When looked at from a realistic standpoint, there is no more need for a social security system such as the one we have. the reason we believe so is because we have now assimilated it into a staple part of our lives and our governments policies, but the removal of social security is the best option for america. Social security was created in the 1930's with FDR's new deal policies because america was in such a shocked state from the great depression that people who could work were barely getting by, while those who couldn't work didn't even stand a chance. Social security was an emergency program to provide relief to those living through the great depression, as were about 90% of FDR's new deal policies and programs. The system itself, as our government should have foreseen, would not be able to withstand itself for long without issues, such as the ones we have today. People will criticize that most of the elderly rely on their social security to live, which is true, but only because we have allowed that to occur. There was obviously a way that elderly people survived in our nation from the establishment of our country up until the 1930's, which totals out to about 150 or so years. I will acknowledge that the lifespan of people has been increasing, but its been on a steady rise throughout human history, so that cant be the only reason we have to keep social security. Rather than spending money on material things, we have to revert back to how we were as a society in the earlier centuries of existence as a nation and save our money conservatively. This may hit retail businesses where it hurts, but for the nation as a whole this is what is best to prevent our future form going downhill. Once our future generations learn this there will no longer be a need for social security, because they will know that they are the ones who need to save for their retirement
I can only be amused at your naivety. In a few more months I'll be 80 and I (and my employers) paid into that fund since I was 16 and I paid into it until my retirement. You have much to learn grasshopper (Kung Fu)...
if one wants to destroy Social Security for our elderly and disabled.... vote Republican we should lower the age, remove the caps for the rich, this would create more jobs for the young.... only republicans want to raise the retirement age while we have a job shortage.... . .
You obviously don't understand the purpose or history of Social Security. That is patently false. Social Security was first established by a Republican governor. Other States adopted programs similar to Social Security, including FDR when he was governor of New York. At the time FDR nationalized Social Security, 35 States had Social Security-like programs. Again, that is false. Perhaps in a Perfect World®, but the world is not perfect....far from it.
They may KNOW but one party can't even buy a supersized soda and need the dem's to regulate that for them , and you think they will look out for their retirement years ? Why do you think there is a need for someone to spoon feed them ?
You oversimplify the situation. Payments to Social Security for middle class workers was/is NOT optional. So our salaries were burglarized. Many companies have pension plans that are reduced when the retiree is eligible (62) for SS by an amount estimated to be their SS benefit, whether or not they choose to begin taking benefits at that time. Stopping SS would be a big hit to people who were FORCED to pay into the system, having the rug pulled out from under them would be decimating. I've never heard ANY republican or democrat say SS should be discontinued. Please provide quotes to support this claim.
The OP has no facts or substantiation for those allegations. Before Social Security 50% of the elderly died in abject poverty. This is what life was actually like WITHOUT Social Security. https://www.gobankingrates.com/retirement/social-security/what-did-people-do-before-social-security/
Exactly. Humans are simple and lazy creatures - give us an 'out' from responsibility and we'll take it.
Sure. I'm as likely to see advantage in repose and low complexity as the next animal. It's a survival mechanism, after all. But what prevents subsistence humans and other animals from overdosing as we do, is their lack of supermarkets (so to speak).
It's essential .. for the future of nations, and more importantly, the PLANET. Greenies and Progressives argue that last at your peril.
The OP apparently has never had a retirement plan taken away. I paid in to a plan for a long time only to find out that much of my money didn't actually go into my account. The retirement plan (or the remnants of it) was taken over by PBGC in 1993, and it has not earned a cent since then. And I believe that 401ks and IRAs lost around $2 trillion during the (not so) Great Recession. I paid in to SS since the early 70s and all that time I heard politicians say it was about to collapse, yet it's continued on while other government spending has risen dramatically. All I can say is I'm thankful that we have a system like SS in place, and I'm happy to have paid in to it for all these years.
I would have preferred to have kept those payments so I could invest them for myself instead of relying on government bureaucrats to do it for me. But since I was forced to pay into the system, I darn sure want to get my investment back. I don't think the OP was pushing the idea of scrapping SS tomorrow. It would have to be "phased" out.
You might be right about phasing it out. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm lucky I had those bureaucrats taking my money. At least I can get that back. The other one is just dust in the wind.