• 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!

Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

Do you view social security is an entitlement that can be altered?

  • Yes, it should be eliminated completely.

    Votes: 10 20.4%

  • Yes, I could handle a small level of program reduction.

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • No, its my money, and the government has no right to touch it.

    Votes: 27 55.1%

  • I dont know and/or it depends on what is offered as a replacement program.

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Total voters
    49

SypherAL

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
374
Reaction score
155
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just curious as to how people view Social Security. I myself do NOT view it as an entitlement, considering its MY money I have been putting in the program for years and years. I dont believe Social Security should even be on the table for negotations leverage in debt debates. Curious to see how everyone else thinks.
 

The money you put in is already gone and used by people by the time your time comes around for it. The service like any other entitlement is expected by everyone using it. Almost everyone gets by far more than they put in. The people with more money get less from it than they pay for it. The fact is it does everything every entitlement does. It was created for helping a group of people in hard times and not to fund the government or to protect rights or liberties. So yes, it is an entitlement.
 
Last edited:

When is it considered hard times? High unemployment? Large national debt? Do you believe it should be available to Americans in times as these, and altered at a later date?

Or do you believe it should be eliminated as is? I am just curious to see how you view it, im not judging your response.
 

Well, that's exactly why it's called an entitlement. You're entitled to that money. People tend to forget what that word means. The problem with social security is that it's been misused and become ineffective, but there's no good way to get rid of it. You can't just tell people, "Sorry for making you pay a large percentage of your income all your life, but we can't afford to pay it back to you now." The only reasonable way to get rid of it would be to phase it out, but that makes the debt problem even worse, since it eliminates a major source of income.
 
The truth is that you don't actually get out what you pay in. You are paying for the current elderly right now, and you will supported by the next generation of taxpayers when you retire. You don't get to be selfish and demand that you should be taken care even if the resulting debt screws everyone else. In reality, you didn't actually pay enough money to cover your own costs and as a result SS is going to run out of money in the future. The problem is fixable, but it will require some sacrifices such as retiring later than 65. SS may has vital functions in providing social stability, but it is not a sacred cow. It should be weighed on its merits and costs just like every other program.
 

Unfortunately, anyone holding this view is painted as a fringe lunatic who hates the poor and elderly.
 
Part of the issue is that it IS a "major source of income".

None of the funds paid into SS should have ever been used for anything else.
But even that probably wouldn't have prevented the situation it's in now.

There are just not enough younger people working to support the amount of retired persons - retired persons who are living longer after retirement than ever before.
 

Exactly. The idea behind social security was good, but it was poorly implemented. If you want to make a social safety net or something similar, just make one and pay for it honestly through taxes. The whole idea of "We're taking your money now, but we'll give it back later" is just asking for trouble, especially when you start spending that money on other things. I mean, I'm a socialist, and I still think it would be better for people to handle their own retirement to a much larger extent. The problem is getting there from here.
 

That people are putting the entitlements of seniors who've labored their entire lives and paid large percentages of their income in the expectation of monetary support toward the end of life, beneath the interests of corporations whose existence has in no sense contributed to the well being of American society, as a means of resolving debt issues (incurred to support the excesses of those same corporations), is completely absurd and a sign of a culture in serious moral and political decline.
 
Last edited:
Well, I collect SS. For several years when I was working my salary exceeded the amount that was taxed. I don’t expect to personally collect more than I paid into the program. (We saved for our retirement and invested very smartly or we were lucky or both. So my SS checks are just a part of our portfolio.) However, I expect some members of our extended family have or will collect more than they paid in. Including us, our extended family net, paid and collected, could be very close to the same. I live in an eclectic area and we have neighbors that will need to have a part time low paying job to supplement their low SS checks, just chatted with them yesterday. They worked low paying jobs and didn’t have enough income, discipline and advice to save significantly. If they hadn’t paid FICA taxes they would be in real trouble. All I see is that it is working, not perfectly, but working.
 
The same people that whine about Social Security forget a few points....number one, people that are on social security paid it all their lives...NOT BY CHOICE...we were forced to pay social security. For people that make above middleclass pay its not a problem to pay social security and pay into a bigger private retirement plan...For lower middleclass and the working poor most could not afford to pay SS and an additional private retirement.

I keep asking all the hot shot teapartiers, the get RID OF ALL ENTITLEMENTS...no pensions, no health benefits nothing....I keep asking them what do they think is going to happen with 60% of the country gets old and has no pension or health benes....do we start digging mass graves...
One way or another your going to pay...
 

I think it is an entitlement in the sense you actually put money into this in order to get it back later and the government has no right to touch it so you are entitled to get it back when you are too old or too crippled to work. I do not think there should be a means testing for it because of the simple fact you put into and practically everyone has, some more than others. The way I look at is if they want to end SS then they better give me and every American who has put in money for SS back every dime we put into plus interest and extra to account for inflation. You don't say hey we are forcefully take money out because you might need this later when you are too old or too crippled to work and then not give you back anything.
 

65 is not old. Most 65 year olds are perfectly capable of continuing to work for a living. We've just created a culture where 65 is "retirement age" and people expect the government to help take care of them for the rest of their lives. I could live with social security as it was originally intended - as old age insurance for those who beat the odds and lived past the average life expectancy. The problem we have is people who believe they are entitled to a 10, 15, or 20 year retirement where they do nothing but collect a check every month from the government, even if they never saved or invested a penny in their entire lives.

The eligibility age for SS (and its cousin, Medicare) needs to be raised north of 70 and it should be done quickly. Saving on five years (or more) worth's of payments to millions of seniors would help return the program to fiscal solvency. And the sooner we do it, the better.
 
How hateful do you have to be to want to have money I paid into the system taken from me now that I am receiving some of it back.

I got my Social Security card when I went to work when I was 12 or 13 and paid into the system for a very long time, and the money in the system has been raided a few times or there would be no problem in the future,.

BTW all the talk about SS being a problem is a crock this system is fine for the next 6 years at least and if the fake disabled and fraud was properly addressed it would last even longer.

Changes need to be made but not for those on the system now.
 

Don't know if this has been said... but that it's your money is exactly what entitles you to it. It is in fact an real and legitimate entitlement. The word has been perverted and misused so long no one seems to know what it actually means anymore.
 

So glad to see others are waking to this!
 

I get full disability.
 
I'd rather SS be made optional - sign up stay in, no change. Opt out, take your money, invest it yourself.
 
The govt shouldn't have collected it in the first place.
 
Here's how the system should work. You can open a tax-free bank account with the government with an interest rate pegged to inflation, and you're not allowed withdraw any money from it until you retire. Actually putting money into it is entirely voluntary. The government is not allowed to spend your money on other things, except things which actually produce income to pay for your interest.
 
winston53660 said:
I get full disability.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think there are people legitimately on disability and I think that safety net should remain. However, I'm all too aware that many abuse the system as an alternative to working or welfare. Many kicked off welfare have fallen into this as a back-up.

It should be reformed, not just to protect the financial viability of this safety net, but to assure that those who really need those public resources will get them.
 

That's sorta like an IRA, though you can take out your money from an IRA albeit with a hefty penalty. The tax-free part is interesting... government will get it's money some way; either before or after. Roth IRA's have no penalty but you either go pre-tax or post-tax. The problem is, government ALWAYS can get to the money if they need it- either through the Treasury or directly from the banks by hook or crook. It's that pesky constitution in the way sometimes but that hasn't stopped them yet.
 

I don't see what any of these things have to do with SS being an entitlement. It's still an entitlement by definition. And it can and should be reformed.
 
Last edited:

Well, I'm of the opinion that the government should take over the role of central bank directly, instead of delegating it to a for-profit corporation. There's no reason government activities can't turn a profit, although that would require some intelligence that seems to be lacking in the current system.
 

Yes and let the federal government take over private businesses while their at it, and private banks too. Then install a Czar perhaps and devolve into a totalitarian regime for the betterment of all mankind. :roll:


The last think we need is more federal government ****ing things up in this country. The last thing they need to do is take over anything... abolish the federal reserve bank, it shouldn't exist to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…