorant conservatives who hamstrung the rules without thinking through the consequences.
The same was true of the income limits for getting welfare. What would have been smart would have been a gradual, progressive weaning off the welfare system. This would have been possible by gradually cutting back on welfare as earned income increased. But, Oh No! The conservatives weren't going to give a dime to those people once the were able to earn a little money! After all, the were lazy degenerates, or they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place! So, as soon as they earned a little money, they lost their assistance. Since assistance paid more than minimum wage (which the conservatives also persist in resisting), obviously people could not afford to work.
It's hard to paint a complete picture in the amount of space here; there have been shelves of books written on the subject, if you had any interest in getting over your ignorance (by the way, that's not an insult, ignorance doesn't mean dumb, it just means you haven't got the whole picture, yet).
I could go on. My wife is a home health physical therapist who has been treating home-bound patients for 43 years, mostly with the Visiting Nurse Association, and mostly with disadvantaged patients. In plain words, what that means is that about 75% of the patients she sees live in ghettos. She spends hours every day with the type of people you are trying to describe in New Orleans. She sees their struggle and the futility of it, primarily because some conservative put too many limits on the help they could be given.
There are a few open-minded conservatives. Jack Kemp, when he was secretary of HUD, proposed that instead of building more public housing or funding more Section 8 rental proposals, that poor people be helped and given the opportunity to purchase their housing. The reasoning was that through pride of ownership, economically disadvantaged people could build self-esteem along with a little equity. Unfortunately, his proposals were shot down by more radical conservatives, the type that are predominate, today.
So, the simple fact is that if you had to live in the shoes of those people in New Orleans, even for a few weeks, you'd be singing a different tune.
By the way, you're correct. There were some people in NO who didn't want too close of an investigation into the "businesses" they were conducting, and some of them went so far as to shoot at helicopters. In that regard, they were no different than the people at Ruby Ridge and Whaco.
Don, you paint a pretty good picture of how to stereotype people too. Your stereotype about the poor is actually more broad sweeping than HGMs.
The difference is that he was focusing on the culture of ONE city center, and to be blunt his stereotype is probably a lot more accurate than yours is. New Orleans has a culture that is virtually foreign to most of the US, there is a culture of graft, a culture of corruption, a culture of welfare in that city that is unlike anywhere else I know of in the US. I have many friends in the N.O. area and what HGM wrote is actually a pretty accurate stereotype of that city's poor. Yes, he did key in on the bad points, but so did CNN, FOX, et al.
While I believe in giving a "hand up" as opposed to a "hand out" what I have found first hand in N.O. is that a disproportionate percentage of the poor want nothing more than a "hand out" and they will actually refuse a "hand up." And yes, I admit that I am stereotyping but I think compared to many other cities or regions, the stereotype is actually based on reality as opposed to ignorance or prejudice.
The difference is that he was focusing on the culture of ONE city center, and to be blunt his stereotype is probably a lot more accurate than yours is. New Orleans has a culture that is virtually foreign to most of the US, there is a culture of graft, a culture of corruption, a culture of welfare in that city that is unlike anywhere else I know of in the US. I have many friends in the N.O. area and what HGM wrote is actually a pretty accurate stereotype of that city's poor. Yes, he did key in on the bad points, but so did CNN, FOX, et al.
While I believe in giving a "hand up" as opposed to a "hand out" what I have found first hand in N.O. is that a disproportionate percentage of the poor want nothing more than a "hand out" and they will actually refuse a "hand up." And yes, I admit that I am stereotyping but I think compared to many other cities or regions, the stereotype is actually based on reality as opposed to ignorance or prejudice.