Will all you Democrats rely on it?
2007-12-20 12:42:46 · 22 answers · asked by julio_slsc 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The original social security program called for retirment at age 65 in an era when most people died many years prior to that age. Very cynical.
2007-12-20 12:52:17 · update #1
It seemed like a good idea at the time. It wasn't. I compared my Social Security benefits with what I would have gotten under Bush's private accounts program; the private account would now be ahead by about a million dollars. Do your own analysis, using the Social Security tax rates (the SSA web site), the value of a private account invested in the Dow Jones 30 Industrials (Dow Jones web site), and your own earning history. An Excel spread sheet is an easy way to do this.
2007-12-20 12:48:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I am puzzled as to why so many seem to think that the ideal of Social Security was such a bad program? I mean, what was done was set up a mandatory retirement savings program for workers. It was intended to give those without a ton of money some means of support upon retirement.
Where the Social Security program went wrong was not the program's fault at all - but the politicians'. Why? Because they calculated the money saved into the Social Security program into the budget, and they used the money with the intent of paying the program back. Union leaders go to prison for doing this with union members' retirement money, but yet the government saw this as a good idea.
Tell me exactly where was Social Security a bad idea? Because in learning about the program, and upon further research, I think it is a rather smart way of looking down the road for those that might not really look there. It also was implemented to aid those that were disabled or set back due to the death of a bread winner in the family. The only failing of the program was not having some sort of protection from the government and the beings that thought it was just free money for the budget. . .
And as a Democrat, I can tell you that I am not relying on it for my retirement. And if you are so against Social Security, then don't claim it when you retire, or allow your family to claim any benefits when you pass on. . .
2007-12-20 13:10:09 · answer #2 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The social security system started as a way to help people during the depression. in fact, most of the government run systems that give money to the needy were started then. however, they were never stopped, even through times of prosperity, and now some americans see them as their right, not privilege.
i support a social security/medicaid type system for retired people only who have paid money into the system, but i don't believe in systems that pay people to stay home when they should be (and could be) working. i believe that each person should save for their retirement, no matter what happens to SS.
2007-12-20 13:28:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There will be a lot less available because the democraps have voted to give SS to illegal aliens. All you young marxist/believers in the democratic "new communism and world government will be paying a MUCH higher rate of SSI and also higher taxes to support the people that will be getting SS. But then again you are BIG supporters of redistribution of wealth. Someday you'll be happily supporting millions of illegals with a big portion of your pay.... thanks millions of illegal criminals are depending on you sharing your paycheck!
2007-12-20 13:22:47 · answer #4 · answered by G T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Social Security was developed during the depression to help those who were out of work. It was never intended to be a retirement program for all Americans....
2007-12-20 12:45:34 · answer #5 · answered by knittinmama 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Social Security is the most successful program in history. It would be fine today if previous Presidents hadn't raided the trust fund and left worthless IOU's. Social Security still runs a surplus today.
2007-12-20 12:51:10 · answer #6 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Social Security is bad for the economy even if it is solvent (it's actually bankrupt), because it sucks money out of the economy that would otherwise have been invested. When the government steals your money for social security, it is not saving. It is a transfer payment to someone else.
Private savings programs increase the national savings and investment in exponential amounts. To see a great example of this, take a look at Chile's plan.
2007-12-20 12:50:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Just another form of intended redistribution of wealth by democrats, turned into a government boondoggle, supported by republicans, used for a personal finances tracking system.
But of course the government gets their "administrative" costs out of it.
Want to reform it? Eliminate it. 2% return on investment at it's very best?! Loses money at it's worst?! Bah!
Read the fine print on your statement, there won't be any money left in several years. Any private retirement plan is far more lucrative.
It is not the function of the government to force all of you to plan for my retirement, and vice-versa.
And there's a way out, still allowing people collecting now and who will soon to continue, while letting the rest out, but you'll never hear a peep from a republicrat.
2007-12-20 12:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by E. F. Hutton 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It was needed during a time of severe economic recession. These days however it would be better to allow people to make their own decisions about their future.
2007-12-20 12:50:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
How can something that has been successful for almost three quarters of a century be "ill thought out"?
2007-12-20 12:53:49 · answer #10 · answered by beren 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋