Paul Ryan Calls Social Security a Welfare Program

[JerryAL]

Paul Ryan Calls Social Security a Welfare Program:


Paul Ryan calls Social Security a welfare program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y3dDotrb_M

[Captain Obvious]

Do you agree with that statement?

[Mainecoons]

Correct. Much of it is, particularly SSI and disability which is being massively abused these days. There is no "trust fund" it is taking money from current contributors and giving it to current recipients.

And like all of your other leftist welfare/entitlement programs it is well on the way to insolvency.

[JerryAL]

Do you agree with that statement?

Nope... Social Security is NOT a welfare system. Social Security refers to the "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)" federal program.

Social Security is an insurance policy against becoming permanently disabled, death, and old age. Paul Ryan himself benefited from the Social Security Survivors Benefits when his father died while he was in high school.

Welfare, on the other hand, means receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need without actually contributing anything in return.

[Captain Obvious]

Nope... Social Security is NOT a welfare system. Social Security refers to the "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)" federal program.

Social Security is an insurance policy against becoming permanently disabled, death, and old age. Paul Ryan himself benefited from the Social Security Survivors Benefits when his father died while he was in high school.

Welfare, on the other hand, means receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need without actually contributing anything in return.

I don't disagree, but how do you feel about the insolvency of the program?

[Mainecoons]

Go look up the word "Ponzi" genius. Also read up on how many people are collecting far more from SS than they ever put into it.

Including me, BTW. If you're one of the payors, thanks very much indeed! :grin:

[Mainecoons]

You, OTOH, will end up being what we call a "bag holder."

:rofl:

[Captain Obvious]

You, OTOH, will end up being what we call a "bag holder."

:rofl:

Yeah, including me. I'm not at all encouraged about the prospect of 15% of my annual wages since day one getting pissed away - and yes, I include the employers portion also. It's part of my overall compensation.

[KC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLTfOAYfbao

If we could just have the option of taking that money and investing it privately instead, that would make a world of difference. Or, if you want the safety, invest in treasury bonds. According to this video, you'll still get a better return on your investment.

[Mainecoons]

Yeah, including me. I'm not at all encouraged about the prospect of 15% of my annual wages since day one getting pissed away - and yes, I include the employers portion also. It's part of my overall compensation.

That last part is exactly right though liberals like to ignore that too. I'm sorry guys like you are getting screwed by yet another failing liberal idea but I enjoy taking their money since their boy ignored and demagogued SS reform even though recommended by his own deficit reduction committee.

SS is just another glaring example of how the liberals are screwing the working man while taking very good care of the crony capitalists and the one percenters.

[ptif219]

Yeah, including me. I'm not at all encouraged about the prospect of 15% of my annual wages since day one getting pissed away - and yes, I include the employers portion also. It's part of my overall compensation.

That is because LBJ and the congress passed a law to use it for their pet programs.

[exotix]

Correct. Much of it is, particularly SSI and disability which is being massively abused these days. There is no "trust fund" it is taking money from current contributors and giving it to current recipients.

And like all of your other leftist welfare/entitlement programs it is well on the way to insolvency.

It's a good thing Ryan and Bush didn't privatize the social security welfare entitlement program ... by the way, why would Wall Street want such a welfare/entitlement program ?

[Chris]

We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

@ Why Social Security is welfare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html)

[hanger4]

It's a good thing Ryan and Bush didn't privatize the social security welfare entitlement program ... by the way, why would Wall Street want such a welfare/entitlement program ?

Neither one could have done it alone if they had wanted to.

But that's cool I know where you're comin' from.

[Captain Obvious]

It's a good thing Ryan and Bush didn't privatize the social security welfare entitlement program ... by the way, why would Wall Street want such a welfare/entitlement program ?

Seriously?

[pjohns]

There is no "trust fund" it is taking money from current contributors and giving it to current recipients.

First, a matter of full disclosure: I receive Social Security Disability; and my wife receives Social Security also (although her amount has been deeply attenuated by the fact that she also receives a VA annuity; it is part of a law against "double dipping").

So I certainly do not favor the abolition of Social Security. But if it is to survive for much longer, it must surely undergo some reform.

Rep. Ryan's 2005 comment, "You don't have an account [in Social Security] with your name on it,"--as things currently stand, anyway--is surely unassailable...

[patrickt]

Nope... Social Security is NOT a welfare system. Social Security refers to the "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)" federal program.

Social Security is an insurance policy against becoming permanently disabled, death, and old age. Paul Ryan himself benefited from the Social Security Survivors Benefits when his father died while he was in high school.

Welfare, on the other hand, means receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need without actually contributing anything in return.

My grandfather drew Social Security and never contributed a cent. My father recouped his lifetime contribution in less than two years. My sister and her husband have contributed more than they are likely to get out and my children are definitely contributing more than they will get out. Of course, some contribute nothing. It's a welfare program and it isn't sustainable.

It's also the most regressive tax we have and liberals love it.

[KC]

My grandfather drew Social Security and never contributed a cent. My father recouped his lifetime contribution in less than two years. My sister and her husband have contributed more than they are likely to get out and my children are definitely contributing more than they will get out. Of course, some contribute nothing. It's a welfare program and it isn't sustainable.

It's also the most regressive tax we have and liberals love it.

Pretty much this. There's no way Social Security will still be around by the time I'm old enough to collect it, so money I make right now as a part time worker going through college is going to a program that I will never benefit from. It's not sustainable and it's not going to work for my generation. It'll help politicians stay in office though, so that's all that matters to them.

[Peter1469]

If a private citizen created a system like social security, they would be thrown in jail- it is a Ponzi scheme.

[patrickt]

It's a good thing Ryan and Bush didn't privatize the social security welfare entitlement program ... by the way, why would Wall Street want such a welfare/entitlement program ?

Really? I never signed up for SS. Instead, I made investments. I didn't have a bunch of politicians stealing my invested money so I did quite well and that and my 401k are what I'm living on now. Why wouldn't Wall Street want my investment money?

Social Security is not an investment program although I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand the difference. Remember Al Gore's joke about a "lock box"? And, there is absolutely no guarantee with Social Security. If we have a Democrat Congress they can take all the money, raise the retirement age for some as high as they want, cut benefits as much as they want, or totally disqualify those they wish. And that 15% now can go to 25% if they want the money. There is nothing guaranteed.

[Jenda]

Aside, from the SSI portion of Social Security, I think that Social Security is different things to different people.

Many people pay in more money than they will ever receive in benefits, so for them it would definitely not be a "welfare" program. On the other end of the scale, there are people like my husband's grandmother who didn't pay in a dime, yet they receive "widow's benefits" after their spouse dies. Like so many people from his generation, after Grandpa retired, he received more benefits than he had ever paid into Social Security. After he passed away, Grandma had no other savings and lived off of "widow's social security" until she died. To me, her SS benefits were a form of welfare.

[Mainecoons]

I am not sure of the exact age point, somewhere around current age of 55, everyone under that age is very likely to have paid in more than they could possibly draw. This is how Ponzi schemes work, the "early ins" profit and the late comers are the bag holders.

The Democrats would rather demagogue this program than fix it for the younger people.

[patrickt]

A friend of mine was married, got divorced, never worked at a paying job, and now she draws Social Security. No one has died but she is excited about the prospect of her ex-husband dying. Besides hating him her Social Security will go up. It is my understanding, from woman on SS, that if you have numerous ex-husbands you only get to use one of them for your SS claim. I know it's horribly unfair but they can't collect on two or three or four ex-husbands.

[truthmatters]

note the dispise of helping others


the jesus party just hates doing the work of jesus

[patrickt]

note the dispise of helping others


the jesus party just hates doing the work of jesus

Cracking up totally? Do you mean the anti-Jesus party is doing the work of the Devil?

I'm not disagreeing but SSI is not exactly a part of Social Security.
It's administered by SS but funded separately. It is a clearly a welfare program funded from the general fund.


What is Supplemental Security Income?http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/blank.gif
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/blank.gif
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/ball71.gif
It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/blank.gif
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/ball71.gif
It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

[truthmatters]

please tell us who the anti jesus party is

[patrickt]

please tell us who the anti jesus party is

As an atheist, I would suggest the party that ignores the Freedom of Religion in Amendment 1 and then lies about it would be a front runner for the title. Who, pray tell, do you think the Jesus party is? Now, take that party and consider the other party in the two-party system?

[JerryAL]

I don't disagree, but how do you feel about the insolvency of the program?

A simple tweak to the current taxable income levels of Social Security would make the program solvent indefinitely. Currently, only the first $106,600 of income is taxed for Social Security.

[patrickt]

A simple tweak to the current taxable income levels of Social Security would make the program solvent indefinitely. Currently, only the first $106,600 of income is taxed for Social Security.

What a surprise! Right now there is a maximum amount you can receive from Social Security. If you raise the amount some are taxed and keep the maximum the same they're getting screwed even worse than now but if you raise the maximum amount you can be paid you are back to the same problem with the system going broke. So, if you're in favor of a "simple tweak" where some people pay so other people can collect, that's definitely a welfare program.

[roadmaster]

If a person has paid into SS all their lives even if it is the spouse, they should receive it. The only problem I have is when illegals come here near the SS age and never had worked or paid in anything and end up receiving what Americans only should get.

[coolwalker]

SS is a welfare program...it was started that way. it serves a purpose and had congress not screwed with it over the years, it would be solvent. Now it has to be repaired.

[head of joaquin]

What a surprise! Right now there is a maximum amount you can receive from Social Security. If you raise the amount some are taxed and keep the maximum the same they're getting screwed even worse than now but if you raise the maximum amount you can be paid you are back to the same problem with the system going broke. So, if you're in favor of a "simple tweak" where some people pay so other people can collect, that's definitely a welfare program.

Oh God, these rightwing memes.

Raise the ceiling so the rich pay their fair share. Problem solved. Place an excise tax on the top brackets capital transactions dedicated to the SS trust fund. Problem solved. Push longterm bond prices up by cutting military spending and ploughing that into market growth. Problem solved.

Even if we do nothing SS is solvent for another 25 years and after that it pays out 80% of scheduled benefits for another half a century. Tea baggers and their koolaid!

[coolwalker]

Oh God, these rightwing memes.

Raise the ceiling so the rich pay their fair share. Problem solved. Place an excise tax on the top brackets capital transactions dedicated to the SS trust fund. Problem solved. Push longterm bond prices up by cutting military spending and ploughing that into market growth. Problem solved.

Even if we do nothing SS is solvent for another 25 years and after that it pays out 80% of scheduled benefits for another half a century. Tea baggers and their koolaid!

Maybe you'd prefer it if all the wealthy just gave you all their money. You are pathetic and twisted with an odd sense of (forced) humor.

[Chris]

note the dispise of helping others


the jesus party just hates doing the work of jesus



patrickt sounds to me like the kind of guy who would personally, voluntarily, responsibly help family, friends, neighbors and others in need.

My guess, matters, is you would help others through irresponsible, coercive, impersonal government redistribution.

[head of joaquin]

Maybe you'd prefer it if all the wealthy just gave you all their money. You are pathetic and twisted with an odd sense of (forced) humor.

It sounds like that to you because you're dissociated from the facts and visit too many rightwing websites.

Meanwhile . . . SS is the most solvent fund on the planet, which the largest corpus funded by the safest security on the planet, T-bills.

You baggers would have invested in pork bellies and would now be on the streets begging for my help.