Re: Clinton offers $110 billion health care plan -

On Sep 19, 7:01 am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:

"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."

Actually, they are - a child who grows up with no computer experience
is much less likely to be a productive member of society. An educated
child will contribute much more in lifetime taxes than a child without
an education.

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.

"Everything" - right, that's what social security does, it takes
"everything" away from those who work. I myself am completely
destitute after years of paying into social security, and I'm sure you
are as well.

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.

Well, if it were up to me, my money would not have been used to invade
Iraq. I would much rather my taxes be wasted on welfare cheats.

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?

It's like fire insurance. I have been paying for fire insurance for
many years. What a waste of money! _My_ house has never had a fire.
All the money I've paid into that system has gone to deadbeats who
allowed their own houses to catch fire. It's a Ponzi scheme!

We've been through this conversation before, Pickle. As I recall,
Papa Pickle taught you to despise SS at a very young age, and there is
no persuading you to see it as anything but a Ponzi scheme. Of
course, your father was certain that the system would collapse
shortly... as you still seem to be today, 75 years later.

Social Security, like fire insurance, helps protect people from the
negative swings of variance in life. I don't mind paying a portion of
my salary every month to help people like my sister avoid becoming
homeless. I feel this way despite the fact that I know that some of
the people receiving SS income are deadbeats who are exploiting the
system.

- Bob T.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: nbc Only Americans have to obey the laws....nbc
    ... insurance system" to one that would mostly be a welfare ... Anyway, to begin with, the existing Social Security system is already ... the economy as are many others. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Clinton offers $110 billion health care plan -
    ... the disaster that big government actually is? ... She lived on Social Security for her last couple of years. ... It is a poorly funded ponzie welfare scheme. ... If they pay for their retirement, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Libertarian cartoons
    ... despite the claims the government has made, ... I wouldn't want to do this for your health insurance or your car ... Which brings us back to the topic of Social Security: ... were permitted) or transfer someone else's participation over to me (if ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: The Obvious Solution to the Social Security Problem That Democrats and Republicans Dont Want to
    ... While private insurance companies are known for skimming ... In addition to paying a retirement benefit, Social Security also ... administrative costs are very low. ... The problem is that Social Security is also a welfare program ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Campground not full this winter
    ... about folks taking government money. ... Social Security disability. ... disabled he was tapping the welfare side of Social Security. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)