An essay I wrote

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:20 pm

Social Security: The Virus

When Social Security was established on August 14, 1935, the full intent of this program was to give to the elderly, women, veterans of World War I, and disabled workers a chance to settle above the poverty line. However, Social Security is no longer a government entity into which the public can feed off of. It is sickening to know the future of this system, and to not have many options available to us.
The average life expectancy in 1935 was 59.7%. Compared to the average life expectancy in 2004, which was 77.9%. This number has increased and is taking its toll on Social Security. Undoubtedly, Social Security is nearly 100% of the income generated in households with members above the age of 62. Americans are now living longer than ever before and ultimately taking more out of the system. This system has nearly grown on America like a vine on a piece of wood. The average Social Security check is $1685.50, which society has become so dependent on by the time we reach the age of 62.
Under the current system, today

The_Hushed_Casket · Post by **The_Hushed_Casket** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:58 am

What makes you think individual states could handle social security any better than the federal government?

I personally (watch out! Liberal here!) see no problem with raising taxes in order to pay for benefits. Three cheers for socialism.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

I dont believe the states can handle it better, unfortantly. If it were up to me I would abolish the system. However, I like socialist ideas but I believe it would be better for the nation if we left it up to the states. America relys too much on the Federal Government, and when the Federal Government makes mistakes, we all are affected. However, if a state runs into complications, only a % of the population will be affected.

Also, I do agree with taxing. Though, Im kinda neutral on socialist ideals because I believe the government shouldnt be giving money out to the people. On the other hand, I believe the Federal Government should be there for the people when we run into complications. I cant really take a position on that one.

RaVNzCRoFT · Post by **RaVNzCRoFT** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:16 pm

Just glancing at it, it looks pretty good. However, I noticed two things that could be improved or fixed; the first sentence is run-on, and life expectancy is not a percent.

The_Hushed_Casket · Post by **The_Hushed_Casket** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:42 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:Also, I do agree with taxing. Though, Im kinda neutral on socialist ideals because I believe the government shouldnt be giving money out to the people. On the other hand, I believe the Federal Government should be there for the people when we run into complications. I cant really take a position on that one.

Yeah, I'm not really sure of my stance on socialism either. On one hand, I think better government programs and public education are worth taxpayer's money, but on the other, I think that people should have the freedom not to have to pay taxes on programs they do not take advantage of.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:24 pm

RaVNzCRoFT wrote:Just glancing at it, it looks pretty good. However, I noticed two things that could be improved or fixed; the first sentence is run-on, and life expectancy is not a percent.

Wow, I cant believe I did that. Sorry, english is not my best subject in school.

Casket wrote:Yeah, I'm not really sure of my stance on socialism either. On one hand, I think better government programs and public education are worth taxpayer's money, but on the other, I think that people should have the freedom not to have to pay taxes on programs they do not take advantage of.

Agreed. Which is why I believe it should be left up to the states. So the people of that region have to ability to vote on what programs/systems they wish to pass.

jks · Post by **jks** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:44 pm

John Locke said government exists only because of a "contract" between the governers and the consenting governed. The archaic ideas of a "small government" and "cut spending" no longer apply to this real world. The fact is that the majority of Americans have come to depend on the social programs that the US gov't (used) to offer. So saying you will cut spending is a step backwards, make everyone pay an equal percent based tax, maybe raise it a bit, and pull funding from the military and put it into schools, welfare, social security, and veteran/elderly care. A number I heard several months ago said that if we were to take just 1/3rd of the military budget it would be enough to fix all the nation's schools, or give health care to all. This world is getting closer and closer to peace, sure you may see a 'rise' in terrorism, but thats just the bump we go over to start going down the other side of the hill to peace. We need to start funding science and research, maybe if we did that we could colonize other planets and end global warming and end the overpopulation problem. The federal government should remain the over arching power, because if one focuses too heavily on the state and local levels, you get not a single, united country, but 50 states making up a country.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:40 pm

jks wrote:...put it into schools, welfare, social security, and veteran/elderly care.

I believe 41% of government spending is to the Defense, but my question is, should the federal government be responsible for all those aspects of society? I believe it should be left up to the states because it should remain in the power of the people to determine their life within their state. By creating a large department within the federal government, you are effectively making a decision for every American. Which during these times of divided government and "cultural wars", many decisions made in the past no-longer work with todays society.

jks wrote:We need to start funding science and research

Agreed 100%. Medical research especially.

jks wrote:because if one focuses too heavily on the state and local levels, you get not a single, united country, but 50 states making up a country.

Though, wasnt that the intent of the four fathers, to create a strong national government but leave much of the power to the states?

a mammoth · Post by **a mammoth** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:31 am

As soon as you think peace a nuke will go off.

There should always be tons of money going into the military. One of the only true peaces in history was the roman empire. They crushed everyone that dared to rise against them. That is why you want to keep a huge army, to keep fear instilled in those who would wish to harm the US, then you crush them, and you get peace.

Government is a social contract. If you think about it, then all the people of the united states decide to screw the government, then there is no more government, they would have no more power.

FleetAdmiralBacon · Post by **FleetAdmiralBacon** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:24 pm

I'm what I like to call an Anti-ist.
I just don't give a flying f*** about politics

I have to say I don't care about social security, Medicare, the "War" in Iraq [Still not a legal war, btw, Congress never declared], or taxes.
I'm gonna move to Canada some day (watch out Canadians, here comes Bacon!)

jks · Post by **jks** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:56 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:
jks wrote:...put it into schools, welfare, social security, and veteran/elderly care.
I believe 41% of government spending is to the Defense, but my question is, should the federal government be responsible for all those aspects of society? I believe it should be left up to the states because it should remain in the power of the people to determine their life within their state. By creating a large department within the federal government, you are effectively making a decision for every American. Which during these times of divided government and "cultural wars", many decisions made in the past no-longer work with todays society.

They are, at present, state funded programs, but where does state funding come from? State taxes are sent to the federal government for collection, then the feds take the portion they need for federal programs, then whatever's left is distributed among the states, proportional to how much in taxes they gave. If we cut military spending at the federal level it would mean more money left over for the states to fund things like schools and welfare.

noxiousraccoon wrote:
jks wrote:We need to start funding science and research
Agreed 100%. Medical research especially.

Indeed.

noxiousraccoon wrote:
jks wrote:because if one focuses too heavily on the state and local levels, you get not a single, united country, but 50 states making up a country.
Though, wasnt that the intent of the four fathers, to create a strong national government but leave much of the power to the states?

The intent was to have an equal amount of power between the federal government and the state governments, but what ended up actually happening was that the federal government gets more power, and as a result the states' power is merely a formality to fulfill the "states should have at least some power" clause the founding fathers wanted. States actually have no real power on any national or international policy.

a mammoth · Post by **a mammoth** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:57 pm

Canada still has politics... If you don't want politics, move somewhere thats a dictatorship, then you won' have to worry about what people think about stuff, because it doesn't matter.

JK-47 · Post by **JK-47** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:43 pm

Just move to Alaska, that place is like its own country.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:50 pm

jks wrote:They are, at present, state funded programs, but where does state funding come from? State taxes are sent to the federal government for collection, then the feds take the portion they need for federal programs, then whatever's left is distributed among the states, proportional to how much in taxes they gave. If we cut military spending at the federal level it would mean more money left over for the states to fund things like schools and welfare.

Do you know if it possible to deny having Social Security? For example, if you dont want Social Security benefits in the future, then you wont get taxed, is that possible? Back on topic, I believe on the issue of Social Security it should be left up to the states. Why does this system have to go all the way up the food chain, when states can be in control of their own taxation and each individuals contribution to the system? The Federal Government has alot to handle and I believe this power can be successfully achieved through the states. Or, I believe we should start taxing more to save the system. Though, neither party wants to be the one responsible for raising taxes. If we abolished Social Security on the Federal level and replaced it with an education system, research system, or environmental system, I believe that would be a better choice. If I were a politican I would lean towards more medical research. As a senior in high school, I cannot stand seeing autistic peers in school among the regular teenager population. Along with other illnesses as cancer, aids, and the handicapped, knowing that funding can possibly lead to a cure for these.
Yes, if we did cut military spending it would help out alot, and alot indeed. Though, as the Super power in military technology, I believe it is our duty to stay ahead of the rest of the world.