BTW, someone had made the point some posts back about how our being the global policeman is bankrupting us, but isn't it more our social welfare state that is doing that (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security). Defense is a large expenditure, but not the majority of the budget at all.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget
- Thread starter Praying4OCS
- Start date
BTW, Social Security is not welfare, it's supposed to be a bank acct. that we pay into for our future retirement. Both it and Medicare have been plundered by politicians for prolifigate general spending.
BzB
I wouldn't say it's entirely the fault of the baby boomers. Like you mentioned, they're only drawing on what they deposited into the system, which they earned during their working years. The blame, I imagine, would fall more to the politicians who took the easy way out and raided the piggy bank in the first place.
That's true. It's not the cause, but it's something we can no longer afford, either. If your household budget is in the red, it may be your huge rent bill that's the real problem, but that doesn't mean you don't examine your satellite TV with full NFL package as something to economize on, too.
Social security & social security disability are entitlements. So they are a drain on the fiscal budget. And IMHO they do become "welfare" when the recipient is getting back more than they ever put in to the "pot". (ie. the 500 lb 30 year old on disability, the 90 yr old that never worked a day in her life, ...) The problem is when Social Security is discussed it is talked about as a whole. And that is not an accurate debate because it is really based on the scenario and circumstances.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Social Security is a retirement investment account; you are supposed to get more than you paid. The drawback is that Uncle Sam manages the account, not you... which is mainly a drawback only if you care enough about money and retirement to learn to invest smartly. It's also what allows Uncle Sam to use the money to fund things other than Social Security.
Also people talk about "500 lb unemployed person" like there's this mass group of people getting rich by scamming the system. Take a look at social security payouts... they're near poverty level. I know that I don't want to be living on $19-20k per year when I'm 70. While there might be some people who are SO lazy they'd rather live in a hole in the wall on disability and EBT than get a job, they are a small minority of people collecting social security. Most people collecting are retired Americans who probably worked harder on average than my generation ever will, simply because of technology advances. So I'm okay with a 65-70 yr old collecting his dues after 40 years of work taking a toll on his body, even if he didn't pay as much into the pool.
Also people talk about "500 lb unemployed person" like there's this mass group of people getting rich by scamming the system. Take a look at social security payouts... they're near poverty level. I know that I don't want to be living on $19-20k per year when I'm 70. While there might be some people who are SO lazy they'd rather live in a hole in the wall on disability and EBT than get a job, they are a small minority of people collecting social security. Most people collecting are retired Americans who probably worked harder on average than my generation ever will, simply because of technology advances. So I'm okay with a 65-70 yr old collecting his dues after 40 years of work taking a toll on his body, even if he didn't pay as much into the pool.
Sure, but what if you never paid into it. What if you paid very little. The question is how much more do you get back and at what point is that return unreasonable becoming "welfare".
One man's welfare is another man's entitlement. There are a lot of hard-working farmers who will curse big-city welfare queens, while their whole profitability comes from federal crop subsidies. I'll bet there are AIG executives who complain about the freeloaders in the "47%." Meanwhile, there's a veteran with no legs surviving on disability wondering why Mitt Romney is bagging on him, having never served a day in any uniform.
A certain level of a social safety net, call it "welfare" if you will, keeps society from falling apart, and actually keeps the capitalist system more dynamic. People will never take any chances on trying for better jobs, starting a new business, whatever, if they think they'll end up in the gutter bleeding if they fail. Plus, not everyone is going to make it, whether you want to ascribe the fault to them or not, and sooner or later, they'll storm the Bastille if you tell them to just eat cake. You don't want to be around when that happens.
A certain level of a social safety net, call it "welfare" if you will, keeps society from falling apart, and actually keeps the capitalist system more dynamic. People will never take any chances on trying for better jobs, starting a new business, whatever, if they think they'll end up in the gutter bleeding if they fail. Plus, not everyone is going to make it, whether you want to ascribe the fault to them or not, and sooner or later, they'll storm the Bastille if you tell them to just eat cake. You don't want to be around when that happens.
Valid points. But it doesn't answer my question. When does it not longer become a "entitlement" and become "welfare"? And I suppose you approve of fraud in the system.. I guess it's only fair that if I take a chance and fail, somebody else be there to pick me back up on my feet. Guess I should just take my savings to Vegas!
Guess the U.S. was in complete anarchy before FDR.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Being a Libertarian, I agree with you, but disagree with where that safety net should come from. I think the best safety net for people that need it comes from the community. The problem is our country is becoming less community focused, because hey - the Feds will do it!
Fraud? No. If you lie to get benefits that you aren't entitled to under the law, you need to go to jail. But some people think that just because somebody has a bag of Doritos in their card and is on food stamps, they're committing fraud.
One can argue about the long term effects of the New Deal and whether it's gone too far over time, but I don't think most Americans really would want to go back to those days. For the majority of Americans, life was closer to the industrial age's "nasty, brutish, and short."
Yes, there does need to be a safety net. You help others out with the expectation that you might need it someday. I'd be willing to bet that someone in your family or someone close to you is using it right now. I know I couldn't pay for my mom's nursing treatment for her MS nor my dad's care for his dementia out of my military pay, even if I devoted every single penny of my paycheck to it. Every penny of their lifetime's savings wouldn't pay for it, either, and they are both college graduates who had solid jobs. Medicare. Guess I'm part of a family of welfare dependency.
It doesn't have to be a safety mattress with a down comforter and such, but something needs to be there. It may not satisfy everyone's need for karmic fairness, but it's necessary for society to work. It's the difference between Sweden and Somalia. One, it's very easy for most of those on this board, who were raised in middle class homes to say they worked for everything they have. Bullshit. You were born on second and think you earned your triple. Having people die in the streets because their factory closed isn't the kind of place I want to live in, nor is it conducive to a stable society.
A funnier perspective is here and here.
What happens when the 'community' can't support? Even if they have the will but not the means? The last time we relied on the 'community' without a government safety net was the Depression, when nobody could support the folks who were out of luck but the government.
By the way, it's hard to say the civilian side of the budget is messed up while the five-sided puzzle palace is so jacked up.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...stuck-in-last-century-as-warfare-changes.html
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...stuck-in-last-century-as-warfare-changes.html
This is all fine and good if Social Security was a choice that someone in their early working years was able to make. Alas, it is not a choice. It is mandatory for every working person to contribute to this fraud of a system. Social Security is nothing more than a tax on your earnings that is collected and then redistributed to others. It IS social welfare. Government cannot give anything to anybody without first taking from someone else. I have the same level of disgust for Social Security as I do property taxes and eminent domain. Like Social Security, property taxes are not a choice and the same amount is not collected from each person. Is the fact that my house is worth more than my neighbors mean that I use more services than they do? Fact is....I do not own my property. I rent it from the government. Think that's a bit of an extreme view? Think about what happens if I don't pay my property taxes. And while certainly not as common, if the government thinks there is a better use for my property, they can seize it via eminent domain. Yeah, yeah, I know....the government would give me what it believes is "fair market value," but what if I don't want to sell. Too bad. Not a choice. Ultimately, it's not my property. Now mind you, I'm not opposed to local taxes provided they are not tied to my property in any way, collected fairly, and used to pay for necessary services. Subsidizing art festivals is not a necessary government service.Spekkio said:
Bullshit. More capitalism and less socialism is what will keep the capitalist system more dynamic.phrogdriver said:
Again, bullshit. People don't take risks with their careers or new ventures because they believe there's a safety net that will catch them if they fail. People that take risks like this don't think they'll fail. Did you go to OCS or flight school thinking you were going fail?phrogdriver' said:
That's a defeatist attitude. Yes, the reality is that not everyone will make it.....at least not at the same time. For many (and possibly most), they have to keep trying. Not everyone will get an A in their class. Not everyone will make it through flight school. But that doesn't mean we should level the playing field for these things.phrogdriver said:
No, that is the wrong reason to help someone. What you are describing is helping someone for selfish reasons. You help someone because it's the right thing to do, not because you may need their help someday. That's like helping your friend move furniture so that when it comes time for you to move, you can hold it over his head and he'll be indebted to you.phrogdriver said:
Well, that's a whole other issue altogether. You're talking about health care costs here. And that isn't solved by more or bigger social programs.phrogdriver said:
When I hear rhetorical questions like these, I always ask, "What does the Constitution say about this?"