The Welfare State Mentality....

[BerettaCougar]

Well I believe that if one needs to use those funds that he/she paid over the years then he/she should collect.

But if one has worked all his/her life and not only paid social security but saved and invested, and can retire on his/her own funds then he/she should not collect, but that should be only a choice that person can make...because technically they are entitled as much as anyone else that put their pennies in the jar.

 

[The Tourist]

and can retire on his/her own funds then he/she should not collect

It's an argument I have often heard. Supposedly 'the rich' should be required to pay more. Some people claim "that's fair."

As a student, I heard about "double dippers." Some vets were just leaving the service at that time. Had they joined the military at the age of 18, they had twenty years in by the age of 38.

Still young at 38, they could join the post office (another federal service at that time) and work another 20 years, retiring at that time at 58. Which is about my age.

However, they could then get two federal pension checks. One from the Armed Forces, and another one from the postal service.

And yikes, you should have heard some taxpayers whine!

However, they had played the game fair and they had earned the money.

I might not need Social Security. My last year as a credit manager I made eleven times more that I did the first year I graduated.

But I did, in fact, earn every penny.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Thats not my fault, not my problem and damn sure not my responsibility to pay it out of my taxes. That older person should have seen to his/her retirement needs with a little personal responsibility. Being stupid or unprepared should hurt. Us other prepared people should not foot the bill.!

This might have been easier had the federal government not been taking from their paycheck for Social Security and Medicare for most (if not all) of their working lives. That money adds up, and had they been allowed to invest it (and done so wisely) they could have had much more money to spend upon retirement.

But as it is the government did take their money, for decades, and they have every right to take back every penny, plus interest, for as long as they are allowed.

 

[685cmj]

A couple observations from a guy who has worked for most of his career (what a sad admission) in the Federal government social services bureaucracy. First, we should probably make a clear and large distinction between medicare and medicaid, as many have pointed out. Medicaid is a plain and straightforward welfare program, whereas medicare is our current version of a national health insurance in which everyone has invested. (And if you think it is bad now, wait until the democrats institute a really aggressive national health program!!!) Second, if you are wondering when it is going to stop--well the good news (or bad, depending on your perspective) is that the medicare trust fund will be the first one of the Social Security programs which bankrupts, probably within the next 10 years or so. Of course there will be massive amounts of more money put into it.... Third, the reason that entitlement programs keep multiplying is simple: politicians buy more and more votes by approving more and more entitlement programs. Social Security has gone from a program for aged folks to retire on to primarily programs for young losers and thugs to get disability, adding a massive federal welfare SSI program which is rotten from the ground up to ensure that even those who never work get federal benefits for their "disabilities" (you would be shocked and outraged if you knew only half of what goes on behind the scenes of the federal bureaucracy as to who gets "disability" and for what reason--indeed, we are prohibited from talking about it so the American public doesn't find out). The more people who get a newly invented program which gives them money, the more people will vote for their politicians. It is that simple...and that complicated. Fourth, the main reason entitlements never end is not because of the recepients' needs, but because a huge, huge industry has grown up around them as staff, support programs, etc. This is particularly true of the county welfare programs--tens of thousands of people make their living off administering these programs and they are very vocal and aggressive in lobbying for these programs to expand more and more in order to ensure both job security and opportunities for promotions, etc for themselves, not for the clients. It is a vicious cycle...sadly.

 

[grey sky]

the "nannie state" is a myth the sheeple believe the government is going to protect them. I suspect many would believe the myth while being herded to the gas chambers. The sentament is reflected in statements like, only police and the army should have guns. and I have nothing to hide search me anytime for my safety. Independent thought is discouraged in schools, self reliance woodcraft knowledge of weapons are held in suspect.

an inacurate Lazarus Long Quote : Everyone should have to run for there life once. So they will know milk dose not come from the grocery store and the government is not here to protect you.

 

[ZeroJunk]

If people are just getting their money back,why is the payout going to exceed the input in about 10 years,and in another 20 years even the money that the general fund owes SS will be gone.In effect bankrupt.

This is simple math.It's always been pay as you go.I have no problem with the program but either the rates will have to go up or the benefits will have to be cut or it will collapse.The AARP and the Democratic party have a lot of stupid people convinced that their is some magic fix to this.There is not.Unless people sudddenly start living shorter lives.

 

[Redworm]

Yes I could get another job if I liked 60+ hour weeks, just like an elderly person can go get a part time job.

Some days I work with elderly people all day long. Believe me, many of them cannot get jobs. You can't get a job if you have debilitating multiple sclerosis. You can't get a job if you have dementia. You can't get a job if you have Alzheimer's or stage 4 Parkinson's.

Some people cannot work. That is a fact of life.

 

[Jart]

If people are just getting their money back,why is the payout going to exceed the input in about 10 years

Well, certainly not because the fund may have been borrowed from for whatever reason.

Once a year the .gov mails me a Soc Sec statement. I don't really recall, but I believe that, FICA only, no fed income tax, they've extracted well over 50.000 from me. Thus far I have recieved a flaming zero. Since portions of that sum go back to 1968, one would reasonably assume that any custodion of those funds with a hint of savvy could have grown it considerably.

It'll still be years before I get a card that says Uncle Sugar will use part of my 50,000.00 to pay for a 20.00 shot and you can be assured I'll go out of my way to use it.

There's a distinction between "entitlement" and "payback" and I submit it is not subtle.

...some magic fix to this.There is not.Unless people sudddenly start living shorter lives.

I'm working on it.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Since portions of that sum go back to 1968, one would reasonably assume that any custodion of those funds with a hint of savvy could have grown it considerably.

The problem is that it never worked that way.The FICA money has been put in the general fund for decades.It was never invested or saved or put in a "lock box".

All you have is an IOU.The government doesn't create any money.So,when it becomes insolvent the government will have to raise taxes for you(actually your kids or grandkids) to pay yourself back.

Reality is that the money you paid in 1968 was spent in 1968.

So,how long will it take you to get your $50,000 back,3 or 4 years?

 

[JuanCarlos]

The problem is that it never worked that way.The FICA money has been put in the general fund for decades.It was never invested or saved or put in a "lock box".

All you have is an IOU.The government doesn't create any money.So,when it becomes insolvent the government will have to raise taxes for you(actually your kids or grandkids) to pay yourself back.

Reality is that the money you paid in 1968 was spent in 1968.

So,how long will it take you to get your $50,000 back,3 or 4 years?

I fail to see how any of this is the fault of those drawing Social Security and Medicare (thanks, 685cmj, I always forget which is which) benefits. The fact that the government has been a poor steward of their (forced) retirement savings doesn't mean they should suddenly feel bad about pulling out every dime they are entitled to (which is to say, every dime the government will give them). Had they been allowed to invest that money themselves, they'd have probably managed to make much more of it.

Personally I'm disappointed with the older few generations for not recognizing this as an issue (we've been talking about the "baby boom" for what, 50 years?) and taking some steps long ago to rectify the situation...so yeah, I'm a little bitter with the current/upcoming crop of retirees about the fact that I'll probably get the shaft. However, I still see no reason why any individual retiree should feel any sort of guilt about pulling out benefits from the program they paid into.

 

[685cmj]

A couple other interesting facts for you: 1) About 20 years ago now (time flies but I would guess that is about how long ago it was) there was a major bi-partisan blue ribbon (no politicians, only experts) committee appointed to study the Social Security problem because it was clear that Social Security could not continue on its present course. The committee split seriously, and could not agree on a solution, but came back to the president and congress with three different possible solutions (lesson one: the problems of Social Security are seriously deep and complicated, not facile and easy as most internet debaters tend to think). To this date, not one of those solutions has been implemented, but instead the Social Security programs have multipled--because it is politically easiest to keep adding new entitlement programs rather than deal with serious problems. Had any of the solutions been put into effect 20 years ago, the changes required would have been quite modest. Today, because of total inaction for the past 20 years, any changes (and there will have to be changes) will be significant and severe due to the much shorter time line until the trust funds are depleted...or Social Security will have to be funded to a level which simply bankrupts Americans. Politicians (on both sides) are completely gutless in this matter...and due to their gutlessness America is going to suffer. No decision, in this case, was very much a horrible decision. But how many of us have contacted our Congressmen and insisted they make the hard choices and take away entitlements...from us?
2) There are three primary reasons that the two trust funds will go broke in the next couple decades: As far as the retirement trust fund, one is that the average person gets everything back he ever put into the program in three-four years, and from that time on is living on what other people put into the program and the interest of the fund. This wasn't a problem when there were less people living shorter lives, but now people may well take ten times out of the program what they put in. With the explosion of baby boomers coming, it won't take long until the program is bankrupt at that rate; the second is that congress kept multiplying entitlements so that practically every person who ever was related to the worker can get benefits on his/her record in various cases--children, stepchildren, grandchildren, adopted children, illegitimate children, wives, ex-wives, common-law wives, grandparents.... So you have one worker putting in finite amounts...and perhaps five or six people taking out on that account an unlimited amount. Doesn't take a math major to figure out what will happen. And the third, with the disability trust fund, is that the definition of "disability" has been so expanded to pander to the various aggressive lobbying groups that practically anyone can eventually get it at any age, for almost anything.

The single most frequent question I am asked by naive retirees who come into the office is "Why are all those young people sitting out in the lobby waiting?" The answer is, they are waiting for their hand-outs...of your money, because they don't want to work. It is a great country!

I suppose I should add this addendum: there are alot of complicating factors to the problem, but one of the biggest is that many families no longer wish to take responsibility for and care for their own, whether aged or young. Instead, the "government" is seen as responsible to do that. And maybe the government is seen as responsible because it collects so much taxes to do that. We let the government do it because the government taxes us to set up programs to do it...and round and round we go.

 

[The Tourist]

I'm a little bitter with the current/upcoming crop of retirees about the fact that I'll probably get the shaft.

I don't see why 'bitter' is the word you use. Like all citizens in a Republic, you walk into the booth, close the curtain and pull the handle. The word I believe is proper is 'diligent.'

Don't reward a liar with a second term. And remember, don't fall for the old 'misdirection play.' If your leader bombs an aspirin factory to cover his lackluster domestic policies, allowing him to continue chubby-chasing, hold his feet to the fire. It's your future.

By the by, how much of a future do you think Hillary is going to leave you?

However, I still see no reason why any individual retiree should feel any sort of guilt about pulling out benefits from the program they paid into.

No worries, I don't feel one shred of guilt. I played by the rules. Well, perhaps I bent a decibel ordinance now and then.

But I worked, I paid in, and I met all of the benchmarks the government required of me. In fact, most of what you see as "modern America" is the work of 'boomers and their parents.

And as we retired, many of us were managers, and I'll give you a look behind the curtain. Lots of our frustration in running a corporation centered on finding qualified people and "the work ethic."

One of my last jobs was as a credit manager of a hobby-sports company. My assistant-manager was transfered to her own geographical division, and I began interviewing.

Now, this position entails the collection and business restructuring of tens of millions of dollars. So what did I get?

Most candidates showed up late for the initial interview. Some had no resume' with them for any interview or follow-up. Many came dressed in clothes that were worse than my road clothes. And we won't even get into issues involving grammar, spelling and syntax.

One of the candidates was in his late thirties. He had "the stones" and a resume' of previous financial experience. What he lacked on paper, he made up by working for a law firm. He showed up on time in a sports coat.

I hired him on the spot, and doubled his income.

 

[ZeroJunk]

685CMJ,thanks for taking the time.

JC,go to DC and try to make the necessary changes to entitlements and see what happens to you.The AARP and the Democrats(mostly) will have you portrayed as stealing from the elderly and having grandmothers in soup lines INSTANTLY.

Do you realize at around $600,000,000,000 entitlements are equal to the total peacetime defense budget of the US.

 

[JuanCarlos]

JC,go to DC and try to make the necessary changes to entitlements and see what happens to you.The AARP and the Democrats(mostly) will have you portrayed as stealing from the elderly and having grandmothers in soup lines INSTANTLY.

Yeah, and the Republicans will be so much better. In fact, if I went as a Democrat (the more likely) then it would be the Republicans tossing the mud.

It'd be worth it, of course, if I could actually make it happen...I'd be more than happy to serve a single-term political career to enact such a change.

But as it stands it's nearly impossible, because both parties are simultaneously trying to court the elderly vote and deathly afraid of them. Which is why the "voting booth" option The Tourist suggests isn't terribly effective...if both candidates refuse to change anything, who exactly do you vote for?

This seems to be something that is being dominated by inertia...though I think a more apt comparison would be the old "deer in the headlights."

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

At what point did the purpose of govt. change from maintianing order to bailing people out of every situation they may put themselves in. What ever to pulling one's self up. I must say like it or not the population like an over controlling big brother. They like his money, they like it when he protects us from ourselves. But as sad as it may sound it will never get better. Just get worse. When the whole US ends up like N.O. after Katrina then I(we?) can say "I told you so."

 

[Jets2007]

The Tourist,

"If you smashed your car or had a house fire, you'd take the check, wouldn't you?"

Sure, my family pays a private company for our home owners insurance... not the government. Apples and Oranges, whats your point?

"Benefits like Social Security and Unemployment are not welfare, but a program that the recipient has paid into for many decades of his working life."

Taxes pay to fund the medicaid/welfare rolls also. In the end, it's all tax payer money. Your playing with the semanics of what I said... these governemnt entitlement programs are doing nothing but driving the US towards socialism.

"If you disagree with that, then get off of the highway I built for you. As a younger man, you have paid almost nothing. As an older man, not only did I get taxed to build the original road, but also for all of the maintenance needed. So, get off of my road, slacker."

No, I won't get off your highway. .. Now you are just being silly.

Slacker? Pal, you don't even know me. I have been working since I was 15 years old. When I attened college, I put in 35-40 hour work weeks on top of a full time school schedule. Slacker would be the last word used to describe me. I might be a fraction of your age. However, I am just looking to the future and thinking about how things are going to be when it comes time for me to retire. You can't fault anybody for that.

I was looking to create an important debate/discussion on here... lets act like adults and discuss this with some class and maturity... name calling is not necessary... if you want to do that, go over to FreeRepublic or one of those forums. I thought this might be something worth talking about being that we have posters of all ages on here.

"I am now retired. Like many folks, I would have preferred to take my government deductions and invest them privately."

We agree. I hope you have a long and healthy retirement. So whats the point of you attacking me in your post? This was he entire point of my origional post- less governemnt and bureaucracy.

"The promise was that my government would look after me after my working life had ended."

Going back to my origional post. The federal governemnt is not constitutionally obligated or authorized to do this. They have no business in taking MY money and setting up MY retirement. I want to take MY money and invest it the way I want to.. not the way some guy in a suit and tie in DC wants to.

 

[tplumeri]

another never ending thread

WOW, this one's a barnburner. more emotion than the 9mm vs 45 thread i started (apologize again for that one).
lets start by saying that i am a health care provider (the politically correct term for a doctor)
75% of my patients are over 65 years of age. of that 75%, 20% are veterans 80% medicare/medicaid.
the remainder of my patients are private pay (cash) standard health insurance (blue cross blue shield etc) and /or state funded health care for children.
some of my patients have co-pays for all sevices, some have co-pay for certain services and some have no co-pay for any service.
the bottom line is they all get treated the same.
i have a family group with 9 (NINE) kids. neither parents works. dad is 38 mom is 32 and pregnant again. the system supports the, ie our tax dollars, and actually rewards them for having more kids.
but i still treat them the same as any other patient.
if you are a health care provider in this day and age you have to accept the fact that #1; youre not going to get rich fast
and #2 you may not agree with the politics of the day
and #3 you "signed on' to provide health care to those that need .
if you cant abide by those "rules" then you shouldnt be doing what i do.
im not really thrilled about anouncing to this forum that im a doc, would rather just be another shooter, but this needed to be said. dont really know that it is appropriate for this forum, but what the hell, it affects our every day life and the lives of people we are close to.
tom
ps; and no, if you private msg me i will not prescribe you viagra! but i will talk about the state of health care in this country and share my thoughts on potential fixes.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

The federal governemnt is not constitutionally obligated or authorized to do this. They have no business in taking MY money and setting up MY retirement. I want to take MY money and invest it the way I want to.. not the way some guy in a suit and tie in DC wants to.

Nobody will argue that point with you. We have all said that, some of us for decades. But don't blame the retired folks for using the benefit they were forced to pay into for years and years, blame the politicians who misuse the funds collected thus destroying the system.

 

[pitz96]

Some people cannot work. That is a fact of life.

Another good reason to have a gun--to shoot yourself when you are old, sick, and/or severely disabled and have no one to take care of you--'cause the government sure won't, not that I expect it to. A sad fact of life is no one gets out of it alive, but prolonged misery and suffering should at least be optional.

 

[Jets2007]

But don't blame the retired folks for using the benefit they were forced to pay into for years and years

Never did such a thing.


blame the politicians who misuse the funds collected thus destroying the system.

I did so several times during my post.