Would you be in favor of abolishing Social Security?

[A18]

Let's see what the level of support is.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see what the level of support is.

79% support keeping SS, 17% oppose

Question asked was  "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?" in a recent CBS poll.

[A18]

I meant on the forum, actually.

[Smash255]

No way

[The Duke]

Let's see what the level of support is.

79% support keeping SS, 17% oppose

Question asked was  "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?" in a recent CBS poll.

Not a biased question at all.

[Shira]

Don't forget: abolishing Social Security is an old dream of the Reps.
What we see now is the first step in this direction.

[dazzleman]

I don't favor abolishing social security but I do favor changing it to make it more of a private pension system with less direct control by the politicians over benefits.

I strongly favor private accounts of some type in order that people can create their own value in social security rather than be totally dependent on the government.  Also, they can pass the value of those accounts on to their descendants if they don't use them all up.

The real issue here is this - from the 1930s forward, the Democrats have had a strategy of trying to make larger numbers of American dependent upon government largesse.  Social security, with its cap on taxes and lack of means test, was meant to be a government run and controlled insurance program that would not be vulnerable to political attack from conservatives, while enjoying a large base of support among Americans who don't normally support government social programs.

The current social security model is running out of steam.  As many Democrats here have effectively admitted, the only way to save the current model is to make it effectively into a welfare program by removing the income cap on which taxes are paid.  Effectively they're saying, you have to kill the program in order to save it, because once it becomes more of a welfare program, it no longer enjoys immunity from political attack, and its vulnerability increases as time goes on.

Republicans seek to create retirement programs with less central government dependency, while Democrats want to retain the current system by hook or by crook.  This is about much more than social security.  Politically, the less dependent people perceive themselves to be on government assistance of any type, the more likely they are to vote Republican.  The more dependent on government assistance, the more likely one is to vote Democratic.  Bush's social security proposal is therefore a major thrust at the Democrats' voting base, and they care a lot more about preserving that than they do about saving social security.

[John Dibble]

Let's see what the level of support is.

79% support keeping SS, 17% oppose

Question asked was  "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly?" in a recent CBS poll.

Not a biased question at all.

Yeah, seems a loaded question. If you just said 'Do you favor abolishing or keeping Social Security?' you'd get a different answer.


Anyways, I would prefer just privatizing it, or making it optional.

[David S]

We have had this discussion many times before. Everyone expresses their heartfelt opinion and no one changes.

Another libertarian leaning individual was asked what we (Libertarians) should propose as a solution to social security's problems. He said; "Nothing". When asked to elaborate, he said "Well that bus is headed over a cliff. Why should we take the wheel now?"

Maybe that's good advice.

[opebo]

Expand it.  By that I mean increase benefits and create a redistributive effect by removing the tax limit (90K) and also eliminating benefits for the wealthy.  That way it is an insurance program.

[phk]

We should abolish retirement.

[David S]

Expand it.  By that I mean increase benefits and create a redistributive effect by removing the tax limit (90K) and also eliminating benefits for the wealthy.  That way it is an insurance program.

Sounds good as long as we fund it by taxing your income at the full 12.4%.

[Nym90]

No. If the time comes that there is not enough money left to pay full benefits, then fund it partially out of the income tax.

It's not at all about creating dependence on government. Democrats acknowledge that increasing poverty among the elderly isn't in our best interests, whether from a humanitarian standpoint or from a purely economic standpoint.

Now, if this can be done without government, great. Government is at best a necessary evil; a means to an end. There's nothing magical about it that makes it better than the private sector, but government can and should step in where market forces fail.

I guess I just don't understand why some people think that the Democrats deliberately want to screw over the country with every single one of their proposals. For what gain? I guess the answer would be for political power, but what good would this power even do, if the country was in a total shambles? It seems like circular logic to me. "Democrats want to destroy America in order to gain political power over America, so that they can rule over a bad country"?

I don't assume such nefarious intentions from most Republicans. A lot of Republican office holders are in the hip pocket of big business, and would sell their grandmother if it would help them make more money, and certainly the desire for money and power is what tends to put people into high positions within big business which is why I tend not to trust them, but the vast majority of Republicans are good, decent, people who genuinely care about others.

[dazzleman]

No. If the time comes that there is not enough money left to pay full benefits, then fund it partially out of the income tax.

Well, that's effectively what will happen if nothing is done because the social security "surplus" has effectively been lent to the general fund, and it will be necessary for the general fund to run a surplus in order to pay these amounts back.

The 1983 social security "solution" was a huge sham, as everybody involved knew at the time.  The social security surplus has simply masked the size of the general fund deficit by combining the two numbers, and created an obligation that it will be very difficult to repay.

I don't agree with turning social security into a social program.  I firmly believe that it needs to be largely privatized over time.  You recognize, Eric, that people in our age group are getting the royal screw from social security, since the government (with the approval of Nixon) artificially raised benefits to a level far beyond a reasonable return based on taxes paid in 1972, and we are now living with the results of these promised benefits.  Our age group (under 50) has paid through the nose in social security taxes to fund benefits for those who paid a fraction of what we have paid, are paying and will pay.

You also recognize that a private pension fund operator who ran a fund in this manner would be jailed.  Yet we support this from our politicians.

I trust the politicians less than almost anybody, and wish to use privatization to remove as much control from the politicians as possible.

[The Duke]

Dazzleman,

If Nixon hadn't raised the benefits we'd be seeing people get a negative return after inflation already.  That's how flawed the structure of the program is.  There's just no defense of social security as it operates today that doesn't rest on a mountain of delusion and/or deceit.

[David S]

John and Dazzleman. You two understand the corruption in the current system and the problems it faces. The ultimate goal should be to get the government completely out of it, because they have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility time after time. They haven't balanced the budget since 1960. They have created a $7 trillion dollar national debt which is unprecedented in the history of the world. The monetary policy of the government in conjunction with the Federal Reserve has caused the dollar to lose 95% of its value since 1913. With all that to their credit, who in the world would want those nuts managing their retirement plan?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

John and Dazzleman. You two understand the corruption in the current system and the problems it faces. The ultimate goal should be to get the government completely out of it, because they have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility time after time. They haven't balanced the budget since 1960. They have created a $7 trillion dollar national debt which is unprecedented in the history of the world. The monetary policy of the government in conjunction with the Federal Reserve has caused the dollar to lose 95% of its value since 1913. With all that to their credit, who in the world would want those nuts managing their retirement plan?

I suppose you guys think that Enron isn't corrupt?

[David S]

John and Dazzleman. You two understand the corruption in the current system and the problems it faces. The ultimate goal should be to get the government completely out of it, because they have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility time after time. They haven't balanced the budget since 1960. They have created a $7 trillion dollar national debt which is unprecedented in the history of the world. The monetary policy of the government in conjunction with the Federal Reserve has caused the dollar to lose 95% of its value since 1913. With all that to their credit, who in the world would want those nuts managing their retirement plan?

I suppose you guys think that Enron isn't corrupt?

As I recall at least one of Enron's officials is currently in jail, which is where our elected officials would be if they tried to run a private retirement plan the way social security is managed. Social Security is frequently called a Ponzi scheme because of the way it is funded. It should be noted that the original Ponzi went to jail for his investment scheme.

[Jake]

Expand it.  By that I mean increase benefits and create a redistributive effect by removing the tax limit (90K) and also eliminating benefits for the wealthy.  That way it is an insurance program.

Social security is supposed to be a program where your money is put in and lent to other people.  Then, when you retire, you get the amount that you paid into the system from other younger workers. Only problem is, that by the time I retire, No one will be there to pay me, so the result is a welfare program for poor people, not a retirement plan. 

[TomC]

I'm not in favor of abolishing it and I'm not in favor of Bush's exact proposal. I do believe to solve some of the problems, we should look to the market for at least part of the solution, and I think the Democrats are NUTS for completely ignoring the potential of the investment world. Allen Sloane wrote a good article for Newsweek that I agree with a lot. I'll see if I can find it.

[A18]

I was actually expecting this poll to be a lot more lopsided.

The good option is only being demolished by 20 points.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman,

If Nixon hadn't raised the benefits we'd be seeing people get a negative return after inflation already.  That's how flawed the structure of the program is.  There's just no defense of social security as it operates today that doesn't rest on a mountain of delusion and/or deceit.

Not if the FICA taxes had been kept at their then low rates of 2-3% of income, rather than up to 15% of income, which we have been paying since 1983.  But you're right - it has become a mountain of delusion and deceit, and not one person in a hundred really understands how it works.