Comments about ‘Walter E. Williams: Sorry, but Social Security is just another government handout’

I do not get republicans. First they complain that us Americans who are in a union are overpaid and our benefits are too generous. Then they say we are ruining the companies we work(ed) for with our pensions. Then they say we should invest in a 401k or mutual funds but give us no lawful or reasonable means to sue or kick out management who is building their golden parachute at the expense of us average joe investors.

What can we have for retirement if we can not get a pension, our 401k has been robbed by wall street and we shouldn't get social security?

To an extent, Walter is correct.

However, a couple of issues should be considered.

-Had congress not raided the fund, it would not be nearly the problem it is today.
- SS is fairly easy to fix with a few tweaks. (medicare is much tougher)

but the bigger issue is this.

We are a compassionate society. We tend to take care of those in need.

SS is a way to force people to save some money for their retirement years. Without that, many are too short sighted (read ignorant) to do it themselves.

So, one of two things can happen.
- do nothing and allow some people to reach retirement with no money and no means of support. In which case society can either let them suffer, or pitch in to help.
- create a program like SS to force them to save.

Yes, I understand. In a perfect world, people would be responsible and put enough away. But what happens if they don't? Do we let the old die with no food or health care?

All too often, people want ignore reality and plan on the "perfect world" scenario.

Hold on, the basis of the theory is that because there is no special account where you money is segmented away from others money, in "accounts", that this is in its self makes social security not an insurance account, nor a retirement account, but legalized thiefery and a government transfer of wealth from one person to another. I assume that then the author also considers the US banking and Insurance systems illegal transfers of wealth, because in neither do you have a special little account where your hard earned money sites, waiting on you for when you need it. Both use your money to fund others investments.

As of today Social Security if funded to the point where it can easily satisfy all its obligations. It is able to meet all of its contractually mandated obligations and commitments. It is in no way in breach of its contract.

What is true though is Congress keeps borrowing from that fund, and that act does jeopardizes the long term stability of the fund, Citizens should be concerned about this, just as we needed to be concerned about US financial institutions not maintaining sufficient reserves, hence the recent banking bailout.

If I could opt out of social security I would do it in a second. I would forego any money I have put in these past 27 years and walk away. Why? I can put that money into a mutual fund and ultimately have more money then what I might get when I am eligible for social security.

I'm surprised at the serious error in this article. Mr. Williams asserts that Medicaid is a program primarily for the elderly. Not true, Medicare(which was also mentioned) already covers seniors. It is very uncommon for a Medicare recipient to need medicaid. Because they already have insurance. Medicaid is for the poor.

Note to readers: who cares what Walt Williams thinks? And I'll bet Walt is collecting his Social Security.

I guess they will stop showing how much money you have contributed to your retirement. Last I checked it was over $100.000 according on our notice.

They raided it to pay for other government programs and now it is time to raid other programs to pay it back.

All the talk of the program failing convinced me to start collecting now. Better now at a reduced rate then not at all later.

Williams is right. Social Security is clearly another arrow in the left-wing quiver of welfare-statism.

The lazy and indolent who seek to live their lives at government expense like to scream, "I contributed to Social Security, so I am entitled to have the government pay for my every want and need in retirement." This might be true if the government payed each person what he put in, but the program pays people many times more than what they put in, even considering interest.

No legitimate savings plan could ever operate this way. No logical person would think that this plan of giving away money can continue for long.

to lov2organize
You are all about Me Me Me. Think about your elderly parents or your in-laws or your neighbor, or someone that is disabled and can't work. Everyone in this great nation must share the responsibility to care for our elderly and those less fortunate. Try to think of paying into social security that way and maybe it will be a little less painful for you.

I guess my comment was too strong medecine and tested the tolerance of diverse views and plain speaking about this man who has so long posed as a conservative, but who I see increasingly as an apologist for these government thieves who have infiltrated our national government and who have absolutely no conscience about the injustice and vileness of their plunderings.

Mr Williams arguments are fallacious. Social Security and Medicare are to a great extend funded each year by the payments made into the treasury in their name. Defense spending (as an example) comes 100% from the general treasury without any offsetting payments being made. In other words defense spending is 100% funded by the general fund of taxes, Social Security and Medicare are funded by general fund taxes to a much lower extent. This is an error in logic that seems to be freely used by those who would prefer to let the old, infirmed, poor, and veterans just die rather than provide an adequate safety net. I just sorry that I believed my government 45 years ago when they told me they were taking money from me each month that would be paid back to me in the future to provide me with a meager subsistence and prevent starvation and death from neglect. I would have saved money myself to protect myself. All this entitlement talk came about in the last few years from people who could care less about anyone except themselves.

The real scam is in Social Security Disability. I can fly into the US from a foreign country, not speak a word of English, never having worked in the US, and I can get Social Security Disability. But, hey it's not a government handout, right?

All I saw was the headline and I thought, "That's gotta be Walter Williams."

Really, would it kill you guys to run a commentator that isn't a right-winger? Just one?

Another right-winger telling middle-class Americans that they are lazy. Telling us that we should be happy to lick the boots of the wealthy.

Social Security is a broken system. Although in theory it would be a good option for some, it is an insult to any financially-minded person to assume a government agency can manage funds and investments better than we can. Economists would categorize Social Security as a Pay-as-you-go system, essentially using current payments to pay current liabilities. If a money manager used this approach it would be called a Ponzi Scheme; the fund would be shut down and the manager would be sent to prison. The deficits have become so large that it is proving to be financially crippling and current trends estimate that it will be bankrupt before 2020.

Although I am completely against what it is and how it functions we are kind of stuck with it. There are millions that used it as their main retirement savings and are now too old to work. We can't throw our Grandparents under the bus, but we do need to begin a reform. Minimum ages should be increased to 68 or 70. Consumption, property, and inheritance taxes should be reduced for those willing to forgo benefits to offset their expenses. etc.

While Walter is right that any money I may collect once I reach retirement age will not be the money I put in because it was paid to other people, I certainly won't consider my social security check as a "handout".

Yes, it is a ponzi scheme where new "investors" pay for existing payouts, but I have contributed a ton of money to this "program" over the years and if there is anything left once it is my turn to collect, I will certainly feel entitled to get something back.

In some cases, recipients get back way more than they paid in (shame on them for living too long), but others die early and never get anything back.

The main inconsistency I often see when arguments about social security arise, is people who feel "entitled" to get back everything they paid in, but want the rich to contribute more (by taking off the cap) while not getting any increase in benefits or want them to get nothing because they "don't need it" (i.e. means test recipients).

Another week, another extreme column. Why? Is it to provoke thought? attract readers? or does the D-News support his extreme positions?

It is sad that there are people in such high places with such loud voices that seem to be fully enslaved by the greed of commercial business.

It is as if these people sense the eminent demise of America and are participants in a feeding frenzy to squeeze the last few drops of wealth from the American people, as soon as possible.

Social Security, regardless of what you call it, shifted consumer spending to a more even flow through out peoples lives. Doing so benefited the people themselves, business and the nation. Thus when Social Security was created it was with the blessing of private enterprise business.

Today the business community is hard at work to change the system to bring in more immediate access to the peoples earnings and disregard the effect on later lives.

So if we accept the business community’s omen of the end of America, we probably wont need Social Security in any form.

I'm not sure if it is a handout. To me a handout is something given for nothing in return. I have 7.5% of my salary check that is deducted for Social Security. At the very least, the government should give back the money I have put in my entire life plus any reasonable interest the account would get if I had other avenues to invest money. I don't look at getting social security later in life as a "handout" because I paid in. I am not taking without giving. That's how I see it. To me Social Security is vastly different than welfare, food stamps or on the other end of things corporate welfare. To demonize Social Security, its current and future recipients is wrong. It's not these people's fault the government raided the fund for other needs.

Americans we are forewarned. This is what the right wing wants. If we vote for them we are left to the luck of our investments and our ability to keep a job when we get older and ... we will deserve what we get.