• 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!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%
  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • Total voters
    51

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was reading an article on Yahoo News, and it stated that 20% of your tax dollars go to Social Security. Now, given the fact that SS is going to go bankrupt in the future, and the way its set up is inherently wasteful, should we cut it completely before it dies on its own?

I'd say yes, but with the caveat that we should look into establishing a market in the private sector to replace it.
 
I was reading an article on Yahoo News, and it stated that 20% of your tax dollars go to Social Security. Now, given the fact that SS is going to go bankrupt in the future, and the way its set up is inherently wasteful, should we cut it completely before it dies on its own?

I'd say yes, but with the caveat that we should look into establishing a market in the private sector to replace it.

I can't really tell you what I think of your post as I surely would be given an infraction by the moderators here and rightfully so.

But if you have any compassion, think about the number of people you would throw into immediate poverty by such a terrible action.

It would be funny that someone who self labels as a liberal would make such a suggestion if he was not so sad.
 
I'am for privatizing SS. Do I think its the cure all,no. Sometimes we have to choose , "the lesser of two evils". In my opinion SS will go bankrupt resulting in people losing out on the benefit. The question we need to ask is how to minimize the damage:

Should we raise taxes and cut benefits?
Should we have people set up their own private investment accounts similiar to 401ks?
Should people have the option to choose either or?

I found this website helpful. It discusses both sides of the issue.

Privatize Social Security
 
Politicians should not be allowed any pet projects till they replace all the money they took out of SS then it would not be going broke
 
It is pathetic that Americans have come to rely on Social Security for their entire income, but that was something that was started by Roosevelt. What did people do before Social Security?

I know that my great grandfather was a Confederate veteran, who died in 1903. His widow was eligible to receive benefits when she reached the age of 75. She was 54 when he died, and soon became destitute, since he was the sole breadwinner. She had to keep house for people just to have a place to live. she was 75 before she could apply for his Confederate pension. She lived into her 80's. Now, there was a federal government that was hoping any recipients of that pension would die before it would ever be collected. This is the same federal government which borrowed money from the Social Security fund. I know it's a miracle that the Social Security Burial Fund is still present after all these years, all $255 of it.
 
Last edited:
I can't really tell you what I think of your post as I surely would be given an infraction by the moderators here and rightfully so.

But if you have any compassion, think about the number of people you would throw into immediate poverty by such a terrible action.

It would be funny that someone who self labels as a liberal would make such a suggestion if he was not so sad.

If you want to look at the greater good, you have to be objective. I'd be willing to hurt people now to help more people later, and thats really what it comes down to.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of social programs are about creating a better world for everyone, right? Well, it just so happens that Social Security is inefficient compared to other uses of the same resources, and thus should be reformed.
 
I was reading an article on Yahoo News, and it stated that 20% of your tax dollars go to Social Security. Now, given the fact that SS is going to go bankrupt in the future, and the way its set up is inherently wasteful, should we cut it completely before it dies on its own?

I'd say yes, but with the caveat that we should look into establishing a market in the private sector to replace it.

If a person squirreled away 15% of their income for 30 years and then was given a share of the benefits of those who contributed 30 years but died before collecting any money, would they be worried about their next meal? Do your job and fix social security and maybe stop using the pot to pay bills.

I like that it is not voluntarily. You are forced to prepare for your retirement whether you want to or not. Yes, that's what I said.
 
It is pathetic that Americans have come to rely on Social Security for their entire income, but that was something that was started by Roosevelt. What did people do before Social Security?

I know that my great grandfather was a Confederate veteran, who died in 1903. His widow was eligible to receive benefits when she reached the age of 75. She was 54 when he died, and soon became destitute, since he was the sole breadwinner. She had to keep house for people just to have a place to live. she was 75 before she could apply for his Confederate pension. She lived into her 80's. Now, there was a federal government that was hoping any recipients of that pension would die before it would ever be collected. This is the same federal government which borrowed money from the Social Security fund. I know it's a miracle that the Social Security Burial Fund is still present after all these years, all $255 of it.

If your grandfather had been a union soldier he would have been given 300 acres. But then he would have been a no good damn yankee.
 
The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.......like all things the Democrat Party supports......is entirely unconstitutional and should never have been.

Eliminate it while we still can............
.
.
.
.
 
It is pathetic that Americans have come to rely on Social Security for their entire income, but that was something that was started by Roosevelt. What did people do before Social Security?

I know that my great grandfather was a Confederate veteran, who died in 1903. His widow was eligible to receive benefits when she reached the age of 75. She was 54 when he died, and soon became destitute, since he was the sole breadwinner. She had to keep house for people just to have a place to live. she was 75 before she could apply for his Confederate pension. She lived into her 80's. Now, there was a federal government that was hoping any recipients of that pension would die before it would ever be collected. This is the same federal government which borrowed money from the Social Security fund. I know it's a miracle that the Social Security Burial Fund is still present after all these years, all $255 of it.

The composition of the federal government is not static over decades. Moral culpability is more complicated than that.

Social Security was a good policy when Roosevelt introduced it, it was ruined by economic mismanagement at all levels of society, resulting from a general lack of vigilance.
 
If you want to look at the greater good, you have to be objective. I'd be willing to hurt people now to help more people later, and thats really what it comes down to.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of social programs are about creating a better world for everyone, right? Well, it just so happens that Social Security is inefficient compared to other uses of the same resources, and thus should be reformed.
I would say social security is poorly run and always has been, It's a brilliant idea that should be fixed. I'm not sure means testing is such a bad idea.
 
The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.......like all things the Democrat Party supports......is entirely unconstitutional and should never have been.

Eliminate it while we still can............
.
.
.
.

and what of the people who have spent their careers paying into it, anticipating those SS monies to be available to them upon their retirement ... what would you have them do?
 
It is pathetic that Americans have come to rely on Social Security for their entire income, but that was something that was started by Roosevelt. What did people do before Social Security?

Yes, indeed! In this Capitalist America, it is not only pathetic, but shameful that American workers do not have full wage retirements, so there is no change in their lifestyles as they make the transition to retirement. The lack thereof must be caused by corruption and the idiocy of the American people who think useless wars are more important than their families lifestyle. Stupidity reins supreme in our country, so no need to cry about the bed we sleep in.
 
and what of the people who have spent their careers paying into it, anticipating those SS monies to be available to them upon their retirement ... what would you have them do?

He would find himself having his taxes raised higher to pay off all the cash the government would dole out to recipients. Never think like a progressive.
 
and what of the people who have spent their careers paying into it, anticipating those SS monies to be available to them upon their retirement ... what would you have them do?

Learn a valuable lesson about Ponzi schemes..........and every subprime Democrat Social Program to Nowhere......
.
.
.
.
 
The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.......like all things the Democrat Party supports......is entirely unconstitutional and should never have been.

Eliminate it while we still can............
.
.
.
.

you should check the history of SS, the GOP played a very large part in it...
 
All that money that's put into the system should be put back into the hands of the people to invest on their own in safe, low-risk stocks and securities. Certainly, the transition is going to be difficult, that's why we need a cut off age, say 40, where those who are younger than that age no longer have to pay social security taxes and those who are older can continue under the old system. If you don't invest in your own future, I couldn't care less if you starve on the street. Actions, or lack thereof, have consequences.

One thing that has to happen is that every penny that goes into social security cannot be touched for any other purpose and all the money the government has stolen from social security over the years must be returned. It's been a giant slush fund for decades, bringing it to it's current level of failure.
 
Phase it out....employers pay the worker what the company was paying, 7.5%, and make the worker put his 7.5% in to savings as well. That 15% could be deducted from current years taxable income, and not taxed at retirement. Money put in over the 15% is permissible but not deductible, and still not taxed at retirement. If withdrawals are to be taxed, the tax rate should never exceed the capital gains tax of the rich, or 10%, whichever is less.
15% of income per year for 40 years of work, with even moderate gain, is enough to live on for quite some time, assuming that the worker was smart enough to get completely out of debt before retiring.
My wife's parents managed well with very low retirement incomes, because they had no debt. Their biggest expense was medications, they passed away before part D was implemented.
 
The composition of the federal government is not static over decades. Moral culpability is more complicated than that.

Social Security was a good policy when Roosevelt introduced it, it was ruined by economic mismanagement at all levels of society, resulting from a general lack of vigilance.

Exactly! Thank you.
 
All that money that's put into the system should be put back into the hands of the people to invest on their own in safe, low-risk stocks and securities. Certainly, the transition is going to be difficult, that's why we need a cut off age, say 40, where those who are younger than that age no longer have to pay social security taxes and those who are older can continue under the old system. If you don't invest in your own future, I couldn't care less if you starve on the street. Actions, or lack thereof, have consequences.

One thing that has to happen is that every penny that goes into social security cannot be touched for any other purpose and all the money the government has stolen from social security over the years must be returned. It's been a giant slush fund for decades, bringing it to it's current level of failure.

as long as the funds are "managed" by govt, there is potential for abuse. private accounts are the only way to go in that respect.
Investment "professionals" get to serve serious time for self enrichment at the expense of others. They can earn their pay thru the sweat of their OWN brow....
 
All that money that's put into the system should be put back into the hands of the people to invest on their own in safe, low-risk stocks and securities. Certainly, the transition is going to be difficult, that's why we need a cut off age, say 40, where those who are younger than that age no longer have to pay social security taxes and those who are older can continue under the old system. If you don't invest in your own future, I couldn't care less if you starve on the street. Actions, or lack thereof, have consequences.

One thing that has to happen is that every penny that goes into social security cannot be touched for any other purpose and all the money the government has stolen from social security over the years must be returned. It's been a giant slush fund for decades, bringing it to it's current level of failure.

so, you think it would be financially wise to stash all of the social security tax proceeds into a national matress which could not be used

another reaon why i believe those on the right haven't a clue about things economic
 
so, you think it would be financially wise to stash all of the social security tax proceeds into a national matress which could not be used

another reaon why i believe those on the right haven't a clue about things economic

what other uses would you allow?
If one is war, I propose that no war be started by us without a tax increase first. Pay to play, Mr. President, pay to play.
 
SS could easily be replaced with a simple to use investment portfolio spread.
The options could be defaulted as easy for the individual to select and understand, those that want more complex options would have to opt to do so.

A privatized SS system doesn't need a line in the government budget and is self sustaining.

Edit: Hell the retirement age could be set to 55 or whenever you have accrued enough assets to retire on.
It could be based on a formula, would be really awesome in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
so, you think it would be financially wise to stash all of the social security tax proceeds into a national matress which could not be used

another reaon why i believe those on the right haven't a clue about things economic

Yes, absolutely, that's the whole purpose of having them in the first place. They are intended for use specifically by those who have put into the system, not as a part of the general fund.

Personally, I don't want the government to have access to those funds in any way, shape or form.
 
you should check the history of SS, the GOP played a very large part in it...

You only have to look at who defends and has always defended the $74,000,000,000,000.00 hole known as Medicaid or the $13,000,000,000,000.00 hole known as Social Security.........

........to know the ideology that passed them both.
.
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom