• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you willing to give up you social security to end the new deal?

Are you willing to give up you social security to end the new deal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • No

    Votes: 29 51.8%
  • Total voters
    56
Iriemon said:
Who on the left told you SS was a "contract"? What a silly thing to say.
And you believed that?
Click to expand...

The left uses it all the time, and note the quotation marks. But then your saying the government shouldn't have to honor it's obligations?
 
Stinger said:
The left uses it all the time, and note the quotation marks. But then your saying the government shouldn't have to honor it's obligations?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard the left say that, I've only heard the right (like you) say it create a strawman argument.
 
Iriemon said:
I haven't heard the left say that..........
Click to expand...

Oh that proves it.
 
kandahar you dont live in a border state do ya? :rofl
 
Kandahar said:
You keep avoiding the question: If your goal is to keep people out of poverty, we already have poverty-based government assistance. Why do we need a universal entitlement that pays people just for being old?
Click to expand...

I thought I had answered that, but there really isn't much difference in our positions. The issue is whether as a policy we should have some age where we say you don't have to work anymore based on age.
 
Iriemon said:
I thought I had answered that, but there really isn't much difference in our positions. The issue is whether as a policy we should have some age where we say you don't have to work anymore based on age.
Click to expand...

Do you really think government should be able to blackmail us with our SS money into working as long as IT thinks we should?

I have to say that is a very dangerous proposition although to an extent it is already in place. When I entered the system an most of my working and investing life it has been 65, now government should be able to tell me when I can retire by withholding my SS benifits?
 
Last edited:

You found one, though describing it as a "social contract" is a little different from the legal sense. Here's one from the other side:

I believe Social Security is a contract with ourselves and we will keep the promises that have been made

http://conaway.house.gov/issues/socialsecurity.asp

And from Fox:

Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153704,00.html


Do you consider it an insurance program?
Click to expand...

A form of social insurance. Like traditional forms of insuarnce, you pay premiums for certain benefits that you will be entitled to if certain events occur (you become disabled, die, or live beyond the retirement age). If the events do not occur you do not get benefits.
 
Stinger said:
Do you really think government should be able to blackmail us with our SS money into working as long as IT thinks we should?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I think people should save money in 401ks or however and then they can retire when they want.


IMO you should not rely solely upon SS to plan your retirement, but you should save and invest and build up other sources of retirement funds.

As to whether the Govt "should" be able to dictate when SS benefits become payable, I agree with you that to the extent that folks need and have relied upon SS to provide for their retirement, there is a sense that it is unfair to change the rules particular for those who are at or near retirement. These issues have to be balanced against what the country can afford; which is more problematic since the SS trust fund has been stolen to finance deficits and the exploding debt will limit the Govt's resources.

One issue where I do agree with Bush is the concept of the amount of benefits and the growth of benefits. The amount of pension benefit is not set in stone, and has been tapped to the growth of wages. As a result, adjusted for inflation, SS benefits are richer than they used to be. SS should not be a vehicle to provide a luxurious retirement; the nation can't afford that. Pegging the benefits to inflation rather than wages makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Iriemon said:
You found one, though describing it as a "social contract" is a little different from the legal sense. Here's one from the other side:
Click to expand...

It's government and it is codified. But none the less point proven. So now you seem OK with government reniging on the "contract"



A form of social insurance....
Click to expand...

And insurance is a contract.
 

I agree almost fully with the Dragonslayer.
I don't know about those who wish to roll back advances made by the middle class.
I wonder if they would change their attitude if they had to live paycheck to paycheck for 45 to 50 years.
 

I don't but it is an intregal part of it and if government can just change the rules at it's whim then they can blackmail me into having to work longer until I retire. They take a good chunk of money away from me every paycheck, money I would love to see in my 401k plan so I am not at the mersey of government.

But what about the poor people you so defend who can't put money into a 401k they are left with nothing but government dictating to them when they can retire.

These issues have to be balanced against what the country can afford; which is more problematic since the SS trust fund has been stolen to finance deficits and the exploding debt will limit the Govt's resources.
Click to expand...

Welcome to government. Yet you still support a government mandate retirement system.

Pegging the benefits to inflation rather than wages makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

On that we agree. But it doesn't matter a hll of beans if government can just keep moving the goal post. Catch-22.
 
Stinger said:
It's government and it is codified. But none the less point proven. So now you seem OK with government reniging on the "contract"
Click to expand...

Are you arguing SS is a contract? I never signed a contract, did you? And in fact when I got my SS report it specifically provided the benefits were estimates and not guaranteed and subject to change.

And insurance is a contract.
Click to expand...

Private insurance is. SS is not.
 

I'd love the Govt to not waste money on mistaken wars and would love to see that money in my 401k plan. Que sera.

But what about the poor people you so defend who can't put money into a 401k they are left with nothing but government dictating to them when they can retire.
Click to expand...

That's the breaks.

Welcome to government. Yet you still support a government mandate retirement system.
Click to expand...

Sure I support social insurance. I don't want to see hordes of the aged and infirm living in the streets. Do you?

On that we agree. But it doesn't matter a hll of beans if government can just keep moving the goal post. Catch-22.
Click to expand...

Its the Republicans that want to eliminate the system
 
Iriemon said:
Are you arguing SS is a contract? I never signed a contract, did you? And in fact when I got my SS report it specifically provided the benefits were estimates and not guaranteed and subject to change.
Click to expand...
I signed up for SS when I was 16 and they gave me my card. Signed the form they gave me. Clintons former OMB head said it was a contract. But again you support the Government renigging on it's "agreement" with me, I voted for what the politicians said I would get and now they can just say "nope"? And that is suppose to be a good deal for me? What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now? [/quote]Private insurance is. SS is not.[/quote] So SS is not insurance?
 

That is always the solution by the left....Raise taxes on someone else.....Income redistribution.....
 
Navy Pride said:
That is always the solution by the left....Raise taxes on someone else.....Income redistribution.....
Click to expand...

It is income redistribution -- from those who work to the trust fund babies.

Republican income redistribution.
 

I thought you were a support of ditching SS for private accounts? If you want to preserve the SS system, my reccommendation is to vote Democrat; Republicans want to destroy it.

Private insurance is great. What if you insurance company goes TU? what do we do with the people that don't have private insurance?

SS is social insurance.
 
Iriemon said:
I thought you were a support of ditching SS for private accounts? If you want to preserve the SS system, my reccommendation is to vote Democrat; Republicans want to destroy it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought you were in favor of keeping it even if it means it will not forefil it's promise.

Private insurance is great. What .......................?
Click to expand...

I asked you first

"What if when you die your inheritors take your insurance policy to the company that
underwrote it and said we want to collect but the insurance company told them that they went over your estate and you make too much so they are only going to pay half the benifit now?"



what do we do with the people that don't have private insurance?
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.

SS is social insurance.
Click to expand...

So answer my question above.
 
Iriemon said:
It is income redistribution -- from those who work to the trust fund babies.

Republican income redistribution.
Click to expand...

Actually, as your post demonstrate, it is satisfying a jealousy.
 
Stinger said:
Yes, I thought you were in favor of keeping it even if it means it will not forefil it's promise.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of social insurance, not the current SS system.

I asked you first
Click to expand...

sorry, I thought you were asking rhetorically.


If the insurance contract didn't allow them to do that, I'd probably sue them.

You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that won't resolve the problem.
 
Stinger said:
Actually, as your post demonstrate, it is satisfying a jealousy.
Click to expand...

Damn right I'm jealous when I have to pay higher taxes so that someone who did nothing more than have the talent to pick the right womb inherits a billion doesn't have to pay a dime in taxes on it.
 
Iriemon said:
I'm in favor of social insurance, not the current SS system.
Click to expand...

Well insurance is a contract, I pay so much and in return get so much coverage. If the company wants to change it I can go elsewhere but when it comes time to collect they must pay according to the terms under which I paid.



If the insurance contract didn't allow them to do that, I'd probably sue them.
Click to expand...

And your justification for allowing the government to do it?


me>> You can do whatever you freely choose to do with them, give them half your wealth for a start.

Unfortunately, that won't resolve the problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's just an excuse. You get others to do by setting examples.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Years back I saw a factoid that said there're more folks from my generation, X, who believe in alien abductions than who believe they will get anything from SS.

Not sure what to make of that.
Click to expand...

I receive SS today but when I was in the workforce I never expected to get it so I planned my retirement accordingly.....

I suggest all young people do the same.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.