What are you willing to give up?

Tricky Grama · #**101** 12/28/11, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

Here's something to think about: Medicare and Medicaid combined spend nearly $50 billion each year paying for nursing home care for the indigent elderly and disabled.

Would you be willing to take Mom, Dad, Grandma, etc., into your home and care for them in order to reduce this expense?

That's how it was when I was growing up. My g'gma lived w/us til she died. Same w/g'ma. Several friends had g'mas living w/them.
G'pas...they have the decency to die off younger...
(Kidding!)

Yvonne's hubby · #**102** 12/28/11, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

Back before ss was started few people had to pay water/sewer bills or electric bills. Few people had access to hospitals. Very few people had cars. Most employers offered a pension plan. Living expenses on the whole were much less than they are now.

Those who oppose social security should really check into the history behind it. Govts have been taking care of the poor, the old, the infirm, orphans and widows as long as govts have existed.

True, there has been aid in some form for many many years provided to the needy by various governments. There is no reason not to provide basic needs to those who cannot provide for themselves. The problem I have is by whom? Its not part of our federal governments job description... and goes against everything our federal government was designed to do. Indigent care should be placed on family first... then charity, and as a last resort... if needed let the states handle it. As you so eloquently point out... cost of living was cheaper before SS... not so much cheaper for any particular item... but people lived on a lot less because they lived with a lot less because they couldnt afford luxuries like automobiles, running water, or flat screen tvs. There is no reason people who cant afford luxuries today cannot live with out them... just like the good old days.

Danaus29 · #**103** 12/28/11, 06:25 PM

In some places you can forgo certain luxuries. In other places your house will be condemned without them.

I am all for bringing back company/employee sponsored pensions and company/employee sponsored after retirement insurance plans but our govt made all that either illegal or messed it up so bad no company wants to offer such things. I would much rather have a company retirement plan than have to rely on ss. Dh has paid into ss all his working life, fully expecting to recoup that after he retires. It's not govt welfare, it was paid into. If the govt would have left that money alone and let it earn interest for the coming retirees ss would not be the burden to the taxpayers it will become.

SquashNut · #**104** 12/28/11, 06:40 PM

Our neighbor paid into his pension all his working life and some one drained the account just a couple of monthes before he retired. If they didn't have their SS they would be in trouble.

Yvonne's hubby · #**105** 12/28/11, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

In some places you can forgo certain luxuries. In other places your house will be condemned without them.

I am all for bringing back company/employee sponsored pensions and company/employee sponsored after retirement insurance plans but our govt made all that either illegal or messed it up so bad no company wants to offer such things. I would much rather have a company retirement plan than have to rely on ss. Dh has paid into ss all his working life, fully expecting to recoup that after he retires. It's not govt welfare, it was paid into. If the govt would have left that money alone and let it earn interest for the coming retirees ss would not be the burden to the taxpayers it will become.

For the money to have earned interest it would have to have been invested.... a no no from what I understand about SS. It is one more government social program, based on paying out to those who helped support those who came before them. Different criteria but basically taxing one group of people to pay the upkeep on another group. No matter what you call a rose.... theres always those lil thorns.

This particular social program was begun and funded directly by the federal government.... another no no to anyone who has read our Constitution... and was opposed by many... including the supreme court but FDR managed to convince enough of the right people to get it started anyway... oh what a web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

Danaus29 · #**106** 12/28/11, 07:05 PM

SquashNut, our neighbor lost his GM pension because of poor union management after he retired. His health prevents him from getting another job. His wife refuses to work to support them. If it wasn't for ss they and their kids would be on the streets because the kids won't help the parents at all.

YH, it should have been invested in safe funds and not borrowed against. There are some things that really should be changed in the program. Yes, some people collect way more than they contributed to it. Some people pay in and never collect one cent. Some people never pay in yet collect all their lives. It's not fair but the system works pretty well. I don't know what else we would do with older people who cannot work and have no one to care for them. Line them all up and shoot them then bury them in a ditch? I don't begrudge people who have spent their whole life working a bit of time to relax and do nothing. I do begrudge people who are capable of working but are too lazy to look for work or learn new skills and expect everyone to take care of them. Ss is probably one of the better ways the govt spends our tax money.

Farmerwilly2 · #**107** 12/30/11, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HermitJohn

I'll give up the war in Afghanistan. Wait, I dont actually benefit from that in first place....

How about American bases outside the USA and military aid to foreign pet dictators? Wait I dont actually benefit from those in first place...

Boy this is hard. How about single payer national health insurance? Oh thats right we dont have that, though if we did, I would benefit....

How about giving up govt ok to inject noxious chemicals into the water table in order for gas exploration companies to benefit? Oh thats right, contamination of my drinking water isnt a benefit and since I dont own stock in the gas companies, guess thats not a benefit at all.

How about giving up the govt benefit of using eminent domain to transfer property from poor private land owner to rich private developer in order to increase local local tax revenue. Darn again, since I'm not rich developer, I dont benefit....

Guess this is impossible. One has to be wealthy to benefit from some of biggest govt giveaways.

How about giving up farie tales and unicorns and join the rest of us in reality or giving up knee jerks before you pull something and take a tax payer funded trip to the er, using gas that was available because some rag headed jihadi hadn't used it in a New Years molotov surprise sparkly as he was too busy hiding his goat smelling self from a unmanned drone somewhere in Turdistan.