Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184410)	3/9/2004 4:28:22 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572720

Why was Social Security implemented in the first place? Why is it the only source of income for millions of American seniors? I understand your question, but it does not seem related. See my comments later for a possible answer to your question. I repeat...what does it have to do with loss of morality? Was Janet Jackson's breast exposure somehow connected with SS? Is abortion or gay marriage or whatever offends you connected with SS or welfare or minimum wage? How? Is Social Security still a charitable institution? Why or why not? I will answer your question by personal example. My dad...artisan immigrant...came to a new country, new society, new language...this is hard stuff...worked hard all his life at his trade, paid taxes and SS all his life and came to appreciate his new country. Worked for companies that offered no pensions....none in his trade did. So he saved all his life in whatever modest means he could, put us through school, put away a few bucks and finally retired at age 65. He is now 75 and afflicted with Alzeimer's disease. His savings and SS just barely cover his needs. W/O SS and medicare he would be unable to get by. Do you think he is getting charity? There are millions of people like him...not wealthy...not financially indipendent...not as flexible as the rate at which society changes around them....a society which supports, you could say depends on, folks at the bottom of the economic scale. What are you going to do, ask these people to hold jobs that help make our lives comfortable, pay them minimum wage (you would even deny them that protection it seems) and then finally deny them security in their older years? Think about some of the things you are saying. You are generalizing too much. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184410)	3/10/2004 12:57:14 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572720

Tenchusatsu, RE: "Why was Social Security implemented in the first place?" Great Depression. People not able to get enough food. You've probably seen the photos of the skinny people in the food lines. Back then, fat people were considered more attractive than slender people because their extra weight implied they were doing well (prosperous). RE: "Why is it the only source of income for millions of American seniors?" I'm beginning to think the concept of forced savings is a good idea, similar to taxes but rather than entrusting the money with the govt, it goes into your bank or brokerage account similar to IRAs. There are millions of disabled people in the USA. Every day there are 200/day new disabled people in santa clara county alone. I think it's economically more appropriate to spread out the cost of a disability to the general population rather than disproportionately placing it onto the backs of one family unit. RE:"Is Social Security still a charitable institution? Why or why not?" Before I was born, the religious folks would use charities as a way to control people. Poor people could only get assistance if they allowed their belief system to be controlled by the charity. They wouldn't give access to birth control, even if the person's doctor felt it was necessary to protect the life of a mother. It was pretty disgusting. There will be 75M more boomers retiring over the next 20 years or so. (I think I got this figure from SJMN, or maybe CNN). Here's another answer to Social Security's problem: Why not immigrate 75M more workers to the USA over the next 20 years or so, in order to make up for the retires? That's about 3.75M more workers/year, and creates more customers too. That's one way to grow the GDP as well as well as pay the tax receipts to pay SS. Some people have said they think is the underlying reason why Bush cut a deal with Fox in Mexico to allow more immigrants into this country. My only gripe is, they need to allow more of the PhD immigrants into the country. Regards, Amy J