jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (53 posts)

Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare

  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago
    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Have you considered that it's a protest against redistributive policies? I mean every dollar this person collects is a dollar that doesn't get redistributed....

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That makes no sense.

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Lets work it through....

          Did this person pay into Social Security? YES
          Can a person collect Social Security without paying into it? YES
          Are they eligible to draw Social Security? YES
          If they don't draw Social Security will the money not be spent? NO

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ok.  So by your logic it's ok to pay into a government program and then collect the benefits from that program?

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes. My problem is when the distribution of those funds is inequitable. The more you pay in, the more you collect. It currently doesn't work that way. Entitlement programs are simply "re-distributing".

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But insurance doesn't work out that way, you pay according to risk and get paid according to need.

                Or  have I got that wrong, does the new driver crashing into a row of cars get more money than a skilled and experienced driver who pays smaller premiums and gets a smaller pay out?

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You make my point for me. The idea that Social Security is insurance is what makes it bad. If it were simply a mechanism where monies were collected and invested to return to the public, it would be a fair and equitable policy.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But isn't it insurance? You pay out during the good times to protect against the bad times.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Insurance is bad???

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Very true. That's the way SS was designed and intended, and has worked quite well.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Social Security is more accurately called a social insurance program. As in the case of private health and life insurance, some people collect nothing while others collect much more than they contributed. That was the original intent of the program and remains so. For example, orphans and people whose injury or illness renders them unable to work receive Social Security payments. And someone who retires at age 66 and drops dead the day after receives nothing. His contributions are used to pay benefits to the man who lives to age 100 as in this case, the father of one of my inlaws, Patrick O'Rourke who is alive and kicking at 100:
                http://www.mlive.com/grandblanc/index.s … 00_re.html

              3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Inequitable" in your opinion. Not in mine.

              4. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So what about the people who make more than $125,000 a year and don't have to pay in as much?

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wouldn't you say their risk of filing a claim is lower?

            2. Jim Hunter profile image62
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Uhhhhh, isn't that how it works?

              What isn't ok is to never pay into the program and still get the benefits.

              What isn't ok is that the government takes from the program and leaves IOU's that you think is a surplus.

    2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yup.  Of course that's really old news, but so much for the conservative capitalist "Jewish" hate queen.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why shouldn't she have collected Social Security and the sort -- she paid for it!!!

      Listen: if you want to make an argument like this, it's about the same thing as saying "if you hate government paying for things, then why don't you avoid everything that has ever had anything about government touch it!!!!?"

      The answer is: "because then I would starve and freeze to death. the government touches EVERYthing".

      The government stole her tax money, and she got what she "paid" for. Not really a big deal.

  2. Jim Hunter profile image62
    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago

    She's no saint of mine.

    I have never nor will ever consider what someone else does relevant to my beliefs.

    So once again...who cares

  3. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Social security is just another method and excuse to allow people to be lazy about their own future. hmm

    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      tada!!!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        By all accounts, social security shouldn't even exist, because each person should have the ability to provide their own retirement benefits.

        It is only ignorance and a lack of willingness on the individual's part to understand that singular point. hmm

        1. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
          schoolgirlforrealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          this is true.
          unfortunately the govt and/or medical field is heavily prescribing people and giving them diagnosis that they think they need SSI when perhaps they could find another way
          Just another way for the govt to keep people feeling helpless?
          Though I'm sure many physically disabled people or incurabley other disabled need it.
          perhaps you mean for retirement? hmm haven't thought much about that.

        2. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Personal Responsibility leads to self sufficiency....

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Incorrect. When we were a primarily agricultural society where people and their families lived on their own land and there were extended families nearby your notion was workable.  Social insurance became nessary with industrialization people moved from farms where they could grow their own food to cities where they had to pay rent and buy food, often far from relatives who could be counted on for help in an emergency. The jobs of manufacturing workers were subject to the whims of their jobs, injury, layoffs due to mistakes by the owners of their factory and due to general economic declines or technological change. Workers Compensation, Unemployment compensation and Social Security programs were adopted because of real needs felt by citizens in an industrial society.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But not for itinerant and seasonal workers who could just about provide for the day and hope for the best tomorrow.
            We also forget that life expectancy has increased greatly, how many can easily provide for a retirement that rivals a working life in length?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's a good point.

            2. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So here we see not every one pays, but nearly everyone is eligible to collect. NO ONE recieves anything of value...It's a wreck!

  4. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    There are a lot of people in THIS economy who lost their jobs, their house, the 2nd car... Unemployment pays about 50% of what they were making.. so they have been dipping into whatever retirement or savings they had... It's gone.. But their Social Security is still there.

    Crooks like Bernie Madoff can wipe you out Your safe investment - your retirement in a profitable company like Enron can vanish. The value of your retirement in mutual funds can suddenly be wiped out. Your social security is still there.

    Republicans want to 'privatize' SS - letr Wall Street gamble with your pension. Who would YOU trust???

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      a lot of people were buying summer homes when they had $2,000 in the bank...

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … ousandaire

      I would normally say "this is a perfect example of the ant and the grasshopper", but then people would tell me that I hate children.

      So, instead I'll say "this shows you that our current monetary policy, a la the Federal Reserve, is a horrible system".

      OH, and to answer your question: i would trust the free-market, with ease. They actually have REPAY their debts.

      Let's see: when a private institution goes a few million in debt, it not only goes bankrupt, but it STAYS in bankruptcy... When the PUBLIC sector goes $1.5 TRILLION into debt, it ... gets more money from Ben Bernanke...

      Which one of those institutions do you think has a larger incentive to make money?  ... oops, pardon the pun! Which one of those institutions has the larger incentive to make WEALTH?

  5. universalcable profile image60
    universalcableposted 5 years ago

    Let the economic boom people are not going to wait for retirement age.
    If you save alot of income you will depend on yourself not retirement age.

  6. universalcable profile image60
    universalcableposted 5 years ago

    Let's focus on the world economic right now,. let's find means to resolve this complicated issues

  7. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Cags......reality shows us that everyone, let alone most people, do not have the means to save enough money for their retirement....

    In fact, who can retire these days?

    I think a few people in this thread need to go back and live in 19th/early 20th century America, and let us see how well they fair....and for how long...

    Too many people rhetoricize about some far-fetched ideal and have lost track of what is really going on....

 
working