I want to save social security?

[_Kevin Graham]

Isn't disability taken from social security funds.

Yes but only if you worked and paid into the SS pool. So far Social Security has been a massive success and people love it. It is only becoming an issue lately because of the baby boomers retiring beginning in 2008. There will probably be a need to increase the SS payroll tax to compensate for this, but we're only talking about a couple percentage points. But this is just until the baby boomer generation passes.

I didn't even realized that disability is paid out to infants (under 18). If you can get a doctor to sign a paper saying, "Yes she has dry eye, or yes she's cross eyed," then the parents can get $1200/month.

That's absolute nonsense. And children only qualify if their parents have paid into Social Security, at which point it is paid on a parent’s Social Security earnings record.

I guess it only works if you have connections to the bureaucret writing the check though. I've seen Vietnam veterans who lost a leg during the war denied disability and told that his $200/month verterans pension was all they could give him. You want to ask again why I hate socialism?

That isn't socialism and your story isn't true. Disability payments range between $10 and $2,700 a month, depending on the severity of the disability. In extreme cases such as a loss of limb, they qualify for even higher payments. And for the record, our VA health care is the best health care system currently available in America. When hospitals are operating as businesses, profit is really the only thing that matters.

I've seen people collecting social security for decades in Latin America because they worked illegally in the United states for as little as 6 months.

No you haven't. You've probably heard stories based in rumor, but the only possible way an illegal worker could benefit from Social Security is if the spouse is a US citizen and collecting benefits, which are shared through the household.

That was the point of the post. The right's platform is to save social security. I'd like to see it abolished.

Why? It has been largely successful.

Nor will they ever be again no matter how high you tax the current people going to work every day. You act like Social Security is still some sort of retirement fund. The government spent that money long ago on other things. They didn't save it.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The government has in fact borrowed from the Social Security fund, and it has repaid that money back with interest.

They paid it out to countless people who didn't pay in the form of disability. They paid people many times what they paid into it. Even with the people who died early and got nothing, nothing for their family, nothing, it's still bankrupt. You know that. Social security has become nothing more than a redistribution of wealth system.

I suggest you actually research this stuff instead of listening to the nonsense coming from the far Right. You substantiate nothing you say. There is no rational basis for criticizing Social Security. The reason the hyper capitalists hate it so much is because it has proven successful.

I'd say that most people who work at any age do so because they have no choice. It's part of what it means to survive in this world.

At any age? No. People at all ages retire all the time and live off the money they earned prior to that time. My step father is a perfect example of someone who could have retired ten years ago if he wanted, but his company (Bell South) was bought out by AT&T and they screwed his retirement package and said he would have to work another ten years until he qualified for whatever golden parachute Bell South was willing to give him. Of course he is probably going to die within the next ten years (he is 70!) and he really does nothing at work except sit in on conference calls and listen to the younger engineers babble about whatever project they are working on (I've heard him in his office - he really does NOTHING of value for that company). But he keeps working mainly because he doesn't know of any other way to live. It is very much the same way some criminals become so dependent on the prison system that they willfully commit crimes after being released on parole, simply because that's the only way they know how to live. And that is quite an apt anaology too, which is sad. It is why quality of life in the USA is low compared to other developed countries. It is why those evil social democratic nations are much happier as a society.

It is a virtue.

That's exactly what the corporations want you to believe. They want you to believe it is a good thing that you work yourself to death on their behalf, while they dish out scraps for you to barely survive. What's rthe point of living if you can't really live life? If the office has become your life during teh day time and delivering pizzas is your life at night? Two weeks vacation per year is pathetic. No wonder we're such a stressed nation.

I disagree. It's because corporations are free to find people who will work for less. They'll always be another immigrant willing to work for less or do whatever it takes to win your job in the workplace.

You can't blame this all on immigrants, though that is obviously where you began with this thinking. The two companies I work for have very few immigrants, in fact. But the corporations force workers to do more work for the same amount or even less money. It isn't a matter of immigration for them, they don't care where you are from. What they care about is a continuous increase in profit for their shareholders. Slashing labor costs is a universal method for increasing profit. But they cannot afford a decrease in production, so they just throw more responsibility at the workers without increasing their pay. In many instances they'll fire some people and throw their responsibilities onto other workers.

Now this, I'll agree with. Kevin, couldn't you and I both agree that minimum wage, or even $10/hour is not enough money to live on in this country. What difference does raising the minimum wage to $7.25 make anyway? I'm all for getting rid of cheap labor, but I just don't see how the U.S. could ever pull that off in a global economy. I hate cheap labor. I think it's wrong like slavery is wrong.

But that is precisely what the Right wants. My step father says we should get rid of the minimum wage altogether. He watches FOX News at least twelve hours a week. You think $7.25 doesn't make a difference, but to those who were making $5.25, it makes a huge difference. Especially when they live in a socialized household - meaning, multiple members of the family working minimum wage jobs to make ends meet for the family. This is how many Mexican families in this country prosper. How is it that Mexicans can come here and work for so little, and then a few years later they are driving brand new Pick up trucks and running their own businesses? What does it say about American work ethic?

Perhaps if the Democrats quit courting votes from the welfare class, they'd get more love from working people.

The Democrats are the party of the working class, period. The evidence for this is too overwhelming. They just happen to give a damn about those who are out of work, whereas the Republicans, the party of the rich, don't give a damn about anyone beneath them. It is because of Right Wing policies that the middle-class is falling into the lower classes.

[_Tarski]

--cut un-Christlike ingnorant rant---

Social security is a social contract--a promise. We paid into it (forced actually).
The gov cannot fail to uphold its side or it loses trustworthiness which a government cannot afford to lose.

If SS ends then I should get back every penny I paid into it with interest!

[_krose]

Social security is a social contract--a promise. We paid into it (forced actually).

Yup. It's a government mandate, just like Medicare and "ObamaCare." We have all been required to pay into and participate in a retirement fund and a medical insurance fund for many years now.

The upcoming Supreme Court ruling, which everyone expects will strike down government mandates as unconstitutional, obviously should also cover the vastly popular Social Security and Medicare mandates.

Surely they will be consistent, right?

[_ajax18]

That's absolute nonsense. And children only qualify if their parents have paid into Social Security, at which point it is paid on a parent’s Social Security earnings record.

Than maybe if we can't agree on whether this actually happens or not, perhaps we can agree that it should not be happening?

That isn't socialism and your story isn't true.

So you don't believe anything like this ever happened? Agreed that it's not socialism in a philosophers sense of the word. My point is that this is what socialism becomes because you have human beings with human biases distributing the money.

And for the record, our VA health care is the best health care system currently available in America. When hospitals are operating as businesses, profit is really the only thing that matters.

Not when I worked there it wasn't. Those poor old vets waited all day for their appointments, and honestly the doctors didn't care because their check was fixed. Yes, money is all that matters when a hospital operates a business. But surviving is all that matters in this world to most people. Capitalism is a result of dog eat dog world we come from and are ultimately dependent upon. For those that have money, they sure don't go to the VA.

No you haven't.

Then we agree that social security shouldn't be paid out to illegal immigrants indefinitely for working in the U.S. as little as six months?

Why? It has been largely successful.

Successful for who? Not for me or my family it hasn't been and we're far from rich.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The government has in fact borrowed from the Social Security fund, and it has repaid that money back with interest.

So if the money is still there, why is it going bankrupt? I guess we just disagree on the facts again.

What's rthe point of living if you can't really live life? If the office has become your life during the day time and delivering pizzas is your life at night? Two weeks vacation per year is pathetic. No wonder we're such a stressed nation.

I've asked myself the same question. But hasn't it always been that way? It was that way for the people I know who lived under the communism in the old USSR. And yes I did deliver pizzas by night trying to make ends meet when I taught in public schools.

How is it that Mexicans can come here and work for so little, and then a few years later they are driving brand new Pick up trucks and running their own businesses? What does it say about American work ethic?

You seem to playing two sides of the coin. On the one hand you question why we have to work all the time, but on the other hand you criticize American workers for not being able to get ahead the way Latinos save and get ahead. Which lifestyle is it that you're advocating?

You can't blame this all on immigrants

Agreed, it's not all just due to immigration. But you seem to be refusing to accept any blame on immigrants doing jobs that American welfare recipients should be forced to do.

You think $7.25 doesn't make a difference, but to those who were making $5.25, it makes a huge difference.

I'd raise minimum wage to $15/hr. I don't care how much that raises food costs. People should be paid for their labor. But what difference does it make when the people working these jobs are often illegal anyway. If they are legal, they're often just being paid under the table.

The Democrats are the party of the working class, period. The evidence for this is too overwhelming. They just happen to give a damn about those who are out of work,

You mean those that don't want to do the really hard jobs that don't pay well thus forcing us to get immigrants to do them. Is that your definition of, "out of work?"
And you say the Democrats give a damn because they're willing to take money from a man like myself who did in fact drive pizzas in the evening trying to make ends meet? I don't see where they're giving anything at all. They're just forcing me to give more and work more so that those that don't want to work don't have to work. I guess it's a good way to win votes given that most people would prefer not to work if they can find a way not to do so.

[_Analytics]

Just to add some clarification on the state of the Social Security system, for most of its history, Social Security has been receiving more in premiums than it has been paying in benefits. The positive cash flow is "the Social Security Trust Fund," which has been invested in federal government notes. (The federal government has borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund because it generally hasn't been willing to have tax rates high enough to cover "defense" spending, but that's a different issue.)

A couple of years ago, Social Security has begun paying more in benefits than it has been collecting in taxes. This is caused by a couple of things. First, people are living a lot longer than they used to. Second, the baby boomer generation.

If nothing happens, the Social Security trust fund will run out of money in about 25 years. When that happens, by law every year's social security receipts will have to cover that year's expenses. To make this happen, everybody's check will go down by about 25% across the board. So, if somebody is getting a $1000 check, the check will be lowered to $750. That is the worst-case scenario.

You have to pay into the Social Security system for 10 years before you are eligible for benefits, by the way.

[_ajax18]

You have to pay into the Social Security system for 10 years before you are eligible for benefits, by the way.

So how is disability funded for people who are disabled from childhood? I know the parents collect a disability check for a child who is declared disabled, even if the child is not legally old enough to work anyway. Of course when the child turns 18, he is eligible to collect that check directly without having it pass into his parents hands first.

And children only qualify if their parents have paid into Social Security, at which point it is paid on a parent’s Social Security earnings record.

Does this detract from the amount of social security the parents receive at retirement. If it doesn't than what difference does it make fiscally? People are still receiving money they never paid into it. Even someone as simple minded as myself can understand that would lead to bankruptcy.

Analytics do you really believe that you will get back all your social security money with interest if the system is abolished? Do you even believe you'll get back what you paid into if the system continues?

[_ajax18]

Ajax, the concept of Social Security came from Germany***. I know you might say that came from the old Germany before Hitler, but I fail to see how gas ovens would be a good retirement option.

Ok, you've got me there Moshka. That's disappointing to know to say the least. I'm just saying I'm always very impressed to see people who are old, infirm, and of ill health, but still out doing and giving everything they can. To me that's a virtue. For Kevin, they're just brainwashed by corporate America.

[_moksha]

I'm just saying I'm always very impressed to see people who are old, infirm, and of ill health, but still out doing and giving everything they can. To me that's a virtue. For Kevin, they're just brainwashed by corporate America.

However, if these senior workers hold onto their usually higher level jobs with no mandatory retirement, there will be little chance for advancement for younger worker. The idea that there is a generational conflict with the young paying for the old, seems more like a business ploy designed to let the business convert the SS employers contribution into golden shekels for stock holders and executive bonuses. The way of a functional society is for the elders to take care of the children and the grown children to take care of the elders. Let's have no more of that setting Grandma on an ice floe in the Great Salt Lake.

Keeping active and doing what one can is indeed a virtue and should be enjoyed before one becomes too aged, infirm or disabled to consistently perform activities.

[_ajax18]

However, if these senior workers hold onto their usually higher level jobs with no mandatory retirement, there will be little chance for advancement for younger worker.

I see that point, but I'm not really talking about healthy older people who can still compete with younger workers. I'm talking about a man who isn't even really capable of running at the speed he once did and neither does he get paid what he once got paid, but he's still out giving what he has. The system seems to penalize what I see as a virtue. If this man makes too much money, he becomes unqualified for his social security that he would have a right to if he did no work at all.

The way of a functional society is for the elders to take care of the children and the grown children to take care of the elders.

My idea of a functional society is when everyone gives everything they can and claims entitlement to nothing.

Keeping active and doing what one can is indeed a virtue and should be enjoyed before one becomes too aged, infirm or disabled to consistently perform activities.

But it's more than just keeping active. I'm sure he'd like to be on a golf course. But he's not, because he believes in continuing to give what he can. I'm not saying he's happy to be giving to the federal government, but he is still giving to his family. Granted I'm tribal and don't fit your socialist ideal, but I plan to give to my family till my last mitochondria can put out ATP.

[_Tarski]

My idea of a functional society is when everyone gives everything they can and claims entitlement to nothing.

You should set an example and immediately give up all entitlements including the idea that you are entitled to say such nonsense.
You should not feel entitled to anything from your children when you are 92. Nor should they feel entitled to any financial help with college or medical emergency help. Is you sick mother entitled to your financial help?

A few things you may to be too blind to notice:

Not everyone has a family.
Not everyone can even have children.
Not everyone is paid enough to help parents or children (many teachers for starters)
Not everyone's cognitive functions and physical strength allow them to be competitive in a job market. (For example, the 65 year old who bags my groceries is way way too slow). That guy worked hard as a high school football coach and health teacher for over 50 years and risked his life in military battle. But he is entitled only to the indignity of bagging groceries.
I am also reminded of the rich asshat who made a fortune of selling worthless jewelry to old people on the shopping channel who is also an affected connoisseur of Jazz music. There he is, retired, sitting in his den with a martini listening to one of the old Jazz masters who enriched our culture beyond measure but some of whom happen to still be living without healthcare on a fixed income in some dank run down apartment. You want them to not even get those social security pennies for bread. What an ass.

Finally, as Bill Gates was the first to admit, the difference between the kind of big success that allows people to spend time on the gold course and those who may have to sweat until they die is often a matter of luck. I would add that it is apparently also a matter of willingness to take advantage of other people and apply deceptive business practices.

The BS world you apparently wish for is hopeless for hundreds of millions of hard working average people, people who have paid into a program in good faith.

Also, you never addressed my getting back my social security payments. Government promises must be honored and those who say otherwise in the name of some adolescent Randian ideology have no honor.