Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    15 Nov '12 20:03
    A calmer discussion.

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-its-the-welfare-state-stupid/2012/11/11/e392868a-2ab0-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    15 Nov '12 20:06 / 2 edits
    A welfare state transfers income from some people to other people to improve the recipients’ well-being.


    That's what capitalism is. Paying rent is exactly that.

    He says that nearly 40 percent of these transfers aim to relieve poverty (through Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and the like), while most of the rest goes to the elderly (mainly through Social Security and Medicare).


    Nonsense. He's pretending capitalism and absentee landlordism aren't transfer of income from one person to another enforced by the State.
  3. 15 Nov '12 20:11
    A very interesting discussion on the semantics of "welfare state".
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    15 Nov '12 20:16
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    A welfare state transfers income from some people to other people to improve the recipients’ well-being.


    That's what capitalism is. Paying rent is exactly that.

    [quote]He says that nearly 40 percent of these transfers aim to relieve poverty (through Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and the like), while most of the re ...[text shortened]... entee landlordism aren't transfer of income from one person to another enforced by the State.
    I really think your vision is very skewed. The government does not handle the money when you pay rent.

    But ok - so apparently you don't believe in the need for money. How, then, should we transact in society?
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    15 Nov '12 20:18 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I really think your vision is very skewed. The government does not handle the money when you pay rent.

    But ok - so apparently you don't believe in the need for money. How, then, should we transact in society?
    I have no problem with money. What I have a problem with is that the government kicks my butt if I don't pay the rent. I don't care who handles the money.
  6. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    15 Nov '12 20:58 / 7 edits
    Social Security is NOT welfare. It is a retirement plan that every worker pays into their whole working life with money taken out of every check they've ever gotten and will ever get. And It's been in place for around 80 years. And it's had a hugh surplus every year until 2 years ago when the goverment had to start paying back their IOUs from money they just borrowed out of it without interest And now they don't like having to pay it back. And Social security would be doing just fine if it wasn't for the goverment (mostly Republicans starting with Reagan)taking hugh amounts of money out of the fund built up and spending it on their whims.

    The whole article is all bull and lies and his figures are complete nonsense. Do some fact checking with any search engine and you'll clearly see.

    We pay taxes to have our roads blowed during winter and to keep our schools up to date etc etc etc and now they want to call it welfare and handouts and keep the money. Give me a break. He's just another sore loser who didn't want President Obama to win he's second term. Read the comments on the article and you can see most agree with the just of what I'm saying.
  7. 15 Nov '12 21:49
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    Social Security is NOT welfare. It is a retirement plan that every worker pays into their whole working life with money taken out of every check they've ever gotten and will ever get. And It's been in place for around 80 years. And it's had a hugh surplus every year until 2 years ago when the goverment had to start paying back their IOUs from money t ...[text shortened]... He's just another sore loser who didn't want President Obama to win he's second term.
    Social Security is a ponzi scheme period. At the time it was introduced there was no worry that there wouldn't be growth and it would sustain itself and be a source of revenue to steal. Now it has just about run its course and before long a generation will get bit in the butt because of it.
  8. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    15 Nov '12 21:57
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Social Security is a ponzi scheme period. At the time it was introduced there was no worry that there wouldn't be growth and it would sustain itself and be a source of revenue to steal. Now it has just about run its course and before long a generation will get bit in the butt because of it.
    That's nothing but bull. How do you have a ponzi scheme that has a surplus of trillions 78 out of 80 years. And there's still 2.2 trillion left in the social security fund plus the trillions the goverment owes the fund. lol That's a funny sounding ponzi scheme to I. And the money comming into the fund every year still covers 90% of whats paid out. And it will get back to 100% in a decade or two with some minor changes.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Nov '12 22:37
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    A calmer discussion.

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-its-the-welfare-state-stupid/2012/11/11/e392868a-2ab0-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
    There's some decent points there but a lot of it is misleading. It doesn't make much sense to compare the percentage of people receiving federal benefits now (in an economy still recovering from sharp recession caused by a banking crisis) to what it was in 1995. Of course, the number of those receiving benefits increase in a struggling economy; they are supposed to in order to help stabilize the system.

    It's true that FDR's original vision of Social Security was to alleviate elderly poverty and means testing of benefits would be consistent with that vision as well as reduce the cost significantly. I don't favor increasing the retirement age; what good does it do to keep people in a work force that is struggling with high levels of unemployment? And many of those in the 60s, especially men, are still in jobs that require grueling physical labor that they find increasingly difficult to perform as well as the effects of such work at that age increases health problems and related costs.

    As to his point that defense spending would decrease as a share of the economy by 39% in ten years under Obama's long term budget projections, that's not enough in my view.
  10. 15 Nov '12 22:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There's some decent points there but a lot of it is misleading. It doesn't make much sense to compare the percentage of people receiving federal benefits now (in an economy still recovering from sharp recession caused by a banking crisis) to what it was in 1995. Of course, the number of those receiving benefits increase in a struggling economy; they are ...[text shortened]... 9% in ten years under Obama's long term budget projections, that's not enough in my view.
    I disagree with your assessment that working physical jobs into your 60s is a bad thing. I won't offer anecdotal evidence as you generally dismiss it anyway. Working later in life is good for all sorts of things including memory and physical well being. Here's a study
    http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/8/PHR_32_2_Maimaris.pdf
    I only read the introduction (I've got other crap to do) but plan to read the rest later as my father has retired and this seems highly relevant.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Nov '12 22:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    I disagree with your assessment that working physical jobs into your 60s is a bad thing. I won't offer anecdotal evidence as you generally dismiss it anyway. Working later in life is good for all sorts of things including memory and physical well being. Here's a study
    http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/8/PHR_32_2_Maimaris.pdf
    I only read do) but plan to read the rest later as my father has retired and this seems highly relevant.
    You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I made no sweeping statement as to the "badness" of working physical jobs into your 60s; I merely said that it is "bad" for some people and it would be "bad" for them not to retire if they wanted to.

    EDIT: From the abstract of your study, it relates only to the mental health effects of mandatory retirement and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
  12. 15 Nov '12 23:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I made no sweeping statement as to the "badness" of working physical jobs into your 60s; I merely said that it is "bad" for some people and it would be "bad" for them not to retire if they wanted to.

    EDIT: From the abstract of your study, it relates only to the mental health effects of mandatory retirement and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
    Sorry, I misread your post. Certainly people should be able to retire when they want and when they can afford to. I didn't think social security was meant to provide fully for your needs, am I incorrect in that assessment? My understanding was that it was supposed to supplement your own savings to help with bills. Not to beat a dead horse since we aren't disagreeing, but mental health is just as big an issue for seniors as physical health.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Nov '12 23:18
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Sorry, I misread your post. Certainly people should be able to retire when they want and when they can afford to. I didn't think social security was meant to provide fully for your needs, am I incorrect in that assessment? My understanding was that it was supposed to supplement your own savings to help with bills. Not to beat a dead horse since we aren't disagreeing, but mental health is just as big an issue for seniors as physical health.
    FDR envisioned SS as a floor to lift the elderly out of poverty. It has been spectacularly successful in accomplishing that aim; elderly poverty is a fraction of what it was in the 1930s. Limiting the benefits of those with high incomes or large reserves of wealth would not be inconsistent with the original goals of the program though those affected wouldn't like it.

    I don't disagree that mental health issues are important but the study had to do with mandatory retirement ages i.e. forcing people to retire. Thus, it's not relevant to a discussion concerning whether the age at which you can receive SS benefits should be increased.
  14. 16 Nov '12 00:29
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    That's nothing but bull. How do you have a ponzi scheme that has a surplus of trillions 78 out of 80 years. And there's still 2.2 trillion left in the social security fund plus the trillions the goverment owes the fund. lol That's a funny sounding ponzi scheme to I. And the money comming into the fund every year still covers 90% of whats paid out. And it will get back to 100% in a decade or two with some minor changes.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/just-explain-it/why-social-security-running-money-just-explain-133731426.html

    Don't attack the messenger dude. Just saying
  15. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    16 Nov '12 03:05 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/just-explain-it/why-social-security-running-money-just-explain-133731426.html

    Don't attack the messenger dude. Just saying
    Nothing but more right wing lies. Dude.

    http://berkeleygraypanthers.mysite.com/Truth_SS.html

    And another,

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/pensions

    I can go on and on if you wish. But I won't. Goggle "truth about social security"