Isn't it time to abolish Social Security?

1) Social Security is a financially insolvent system analogous to illegal pyramid schemes and will eventually go broke.





2) Social Security is the anathema of freedom and liberty and forces citizens to "participate" against their will.





3) Social Security is an immoral form of slavery that makes people chattel of the Federal Government and other people.





4) Social Security is a form of legalized theft by the Federal Government of the money earned by private citizens.





5) Social Security usurps the founding principles America as founded on, which would include individuals being responsible for their livelihood %26amp; providing for their own retirement.





6) Social Security is symbolic of the sorts tyranny the founding fathers fought against.





7) Social Security is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.





8) Social Security consumes nearly one-fourth of the entire Federal Budget (23%) alone and is the largest federal program in existence.

Isn't it time to abolish Social Security?
reform and not abolishment is needed. Our President has the right idea on letting a person say where this money goes. there are too many restrictions on people with their own money. Also don't forget that employers pay into the fund equally as the employee does. All money invested in a persons future should be controlled by that person and not the Government , but, there should be no choice on the investment. People with just not invest for their future and then the Government will be held responsible to support these people later on in life. Let me have my money when I want it and as much as I want, not a age dated system that holds my money and only gives it to me when they say I need it. National 410K plan would be a good start.
Reply:I challenge any Republican congressman to even dare talk about eliminating social security. They'll find themselves out of work pretty soon.





"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."


~President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Reply:THOSE are your opinions,THAT are not shared by all americans.
Reply:It's time to abolish politicians being able to dip into social security for funds without ever replacing them. That is the problem you buffoon.
Reply:Marxist ... I generally agree. However:


• #7 is an extremely broad statement.


• #8 - Is it that much? Perhaps.





But getting back to your question, yes ... Social Security IS in big trouble and so are some other large entitlement programs.





There are books written on these topics by people more qualified than we are. My thought is that Social Security will be doomed in the decades ahead. BUT, without it, America will be doomed, too.





I say this because there's a fine line between the everlasting struggle to survive and the decision to provoke unrest. I mean that if the numbers of hopelessly poor grow too far, riots may be inevitable. Social Security provides little comfort, but at present, it makes the difference between starving and barely getting by, for some people. At the same time, its effectiveness will rapidly decline, thus my reason for agreeing that Social Security should be killed. But it must be replaced by something better.





I think the simplest solution is this: Mandatory contributions to your Roth IRA. Why mandatory? Because no matter what we do, there will always be some people who just won't make the decision to save. They either think there's no need to save, or perhaps it's somewhat difficult for them to save, or they think some government entity will always be there to bail them out.





As a closing comment, I just wanted to mention that Social Security is a TAX, not a mandatory government savings program. I think that YOU know that, Marxist, but some others may not. I'm not going to accept any arguments to the contrary either. The easiest and best way to prove that Social Security is a tax is this: If someone dies at age 55, let's say, after paying tens of thousands (or possibly more than $100,000) into Social Security for his/her entire working life, what part of ALL that money goes to his heirs?





The answer: $255, period! Let me make sure someone doesn't misunderstand; that says "Two hundred, fifty-five dollars." See the link below.





Someone's going to ask, "Well, what happened to all the rest of the money he payed?" Yes, that's my point. While they keep track of what someone has payed, the amount contributed is not saved (and certainly not invested either) in YOUR name. In fact, while some of your present payments go to current benefit recipients, much is also lent to other government needs, thereby making many government programs indebted to the Social Security Administration. Yes, I guess some people may not understand what it means for the government's right hand to be borrowing from its left hand. But the simple fact is that a deceased contributor's heirs get just $255 ... Because the money wasn't be saved for YOU; it's being passed along to CURRENT Social Security beneficiaries.





So, as you said, we can stick with this well-meaning but busted system, OR we can begin to make a change. Almost ANY change would be better than Social Security. But, you know what? I think that from a political point of view, trying to change Social Security is a non-starter. The people who need it most are probably going to vote against it. And the spineless politicians are going to do EXACTLY what their constituents tell them to do: Leave Social Security alone until it either dies a miserable death ... or it nearly brings down the country, along with the other overly generous entitlement programs we have.





Face it, America ... There will always be poor. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic; I'm merely stating a fact. If you want to eliminate all poverty and make everyone equals, that's easy too: just adopt a North Korean-style dictatorship and then EVERYONE would be equal ... well, except for their Dear Leader, as he's called, his cronies, and the military. Yes, THEN you'd have "equality" and forced distribution of wealth, except under those circumstances, no one wants to do anything except praise their Dear Leader ... cause if you don't, you die.





Good question, Marxist.





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





Jackie makes a good point, but it's still a legalized pyramid scheme. Marxist's #1 point is absolutely correct.
Reply:Isn't it nice to make up things as you go--without basing your claims on any solid facts or evidence?





From what I garnered, I'm sure that history was never one of your strong suits either.
Reply:Yes...it is about time grandma and grandpa started pulling their own weight.
Reply:Good luck with that. Why don't you go tell that to the senior citizens. Don't fall when you are running away from the angry mob though, as they may beat you with their canes and walkers.
Reply:The President tried to fix it a few years ago and the Democrats demonized and poisoned the whole debate trying to prevent the president from having a win on anything. Progress will never happen until all the Democrats are chased out of Washington
Reply:what its time to do is to elminate all the liberal infected pork and return it to what it was designed to do. it was a retirement supplement NOT to cover mental illness and a plethora of other liberal causes. Its also time to shed some light on the BONEHEADED decision of al gore to tax it, and additionally its time to enroll the government employees in it. viola, problem solved.
Reply:Social security is only in trouble because the government has been borrowing from it to pay other things and giving it to illegals. It should only be used as it was intended, for those over 65 and widows with young children.
Reply:Yes, however this will never happen.


1) The government would lose a major income.


2) The government would lose a control over us.


3) Neolibs will demonize anyone who mentions doing this.





Why it would work to get rid of Social security:


1) It has been shown if you are required to put just 3% of your gross pay into an IRA, you will have three times as much a month when you retire at 60 than if you stay with SS and retire at 67.


2) With an IRA you can leave the extra money to family when you die


3) It would take away an incentive to Illegal aliens if the option of SS is not available to them(which it shouldn't be in the first place)


4) With an IRA you could put more than the 3% in, and retire earlyer if you so choose.


5) The government couldn't tell you how much money you can make after you retire. So if you want to earn extra money for travel or whatever you would be free to do that.


6) It would releve the burden on the beurocracy to manage the failed and not working Social security system.





I would never condone taking away the Social Security from exsisting recipients, and we all would still have to contribute 2% for the next 20 years to help them along. But 5% total is alot better than 15% with a crappy return.
Reply:It;s time to abolish illegal aliens who get social security.