James G, yes I am one of those that blame you and your selfish selves. There really is no merit to debating with your comments due to the lack of content. I guarantee that you will have a whole different view of the process if you were to become disabled due to unexpected circumstances. SS does not just cover retirement and old people.Tom, you are young and have much to learn. I applaud your earnest concern on the matters, but think you are missing a lot of information.
Granted, this article I will link came out 3 months after your post, but the information is really nothing new at all and will give you a basis to start on, if you want to learn more.
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/Washington_Post_gets_it_wrong_on_Social_Security/   See 8 other replies

No, a redistribution of wealth is when some one get's a 500 million dollar bonus.   See 8 other replies

Martha, the reason the income cap for taxes exists is because the benefits are capped. Without the income cap, it's just a simple redistribution of wealth. Oh, that's what you were going for...   See 8 other replies

I stopped reading after you said it was supposed to be short term. FDR made it a pay as you go system so the republicans could never shut it down.   See 8 other replies

I agree that was the purpose of Social Security in the FDR administration over 50 years ago. It was also intended to be short term. Additionally, are you telling me that these people, who arguably have worked for over 50 years have nothing saved? Does personal accountability ever come into this, or are you saying you don't mind paying astronomically higher taxes for other people living irresponsible lives? Especially when you keep in mind that it's a program that not only won't be there when you retire, but can't be there when you retire. I base this on the fact that we're nearing the time when there will be more people drawing from social security than paying in. Even a 2-1 ratio of payers vs. drawers means that every month half of your taxes will be what it takes to support another person. While I'm not saying this isn't a wonderful idea, but there are lots of things in the world that are great idea's that fall far short of being possible. The universe isn't friendly, and the math is irrefutable. Unless someone comes up with a miracle piece of legislation, the program is doomed. It'll be far worse for those 'poor people' you refer to when the bottom falls out of Social Security vs. us fixing it. And it needed fixing yesterday.   See 8 other replies

The purpose of social security, is to keep poor old people from starving in the gutters. If your against SS, or your for "privatizing it", that is what you are for, because that's the problem it fixed, and that is the problem that will return if the right wing nuts that think rich people deserve to pay less taxes, and that poor people don't deserve medical treatment get their way.   See 8 other replies

So you're saying the people who have absolutely no need or use for this program should be taxed the most for it? I suppose that makes sense if you think they owe you anything, which the majority of Americans seem to agree with. Then there's also the issue of these other 'industrialized' nations you refer to that seem to have a system in place that you at least marginally agree with going bankrupt as a nation. I guess that has nothing to do with their spending habits and long term insolvency of entitlement programs. I imagine you probably blame that on American capitalism and our selfish selves.Sadly, this argument isn't really focused on the real issue. The Federal Government cannot, constitutionally speaking, pass a measure like this. Of course, it isn't the first time this has happened. Not even by a long shot. Good thing they don't each anyone about that document anymore, we might be in danger of having a democracy at some point.   See 8 other replies