Social Security is Welfare?

Ok im not trying to be a jackass or anything here. But what my prick History teacher says about social security (SS), he says that SS is welfare. :sly:

After thinking about it, i think i have to agree. Welfare is for people that dont work anymore right? :screwy:

the idea is that people put money into this fund and get it after they retire. I just think social security is welfare. :uhoh:

I disagree.SS is a check that elderly folks get.Because they CAN'T work anymore.Welfare is a check that lowlifes get because they too LAZY to work.I don't have a problem giving part of my check to an elderly person.They're unable to work and make money.And plus,I know I'll be in that position someday.I do have a problem giving part of my pay check to some lowlife scum who is too lazy to get of his/her ass and make money for themselves.Theres a big difference the two.

Fuck that. I've paid my share into SS. Give me my fucking money back, when I am eligible. Hell, I was eligible for benefits (after 65) when I was in my mid twenties, because I had paid enough. Probably not record-setting, but I am sure quite above the pace any welfare-asshole has paid in.

Welfare is a check that lowlifes get because they too LAZY to work.I do have a problem giving part of my pay check to some lowlife scum who is too lazy to get of his/her ass and make money for themselves.Theres a big difference the two.

There is a difference between paying a benefit to those who have reached an age considered to be the end of a fair working life, and paying a benefit to those who have no other means of support.Ther are some people who fall into both categories who will take that benefit without ever putting back.

However, to draw the simplistic conclusion that those who are old are automatically all worthy, and those who are jobless are not demonstrates spectacular ignorance.For the record, I have spent time on a family benefit After my employer died suddenly, his business was sold to a competitor.said competitor then closed our plant and transferred all our forward orders to a different city.Half of the working population of the town were then left without work.Does that make us lazy, or lowlifes,because we can't walk into another job?No. Does that make us scum because our chances of selling our homes and restarting elsewhere are slim?Of course not.
HandofDoom, I hope that it happens to you in the near future.I hope that your cosy little world gets tipped on its head, and like me, it takes you years to work and train up until you are back to where you are now.Until you have been there and done that, your opinions on those taking welfare ain't worth shit.

Tell your history teacher he's a moron.

Its not welfare - its a repressive tax and a socialists end run to keep people in their place. They take 12% in taxes - hand you back 1% (thats if it doesn't go bankrupt) in growth. Unless of course you die, then your family doesn't get a dime of the tens of thousands (or more) that you paid into the system. I know, the lowest common denominator folks around here think all should suffer because the inability of a few to take care of themselves, but social security is a regressive and supressive tax. It should be obliterated. Its your money. Save some. Invest a little. If you've got the brain power to drive a car, you have the brain power to deposit a few bucks a week into a savings account.

If you have to ensure that you rape people paychecks, replace the social security system with entirely private accounts. Let it sit right where it does now. Not a single change other then when you pass on, your heirs get whatever is left over instead of handing it to the government.

Welfare is supposed to be for people who Can't work. unfortunatly It also seem to be for people who won't work. SS is everyone who has worked and contributed to it. The more you paid in, the more you get back.

SS was originally intended to be a gov't sponsored retirement program. In today's society, there's no reason for it and if the gov't thinks folks should save, then require that 12% to go into some private plan somewhere, say an IRA.

Of course, if congress hadn't messed it up, SS would be viable.

Yo carrrnuttt- I'm there with you on this deal brother same for me.

Tarenaki,you totally missed my point.You have worked all your life.And though you have lost your job,and you were unemployed for sometime,you have gone through training and making an effort to form a new skill and career.Most people who are on welfare are unemployed and never have been.They make no effort to go out and find a job therefor,like I said,are lazy nothings.Instead they live of other people hard work and cash.If you get laid off thats not your fault.See what Im saying?Social Security is actually getting back what you put in before you retired.

Welfare is an overused resource that EVERYONE loses because of.
Taranaki...You received, more or less, an unemployment check, not welfare. The fact that you returned to the work force means you stopped taking the benefit, and have begun to "reinvest" so to speak.
A lot of poor lower class individuals and some enterprising middle class people end up staying on this benefit for ever... I think that is what everyone is saying. To have to work your whole life to only receive a precent or two of the whole amount you put in because of the majority of folks on OTHER benefits/welfare programs, that draw off the same account, are skimming off the top is B/S!
You should only be allowed to take so much before you are required to return it. Anyone on a welfare plan longer than a few years is NOT trying anymore.

So who agrees with welfare?

Welfare is great if the person getting it uses that time to get their feet back under them and work their way off of it. Its a scape goat for to many people.

Welfare is great if the person getting it uses that time to get their feet back under them and work their way off of it. Its a scape goat for to many people.

Finally, we agree on something Yogs. :smile:

Not sure hhow it works in your neighborhood, but here if you don't have a job, the screws start turning at 6 months.Employers are offered a subsidy to employ the lonng term unemployed, and the long term unemployed get their benefit removed if they turn down a job offer.

Of course, the employer who will seek a subsidy will only pay minimum wage anyway, and the govt. will not pay a subsidy on wages that are much above the base rate. Consequently, most of the long term unempoloyed end up working for the greedy and exploitative junk employers in shitty jobs.Just as there are those without ethics among the unemployed, there are those without shame in business.They're always looking for new staff because once the subsidies run out, they fire their new worker on dubious grounds in order to get a new subsidised slave for 200 a week less.

Ok im not trying to be a jackass or anything here. But what my prick History teacher says about social security (SS), he says that SS is welfare. :sly:

After thinking about it, i think i have to agree. Welfare is for people that dont work anymore right? :screwy:

the idea is that people put money into this fund and get it after they retire. I just think social security is welfare. :uhoh:

You and your History teacher need to learn more.

No, he is right. It is a transfer payment. Take from people who pay taxes and give to people who don't. In theory, it is no different than welfare. Most of the people who collect social security have paid in, whereas most people who get welfare have never done anything. :lol:


P.S. He is not talking about the welfare program. The term welfare is in reference to doing what is right for those who need help. (ex. giving food to a starving person on the street)

That's an interesting definition. So one is a return on taxes paid [ but not automatically a fair or equal one], and the other is an act of charity on behalf of the nation using more of the taxes collected from working folk??

Sounds about right

Right; in theory, Social Security was first set up as a retirement plan, for those that didn't have one at work.

Now there are millions to which the government has promised a certain level of income but cannot deliver.

Personally, I received a statement from Uncle Sam last year that I've paid in enough to be entitled to 864 dollars a month.









I don't plan to ever see it.

It does suck to have to give your hard earned money to old people, some of whom make a sh*tload of money. Why do they need it more than me?

I wouldn't mind paying so much if I was going to get paid back; but with the massive mismanagement of the system, it will likely get bankrupted or changed so that I (and you, and everyone else under 60) won't get what we were promised from the government.

Yeah, but why should people who are trying to save for there first house have to pay for their retirement? If people were smart enough to save their money we wouldn't need the system at all.

PS. last statement may seem unrealistic when posted in car forum.

Agreed, in this day and age. Back in "the day" when SS was started, there weren't the investment options available that we have today. It was bank interest or stock market, and the crash of '29 was caused by people manipulating the market with large sums of money, so even that wasn't any good.

Roosevelt started SS to give people something guaranteed to retire to, and hope during the depression that they'd be ok. It's outdated now, but there are millions that are currently collecting so the gov't can back out now.

Congress borrowed money from SS in the 60's (I think) and was supposed to pay it back - but without interest, which is why there's trouble today.

Ah well....

I'm out.

Using the government to secure our retirements is stupid. If the economy suffers, the government will rapidly become broke as hell.

Lamehonda- love your cat! Re: Old people with lots of money. My Mom gets $800 a month pays $350 rent, about $200 after meds co-pay and doctor visits and an average of $40-50 per week on food. By that time there ain't no more. Where do you see how she makes lots of money? She worked past age 72 too.

And you know if YOU were nearing retirement age the relativity would certainly be different in your mind. I'm not griping on you personally but think about what you say 'why do they need it more than me?' If all the people on minimum subsistence social security got nothing at all they'd be either homeless starving, as you mentioned, in the streets or wards of the state in some other way. The people retiring now had to pay social security and save for their 1st house too. Nothing new. Life is tough. Oh well...

It does suck to have to give your hard earned money to old people, some of whom make a sh*tload of money. Why do they need it more than me?


I agree with Twitch Social Security isn't enough to live on. Both my parents are retired and they just barely make it together with 2 monthly checks.

I have already paid more into the system then I will ever see. Nothing in Social Security for retired people is free they all paid for it all their lives, and now they are getting some of it back.

Lamehonda- love your cat! Re: Old people with lots of money. My Mom gets $800 a month pays $350 rent, about $200 after meds co-pay and doctor visits and an average of $40-50 per week on food. By that time there ain't no more. Where do you see how she makes lots of money? She worked past age 72 too.

And you know if YOU were nearing retirement age the relativity would certainly be different in your mind.
I am not saying your mother had money. Social Security is not the answer for people like your mother. Families in this country don't care for the elderly anymore. If it was socially acceptable to have an older parent living with you your mother would be pulling in enough money to pay you a little bit for the accomodations and have some money left over. Housing is very expensive these days and probably sucks up a good chunk of social security checks.

As far as your comment about me nearing retirement, I agree with you. However, the only reason we still have that goofed up system is that people in my generation don't seem to want to vote. The older people do. So we are stuck with social security.

PS. I pull in $803 a month right now. Have $300 car payment. $500 for rent. Sounds like I have a financial situation a little similar to your mothers. Luckily, I can get school loans.

Social security would be an excellent system, had it not been looted already by several governments. For many people, automatic deductions are the best way of going about it, since then they don't have anohter account to manage and worry about, especially when funds are tight. It offers some sense of security as well, in case something should happen to those savings, such as an investment tanking, devaluing the currency(check the US $ against the CDN $ and the EU over the last 5 years.), etc.

Canada has a similar system, called the Canada Pension Plan. You pay into it all your life, when you retire you get a pension cheque. It's a paltry sum, barely enough to pay the bills if you own your own house. Maximum payout currently is $775 a month per person, if you retire at 65. Every month you work past 65, you're entitled to 0.5% more per cheque, retire early and every month you didn't work up until 65 is worth 0.5% off your cheque.

Lamehonda, you claim that most people on welfare are cheats, and simply don't want to work. Do you have any way of backing that up, because I don't believe that. Statistics maybe, or is that just rhetoric that you're repeating?

Naki, my provincial gov't has much the same system for social assistance, after a short grace period, they provide employement opportunities, which are arranged with wage subsidy. We have exactly the same situation with certain employers abusing the system for the subsidy, and it is a temporary solution at best. Most of the time the work is part time, and barely pays any more money than social assistance did.

A program my provincial gov't has adopted is the 2 of 5 system. You are only entitled to social assistance for two out of five years. You can use 24 months in 5 calendar years, and after your 24th month they'll boot you. After the 5 month calendar period is up, you can get back on again. If you can prove you're not capable of working, as many people are not, then they'll put you on disability. My roommate is on disability, as he suffered a head injury and has short term memory damage.

lamehonda- Sorry to misunderstand you but it seemed like a blanket statement about older people having money. My Mom is very independent and doesn't want to live with anyone, actually. Certainly there are families who do not want their aged folks living with them.

Social security is a bit alien to all of us that didn't live through the Depression with Roosevelt. After a decade or genuine poor times for a large percentage of the population the SS concept sounded great. But so did pyramid schemes in the 1980s! When lots of folks lost jobs SS would make up for the loss of pension in the private sector as happened in the 1930s. Folks that worked 15 years or whatnot were out on their butts and the companies they worked for were out of business and any pension fund was gone.

Actually the same happens today as the companies that once enthralled us all with benefits now try to find ways to fire vested workers 2-3 years away from retirement pension time. Do your own thing as far as looking down the road goes, but do something and don't wait!


Hang in there though on the education as it will ultimately pay off!
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Wave.gif

I am graduating next month. I can't wait to leave Wyoming.

I think that the problem with any system that the government comes up with is that some people will always abuse it. Those people often determine whether the system fails or not.

And I don't want anyone replying to this and saying:

"so, you think that everyone is abusing the system? ur a retard." :lol:

As far as the comment about people on welfare being cheats- I was not saying they were cheats, but rather that you can collect welfare from a system that you have not ever paid into. The difference is that one is primarily based on age and the other is based on need.

I am only assuming that people on average only do what they need to to get by. Its human nature.