no, benefits for the disabled didnt come until the 50s. when it started in the 30s, it was meant for the retired and the widowed and their children.
AKA people that couldn't provide for themselves anymore.
Times have changed. Women are working now.
you wouldnt say that it depends on the situation? say for instance, a widow who has 5 children and needs to feed, clothe, and house them on a minimum wage income. and let me clarify, not EVERY person receiving SS has this same situation, just bringing it up because the general sentiment among those against SS seem to be that a majority of people on SS cant hold down a job and therefore do not deserve any help. which would be false by the way
Of course it depends on the situation, but let's be honest here - the vast majority of people on social security are not widowed mothers with five kids. Even if they are, if the mother is working and paying for her own health insurance, most family plans allow for pretty damn cheap health insurance for kids.
I think it was like 10-20% more or something for me to insure myself and kids if I had them.
really? you cant believe that in any way possible 20% of the population either cannot provide for themselves, need help providing for their children, or are retired?
No, LoL, I don't think that it's possible that 20% of people are completely helpless. That's one in five, man. You're trying to tell me that one out of every five people in America is COMPLETELY A VICTIM of circumstance and cannot possibly pull themselves out of their economic situation? Come on now...
I'm willing to accept that there ARE people who are in really tough situations, but it's not 70 million. I'd say it's a small fraction of that number.
Even most handicapped people CAN work. Like I've been saying, my best friend is practically Stephen Hawking in his movements and he is still trying to find a way to work. Physically he cannot work right now, but he is trying to figure out a way for him to be able to use the computer more efficiently.
I'm sorry, but when I see him TRYING to work and then I hear people who "hurt their back" five years ago that "can't work," I call bullpoop.
Why is it a person has to be ignorant if they make mistakes in life and then spend the rest of it trying to fix it? Where are the ethics on the grounds that a human being is capable of fouling once in life( at the very least). Were all people and defined as such we are all creatures, that by mistakes, try to correct selves and try to make better wiser decisions when a similar situation. What if the mistake is not by them but their spouse, are they to divorce then due to their foul up? Then where is the line here.
Decisions come with consequences or rewards. This is how life works.
If I decide to eat a Triple Bacon Cheeseburger every day for the rest of my life, I'm probably going to have to deal with those consequences eventually. Why should YOU have to pay for my blatant disregard for my own health?
I want to know where you have the RIGHT to state ignorance when a man is allowed a mistake in life. I am not denying that people are using the system, I am not even denying we cant pay for it. But it is due to mistakes by our government, not the people themselves in life that drove us to this point. I could say that because it didnt work the gov. should have known better already and just lame the blame on the few who truly failed up.
I have the right because I live in America and I have a First Amendment right to say whatever the
I want.
Saying "someone made a mistake" means that they were ignorant, or just didn't give a poop, about the consequences.
And
of course it's the government's fault that we can't sustain it! Finally something we can agree on, right!? But what is your solution? Giving the government MORE control over us? Taking MORE of our money for their
ed up, blatantly-going-to-fail plans?
It's not like this SS bankruptcy situation came out of no where. It has been projected for decades. Yet, no one has done poop about it. It's almost as if it was intentionally neglected.
dude, you came into the discussion with your opinions and portrayed them as if they were fact, not me. without evidence your opinions are fallacious and overreaching
Finding statistics about Social Security being unsustainable is like a 3 second Google search and you'll find thousands of reputable sources.
Really the only guarantees you can bet Obama will make is that he will F things up even worse. That and that nothing he promised during his campagin will be done.
I don't know if I would say that necessarily. Obama has done a few things that I think are beneficial, but yeah, the fact that he blatantly lied on the campaign trail about things such as the Patriot Act makes me sick.
What about those that made ONE single BIG mistake that cost them. For instance, if a man did have insurance and found out he had cancer. It was HIS FIRST mistake but it was big enough to impact his entire life at age 19.
He made the same mistake over and over again by not choosing to get health insurance. Hell, right now, if you're going to college, you can be on your parents' health plans until you're like 30 or something crazy like that.
If you're going to college, go on your parents' plan. If you're not going to college, go to work and get your own insurance.
If you're not doing either, I do not feel bad for you.
Your assumptions is what makes your problem for you. And furthermore, why shouldnt we help people.
We should help people who can't help themselves.
But look, if I'm a responsible person, why should I have to take care of other people who are irresponsible?
Let's say, for example, that I've been working for the past 50 years and putting money into my own retirement every month. By doing this, I have sacrificed a significant portion of my monthly income by making a decision that will benefit me in the future. I did not have as much income to "play" with. I never owned a new car, I never went to Europe on vacation... Instead, I opted to spend my money on setting myself up nicely for retirement. I may have missed out on some of the things I would have liked to have done throughout my life, but maybe now that I am retired, I can afford to do those things because I spent wisely in my working days.
Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe down the road did the exact opposite for the past 50 years. He never spent a DIME on his retirement. Instead, he opted to take that extra money and buy new cars, treat his wife at the jewelry store, travel around the world, etc. He has lived a full life of enjoyable things, but he now has no money to retire at the age of 65.
So what happens?
Technically speaking, through the taxes I paid throughout my life, I now have to pay for a portion of
his and his wife's retirement. How
ed up is THAT?
He gets to be immature, not plan for his future, and still get the same benefits that I do? How is that anything other than absurd?
Now look, I understand that this is an extreme example, presuming that Joe Schmoe never put a dime into his retirement, but it illustrates the point that having systems like this foster an environment where people do not feel the need to be responsible with their money. This is a HUGE problem in America. People refuse to take responsibility for their own finances and instead would prefer to pawn it off on the rest of us. This sense of entitlement has to change.
I will be the first to tell you that I think the most important thing that a person can be taught in today's school system would be how to plan, economically, for their future. But (MOST) schools don't teach this, or only teach it as an elective.
In my opinion, this class should be REQUIRED to graduate. It's a lack of education that has formed this welfare culture. We need to get over it as a country and start moving toward personal responsibility. It is the only way we can pull ourselves out of this slump.
At what point in the history of this species are we going to stop being so selfish, while all the while trying to pretend to be great moral people. This idea that each for himself and to the best man the spoils, is selfish in itself and is a main problem with how we got ourselves into most of our situations as a nation. Greed is great....pleh. I dont deny we failed everyone as a country for how it was run but this ideal notion of yours that for each failure your foolish and we shouldnt help anyone because most are just ignorant is just wrong.
The only "ideal nation" is one where humans are okay with giving up what they've earned to help someone else who was irresponsible.
If you're willing to go to work for 40 hours a week and give up 40% of your income to someone else who sat at home and watched The Price is Right reruns all week, then by all means, do it. If you can get enough people, you can truly live in a utopian Communist society where everyone is selfless. I would love to see that work - truly. It would be an amazing step for human kind.
Unfortunately, people are people. And people are going to get pissed off that their hard work is providing for someone who doesn't try.