Was SS implemented only due to a failure of capitalism?

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from Xygonn

I will accept the name of someone that never paid into ss that got ss checks as evidence. This guy is talking out his ass.

How about SSA.gov? [ssa.gov]

Quote :

Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month.

Quote :

Also, I'm done here. You agree that the urban environment is harsher for seniors than the rural family focused environment.

And you agree that the urban environment was harsher due to GD failure of banks/stocks wiping out savings. Otherwise those people would have money to buy the farmers' food.

Multi-Quote

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

05-07-2012, 03:24 PM
Guests, join the SlickDeals.net Community for free to remove this ad.

#62

05-07-2012, 04:25 PM

Xygonn

L9: Master

Member sinceAug 2010
Posts5,179
Reputation 21
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from 124nic8

How about SSA.gov? [ssa.gov]

And you agree that the urban environment was harsher due to GD failure of banks/stocks wiping out savings. Otherwise those people would have money to buy the farmers' food.

Quote :

Q12: Who was the first person to get Social Security benefits?

A: A fellow named Ernest Ackerman got a payment for 17 cents in January 1937. This was a one-time, lump-sum pay-out--which was the only form of benefits paid during the start-up period January 1937 through December 1939.

In other words, he paid in for five cents and got seventeen cents paid out. I explained this earlier in the thread.

I think the urban environment/mobile lifestyle is less conducive to families taking care of their own. People didn't understand how to save for retirement yet. It was a new concept.

Last edited by Xygonn; 05-07-2012 at 04:28 PM..

If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén

Multi-Quote

#63

05-07-2012, 04:48 PM

Radeck

L9: Master

Member sinceApr 2007
Posts5,799
Reputation 162
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from Xygonn

I think the urban environment/mobile lifestyle is less conducive to families taking care of their own. People didn't understand how to save for retirement yet. It was a new concept.

I would agree...'retirement' is a relatively new concept...prior to being employed by a corporation and the concept of retirement (which iirc was introduced by the Social Security scheme itself), people lived in a more agrarian society, where people worked the field, their trades (carpenter, blacksmith, etc) until they died or could no longer physically do so , and then were taken care of by an extended family.

The demise of the extended family, as well as the concept of 'corporate employment' and 'retirement' and 'pensions' gave rise for the need for SS. FDR initially offered it as a base to get people started, as an addition to their retirement planning, but was never meant to be the sole source of support.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.But under the name of 'liberalism',they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation,without knowing how it happened - Norman Thomas,6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people,too much authority from the States,and too much liberty with the Constitution - R. Reagan

Multi-Quote

#64

05-07-2012, 05:26 PM

hsjpatman

L10: Grand Master

Member sinceDec 2004
Posts10,789
LocationTopanga, CA
Reputation 788
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from 124nic8

Strawman. Like any endeavour, including private business, there are a whole range of motivations.

But there were legitimate failures of capitalism which caused the GD and led to the establishment of SS.

Obviously some people did not care about the boom/bust cycle inherent in capitalism, but that does not mean that the people who attempted to smooth them out were personal glory seekers.

It's nice to know that you are capable of recognizing a strawman disguised as a question.
So maybe now you'll be able to see how some of your questions are truly veiled strawman arguments as well.

Quote from darkfrog

the only way to prove the non-existence of god to a believer is if god himself revealed that he doesn't exist. laugh out loud

Quote from darkfrog

Science doesn't perpetuate ignorance violence, intolerance, martyrdom and threaten eternal suffering. To compare science with the intellectual wasteland we call religion is laughable.

Multi-Quote

#65

05-07-2012, 05:26 PM

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from Xygonn

I will accept the name of someone that never paid into ss that got ss checks as evidence. This guy is talking out his ass.

You mean excluding wives and children of contributors?

Quote from Xygonn

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
I think the urban environment/mobile lifestyle is less conducive to families taking care of their own. People didn't understand how to save for retirement yet. It was a new concept.

SSA.gov says the GD was a major factor, along with the failures you cited.

Quote :

The Threshold of Change [ssa.gov]

So as 1934 dawned the nation was deep in the throes of the Depression. Confidence in the old institutions was shaken. Social changes that started with the Industrial Revolution had long ago passed the point of no return. The traditional sources of economic security: assets; labor; family; and charity, had all failed in one degree or another. Radical proposals for action were springing like weeds from the soil of the nation's discontent. President Franklin Roosevelt would choose the social insurance approach as the "cornerstone" of his attempts to deal with the problem of economic security.

If not for the economic insecurity of the GD, I doubt FDR would have had the juice to get SS passed. Nor the whole New Deal program.

Multi-Quote

#66

05-07-2012, 05:30 PM

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from hsjpatman

It's nice to know that you are capable of recognizing a strawman disguised as a question.
So maybe now you'll be able to see how some of your questions are truly veiled strawman arguments as well.

That wasn't really a question; it was an assertion seeking confirmation.

Calling it a strawman is just answering "no" as well as stating there is no basis for the assertion.

Multi-Quote

#67

05-07-2012, 05:33 PM

hsjpatman

L10: Grand Master

Member sinceDec 2004
Posts10,789
LocationTopanga, CA
Reputation 788
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from 124nic8

That wasn't really a question; it was an assertion seeking confirmation.

Virtually identical to the ones you post.
example: http://slickdeals.net/f/4318356-P...st49752470

Quote :

Calling it a strawman is just answering "no" as well as stating there is no basis for the assertion.

Sounds oh so familiar.

Last edited by hsjpatman; 05-07-2012 at 05:36 PM..

Multi-Quote

#68

05-07-2012, 05:39 PM

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from hsjpatman

Virtually identical to the ones you post.

I'm not going to argue over the meaning of "virtually identical," but I've never written ", huh?" at he end of an assertion to disguise it as a question.

Typically I ask: "are you denying that.....?" rather than asserting and adding "huh?"

Quote :

Sounds oh so familiar.

Doubtful. I've never seen anything like that written here.

Multi-Quote

#69

05-07-2012, 05:42 PM

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from hsjpatman

example: http://slickdeals.net/f/4318356-P...st49752470

Not an assertion. More of a question whether one possibility fits.

Multi-Quote

#70

05-07-2012, 06:11 PM

hsjpatman

L10: Grand Master

Member sinceDec 2004
Posts10,789
LocationTopanga, CA
Reputation 788
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from 124nic8

Not an assertion. More of a question whether one possibility fits.

IOW, it's "an assertion seeking confirmation.".
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
It's amazing how many times you put yourself in a foot in mouth situation and then pretend it's not happening..

Multi-Quote

#71

05-07-2012, 11:09 PM

Permanently Banned

Member sinceAug 2008
Posts23,200
LocationLevel 5
Reputation 462
Followers 1

+ Give Rep

Quote from hsjpatman

IOW, it's "an assertion seeking confirmation.".
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
It's amazing how many times you put yourself in a foot in mouth situation and then pretend it's not happening..

See there are at least two things which make your example not "virtually identical."

1. My post was not a strawman, cause pb agreed I was correct about his argument:

Quote from 124nic8

Because the management and health of private pension plans is completely unrelated to that of public pension plans.....??????

Quote from paperboy05

In terms of this thread and your post, yes. But I'm sure you'll 7 degrees of Bacon it in order to "win"

2. My post was not an assertion turned into a question by appending "huh?"

But I'm sure you'll continue to insist that they are "virturally identical," and I'm not interested in your opinions on this subject anymore. wave

Just one more thing: you should really ask yourself why you're so obsessed with my posting habits. I'm sure I'm not the only one annoyed by it.

Last edited by 124nic8; 05-07-2012 at 11:24 PM..

Multi-Quote

#72

05-08-2012, 09:39 AM

hsjpatman

L10: Grand Master

Member sinceDec 2004
Posts10,789
LocationTopanga, CA
Reputation 788
Followers 0

+ Give Rep

Quote from 124nic8

See there are at least two things which make your example not "virtually identical."

1. My post was not a strawman, cause pb agreed I was correct about his argument:

Wrong.
You presented it using the word "completely", which was precisely what made it a strawman.
PB had to clarify what was apparently obvious to everyone but you, that it was "In terms of that thread and your post", and not "completely".
But you had to play your little games, as usual, and purposely misrepresent his position in order to deflect him calling you out for your "Non-sequiter red herring".

Quote :

2. My post was not an assertion turned into a question by appending "huh?"

Your post in this thread was a strawman disguised as a question.
It was "an assertion seeking confirmation".
It was virtually identical, huh or no huh.

Quote :

But I'm sure you'll continue to insist that they are "virturally identical," and I'm not interested in your opinions on this subject anymore. wave

And I'm sure you'll continue to insist that they are not "virturally identical," and I'm not interested in your opinions on this subject anymore. wave

Quote :

Just one more thing: you should really ask yourself why you're so obsessed with my posting habits.

It's not an obsession, but if you want to call it that, that's your prerogative.
The reason I am so "obsessed" with your posting habits is because you constantly use seriously faulty arguments, which I am convinced you are aware of but do so anyhow just to stir the pot.
You also use a lot of tactics that you quite often criticize others for using.
Of course, when these things are brought to your attention, you ignore them and pretend they're inaccurate and spin even more ridiculous arguments to defend the indefensible.
When I see you post the BS you post, I am compelled to call you on it.
It's no more of an obsession that you have of posting disingenuous, partisan, hypocritical things in the podium.

Quote :

I'm sure I'm not the only one annoyed by it.

An appeal to popularity.
Two can play that game.
I'm sure I'm not the only one annoyed by your posts.
I'd even venture a guess that there are more people annoyed by your posting habits that there are by my criticism of them.

Last edited by hsjpatman; 05-08-2012 at 10:36 AM..

Multi-Quote