Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why everyone, who can handle their retirment saving has to pay or be trapped in a system with people who can't save. Just because people will make mistakes and/or are too careless to care about retirment doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for their problem.
I don't think it's due to people making mistakes, I think the problem is low wages/wages not keeping up with inflation that is causing people to save less.
I don't know why everyone, who can handle their retirment saving has to pay or be trapped in a system with people who can't save. Just because people will make mistakes and/or are too careless to care about retirment doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for their problem.
Leave people alone. I think its time seniors money, that they invested in social security be given back to them while young people be given the right to invest their money as they wish. The old system worked for old generation but the new generation needs a new system and young poeple need to take responsibility.
The problem that the politicians won't tell you is that without the people putting into the system there is no money to give out. It is their little well kept secret. The government is no different than Enron with the exception that they can't get caught.
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?" [/SIZE][/LEFT]
80% should
16% should not
its hard convincing people social security should be wiped out when 80% of americans support it
I know social security is a pay-as-you-go system. I think if we were to ever end the sytem totally, young generation would need to pay some part of their wages in the current system(with no return from goverment) and the other part would have to come from other areas(possible reducing in other goverment program) but that would be a far better choice that the current system. Social security will go into deficit in 2017, medicare(in which everyone pays with no income cap) is even a larger problem.
American people kept voting for politican who increase in benefits since 1950 and then attacking politicans now as to what happened. Let's remember, most of the politican who opposed social security, medicare were voted out of office. This is like, people(shareholders) voting 'enron' officals into office again and again and kicking honest people out.
These programs(social security, medicare and medicaid) are a mess, All we have to do is just look at the projections and see that these programs spending will leave goverment with nothing else to do. Benefits have to be cut, spending in domestic program need to be cut and taxes will need to be raised in the shor term to solve this long term problem. No other way around it.
I know social security is a pay-as-you-go system. I think if we were to ever end the sytem totally, young generation would need to pay some part of their wages in the current system(with no return from goverment) and the other part would have to come from other areas(possible reducing in other goverment program) but that would be a far better choice that the current system. Social security will go into deficit in 2017, medicare(in which everyone pays with no income cap) is even a larger problem.
American people kept voting for politican who increase in benefits since 1950 and then attacking politicans now as to what happened. Let's remember, most of the politican who opposed social security, medicare were voted out of office. This is like, people(shareholders) voting 'enron' officals into office again and again and kicking honest people out.
These programs(social security, medicare and medicaid) are a mess, All we have to do is just look at the projections and see that these programs spending will leave goverment with nothing else to do. Benefits have to be cut, spending in domestic program need to be cut and taxes will need to be raised in the shor term to solve this long term problem. No other way around it.
Your candidate is the one who wants to add to it with national healthcare insurance. I find it interesting that you appear to want to kick seniors and people who "don't know how to save" to the curb. Is this the new Democratic Party? If so I believe I will stay an Independent. Have you ever considered what the outcome will be when all these people are forced to go on welfare since the safety net has been removed? I thought Democrats were supposed to be the compassionate ones who cared about the downtroden. I guess you were out to lunch when the compassionate gene was passed out.
By the way, when I listen to Dave Ramsey and a caller calls in who has $75,000 in credit card debt, is upside down on their home mortgage and facing foreclosure, and owes $150,000 in student loans, it always seems to be one of those younger generation like you who know everything.
Why is that reforming social security argument always comes back to 'attacking the seniors' or responses like 'kicking seniors'. I am aganist ending social security for seniors, I am just saying that we need to at least reform the system for future generation. We need to introduce individual accounts in the system, cut some benefits for future retiree(not seniors) and increase more taxes(outside of social security taxes) along with cutting spending in other program(and stop raiding social security trust fund) because this pay-as-you-go system won't work as seen by almost every report and projection.
I am a independent. Yes, I support Obama but it is only because of foreign policy issue----- IRAQ. I don't like domestic positions of Senator obama or of any candidate for that mattter and I don't want a national health care insurance. Frankly, the idea of adding another program, while the 'big three' (social secuirty, medicare and medicaid) are failing is just crazy. I don't believe that it's state responsbility to takecare of citzens.
Why is that reforming social security argument always comes back to 'attacking the seniors' or responses like 'kicking seniors'. I am aganist ending social security for seniors, I am just saying that we need to at least reform the system for future generation. We need to introduce individual accounts in the system, cut some benefits for future retiree(not seniors) and increase more taxes(outside of social security taxes) along with cutting spending in other program(and stop raiding social security trust fund) because this pay-as-you-go system won't work as seen by almost every report and projection.
I am a independent. Yes, I support Obama but it is only because of foreign policy issue----- IRAQ. I don't like domestic positions of Senator obama or of any candidate for that mattter and I don't want a national health care insurance. Frankly, the idea of adding another program, while the 'big three' (social secuirty, medicare and medicaid) are failing is just crazy. I don't believe that it's state responsbility to takecare of citzens.
Than why did man leave state of nature to form government if not for a collective good?
In ther end(I am a senior) senior are spending the SS of the younger voters and then some. They should have rained in the democrats whohave extended there retire subsidy to those that paid nothing long ago; If they want to help them do it with general funds money;if they could pass it thru.The breaux committee met ofr years during the clinton administraion and came to the conclusion that it would take a huge increase in SS with holding or cutsd in benefits. Those are the choices. The democrats said it wasn't necessary pointing out that they ahd saved SS just a few years before.I will bet that universal healthcare is introduced in a form that is sure to fail so that the democrats have the issue for another 50 years;jsut as their last one or their prescription drug bill.
Than why did man leave state of nature to form government if not for a collective good?
Man didn't form goverment for collective good but for personal good. Individual man wanted security, protection of his property and a chance to purse happiness . Man agred to a social contract(creating a small goverment) to get more benefits without giving up too much liberty. Government is legitimate only to the degree that it gives greater security for life, liberty, and property than would exist in a chaotic state of nature and hence goverment should only be a sort of a 'night watchman'. Its not a Faustian pact, people won't give up liberty for sake of food and basic economic security and hence men(and women) would gadly agree to a indentured servant pact , but never become a slave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
