I suppose in the eyes of the misguided men who formed it, it would be a success. Then you have to really wonder what they had in mind.
**************************************************
First you have to know the purpose of the Social Security System before you can determine whether or not it is a success.

One of its original purposes was to provide a pension for the working man when he retired. Doesn't that sound wonderful. Maybe, if you like Socialism or Welfarism.

The Social Security System penalizes the enterprising spirit of the man who believes in Capitalism. He is forced to pay into this system whether he wants to or not. Furthermore, he is not paying towards his own savings account but to the pension check of some retired person. What happens when there are more retired persons then there are workers?

The Social Security is faulty and doomed for failure. It teaches people to depend upon the government and makes them irresponsible. Any American who wishes to always be financially secure is no advocate of freedom. Freedom is the opportunity to succeed and yes, even to fail. I would rather have freedom with the opportunity to take risks than to live always securely and never really live.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."---Samuel Adams

"I am not a number. I am a free man."

And most people never get back what they pay in... I want people to be able to privatize it.

hey "truth seeker", somehow i just knew that you would be conservative when i saw ur name..."truth seeker" sounds very self-righteous, which is typically a conservative trait.

anyway, you said "One of its original purposes was to provide a pension for the working man when he retired. Doesn't that sound wonderful. Maybe, if you like Socialism or Welfarism."

well actually that does sound wonderful. and yes i do like socialism. got a problem with it? got a problem with helping out the poor? got a problem with helping the working class when they retire?

jb, what the XXXX is welfarism????

oh no... falling's gonna make this into another debate about socialism. :D

once again, i did not start this political debate. but we are in a "tax-debate" forum anyway, so its not irrelevant.

coolhand, i never used the term welfarism. truthseeker did. i've never heard of "welfarism" before. i have no clue

It always turns into a government system debate...

i swear, i did not start this one

Doesn't matter who starts it, it always happens...

Fallingupwards I have no problem with the fact that you like socialism. I am not against helping the poor. Now your third question makes me think of something. If the now retired once working class had been able to save money for themselves there would be no problem. They wouldn’t have to rely on future generations to support them.

Now, what is welfarism? It is “The set of policies, practices, and social attitudes associated with a welfare state.” A welfare state is “1. A social system whereby the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security. 2. A nation in which such a system operates.” If you like socialism, I am also sure you will like welfarism.

One of the major problems with this system is the time period in which it was formed. When it was implemented under FDR in the 1930’s the majority of people were simply not retired for ten, twenty, and now even thirty years like they are today. Life expectancy was not as high. Men often kept working until they died and if they retired they did not
usually live for many years afterwards.

This system was formed to make men rely upon the government and be less independent. My point is that freedom and constant security do not co-exist. You have to decide whether security or freedom is more important to you. (BTW: I define freedom as “the absence of coercion.”) Security appeals to the natural man. Everybody needs security. However, security is not found in relying on the government. Our founders knew this. They had just fought a war against a tyrant who had been attempting to overthrow their system of government. These men knew history. They understood the fallen nature of man.

As George Washington so wonderfully put it, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Bastiat explained better than I ever could of why socialism and welfarism doesn’t work.
“Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.”

Socialism would work if everyone was perfect. But men are not angels.

We've been creeping closer to socialism, a system that someone once said works only in heaven, where it isn't needed, and in hell, where they've already got it." ---Ronald Reagan

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." ---James Madison

truth seeker, keep in mind that i am not 100% socialist. i just lean in that direction. just like broker said he isnt 100% capitalist but he leans in that direction.

you say that if the now retired once working class had been able to save money for themselves there would be no problem. that works fine for a lot of people. but some people could barely afford living off their salaries when they worked, much less saved. so should we just let them starve when they retire? or should we help them out?

can someone please explain to me the basis behind privatizing social security? i'm not very familiar with it and i would just like to be clued in

Didn't these people, who could barely afford living on their salaries when they were working, pay into this system too?

yes, but social security kind of forces people to save. that way, they have some money when they retire. otherwise, someone who makes a small salary will probably not save their money and be broke when they retire...or be forced to work into their 80s

Are you saying that if the government didn't make them, they wouldn't save because when they were working they needed all of their money for the present time?

Is the solution government control?

What did people do before Social Security?