I assume you’re being disengenous here. But just in case you were being sincere, I’ll clarify. I consider it “beer money” not because there’s anything wrong or faulty with the program. Just because I don’t need it.
“I don’t need it” is precisely how I took it. It’s dysfunctional that you’re getting a welfare check from the gov’t. You don’t need it.
But many people claim it’s very useful to them. I prefer not to be a “limousine liberal” and assume that because I don’t need it, it doesn’t matter to anyone else. And I’m willing to be taxed to that effect.
“Useful to them” is not the standard that the gov’t should use. After all, who doesn’t have “use” for money that they get. If you’re using “useful” as synonymous with “need”, then OK. It’s a welfare system and should be distributed based on need. There are different definitions of “need” that the legislative process will hash out. Yet, that system would be better (and more honest) than the broken system we have now, which: a) deceives people into thinking that they are paying into something; and b) gives a welfare check to people that don’t need it.
This sounds like a backwards argument. SS has been around since 1935 just fine.
The fact that people find “free” money from the gov’t “useful” or that some gov’t program transferring money from minority party to majority party from the gov’t has been around for a long time is no way to evaluate the success/failure of a gov’t program. See Thomas Jefferson’s quotes on 51% taking from 49%. If 51% of the population agree to take money from 49% since 1935, then that’s not a system to consider the merits of “just fine”.
There are issues now because of the aging baby boomer population. Overall pretty easy to fix.
There were always issues and there will always be issues. If it’s easy to fix, then we’d fix it.
“Bankrupt” is a bit of hyperbolic term designed to make people think it’ll “run out of money.” But really the worst case is a cutting benefits by about 25%, sometimes around 2034.
“Bankrupt” is a term from the private sector. It’s not “hyperbolic” as much as porting a term from a different system. Still, one definition of “bankrupt” is “unable to pay outstanding debts”. That’s true under the current system, which you acknowledge we’re on that path by your “cutting benefits by 25%” qualification. And, it’s not just the worst case scenario; it’s also the currently projected scenario.
I’d prefer to just fund it as intended …
If you “fund it as intended” and pay out as intended, then you’re on the projected path of “unable to pay outstanding debts” (whatever term you use).
… rather than put the millions of Americans who paid into it their loves lives …
In zero sense did “people pay into it”. That’s a lie that the Supreme Court put to rest. It’s a tax. If you paid into something, then you have a property claim to it. You have no property claim to it. If you paid into something, then you have a promissory balance to get it back somehow. That’s not true; same as the property illusion. Congress can change your distribution rate (including to $0) if it wishes.
… (and need it) through a 25% cut. Not everyone can be the beneficiary of your or my private largesse, as pious as that makes us feel.
I agree with this. That’s why it should be: a) changed to a general tax, which is an honest take on what it truly is; and b) changed to a distribution system to those who need it.
