Saturday, October 2, 2010

Social Security for the rich?

What do you think of denying Social Security monthly payments to people who have more than a certain amount of money to retire on ( say 2 million?)?

z

133 comments:

beamish said...

The cap's too high.

Social Security monthly payments should be discontinued altogether, regardless of income level.

Well, maybe a nice letter saying "Ha! Get a job you bum" to make the don't-rely-on-government lesson stick.

Always On Watch said...

$2 million doesn't necessarily go very far.

Also, are we talking $2 million in assets or $2 million in cash?

Here's a thought....Should we discontinue government retirement monies for those with $2 million?

Just a few quick thoughts before the yard sale begins here at my house today.

Gramma 2 Many said...

If they are denied benefits, will they also be excused from paying in?
If they pay they are eligible. Simple. To me this seems like another way to redistribute wealth, especially if the person pays in
It needs to be privatized. Each person needs to have the right to invest the way he sees fit. Does not invest, no money in the end. It is to simplistic though.

JINGOIST said...

The amount of money doesn't even really matter. To DENY wealthy people their Social Security checks because they already have the "means" to take care of themselves is plain old THEFT!

The problem is Social Security itself. Social Security CANNOT be "means tested" into solvency.

As we all know, it's a Ponzi Scheme.

So what are we actually looking at?

1. The government is operating the BIGGEST Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

2. Like all Ponzi schemes this one is guaranteed to fail because it's top heavy.

3. UNLIKE other Ponzi schemes this one has the force of "law" behind it: not morality and righteousness, but LAW.

4. In this case the law is tyrannical because it represents DIRECT theft from everyone paying into Social Security who is under the age of 50 years old. Those 50 years old and under who are paying into SS have no chance--ZERO--of collecting SS benefits when they retire.

We have victmized two entire generations of taxpayers who have had ENORMOUS sums of money taken from their check--by force--ostensibly for their retirement.

This is the stuff that revolutions are made of.

The perpetrators of this crime don't care, most of them are dead and gone. The remaining kleptocrats will need high electrified fences, and good security.

Speedy G said...

Social Security may have been "sold" as retirement "insurance", but it is a tax. And as a tax, you should either implement it uniformly, or you eliminate it entirely.

It's NOT the governments "Constitutional" job to redistribute wealth. It's long PAST the time they got OUT of that unConstitutional business.

LASunsett said...

//Social Security monthly payments should be discontinued altogether, regardless of income level.//

I have paid into SSA all of my life and planned accordingly. I also have some other plans to include a pension from work and a Roth. When I calculated this responsibly, I knew that SS alone would not be sufficient but would be a part of that calculation.

To take that away from me now, as I inch closer to retirement would not be right. For a younger person like you, you now know that SS is not going to be a reliable option, and thus it would be foolish to count on it at any level. But to take it away from those who have been into this for a lifetime is downright wrong and callous.

Z said...

I know people who are worth WAAAY more than $2 million and I'm positive they get their check every month.
That's wrong.

Brooke said...

Leave people their own money to invest.

Social security was originally set to be PAST the average life expectancy.

Z said...

Brooke, from what I see about Americans these days, their voting choices, etc., there is no way most of them could manage their money, and then we have a huge mess on our hands with people who're retired and have ZILCH. Guess who'd have to pay for them then, especially with the attitude we've taught at least two of the recent generations

Craig and Heather said...

Social Security's a bad idea all around, regardless of how rich a person is.

H

Z said...

Heather, it's a bad idea that can't be overturned, however. We have kids indoctrinated to believing the state OWES them, whether they even worked and paid into it or NOT, you know that.
I'm thinking about how many older people will be literally on the street because they counted on their SS check they've paid into all these years and now there isn't anything......it was silly to rely on that as they aged and finally retired, but let's face it, that's what people were indoctrinated into believing would be their saving grace!

So, tell me, folks:

If it's bust in 10 years, or if we decide to shut down Social Security, do you think Americans TODAY are really going to save for their retirements? And how, especially in this economy, when so many don't even have jobs?

LASunsett said...

It's a bad idea that can be resolved by attrition, not by cutting off people who have paid into it. If it was a pure entitlement that hadn't been paid into, I'd say fine, shut it off. But this is not the case.

I find it particularly disturbing at the amount of young people that say cut it off, right now, as if there had been no investment by the people who are receiving it or soon to be.

Bad idea, yes.

Phase it out, yes.

Cut it off abruptly and inhumanely, no.

Craig and Heather said...

I understand what you're saying, Z, and agree with you. What we have is not a happy thing and appears to be one of those "you've made your bed...now sleep in it", everyone loses situations.

Government-as-god (acting as provider, conscience, teacher and comfort in times of trouble) is always a bad plan.

I do have a tremendous amount of sympathy for those who have made the mistake of trusting in govt. security but are now facing harsh reality.


If it's bust in 10 years, or if we decide to shut down Social Security, do you think Americans TODAY are really going to save for their retirements? And how, especially in this economy, when so many don't even have jobs?

With the steady devaluation of the American dollar, I don't see that individual retirement accounts are going to be much of an alternative.

It would be ideal if individuals recognized the need to invest in sharing what we currently have with our neighbors and communities today. It might make all the difference in whether or not we survive our disaster of a government tomorrow.

H

Mustang said...

I don’t know how you can have a conversation about social security … about alternative methods for saving for the future, in this particular environment. What American, now being forced to pay into social security, will agree to private investment when the government is doing all it can to destroy private investment? Please also remember that the average high school graduate in this country is a moron. And when the moron gets to age 70 and has nothing saved for his or her dotage, you will hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth for a kinder, more humane solution (do-over) for the problem de jour.

I think there are viable alternatives to social security, but not without extreme measures to indoctrinate people how to invest for their future. I say extreme because … just look at the number of young people who have decided NOT to enroll in employee provided health insurance programs. Young people never see themselves “at risk.” By the time the light bulb comes on, they are approaching 40 years of age and it may be too late, even then. Finally, as real wages continue to drop, don’t expect workers to give much thought to investing “disposable income.” Those iPad are just too tempting.

FrogBurger said...

It's called theft

The Vegas Art Guy said...

I already know I won't get any SS money and I'm 43. Hell I knew that when I was in HS. Anyone whose synapses fire properly could see that it was a zero sum game. If you're under 50 and thinking you're going to get any SS you're crazy.

Z said...

My pals who blog here are the best; (of course, if BEST means THEY AGREE WITH ME AND ADD TO MY KNOWLEDGE, TOO!) THanks, everyone.

I think my generation was the last to even make a minimal attempt to read and understand the constitution...and we BARELY got it in public school and I'm in my fifties (shhh!) Sure, in university, there are courses where you study it in depth, but I'm talking like Mustang is of AMERICANS IN GENERAL and I fear MOST ARE MORONS...on most subjects, but especially something like American history, the constitution and social security.

I often wonder, as I do Crossword Puzzles, who will do them in ten years? There are questions about Broadway plays, for example, I KNOW the next generation hasn't been exposed to. Will the puzzles be punk terms, environmental terms, liberal terms?
Sure, I suppose subjects of puzzles morph as the years go by, but wouldn't you think a question regarding HAMLET, for example, hasn't changed since crossword puzzles were invented? Who'll know a question about HAMLET who graduated from an American high school without straight A's or a particular interest in SHakespeare...anybody?
Will the JEOPARDY TV show have to dumb down the 'answers'? Will Pat Sayjak be told "I'll take a duhhhh, Pat!"? but, I digress!

We're dumbed down; heck, we're all dumb enough to pay into something some of us won't get back, right!?
Imagine if there was a coup and MOST Americans said they're not paying into SS and they're NOT going pay their income tax next year? Think that might get somebody's attention?

beamish said...

I find it particularly disturbing at the amount of young people that say cut it off, right now, as if there had been no investment by the people who are receiving it or soon to be.

CUT IT OFF!

Go knock on FDR's tomb for my money. He promised it to you, I didn't.

The government forces you, forces all of us, to make this bad investment.

The government needs to end Social Security, and send everyone a letter, worded in the most cruel terms possible, that the government will no longer confiscate a portion of working people's incomes to subsidize non-productive societal liabilities.

Maybe riff a little section in the letter on how it was arrogantly stupid for the SSI recipient to have expected the scam to pay off, and maybe a guide and recipe book on which bugs found under rocks are edible.

I don't care. The "Greatest Generation" and the "Baby Boomers" can go get a damn job like everyone else.

LASunsett said...

//Go knock on FDR's tomb for my money. He promised it to you, I didn't.//

Yeah well when you were sucking your thumb and pissing in your diapers, someone my age was working their asses off to make this country work top feed your snotty ass, and they were taking money out of our checks for SS.

No wonder you have anger management issues at work. No wonder you can't get along with others. You get the respect you show and by that statement alone, you have shown that you have very little.

//The "Greatest Generation" and the "Baby Boomers" can go get a damn job like everyone else.//

I have one and have had one for longer than you have been alive. I probably make more in one day than you do in a week. So don't condescend to me.

Craig and Heather said...

I've often wondered where we got the idea that someone who is perfectly capable and may have a good 20 years left isn't obligated to continue to work anymore.

To my knowledge, "retirement" a relatively new concept in our country.

H

Craig and Heather said...

LASunsett,

I'm of the "cut it off" mentality but my perspective is set squarely on my opposition to dependence on govt to play nurse-maid to the population.

My guess is that most readers here are, to a degree, anti-socialism, but is not Social Security a socialistic program?

How can we say out of one side of our mouths that socialism is bad for America while out of the other we say it's okay to maintain (even for a short time) certain programs such as govt funded education, medicare and retirement plans--because we've paid into the system and deserve to benefit from them?

I'm seriously wondering about this apparent inconsistency.

H

MK said...

Those who contributed to it should not be cut off, no matter how rich they are now.

Otherwise you're just screwing over those who worked hard for those who didn't. Which ought to get democrats really excited.

Z said...

I see LA's points...and Heather makes good ones, too..

MK's right...you don't screw those who paid in...

beamish said...

Go knock on FDR's tomb for my money. He promised it to you, I didn't.

Yeah well when you were sucking your thumb and pissing in your diapers, someone my age was working their asses off to make this country work top feed your snotty ass, and they were taking money out of our checks for SS.

That would be my parents, and they raised me not to rely on handouts.

No wonder you have anger management issues at work. No wonder you can't get along with others. You get the respect you show and by that statement alone, you have shown that you have very little.

Despite my antipathy for stupid people, I get along with most idiots just fine. My issues at work are bucking against collective punishment for the whole department. In the course of a week, EVERYONE got a written warning in their personnel file over an operations manager screwed up, right after a offer of extra bonuses for a certain number of overtime hours worked that's valid only if there are no write-ups in your file. Things like that. The "bonus" dangled is hence nullified. I'm waiting for the rest of the class to catch on. They can spend the extra time generating opportunities for the employer to screw them over while I'm working my schedule and enjoying my off days.

//The "Greatest Generation" and the "Baby Boomers" can go get a damn job like everyone else.

I have one and have had one for longer than you have been alive. I probably make more in one day than you do in a week. So don't condescend to me

I've had a job since I was 16, save for a stretch of 14 months through most of last year and part of this year where I became unemployed, lost my home, and lived in my car for a few weeks.

You're doing well, and that's good.

So, why is it you need my pay to subsidize your social security again, exactly?

LASunsett said...

Heather,

You and Beamish are not wrong in your assessments of SS and the value it provides. And as you have read in my countless arguments with others here, I am am far from a socialist.

My argument comes from the fact that you cannot expect people who paid into the system for an entire lifetime, certainly not for as long as I have, to cut them off like some inhumane and unfeeling person would. I have some other plans in play, but it would not be enough to maintain life support systems and I haven't the time to get other things into play to replace the instant loss of SS.

Plus....there are 70 and 80 year olds that have no other form of income. These are they who helped free the world from a madman way back before most of us were born. I have paid MORE than my fair share into the program so that those people could live. If they are cut off, they will all die off.

Do we want to exacerbate the dying off of our old people? Would you want your parents or grandparents living with you in your house telling you every last thing you aren't doing right? Because that would be the only two options left, if we cut off people as Beamish is suggesting.

LASunsett said...

//That would be my parents, and they raised me not to rely on handouts. //

That's nice. So did mine long before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.. I am equally sure they didn't raise you to be an unfeeling nasty snert with no empathy towards people who merely disagree with you.

Besides that, what part of my argument do you not understand? I have stated it plainly twice now. go back and read the it again and if you have specific questions, i will be happy to entertain them.

I agree with 95% of what you believe as it applies to politics and most forms of culture. I do not expect you to agree with me, all of the time. But you don't have to be an asshole about it.

beamish said...

...you don't screw those who paid in...

No, you screw people paying in for those getting payed out. That's how the scam works.

I've already done the math, and adjusted for inflation.

A Baby Boomer who made the average per capita personal income per year every year from 1966 to 2008 when he could "retire" early and paid in the maximums allowed by law put something like $250,000 (adjusted for inflation) into the system. It's doubtful someone of "average per capita personal income" paid in the maximums, but regardless of income, the maximum collected from anyone for their Social Security over 42 years falls in the $250,000 range.

Show me an average income retiree that is going to live the rest of their average natural lives, from retirement at 62 until their average lifespan of 79 years, 17 years on $250,000 that drops in value every year.

Stop perpetuating this bullshit scam with a "I'm gonna get mine out of it" mentality. You're not. It's gone. Done spent. It ain't there.

Get a damn job.

Craig and Heather said...

LASunsett,

Your argument isn't lost on me. I understand that those who have paid in have been expecting to get something back. But where is that money coming from today?

Younger wage earners incomes are being taxed so that there will be adequate funding, no? So then they are paying in and ought to be able to expect compensation later, should they not? Where does it end?

Do we want to exacerbate the dying off of our old people? Would you want your parents or grandparents living with you in your house telling you every last thing you aren't doing right? Because that would be the only two options left, if we cut off people as Beamish is suggesting.

Of course I don't believe in treating older people inhumanely. But again, if the output is not cut off, where are we getting the funding to continue making payments? And are those payments even large enough to make a difference without additional govt program support?

Perhaps I'm an oddity, but my parents and my husband's parents invested heavily in building relationships with their children when we were younger. We live fairly close to both families and have never had issues with "meddling".

Not all families can say the same, I guess, but we already are of the opinion that if our parents need something back from us, we owe it to them. And we'd much prefer they ask us before turning to the govt for any help they may need.

H

beamish said...

Besides that, what part of my argument do you not understand? I have stated it plainly twice now. go back and read the it again and if you have specific questions, i will be happy to entertain them.

You want a grave error to be painless. I do not. This isn't Theseus' fabled ship where we replace broken planks until whole ship is both brand new and the same ship. We're certainly not going to do it at sea while treading water and running bucket brigades up and down the decks.

Social Security was, is, and will continue to be a bad idea perpetuated by the Keynesian paradigm of "someone else will pay for it."

Someone else is here. Me. "Generation X" where X = "Sorry Grandpa, you need to stop talking about earning your keep and start doing it."

LASunsett said...

//where are we getting the funding to continue making payments? And are those payments even large enough to make a difference without additional govt program support?
//

How about cutting off welfare and other programs for people who are young and healthy enough to go out and get a job but will not? Long story short, problem solved.

You don't take the insensitive route by forcing old people to go find a job, like Beamish is doing. It's asinine and not realistic at best, at worst it shows a lack of deep moral character that i find utterly deplorable and completely disrespectful.

But don't you guys worry about me....I have a chronic illness that will likely kill me in the next 10-15 years at best, 5-10 at worst. And it's a good thing too. Because I am not sure I want to live in a world where most of the people feel it's necessary to make 70-80 year old people die, while working their fingers to the bone after they have carried the load for decades.

JINGOIST said...

LA Sunset:
"That's nice. So did mine long before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.. I am equally sure they didn't raise you to be an unfeeling nasty snert with no empathy towards people who merely disagree with you."

Don't be too nasty LAS. No matter how you cut it, Beamish is fed up with the INJUSTICE of a program that is 100% guaranteed to screw him over. Ya, he can be a bit "abrupt" but you cannot acuse him of being off base with this one. He's right.

If you want to be mad with someone, be mad at the asswipes who perpetrated this crime against the American people. Not with the people who are railing against the OBVIOUS injustice that they face.

I'd be willing to compromise and faze the theft out over the course of two or three years to get people used to the loss of "income."

Anything beyond that is just plain intolerable. I think Beamish is my age (late 40's)? Speaking for myself, I'd be willing to let the theft go if THEY'D ONLY STOP STEALING MY MONEY ASAP!!!!!

As someone who values my God-given rights and freedoms, I recognize redistributionist theft, and I refuse to blame the victims of that theft when they want it to STOP! I just got out of the shower after a long day of work, and I carefully examined my back in the mirrors.....You know what was missing?

A saddle.
I wasn't born and raised to be ridden like a jackass.

Try directing your anger at the perpetrators of the SS crime, not it's victims

JINGOIST said...

faze = PHASE :-)

Craig and Heather said...

How about cutting off welfare and other programs for people who are young and healthy enough to go out and get a job but will not? Long story short, problem solved.

I'd be happy to see welfare get dumped.

Can't say I entirely align with Beamish's ideas. I expect we will always be taxed in ways that are not "fair". As I said, it's not the money that bothers me so much, but the perpetuation of dependence on govt "assistance".

There should be help available for those who are elderly or chronically ill. But family aid ought to be the first option. If not family, then local community.

The fact that we don't have this sort of commitment to each other as individual citizens is a sad commentary on the state of our society.

H

LASunsett said...

//"Sorry Grandpa, you need to stop talking about earning your keep and start doing it.//

This grandpa is earning his keep and has paid his way, long before you were ever born.

You say you have worked since you were 16? Well good for you. I am sure proud of you. But that does not mean we all should bow down to you for doing what millions of people have done long before you, like you are something special. Many of them avoided bullets and bombs to give you that opportunity and you think you are something special? You aren't.

One thing I do know, you wouldn't say half the stuff to my face as you do behind the safety and sanctity of your home PC.

You can have the last word if you like, because I won't waste anymore time trying to reason with an angry puke who thinks everything is about him and what he thinks is right. In that respect, you are no different than Ducky.

LASunsett said...

//Don't be too nasty LAS. No matter how you cut it, Beamish is fed up with the INJUSTICE of a program that is 100% guaranteed to screw him over. Ya, he can be a bit "abrupt" but you cannot acuse him of being off base with this one. //

As we all are. It's a no win situation.... until you find a viable solution that is not going to cause more harm than good.

But the most of the rest of us do not jump down other people's throats and think they can be assholes about an honest difference of opinion.

I wasn;t singling anyone out when I made my opinion known earlier, but he thought it was all about him and thought he could intimidate me like he does Ducky. Well it ain't happening.

I treat people with the same respect they show me. You get what you give. I don;t care that he disagrees with me, i really don't. But I will not stand idly by and allow some know-it-all who knows nothing about me and thinks he can talk shit from behind his keyboard and not be called on it.

LASunsett said...

Heather,

It can be done, but it must be done by attrition or you will cause more problems than what you will solve.

JINGOIST said...

C & H:
"The fact that we don't have this sort of commitment to each other as individual citizens is a sad commentary on the state of our society."

We still do have that commitment to each other. Americans are BY FAR the most generous and charitable people in the world. This is best done PRIVATELY so that hard-working, young taxpayers aren't being RAPED anymore by their own government.

If you've been irresponsible enough, or truly unfortunate, in your life that you rely on help to retire, that "help" should come from private sources. Rather than using the government to STEAL from younger people who have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of ever recovering that money.

There is a CHASMIC moral difference between private sector "help", and government theft.

Craig and Heather said...

Jingoist: We still do have that commitment to each other.

I'd so like to believe this about the average American citizen. In the area where I live, it is actually a pretty common thing, still. If it is more widespread, I do wonder why there is such resistance to shutting down SS. Shouldn't we be able to expect family, friends and neighbors to help fill in the gaps until things settle down?



LASunsett: I don't think we have much difference of opinion on the SS issue, other than where the line gets drawn.




Thanks for the stimulating discussion, guys.

LASunsett said...

//"If you've been irresponsible enough, or truly unfortunate, in your life that you rely on help to retire, that "help" should come from private sources. Rather than using the government to STEAL from younger people who have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of ever recovering that money."//

There is nothing in your statement that I can find to be untrue. But you must also understand that there must be a responsible way to do it without leaving people who bought into the lie out in the cold, with nothing. Attrition is the only way to go.

If I were in your shoes at your age and they would have said let's cut off SS, and you would have been the one a few years out of retirement, and had expected some amount of return on your years of paying in, I would have said fine. Give Jingoist what he has paid into it and I would have started making plans to go it alone. Jingoist has worked hard his entire life and paid a lot of money into the system, he at least serves to get some of it back, since it was taken without his consent and he may not have had the means to plan for a supplement.

My mother is going to be 80. I have not begrudged paying into the system so that she gets hers. But also know that I did plan for SS to not be the sole source of my income after retirement. I was smart enough to see this scenario playing out a long time ago. But there were others who did not have the ability to do so.

Joe said...

Z: "I'm positive they get their check every month.
That's wrong."

Why? Was it not their money that the government took from them when they were working? Was that not an impedement that they had to compensate for every payday in order to have the money they have now?

I HATE Social Security. But the government took my money from every paycheck for my entire working life...over 50 years.

Regardless of my current station in life, should I now be required to, in effect, pay that money back by not receiving what was contracted with me to receive just because I worked hard and earned a lot?

The dissolution of SS is going to be necessary, but it must be done with long term education about how to plan for a future without it. And it must be done in such a way as not to penalize anyone in the process.

Z said...

Joe, yes, I have someone in my family worth more than all of us here have probably made in our whole lives about 10 times, maybe more, so, yes, not by LAW necessarily, but by conscience? Yup.... I think getting a social security check is a bit overboard for that person.
Actually, I should ask that person about this, too! :-)

beamish said...

How about cutting off welfare and other programs for people who are young and healthy enough to go out and get a job but will not? Long story short, problem solved.

I'm with you. Cut out all social spending programs for all spoiled brats, whether they have gray hair or not.


You don't take the insensitive route by forcing old people to go find a job, like Beamish is doing. It's asinine and not realistic at best, at worst it shows a lack of deep moral character that i find utterly deplorable and completely disrespectful.

I'm wondering just how insensitive and disrespectful you find it to be that people in 1935 created a debt liability for people that would be born in 1970 are compelled to cover.

After all, it's woefully obvious you didn't pay enough into Social Security if you need anything more from me than a "sorry they hosed you, sucker."


You say you have worked since you were 16? Well good for you. I am sure proud of you. But that does not mean we all should bow down to you for doing what millions of people have done long before you, like you are something special. Many of them avoided bullets and bombs to give you that opportunity and you think you are something special? You aren't.

Never said I was special. I'm merely unsympathetic to the "necessary evil" emotional argument of those suffering from Keynesian Entitlement Syndrome, where bad investments should magically pay off anyway at my expense. I should be screwed because you don't deserve to be screwed? Screw you.


One thing I do know, you wouldn't say half the stuff to my face as you do behind the safety and sanctity of your home PC.

Because when your leftism-tinged "I deserve it" mentality runs out of gas, you'll resort to violence?

Where do you live, Grandpa?

You can have the last word if you like, because I won't waste anymore time trying to reason with an angry puke who thinks everything is about him and what he thinks is right. In that respect, you are no different than Ducky.

You tried to reason? Where?

beamish said...

But the most of the rest of us do not jump down other people's throats and think they can be assholes about an honest difference of opinion.

I'm only being an asshole about being told my entire life that "something needs to be done about the coming Social Security default" and nothing being done about it because doing what needs to be done going to hurt someone like you.

I wasn;t singling anyone out when I made my opinion known earlier, but he thought it was all about him and thought he could intimidate me like he does Ducky. Well it ain't happening.

On the contrary, it is about me. The money you forked into Social Security has already been spent. You're in my pocket now.

I treat people with the same respect they show me. You get what you give. I don;t care that he disagrees with me, i really don't. But I will not stand idly by and allow some know-it-all who knows nothing about me and thinks he can talk shit from behind his keyboard and not be called on it.

Wal-Mart's hiring door greeters.

Craig and Heather said...

I'm still trying to reconcile the logic in a right wing view that states:

Socialism is evil and its the leftists who are responsible for pushing it and destroying our country.

Govt welfare programs are funded by way of theft-by-taxation. (Stealing is wrong).

Even though I think the system ought to be eventually dismantled, I'm hoping to get back some of what was stolen from me even if it means others will continue to be stolen from...


If those on "the right" who openly admit SS is wrong are not willing to stop making use of a faulty, unsupportable and dishonest system, are we not just as guilty as "the left" in helping to sink the ship?

Assuming SS is govt approved theft, I have to ask how many convicted thieves are told its okay to gradually phase out their habit of stealing until they find an honest way to support themselves?


We can't just redefine "wrong" to suit individual preference.

H

Mustang said...

This discussion emphasizes the following: (1) there are no easy solutions to complex problems; (2) we should always worry when government announces a solution to a social problem; (3) this country has never been “united,” and (4) we are all motivated by self interest. There is nothing illogical in anything Beamish or Heather wrote —it is the rather their disrespectful tone that leads us to snarkophilia. I just invented that word.

Government did not allow citizens to opt out of social security. Thus, among those who paid into social security, they are entitled to get something from it. But social security is more than a supplemental retirement annuity; it also involves payments to widows, disability payments, unemployment benefits, temporary assistance for needy families, Medicare, grants to states for medical assistance programs, state health insurance for children, and supplemental income to blind or otherwise disabled persons. The program has been modified ten times, expanding benefits in each case. I don’t know how much each of these programs cost, but I do know that Congress has used the Social Security Act as an easily accessible (non-legislative) fund and regularly raided it. After all, we are talking about Congress.

Now if the government wanted to cancel social security, they could do that by simply returning the amount of money collected from the people. Personally, I don’t think we are ready for that yet … for reasons I indicated previously. We haven’t fixed this problem exactly for the same reasons as demonstrated here: when we (as citizens) cannot even have a civil discussion, then I suppose all that is left is for legislators to decide for us.

Craig and Heather said...

There is nothing illogical in anything Beamish or Heather wrote —it is the rather their disrespectful tone that leads us to snarkophilia. I just invented that word.

I'm not sure who I insulted, but I apologize if my comments have been understood to be disrespectful.

The issue is complex, no question. And I understand that those who have paid in have had no choice.
I'm just wondering about the ethics involved in accepting payments from a system that is acknowledged by an individual as being unethical...especially when the money that is being received had to be taken from someone else.

Where do we draw the line?

Mustang said...

Heather:

Let's assume you paid into Social Security for 45 years. You hated doing that, but you had no choice.

Are you telling me that you would refuse to accept your social security check every month because you regard the system as unethical?

LASunsett said...

//Where do you live, Grandpa?//

Indianapolis. Let me know next time you are in town.

LASunsett said...

//On the contrary, it is about me. The money you forked into Social Security has already been spent. You're in my pocket now.//

Bullshit. I am still working and probably making much more than you. And if my health holds up, I will be working for quite awhile. I don't need you. What kind of delusion are you running in that volatile angry head of yours anyway?

If anyone should be angry, it should be me. I have paid far more into the federal government than you ever have in your short lifetime, I have served my country in the Army. Have you?

Get off of the soapbox and grow up.

beamish said...

Where do you live, Grandpa?

Indianapolis. Let me know next time you are in town.

Sure thing, Gramps. Be sure to have my beer money waiting in your wallet.

LASunsett said...

//I'm only being an asshole about being told my entire life that "something needs to be done about the coming Social Security default" and nothing being done about it because doing what needs to be done going to hurt someone like you. //

I think you are an asshole for far more than this. Basically, you are a bully. But you don't intimidate me. So I think that bothers you a little, no?

Like I said earlier and pretty much by your own admission, you have an anger problem. Doesn't matter what it's about. The fact remains is, you have it. Go get some counseling, before you shoot your mouth off to the wrong person someday and get yourself hurt.

I like you Beamish, you are smart and witty sometimes... and I have laughed my ass off at some things you have said. But you really need to find a way to channel this stuff into something more productive than being an ass on the blogs.

beamish said...

On the contrary, it is about me. The money you forked into Social Security has already been spent. You're in my pocket now.

Bullshit. I am still working and probably making much more than you. And if my health holds up, I will be working for quite awhile. I don't need you. What kind of delusion are you running in that volatile angry head of yours anyway?

My bad, you're not in my pocket yet. But you're counting on it. And those pennies from your 25 cents an hour job back in the good ol' days you kicked in every week have already been spent before you even thought about retiring. You're not going to retire on your Social Security pay ins. You're going to retire on what I and others continue to pay in. Thanks for helping out "the system" when the burden wasn't a 3 worker to one retiree ratio. You deserve an imitation gold star made in China.

You don't deserve to perpetuate a mistake at my expense.

If anyone should be angry, it should be me. I have paid far more into the federal government than you ever have in your short lifetime, I have served my country in the Army. Have you?

I'm pretty sure when you were off earning your military credentials with Jimmy Carter and John Kerry and Howard Zinn and Gomer Pyle and Sgt. Rock and Easy Company, your impressive service to God and country was done entirely on the civilian taxpayer's dime. Maybe you were independent of government largesse and carved your own rifle out of a bar of soap. Who knows. Sorry it didn't pay well.

Get off of the soapbox and grow up.

Stop crying that our government ripped you off. Stop relying on government to rip me off to placate your hyper-exaggerated sense of entitlement and panicking that you deserve money back that you and your generation allowed government to waste away thinking the unborn would come along later to save you like Superman.

If you think my generation doesn't have tears for you, check out the generation my generation is raising.

We're telling you to grow up.

They're going to gas you.

Craig and Heather said...

Are you telling me that you would refuse to accept your social security check every month because you regard the system as unethical?

Hi Mustang,

Can I first clarify that I'm not angry about this, nor am I accusing anyone here of deliberate dishonesty? I know people who collect SS and don't sit in judgment over their souls for it.

I do not take the hard stance that some do concerning taxation as stealing and I will readily acknowledge that there are many socialistic programs that have been implemented in our society that are considered acceptable by those on the right as long as they are viewed as beneficial.

That said,I personally struggle to avoid double standards in my own life. We don't have a choice concerning taxation to support our local public schools, but we don't make use of them, because of our belief that it is not the state's job to raise our children. If I were to hold to the view that social security taxation is leftist theft, it is not likely I could accept SS payment for the sake of a clear conscience.

You don't have a clue who I am, so I don't expect you to believe me. But I honestly don't think I could live with myself if I tried to ignore for the sake of money my conviction about something being wrong.

As it is, my perspective is that social security is a really, really bad idea, because it encourages citizens to place their trust in flawed human government. I'm not trying to condemn anyone here...just asking how others deal with the matter of conscience.

H

The Vegas Art Guy said...

LA, wait until Ducky shows up. Beamish is just getting warmed up. But tell me this... Am I wrong in my assumption that I won't get jack squat from SS? I'm no math wizard but even I can see this train wreck coming from here in the desert.

Anonymous said...

Z, I assume when you say if you're "worth" 2 million, you mean if your income is 2 million.

However, do we want the government to decide what rich is? Right now it seems to be $250,000. In a small town in the south, that may be rich, but, in a big metropolis or LA suberb, it isn't.

For Mr. Pris and I, we don't come close to $250,000 in income, but because we stayed in the same home in a nice area, we're "worth" a lot more than our income. We'd like to leave that to our children, not the government.

Having said that, I hate class warfare. We'll never be rich, but I have nothing against those who are. If they had less, we wouldn't gain anything, nor would anyone else. Envy is envy, and that's all it is (btw, I don't mean you Z).

We did what we had to do, to save, and to be as independent as possible, and to try to insure that we wouldn't be a burden on our children.

Having done that, now, we can contribute to our grandson's college tuition (he, btw, had a part time job and was laid off), and beg our son to take a little help from us, because the company he worked for was foreclosed upon, and he's out of a job, and with health issues on top of that.

He has worked since he was sixteen also, and worked his way through college. Mr. Pris has been working from the age of thirteen.

So, we all have our issues or stories, but the idea I'm trying to get across is, we're all struggling with one thing or another. No man is an island.

Beamish, I had hoped the generation gap thing had gone the way of the hippies and flower children.

The greatest generation was a little before me. Mr. Pris and I are "tweeners". Between the GG and the BB.

I understand your gripe. However, I think you're young enough to lay out your future however is necessary to prepare for it with the knowledge you now have, and God knows you're smart enough.

I agree that SS should be phased out. Mr. Pris paid the maximum for years. Don't you think we know if we could have invested that money we would have done much better?

Mr. Pris lost 1/3rd of his retirement due to Clinton's defense cutbacks in the mid nineties.

He was hired back within a couple months as a "casual", but without a "bridge" to his former retirement qualifications. He worked for his company for over 40 years, but the point system was based on a continuous full employment until 62 years old, regardless of years employed en toto.

He quit at the age of 66. Then, and only then, did we apply for SS. We pay income taxes on part of that btw. We still also pay for medicare, which is deducted from our SS.

Sometimes, Beamish, we have to swallow hard, and accept the reality we deal with every day, regardless of what it is.

And sometimes it isn't fair. That's life. It isn't fair. We all do what we can. We can have a chip on our shoulder or not. It's up to us.

If we dwell on our misfortunes we lose, but I know it can be tough.
Hold on to your hat, because whatever we're facing ahead, I think it'll be tougher, and this will look like child's play.

Pris

beamish said...

Like I said earlier and pretty much by your own admission, you have an anger problem. Doesn't matter what it's about. The fact remains is, you have it. Go get some counseling, before you shoot your mouth off to the wrong person someday and get yourself hurt.

I don't have an anger problem. I have a distinct intolerance for abysmal stupidity, a trait that comes in two flavors - those that recommend "counseling" for those who hurt feelings by pointing out the obvious, and those that hate the obvious so much that they compound their complacency with their own stupidity by threatening violence upon those who point it out.

When you're done lathering your monitor with spittle, go put some money back for beer when I come to Indianapolis to collect.

Z said...

Pris, I picked two million as an amount, and I meant in the bank after being retired, not earning that kind of money..... and am sorry I did...mostly, I"m talking about people like that guy you know I'm related to...who sure as hell doesn't need social security but I'll bet that check comes every month. I don't care HOW much he put into it, he can have it if he wants, but I find it disgusting if he takes it. Yes, he paid in and I'm not saying he CAN'T have it....
I'm talking morally.

beamish said...

Sometimes, Beamish, we have to swallow hard, and accept the reality we deal with every day, regardless of what it is.

And sometimes it isn't fair. That's life. It isn't fair. We all do what we can. We can have a chip on our shoulder or not. It's up to us.

If we dwell on our misfortunes we lose, but I know it can be tough.
Hold on to your hat, because whatever we're facing ahead, I think it'll be tougher, and this will look like child's play.


Agreed, Pris.

We're heading for a repeat of "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary disease costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too!"

It only took the Nazis five years after taking over the health care system to begin the cost-cutting Action T4 euthanasia program that expanded into the Holocaust.

Ask your doctor if Zyklon-B is right for you.

Z said...

Mustang, I have to admit that were I in a position financially, I would not take SS.

LASunsett said...

//and those that hate the obvious so much that they compound their complacency with their own stupidity by threatening violence upon those who point it out.//

Where?

beamish said...

and those that hate the obvious so much that they compound their complacency with their own stupidity by threatening violence upon those who point it out.

Where?

Oh, irony. Playing dumb eh?

I suppose you were implying something else other than the threat of violence when you said "One thing I do know, you wouldn't say half the stuff to my face as you do behind the safety and sanctity of your home PC" as if it were unsafe for me to come to Indianapolis, to your home, and say exactly the same thing "to your face."

Your powder don't burn, chico.

Now you'll never know when you'll lip off with your keyboard to someone who will knock through your front door with his truck bumper just to pursue a point.

Maybe you ought to re-assess your crazy talk, eh?

LASunsett said...

//Oh, irony. //

I'd say this is textbook irony.

I'm not the combative one here. Your bullying of people and name calling is the provocation and has been well documented for years towards a lot of people. Not mine.

You are the one who made it sound like I am a freeloader for thinking that I should be compensated for what the government seized without my consent, as it did countless others....as if it were an entitlement that I spent nothing on.

I commented how you must feel it is okay to be nasty and crass from the safety and security of your own home.

You asked me where I lived, as if to attempt to intimidate me. I told you and you replied to me that I should have beer money ready for you.

No Beamish, I think it's plain who the bully is here. The natural order of this exchange has beared that out.

I am merely the guy who didn't let you insult me without calling you on it. Well, pardon me for speaking my mind and my opinion. Last time I checked I still had just as much of a right as you do.

beamish said...

I'd say this is textbook irony.

I'm not the combative one here. Your bullying of people and name calling is the provocation and has been well documented for years towards a lot of people. Not mine.


You got all of that out of "get a damn job."

You are the one who made it sound like I am a freeloader for thinking that I should be compensated for what the government seized without my consent, as it did countless others....as if it were an entitlement that I spent nothing on.

There was no "sound like it" to it. You've been happily tossing money down a rat hole that started with Ida May Fuller, who worked for three years under the Social Security program and retired in 1939. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime until she died in 1975. She collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits, after only paying in $24.75!

Take your "I paid all my life" argument and stuff it. It's nonsense. It's horseshit.

I commented how you must feel it is okay to be nasty and crass from the safety and security of your own home.

You asked me where I lived, as if to attempt to intimidate me. I told you and you replied to me that I should have beer money ready for you.


How many smack-talking people do I have to be "nasty and crass" to in all of Indianapolis until I find someone who is not intimidated to buck up at their doorstep?

Man or mouse, Sunsett? Squeak up, I can't hear you from under your bed.

No Beamish, I think it's plain who the bully is here. The natural order of this exchange has beared that out.

Yup. I guess you won't be so quick to toss out a feeble squirt of testosterone when making assumptions about what someone might say to your face.

I am merely the guy who didn't let you insult me without calling you on it. Well, pardon me for speaking my mind and my opinion. Last time I checked I still had just as much of a right as you do.

Well thank you for backing down. I was beginning to wonder how I was going to buy a truck to park in your living room if I'm supporting your $900 a month prescription drug habit.

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Hey, guys, please let's turn down the heat on the discussion; it's my place here, and I treat it like my living room, you know? I think you guys are the greatest and you obviously disagree with each other.........we get it.

beamish said...

Sorry about the truck in your living room, Z. ;)

=====

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.


The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"


The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.


The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"


"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.


"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."


The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.


But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.


Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.


The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.


"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."


"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.


"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."


"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?


"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"


"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"


"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.


"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

LASunsett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LASunsett said...

Z,

I too am sorry for the skirmish at your site. It's just that I have little tolerance for people who think they can treat people like anyway they want and bully people around for no damned good reason.

He's done this to people for years here and at other blogs, I am frankly surprised you have allowed it for so long. But hey, it's your site and I respect that.

Anyway..... Au Revoir.

beamish said...

Sunsett,

I "bullied" you without even getting out of my chair?

Wow. Just wow.

We obviously need a government program to stop people from distressing you.

I mean, you make all your big bucks, served in the Army, and are ready to slap the taste out of anyone's mouth that crosses you "to your face." Obviously you're entitled to all the nanny state coddling you want and more.

But, realistically, you're still going to have to get a job as a Wal-Mart door greeter.

Why?

Hint: It's not because I'm not paying enough into Social Security.

JINGOIST said...

A parting thought. I wrote about class warfare a while back:

http://jingoist-foundingprinciples.blogspot.com/2010/09/class-warfare-is-back-with-vengeance.html

Nothing good EVER comes of it. If Social Security benefits are "means tested" so that those over $1 million in net worth (or $10 million, it's irrelevent) no longer receive their Social Security checks, they have been stolen from.

Witness how this program has reduced good, God-fearing conservatives into willing participants in the class warfare game.

The thinking goes like this:

"Those rich folks have enough to take care of their own needs. I NEED that money more than they do."

So your NEED justifies cheating them out of something they've paid into their entire lives?

This line of reasoning is in DIRECT violation of two of the Ten Commandments:
1. You Shall Not Steal
2. You Shall Not Envy

Theft is theft, it matters not a WHIT who it happens to. Underlying resentment and/or Envy is used to justify that theft.

As conservatives we need to remember the BASICS, lest we lose our way.

Always On Watch said...

If Mr. AOW and I had all the monies we've paid into Social Security, we wouldn't be scrimping now.

BTW, many of "the big boys" pay little to nothing in Social Security taxes. How? By avoiding "earned income" and opting for passive income, including renting property and getting interest income from various sources.

If Mr. AOW didn't have SSDI, I'd have to get a government job, i.e., become a leech on the taxpayers.

Z said...

For conversation sake, I am posting this email I got tonight from a very dear Conservative friend. I'm not asking her if I can publish it, and I'm obviously not putting down her name and I"m changing the name of the city she might move to so her privacy is respected and I've put Z's instead of the amount of money she'd written down. Nobody who reads my blog knows her anyway, but I sure do appreciate that she does:
'
"I am stunned at the cruel remarks the people who read your blog are posting. They think Social Security should be stopped and us who are receiving it should get a job. Am I reading those posts correctly? I had to stop reading them. It sounded like they want everyone to be denied the money, not just wealthy people. I could be wrong.
I worked for XX years, supported myself and my children with no welfare and no child support from my ex-husband. I've had one vacation in my life. I paid into the SS system for all of those XX years. I desperately need that SS money. I also need a part time job, because I lost my full time job X years ago.
I also paid my way through college and law school. I did not take out loans--I went to school, worked full time and took care of my children. I had no family to help me.
A few years, not many, I paid the maxed out amount to SS , and then only had to pay the Medicare part, because my income was high. I usually paid $ZZZZZ a year to SS in normal income times. (That is $ZZZZZ to SS and then the $ZZZZ for the Medicare Tax.) I paid less in the earlier years, because my income was less. I do not have a fancy pension. I have a small IRA that I hope will not be wiped out due to the stock market and low interest rate problems. I've not taken any money from it yet because it is not a lot of money and I need to save it.
In addition, I paid more money to the Fed and State Gov taxes each month, than I live on today. So I have totally paid my dues into the system. I am NOT on welfare by taking SS.
Those people on your blog are acting like people on SS are on welfare!! I could be wrong. My life was NOT an easy one, not at all. And every day, I wonder if this will be the day I have to sell my condo, to help with the expenses. I'd have to move to ZZZZZ-land, or to a less expensive city.
Maybe the people who read your blog are a lot smarter than I am and they will have good pensions or maybe they make a lot of money--but as for me, I desperately need that SS money. I rely on it. And, by law, I had to pay into it"

I think that no matter how crooked you think SS is, it's been a part of our society and people do rely on it, good people who literally couldn't save enough(as you can see above) and she makes some good points.

Please don't slam her here, she doesn't deserve it and I felt her comments were probably a very good example of Americans across this country except she worked harder and scrimped harder than most people do, believe me.

Craig and Heather said...

Z,

I hope it's okay to address your friend's e-mail.

The reality of her situation is one reason I have been weighing the ethics involved in cutting off SS. Its a bad system and should never have been implemented. But there are those who currently depend on govt provision in order to survive in our society.

What I've been trying to determine is whether those who do not need the money or who view the system as stealing/morally evil are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to help eliminate the demand side of this monstrosity. I use the word "sacrifice" because a paradigm shift will need to occur on an individual level for those who have had their wages unfairly garnished to be able to say "Regardless of the fact that money has been stolen from me, I refuse to continue to enable the cycle which allows for my fellow citizens to also be victimized"

We may or may not be able to change things on the political level or by changing what our kids are taught in the public schools. And I'm not going to beat up on those who are currently in a financial position that leaves them few options but to accept the SS checks.

But, we can affect the way people view govt offerings concerning the basic necessities of life, if we really want to.

I'm not talking out of my south end on this. When the economy tanked a couple years ago, my husband's job was not only preserved, but he's making better money than he's ever made in his life. We also get a pretty decent tax return every year. And God made it crystal clear that this is NOT for us to be hoarding for our future or building an addition on our home or purchasing a new car.

The blessing is meant to be shared with those who are currently struggling so they do not feel the pressure to turn to govt aid during this time. We are not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination, but take the instruction very seriously as we look for opportunities.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many others feel that it is important to not only say we need to put a stop to SS, but also actively take back what the govt has effectively stolen from the American people. And I'm not talking about money, but rather a sense of community, personal responsibility and freedom of conscience that is not being shaped by govt dictates.

H

beamish said...

There's more Ida May Fuller types on SSI than any other time of SSI recipient. People who didn't pay dick into Social Security currently eating high on the hog with it.

I've got an uncle who has suffered for years from his exposure to Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, has been stricken with cancer as well as suffering from strokes who isn't getting nearly the same help from SSI as another uncle who during the Vietnam War remained a civilian and voluntarily stir fried his own brain with drugs to the point he's too "disabled" (brain and nerve damaged) now to get a job even if he had to.

The first uncle is a legitimate case in need of more from SSI. The second uncle is an Ida May Fuller getting more from SSI than he ever put in or ever will put in.

The first uncle is an exception. The second uncle is the rule. Look at all the double and triple drawers - getting bennies from the deceased or from a child who is "disabled" with Ritalin-fueled ADHD. The drunks and drug addicts who's hardest work per month is the relay race from the mailbox to the check-cashing liquor store everytime the SSI check comes in.

The big picture is a lot uglier than the sad and personal homilies and platitudes of who's going to "suffer" if SSI were ended.

The nature of the problem is such that:

a.) the average SSI recipient will get back MORE than they paid in

b.) the average SSI recipient's lifetime of drawing benefits will consume the contributions of three working people, so that the recipient didn't pay for his own, and the workers paying in are not paying for their own but rather someone else's. The cycle gets uglier as more "Baby Boomers" retire and more contributions from a shrinking workforce are demanded.

The proposed solution of raising taxes to continue to finance the mad dash to the check-cashing liquor store is a non-starter.

So is shutting off the spigot entirely.

So what's the solution to this conversation we've been criticizing and anecdotalizing for the past 35 years if not longer?

Tick-tock. The bomb's running out of time.

Z said...

Heather, beautifully put, thanks so much.

Beamish...if we get rid of it, it can't be done in one swell foop, it has to be done gradually..easing it out but helping those like my friend, in my opinion.

Always On Watch said...

I agree that SSDI is rife with fraud.

Hell, crack dealers all over DC get SSDI.

The system is played, by both long-time American citizens and immigrants "fresh off the boat."

On the other hand, my cousin applied for SSDI at the age of 49 after working for decades despite Brittle Done Disease (Osteogenesis Imperfecta) and a heart condition. He was denied and told to retrain for employment as SS determined that he wasn't sick enough. A few months later, he dropped dead of a heart attack. You wouldn't believe how much of a headache it was to cancel his second application for SSDI. Crazy situation, and all those people working on my cousin's case were getting a nice government salary.

SSDI approved Mr. AOW first time around -- after a 6-month wait of course. SS literature said: "Live on savings," which we did, of course.

Anyway, the trouble with socialism is that once it's afoot, turning back the clock to the better system is a nightmare all around: denied "benefits," job losses for the government bureaucrats, some of whom are a few short years away from retirement themselves.

Always On Watch said...

As long as we're talking about conservative principles, let me stir the pot: Is taking a government job succumbing to socialism?

Always On Watch said...

What happened to all those Social Security monies paid in?

Z said...

"Is taking a government job succumbing to socialism?"

Well, AOW, that would make a great radio show conversation, or blog conversation! POST IT! If you don't, let me know :-)


I think there are some government jobs which are necessary, like the military, etc......others?, well, you may have a point..it's extreme, but..

Anybody else want to weigh in?

beamish said...

Beamish...if we get rid of it, it can't be done in one swell foop, it has to be done gradually..easing it out but helping those like my friend, in my opinion.

My problem with that is we don't have time for "gradual" anymore. We've kicked the can almost all the way to the dead end of the street.

We've been watching this trainwreck coming for over 40 years with a endemic sense of "things will work out" and "someone else will pay for it."

I ain't someone else and it ain't gonna work out.

Z said...

So, we tell my friend who paid into it as she describes in her post (she told me I could print the actual amounts so I will below) who's in her mid Sixties that "sorry, sell your home and suck it up"?
Here's her numbers:

"I usually paid $5,584.00 a year to SS in normal income times. (That is $4526.00 to SS and then the $1058.50 for the Medicare Tax.) "

SO, it's "TOugh, Z's friend.....you shouldn't have paid in.. OH! It was illegal NOT to...well tough."

Craig and Heather said...

SO, it's "TOugh, Z's friend.....you shouldn't have paid in.. OH! It was illegal NOT to...well tough."

Z, there is a need for compassion, here, for sure.

But I'm afraid there is a harshness to this situation that we all need to accept. One thing I've noted is that many Boomers (regardless of how much they've paid into the system) had small families (one or two kids: three max)--or even no children as they pursued careers and child-free lifestyles. I believe it's already been pointed out in this discussion that inflation and govt mismanagement of funds are contributing factors.

As these older people head for retirement and possibly several years of state-assisted medical coverage, the financial burden falls in the laps of the kids and grandkids they do leave behind. Some of these adult children have been trained to accept welfare.

There just isn't going to be enough tax money generated to keep the system afloat when there are more people taking out than are contributing. At that point, it's not about what people want, or what is humane, or even what anyone deserves, but what can actually be accomplished, on a practical level.

It is necessary to be honest about how long we can actually limp along with what we've got. Phasing out SS may not be possible, even if it does seem to be the kindest approach.

We need an alternative way to help those who have been deceived.

H

Z said...

Heather, the 'alternate way' is not here yet, though you're right in suggesting one is needed... so we can't tell someone who's paid about $270,000 into SS that "Sorry....that was dumb".

I'd like to see if we could take what's left of SS, find out how much is there, reasonably, and see if this bunch of people who're eligible just now, just turning 62 or 65, depending on what they decide, can be helped with that and then, that's that. Or insisting they take it at 62 yrs of age because that level is less money, thereby at least saving something.
Personally, I can't imagine living on $2000 a month....but, somehow, people live on even less than that from SS and no other income!

Craig and Heather said...

I know what you're saying Z. And I can't argue with you on the point about telling people it was dumb to pay in when no one has a choice.

Practically speaking, though, how long can we continue SS payouts? I haven't run the numbers myself, so I can't say with certainty. But with all the govt wastefulness of tax money, I'm afraid time is short. As individuals, we need to prepare as well as we can for the inevitable, whether it hits 5, 10 or 20 years from now.




Personally, I can't imagine living on $2000 a month....but, somehow, people live on even less than that from SS and no other income!

I suspect it would be difficult in a lot of areas. And it's getting tougher as inflation keeps raising the cost of living.

I'm still of the opinion that those with a little foresight can be working to develop an "alternative" on local/community levels. We seriously don't have a huge income, but our bills get paid and, for several months, now, when we become aware of personal need, we always seem to be able to meet it.

All it took was a bit of attitude adjustment.

H

beamish said...

The source of my discontent, AND the reason nothing has gotten done about the impending full collapse of the Social Security system, is that there's ALWAYS going to be self-absorbed Ida May Fullers crying that any change is going to hurt them. They're content as long as their "retirement" or "disability" bennies keep flowing. That's how Social Security became the "third rail" of American politics. Don't upset the Bingo Brigade, the old ladies will have to eat dog food, oh we're cruel and terrible to even suggest seeking even modest reform yada yada.

Every year, more people join this "entitled class" and the problem exacerbates further. Nobody wants to challenge the political clout of the walking liabilities, the people who claim they paid in enough over their life to get back hella more than they paid in. "It's their money!" but seriously, no, bullshit, it's not their money. Ida May Fuller drew out $23,000 over 36 years after only paying in $25. She was the first recipient of Social Security in American history, paying into the system for only 3 years before retiring. Even adjusted for inflation in 1975 dollars, she paid in a measly $96 and got back a whopping $23,000. He first SSI check in 1939 gave her back more in one month than she ever paid in to begin with.

Not to belabor the point, but Ida May Fuller was not the only American to retire on Social Security in 1939 after only being in the new system for 3 years, that lived decades longer and drew out in their first few months more than they paid in for a life time.

The "I paid all my life" argument bandied around by the Bingo Brigade now is even more farcical than if Ida May Fuller was still around to say it.

Yes, you paid. No, you didn't pay anything near what you're going to draw out of it. Especially if you're one of the millions of retirees with a $1000 a month prescription drug habit on top of your SS bennies.

Compassion and humanity is a two-way street.

The "don't cut me off" side of the argument doesn't have an answer for how they'll pay for things that doesn't amount to taking more from those still paying in. Who cares about the working person's standard of living, as long as the prescription drugs and checks in the mail keep flowing. Retiring must be some kinda party.

I'm pushing for "sorry Gramps, party's over. Wal-Mart's hiring door greeters" because I have just as much compassion for people who don't give a shit about anyone as they do for me.

On the other side of the coin, if I were to become "disabled," say by an insatiable meth habit or drinking my liver into exploding, I could draw SS and Medicare for a few years and totally dry out any amount comparable to what I've paid in so far.

No, it wouldn't be enough to live on at my current standard of living, but wow, I don't have to work and I can cry and whine and bitch and politicians will listen to me.

Hmmmm.

I may have to rethink bagging on SS deadbeats.

Craig and Heather said...

On the other side of the coin, if I were to become "disabled," say by an insatiable meth habit or drinking my liver into exploding, I could draw SS and Medicare for a few years and totally dry out any amount comparable to what I've paid in so far.

Don't do it!

Your taxable income is needed ;)

Retiring must be some kinda party.

I might get into trouble for going "biblical", but:

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

I'm still wondering where we got the idea that people shouldn't have to work after hitting a certain age. Surely, those who are truly disabled or in need ought to be able to receive help from family or even community effort. But when did we decide that turning 62 or 65 means it's time to retire from engaging in earning a living?

I'm not being snotty. It's a serious question.

H

Craig and Heather said...

Compassion and humanity is a two-way street.

Not always.

But again, that's wading into theological waters...

beamish said...

Personally, I can't imagine living on $2000 a month....but, somehow, people live on even less than that from SS and no other income!

I live on only just a little over half that from working, no SS bennies coming in at all, got central air and heat, microwave, dishwasher, color TV, high speed internet, landline phone, cell phone, a car, and smoke a pack a day of name brand cigarettes. Grilled $11 a pound steaks for dinner tonight with a honkin big baked tater.

I'm not rich buy any stretch of the imagination. My paychecks are downright shitty. But, I'm coming up on payday again, bills paid through November, and half my last paycheck is still in the bank.

I'm good with money (when I have it, which isn't as often as I'd like) but I'm living proof that you can live comfortably (for yourself) on less than $2000 a month. I wouldn't dare try to raise kids on that income level, but I'm not drawing a damn thing from the government welfare / SS system at all.

And likely never will. But I still pay in.

Craig and Heather said...

I'm pushing for "sorry Gramps, party's over. Wal-Mart's hiring door greeters"

Oooh. This might actually be a really good idea, if nationalized health care ever kicks in.

In the interest of keeping things cost effective, the ones who are most likely to get pushed out of the system are going to be those who aren't earning any money and are taking a lot of expensive prescription medication...

I'd not thought of that before.

Z said...

Heather, that's why the older people are so involved with the Tea Party...they see the writing on the wall. It's THEY who'll suffer.

Beamish, when you're a little older, you won't be quite as glib about prescription drugs..they're not usually 'a habit' one can break :-)

Z said...

I opened my private insurance bill earlier today and the amount was $70 more than last month..nice, eh? @#$(&@($*&@#(*$&*(@#$

Craig and Heather said...

Heather, that's why the older people are so involved with the Tea Party...they see the writing on the wall. It's THEY who'll suffer.

Someone mentioned this to me a while back. The main thought was that those who had fallen for soft-core socialism are now getting nervous about it coming back to bite them in their later years

I'd gotten caught in the emotion of what might happen to people who lose their SS benefits...but had completely missed that "get a job" might actually be the kindest thing to say in light of the potential health care noose that could be pulled over the heads of many older people.

I wouldn't say it exactly the way beamish did. But senior employment might be a legitimate means of self defense at this time.


Sorry your insurance bill increased :(

H

Z said...

Senior employment is a win/win....the senior benefits, the employer benefits.
Of course, their insurance might be higher because of their age (Oh, man, there we go again! :-)
A vicious circle?

There are VERY FEW things I'd approve money from the stimulus to go to but, since he's raped us anyway and got us in hock to CHina, I think being 'shovel ready' for fixing transportation infrastructure was a good idea...too bad he hasn't followed up on it except for very small projects (WHERE IS THE MONEY?)..the other one would be something like this senior employment situation; put them to work EARNING social security (again!)?
Gosh, this is a convoluted comment, but.........!
I'm a little Virginia Woolf sometimes!

thanks for the insurance sympathy...and my dermatologist doesn't even take private insurance! IMagine/

beamish said...

I'm pushing for "sorry Gramps, party's over. Wal-Mart's hiring door greeters"

Oooh. This might actually be a really good idea, if nationalized health care ever kicks in.

In the interest of keeping things cost effective, the ones who are most likely to get pushed out of the system are going to be those who aren't earning any money and are taking a lot of expensive prescription medication...

I'd not thought of that before.


Now you see what I see.

As harsh as my solution is, "continue to do nothing" about the problem - we return to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress - meritocracy, eugenics, social Darwinism, euthanasia, abortion, government takeover of industries, price controlled centrally planned health care, extermination camps...

Craig and Heather said...

(WHERE IS THE MONEY?).

It's an illusion....colorful bits of paper and chips of plastic and little computer blips that are backed by the word of our govt. We'll just keep passing the IOUs til someone that everyone respects points it out.

A $70 a month hike is pretty steep.

H

Craig and Heather said...

Now you see what I see.

As harsh as my solution is, "continue to do nothing" about the problem - we return to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress - meritocracy, eugenics, social Darwinism, euthanasia, abortion, government takeover of industries, price controlled centrally planned health care, extermination camps...




I'm a little slow sometimes.

Tell you what. You can offer to park a truck in my living room and we can toss insults for another few comments so the thread has an even 100. :D

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

pssst

Anonymous said...

"Heather, that's why the older people are so involved with the Tea Party...they see the writing on the wall. It's THEY who'll suffer."

There's a lot of truth in that Z, and you're right that we're at the bottom of the pile, but this older person is in the tea party because of my children and grandson.

I've spoken with many like me who feel the same way. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who'll be stuck with the bill, and at the cost of their freedom.

I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do what little I could to make a difference on their behalf.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Pretty pathetic isn't it when your life's value is measured as non cost effective.

That's what happens when the individual matters to no one, and freedom is dead!

A Godless, cold, society of people scrambling to be among the many, hoping not to be noticed for fear they're next.

For what, so the powerful can rule over misery?

Pris

Craig and Heather said...

pssst

Wow.

But you know, baby butchery's been going on for so long in our country, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that someone would eventually target the elderly--and/or chronically ill.

Not an encouraging thing to see such callousness toward the weakest members of our society.

Anonymous said...

Beamish,
How many people look after their own elderly parents. Or do they have the attitude they pay all these taxes so the govt. will do the job for them.

My grandmother lived in my parent's home for years. My sister and I were kids when she came to live with us. She'd occasionally visit with her other children, but always came home to us.

My sister and I never would have abandoned our parents to a state home or to be taken care of by the state, or live o a shoestring.

So, if you resent the elderly because they get SS, you take care of your own as they did for you and quit your b------g!

I'm sure that way they can pay you for their keep instead of some stranger who doesn't give a damn about them.

This aspect of the problem hasn't been discussed here. Children who grouse because their folks are getting SS they won't get.

Has it occurred to anyone, that families used to bear the financial burden of their elderly themselves? They cared for them, they provided shelter for them, and mostly, they provided love for them.

Pris

beamish said...

Pris,

The only elderly relative I knew personally that died younger than 80 died in a hospital with doctors all around. All the others, longevity reigned, and they were taken care of by family. My great-grandmother was approaching her mid-90s when she passed away, in her bed.

That makes me recall a story about my great-grandmother. My grandparents, aunts, uncles, and parents were going through her bills and found several procedures billed to Medicare that were never done. When asking the hospital about this, the answer was basically:

"Why are you complaining, it was paid for?"

So, some doctor or hospital got "reimbursed" by Medicare for work not performed and my great-grandmother's medical records then had falsified information in them.

But, why am I complaining, it was paid for....

beamish said...

Beamish, when you're a little older, you won't be quite as glib about prescription drugs..they're not usually 'a habit' one can break :-)

They are if you have to pay for them out of your own pocket.

And it's not an age thing. Don't get me started on the Ritalin Generation coming up now.

Craig and Heather said...

Has it occurred to anyone, that families used to bear the financial burden of their elderly themselves? They cared for them, they provided shelter for them, and mostly, they provided love for them.

Yes it has.

Both of my husband's grandmas are currently being cared for by their children and grandchildren. I haven't pried into the financial situation, but there may well be SS collection involved along the line. No one in our family believes that these women are the govt's responsibility, though.

And somewhere in the above comment section, I mentioned to another poster my husband's and my awareness of the fact that we owe our own parents for what they've given us over the years. Even if they were accepting SS, our attitude about that would not change.
There are others who believe as we do, but this doesn't appear to be the norm anymore.

I have to admit that I'm not sure what exactly happened, but the generation that raised my generation seems to have largely failed to instill the kind of respect for their parents that previous generations have .

H

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish, when you're a little older, you won't be quite as glib about prescription drugs..they're not usually 'a habit' one can break :-)

They are if you have to pay for them out of your own pocket.

Taking time to read the list of potential side effects can be a good deterrent to ever getting started, in some cases.

I briefly considered happy pills when my doctor suggested they might help manage my depression. A little research convinced me I'd be better off just learning to deal with it. Money wasn't an issue, either, as we have insurance coverage.

H

beamish said...

Taking time to read the list of potential side effects can be a good deterrent to ever getting started, in some cases.

Ah yes, the infamous "anti-depressant" pills that "may cause suicidal thoughts."

These quacks don't know anything more about how brain chemistry works than your dog.

I avoid pills like the plague. I'm even skeptical of over-the-counter meds. Especially the discount "generic" ones made in Chinese and Pakistani paint factories.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

I avoid pills like the plague. I'm even skeptical of over-the-counter meds. Especially the discount "generic" ones made in Chinese and Pakistani paint factories.

Good point.

I couldn't believe the warning on the side of the OTC inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen.

Stomach bleeding, hives, facial swelling, anaphylactic shock, ....and if you're taking acetaminophen, you get the bonus risk of liver failure.

And pediatricians always recommend the stuff to help deal with post-vaccination fever and swelling.

The treatment can be worse than the ailment.

Makes you wonder if the problem is with the drug itself or in the contaminants that might be in the bottle along with.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
I did post about the matter of taking a government job last July. I think that I lost some blogging friends over the topic. Oh, well.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said:

Don't get me started on the Ritalin Generation coming up now.

Back when Ritalin was first handed out like candy, some of us sounded warning bells. To no avail. Ritalin was a parental aid.

The Ritalin generations are, no doubt, set up for addiction patterns. In fact, Ritalin stimulates the same neurons as does cocaine and other uppers.

Always On Watch said...

Here's a thought....If Social Security payments are discontinued for those with $2 million, should ANY retirement plan for those with $2 million be discontinued?

Let's start with Congress and whatever retirement plan our so-called elected representatives have.

Always On Watch said...

Don't many retirees draw out more than they paid into a pension fund?

What keeps pension funds solvent at all? How the funds were invested.

So, what happened to all those Social Security monies paid in.

In my case, the biggest drain on my income is the local real-estate taxes in Northern Virginia. And I live in a "tear down"! Nonetheless, I pay over $500 every month in real-estate taxes and collection fees (trash, leaves, etc.).

Z said...

Heather, I"m talking about cholesterol lowering drugs, blood pressure management drugs, Cumidin, etc etc..the things older people take, that is not a 'habit' they enjoy, trust me! :-)

AOW...will check out your old post, thanks! $500 a MONTH? HOLY SMOKE!

Craig and Heather said...

Heather, I"m talking about cholesterol lowering drugs, blood pressure management drugs, Cumidin, etc etc..the things older people take, that is not a 'habit' they enjoy, trust me! :-)

Oh yes. I know someone who worked as administrator at the local retirement home. The number of pills many older people take is unreal.

It is entirely possible, though, that the side effects of taking one drug soon require a second or third to counteract and re-balance an undesirable reaction to the first.

It is also interesting to note how quickly some doctors will prescribe medication for symptoms without running tests for things like allergies or dietary deficiency. ADD and depression sufferers often can adopt special diets and see a tremendous amount of improvement. This can be true for those dealing with other health issues as well.
But nervous people can be told by doctors that they need medication for something and they will accept this without question because they see their doctor as an "expert".

I'm not saying prescription medication is never beneficial. I just fear it's become the catch-all solution to America's health concerns. And often, the list of extras that attend long term medication are very unpleasant.

H

Craig and Heather said...

I started getting nervous about prescription drugs when I learned that the word "pharmaceutical" is related by way of Greek to the concept of witchcraft.

Z said...

I'm not a doctor and obviously can't argue what pills are necessary for each individual patient. That some are necessary and demand others to counteract some of their effects is just part of the drug situation. Mr. Z took a medicine that forced him to take another and he did very well with them both.
I'm sorry anybody has to take any drugs at all.

Craig and Heather said...

I'm sorry anybody has to take any drugs at all.

Of course I agree with you on this, Z. And I'm not trying to beat up you or anyone else over the drug issue. I have concerns, but certainly don't have all the answers, either.
And we all have to live according to conscience and what information is available to us at any given time.

Take care.

Z said...

Heather, I don't think anybody feels 'beat up' by you...Least of all me. !
What I'm trying to tell Beamish is that drug use among older people is not a 'habit' like smoking pot or snorting coke, that's all. SOmetimes, people have to do what they have to do.
you take care, too.

Craig and Heather said...

Ok Z. Sometimes, upon reviewing my comments, I wonder if they appear to be insensitive to where others are.

I know very little about cholesterol or heart medication. Some pain medication can be hallucinogenic and highly addictive. I've seen the ugly effects there, and suppose one could describe long term use of such as a "habit".

I'd be interested to hear what beamish actually meant by likening prescription and street drug use.

Z said...

I think he used the term 'habit' jokingly as if real drugs people actually need are that kind of habit..but I got sensitive because, of course, NOBODY wants to take pills for illnesses; they just wish the illness would go away!

Craig and Heather said...

I think he used the term 'habit' jokingly

That's possible. My mind went to the fact that some doctors don't seem to use much discretion in who/when they prescribe. Some even offer free samples to potential long term prescribees.

Maybe I'll check back later tonight to see if he offers any explanation.

I hope you have a good afternoon, Z.

beamish said...

H,

You are correct in the Greek etymological origins of "pharmaceutical" from pharmekia soes mean witchcraft, specifically herb-cutting for potions, poisons, etc.

It's the same as the Hebrew word translated "witch" in "do not suffer a witch to live" literally meant "herb-cutter" or "poisoner."

I don't think it was an indictment against medicine so much as it was against poisoners.

That said...

Z,

Prescription drugs are an addiction as people rely upon them to manage (notice I didn't say "treat" or "cure") an illness. Take blood pressure medicine so they can keep smoking cigarettes or gobble down triple cheeseburgers with bacon, doing no real work to lower they BP by changing diets, exercise, etc.

Just keep on clogging up the arteries and take Cumitin to keep the blood from clotting around the cholesterol blockage.

Personally, I think Cumitin is a death sentence. A Cumitin eater having a happenstance bruising slip and fall runs the risk of bleeding to death internally because their blood it so thin and clotting agents are suppressed. Nasty stuff really.

Want to lower you BP? Cut back or cut out salt. Crush peanuts on your salad rather than cheese. Don't smoke (looks at self). Don't try to explain basic economics to a leftist.

Simple things. The cholesterol got there, after all, by what you ate. Have some spicy foods. Turn your bloodstream into an acidic bath for your veins. Chemical warfare on any bacterias in there. Peppers, onions, and yes even ewww yucky garlics. Curry and cayenne if you must go nuclear.

When I'm sick, General Tso's Chicken is the cure. Or Hot Tamales.

I have used more organic homeopathic remedies (oops, herb-cutting...) to resolve illnesses before with success, and I haven't had to keep taking a pill everyday for it.

I'm not saying "don't take prescription meds," but when I see people taking all sorts of pills together, many of which exacerbate side effects which are treated by other pills with their own side effects, hence the folks with $900+ per month prescriptions, I wonder how humanity got by just fine for thousands of years just by killing animals and eating them.

You aren't what you eat, but your health can be.

Craig and Heather said...

Thanks Beamish.

I'm on the fence with the prescription stuff. Mostly for the reasons you noted. The standard method of medical treatment seems to be cut, burn or poison. control the symptoms rather than actually accomplish healing.

Sobering thing, though, how so many prescription and otc drugs can be toxic in such small amounts.

Interesting bit concerning herb-cutter=poisoner. I was wondering about that, as many herbs are perfectly safe and nutritious if used with common sense as food. I wouldn't think that making use of inherent healing properties of plants would count as witchcraft.



H

Z said...

Beamish, for goodness sake; are you suggesting people who have to resort to drugs didn't or don't try alternatives before they have to resort to it?
You're sounding rather like liberals here, my dear buddy; telling everyone what they ought to be doing!

Nobody's advocating drugs here, nobody likes to take them but, when you're 65 and nothing will bring that bp down and you're facing stroke, you'll remember this exchange as you gobble down some HCT.
Cholesterol's mostly familial..ain't NUTTIN' you can do if that's the case...

Anonymous said...

I'm so thankful for the evil pharmaceuticals that help remedy my low TSH levels. I don't feel like hammered poo-poo anymore because of my daily addiction to Levoxyl.

duh

beamish said...

Beamish, for goodness sake; are you suggesting people who have to resort to drugs didn't or don't try alternatives before they have to resort to it?
You're sounding rather like liberals here, my dear buddy; telling everyone what they ought to be doing!


I would think if I was trying to sound "like liberals" I'd have added some some specific instructions to read what I had to say with a Bullwinkle voice. ;)

I'm merely casing out the alternative. If you can afford to supplement your diet with BP medication, by all means do so.

But if your BP medication means it's paid for with money the government has to tax someone to pay for it, including yourself, at what point should you stop feeling "entitled" to it?

Hitler took over paying for and providing health care. Then he started "cutting costs" with a euthanasia program.

He started with hereditary diseases and the mentally ill first.

Now look forward:

National Medical Records Database...

"Computer, who's taking Wellbutrin?"

beamish said...

Interesting bit concerning herb-cutter=poisoner. I was wondering about that, as many herbs are perfectly safe and nutritious if used with common sense as food. I wouldn't think that making use of inherent healing properties of plants would count as witchcraft.

It doesn't. Dietary suppliments aren't "witchcraft."

Refining grain ergot into LSD is.

beamish said...

I'm so thankful for the evil pharmaceuticals that help remedy my low TSH levels. I don't feel like hammered poo-poo anymore because of my daily addiction to Levoxyl.

Who said the pharmaceuticals are evil? I didn't. If you pay for the private insurance that helps you pay for them or pays for them outright, take 'em all.

Hell, snort cocaine bought from some unlicensed pharmacist if you want. Just don't ask me to pay for what you put in yourself out of a sense that you're "entitled" to it.

Is that too much to ask?

That's my rant. I'm talking about the addictive "someone else will pay for it" disorder America has cultivated when it comes to social programs.

The step to recovery is realizing we have a problem.

Always On Watch said...

Sometimes alternative "meds" work, sometimes not.

Once addictions became diseases, the door was opened for health-insurance plans to pay all the costs.

It's actually fairly easy to get SSDI for alcoholism, but for other physical conditions one didn't bring on oneself, it's harder to get SSDI. Go figure.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

It doesn't. Dietary suppliments aren't "witchcraft."

Refining grain ergot into LSD is.


Ok.

I'm so thankful for the evil pharmaceuticals that help remedy my low TSH levels.

Hopefully, my thoughts were not understood to be "all prescription medications are evil".

What my concern centers around is the overall safety of them along with the fact that the pharmaceutical companies wield a tremendous amount of power over individuals who are taking their patented medicines. I don't think its accidental that nutrition and "alternative" treatments involving diet and herbal foods are not advertised with the same aggressiveness as pills. People who think they have options aren't as likely to quietly accept whatever they're offered.

In that respect, I can see the potential connection between "pharmaceutical" and "sorcery"-- the latter practice which, to my understanding, often is intentionally focused on subjugating another person.

Even the instilled attitude that "I" deserve something and the bill ought to be covered by someone else is leverage of power by way of education.

Beamish already made the point about where this could eventually lead. It's what made me sit up and take note of the potential for govt controlled SS and national health care to take a very nasty turn.

H

Anonymous said...

if most of you were a little older, you'd have had grandparents who would have told you that ss was created because the idealistic/PC solution most of you pine for FAILED.
also, the common interwebz propaganda that lifespan was shorter than age of eligibility is false. expected lifespan was 63. *earliest* eligibility (voluntary) was 62. roughly equal. however, they failed to increase eligibility from 62 while lifespans increased.
there should have been net "losses" at the beginning because the first recipients couldn't contribute in the years preceding ss's existence. (although, payments may have been small, and of course number of contributors was higher than recipients)
just as now, retiring and beginning to take ss early reduces the monthly payment.