Re: Clinton offers $110 billion health care plan -

"Bob T."

Good point. We can see how well Social Security and Medicare worked
out - very well indeed. They are often touted as the best departments
in the federal government.

Bob, Bob, Bob ... even if it were true, wouldn't that just be a comment
on
the disaster that big government actually is?

I have nothing against charity for the poor. I think that our "poor" are
the best cared for "poor" in the world ... if the rest of the world could
do
as good a job as we do with our "poor," their poor would not be dying in
the
sand. However, the poor will always be with us. (Someone said that
before
me, it is not original.)

Pickle, Pickle, Pickle... Social Security is not "charity", it is
insurance.

B,B,B ... no it is definitely NOT insurance. It is not underwritten. There
is no there there. It is as good as any ponzie scheme ... as long as you
are adding people, it survives.

Before she died, my sister became disabled and unable to
work. She lived on Social Security for her last couple of years. I
suppose that one might argue that she could have saved enough money to
live on if she had not had social security withholding for all those
years... but she lost all her savings in a messy divorce a few years
back, and in reality she would not have had any savings to fall back
on.

I am happy that your sister had Social Security to fall back on. That does
not make it "insurance." That does not make it solvent. That does not mean
that her grandchildren will have it to fall back on.

As long as we define the poor as the lowest 20% ... there will always be
the
lowest 20%. There is nothing wrong with making life "better" at the
bottom
of the pile. There is a lot wrong ... a lot ... with those that think
that
we can provide everything for everyone. If we start with words like
"fair"
and "rich people have too much" and other wonderful sounding things, we
end
up with big government and the road to serfdom ... have I said that
before?

Yes, many times... and you still miss the point. The purpose of
social security has nothing to do with "the rich having too much".
The purpose of social security is to provide a minimum income for
people who need it.

That is NOT what it is sold as ... it is sold as "your retirement account"
that you paid for and deserve. It is a poorly funded ponzie welfare scheme.
It is a transfer scheme. One does not "need" to show a "need" for SS ... it
is an entitlement that some people paid for during their work life. It is
not Insurance.

Charity is charity ... you can date the serious decline when the idea
that
people on welfare were "entitled" to dignity. Talking charity should be
the
last resort of the otherwise helpless and hopeless. I live in a part of
the
country where it is a way of life. Watching folks drive their new cars
up
to the welfare office and complain that they have to wait a hour for
something is just sick!

Social security is not welfare.

You just described (incorrectly) a welfare program. Welfare is welfare no
matter what you call it. That part of what is known as "Social Security"
that represents a payment to people based on certain "welfare" sorts of
conditions is welfare. If they pay for their retirement, it is retirement
.... if they do not pay for their retirement and they get paid, it is
welfare. Call it what you will.

I had no air conditioning when I was a boy; today, a $500 electric bill
is
paid by someone other than the deadbeat running the AC with the windows
open.

I bet you didn't have a personal computer when you were a boy,
either.

No, and they are giving those away as entitlements too. They are "needed."

Yes, we have a responsibility to take care of those that are truly in
need
... some folks have a strange idea of "need" and why I should let you
tell
me what my responsibilities are. There will always be unfairness, no
matter
how anyone wants to define "fairness." The only question is what
"system"
does the best job at sorting out the limited resources of universe. The
market will do the job but is slow and has variance. Power (government)
can
assist in preventing the largest of the variance ... but when the
powerful
think they can do it "better" than the market, they fall into pride and
error. They screw it up. They always have and they always will.

"The market" does not care about people like my sister. You're right
about reducing variance - that is the point of social security. Even
if you buy the argument that government programs are always less
efficient than market programs, which is probably not true for SS and
is certainly not true for Medicare, the reason why we modern Americans
overwhelmingly support Social Security and Medicare is that we believe
that allowing "variance" to cost people every penny they posess is an
avoidable evil.

Your sister's church might take care of her ... or some other faith based
system. I have no problem with a federal safety net ... I just don't want
anyone to call welfare something it is not. Medicare is paid for partially
through taxation and partially by those of us that pay for health insurance.
Those that get more than they pay for are getting welfare. There is nothing
wrong with providing services for the poor. There is a lot wrong with
saying that they have a "right" to everything that those who work and pay
their own way have earned.

This is basic phylosophy. You believe that everyone has certain basic
rights to a certain level of "care" to be given by other people. Instead of
me having to pay for what you think is a basic "right" of people that will
not or cannot work, I think you should give your money to those private
charities that provide the sort of care that you think people should have
and I will give my money to those charities that provide the sort of care
that I think people should have. I draw the line at you giving my money to
those that you think should get it.

What is the motivation for people "in the system" to get out of the
system?
There is NONE.

Ummm... do you always get "social security" and "welfare" confused?

Do you always think in such simplistic terms? Do you not see the difference
between the SS that people have paid for and the SS that they did not pay
for?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Overheard at breakfast this morning
    ... I believe in government for the common good and not just for the common ... Should we just pay them off and forget about it? ... There need to be avenues where poor people can ... to you as liberal, that Social Security and Medicare, along with many other ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Clinton offers $110 billion health care plan -
    ... the disaster that big government actually is? ... no it is definitely NOT insurance. ... She lived on Social Security for her last couple of years. ... It is a poorly funded ponzie welfare scheme. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT - Politics
    ... amount of money from the "very rich" to pay for anything, ... agencies using that money promise to pay it back, ... in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent. ... on government payouts, for example. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Interesting Tax Fact
    ... But then I have to pay corporate income tax on it. ... And unlike many government employees, I don't get to evade Social ... Well, we get Social Security. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Old Folks Get Out of the Way
    ... Not sure what you mean by welfare. ... government programs. ... I pay more of a percentage of my income for these things than the ... the all tax breaks he gets. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)