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

Mr Williams doesn't claim or even insinuate that medicaid is primarily for the elderly. Please quote him correctly! He said half the budget (that may be wrong, or what budget is he talking about?) is used to take care of senior citizens. Then he listed S.S, Medicare, and Medicaid. In some circles senior citizenship starts at 50 something or early sixties, which is still years before most people start receiving S.S. payments, or Medicare help. Therefore they do use Medicaid!
His main point is that S.S. has been very deceptive, and that most of the population has been very foolish to believe so strongly in this system. A very accurate opinion, and absolutely a political tool for socialist type politicians to buy votes from the foolish electorate who believes in the idea of something from nothing!

Social Security is a government handout. And I'm glad it exists.

Re: "Social Security is a government handout. And I'm glad it exists."

Me too. Well, not glad, but resigned.

But it needs to be recognized for what it is and made available only to those who need it, not to all Americans, rich or poor. That way, it'll stay healthy and available for the poor, without making all Americans dependent on the whim of politicians for an unearned handout.

And, it'll cost a LOT less, too, making it much less of a burden on our kids and grandkids.

@Walkerwg:

"Socialism and the Social Security system are built on fraud and misrepresentation."

Not so. If anything, it's built on misunderstanding rather than misrepresentation. Which, of course, is not the fault of the government. It's the fault of the people who don't understand the program, nor try to.

"That is why you think it only costs you 7.5%. It doesn't. It is a full 15% with no guarantee of ever getting anything back."

See what I mean? It's not 15% the taxpayer pays. It's 7.5%... to be matched by the employer.

"Had the 15% been put into a private account drawing interest, not only would you have a tidy nest egg, it would be transferable to your heirs. Think about it."

Think about this... firstly, people don't think that far ahead, to provide for their own retirement. That's the reason for the SS program in the first place.

Secondly, if you did have a nest egg, there is a fairly substantial chance you would lose it in the market before you get a chance to use it... another reason for the SS program.

@luv2organize:

"If I could opt out of social security I would do it in a second.."

Yeah, and you could lose it all in the market or wherever you would plan to invest it.

@Kathy:

"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."

Which amount would last you about three years in retirement.

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

You can start collecting when you're eligible. And stop worrying about whether you can collect. That requirement is cast in law... regardless of the balance in the so-called SS fund.

@John Charity Spring:

"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."

The program will continue so long as the SS laws are on the books. And so long as China has the money to lend the US.

Many of the next generations that we must rely upon for paying into social security so that we can receive a check are strapped with student loan debt which by law is not forgivable, it must be repaid. If not paid in full by their own retirement age, their social security checks will be garnished. Do you think that there will not be a revolt of this system of financial bondage? Stay healthy, keep your employment skills current, like many others I can not afford to not work, ever.

@WTZ

My comment: "That is why you think it only costs you 7.5%. It doesn't. It is a full 15% with no guarantee of ever getting anything back."

Your response: See what I mean? It's not 15% the taxpayer pays. It's 7.5%... to be matched by the employer.

Sir or mam: Where do you think the employer gets the money? And how does he account for it? It is called burdened salary. Meaning, it is part of the total amount paid to the employee. Those are amounts that would otherwise be payable to the employee. So those are dollars you would have gotten, but for the SS law. Like it or not, you are paying 15%. It is fraudulent because you have been led to believe the employer pays it, not you. In economic terms, every employee pays the full 15%.

And yes, you could lose it in the market. Or you could use it to build your own business, or buy a ranch, or build a home, or go back to college. But you are far more capable of deciding what is best for you than the government will ever be.

The bonds held by Social Security are no less a debt to be honored than the bonds held by the Chinese or others, including individual Americans who hold US bonds. Unless we are prepared to tell the world that we will not honor the debts we owe them, neither should we default on the debt owed to social security.

Social Security is not in trouble. It has enough money to continue to pay our for many years into the future (I have read the year 2035). After that the time may come that it doesn't have enough in its reserves to pay out, but when that time comes, a permanent fix is not as difficult as some are making it out to be.

Currently only earned income up to $107,000 is taxed for social security purposes. If this cap were lifted, social security would have enough money to pay out for the forseeable future.

So to fix social security is easy, whether it will be fixed or not is up to the people of the United Stated, whom they vote for. How sure are you that you will not need Social Security when you retire? Vote accordingly.

I’m curious to hear the learned professor’s take on the Homestead Act of 1862. Cavalry troops clear native tribes off the land, U.S. citizens stake claims for tracts, and after five years of living on and improving the land, the homesteader is granted title free and clear. Talk about a government handout!

Social Security has its own payroll deduction separate from Federal income tax because FDR insisted on it to enforce on the public mind that Social Security was something they were paying for. But I have no idea of how much basic American history the learned professor of economics has studied.

I could comment yet again about one of your stable of biased right wing writers, but I won't. I am tired of your biases, and I think commenting here accomplishes little as we mostly talk past each other. So this will be my last comment.

Another Perspective and All,

Yes, Soc. Sec. holds US bonds. The problem is that it does not hold any outside investments in a separate fund. Instead, the Treasury took in the money on one side, issued bonds (IOUs) to the Soc. Sec. Admin. (which is in no way separate from the govt.), and then went and spent it.

Had we exercised wisdom then when Soc. Sec. was "fixed" in the 1980s we would have invested the huge sums then coming in into a very wide mix of solid stocks and non-federal bonds so that our income stream would now be independent of the Treasury. This is similar to what other sovereign wealth funds have done (see Norway).

Others have already pointed out that we lacked that wisdom. It was due to both sides of the aisle and over several administrations of both stripes, so no one gets a free pass here. The Republicans gave it back in tax cuts and the Democrats spent it on programs. Neither side had the integrity to put the funds in a separate fund that could not be robbed at their leisure. Both sides said they would meet the obligation.

"Currently only earned income up to $107,000 is taxed for social security purposes. If this cap were lifted, social security would have enough money to pay out for the forseeable future."

As one who benefits from this each year, I think this loop hole simply amazing. I have to say I do enjoy the mid year bump in my take home, but why is the cap set where it is? It makes no sense.

"I’m curious to hear the learned professor’s take on the Homestead Act of 1862."

Our country has been "handing out money" for a dang long time. It didn't start with modern liberalism as so many conservatives like to portray it. This is a great example of land being granted to individuals that was aquired from the french through other peoples tax dollars.

But that wouldn't match the dialog these people have. The real world (and history) is never as extreme as either the left or the right would have you believe.

Social security take money from young families with children living in apartments, and gives it too billionaire seniors living in multi-million dollar homes.
And the billionaire seniors feel that they are entitled to the money, they think the government owes it too them.
Put another way: we are taking money away from the poorest group of our society and giving it too the wealthiest.
And again: seniors feel entitled to the money, they feel the government owes it too them.
So next time someone goes and cashes their ss check: remember where the money is coming from; and its not coming from the government

VIDAR - I really have no idea where you get your infomration, but the picture you paint that there is this whole world of "billionaire seniors" living off the backs of young struggling families is rediculas. The numbers are very simple to understand. That vast majority of those receiving Social Security are living on below poverty level incomes.

For 33% of seniors, social security represents 90% of their retirement income. That us over 15 million households. Of all recipiants, 67% of all retireees income comes from Social Security - that is across all retirees.

For retired women in the state of Utah, the largest demographic group of retirees, the numbers are worse. They widows rely on Social Security for 84% of their income.

So while saying there is this vast community of billionaires living off the backs of poor starving young families, once you get past the rhetoric, the true story is nothing like the picture you paint and want people to believe.

I have elderly parents that rely mostly on Social Security for their survival, but guess what they do...waste most of their money on gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, and other frivolous things. We end up having to support their basic needs anyway. Some people would look at their situation, and not knowing the whole story, would use them as an example that the government needs to do more to help the elderly. There is no amount of money that would help my parents! I just don't think there is any way to legislate stupidity and irresponsibility out of our society. I know many younger people that spend pretty much all the money they make on nice vacations and all the "toys" while I and my family save 10% - 15% towards retirement and have to bypass a lot of the "fun" we could be having right now. I just have to wonder in about 30 years how many of them will complain that they don't have enough to retire on and that the government needs to do more to take care of them?

Walter Williams continues to shill for the "I got mine, too bad for you" extreme, wingnut philosophy. He obviously is not a cloth coat Republican advocating rationality in the face of excess. Rather he continues to promote the cause of the elite class and advocate that they should not have any responsibility because of the good fortune this nation (and the people who have made it all possible) has provided to them.

Shut and lock the door. He would have you hand your retirement savings over to the bankers and let them do with it what they please. If you lose, you lose. At least they will have profited again, in his view, and it only confirms what side of the fence he's on. He's old enough to know better, but again he's paid to write these things, and the pay is very lucretive.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

it is a fact the billionaires get social security payments, as well as medicare coverage.
It is a fact that many of the people who pay into social security are poor citizens with children.
It is a fact that most/many of the people receiving social security own homes, that could be liquidated to pay expenses.
I believe that the poor should be taken care of, I do not believe that the wealthy should receive welfare.
I say do away with social security, poor seniors can apply for food stamps and housing assistance like anyone else.
Why should someone be receive public aid when they has asetts like a house?