Why is social security considered by many a wonderful social program, but all others are a scurge on society?

Is it because all people get social security, no matter how wealthy? If the middle-class, upper-class and wealthy are getting benefit from a social program, then is that benefit "deserved" and mysteriously considered a social program they "have rights to", that can't be taken away? Are social programs really about who "deserves" it, or who "needs" it?

Why is social security considered by many a wonderful social program, but all others are a scurge on society?
I have found many people who are against the social security program, particularly people in their 20's and 30's. However I think your question is a good one. People tend to say social programs are not a good thing for them or the country. They point to the former Soviet Socialist Republic (Russia) and then comment "Look what happened there" . But the Soviet Union was not socialist. It was communist. Unfortunately most people do not understand that welfare has been revamped and you cannot be on it for years and years (Case in point is the gentleman from Boston who commented above me.) Congress has been raiding the social security funds for decades. There was enough money in the coffers for the elderly and infirm .....until the government decided to spend the money on military actions in Iraq where there were NO weapons of mass destruction in the first place. We spend relatively little on social programs in comparison to other programs. But people do not look at the whole picture and intelligently evaluate social programs. Social programs provide temporary assistance to people in times of need. And as far as Wica is concerned, should we let children stave because of the mistakes their parent(s) have made? Obviously, some people seem to think we should.
Reply:I think pcheesw's answer is best, but there are some good ones. Your point above is exactly why senior policy analysts (such as AARP) don't favor phasing out benefits for upper income people - if you make it a poverty/lower middle class program, benefits will be cut %26amp; there will be stigma.





Yah, I think you are right. I also think it is hard to scam social security based on your job record. However, you can scam disability or welfare etc, and people REALLY hate it that some scammers get thru. So I see a lot of people in yahoo answers going on about disability scammers, too. The fact is, it is really hard to get disability no matter how injured/sick you are!





I knew a couple moms on welfare who went to college %26amp; got their degrees due to gov't programs %26amp; then got good jobs. Else, they would still be waitresses.





Just some thoughts.
Reply:social security started after the depression, i believe, to help those who lost so much so there is no stigma --despite the fact that the working poor are contributing to it and it does benefit upper classes.





other programs are offered to single mothers - their stigma started in the 70s, esp with newt gingrich. he claimed women on welfare had kids in order to get more money -this was totally unfounded and did not contain an ounce of truth in how women actually ended up with more kids.





welfare contributed to the breakup of families b/c it was geared towards single women.





these programs DO NOT help ppl GET OUT of poverty --that is a fact that many ppl miss-- they often just maintain their impoverished condition.





we had bad programs that did not lift ppl out of poverty, unfortunately, the poor ppl were the ones to suffer from the stigma (despite the fact that middle and upper class ppl get tax cuts and other govt benefits)





it's much easier to blame the victim than to fix the system
Reply:It went from a useful safety net to being a program the legislature could "borrow" money from, which has led to it's insolubility as a continuing, self financing program, which we've been trying to get our legislature and president to save for some time now. By the way, the net return on our money is abysmal. I'm all for privatizing the system, so all of us who have a way's to go before retirement can actually get a lot more money. It should be funded by general revenues in the meantime.
Reply:Well... there are a coupole of reasons. One is the fact that no two people have the same number. Originally the number was not to be used for identification purposes and there are still cards out there printed to that efgfect. However, now it is used by everyone from law enforcement to social services to the poor to even a second from of identification to get a job. Now that numberin many instances are not only used for tracking purposes but also for research on poeple from various law enforcement and military agencies. Even many numbers (employee numbers of various corporations, shelter identification numbers, etc) use these numbers to both recieve money form the government, tracking, and identification varification.





Also; as many big systems, there is the p[ossibility for abuse. For example, as a homeless person myself I know many who get a disability check that do not need it-- mostly for mental maladies. They will trun araound and work under the table. Also, since much of it is based on what you have made before the rich at retirement age will naturally get more than the worker who has done hard manual labor all of his/ her life.





I hope this helped you a bit.
Reply:Social Security was not meant as a means of retirement. The original system was a "safety net" for those who had fallen through the cracks.





Now, the system is the only means of support for those who truly need it--disabled and elderly who had no way of supporting themselves after their husbands passed.





However, the system is set up for all who qualify. There's a cap on how much you can draw if you have a retirement fund, pension or other means of income. If the Boomers properly planned their retirement, they wouldn't need to use Social Security as a means of income.





More people are living longer and more people are retiring, putting an unplanned strain on the system. Fewer workers means more financial burden on the rest of us.





For the rest of social programs, the few bad apples really spoil the image and scope of the programs. WIC (women, infant and children), Food Stamp Program, Welfare are all meant to be short-term assistance. Some grew up on welfare and continue to draw. These programs are easily abused and those who abuse it are "scum" in the eyes of the majority.





Done right, social programs are good programs set up for the right reasons. If not done right, the programs are a drain on society and a certain stigma is attached.