Is Social Security Welfare?

[jonny5]

Not true. For example, you could work for 5 years, pay taxes, then fall on hard times, receive food stamps or assistance. You also need to be working or applying to jobs to recieve food stamps.

Which part isnt true that you dont pay into welfare or you have to pay into SS?

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Which part isnt true that you dont pay into welfare or you have to pay into SS?

That welfare recipients don't "pay in". While it varies, some people can work for a long time, pay income taxes for a long time, then something happens and fall on hard times. Like a natural disaster, disease, loss of income from spouse, child gets sick, etc.

 

[jonny5]

That welfare recipients don't "pay in". While it varies, some people can work for a long time, pay income taxes for a long time, then something happens and fall on hard times. Like a natural disaster, disease, loss of income from spouse, child gets sick, etc.

They dont pay in though. Theres nothing to pay into. Food Stamps are funded by general revenue. You get them whether you pay or not. They may have paid taxes or they may not have, or they may have got all their taxes back.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

They dont pay in though. Theres nothing to pay into. Food Stamps are funded by general revenue. You get them whether you pay or not. They may have paid taxes or they may not have, or they may have got all their taxes back.

That's a semantic argument. You pay taxes every year, even if into a general fund, to provide various social safety net with the idea that if you need a government service it will be there for you. Do some people NEVER pay taxes beyond sales tax? Sure. But many people work almost their whole lives then go on welfare due to unforseen circumstance.

 

[Communist Front]

Not true. For example, you could work for 5 years, pay taxes, then fall on hard times, receive food stamps or assistance. You also need to be working or applying to jobs to recieve food stamps.

The government should provide all American citizens and legal residents with a job guarantee in the public sector. If a person can't find a job in the private sector they will have one in the public sector. Many people can't find jobs because they have no work history or have large gaps in their employment history. Having a job guarantee with the government provides people with an opportunity to develop an employment history and some work experience allowing them to eventually transition into the private sector if that's what they choose to do. Providing people with an education, including vocational job training helps eliminate unemployment and gets people off of welfare.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

The government should provide all American citizens and legal residents with a job guarantee in the public sector. If a person can't find a job in the private sector they will have one in the public sector. Many people can't find jobs because they have no work history or have large gaps in their employment history. Having a job guarantee with the government provides people with an opportunity to develop an employment history and some work experience allowing them to eventually transition into the private sector if that's what they choose to do. Providing people with an education, including vocational job training helps eliminate unemployment and gets people off of welfare.

What kind of job? What if you live in a small rural town vs a big city? The kinds of jobs there could be very different.

 

[craig]

More like an insurance.

 

[Communist Front]

What kind of job? What if you live in a small rural town vs a big city? The kinds of jobs there could be very different.

Yes, if you live in a rural area, the local government funded by the federal government, would hire you to do something useful. There's a lot to do in this country, our infrastructure is falling apart. Millions of Americans could be put to work ASAP and that would stimulate the economy because there would be more people making money and purchasing products and services.

 

[Tiny]

Nonsense. People should do many things they don't do. What happens when they can't work and are broke? They go on welfare and we all pay anyway. Better to have S.S.

So basically you are saying, since we have welfare anyway, where some people have their existence funded by other people, that means it's ok for the future generations to fund retirees' retirement.

You need to realize that we don't really have any choice when it comes to having welfare for people who are broke and can't work. But we have options when it comes to funding retirement for people who were capable of working and who had been working. I maintain that for people like that, they should not rely on taxpayers to pay for their retirement. They should pay for that out of their own pockets.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

So do you admit it's a form of welfare for them?

It's not welfare.

People paid for it out of their taxes.

If you don't like it, you are free to fund your own retirement.

 

[Tiny]

That's how it used to be. Sadly that meant most of Americans were penniless soon after retirement. Not everyone can afford to save enough to retire on. We put an end to that. The catch is that everyone needs to contribute and that is how it works. How many less fortunate people can you afford to help in their retirement? We are all in this together and many older Americans perished in unspeakable ways. Is that how you want America to be again? Here is a excellent article about the history of security and how and why we got Social Security in the first place.

Historical Background And Development Of Social Security​

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html​

I am not saying we should let poor retirees perish. I am just saying that for those of them who are capable of funding their own retirement, they should do that. The ones who aren't capable, they can go on welfare, which I imagine would pay much less.

 

[Communist Front]

I am not saying we should let poor retirees perish. I am just saying that for those of them who are capable of funding their own retirement, they should do that. The ones who aren't capable, they can go on welfare, which I imagine would pay much less.

Welfare isn't enough to live a decent life. No one, especially our seniors, should be living in squalor. They should get their Medicare and Social Security, allowing them to meet their needs.

 

[Tbird19482]

Not true. For example, you could work for 5 years, pay taxes, then fall on hard times, receive food stamps or assistance. You also need to be working or applying to jobs to recieve food stamps.

so you are saying a person who gets welfare paid into an account like SS?
I haven't worked in some time when did they start this?
and at least in NY I know people who are NOT working and a less then retirement age that receive Food stamps.
Have a nice day

 

[ScrambledEggs]

so you are saying a person who gets welfare paid into an account like SS?
I haven't worked in some time when did they start this?
and at least in NY I know people who are NOT working and a less then retirement age that receive Food stamps.
Have a nice day

No thats not what I am saying

 

[Tbird19482]

No thats not what I am saying

so explain your statement

 

[Loulit01]

So basically you are saying, since we have welfare anyway, where some people have their existence funded by other people, that means it's ok for the future generations to fund retirees' retirement.

You need to realize that we don't really have any choice when it comes to having welfare for people who are broke and can't work. But we have options when it comes to funding retirement for people who were capable of working and who had been working. I maintain that for people like that, they should not rely on taxpayers to pay for their retirement. They should pay for that out of their own pockets.

And in a perfect world where people always did what they should, you would be right. Unfortunately, we live on earth. I think you need a lesson in realpolitik.

 

[Tiny]

Welfare isn't enough to live a decent life. No one, especially our seniors, should be living in squalor. They should get their Medicare and Social Security, allowing them to meet their needs.

I am not saying you are wrong, but if your argument for giving retirees money and benefits is because "nobody should live in squalor", then the necessary corollary of this is that we should give money to everybody who doesn't make a certain income...just so that they won't have to live in squalor.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

so explain your statement

People pay into government accounts via taxes every year to fund the government. If you paid taxes for say 5 years, you "paid into" the accounts that provide food stamps and other forms of welfare and other services. If you fall on hard times, that same general account will pay for your welfare services.

Just because taxes aren't specifically separated like payroll taxes are, doesn't mean all welfare recipients have not paid for those benefits at some point in their lives. It's harder to comprehend since we run annual deficits. But if we ran surplus we would have reserves from previous year's revenue.

 

[Tiny]

And in a perfect world where people always did what they should, you would be right. Unfortunately, we live on earth. I think you need a lesson in realpolitik.

No thanks. I don't let garbage tell me how to approach political matters. Realpolitik is rationalizations for people who don't have any ideals, principles or morality.

Also, I noticed that you have trouble with this statement: "people should pay for their retirement out of their own pockets."

 

[Communist Front]

And in a perfect world where people always did what they should, you would be right. Unfortunately, we live on earth. I think you need a lesson in realpolitik.

First of all, our federal government doesn't rely on taxes to fund social programs. The purpose of taxes at the federal level isn't the funding of the federal government, but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. The budgetary constraints of the federal government are set by our GDP, which now is around 23 trillion dollars. Our yearly federal budget could be double or even triple what it is today, without putting us at risk of inflation. It's actually more cost-effective to provide our seniors with an income and Medicare, including other benefits, than allowing them to fend for themselves and hopefully make the right investments in the marketplace.

Your appeal to the "realpolitik" can very easily be turned against your position, which asserts that since we're not living in a perfect world, we should allow seniors to fend for themselves irrespective of the consequences. We could just as well use that same line of reasoning against your position that assumes society doesn't have a right to force you to pay taxes to support social programs. We leftists can just shrug our shoulders and say "too bad, this isn't your perfect world where members of a society have no civic obligations or social contracts". See how easy that was? We just flip the script and turn the table.

 

[Tiny]

First of all, our federal government doesn't rely on taxes to fund social programs.

So how does the federal government fund social programs?

 

[Loulit01]

First of all, our federal government doesn't rely on taxes to fund social programs. The purpose of taxes at the federal level isn't the funding of the federal government, but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. The budgetary constraints of the federal government are set by our GDP, which now is around 23 trillion dollars. Our yearly federal budget could be double or even triple what it is today, without putting us at risk of inflation. It's actually more cost-effective to provide our seniors with an income and Medicare, including other benefits, than allowing them to fend for themselves and hopefully make the right investments in the marketplace.

Your appeal to the "realpolitik" can very easily be turned against your position, which asserts that since we're not living in a perfect world, we should allow seniors to fend for themselves irrespective of the consequences. We could just as well use that same line of reasoning against your position that assumes society doesn't have a right to force you to pay taxes to support social programs. We leftists can just shrug our shoulders and say "too bad, this isn't your perfect world where members of a society have no civic obligations or social contracts". See how easy that was? We just flip the script and turn the table.

You understand I've been arguing in favor of Social Security?

 

[iguanaman]

I am not saying we should let poor retirees perish. I am just saying that for those of them who are capable of funding their own retirement, they should do that. The ones who aren't capable, they can go on welfare, which I imagine would pay much less.

Again Social Security only works if all participate. Retired people should not be forced to go on welfare just because they are too old to work. We all get old if we are lucky. You can supplement you own finances with your check and believe me it will come in handy. That's the beauty of SS everyone gets a check. You never know what the future may bring but that SS check is a sure thing. That is security that no American should be without no matter what their finances are.

 

[Loulit01]

No thanks. I don't let garbage tell me how to approach political matters. Realpolitik is rationalizations for people who don't have any ideals, principles or morality.

Also, I noticed that you have trouble with this statement: "people should pay for their retirement out of their own pockets."

People should pay for their own retirement, I agree. But that's not going to happen, you understand that, yes? So we need Social Security. Also, it would be impossible to get rid of S.S. There would be chaos.

 

[Tiny]

People should pay for their own retirement, I agree. But that's not going to happen, you understand that, yes? So we need Social Security. Also, it would be impossible to get rid of S.S. There would be chaos.

We don't need social security. Like I said earlier, we can have welfare for the poor retirees to go on. Maybe welfare that is a bit more comprehensive than regular welfare. I imagine something with benefits, so that retirees don't have to live in squalor.