(June 10, 2011 at 7:21 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: I meant that it will go bankrupt in a few years and I am sorry if I did not clarify myself the first time. Also I think that only military people who have served a certain amount of years and people who are unemployed(though only if the unemployed people can only be on it for at most 3 months).
Sources: Wall Street Journal, general talk.

No..it will not "go bankrupt" in a few years. That is what the right wingers keep screaming. In reality its liquidity will drop to 75%. Meaning that if we do not make corrections to fix its input vs. output descrepency then those who will be expecting payments in 2023 (not sure if that is the exact date) will only get 3 quarters of payment due compared to the inflated currency/projections we have right now.

The senate should stop using the fund as a source of colateral for foreign loans, and dumping the interest rate payments upon the lower tier incomes, and increase taxes by at least 15% on the upper tier incomes. If this was the plan, then this problem would be fixed in less than a decade.

Currently the plan is "how can I get this huge pile of money into the private sector?".. thus the talks of "privatising Social Security". When that happens, expect the obituary section of your local newspaper to be 4 to 6 pages thick everyday for a good year or so.

Capitalism needs a form of welfare support to prevent revolution. Welfare keeps people in their place i.e. at the bottom of the pile but not so desperate as to resort to armed revolt.
The idea that charity is a viable alternative is an idea that only a right-wing capitalist could come up with. Charity gives rise to the " deserving " and " undeserving " poor. The benefactors will pride themselves on doing good deeds...but only for those who will touch the forelock and be ever so grateful for the crumbs the rich deem they are worthy of. It also leaves the door open for religion to open its doors to grant relief....provided you will give thanks to the almighty for what you receive. Universal welfare for those who need it, funded by a progressive tax system i.e. the rich should be paying a lot more than they do now, is the better option.

(June 10, 2011 at 7:21 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: I meant that it will go bankrupt in a few years and I am sorry if I did not clarify myself the first time. Also I think that only military people who have served a certain amount of years and people who are unemployed(though only if the unemployed people can only be on it for at most 3 months).
Sources: Wall Street Journal, general talk.

Were you merely chit-chatting on the economy or did you actually want to make a point?

(February 18, 2011 at 8:27 am)Tiberius Wrote: Governments are there to uphold laws, and protect the rights of the people. They are not there to interfere with the economy and give out money to people. If there should be any welfare program, it should be run by a private charity, to ensure that the red tape of bureaucracy stays as far out of the picture as possible. Too many welfare programs waste money and don't close loopholes because they think they have a neverending supply of cash from the government; this attitude isn't prevalent in the private sector.

Thats really paring down what government does to less than the minimum.
Governments since the pharoahs have supplied food to the population even rome supplied bread to the masses.

Talking about loopholes lets close all the tax loopholes so we can afford a better welfare system.

Can I say how pleased I am at the current polling position on this matter? 81% for!

I think we should give welfare only to people who have served in the military a certain number of years, and really disabled people.

(June 12, 2011 at 8:41 am)Atheist Jew Wrote: I think we should give welfare only to people who have served in the military a certain number of years, and really disabled people.

I think your opinion on this topic is skewed and lacking of a factual basis. Suggesting that welfare should only be available for those in the military is one of the many factors that Fascism is created upon. Very much so, Fascism feeds nationality with their small social programs. Therefore, if you are not in good with the local corporatists (whom the fascists work closely with) and are unable to eat or survive, then you need to join in on the war effort.

Of course, to be fair, the Nazi brand of Fascism was not as kind as you wish to be to the elderly, suggesting them to be a drain on society. Italian Fascism, under El Duce, took better care of its elderly and refused to have a strong antisemetic consciousness in their propaganda machine.

(June 12, 2011 at 6:15 am)bozo Wrote: Can I say how pleased I am at the current polling position on this matter? 81% for!

I just cracked open a beer in celebration of such a great turnout on this poll, considering it has been open for a few months now and OVERWHELMINGLY in support of it.

Of course, the poll is specifically meant to be generalized. I am sure if it were to come down to particulars then the results would be far more varied.

(June 12, 2011 at 8:41 am)Atheist Jew Wrote: I think we should give welfare only to people who have served in the military a certain number of years, and really disabled people.

Why? The first is probably a domestic terrorist, and the second will likely never be of typical working capability.

(June 12, 2011 at 8:41 am)Atheist Jew Wrote: I think we should give welfare only to people who have served in the military a certain number of years, and really disabled people.

You are joking?.......aren't you?

And six month unemployment benefits. I just believe that Social Security basically gives you back the amount of money you put in, right(for the time being)? So if we do away with it then people will have their cash on hand and it will be cheaper for the tax-payers since we won't have to deal with people who game the system.