-1 vote

Social Security VS Welfare. What's The Difference?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

I might be able to help

I might be able to help.

I come from a socialist country. I'm no theorician. No, I'm just 42 and out of the 38 years I spent in my country before relocating here in the USA, I knew for half of them "mild socialism", the other half, say, "harder".

Really, America. Seriously.

Guess what. My heart bleeds every time I witness this waste.

Waste ... OF TIME and ENERGY, in utterly useless, mondane, rhetoric semantic.

Socialism, and to so various degrees of intensities, has been tried. MANY times. It CAN NOT work.

Whether we're talking of SS or welfare or Socialybernetic or WHAT-EVER you can freaking devise with a socialist design ... it is DOOMED to FAIL.

Churchill said it ALL :

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Really. There is NO-THING more to this. I urge any native English speaker to read his sentence carefully, and LITERALLY.

If you let the government take PROPERTY from one group to give it to the other, good intentions or not, the FATE will always be the same : injustice.

It doesn't matter how much, for which intent : one JUST fails to acknowledge something having the UNAVOIDABLE attribute of INJUSTICE.

I repeat : SOON OR LATE. WITHOUT FAIL.

The bigger the govermment, the bigger the mess.

I lived as a kid, as a teen, as a student, as a self-sustaining professional (non-stop for 17 years thus far) in a country IMPREGNATED with socialism.

It's not just money. It's also envy. Paranoia. Clever lazy bums who milk the system. Clever capitalist crooks who do the same. Irresponsible public servants who don't care (some, not all). The privileged, safe and corrupt falsely assumed or wrongly overlooked by the less lucky or the lame envious. Etc, etc.

At the end it's a competition for "entitlements", "subsides", natural solidarity gone. Everybody turning towards the State to ask for more, the State then needing to steal some more from someone else (you don't care about), because of the functioning waste itself.

If YOU have to take money from ANYONE or ANYTHING (association, society, company, whatever) you NEED it to be in an EXCHANGE. For time, goods, or energy or all the preceding.

"Yes, but look at it this way... The soviet never really implemented socialism, there were some corrupt, ..."

Balloney.

You can try socialism for a another trillion of years ANYWHERE in this Universe, you will get the same result :

The State DEMANDING ALWAYS more TO STEAL, to sustain itself.

And this is normal : we are humans. We are easy TO CORRUPT.

If the State, with force of Law, also have force of arbitrary OWNERSHIP to any extent of the fruits of our labor, or cleverness, or legacy/family heritage : we are DOOMED to have men, SOON or LATE, take advantage of it, once in power.

On the other hand, human compassion DOES EXIST.

Also, paying a "user tax" because you cross a bridge that someone needed to build or maintain, as a fee, is okay : you ASSIGN a budget, with input and output, and there is exchange. You use an infrastructure that you don't own, so you can contribute, along with the other users, until it's paid off.

But taking ARBITRARY, any time, for an arbitrary duration, the PROPERTY of someone with the "good intent" to redistribute thru a "BLACK BOX" (The State)

... C A N N O T

... JUST CANNOT work without INJUSTICE on the horizon, and eventually, the horror of The Globalist planners we now suspect.

Capitalism's VICE is the greed of (some) capitalists.

The VIRTUE of socialism is THE ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE for the shared, equal MISERY of everybody (but those at the head of The State) ALWAYS, eventually.

FREE MARKET. VOLUNTARISM-based charity.

The big LIE of Big Governments, especially in democracies, where the lie impacts FASTER than in republics : that the State can provide.

The State PROVIDES N O T H I N G.

The State CAN ONLY ** U S E ** (and, eventually, waste)

The State should be here to SERVE : protect the Text, protect the spirit and letter of laws, when enforcing them.

The Planners WANT us to stay in the fallacious debate :

that we would "NEED" the State social programs somehow "essentially" and that it is a matter of knowing to which extent.

This is A LIE. The BIGGER the lie, the better it works.

The lie still works everywhere, not just America.

I beg for the Free people of the world who love Liberty, one day, to realize of how much that LIE has worked AND ... DESTROYED the finest genuine hopes and dreams in our societies.

The State has understood one thing : that it can turn itself into a new instance of those former Kings we like to mock.

The State is CYNICAL : we mock the former Tyrans and Kings, but the State has replaced the oppression by brute force they would use by ...

THIS VERY LIE. That The State can provide to others by STEALING from you.

IT NEVER DID. IT NEVER WILL. This is, at best, waste, at worst : ENSLAVEMENT of the MANY by the FEW.

We're so BRAINWASHED that we can't even think OUT OF THE box and even consider quietly how to organize / optimize voluntary charity, e.g., like associations for leisures, or sports, or communities ALREADY do.

We're in the age of information : we have THE TECHNOLOGY to optimize it.

No, instead, we force ourselves in thinking in terms of bureaucrats who are to redistribute something they NEVER owned.

FOREVER FAILED : JUSTICE.

FOREVER WON : MISERY.

Arbitrary Taxation / "redistribution" via elected people in office or not = T H E F T.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Well...

...one is bankrupt and one is broke.

More theft isn't the solution.

It's terrible that people have had their money stolen by the feds, but you can't have government steal from others to reimburse you for what was stolen.

If someone stole your watch, you couldn't have them steal another person's watch to make up for it.

Any money paid into Social Security is already gone, in order for you to get it back, the feds have to steal from others to pay you back.

I'm sorry but the money they took from you is gone, and it is wrong to victimize more people, just so the thief can pay you back.

You are entitled to the return of your property, but not by stealing others property.

You are not entitled to others property, because yours was taken.

We need to end Social Security, not continue its immoral existence.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Maybe stealing it from the MIC is a good idea

especially if you want to end wars.

SS was a ponzi scheme from the start.

The first generation, in the late 30's, my great grandparents could pay into "the system" for one year and collect a nice annuity, far in excess of the original payment. My grandparents paid in at 1.5% of their gross pay, retired in the late 60's and collected far more than any annuity would have paid. My parents retired in the late 90's and probably will collect what an annuity would have paid. My generation, retiring in the 20's will never collect near what we paid in and my son's generation will collect nothing of any significant value.

Factors not taken into account:

1) life expectancy has greatly increased since the late 30's and therefore the time period for pension payments.
2) The number of workers per retirees is declining and was never factored into the equation.
3) The number of disabled who paid into the system and are now collecting benefits (SSD) was never factored in.
4) The number of disabled who never paid into the system and who are now collecting benefits (SSI)is increasing greatly.

Ironically, the federal government would never allow a private sector pension fund to operate in such a reckless fashion.

I think if you retired after

I think if you retired after 1990, you will generally lose money on the deal.

If you retired before, you generally break even. It is the guys that retired before '75ish that make out really well, but in terms of today's dollars that amount is a pittance.

Life expetancy has increased, but the SS payment has also changed. Right now, they budget what you've paid into it about 1.5 years after you are expected to die.

The trust fund will provide complete funding until 2037, as it is now. If the government changes social security handouts to account for real revenues lost (since people are making less they are now contributing less), the fund is indefinitely solvent. And typically, that is what the government is done; it is just that for most of SS's history, the economy has been improving so payouts have exceeded promises.

In addition, you look at the fact that the government typically doesn't pay a fair interest rate on the borrowed money. If they had, the trust fund would be nearly twice as big today. If they paid what some marketable securities paid, it would be at nearly 9 trillion.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Who cares,

we are all being radiated by Fukashima nuclear reactor, don't worry be happy. Social Security is the least of your worries.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Make sure there is no vacancy for radioactive elements.

Iodine, Cesium and Strontium deficiencies or vacancies are can be filled with radioactive elements. Move first so there is no room for radi-active ones.

Selenium has been known to keep cancer at bay. Vitamin D helps with cleanup.

If a body is saturated with radio-silent Iodine, Cesium and Strontium it has no vacancies for the hot ones from Fukashima.

Free includes debt-free!

Welfare vs Bank Bailout, whats the difference?

Foreign Aid vs Welfare, whats the difference?

I'm a divorced, 55 year old

I'm a divorced, 55 year old woman with post-polio syndrome and no kids. Worked my whole life as a civilian police employee making good money and having my paycheck cut to shreds like everyone else. Lost everything in the divorce because of the need to flee an abusive and potentially lethal situation.

From that solid, financial background, I now get a thousand dollars a month in S.S.D.I. (which went through uncontested) and $16.00 a month in food stamps (down from $93.00 a month which still wasn't really enough). I've been able to scrape by via taking in a boarder who occupies the master bedroom. I live in the den.

I'm sure it's difficult for those who don't have a disability to relate to what I have to go through on a daily basis just to survive. $120.00 a month has to go to the girl who does my grocery shopping and errands like the bank since I have no car and it's too far to walk or wheel. I haven't left the house in over 5 years and the quality of my life revolves around one, small luxury - the Internet.

So since all of you apparently have the answers, you tell me what the parents of a seriously disabled kid who will be dependent for life are supposed to do.

My apologies if I sound bitter, but everywhere I turn I'm told that either welfare is absolutely necessary to support lazy jerks or it's completely unnecessary and it would be better for me to die and get it over with.

I support Dr. Paul 100% because he's the only one who DOESN'T say this.

So sorry for you!

That's really sad! You worked hard all your life and have paid into what you now receive. Your life should be better though! Life isn't fair! However, you are a very valuable person and keep fighting the good fight!

Spent 12 hours on Yahoo

Spent 12 hours on Yahoo yesterday debating morons about how mistaken they were about Iran and around 20% of them finally saw the reasoning of my logic and facts. They're now questioning the validity of the media on their own and I was very glad to see it. The majority, however, are still suffering the effects of conditioned apathy and it will take someone much more convincing than me to get them to change their minds.

I appreciate your words, Kron. I might not be able to walk, but my brain's still working and I'm still a pretty fast typist.

Felt good. Thank you. I

Felt good. Thank you.

I see a change on those Yahoo stories. Most of the sentiment is pretty anti two-party now. Occasionally there will be a troll. I just ignore what they say and keep going.

Be advised I just found this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ewjdQqnzA&feature=youtu.be As I'm not that familiar with international law I'd appreciate if someone could explain the potential outcome.

I did. Nobody's commenting.

I did. Nobody's commenting. Go figure. States declaring sovereignty from the government would seem to be a rather big deal.

It's so incredibly frustrating when importan posts

go unnoticed. I've posted some very important (imo) threads that could have very positively impacted our movement and they have gone ignored, even after addressing Michael & the mods. I've also posted threads (not as important) on more than one occasion that go unnoticed, only to have someone duplicate it later and sometimes get it front paged - go figure.

Latest example:

http://www.dailypaul.com/249080/gop-super-pac-has-not-releas...

whats the difference?

why do I continually have to fight this propaganda???

SS would be fine if our criminal congress people didnt rob it!!

Welfare is unsustainable.
SS isnt welfare for the fifteen millionth friggin time!!!!!

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

The Supreme Court disagrees with you since 1935.

In fact, they upheld it as constitutional because it IS welfare.

If it were in fact a retirement or savings plan, they would have struck it down.

It is a tax and a welfare check. The two are separate and either can be ended at any time without ending the other.

No one owes you anything, and you did not "pay into" any account.

You paid a tax.

Congress spent the money.

The end.

See Helvering v. Davis for enlightenment.

Then it is theft by deception

This Supreme Court decision is not common knowledge. Everyone pays into social security believing it is their retirement fund. The government makes no attempt to correct people in this perception, and if it is not a retirement program then it is theft by deception. Most people don't even realize that Congress stole the money from the trust fund to pay for boondoggles like the Vietnam War and Clinton's pseudo-balanced budget. Doesn't mean they don't still owe every dime promised to the people who paid into it their entire lives.

Or if they want to end it they can always refund all those premiums from all those years.

Of course they can always default and f*** over seniors and millions of disabled people, but that will be the point where the Revolution ceases to be peaceful.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03

Of course it is deception. Read the PDF linked at the bottom of

all of these comments. It is excellent.

The FDR administration was intentionally fraudulent in their attempts to pass the law, then to fight for it in court, and then to encourage people to sign up under it.

The reason people believe as you say they do, is precisely because of the fraud perpetrated by the administration, the courts, and the media.

I don't expect people to already know about the fraud.

But I'll be sure to point it out every chance I get.

Until we educate people on the truth, we can't have an honest discussion on how to fix this mess.

Except for the treasury

Except for the treasury securities in the SS fund...you know, the 3 trillion that is part of the debt?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What about it? You saying that wasn't spent?

It's gone man - IOUs.

And Congress doesn't have to make good on them later.

Effectively, and with all practicality - that money is not there. It's gone.

The treasury has to make good

The treasury has to make good on them.

What it is owed to the SSI fund is owed to anybody who holds treasury bills. To not pay them out would be the literal equivalent of a default.

Now, Congress can always write a law adjusting the compensation that SS pays out, but that debt still exists...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

For the majority of that debt, no. Because they are not

marketable securities.

There is no consequence to not honoring them other than political fall out.

If they failed to honor the IOUs that constituted marketable securities - THAT would be a big issue and akin to default.

But if they don't honor these special - only available for this one purpose - debt, then no. It will raise a stink, but it won't trickle out through the economy. Other government debt is still safe.

So it would be like the

So it would be like the government not honoring savings bonds...bonds that are specifically backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

It wouldn't be a direct default, but it would cause treasury rates to soar out-of-control. Markets would be incredibly destabalized. Non-marketable securities are often the measure of a risk-free asset..

Ultimately, it would cause a huge drop in confidence. The market would say, "if the US decided to not honor its savings bonds, then they might not honor their treasury bills".

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Similar, but not quite.

Because YOU can hold savings bonds. You could sell them for face value to someone.

In a sense, they ARE fungible.

But what we're talking about here with this special "can only be issued in exchange for SS taxes" debt, is another animal entirely.

You see, you and I can't buy these debt instruments. No one other than the Treasury is allowed to issue or own them. They can't be bought or sold or traded.

They don't even really exist as far as I can tell.

They are merely accounting entries to indicate that money has been taken out of the Social Security Reserve Account, and been placed into General Revenue. (where it was to begin with)

The idea, is that this constitutes a debt owed back by the General Revenue one day.

In reality, that isn't ever going to get paid.

It was just a gimmick to shut people up about Congress spending the money on other things.

Even if there are actual certificates printed up, the situation is the same.

This isn't any sort of "normal" debt that the US lets anyone else hold. Not making good on this special inter-agency debt has no real bearing on the confidence they'll pay REAL debt held by private individuals, foreign entities and governments.

If the Press tries to make it so, it might have some small effect at first. But that will quickly dissolve. What won't dissolve is the effects and confidence in the sham of propped up numbers the Feds spit out when the world realizes that Uncle Sam isn't going to subsidize the consumer purchases of people over 65 any more.

The impact of THAT is what will be a mess, but not any effect on confidence in T-Bills, bonds or notes. In fact, I'd bet people FLOCK to those securities when this happens. Because they are legal obligations at a time where stocks and other investments may be plummeting even more due to more accurate forecasts of a downturn in spending as a result of the collapse of the SS system.

blame whomever you want

point is boomers were there to vote for it. they chose willing ignorance. if there's a vote to raise taxes simply for fulfilling ss, i would tell them they are on their own.

lol.. typical.. bunch of emo boomers swarming my post w/o the ability to come up with a rational response to justify when their SS runs out of money, how they going to rob my wallet.

Robbing our pockets isn't an

Robbing our pockets isn't an option either... WE didn't steal the money from the trust fund. If they can't make good, then they need to do what any corporation or individual would do when they can't pay their bills... start selling assets. They can start with all those overseas bases in countries we have no business being in.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03

i will tell you

when you have pile of money sitting somewhere, it's social security. if you didn't guard it and let other people steal it and now want next generation to pay your bills, it's entitlement and theft.

madoff did not run a ponzi scheme until he lost money below client's deposit pool. the question is practical, not theoretical. libertarians need to stop coming up with slews of useless philosophies to answer a 1+1=2 question.