The Welfare State Mentality....
- Thread starter Jets2007
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
If we can't afford it, we can't afford it, even if its something that would make us live longer. Of course, realistic talk does not go over well with voters.
.
People often report when they stop a crime with a gun.They don't report when they screw the system.
Do you really believe that everybody who is taking advantage of the system has done their best to find a job and just can't? That they didn't find having a new car more attractive than buying health insurance?That everybody has gone to the end of their ability and just can't make it.
Take the benefits away and find out how miraculously some of these people are ressurected.
If you don't think any of that is going on you are hopelessly naive or have no concept of human nature.Or both.
But,I still think that the cost of people taking advantage of the system is small comparitively.Most of it is legally taken entitlements that the government has voted in to being without addressing the demographics that are making them unsustainable.
Me arguing that there is fraud and you arguing that there is not is a silly little distraction from the real problem which is simply that we have passed in to law more benefits than we are paying for.
The Tourist
Moderator
ZeroJunk said:
I've also come to the conclusion that it takes a certain type of educated homogeneous group of people with a work ethic to make a society productive.
Harrison Ford was in a movie several years ago called "Mosquito Coast" believe where he moved his family to a jungle. The kids stood wide eyed looking at swamps and snakes. Harrison Ford remarked that he saw a vast exspanse of raw materials, food and untapped energy.
One city will build cars and homes, and another city will have open sewers.
In truth, I don't think you could give democracy and freedom away in Iraq. And yet The Framers took on the best troops of Europe simply to worship and work to their own ends.
My wife and I live in the same conditions--for the same goals--even though I now have Social Security. No trips to health spas or new Corvettes here. We did have Subway sandwiches last night--in the middle of the week--because my wife and I are getting over some local cold bug.
However, we, my parents, and her parents all believe in a work ethic, we all were educated with a 100 mile radius and we all have the same social mores.
I don't think you can deny that attitude.
Trick question. If they're "taking advantage of the system" then obviously they're not doing everything they can.
I did not say that EVERYBODY on the receiving end of the social safety net deserves it, I'm saying that not a single person here can prove - with evidence, not stories of expensive cars parked in section 8 housing (because it's not like such cars would get stolen with any frequency or anything...) - that leeching of the welfare system is a vast epidemic that's ruining the country.
It's a problem, sure. But before we get into how to fix the problem of the "welfare state mentality" we should know what the actual problem is, not what a few people want the problem to be so they can complain about their tax dollars going to some inner city single mother they don't like.
Really? Do you have anything to back that up or is that just an idea? Because it could also result in thousands of children across the country going hungry because their parents are irresponsible.
I never said that it's not going on. I said that before people complain about it they should actually know what's going on, not just proclaim it on the internet.
And we're still not addressing the issue of people putting more into the system than they've taken out.
Only I haven't.
JuanCarlos
New member
Just to clarify for those that might not get what he's saying here...nobody is claiming that there does not exist a person in public housing driving an expensive car, or a person who is not injured drawing disability while working under the table, or all manner of abuses of the system.
The question is how often this is actually happening, particularly in comparison to how often these programs are used as intended by people who actually need them. An anecdote can prove that one such person, or a handful of such people, exist. It does not necessarily indicate the scope of the problem, which is something we need to know before we can decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
Thank you.
For the record, I spent part of my childhood in low income areas. My family was fortunate enough not to be on any kind of welfare but I also saw cases of people abusing the system. I went to school with kids that got free and reduced lunches yet pulled out a Sega GameGear in the cafeteria. I knew kids whose parents were working under the table to keep their government checks coming in. But then again I also knew families in which a single mother was left by a deadbeat to raise three kids and simply couldn't afford to feed her children unless she worked 24 hours a day. I also knew families that had been financially ruined by medical troubles for many years.
But as I said, anecdotes don't prove a thing.
Yes I'm sure there are plenty of people on some form of welfare or another that could get themselves out of it. But there are also plenty that are in that situation through no fault of their own. A culture that expects social darwinism to take care of its least fortunate citizens problems is not one that deserves to exist. This isn't Sparta, we don't throw our frail infants off a cliff.
For the record, I spent part of my childhood in low income areas. My family was fortunate enough not to be on any kind of welfare but I also saw cases of people abusing the system. I went to school with kids that got free and reduced lunches yet pulled out a Sega GameGear in the cafeteria. I knew kids whose parents were working under the table to keep their government checks coming in. But then again I also knew families in which a single mother was left by a deadbeat to raise three kids and simply couldn't afford to feed her children unless she worked 24 hours a day. I also knew families that had been financially ruined by medical troubles for many years.
But as I said, anecdotes don't prove a thing.
Yes I'm sure there are plenty of people on some form of welfare or another that could get themselves out of it. But there are also plenty that are in that situation through no fault of their own. A culture that expects social darwinism to take care of its least fortunate citizens problems is not one that deserves to exist. This isn't Sparta, we don't throw our frail infants off a cliff.
I have had years where I paid taxes on over $200,000 in income, I have also had years where if not for foodstamps my kids would have gone hungry. There is always waste and fraud in any system, corporations have whole loss mitigation departments. So a tiny portion of the "undeserving" poor get something they don't deserve, it really is not that big a deal.
BTW, I owned an Audi and a Range Rover while getting food stamps. Both had over 200,000 miles should I have sold them and bought a freaking escort to go to family services? People are stupid!!!!
BTW, I owned an Audi and a Range Rover while getting food stamps. Both had over 200,000 miles should I have sold them and bought a freaking escort to go to family services? People are stupid!!!!
JuanCarlos
New member
I do too, and this would be fantastic if we had at tried moving away from pay-as-you-go many moons ago. As it is, it's pretty much impossible...basically everybody under 30 would just say "screw this, I'll never see a dime" and opt-out...thus increasing taxes on those between 30 and 40 to the point that they'd probably start doing the math as to whether they could concievably get their money back. They drop like flies, lather rinse repeat, until finally you're left with nobody to pay for the current retirees. Who, of course, paid into it for decades...but all that money was used to pay for the benefits of previous retirees.
When you rely on government to take care of you, you've gotta accept the (high) chance you're gonna get screwed. People should take that money they put into SS, and save it themselves. That way those who actually care about their health, can have the care they need for sure. And those who want to leech, have the rug pulled out from under their worthless $$$es.
I'm surprised that people on a gun forum, who are committed to taking care of their own security, are so eager to give all of their money to a big government to take care of their health. And I'm not too happy that they're willing to give other people's money to take care of their health too.
Something to remember: A government big enough to give so much, is big enough to take so much as well.
I'm surprised that people on a gun forum, who are committed to taking care of their own security, are so eager to give all of their money to a big government to take care of their health. And I'm not too happy that they're willing to give other people's money to take care of their health too.
Something to remember: A government big enough to give so much, is big enough to take so much as well.
JuanCarlos
New member
Hi. My name is The Past. You've met my brothers The Future and The Present, but obviously don't know that I exist.
You do realize that for decades contribution into SS has been mandatory, right? As in, there was no legal way for most people to avoid "relying on the government to take care of them" and "save it themselves." That money was taken from them, period.
Those people are now preparing to retire, or retired.
So if we suddenly allowed people to opt-out, it would cause a cascade (from people like you...and honestly people like me as well, who realize it would be the better financial option) of withdrawals the end of which would be either drastic cuts in benefits or an unbearable burden on current taxpayers who opt-in.
Honestly, you talk about people making some kind of choice to "take that money they put into SS, and save it themselves"...which suggests to me you have no idea how the system even works. Go educate yourself (and acquaint yourself with my buddy The Past) and come back.
I would love to keep my money and invest it myself but the question then becomes what happens to all those people that were forced to pay for social security and medicare for their entire working lives?
I may be a little upset with the baby boomer generation but I'm not about to suggest we simply leave them in the dust for the mistake their parents made.
You're operating under the false assumption that people have an obligation to care about or assist others. They can if they want, but mandating it is wrong. Being an American means having the right to say "it's not my problem". It may not be right, or compassionate, but forcing someone to pay for others is not right. You only thing it's right because you like being on the receiving end.
And you're also using the argument that because a real solution would be hard on people, it's not worth trying. That is also false.
And Redworm, the thought of it may not seem compassionate, but I am saying that Americas should have the right to leave them in the dust. Not that they should, but that they should have the right to. You and Juan appear to to be of the mind that it's OK to force people to do things, as long as it's it "for the greater good". That is both sad and disturbing. That same mindset gave rise to many evils.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Hmmm, now why didn't I do that for the last forty years??? THAT'S RIGHT!!!!!! I never saw that money, that's why!
Yeah, it's called being a frakking human being.
I disagree. If that is what America is about then America does not deserve to continue as a nation. If we're such animals that we can't think of a way to relieve our dependence on social security without cutting off the people currently on it that have been paying into that system for decades then we can't even claim to be a decent society.
I don't believe it's right to force people into anything however I think it's just as "evil" to ruin lives because it's inconvenient for us to find a better solution that includes a transitional phase.
lol
dude, wtf. what socialism? do you not get that people have been paying into this for decades? do you not get that it's equally as unfair to screw those people as it is to continue to force people to pay into the system?
or do you just want to harp on about socialism without putting any critical thinking skills to use?
dude, wtf. what socialism? do you not get that people have been paying into this for decades? do you not get that it's equally as unfair to screw those people as it is to continue to force people to pay into the system?
or do you just want to harp on about socialism without putting any critical thinking skills to use?
JuanCarlos
New member
Basically what G-Cym is saying is that the government has no obligation to honor their agreement with current/future retirees that, in exchange for their forced contributions into the SS/Medicare system, they'd receive benefits at a later point.
It's socialism because you're redistributing wealth from one party to another against their will. He actually has a point there; we'd have been much better off if we had tried years ago to move away from pay-as-you-go, which would have allowed (at some point) people the choice of whether or not to opt-in without destroying the system.
However, at this point I'd say that forcing the government to honor their agreement with employees that paid into the system for decades is more important than any witty anti-socialism quotes.
Out of curiosity, G-Cym, is this a standard you apply universally? For instance should taxpayers now be allowed to opt-out of funding other programs, such as military retirement benefits, if they choose? I mean, if the government doesn't have to honor it's promises and if you shouldn't have to help out other human beings, I see no reason why anybody should be forced to pay for soldiers' retirements either.
It's socialism because you're redistributing wealth from one party to another against their will. He actually has a point there; we'd have been much better off if we had tried years ago to move away from pay-as-you-go, which would have allowed (at some point) people the choice of whether or not to opt-in without destroying the system.
However, at this point I'd say that forcing the government to honor their agreement with employees that paid into the system for decades is more important than any witty anti-socialism quotes.
Out of curiosity, G-Cym, is this a standard you apply universally? For instance should taxpayers now be allowed to opt-out of funding other programs, such as military retirement benefits, if they choose? I mean, if the government doesn't have to honor it's promises and if you shouldn't have to help out other human beings, I see no reason why anybody should be forced to pay for soldiers' retirements either.
For those who insist that cheaters are mostly anecdotal, you should know that, from one who administers the program, there are a stunningly high number of cheaters, more than you could possibly imagine--I deal with them virtually every day. Indeed, it may interest you to know that there are so many cheaters, our federal enforcement branch won't even prosecute anyone unless their fraud amount has grown to a shocking number because they simply can't worry about "little fish".
A couple facts that may be of interest: First, one of the most significant arguments from those who actually are studying the alternatives to Social Security is that if we went to a strictly voluntary privatized system, there would be many, many, many people who simply would refuse to contribute to their own retirement and spend their money on today (just look at the savings rate in the U.S. to see the proof). This would create an entire class of people--probably a majority--who would come to their retirements and have nothing. Thus, a Social Security system would have to be created for them.... And since they would be a majority, or at least a huge minority, they would have the political power to create such a system for themselves. So we would actually be worse off than we are now. Until that problem gets solved, a privatized system (which I am moderately in favor of) will not be advanced. And as you think about it, you can probably figure out that...the problem is unsolvable.
Second, certainly the most significant threat to the survival of the program is not the cheaters but rather the constant multiplying of entitlements by politicians and bureaucrats in order to curry political favor. Regardless of the amount defrauded by cheaters (and it is huge), it is a drop in the bucket compared to the pandering of politicians as they seek desperately to invent another program which will hit the correct (i.e. the correct voting) demographic...and then the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. go wild (you have no idea...you can't imagine) creating policies for those programs which encourage entitlement and discourage any self-reliance or integrity, in the clients and in the program. You have to remember that, in any bureaucracy, those who are more interested in the survival and the thriving of the bureaucracy always take control as time goes on over those who are interested in the mission of the agency. And for a bureaucrat, the more the program expands, the more money congress pours into it, the richer and fatter he gets, and the more job opportunities and promotions and fame and power are available to him. Sigh....
A couple facts that may be of interest: First, one of the most significant arguments from those who actually are studying the alternatives to Social Security is that if we went to a strictly voluntary privatized system, there would be many, many, many people who simply would refuse to contribute to their own retirement and spend their money on today (just look at the savings rate in the U.S. to see the proof). This would create an entire class of people--probably a majority--who would come to their retirements and have nothing. Thus, a Social Security system would have to be created for them.... And since they would be a majority, or at least a huge minority, they would have the political power to create such a system for themselves. So we would actually be worse off than we are now. Until that problem gets solved, a privatized system (which I am moderately in favor of) will not be advanced. And as you think about it, you can probably figure out that...the problem is unsolvable.
Second, certainly the most significant threat to the survival of the program is not the cheaters but rather the constant multiplying of entitlements by politicians and bureaucrats in order to curry political favor. Regardless of the amount defrauded by cheaters (and it is huge), it is a drop in the bucket compared to the pandering of politicians as they seek desperately to invent another program which will hit the correct (i.e. the correct voting) demographic...and then the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. go wild (you have no idea...you can't imagine) creating policies for those programs which encourage entitlement and discourage any self-reliance or integrity, in the clients and in the program. You have to remember that, in any bureaucracy, those who are more interested in the survival and the thriving of the bureaucracy always take control as time goes on over those who are interested in the mission of the agency. And for a bureaucrat, the more the program expands, the more money congress pours into it, the richer and fatter he gets, and the more job opportunities and promotions and fame and power are available to him. Sigh....