Social Security

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Social Security

Postby Evlfrost » Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:07 pm

What is social security? Well to anwser that question lets first take a look at the definitions of the words:
Social: adj.
Living together in communities.
Of or relating to communal living.
Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: social classes; social problems; a social issue.
Living together in organized groups or similar close aggregates: Ants are social insects.
Involving allies or members of a confederacy.
Of or relating to the upper classes.
Inclined to seek out or enjoy the company of others; sociable.
Spent in or marked by friendly relations or companionship.
Intended for convivial activities.
Of, relating to, or occupied with matters affecting human welfare: social programs.
An informal social gathering, as of the members of a church congregation.

n. pl. se·cu·ri·ties
Freedom from risk or danger; safety.
Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.
Something that gives or assures safety, as:
A group or department of private guards: Call building security if a visitor acts suspicious.
Measures adopted by a government to prevent espionage, sabotage, or attack.
Measures adopted, as by a business or homeowner, to prevent a crime such as burglary or assault: Security was lax at the firm's smaller plant.
Measures adopted to prevent escape: Security in the prison is very tight.
Something deposited or given as assurance of the fulfillment of an obligation; a pledge.
One who undertakes to fulfill the obligation of another; a surety.
A document indicating ownership or creditorship; a stock certificate or bond.

So does this mean that the government is going to keep your social life secure? The only thing social security is, is a voting topic. It was inacted by FDR to be a voting topic to take seinors minds off of real issues. FDR was a democratic president who thought that since his party was pro big government that social security would benefit his party more than the republicans. He underestimated their adaptibility. Now nobody dares say that they are going to get rid of it (for fear of the seniors) nor is anybody going to change it (its too valuable as a voting topic). So in one fell swoop the seniors were taken out of the voting class.
Evljsh: You're young and thus illegal!
xXOkashiiSuruXx: -falls over-

User avatar
Frost Druid
Frost Druid
Posts: 6692
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:41 pm
Location: Suburbia

Postby frank-the-weinerdog » Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:57 am

Social security is a farce!..

Designed to insure that each retired american may have a share of money awarded back to them, for investing in a program designed to "borrow" it, and then give it back later.

Social security is NOT a contract, there is NO legal obligation for ANYONE to pay into this account. It is not a tax, or a legally obligatory payment.

All accounting experts say Social security will be bankrupt before a person 36 years old or younger sees a penny of thier suposed "investment"

This country, and its methods and policies are a farce!

It no longer takes a mere determination to succeed, you need to be a criminal to make it big time...or an athelete or musician or actor, who all make enough money doing NOTHING to foot the minimum bill of taxation, and social security.

Funny, but has anyone ever imagined having to live on social security alone when they retire? If you had any idea how much you might get when you reach retirement, or are disabled before then..NOBODY would ever associate the word security with tis program.
I would rather take the $7.80 I pay every week for the last 20 years, and lay it on a black 13 roullette table!
User avatar
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Northwest US

Postby Nyufrost » Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:45 am

Interesting concept, Evlfrost.

"Frank" ... you seem a bit peeved about the entire situation ... relax dude! :p

I always thought that paying into social security is mandatory and that employers also have to pay in for you. Like matching funds?

Anyways, if they run out of money, here is one reason why .... women who are married and worked can still opt to draw off the husband's social security (if he made more money) so they are basically paying out twice on the same account. That's just bad banking ... no wonder they are going broke. :roll:
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:51 am

from how i understand it, we pay social security for the elderly. we don't pay our own social security. later on, when us kids are old enough to be recieving social security, we won't be getting what we payed - we'll be getting what the current working generation is paying. but this is becoming a problem as the baby boom generation matures. that, and as elderly people tend to vote en mass, whereas youth tend not to vote at all, it's never gonna change.
or atleast that's what my economics teacher from high school said :)
Legendary Guard
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:01 am

He must have been on acid. :) :p

The amount you will receive is based on what you earn though I think you get a penalty for retiring early and a bonus for working past retirement age.

A person making $100k a year will receive a far greater amount than someone who earns $10k a year. You are NOT paying for anyone else.

Think of it like winning the lotto .... if you win X number of dollars (think of X as the total amount you have paid into SS in your lifetime) and have your payments spread out over 20 years (think of that as your monthly social security check) ... see what I mean? :thumbs:
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:11 pm

actually, what they were saying wouldn't mean that someone getting $100K a year gets less than someone with $10K a year, but rather that a higher percentage of what we do pay (albeit ultra small) goes to pay someone who is earned that much more money in their life.
the money we earn today goes into some sort of giant pool, and is then distributed as it should be, according to what someone's three highest paying jobs were...
and it makes since, too. social security came about after the great depression... if the current generation wasn't paying for the elderly generation, then social security would only now really be an issue, but it's been an issue for much longer...
Legendary Guard
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests