Are you suggesting that the the USA will default on it's debt? If so, there will be much, much more to worry about than SS. What investment might you suggest that would be better than US debt securities.?

If your premise is that we need to run surpluses and reduce the debt, I totally agree.

Thanks for the reply....no reason for me to continue the discussion....you believe what you believe and that works for you.

Concerning the opening post: I saw it as a false premise because there would never be any such choice. The correct choice would be between Social Security and welfare. Unlike Social Security, welfare would only include those who need it for survival.

Many would not opt out based on the choice given by the OP.

Hypothetical, yes, but based on a false premise. That makes it biased.

Social Security, yea or nay?
 

How can a hypothetical be based on a false premise? Hypothetical by definition means conjectural, "what-if", not real. If there are no false premises, then the question is not hypothetical.

Social Security is/was a good program until our leaders raided the fund. Isn't it curious how we may run out of Social Security funds but we never hear of a welfare program or food stamps that will run out of money?

Food stamps and different welfare programs do get massive cutbacks. Google food stamps and see how much was cut from the program recently. Social Security retirement has not seen cutbacks thankfully but keeps receiving a small increase (based on the CPI) each year.

Only the government could figure out how to cut a program and put millions more on the same program. It's all a shell game.

people on welfare or food stamps do not have any personal contribution or vested/invested interest.

One only needs to meet the very shaky, very loose criteria that determines need.

As in most social freebies there are far to many who participate that are totally and completely unqualified.

Adding to the current bane of our country....no enforcement of the rules/law!!

What criteria do you think is very shakey and loose? I would like to know how many people totally and completely unqualified. Also, what makes you think there is no enforcement of the law.

I know when I was a an 8 year old child with a younger brother and a bed ridden mother with MS, she received $135 a month in aid and bag of groceries once a month from the Sisters of the Poor. I had a paper route that provided $5 a week income. The criteria and enforcement of the welfare considered that income, therefore, would reduce the monthly aid. I hope the current criteria and enforcement does not approach that.

And 13 million more people have been added to the food stamp rolls since 2009.

And fortunately in those words of great public servant whom I ardently supported and is the sunset of his life, "We are a kinder and gentler nation". I hope we never forget that.

Here is the rest of that speech.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you and here are some quotes:

And I hope to stand for a new harmony, a greater tolerance. We've come far, but I think we need a new harmony among the races in our country. And we're on a journey into a new century, and we've got to leave that tired old baggage of bigotry behind.
It means, it means, teaching troubled children through your present that there’s no such, that there's such a thing as reliable love. Some would say it's soft and insufficiently tough to care about these things. But where is it written that we must act as if we do not care, as if we are not moved? Well I am moved. I want a kinder, and gentler nation.

He had good speechwriter, didn't he? :popcorn:

Yes, But I always thought George H.W.Bush believed in those principles.

But now that you mention it...we all tend to believe the person who represents the party we voted for. And that in itself is probably not the best thing.

If we all stopped swallowing things whole and reacting for or against certain canned statements we would be more effective citizens. And we would sleep a little better at night. This is the most polarized I have seen this nation in my lifetime.

When did "our leaders" raid SS? During the Vietnam War, LBJ included SS in the unified Federal budget for the first time but that was only to give the impression that we had a balanced budget. It was an accounting measure only. Is that what you're referring to? SSI is paid from general tax revenue and not from SS trust funds.

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

Excellent post! That is why I so appreciate some posters on here who really seek the truth. Their posts are thoughtful, humble, and attempts are often made to show proof of their points. Without naming names (which I don't think I'm supposed to do on here), thank you to those posters - you make me a more knowledgable and thoughtful person by reading your posts!

Really!!! You do not think there is enough to spend as it is currently appropriated (note I did not say budgeted)?

It has been noted for months that this country has taken more in in reveunues than at any time in it's history.

Secondly I would not allow the increase of taxes on anybody until such time as the out of control programs and waste are contained first. Secondly go after those not currently paying their taxes starting with those who work in Washington first!

Revenues are sufficient. Spending is out of control. No magic here.

Cut spending and I do not mean every politicians favorites of medicare and SS.
I mean all the pork and favorite politician back home projects and special interest quid quo pros.

Insist on balancing the federal checkbook. Do you have an ability to arbitrarily increase your cash needs when you want to spend more?

Most of us do not!

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

I think some will find this interesting which shows income and corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP. One thing I would like to point out is that during the year 2000, total receipts were 19.9 and now they are 16.7 or the same as 2005. Please make your own informed conclusions.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

Actually, I don't feel quite so negatively about our government. Governments are by their very nature hard to keep in check and must be monitored by the people at all times.

But I still think limited government is necessary. I just feel they already have plenty of our money...actually much more than is absolutely necessary...to do the minimum required work of government, including maintaining the infrastructure.

IF you feel the country needs more tax money then you can contribute some more. Nothing stopping you. they will take donations! and tax you on them! As for gas taxes the government probably makes more on gas than the companies drilling and process it.

To this reader that is a very poor reason to saddle our grandchildren with this disaster. Everyone wants taxes raised and spending cut as long as it does not effect them.

It's our government's incredible ability to waste the billions of tax dollars they collect that is saddling our grandchildren. We have paid taxes year after year after year only to watch the money squandered. I remember when we were first married my husband would say he was good with paying his fair share of taxes to live in this country - not any more.

I am glad I paid into it. If people had a choice back then, how many young folks would have actually been disciplined enough to pay into another form of retirement savings? I would think not many. Plus, in this day and time I don't think there would be many that would be all that disciplined either. It is a good thing we have it. I am to young to start collecting, but I consider it a benefit of my retirement. I was certainly blessed to have a job that offered a pension also. I do not feel one iota guilty about it either. It will "benefit" me in later years and I am grateful it is there. For many it is trying to make ends meet.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "fair share". There is only the concept of paying the least amount of tax that the tax laws permit and they are anything but fair since they are the result of extensive lobbying by special interest groups. The middle-class doesn't have a lobbying group and is guilty of repeatedly voting the same people into office and therefore guaranteeing that they will get screwed.

Don't worry. There is some intensive lobbying going on right now with the Kock brothers.

Mrs. Sharpton is reading this. Coke is spelled with an H at the end.

Concerning the opening post: The OP's premise is faulty because it's not within the realm of possibility. The American people would never stand by and let millions of people starve and go homeless.

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare?

Here's a faulty hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if you knew that you would be charged with treason and executed? It's hypothetical but faulty in the sense that it will not lead to a rational discussion.

Social Security, yea or nay?
 

A hypothetical is what it is. If you choose to say it's faulty or not rational, that's your prerogative. Doesn't disqualify it as a hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't have to meet your "faulty" or "valid" test.

That being said, the OP is not even close to being unreasonable as a hypothetical. Your assumptions about its validity are just that...your assumptions. Seems most find it to be a perfectly valid starting point for discussion.

What is the point of choosing between Social Security that exists and something that could never exist?

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare? I am NOT saying Social Security retirement is welfare. However, what welfare program is being discussed for a safety net?

Before the Social Security retirement existed and there was no forced saving through payroll deduction, weren't individuals responsible for their own savings for retirement?

What kind of government welfare was in place at that time (pre-Social Security retirement)? Were people able to get this welfare for retirement living?

I remember seeing photographs in history books of people during the Great Depression selling apples on street corners in order to make a little money. Wasn't there any kind of government welfare available for the millions of people out of work at that time?

Thank you you for your help. Personally, I do not drink Coke.

Choosing between Social Security and welfare (for the needy) is a valid choice but not an easy one. Although, I think in many cases the standard of living wouldn't be much different between the two.

Many extended families lived in close proximity, and they tended to help each other when needed. At some point, before Social Security, there was state aid. My grandfather received state aid during his retirement in CT.

During the time of the Great Depression the following programs were started: 1) the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was created in 1933 to combat unemployment and... 2) the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was also created to deal with the housing crisis.