Several folks have metioned that they are against the government giving financial supports to parents. How do you guys feel about Social Security? Shouldn't people plan for retirement, similar to suggesting that parents plan for the bearing the costs of raising children themselves? Should care of the old, as well as care of the young, be left up to family members?
2007-11-12 05:59:54 · 6 answers · asked by Junie 6 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
To be clear, I don't have anything against Social Security, I'm just asking a question. I'm not going to have our elderly starve. Oh, and people do not pay for their own SS payments - OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN do. Something to think about, if you are against gov't helps for parents.
2007-11-12 08:38:54 · update #1
good point... where are the complaints about the elderly gambling away their social security & disability checks, or buying cigarettes with them & then needing Medicare to pay for their bronchitis meds? (not that they all do that, nor do i have anything against the elderly, just making a point)
also along the lines of your addt'l details--our generation has been putting $$ into SS all our lives, BUT we won't ever see it!!
2007-11-12 08:27:09 · answer #1 · answered by Ember Halo 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. How often is it that people cheat their elderly parents out of their savings, parking them in a sub-standard nursing home or keeping them home in horrible conditions because they want to get their hands on their inheritance money? There are too many as*holes in the world to leave the elderly to the care of their children.
Just as it's all fine and good to say that people should be responsible for the children they have, but many people aren't, and it's not fair to make the children suffer because they have bad parents.
Would you walk by a hungry five year old in the street and say, "Too bad, kid, it's your fault you were born to lousy parents"?
There will always be a need for social programs, no matter how much we bluster and wish that there SHOULDN'T be. "Shouldn't be" and "reality" are often worlds apart.
2007-11-12 14:25:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Children often have parents,grandparents and aunts and uncles to care for them but the elderly might have nobody.
Many of us don't have children so no grand children or we don't have many and out live them.
My brother had two kids, I had none. His kids gave him two grand kids one is handicapped so the entire younger generation will be one boy who is 11 now and we are retiring.
He might out live his son so he will end up with just a daughter and grandson to look after him and his wife in old age and she is taking care of her own handicapped child for life.
2007-11-12 17:14:23 · answer #3 · answered by shipwreck 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I live in South Texas, and personally speaking,government assistance should be temporay, NOT multi - generational. Section 8 housing,food stamps,child care, should all be at a certain limit. One year to eighteen months. NO MORE. Now the elderly are something else. They've lived their lives and should be able to live at Uncle Sams assistance.
Keep in mind that there's going to be the Baby Boomers going into retirement pretty soon and guess who will be paying for that.
2007-11-12 14:13:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Makes sense to me, except for the fact that old people have paid into to Social Security all their lives.
2007-11-12 14:12:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In an idea world, we wouldn't need social security or child support. But, things are less than perfect for sure. I don't believe that we should expand government bureaucracy to add additional funding to these social programs.
2007-11-12 14:11:51 · answer #6 · answered by billybobinbred 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋