Socialism in the United States

[JackieB]

Here's a question that is perplexing to me. There is a lot of hand-wringing about the pending demise of the U.S. if the election tomorrow goes for the Democrats. I respect that, honestly I do. I think it's terribly insulting to diminish the concerns of people (conservatives) who love their country as much as anyone else and only want to see the Constitution upheld and for Americans to enjoy the freedoms intended by the Founding Fathers.

But the U.S. has been a socialist country for quite a long time already, including during periods when conservatives were in power, yet they appear to me to embrace our current socialist programs as much as anyone. Specifically, I'm referring to Social Security and Medicare.

Right now, about 35% of our entire federal budget goes to fund those two programs. See the pie chart below. And while we do pay to help fund our own retirements (up to 15% for someone who is self-employed), we will likely draw out far, far more than we contribute, including any interest. Many of our retired parents and grandparents have already received far more than they contributed, plus any interest. And the Baby Boomers will truly break the bank.

Shouldn't conservatives have been working all along to entirely dismantle both of these programs and stop collecting any taxes for them? I'm not trying to antagonize, I'm very sincere.

I heard John McCain say that he thought it would be easy to shore up Social Security by simply reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion. But he didn't elaborate. I really wanted to hear how he planned to do that and couldn't find specific details.

This goes to my personal belief that almost all citizens and politicians are in favor of Big Government. It's just a matter of how they define it. I appreciate the concern over the threat of socialism that's coming, but what about the socialism we've already got and have had for a long time?


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg288/JackieB_2008/FederalBudgetPieChart.jpg

[Sundays Man]

The concept of Social Security was not what it is now. You put in, you get out. Simple really. But guess what, big government did get into it and ruined it. Now you can get out whether you put in or not. You can get out even if you aren't a citizen of this country and never put in. I don't think getting something out of a fund you worked all your life and put into is quite the same as taking what I earn now and giving it to someone else. If our concerned govt. officials had actually handled the Social Security system as a fund designed to do just what it was set up for, then we wouldn't have any problems. How stupid would you or I be to invest money for retirement with zero rate of return account, or even a negative rate of return. It's been coming for years and no one has seemed concerned enough about it to fix it.

I'm one of the fortunate ones, in a way. I've put very little into Social Security because I have worked almost all of my adult life in the railroad industry. It's in trouble too, but not as bad as the SS system. It's in trouble because the same people handle the federal railroad retirement fund as the SS system, the government. Way more of my pay went into RR than would have been taken for SS. Had I been offered the option of taking the same amount of money put into RR and investing it on my own, I would have retired long before now.

I as a Repulican have never agreed with Social Security and wasn't around when.....who was it that started it again??....started the whole mess. Just because we have one bad thing does not in my mind justify making it worse by taking more of my danged money to give to someone else, then take my SS and all the other miriad of taxes that every govt leech has their hand out for. You want to disturbute some danged wealth take it from the greeedy politicians who have the control over voting in their own salaries and retirement benefits and give it to those people they are supposed to be serving that are in need. Their retirement funds and high salaries will never be in jepardy as long as we are stupid enough to keep giving it up. I am generous with my material things, and I do give, but I give to whom and when I decide for my own hard earned money and I don't need a dictator TELLING me I must give, HOW MUCH to give and WHEN to give.

So I guess since it has been brought up, I say get rid of Social Security as it stands, find a better way of doing it and get rid of Obama and his crazy ideas too. Ronald Regan said it well, "government isn't the answer to our problems, government IS our problem". And as I said in another post, I miss that ole boy.

[HoustonFarrier]

Trying to take away SSN now, would be akin to taking candy away from a child on Oct 31st.

If we privatized SSN, that would PREVENT government from getting their claws on it. Personally, I never liked the idea of SSN......take care of ones self. Why would any SANE person want the govt to manage their money???

Steve

[JackieB]

The concept of Social Security was not what it is now. You put in, you get out. Simple really. But guess what, big government did get into it and ruined it.

I understand that, Sundays Man. Ideally, both Social Security and Medicare should fund themselves entirely. Just like we try to save for our own retirement living costs and healthcare premiums.

I also know that Social Security came from FDR and Medicare from JBJ. But both of them were president quite awhile ago now.

So, my question is why aren't conservatives, who are ostensibly so strongly in favor of keeping government out of their lives, generally unified in saying that we have to dismantle these programs? The alternative, unanimously agreed upon by virtually anyone who understands the problem, is to raise even more money to fund them by increasing taxes.

I heard John McCain, in a rally here in Michigan, promise a young 20-something man that he would make sure that Social Security would be solvent and flush with money when the young man was ready to retire. To me, that sounds like more socialism, not less.

Again, I'm not trying to antagonize. I'm just expressing what appear to be contradictions in my own mind.

[JackieB]

Trying to take away SSN now, would be akin to taking candy away from a child on Oct 31st.

If we privatized SSN, that would PREVENT government from getting their claws on it. Personally, I never liked the idea of SSN......take care of ones self. Why would any SANE person want the govt to manage their money???

Steve

I understand that, Steve. Really, I do. I've said since I was in my 20's that if the government wanted to just cash me out of Social Security, I'd promise to never take a dime and would fund my own retirement. I've excluded Social Security from those calculations all along anyway because of concern for its solvency.

But why haven't we heard what you and Sundays Man are saying from those who want to lead the country as conservatives? The fingers are pointing at what are perceived as massive social programs coming, but nobody appears to be willing to directly address the massive social programs we've already got.

[HoustonFarrier]

The alternative, unanimously agreed upon by virtually anyone who understands the problem, is to raise even more money to fund them by increasing taxes. .

No sir. George Bush wanted to privatize SSN..where ones money would actually GROW in a money market account, rather than sitting in a non-interest bearing account at the hands of GOVT. The liberal left of the congress/senate killed this idea. Each person would have THEIR OWN ACCOUNT, and managed it themselves, just as we all do with our existing 401K plans. You know, we get yearly "account balance" forms from SSN, saying what we will be "eligible" to get when we retire....well, in the last 11 years I have built up more in my own 401K than I have accrued in 30+ years in SSN.

So...how is SSN going to benefit me ?????

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Honestly, on the idea of socialism, people can argue till they are blue in the face, and they're talking about moving those percentages around by a degree or two.

If the president were a dictator, we could worry. As long as the president is dependent on a congress that is pretty much split 50-50 against him, it's pretty much a guarantee that no president will be able to affect much change either way, merely attempt some pleasing shade of purple. GWB did try to appeal for a major change in SS, and no one even wanted to listen.

[WashingtonBay]

No - IF Obama is able to pass any wider medical coverage entitlement that approaches socialize medicine, then you'd better be prepared for the pie to get a lot bigger, because the other wedges won't get smaller.

[HoustonFarrier]

But why haven't we heard what you and Sundays Man are saying from those who want to lead the country as conservatives?.

Because it would be political suicide for ANYONE, Dem or Rep to mess with SSN....hell, look what it do to GW...... I have nothing to lose by saying what I say. I am not a politician, I am a common sense American.

A politician, by definition, is a liar:p....I cannot tell a lie :innocent:

Steve

[Sundays Man]

Because it would be political suicide for ANYONE, Dem or Rep to mess with SSN....hell, look what it do to GW...... I have nothing to lose by saying what I say. I am not a politician, I am a common sense American.

A politician, by definition, is a liar:p....I cannot tell a lie :innocent:

Steve
Well said Steve.

And WB, just for the record, I don't really think our president is a dictator, yet. I am so glad that our forefathers were smart enough to know we would try to run this thing in the ditch and tried to make it idiot proof (not directed at any one group or person).

I think what GB presented made more sense than anything else that's been offered, ever. Of course the socialist minded didn't like it for a number of reasons and one being they wouldn't have their dirty fingers in it, and some people would have more than others, "and THAT wouldn't be fair". I mean, just because you worked hard and made more money than someone else in your life doesn't mean you should have more when you retire, right?;) I don't know how anyone can get by on SS alone anyway these days.

[Tiz]

"Shouldn't conservatives have been working all along to entirely dismantle both of these programs and stop collecting any taxes for them?"

Jackie, did you hear the answer to your question? Conservatives have worked to privatize these programs. The howling of the Democrats is deafening, and they go about making TV commercials showing George Bush pushing Grandma down a staircase to illustrate their disdain for the idea.

For every wage dollar paid in America, up to 93K plus in earnings, over 15% goes to Medicare and SS. Half is paid by the wage earner, half is paid by the employer. Those two programs should be swimming in funds, but it was used by the knotheads in Congress for their cronies, kickbacks, vote buying and phony projects.
Wake up, voters.

[Tatesgram]

"For every wage dollar paid in America, up to 93K plus in earnings, over 15% goes to Medicare and SS. Half is paid by the wage earner, half is paid by the employer. Those two programs should be swimming in funds, but it was used by the knotheads in Congress for their cronies, kickbacks, vote buying and phony projects.
Wake up, voters.


What Tiz said.:innocent:

[JackieB]

No sir. George Bush wanted to privatize SSN..where ones money would actually GROW in a money market account, rather than sitting in a non-interest bearing account at the hands of GOVT. The liberal left of the congress/senate killed this idea. Each person would have THEIR OWN ACCOUNT, and managed it themselves, just as we all do with our existing 401K plans. You know, we get yearly "account balance" forms from SSN, saying what we will be "eligible" to get when we retire....well, in the last 11 years I have built up more in my own 401K than I have accrued in 30+ years in SSN.

So...how is SSN going to benefit me ?????

Steve

Oh believe me, I completely understand the part about the difference between Social Security and a 401(k). I'm also going to do a lot better with my own savings plan than anything the government has set up for me.

The plan to have taxpayers manage their own 401(k) plans certainly has merit, but there is a key part of that equation that I've never heard uttered - And an individual taxpayer will withdraw exactly what he contributes and earns from his own Social Security account and no more.

The logic of the privatization plan only makes sense if we are willing to allow the Social Security recipients to be subject to market forces just like 401(k) investors. But no high-level politician, conservative or liberal is saying anything like that. The payments are still guaranteed. So, if we had a major collapse like we just did, taxpayers would be on the hook to bail out that debacle just like we are with this one.

[JackieB]

As long as the president is dependent on a congress that is pretty much split 50-50 against him, it's pretty much a guarantee that no president will be able to affect much change either way, merely attempt some pleasing shade of purple.

If no president can affect much change either way, then why are some so genuinely concerned that this election tomorrow could mark the beginning of the end of our great nation? I don't hold that opinion myself (I think the US is much more durable than that), but it would appear that you are suggesting that neither McCain nor Obama would be able to bring about much change.

[JackieB]

[quote=Tiz;29572For every wage dollar paid in America, up to 93K plus in earnings, over 15% goes to Medicare and SS. Half is paid by the wage earner, half is paid by the employer. Those two programs should be swimming in funds, but it was used by the knotheads in Congress for their cronies, kickbacks, vote buying and phony projects.
Wake up, voters.[/quote]

I can certainly accept this, Tiz.

And I completely agree with you, Steve. No politician is willing to take on Social Security and Medicare because it would mean the end of his/her political career.

Our federal government is absolutely way too big and wasteful. But my most carefully-developed opinion is that the Republicans aren't much different than the Democrats when it comes to taking our money and spending it. We've got "fiscal conservatives" screaming about socialism, but they will aggressively defend Social Security and Medicare, and not call for more than tiny tweaks in those programs.

So, if I'm getting Big Government whether I want it or not, I'll look for a platform that I think most closely matches my own values and accept that we are going to have a government that wastes a lot of our money until a third party or something comes along.

[WashingtonBay]

If no president can affect much change either way, then why are some so genuinely concerned that this election tomorrow could mark the beginning of the end of our great nation? I don't hold that opinion myself (I think the US is much more durable than that), but it would appear that you are suggesting that neither McCain nor Obama would be able to bring about much change.

I said they couldn't affect much change on the social security system or other entitlement programs. They're older now, and bigger than any one presidency. Change and differences between them will be marginal, IMHO, since they each have to run it through congress.

National defense and whether we win or lose the WOT, the impact of who is in the presidency can be huge, and that is where my own fears about this election are, really.

[JackieB]

National defense and whether we win or lose the WOT, the impact of who is in the presidency can be huge, and that is where my own fears about this election are, really.

Oh, I understand. Thanks for clarifying.