quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Burn down the entire system then burn the ashes. all payments and all taxes for these programs end, right now.

You got ripped off by the people you voted for? I'm not shocked and I don't care. I fundamentally disagree with the system to begin with. I've been an anarcho-capitalist since I was a teen and I view all governments as fundamentally evil.

there's your solution, brain trust.

Critiquing the system is easy. Proposing a replacement that accounts for existing contributions is the hard part—and that’s the part I’m asking about. Einstein

What do you replace a fire with, Archimedes?

Replace the system? Easy, put all of the money into child tax credits. We need more children raised by tax payers.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:


Actually comrade Fender is suggesting confiscating all monies "invested" in social security for the good of all.

If you're going to put words in my mouth I recommend you not be so naïve as to assume social security was any sort of "investment" and should see it as protection, like the mob.

To end the transfer of money to the elderly the US should prepare a "Release" form where true believers could sign, in the presence of a Notary, away any and all social security, medicare and all future health insurance benefits of all kinds. Have the brave true believer boomers end the transfer of money by personally forfeiting any benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Social security is welfare.

You paid a tax, in the past, for the promise of welfare.

Show me what dictionary you used where the definition of receiving welfare is you have to first pay into it.

Part of the property tax I PAY is for fire services and if my house ever experiences a fire, I expect the firemen with their equipment working to put out the fire. Getting the firemen to put out the fire on my house is NOT welfare. I paid into social security and the pay out is spelled out on some schedule. Never mind that the payout is less than if I had not paid the tax and invested on my own. I paid into it and getting back what the schedule says is NOT welfare.

I thought you wanted to get away from blaming people and here you are calling people who get their social security benefits welfare recipients. And, btw, I’m not taking social security yet so I’m not taking it personally.

Rey, I see where you are coming from, and I understand your point.

Government can only provide a service at a cost greater than private - you pay for a fire service, a postal service, and a military service (well, fire is a local service but we will continue). We give these responsibilities to the government, and well as the monopoly on international violence in the form of a military, as it is necessary to functioning nation.

For profit mail would probably do a better and cheaper job, but might not service the entire US as it is uneconomical. The military would be far more efficient if it was privately run, but at the risk of instability and Roman-like crisis, so we empower the government to have that monopoly.

But those are services. Transfer payments, whether we paid in the past or not, are completely different. The government made promises, but the fundamental promise that a government makes is to ensure that life, liberty and happiness of the people are protected. By being insolvent, by spending more than we take in, that impacts our national security and viability as a nation for all.

It is welfare; that is not to demean in any way those that paid taxes in the past and are now seeking to receive what they were promised.

The US deficit was $1.7 trillion in 2025, with Social Security costing $1.6 trillion. That means that every dollar of just that program could foreseeably have been borrowed - that is the issue.

I have no problems adjusting Social Security to the exact amount received each year in SS taxes - but no more.

My reason for wanting it gone is because all money given to congress is abused. The longer you let congress control any portion of it, the longer you get screwed. There is only one way to stop them from screwing you, take it away from them. I’m 54 and I would get hosed giving it up. Chances are they will be upside down roughly 20 minutes before I retire so I’m not planning on seeing a dime of it in retirement. I never have. I don’t know what the correct answer is, but I will not place my faith in the words of my elected officials.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
https://americanmind.org/salvo...er-luxury-communism/

It's hard to take that partisan article seriously with all of "the right" and other single sided partisan descriptors. It wasn't an economic analysis either but instead was cherry picking of random unrelated facts. I can't believe that crap article garnered a 3 page thread.

We're not in this situation because of total boomer luxury communism. We're in this situation because of the collective apathy of voting age Americans. Social security has a myriad of flaws and is the called the 3rd rail of politics for a reason. Both parties got us in this situation but the real blame lies with the American voter who 90% of the time re-elects incumbents despite Congress going multiple decades in a row with an approval rating below 50%. Hell, only ~20% of registered voters show up for congressional primary voting and that is when voters have the biggest influence in their chosen political party. Dan Crenshaw (i.e. McStain Jr) is my representative, and he's turned out to be a disappointing swamp creature but let's look at the voting age Americans in this Congressional District:

477,000 total voters and it's ~65% republican so ~310,000 Republicans eligible to vote in the primary

Only 67,861 voted which is a 21.9% Republican voter turnout (i.e. 78.1% were so apathetic they stayed home)

40,379 said Congress sucks but Crenshaw isn't the problem (i.e. 13% of eligible Republican voters)

8.9% both show up and realize that both Congress and Crenshaw suck

The collective apathy of voting age Americans will insure that:

500+ out of 535 Congressional Critters will be assclowns who'd be in the breadline if it weren't for their jellyfish like spines being a perfect fit for politics

the SS can is kicked down the road until there is no can left to kick.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Social security is welfare.

You paid a tax, in the past, for the promise of welfare.

Show me what dictionary you used where the definition of receiving welfare is you have to first pay into it.

Part of the property tax I PAY is for fire services and if my house ever experiences a fire, I expect the firemen with their equipment working to put out the fire. Getting the firemen to put out the fire on my house is NOT welfare. I paid into social security and the pay out is spelled out on some schedule. Never mind that the payout is less than if I had not paid the tax and invested on my own. I paid into it and getting back what the schedule says is NOT welfare.

I thought you wanted to get away from blaming people and here you are calling people who get their social security benefits welfare recipients. And, btw, I’m not taking social security yet so I’m not taking it personally.

Rey, I see where you are coming from, and I understand your point.

Government can only provide a service at a cost greater than private - you pay for a fire service, a postal service, and a military service (well, fire is a local service but we will continue). We give these responsibilities to the government, and well as the monopoly on international violence in the form of a military, as it is necessary to functioning nation.

For profit mail would probably do a better and cheaper job, but might not service the entire US as it is uneconomical. The military would be far more efficient if it was privately run, but at the risk of instability and Roman-like crisis, so we empower the government to have that monopoly.

But those are services. Transfer payments, whether we paid in the past or not, are completely different. The government made promises, but the fundamental promise that a government makes is to ensure that life, liberty and happiness of the people are protected. By being insolvent, by spending more than we take in, that impacts our national security and viability as a nation for all.

It is welfare; that is not to demean in any way those that paid taxes in the past and are now seeking to receive what they were promised.

The US deficit was $1.7 trillion in 2025, with Social Security costing $1.6 trillion. That means that every dollar of just that program could foreseeably have been borrowed - that is the issue.

I have no problems adjusting Social Security to the exact amount received each year in SS taxes - but no more.

You say you see where I'm coming from and you understand my point. But I don't see you either conceding or supporting your assertion that Social Security is welfare.

Your first sentence - government can only provide a service at a cost greater than private. Okay, and that's exactly what Social Security is - people who are receiving Social Security benefits are getting less than the value of what they put in.

You say, "But those are services. Transfer payments, whether we paid in the past or not are completely different." Different how? When money is exchanged, there's no difference in the form of what you get in exchange for that money; that's a basic economic reality - there's no difference between a service you receive, a product you get, or some monetary value. In the end, whatever you get provides a function or utility.

You also say "whether we paid in the past or not are completely different." On what basis? I give you - someone I don't know or have any affinity - $100 today, you better give me something in return and if the understanding is I get something tomorrow, then I better get something tomorrow. If I don't give you anything at all today and you give me $5 tomorrow, I have no right to be entitled to that $5. There's no contractual obligation. So, yes, it does matter whether I paid in the past. The former is based on a contractual obligation between the two of us and the latter is pure benevolence that depends on you as to whether you give me anything.

Again, where's your argument that supports your assertion that Social Security is welfare? Words have meaning and meanings are important. Otherwise, you end up with people spouting nonsense like an OB GYN unable to answer yes or no when asked, "can men get pregnant?" If it's important to understand the definition of what a man is, it's equally important to understand the definition of what welfare is.

Welfare.

Straight from the SSA.gov = https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html

M-W definition: WELFARE: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

Oxford definition: WELFARE: practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it

Some people have paid more into SS than they will ever receive, some have paid less, but it is a form of welfare.

It’s aid, financial payments, made for the welfare (the faring well!) of a group.

Going back to the rest of what you said, a service does not equal a transfer payment. Government cannot generate money, it can only use my tax dollars to pay employees to perform a service… or give my money to someone else. That’s it, and they are not the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Welfare.

Straight from the SSA.gov = https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html

M-W definition: WELFARE: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

Oxford definition: WELFARE: practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it

Some people have paid more into SS than they will ever receive, some have paid less, but it is a form of welfare.

It’s aid, financial payments, made for the welfare (the faring well!) of a group.

Going back to the rest of what you said, a service does not equal a transfer payment. Government cannot generate money, it can only use my tax dollars to pay employees to perform a service… or give my money to someone else. That’s it, and they are not the same thing.

1) you can see that link goes to an archived document and it actually doesn’t define the welfare that you’re talking about.


2) There’s a difference between the kind of welfare program you’re talking about and “social welfare” in general.

“Social welfare refers to organized public and private efforts, policies, and programs (like food assistance, housing aid, healthcare, Social Security, education) aimed at promoting the well-being, basic needs, and common good of individuals and communities, especially disadvantaged groups, by providing income support, services, and opportunities for civic betterment. It encompasses government benefits, social work, charities, and efforts to improve society's overall health, security, and quality of life, addressing issues from poverty and disability to social justice and community development.” Link

3. The Social Security program isn’t a welfare program but is a social insurance program under the general umbrella of social welfare programs.

4. The Miriam-Webster definition - aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need - which is the definition I have in mind and which, you obviously had in mind, else you wouldn’t have cited it contradicts your idea that social security is welfare. Do you not know why it contradicts your assertion? Because there are people - rich people - for whom their social security is a mere pittance but they still get it. Social security benefits are not based on whether you need it; they are based on your contributions. If you didn’t put enough into social security and it’s below a threshold, you go into the Supplemental Security Income which IS welfare. That’s the needs based program.

Here’s a link to a current .gov pdf explaining the difference between social security which is an entitlement program based on your contributions and supplemental security income program which IS welfare.

Social Security versus Supplemental Security Income.

Supplemental Security Income IS welfare; Social Security is not welfare according to the Merriam Webster definition you cited and according to the government document that I cited.

Do you concede that Social Security is not welfare? Because if you continue to have the wrong understanding of what Social Security is, whatever solution you come up with is not going to work because you’re misunderstanding the nature of the problem you’re trying to solve.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Welfare.

Straight from the SSA.gov = https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html

M-W definition: WELFARE: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

Oxford definition: WELFARE: practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it

Some people have paid more into SS than they will ever receive, some have paid less, but it is a form of welfare.

It’s aid, financial payments, made for the welfare (the faring well!) of a group.

Going back to the rest of what you said, a service does not equal a transfer payment. Government cannot generate money, it can only use my tax dollars to pay employees to perform a service… or give my money to someone else. That’s it, and they are not the same thing.

you do more twisting than Chubby Checker. It is not welfare. it is a contract.

Social security is not welfare then.

It is a transfer payment.

You paid something in the form of taxes, that was given to others in the past.

Today, you expect others to give you their taxes.

The government has no money - only other taxpayers to extract funds from, to “pay” you. Better?

quote:

Originally posted by abnmacv:
To end the transfer of money to the elderly the US should prepare a "Release" form where true believers could sign, in the presence of a Notary, away any and all social security, medicare and all future health insurance benefits of all kinds. Have the brave true believer boomers end the transfer of money by personally forfeiting any benefits.

Understand this, no one under 50 expects to see a penny of social security. ask ANY young person you know. of course the system will be insolvent in 2033 so that's 7 short years away.

Reloder you are being incredibly obtuse. You are also wringing every bit out of semantics that you possibly can. The common use of the word welfare and how you are applying it are worlds apart. If I give my neighbor something because he needs one and I have two then we are engaging in welfare, private welfare, but welfare in your oddly specific world.

No. There is nuance involved in language and you are ignoring that.

Welfare has always been applied to handouts to needy persons without a single dollar extracted from them. SS has always been workers pay in and at a certain age they get some small portion back. It’s not a complex idea. How the govt fucked that up is a different matter.

Calling SS and EBT, Sect 8, etc the same is incorrect and insulting to workers. Workers being the key differentiator.

You are also ignoring Bush trying to privatize SS so each worker could get his fair share. If it was traditional welfare that concept would be impossible to even attempt. It was possible because you put money in with the govt’s assurance that you will get $$$ back. Please enlighten us on any similarities between that and actual welfare. We will wait for all your examples.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
I’ve paid into Social Security for nearly six decades, with my employers matching those contributions. If someone believes that makes me a “communist,” they’re welcome to propose a refund—with interest—of everything paid in.

Short of that, this isn’t an ideological debate; it’s a contractual one.

In one sense, that's true. It's considered the "social contract", between generations.

But as others point out, there's no true contract. By definition, it's a tax. You have no legal claim to benefits. One Congress does not bind the actions of a future Congress, which can reduce the benefits.

The idea of a "social contract" between generations has frayed because, over time, more and more "benefits" are paid by fewer and fewer workers to support them. In that sense, it is a Ponzi scheme.

The biggest problem isn't actually the old people who have paid into it for 50 years. The biggest problem is how easy they have made it in recent years for young people to be declared "disabled", often with a mental illness (read: drug use), who have never paid into the system but will collect for 50+ years.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
It’s a hit piece to demonize boomers. The cherry picking the $120,000 without explanation and the property tax breaks for seniors prevents young people from buying houses made it clear in the first few minutes. For the record, I’m Gen X and my parents are/were Silent Gen.

And yes, Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.

I'm Gen-X too and I agree. It’s a hit piece to demonize boomers.

But at some point our children are going to repudiate the debt, which they did not create.
At that point, everything crashes. Civil society will have to begin anew, not based on ever expanding debt.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The biggest problem isn't actually the old people who have paid into it for 50 years. The biggest problem is how easy they have made it in recent years for young people to be declared "disabled", often with a mental illness (read: drug use), who have never paid into the system but will collect for 50+ years.

I agree. Social Security has grown far beyond its original role as retirement income.

If reform is the goal, privatization and individual ownership should be on the table. But reform has to start with accountability. I’m retiring at 70 next month, and there’s virtually no chance I’ll receive more than what I and my employers paid in.

Labeling Social Security as “communism” isn’t a solution. Dealing honestly with decades of mandatory contributions is.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
No one is blaming anyone.

The US is insolvent. Burn all my Social Security taxes collected, heck collect them until I turn 65 if needed - I don’t care.

We have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare/Whatevercare, period.

This isn’t an old vs young issue, it’s a US national security and survival issue.

You know, I might be okay with that if we took a fire axe to all the fraud and graft in the budget as well.

Yes, the national debt is far and away the largest threat to our national security and sovereignty. Yes, we need to attack the problem, but politicians on both side of the aisle lack the political will. Most voters likely lack the stomach for the cuts needed. Attempting to just "fix" social security by killing it without addressing all the other issues will not only be political suicide, but won't solve the problem all by itself anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Social security is not welfare then.

The government has no money - only other taxpayers to extract funds from, to “pay” you. Better?

Great! You, at least, see where you’re wrong on one point - that social security is not welfare.

You’re going to need to realize you’re also wrong on a second point - that you think the government has no money. Not only has the government money, it has all the money it wants and if there’s not enough money, the government simply makes more money. That’s why some people call it fiat money.

You may think you’re sacrificing some sacred cows in your proposals but you’re not. You’re simply butchering basic understanding of the facts and the result is a mangled understanding of the problem. And if you have a mangled understanding of the problem, your solutions aren’t going to solve anything.

All the hated "boomers" will be gone in your lifetime (said to you- that know who you are).

Then comes a day, you will take your place on the dais of the "we younger than you, hate you and want you dead so we can have ours" majority.

Hate saying it, because I have been fighting the "dark side" all of my life.

But today, I state: "Have it. Have it all, and revel in it.
And remember, when that day kicks you full in the face, you wanted it."

There was a time, when I was in my teens, that I believed I was "owed" something.
That foolish and selfish mindset evaporated rapidly when I found myself facing the world alone and at a defining moment, and realizing I had only my determination to figure out how to make my way, and work within the confines of the world. I was 16, and I never looked back. I would not choose to change any of it.

I made all my choices along the way, several I would rather have made differently, but I own every one. With very few exceptions, things that others have done since that point, that resulted in heartbreak or anguish, I permitted for what I believed were the proper reasons, and those too, I own. Though they were bitter moments, I still believe they were the right things at the time, and accept them.

I am content. And I will continue on this path.
Life is good. The monkey abides.