No I don't support communism or socialism. At the same rate, I don't support Laissez-faire either.

The reality is that many on the bottom rungs of income would not take and invest the extra money they would receive in lieu of Social Security as they need every penny to survive. That would just go in the kitty and they may be behind a little less on bills.

There are hard working people that live on minimum wage and have families to support. Could/should they do better? Probably but someone has to do those jobs too.

I think it is a bit too harsh to say they are stupid or irresponsible with their money but there just isn't enough to go around for many.

Yes the Federal Government is bleeding money but our debt is no where nearly as crushing as other countries. Japan's debt is like 2x its GDP and with all of the mess from this earthquake/tsunami, nuclear disaster...they are going to be way more in debt.

I just don't think that targeting every social program that helps the poor is the only way we can get our financial household back on track.

 

That is what you just can't get your mind around. The people would not have access to the money placed in the account for them, until they reach at least 62 years old. No way to access the account, no excuses to access the account, no manner to access the account. They can't even take a loan out on the account like you can with an IRA/401/TSP. The money is untouchable to them. Touching the money would be forbidden by law until they are 62 years old. The only way to access the money would be to turn 62 years old, period. No other method to access the money would be available. No loans. No withdrawals for first time home buyers. No withdrawals to fund you kids wedding. No withdrawals to fund college. NO ACCESS to the money in any manner at all until they are 62. Can you understand the point now, that the people will not have any access to the money, at all, in any manner, what so ever until they are 62? The only thing they can do is select either social security, or investment. They do not see the money in their paycheck, except as a line showing it was deducted (kind of like social security now). The money is strictly hands off, until they are 62, it is not up to them to set the money aside, it is mandated by law. Accessing the money would be the same difficulty as doing a handstand, picking your nose, your ear, and your butt all at the same time using nothing but your hands. You can't do it. It is impossible. Kind of like accessing the private account in lieu of social security.

 

I won't speak for K-mac but I think hes talking about investing the money people make after taxes and such. Poor people cant afford to set aside money for later in like when they are just scraping by just my guess

 

You might be correct, but that is not what we were talking about. I don't see that as his position though, since he clearly stated in his last post, "...the extra money they would receive in lieu of Social Security..." I read it as "...the extra money they would receive in lieu of <paying> Social Security..."

 

So, you think that because someone didn't do the necessary work to be in a reasonable position to support a family, the tax payers should take up the slack? We don't expect people to take responsibilty of themselves? I personally can't imagine beginning a family when I make minimum wage. Many people do so because they know that thier fellow Americans will be required, by the tax code, to take up the slack. We can certianly extend a helping hand to the people who's circumstances have gone beyond thier control.


No one wants to target every social program. No one. You can say that, and that ALL conservatives just hate poor people, but that doesn't make it true. NO ONE wants to take away the helping hand that our government extends on the tax payers behalf. Some of us just want to make sure that the people who need it are the people who get it, and that the people who have learned to "work" the system start pulling their own weight.

I know that you feel your beliefs are compassionate. In reality, you are an enabler. Compassion is making sure that the people who truely need our help get it, and making sure that the people who can do for themselves know the dignity of doing so.

 

But......I do agree K-Mac, not all social programs need to be "targeted", but..... ALL social programs under the dense category of this current corrupt welfare system DO NEED to be looked at "more carefully".

We need to STOP creating the kind of poverty in which people born, live and die without the experience of holding a job, owning a home, or growing up without a father's love and discipline.

First, apply the process of elimination and focus on restoring the genuine compassion of the hard working American people, (THE TAX PAYERS) and restore recipient's hope, dignity, pride, and integrity of independence.

How? I strongly suggest to completely eliminate those programs that discourages work and reward any form of behavior that creates dependency and keeps recipient powerless.

Secondly, renovate the rest of the programs that actually create independence. When I say independence I'm not referring to the kind of independence that implies people don't need one another but quite the opposite. I'm talking about the kind of independence that creates economic self-sufficiency and opportunity; the independence to dream, pursue and fulfill personal potential.

Impossible for this change to happen overnight; for which reason we need to come together and thoroughly debate what is best for ALL Americans, both recipients and Tax payers.

 

Sorry, every expense item is a target.

We are back to the revenue is down, everything needs to be cut.

If the house does not stop flexing their new authority ( due to regaining control ) and the senate rejecting anything that comes from the house for the same reason, it is going to be time for flat line item cuts.
Every expense item loses 18%, done. Not fair, but it is what is going to have to happen to make things work.

What is going on is the further polarization of the population, so these clowns can do what they want ( we are too busy being at each other to pay attention to what is going on in DC or the state capitols ).

 

Amen! And that's the second time I've said it in 20 seconds.

 

Are you like having fun?

 

I agree we have to cut spending...no doubt. That does need to include welfare and all!

I would love to be able to find a system that really weeds out those that make welfare a lifelong thing. I would love to be able to see the family unit of mom, dad and kids.

Today single moms or unwed parents have grown out of hand. This is a big reason for the failure of our country.

The problem I have with scrapping Social Security is simply that their are a large group that is barely getting by and every penny is important. They cannot afford to set money aside for later in life as they can't meet the needs of today. If you give them the money in hand they have to pay the light bill instead of worrying about 30 years from now.

The concerns I see is that it seems many conservatives want to turn us back to the days of the early 1900's when you either worked or begged and starved. There are people that cannot work and they need help.

On the other hand, I agree there are those that won't work and are lazy useless beings and need a good kick in the ***!

I just don't want to see the system that is supposed to weed out those that don't need help to catch a bunch that do need help.

 

1. Ever thought about are they really & why?

2. What is wrong with working and why is people that don't work and starve so bad?

 

nothing is wrong with work, but there are some people who work full time to support their family but are still scraping by because they make minimum wage. the american dream is a matter of circumstance, but it definetly can be done.

 

Always on this forum!~ You already know that OG!!

 

Minimum wage is for beginners and the lazy. Everyone has to start somewhere and those people typically do not have any skills they can prove so they are paid minimum wage. After a couple years in the job market if they are still making minimum wage, they need to look at what they are doing or not doing. My experience, in several different sectors shows that managers want someone who will come to work every day and work their butts off. Those people receive the rewards for doing a good job. The typical young worker today doesn't want to work but they want the benefits of working. Something has to give so it is their wage.

 

There are jobs that just don't pay well and someone has to do them. Whether they pay minimum wage or a buck or two more, they are struggling to get by.

Low paying jobs are just that. Even if you work your butt off, you may get a boost but no one is going to pay 35-40k for an unarmed security guard at a factory or something.

I recruit for a university and can tell you that there are a lot of people out there that are in their 40s and 50s and have never had a job that paid more than a buck or two more than minimum wage.

You can call them lazy if you want, but many aren't and just don't have skills in better paying jobs. There aren't many trades you can pick up today and make much money at. If you decide to go to college, you are likely to rack up a bunch of debt in hopes of finding a job. It is tough out there for people.