Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[berdie]

To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.

And taking the responsibility away from the children may be a convenience to them, but as in all things, inevitably erodes their liberty.

Bounty is not what's on the table, but what's around the table. There is nowhere an elder would be more welcome and more loved than at the head of that table.

We seldom disagree, but I must on this.

Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.

Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.

As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.

[Bigun]

We seldom disagree, but I must on this.

Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.

Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.

As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.

Well @berdie all I can tell you is that when we allowed government to take over the traditional roles of the family, and their Churches, society turned South rapidly.  We are now working on four generations of people who have never known anything other than government handouts.

[roamer_1]

We seldom disagree, but I must on this.

Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.

Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.

As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.

We still are not at odds. @berdie , with this addendum:

ALL that you point to is directly CAUSED by government taking over the natural role... to include diminished inheritance which is what makes families stronger.

The ties that bind remain. When SHTF, watch which things burn away.

[bilo]

So here's an option.  Keep the 12.4% mandate.  Lift the cap.  But instead of the 12.4% going to the government, it would instead go to an approved^* private investment account belonging to that worker.  Let's say there are a dozen corporately held fiduciary investment options that are approved for this purpose, similar to a 401(k).  The employee choses which option to take, and can then track his/her investment over time.  The worker can be given the option of increasing his/her contribution, again similar to a 401(k).  And employees as an incentive could add to it.  This would enable people at the lower scale to participate in the same options that are available to those higher up.  And it makes them vested in their own retirements instead of relying on government to maintain poverty level living for them in their later years.  And most of all, it creates an inheritance for surviving family members.

This would solve all the issues, especially the problem of being dependent on govt.!

[bilo]

But do you worry about them, really?  Billions of people are impoverished due to unwise personal and collective decisions.  With rare exception, they will not thank you for sacrificing your happiness, and nor will they learn anything from it.

I guess I'm just a dumb Christian. I do not want to see people out on the street.

[bilo]

We seldom disagree, but I must on this.

Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.

Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.

As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.

The last two tenants that died in my apartments were in their 80's  and had no family. They lived on social security exclusively. IOW, for whatever reason some people end up in a tough situation in retirement. The best solution is for the social security taxes to be put into an account managed by an approved financial institution and disbursements only being made to the account holder, or their heirs. There is no way we are going to let people just end up out on the street.

[roamer_1]

The last two tenants that died in my apartments were in their 80's  and had no family. They lived on social security exclusively. IOW, for whatever reason some people end up in a tough situation in retirement. The best solution is for the social security taxes to be put into an account managed by an approved financial institution and disbursements only being made to the account holder, or their heirs. There is no way we are going to let people just end up out on the street.

Even if I were to accept that as true (which I ain't afar off), It should in no way belong to the Feds. If you want it that way, the states are the vehicle, as it is within their authority, and the state is more directly controlled by the citizens.

And you are right - some do not have family in the end. But that should be means tested instead of taking away the inheritance across generations in order to allow for the few... And that without including the Church, which is where charity should rightly reside.

I would FAR prefer tax breaks for those taking care of their elders, even as there are tax breaks for those raising children. Take some weight off for them, and allow them to care for their own...

Because as I said upthread, taking the responsibility away also takes away liberty - the two are intrinsically entwined.

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

[Kamaji]

The last two tenants that died in my apartments were in their 80's  and had no family. They lived on social security exclusively. IOW, for whatever reason some people end up in a tough situation in retirement. The best solution is for the social security taxes to be put into an account managed by an approved financial institution and disbursements only being made to the account holder, or their heirs. There is no way we are going to let people just end up out on the street.

[Kamaji]

Even if I were to accept that as true (which I ain't afar off), It should in no way belong to the Feds. If you want it that way, the states are the vehicle, as it is within their authority, and the state is more directly controlled by the citizens.

And you are right - some do not have family in the end. But that should be means tested instead of taking away the inheritance across generations in order to allow for the few... And that without including the Church, which is where charity should rightly reside.

I would FAR prefer tax breaks for those taking care of their elders, even as there are tax breaks for those raising children. Take some weight off for them, and allow them to care for their own...

Because as I said upthread, taking the responsibility away also takes away liberty - the two are intrinsically entwined.

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

It doesn’t not belong to the federal government, either.  Hence the power to spend for the general welfare. The ultimate question comes down to efficiency and effectiveness. 

[sneakypete]

@roamer_1   @Bigun

To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.

GOOD PLAN!

I remember well how after my father (not really,but he raised me),the man who had to quit school in the 3rd grade to go to work in a shipyard to support his 6 brothers and sisters,AND managed to put them all through school,died,and I called his oldest brother,who OWNED a locally prominent mega-church with teebee services on Sunday,died,and told him that my father's only request was that his brother,the preacher,preach his funeral services at the family cemetery.

He told me,"You know,I am not as young as I used to be,and I don't think I feel good enough to do that."

My subtle reply to that was "I don't give a rabid rats ass HOW bad you feel because you are going to feel a hell of a lot worse after I cripple your useless ass for life in you don't show up and preach that bleeping funeral"!

I see to have a bad rep amongst the Bible Trash in the family,because he told me "Well,after thinking about it for a minute,I do believe I can make it after all."

He did make it,and he did preach his brother's funeral,and the SOB had the gall to walk up to me and ask me what  his "Brother Bill" left him.

I told him he was left the right to stay the bleep OFF of MY GD property.

To be fair,I had one other uncle that was also a fundie preacher,and he was always a very respectable and upright man who was living a middle-class lifestyle when he died,and I can't remember a single person ever having anything negative to say about him.

Also the first one mentioned above served time in prison for printing counterfeit money. He "got religion" while serving his sentence,and even opened a prison ministry. IIRC,when he left Oregon to come back east,he owned at least 3 tv and radio stations. He,or course still charged us rent for the house he owned that we were living in at the time.

Lived within a few miles of us for at least 20 years,and never visited us once,or even sent a get well card when either my mother or father were in the hospital. Didn't even bother to come to my mother's funeral.

[roamer_1]

It doesn’t not belong to the federal government, either.  Hence the power to spend for the general welfare. The ultimate question comes down to efficiency and effectiveness.

I will firmly disagree with your definition of 'general welfare' (and have before). A wide reading of that phrase negates the very purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the federal government to a strict and restricted role. A wide authority wrt 'general welfare' is a free ticket out of those strictures, as literally anything can be for the 'general welfare'... It is most unfortunate that the words of the contract did not precisely convey the spirit of the signers, as well laid out in the papers surrounding it.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1   @Bigun


GOOD PLAN!

@sneakypete

Your anecdotal stories aside, the reality is that MOST families do have strong ties and functional inter-operations. And I have seldom seen a man or woman so empowered in their elder years as they are in the midst of their own - Serving a vital function there by the way - As they transmit their gathered wisdom from a podium of authority as the patriarch and matriarch, down through two or three generations, directly from the horse's mouth.

Rather than building the whole thing around the dysfunctional, It would be nice for a change to lift up and assist the functional.

You get more of what you vote *FOR*.
You want MORE of what works. And what works is what has always worked, down through the aeons, and that is foremost, family. Whatever comes after that is lesser by nature.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God gives thee.

[bilo]

Even if I were to accept that as true (which I ain't afar off), It should in no way belong to the Feds. If you want it that way, the states are the vehicle, as it is within their authority, and the state is more directly controlled by the citizens.

And you are right - some do not have family in the end. But that should be means tested instead of taking away the inheritance across generations in order to allow for the few... And that without including the Church, which is where charity should rightly reside.

I would FAR prefer tax breaks for those taking care of their elders, even as there are tax breaks for those raising children. Take some weight off for them, and allow them to care for their own...

Because as I said upthread, taking the responsibility away also takes away liberty - the two are intrinsically entwined.

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

We agree!

I have one acquaintance whose mother-in-law is subsidized by all her children. They each send her a check every month. She is provided for by her family. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows someone who is doing this. It should always be family, the church and then as last resort govt.

[bilo]

@roamer_1   @Bigun


GOOD PLAN!

I remember well how after my father (not really,but he raised me),the man who had to quit school in the 3rd grade to go to work in a shipyard to support his 6 brothers and sisters,AND managed to put them all through school,died,and I called his oldest brother,who OWNED a locally prominent mega-church with teebee services on Sunday,died,and told him that my father's only request was that his brother,the preacher,preach his funeral services at the family cemetery.

He told me,"You know,I am not as young as I used to be,and I don't think I feel good enough to do that."

My subtle reply to that was "I don't give a rabid rats ass HOW bad you feel because you are going to feel a hell of a lot worse after I cripple your useless ass for life in you don't show up and preach that bleeping funeral"!

I see to have a bad rep amongst the Bible Trash in the family,because he told me "Well,after thinking about it for a minute,I do believe I can make it after all."

He did make it,and he did preach his brother's funeral,and the SOB had the gall to walk up to me and ask me what  his "Brother Bill" left him.

I told him he was left the right to stay the bleep OFF of MY GD property.

To be fair,I had one other uncle that was also a fundie preacher,and he was always a very respectable and upright man who was living a middle-class lifestyle when he died,and I can't remember a single person ever having anything negative to say about him.

Also the first one mentioned above served time in prison for printing counterfeit money. He "got religion" while serving his sentence,and even opened a prison ministry. IIRC,when he left Oregon to come back east,he owned at least 3 tv and radio stations. He,or course still charged us rent for the house he owned that we were living in at the time.

Lived within a few miles of us for at least 20 years,and never visited us once,or even sent a get well card when either my mother or father were in the hospital. Didn't even bother to come to my mother's funeral.

We will know you by your works.

[Hoodat]

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God gives thee.

A very interesting Commandment, because it identifies the reward for obedience.  None of the others do that.

[roamer_1]

A very interesting Commandment, because it identifies the reward for obedience.  None of the others do that.

In the obverse, it is almost mechanical - If you do not honor and respect your father and mother, when you are old and it is your turn in the barrel, your children, who saw you dis yours, will be unlikely to treat you any differently... and you would have taught them so.

[roamer_1]

We agree!

I have one acquaintance whose mother-in-law is subsidized by all her children. They each send her a check every month. She is provided for by her family. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows someone who is doing this. It should always be family, the church and then as last resort govt.

I first saw it in Chicago as a lad, where we had friends (as a family) in a second generation Greek house... The great grandmother lived there with them, as did the grandmother, each with great honor within the house. The great grandmother I remember most, as she was so old and frail - certainly close to the veil, and all of them loved her so dearly, and all of them cared for her as a matter of course.

It was a highly functional family, and I can still remember gathering with the other kids around that ancient old woman to listen to her stories in broken english... Magnificent in honor.

It is much like that out here too - the grand dame in a ranch house is normally the grandmother, and she and grandpa moved out of the main house to a cottage on-ranch, and never very far away. The old man still runs the joint, though the day to day has fallen to his sons, and his grandsons work right alongside him and their fathers... And that grandmother is the law in the household, ever swarming with grandkids all around, leaving the wives of the current generation often free to concentrate on operations, knowing the kids are in excellent hands.

You will find no woman more powerful. And that transmits - Mexicans and blacks who still have intact families... don't mess with grandma. They will ALL come against you.

And we are much the same. My sis bought what's left of our place, and my mother still lives right where she belongs... For now my nephew lives above her in the upstairs apartment, and my son looks after the barns. Mamma is still going strong in her eighties, and is never so vital as when all her children and grands, and great-grands are all about her.

Comes a time that she can no longer carry on, my sis and hers will move in upstairs to give her all the care she might need, and Yah willing, my mother will die right there where she belongs.

[Smokin Joe]

@sneakypete

Your anecdotal stories aside, the reality is that MOST families do have strong ties and functional inter-operations. And I have seldom seen a man or woman so empowered in their elder years as they are in the midst of their own - Serving a vital function there by the way - As they transmit their gathered wisdom from a podium of authority as the patriarch and matriarch, down through two or three generations, directly from the horse's mouth.

Rather than building the whole thing around the dysfunctional, It would be nice for a change to lift up and assist the functional.

You get more of what you vote *FOR*.
You want MORE of what works. And what works is what has always worked, down through the aeons, and that is foremost, family. Whatever comes after that is lesser by nature.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God gives thee.

Unfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
In some demographics, fully 7 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The whole 'baby daddy/baby mama' bit has done some severe damage.

And a lot of grandparents aren't retiring as plush as they might have if they hadn't ended up raising grandkids.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
In some demographics, fully 7 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The whole 'baby daddy/baby mama' bit has done some severe damage.

And a lot of grandparents aren't retiring as plush as they might have if they hadn't ended up raising grandkids.

And when the coercion of government has collapsed, what will be left?

The things that won't burn, and foremost among them, family.

We can do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way, but it will turn back to what's true, one way or the other.

[Hoodat]

Unfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
In some demographics, fully 7 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The whole 'baby daddy/baby mama' bit has done some severe damage.

One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.

[sneakypete]

One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.

@Hoodat


HEY!

Not ALL single mothers are single mothers by choice,and being a single mother is NOT an easy thing. Especially if there are multiple children.

[Bigun]

@Hoodat


HEY!

Not ALL single mothers are single mothers by choice,and being a single mother is NOT an easy thing. Especially if there are multiple children.

NO! They definitely are not! Most are forced into that by government rules which make their checks bigger if there is no man in the household.

[sneakypete]

NO! They definitely are not! Most are forced into that by government rules which make their checks bigger if there is no man in the household.

@Bigun

Yeah,causen there ain't no such thing as divorce,abandonment,illnesses (both to the mother AND the children),etc,etc,etc,right?

Are you one of those guys who would cut off your nose to spite your face?

[Kamaji]

One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.

[catfish1957]

One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.

Even the lefty Neil Young had it right in 1979......     (At least those that game the system)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRgPL7WAdLs