I agree that the initial program idea was a good idea. However, in its current incarnation, it is a massive money-leech, and is super-problematic for any caring member of the workforce. Combined with all the other cash singularities that our Federal government keeps creating/sustaining, it is crippling the country, debt-wise. 'zat was me point with that comment up above.

Also, do note that SSI is not just retirement. There is also Survivors Benefits, which most people completely forget exist. If I died right now, my family would get money from the Feds every month. My daughter alone would be pulling nearly $500/month until she turned 18, which I guarantee is not proportional to what I have put in (being as she's only 2 right now, and I've only been part of the workforce for 10-11 years.).

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea that my family will be covered in the case of my unseemly demise. However, it's not in the best interest of our Federal deficit, which is the matter at hand.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

How is the current system different from the previous "incarnation", as you put it? It is a massive money-leech.. currently, and at one point it will be making money once the baby boomers die off.

On the subject of survivor's benefits, what you say is true. But are the recipients of this system actually so big that they hurt the system, had it not been pillaged? Do you think your daughter would be more likely to become a productive member of society with the Social Security benefits, or being placed into a foster home? Which still costs the government money in any case, since the government can't just leave the child out on the streets, and to remove said child from streets is going to cost money. At that point, it just becomes a matter of how you're going to spend the money. I realize that not all benefits go to orphans, and can go to children survived by a single parents (my aunt), but nevertheless it all stands the same. The government would inevitably pick up the tab, so you might as well try to do so in a productive matter (but if society decides it'd rather abandon those children then well.. we don't really need to digress to that).

The incarnation I'm talking about is the one that has been screwed over by politicians dipping into its fundage, instead of, say...investing SSI dollars in slow-but-steadily-gaining ways.

I personally do not believe that SSI is going to resolve itself, and I do not believe that there is any positive outcome for the program's future.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

Ah yes, then I agree with you on that. It is the government's own fault that Social Security is consuming so much money now. But then again, it wasn't the average person's fault that that happened, and they're the ones who would be punished.

It's sort of like an investor losing all of your money, except that it was supposedly guaranteed, then because the investor is starting to go underwater, he just magically changes the rules and decides that you don't get as much of the payoffs anymore.

EXAAAAAAACTLY

_________________

Official Forum Mom

I'm going to be curious. What did you guys accomplish today regarding this discussion? To be honest i've always thought of these kind of threads as the politics equivalent of praying.

_________________

Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles

Also, not trolling, it's an honest question i've got in the back of my head all the time when i read the title.

_________________

Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles

Me? I'm hoping to, through my cunning ability to point out problems and my insight into simple (yet unpopular) fixes to those problems, incite revolution and be instated as the benevolent dictator of the world.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

I'm willing to take your reply as legit, seeing that any other kind of reply would be bullshit.

_________________

Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles

Also, I'm trying to stay up to see the Persona post that Cascade is working on....and debating/discussing helps keep my brain active and thus keeps me from konking out...kinda.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

It's talk like any other, except that it's much easier to continue the conversation. Even with people I disagree with, sometimes even extremely so, I never take it personally.

It can also be viewed as growing oneself. You do not grow as a person by having permanent small talk.

Similarly, engaging in such discussions also safely hones your skills in preparation for adult life.

Regardless of how I feel about RuffDraft's ideology, he is likely to do well for himself in life due to the debate skills he has gained by safely practicing them online, as is Valhallen.

Learning to compromise and being able to articulate yourself succinctly would be desired qualities.

Then I repeat the fact that it's also much easier to continue a conversation with these subjects, so long as no one becomes disgusted/insulted by an opposing viewpoint, or a person criticizing their own.

That, and the Fiber Optics certification.

Enlisting has its benefits.

_________________

I don't think he'd benefit as much as if he debated in real life.

And fuck man. That's why I'm not gonna argue with you on networking. :P

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Only that, this problem had been addressed a loooong time ago. That's what the surplus was for. I don't think Social Security in itself is in ANY way a problem. It may be a drag at some points, but its effects and benefits are large when compared to its costs.
The reason why it's such a problem now, is that money was spent elsewhere too quickly, money you didn't have as a country, and the politicians came up with the genius idea of adding all the surplus SS money into their debt, to avoid booking as much debt as they actually made.
Social Security is a program that has this nasty effect that it costs more if your financial and demographic situation in the country gets worse. High unemployment, SS becomes a drag. As long as you can keep the country from falling into recession or depression SS is not a problem.


Most of these should be in fact lower. But then again, you people go ahead voting politicians in, that keep promising to increase the benefits. And this is how it ends up. Everybody wants more, plain and simple.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Hate the politicians, not the government.

_________________

i notice a great deal of my post has been shuffled off to not be replied to :(

but hey, ruffdraft, governments and corporations are made up of people, and people can be corrupted by other people. there doesn't have to be a central entity that corrupts either, and there doesn't have to be one around with enough power to start the corruption process of the other.

people are capable of corrupting others.

corruption though here has to have a strict definition.

i offer this one:

The abuse of established power for the sake of gathering more power. Greed, as it were.

so, ultimately, a government or a corporation with the same powers of a government are equally corruptable, and must be constantly and rigorously checked for corruption, including the continual refinement of the systems the corporation or government is managed under, and the refinement of the anti-corruption systems.

(this doesn't happen in our current corporate and federal systems very often at all, usually when something goes wrong)

so a government, or a corporation, equally likely to be corrupted, must be equally protected and protected against. does this sound unreasonable?

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

In regards to the topic earlier on taxes: http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ax-in-09/1

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Ahahahaha...

Nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Not quite how I meant it.

_________________

I'm dumb it seems, because I don't see what else it could mean.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

@Neo: I have to agree, politicians and congress tend to go hand-in-hand. Almost 100% of the time. We see it all the time; politicians pandering to one group of people, and then reversing it when they talk to someone else. You remember how people were calling John Kerry a flip-flopper and making jokes about him and pancakes? Just like that.

_________________

Politicians are populists. Because they have to be. Because that is demanded by your political system, a.k.a. democracy. A system where they get elected by highly impressionable people. You blame them for flip-flopping, but how else can they win the election if not by telling everyone what they want to hear? That's the only way to get in there in the first place, that's how the system works.
I'd love to link this old piece to illustrate that. But I'm sure you already realise all that.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Actually, we're not really a Democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. There's a difference: Democracy is simply Mob Rule; the more people you can get to join your cause the easier it is to do what you want to do. In a Constitutional Republic, you can have two-thirds majority but whatever you're trying to do still has to be lawful.

Real leaders are not simply politicians. People who do not change their stance on a whim are the real leaders. People like Herman Cain are leaders. Barrack Obama is a politician.

_________________

I will agree with you on Barack Obama not sticking to his values, but that doesn't make him a politician, it just makes him a weak leader. Politicians are lobbyists, and those who use the system and its resources to get themselves elected. Who don't care for the responsibility, but only the power and money.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

You don't have a pure Democracy, true, but the elections you hold are a democratic element. Also...


Uhh, I disagree.
Republic is any form of government where the offices of state are not granted through heritage, and the rule belongs to people. That's the base rule. Republic is the near opposite of a Monarchy. Montesquieu summed it up nicely, dividing Republics on those where all the people have a share in rule and choosing the government (Democracy), and those where only some people have it (Aristocracies/Oligarchies). All these can be considered Republican forms of government.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.