What has lead to black opposition to the Republican Party?

[Captain Moroni]

Welfare should be there to give people a hand and RISE above poverty. Not give them a hand and keep them down.
Think of the poor neighborhoods. If you are on welfare, would it be so hard to clean your front porch? Plant a small flower garden?, volunteer at the school?
Or should you just do nothing and still get food stamps?
This country needs a kick in the rear.

[flips333]

Social security is not welfare. You can argue that with me all day. Taxpayers pay into SS their whole lives. Consider it a paltry reward for paying ridiculous taxes. Now actual welfare is paid to people who pay no taxes....they just take and expect the free ride to continue.
There is no free ride in SS.

Except that isn't how it works. I pay for your dad...And people get far more than they put in because they live longer than they used to. And you don't have to pay into SS to get paid out. And it won't be there for me because it's a regressive tax... and people who are rich and make their money from betting on stocks instead of working don't have to pay.

And how are all these things paid for.... Taxes... So really what's the difference between my taxes paying your dad's social security and medicare and my taxes paying for my possible unemployment insurance.

[Captain Moroni]

Except that isn't how it works. I pay for your dad...And people get far more than they put in because they live longer than they used to. And you don't have to pay into SS to get paid out. And it won't be there for me because it's a regressive tax... and people who are rich and make their money from betting on stocks instead of working don't have to pay.

And how are all these things paid for.... Taxes... So really what's the difference between my taxes paying your dad's social security and medicare and my taxes paying for my possible unemployment insurance.

And my father paid for your grandparents, what is the point?

[dbroncos78087]

Except that isn't how it works. I pay for your dad...And people get far more than they put in because they live longer than they used to. And you don't have to pay into SS to get paid out. And it won't be there for me because it's a regressive tax... and people who are rich and make their money from betting on stocks instead of working don't have to pay.

And how are all these things paid for.... Taxes... So really what's the difference between my taxes paying your dad's social security and medicare and my taxes paying for my possible unemployment insurance.

That isn't quite right. The money you put in gets put into long term investments (like 30-year T-Bills) and then the older people get paid out of the returns on the investments that their money got put into (probably the same 30-year T-Bills). If there is a lack of funds, then yes some of your money might be used to pay out benefits.

You are right that one does not actually have to have paid into SS to get benefits, but one also has to come to this country at retirement age and gain citizenship or be here their entire life and never work for a day to do so. The idea that people are draining SS without doing anything to earn it is preposterous and far more people do the opposite than those who are able to get benefits with no contribution. Far more people work their entire life and die before the age of 65 than are able to fit into that tiny hole that could get benefits and not pay for them.

[flips333]

That isn't quite right. The money you put in gets put into long term investments (like 30-year T-Bills) and then the older people get paid out of the returns on the investments that their money got put into (probably the same 30-year T-Bills). If there is a lack of funds, then yes some of your money might be used to pay out benefits.

You are right that one does not actually have to have paid into SS to get benefits, but one also has to come to this country at retirement age and gain citizenship or be here their entire life and never work for a day to do so. The idea that people are draining SS without doing anything to earn it is preposterous and far more people do the opposite than those who are able to get benefits with no contribution. Far more people work their entire life and die before the age of 65 than are able to fit into that tiny hole that could get benefits and not pay for them.

Then how come politicians are always saying it's going bankrupt? If we are paying in more than we are taking out it shouldn't be a problem. Hell we should be able to use some of that to pay for other things?

[dbroncos78087]

Then how come politicians are always saying it's going bankrupt? If we are paying in more than we are taking out it shouldn't be a problem. Hell we should be able to use some of that to pay for other things?

Politicians say lots of things. Social Security has its problems and certainly needs to be reformed with a populace that is living longer and the increasing burden that is creating. But that being said, we aren't simply handing money over to the last generation and getting nothing. Social Security puts that money into no-risk investments and it accrues value over time. It isn't much when you look at it from a short-term perspective. But when you consider that we pay roughly $100B in SS and Medicare taxes ever year and those get put into long-term investments (like the 30-year T-Bill or longer) those earn interest which gets put back into the SS program. That money doesn't just immediately come in and go right back out the door to someone else. It uses low return/low risk investments to get more bang for your buck, but with the high amount of money that gets put into those "low return" investments the program gets a good chunk of change to go towards yours (and mine) SS.

[Captain Moroni]

Bottom line, you can't compare SS to welfare. Apples and oranges.

[flips333]

Bottom line, you can't compare SS to welfare. Apples and oranges.

I think you can. They are both government safety net programs. I never got that metaphor... apples and oranges are both fruit you eat. Of course you can compare them.

[dbroncos78087]

I think you can. They are both government safety net programs. I never got that metaphor... apples and oranges are both fruit you eat. Of course you can compare them.

Welfare is something that you can get regardless of whether you have paid into the system or not. Food stamps is a great example, regardless of whether you have paid into the state system of food stamps if you meet certain criteria, then you get them. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are paid for by each of our contributions whereas food stamps are not funded in this way. So in that regard they are not the same types of programs. Regardless of one's opinion on apples and oranges, the new expression can be "its like food stamps and Social Security" because they are two different types of programs which are not really comparable.

[flips333]

Welfare is something that you can get regardless of whether you have paid into the system or not. Food stamps is a great example, regardless of whether you have paid into the state system of food stamps if you meet certain criteria, then you get them. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are paid for by each of our contributions whereas food stamps are not funded in this way. So in that regard they are not the same types of programs. Regardless of one's opinion on apples and oranges, the new expression can be "its like food stamps and Social Security" because they are two different types of programs which are not really comparable.

They are paid by taxes. They are safety nets. They are comparable. And I would add medicaid actually is probably more like food stamps. As it's a means tested system that doers not require you to have paid in. Folks can point out the differences... but the sheer fact of differences (with say the mechanism of tax that is used to fund the program) does not make them government programs that cannot be compared.

I find the demonization of the most vulnerable of society because there's this idea that they are all gaming the system because they are lazy (These people exist but it is a minority of a minority gaming the system for a couple pence) despicable. The fact that we are so fiercely capitalistic and STILL take care of those who can't or won't in our society should be treasured not shat upon. Sometimes I think the GOP understands natural selection so much better than the dems, even if they don't believe in it.

Remember "let him die." Not all in the GOP espouse this... but there is an undercurrent of this idea that we should not help those who can't because lumped in with those there are some who won't. I think that is sad.

[joeyc77]

They are paid by taxes. They are safety nets. They are comparable. And I would add medicaid actually is probably more like food stamps. As it's a means tested system that doers not require you to have paid in. Folks can point out the differences... but the sheer fact of differences (with say the mechanism of tax that is used to fund the program) does not make them government programs that cannot be compared.

I find the demonization of the most vulnerable of society because there's this idea that they are all gaming the system because they are lazy (These people exist but it is a minority of a minority gaming the system for a couple pence) despicable. The fact that we are so fiercely capitalistic and STILL take care of those who can't or won't in our society should be treasured not shat upon. Sometimes I think the GOP understands natural selection so much better than the dems, even if they don't believe in it.

Remember "let him die." Not all in the GOP espouse this... but there is an undercurrent of this idea that we should not help those who can't because lumped in with those there are some who won't. I think that is sad.

Social security is more like insurance than a safety net. Much like an insurance company the govt is taking a gamble on you that you will not actually take more from the program than you put in. Latley, with advances in healthcare, they are losing that gamble and hence the need for reform. SS is actually the definition of a ponzi scheme and sooner or later, it catches up to those running it.

You used the term "safety net" to describe the welfare system and that's its intended use. However, its becoming more like a lifestyle than a safety net. The Repubs want those who need it to use the program but then eventually become self reliant enough to get off the program. The dems want those who are on welfare to stay on welfare in order to control them.

There is a big difference in taking care of those who can't or won't take care of themselves and the difference needs to be made clear. There are always going to be those who take advantage of the system, no matter what system is in place. However, as it is right now, those who won't outnumber those who can't and thats a problem. I grew up in a poverty stricken area and I have seen the difference first hand.

[joeyc77]

Do they collect social security... ? OR is that not a form of welfare?

What the hell does that last little tidbit have to do with anything... and instead of making numbers up you should provide a link... I'm guessing that 90% number is oversold.

Oh and by the way you never answered if your folks take social security.

Why is this even a question? Just because you believe that govt prgrams need reform or that big govt is not the answer does not mean you are a hypocrit for living inside the system that the govt has set in place.

I'm sorry but this is typical liberal logic...as if the world is made up of absolutes. I heard the same logic during the war. "Oh, you support the war? then why don't you enlist in the service?" Using that logic, if you are against children being murdered or dying in fires then you must become a cop or firefighter. It's ridulous.

What if we flipped the question around on you? Do you support Bush and his policies? If not, did you accept the Bush tax cuts or did you deny them because unlike SS, you actually have the choice to pay more taxes? Many economists say that by providing tax breaks to companies prices were lower than they could have been, therefore when you go into a store, do you offer to pay a few dollars more because you don't want to take advantage of something you don't agree with?

I know it sounds ridiulous, but this is the logic you are using by asking those questions.

[dbroncos78087]

They are paid by taxes. They are safety nets. They are comparable. And I would add medicaid actually is probably more like food stamps. As it's a means tested system that doers not require you to have paid in. Folks can point out the differences... but the sheer fact of differences (with say the mechanism of tax that is used to fund the program) does not make them government programs that cannot be compared.

I find the demonization of the most vulnerable of society because there's this idea that they are all gaming the system because they are lazy (These people exist but it is a minority of a minority gaming the system for a couple pence) despicable. The fact that we are so fiercely capitalistic and STILL take care of those who can't or won't in our society should be treasured not shat upon. Sometimes I think the GOP understands natural selection so much better than the dems, even if they don't believe in it.

Remember "let him die." Not all in the GOP espouse this... but there is an undercurrent of this idea that we should not help those who can't because lumped in with those there are some who won't. I think that is sad.

I don't think programs that are paid for by taxes are safety nets, unless we are going to extend that definition to every single government program.

Medicaid is a bit of a different beast, you are right in that regard. But Social Security is not an entitlement short of the fact that you are entitled to the money you put into the system back. You aren't entitled to "my" Social Security. As was said above me, it is an insurance program more than an entitlement.

As far as the demonization of people on government assistance, I agree with you. It is terrible that we want to use them as a whipping post and pretend that because they need some assistance they are terrible or bad for society. They are people who are trying, and failing, to make a living and need some help. There are those who abuse the system but quite frankly if there are 100 people who legitimately need the system and 1 person who abuse it, then I don't care if that one person abuses it. Because any effort to remove that one person is going to kick off far more people who actually need it than it saves in getting rid of the bad people on the system.

As far as the GOP and natural selection, I have always argued that capitalism is nothing more than a case study in evolution. People want evidence of evolution need look no further than capitalism and our economic system.

[flips333]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...a-chants-video

At first I thought this was an example of racial overtones at the republican convention... now I doubt it, but I will leave the link here so people can see what we are talking about.

[flips333]

Social security is more like insurance than a safety net. Much like an insurance company the govt is taking a gamble on you that you will not actually take more from the program than you put in. Latley, with advances in healthcare, they are losing that gamble and hence the need for reform. SS is actually the definition of a ponzi scheme and sooner or later, it catches up to those running it.

You used the term "safety net" to describe the welfare system and that's its intended use. However, its becoming more like a lifestyle than a safety net. The Repubs want those who need it to use the program but then eventually become self reliant enough to get off the program. The dems want those who are on welfare to stay on welfare in order to control them.

There is a big difference in taking care of those who can't or won't take care of themselves and the difference needs to be made clear. There are always going to be those who take advantage of the system, no matter what system is in place. However, as it is right now, those who won't outnumber those who can't and thats a problem. I grew up in a poverty stricken area and I have seen the difference first hand.

personal experience is not evidence that can be relied upon, it's not accurate, and is subject to a series of biases. point to any factual data that shows that those who won't outnumber those who can't and we can discuss that.

Also The idea that I, as a progressive, am out to control people with welfare is ridiculous. One could say progressives and democrats are misguided, that they think they are helping when they are really fostering dependency which is hurtful...sure I get that (retarded... but I get that). To claim they are intentionally attempting to manipulate the poor is an idea straight outta the nuthouse. It's like claiming the US government came up with HIV to kill black people crazy or truther crazy.