lordjedi said:Tiptup said:Conservation for the sake of conservation is also stupid though.
Very true.
Janskeet said:A little bit of socialism goes a long way in this counrty. You people frown on socialism like we shouldn't have any, but I think it helps the econemy because it keeps the poor and middle class afloat. Without the help of wellfare, social security, these people would be either living on the streets or even more conservative and not play a role in our econemy. By giving them a piece of the pie so to speak we make our econemy stronger. It's not like people get a comfrable life on wellfare. Doesn't it pay people like $400 a month for an individual?
You apparently don't know very many senior citizens or how conservative they can be. Most anyone on a fixed income (Social Security, pension, 401k) is pretty conservative on how they spend their money. They don't spend it on frivolous things, but that doesn't mean they aren't playing a role in the economy either.
Welfare, Social Security, and even a pension isn't suppose to make life "comfortable". It's suppose to make life liveable. The entire reason for putting money into a "retirement account" is so you can continue to live some kind of reduced lifestyle once you retire. By reduced, I mean having enough money to eat and pay regular bills, but not necessarily go out and have fun all the time. You'll possibly also have enough money to do a lot of travelling once you retire as well, as long as you save that money in your younger years and don't spend it frivolously.
Back in the mid 90's (I think), the Republicans wanted to cut the amount that Social Security would be increased. As an example, let's say it goes up 4% every year. They wanted to make it 2% per year. The Democrats pushed the idea that the Republicans wanted to "cut" social security. This had a lot of senior citizens fuming. The Republicans didn't seem to respond and it took the conservative talk radio shows to tell people what was really going on. I don't remember the outcome, but that's not really the point. The point is that senior citizens don't like it when you try to cut social security. They also happen to be the most consistent voting block of people in the country. In a nutshell, you don't screw with the programs those people depend on and expect to hold your office.
Some conservatives do view social security as welfare though (it essentially is). It also happens to be a pyramid scheme that would be illegal if it wasn't done by the government. When it was first created, very few people were expected to make it to the retirement age. Now that people are living so long, almost everyone lives to retirement age. The reason the system is breaking down is because there simply aren't enough people paying into it anymore to support the number of people retiring. It was flawed from the get go and needs a serious overhaul.
The poor and middle class aren't really kept afloat by socialism. They're kept in place. The more they earn, the more they're taxed, the more they have to struggle to get ahead. By lowering taxes, you allow more people to move from lower to middle and middle to upper classes. When they can do that, they have a much easier time getting by without government assistance and they're able to get ahead quicker.
I always here how social security isn't going to be around when us echo boomers and generation x's go to retirement. But I read that the system is projected to be fine until 2042 and even then the change need to keep social security working with the income they promise you is not going to be hard to adjust. But I read this back in February or March and that was before the stock market crash and weakening econemy. All these conservatives seem to want to make us think that the system needs to be "changed" but it is just an excuse to put it stock market or something, give it a way to filter back to the rich.