Social Security as a product.

[humandraydel]

[QUOTE=maat55;333445]

I'll trust Fidelity, Vanguard or T. R. Price over the government.



This may have merit, but again, I trust them before the government. Would there be good times and bad times, sure, but I still have retirement funds without burdening future generations. Besides, it is not the entities that hold the value, it is the investments themselves.If the wheels stop turning, the government could do nothing about it.

The thing that you, as well as most other people, forget is that the ENTIRE "system" is so entwined as to be unrecognizable. Without (at least a little) government regulation, investors would be less willing to lend money, buy stocks, invest in companies, etc. for fear of corruption with no recourse. In other words, capitalism can not exist without government and a calm society.

On the other hand, when capitalism starts to fail (AIG, which potentially owed a LOT of money to US citizens in the form of various insurance payouts) the government has no choice but to take action in order to maintain a working society. The result is that when the grand experiment of capitalism fails, the citizens have to pay via increased taxes, higher inflation, currency devaluation, etc.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Apparently not to you. Forced by the gov to a private profit driven company is no different than forced by the gov to the gov run program.

I have faith in the private sector and would do so anyway. But you are right, the government should not force me into either.

So if the gov were running it with a surplus, you would be okay with that?

Not really, the government has no way of knowing what is fair per person. Earlier participants paid little and got alot. With each generation comes higher taxes and much less opportunity costs(the large returns at the backside/latter years of investing).

Why does it have to be all one or the other?

I would accept paying my 2% just as the first payers paid.

In your mind is there no scenario with one part government run social programs, and one part privately run investment options? (aka the current system)

No. 12.4% is way too much on the government side. Freedom is freedom, you either imbrace it or you dont.

I see nothing wrong with living in a country that takes care of the poor, disabled, and elderly.

Why do you assume only the federal government does this? You believe the country would be destitute without federal government welfare. I do not accept this for a second. The truth is that when individuals have to step to the plate, they will. Freedom is not free.

Raise revenues, and cut costs. Same way any financial system will survive.

Typical liberal economics. How is that working in Europe?

No I do not admit that, because I don't believe it. I'm not a super conspiracy buff like you. "The government is trying to take care of the poor and needy in this country because they want to steal your freedom!!! REVOLT!!!!!"

So, am I as free today as our forefathers? Is the federal government a God? The real conspirocy is that only the federal government can help the poor.

If private solutions are the only answer, why do people not save for retirement on their own? Why do so many people not buy long term disability coverage? (private companies offer it right now) Why do so many people live without health care? (private companies offer it right now)

Social programs have soften up Americans and they have 15% of their incomes confiscated.

Each function that SS provides for ALREADY IS an industry run by private profit-driven companies, and many people don't take advantage of it.

Why should they? The government has forced them elsewhere. Besides, what business is it of yours? Really?

[maat55]

I'm not seeing anyone answer the question as to whether they would volutarily invest in SS. Put your money where your ideology is.

I said NO for two reasons. One, I can get more for my money privately. Two, SS is an abomination to freedom. It promotes serfdom.

[jpg7n16]

Not really, the government has no way of knowing what is fair per person.

But a private company hiring the same actuaries could?

Earlier participants paid little and got alot. With each generation comes higher taxes and much less opportunity costs(the large returns at the backside/latter years of investing).

Early acturial statistics showed shorter life spans. Current ones show longer life spans. Therefore you need more money to make it last.

Basic math.

I would accept paying my 2% just as the first payers paid.

I doubt it. You would argue that they mismanage it. And you would argue against sales tax and tariffs. (Why should we have to pay their tax??)

You will not be happy until the government takes no taxes, and we are left to ourselves with no ruling body. Completely free.

No. 12.4% is way too much on the government side. Freedom is freedom, you either imbrace it or you dont.

I disagree. And am free to do so.

And if the government mandates me to put 12.4% of my money with private institutions, then I am just as free as if they require me to give 12.4% to the government.

Why do you assume only the federal government does this? You believe the country would be destitute without federal government welfare. I do not accept this for a second. The truth is that when individuals have to step to the plate, they will. Freedom is not free.

I never said only they did. I just said that they do.

Typical liberal economics. How is that working in Europe?

It's actually just basic math.

I'm sorry you can't subtract, but there are only 2 ways to correct a budget shortfall: increase the income side, or decrease the expense side.

There's nothing "liberal" about it, it's just basic math you should have learned in 2nd grade.

You can't make 10-15 = a positive number. Either make "10" bigger, or make "15" smaller.

So, am I as free today as our forefathers?

I believe that God, not our forefathers, created you free.

Is the federal government a God?

Do what??? What have you been smoking?

The real conspirocy is that only the federal government can help the poor.

It's not that only they can, it's that only they have a mandate to, and the power to force revenues to do so.

The church, for all it's generosity in society, cannot force you to give money to it. A government can.

Social programs have soften up Americans and they have 15% of their incomes confiscated.

It's called taxes. It's part of government.

Why should they? The government has forced them elsewhere. Besides, what business is it of yours? Really?

I don't know if you've heard, but I'm a financial advisor. Helping people get proper retirement savings, disability insurance coverage, and medical coverage -- literally is my business.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

But a private company hiring the same actuaries could?

Do you doubt the fairness of your 401k? It is a private account, it does not throw everyones money into a pool and decide who gets what.

Early acturial statistics showed shorter life spans. Current ones show longer life spans. Therefore you need more money to make it last.
Basic math.

Fair would have been to retain the 2% and just adjust the retirement age.

I doubt it. You would argue that they mismanage it. And you would argue against sales tax and tariffs. (Why should we have to pay their tax??)

No doubt they would misuse it. Actually, I am all for a national sales tax to pay Constitutional duties. Pay whose tax?

You will not be happy until the government takes no taxes, and we are left to ourselves with no ruling body. Completely free.

Another liberal lie. As a Constitutionalist, I am for paying taxes for Constitutional duties. I do not recall seeing food, housing, healthcare, education, retirement and unemployment in the "Bill of Rights".

I disagree. And am free to do so.

Who is intruding on whoes freedoms here? I say you should be free to voluntarily invest your 12.4%, you say I should have to participate in your ponzi-scheme at gun point.

And if the government mandates me to put 12.4% of my money with private institutions, then I am just as free as if they require me to give 12.4% to the government.

True.

It's actually just basic math.

I'm sorry you can't subtract, but there are only 2 ways to correct a budget shortfall: increase the income side, or decrease the expense side.

There's nothing "liberal" about it, it's just basic math you should have learned in 2nd grade.

You can't make 10-15 = a positive number. Either make "10" bigger, or make "15" smaller.

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Higher taxes can generate lower revenues. Personally, I do not want to be Europe. You are welcome to pay their taxes for their lifestyles.

I believe that God, not our forefathers, created you free.

While this is true, it is not an answer to the question. Tell me this, do you believe healthcare is a right? If so, why did God not provide us it in the past? This may seem off OP, but it is relevant. SS is just another version of the same. Did God provide government programs for retirement?

Do what??? What have you been smoking?

It is a legitimate question. You seem to give the federal government so much faith.

It's not that only they can, it's that only they have a mandate to, and the power to force revenues to do so.

Where is this mandate in the Constitution?

The church, for all it's generosity in society, cannot force you to give money to it. A government can.

Again, when did God ever use governments to provide charity or retirement programs?

It's called taxes. It's part of government.

It is called redistribution and intrusive government.

I don't know if you've heard, but I'm a financial advisor. Helping people get proper retirement savings, disability insurance coverage, and medical coverage -- literally is my business.

So, honestly, how do you rate the SS against private plans? You have yet to answer the question: would you invest in SS if it were voluntary?

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

The thing that you, as well as most other people, forget is that the ENTIRE "system" is so entwined as to be unrecognizable. Without (at least a little) government regulation, investors would be less willing to lend money, buy stocks, invest in companies, etc. for fear of corruption with no recourse. In other words, capitalism can not exist without government and a calm society.

I agree fully. Yet, the governments role is referee, not quaterback.

On the other hand, when capitalism starts to fail (AIG, which potentially owed a LOT of money to US citizens in the form of various insurance payouts) the government has no choice but to take action in order to maintain a working society. The result is that when the grand experiment of capitalism fails, the citizens have to pay via increased taxes, higher inflation, currency devaluation, etc.

Wrong. Capitalism did not fail. Government intrusion into the markets created the malinvestment. You are saying that the government has the right to throw gas on the fire it started. It is not reasonable for the government to fix its mistakes or this generations mistakes with future Americans prosperity.

[jpg7n16]

Fair would have been to retain the 2% and just adjust the retirement age.

As pointed out multiple times before, Social Security is more than just retirement savings. Adjusting the retirement age does nothing for the orphans, widows, and disabled.

No doubt they would misuse it. Actually, I am all for a national sales tax to pay Constitutional duties. Pay whose tax?

But they would no doubt misuse the sales tax revenues too.

Another liberal lie. As a Constitutionalist, I am for paying taxes for Constitutional duties. I do not recall seeing food, housing, healthcare, education, retirement and unemployment in the "Bill of Rights".

But you do see that it provides that the government should provide for the general welfare of it's people, right? And that it has the authority to lay taxes to do so?

Who is intruding on whoes freedoms here? I say you should be free to voluntarily invest your 12.4%, you say I should have to participate in your ponzi-scheme at gun point.

No I'm saying that you should pay your taxes. And that I have no problem living in a society that takes care of the widows, orphans, elderly, poor and disabled.

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Higher taxes can generate lower revenues. Personally, I do not want to be Europe. You are welcome to pay their taxes for their lifestyles.

Reread my post. I did not say "raise taxes," I said "raise revenues."

While this is true, it is not an answer to the question. Tell me this, do you believe healthcare is a right? If so, why did God not provide us it in the past? This may seem off OP, but it is relevant. SS is just another version of the same. Did God provide government programs for retirement?

Do you believe you have the right to use the internet? If so, then why did God not provide the internet in the past?

It is a legitimate question.

No it isn't. It's a ridiculous question.

Where is this mandate in the Constitution?

In the very 1st paragraph...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

And Article I, section 8, supports their right to lay taxes in order to provide for the general welfare of the society.

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

If you doubt the Social Security programs' Constitutionality, maybe you should read up on law and case history around it. Here's a good place to start:

Social Security Online

Again, when did God ever use governments to provide charity or retirement programs?

First off, Joseph and the grain in Genesis, where God orchestrated events such that Joseph would be in charge of the grain for the nation, and as head of the government over grain distribution was able to provide for the masses. Also, throughout Deuteronomy there are several laws requiring to leave grain/grapes/tithes/etc. for orphans, widows, etc. -- which could be considered as early social agendas.

Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied

When they took a tithe (=1/10th=10%) of the grains to be given to widows and orphans, that's kind of like taking 12.4% and giving it to the needy isn't it?


Oh, were you not being serious??

It is called redistribution and intrusive government.

All taxation redistributes wealth. It takes from one and gives to others.

So, honestly, how do you rate the SS against private plans? You have yet to answer the question: would you invest in SS if it were voluntary?

Your question is pointless. Whether one would or would not voluntarily participate does not mean it is any more or less valid in society.

Would I pay any tax (income or sales) if it were voluntary? No.

Does that mean I am against taxes? No.

Taxes have their place in society. They serve a purpose, and I believe we should all pay our share of taxes. I am for taxes. But I would not voluntarily give my money to the government or anyone else if I didn't have to.

So I am for something, that I would not voluntarily do. Thus, by a clear example, your question attempting to discredit the validity of SS by those who would voluntarily contribute, is pointless.

I believe the society should take care of the elderly, poor, widows, orphans and disabled. And in order to do so, they have to get money from somewhere. Taxation seems like a logical choice.

[Wino]

I don't want to be a part of this, but the clause "...promote the general welfare..." is in the preamble. That is not part of the constitutional articles, so does not have any bearing on our laws.

A few questions on your support for "elderly, poor, widows, orphans and disabled:"

Should we support young, rich, healthy widows?
Should we support old, rich, healthy married couples?

If you're trying the "pull on the sympathy strings" ploy here, you left out puppies and kittens.

I have no problem providing basic essentials to those who cannot provide for themselves, but I'm pretty sick and tired of watching people buy steaks and other luxuries with foodstamps. The system is broken, and I hate seeing my money support a broken system that no one is accountable to fix. Note my phrasing above "cannot provide," not "will not provide."

Another note: almost no one I see using foodstamps likewise looks underweight (if you get my drift). Why am I working as much as I do to help pay for people to get obese watching video games? Amazing how many aid recipients can afford iPhone4s and tattoos and enough jewelry to sink a good-sized canoe.

I guess this is "so much for staying out of it..."

[humandraydel]

I agree fully. Yet, the governments role is referee, not quaterback.

Good we agree - I'm ok with referee and not quarterback. So we agree that some level of government involvement is beneficial to both capitalism and society. The question, then, is the LEVEL of involvement. The truth is, there is a fine line and no one knows exactly the perfect level of involvement. This absolutely IS a grand experiment - all of society is.

Wrong. Capitalism did not fail. Government intrusion into the markets created the malinvestment. You are saying that the government has the right to throw gas on the fire it started. It is not reasonable for the government to fix its mistakes or this generations mistakes with future Americans prosperity.

There were multiple causes of the "Great Recession", due to both too much and too little government involvement. Sub-prime mortgages were due to the government pushing Freddie & Fannie to expand their balance sheet and turning a blind eye to the mortgage backed securities being created by the banking industry. Credit default swaps, however, were a product created by Wall Street and completely unregulated when they should have been.

That being said, I agree completely with Wino above me - our entitlement programs go too far and are too lax in enforcement. However, Social Security itself (retirement and disability), is a valuable safety net for Americans and beneficial to society as a whole. The percentage of elderly people who live off of just SS is amazingly high.

Do we "overpay" for SS? Probably. But the truth is, since the 1940s income tax rates have been going down while SS tax rates go up. Part of the REASON income tax rates have been able to go down is because the SS tax has gone up and generated a surplus which the government spent...err, "invested" in Treasury Bonds

[Mjenn]

I always wonder if these people calling for the privatization of things have ever actually worked in the private sector. I have spent the last 10 years working with over a dozen international companies all over the world and I can tell you these companies don't have much of a better sense of anything being done.They only have to show a certain profit each year. And they do that often despite themselves. And they do it because, unlike the government, their driving concern isn't public roads, schools and providing services to their electorate, their driving concern is to MAKE MONEY. Sure, you need to 'provide a quality product to continue to make money' but many large companies have shown time and time again that isn't really the truth of the matter, nor is it that simple.

I would MUCH rather have an elected official, who I vote for every several years, who has to have a certain degree of transparancy be responsible for a portion of my retirement funds, than a private organization. I say that despite the fact that private companies hire my company and I enjoy working with international companies. But in my experience, they do not have a friggin clue. And I cannot name names here, but they are all well known brands and I am pretty sure you have at least 4-5 in your house.

The thing about the issues the government deals with is that they shouldn't be about business, they should be about humans. Private industry has destroyed the American health system and took what could have been a decent system and made it into a monster. People pay into health insurance for decades and are then denied coverage thru any loophole available, medical decisions are not made between patients and doctors they are made between doctors and insurance providers.

Nah, I trust my government more. Tell me, do you want to privitize the military too? Because they are also run by those government crazies.

[jpg7n16]

I don't want to be a part of this, but the clause "...promote the general welfare..." is in the preamble. That is not part of the constitutional articles, so does not have any bearing on our laws.

Umm... as posted above it is also listed and reiterated in Section 8. I quoted it in my post.

And Article I, section 8, supports their right to lay taxes in order to provide for the general welfare of the society.

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

A few questions on your support for "elderly, poor, widows, orphans and disabled:"

Should we support young, rich, healthy widows?
Should we support old, rich, healthy married couples?

The society should support all of it's people, but not completely replace personal responsibility. And as in anything, it's not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are sick. The help/support should primarily go to those who need it most.

Those who are in most need of help are the ones who should get it.

If you're trying the "pull on the sympathy strings" ploy here, you left out puppies and kittens.

Well I'm not. I just happen to think that this society should look out for the welfare of its people - especially those who are in need. What is so wrong with that?

I have no problem providing basic essentials to those who cannot provide for themselves, but I'm pretty sick and tired of watching people buy steaks and other luxuries with foodstamps. The system is broken, and I hate seeing my money support a broken system that no one is accountable to fix. Note my phrasing above "cannot provide," not "will not provide."

I agree that there are people who abuse the system. But that does not mean the system should not exist at all. I've never said the system as is is perfect.

If you're trying to pull the "the poor aren't as broke as you think they are" strings, it's not working. I doubt there is any joy in qualifying for the food stamp program.

Though if you want to try living with less than $2,000 to your name, give it a shot.

From: Social Security Publications

Generally, your household cannot have more than $2,000 in resources (things you own). But, if your household includes a person age 60 or older or who is disabled, the limit is $3,000. Resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are not counted for SNAP purposes. Resources include cash, bank accounts and other property.

Not all recources you own count. For *example, your home and the land it is on do not count for food stamp eligibility. A car or truck counts differently depending on how it is used. Most states now use TANF rules in place of SNAP vehicle rules if the TANF rules are more beneficial to the SNAP household.

Most households also must meet an income limit. Certain things do not count as income and can be subtracted from your income. Your household may qualify for other income exclusions if it includes a person age 60 or older or disabled. The income limits vary by household size and may change each year.

Another note: almost no one I see using foodstamps likewise looks underweight (if you get my drift). Why am I working as much as I do to help pay for people to get obese watching video games? Amazing how many aid recipients can afford iPhone4s and tattoos and enough jewelry to sink a good-sized canoe.

I guess this is "so much for staying out of it..."

People, both rich and poor, can be irresponsible with their finances. But that does not mean that the program should not exist.

[Wino]

Generally, your household cannot have more than $2,000 in resources (things you own). But, if your household includes a person age 60 or older or who is disabled, the limit is $3,000. Resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are not counted for SNAP purposes. Resources include cash, bank accounts and other property.

Not all recources you own count. For *example, your home and the land it is on do not count for food stamp eligibility. A car or truck counts differently depending on how it is used. Most states now use TANF rules in place of SNAP vehicle rules if the TANF rules are more beneficial to the SNAP household.

Most households also must meet an income limit. Certain things do not count as income and can be subtracted from your income. Your household may qualify for other income exclusions if it includes a person age 60 or older or disabled. The income limits vary by household size and may change each year.

That's been enforced... um... NEVER. No accountability and no means testing. The system is broken. I would prefer to have the Churchs and Synagogues provide charity to those who deserve it. The government should never be able to force me into charitable giving.

And I've lived without $2000 in assets, for years. You keep saying "...that does not mean the system should not exist at all" in various forms, like you're refuting an argument I have made. I never said the system should not exist and never intimated it. Please don't put words into my posts that aren't there. This would be like me saying, "I disagree that is should be 'from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.'"

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

As pointed out multiple times before, Social Security is more than just retirement savings. Adjusting the retirement age does nothing for the orphans, widows, and disabled.

Why is it that you think the federal government is the anwer to these issues? Were there not orphans, widows and disabled before SS? The federal government was established for a limited purpose. The individuals needs for food, shelter, healthcare, retirement and income was not part of this.

As they have taken this on, the country has been withering and is now near bankrupt.

But they would no doubt misuse the sales tax revenues too.

Anything the government spends on that is not Constitutional, is wasting the funds. The last thing the government needs is more revenues to waste.

But you do see that it provides that the government should provide for the general welfare of it's people, right? And that it has the authority to lay taxes to do so?

General welfare is national defense, national infrastructure, fair courts, fair market playing field, even some cancer/diabetes/common diseases research funding. It does not include providing individuals personal needs.

I can provide you a long list of Founders Quotes to back this up.

No I'm saying that you should pay your taxes. And that I have no problem living in a society that takes care of the widows, orphans, elderly, poor and disabled.

Yes, I should pay my Constitutional taxes and take care of the truly needy with voluntary charity.

Reread my post. I did not say "raise taxes," I said "raise revenues."

If we are talking about fully funding SS, you have to raise taxes.

Do you believe you have the right to use the internet? If so, then why did God not provide the internet in the past?

Not if it is forcing someone else to provide it at a cost.

First off, Joseph and the grain in Genesis, where God orchestrated events such that Joseph would be in charge of the grain for the nation, and as head of the government over grain distribution was able to provide for the masses. Also, throughout Deuteronomy there are several laws requiring to leave grain/grapes/tithes/etc. for orphans, widows, etc. -- which could be considered as early social agendas.

Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied

When they took a tithe (=1/10th=10%) of the grains to be given to widows and orphans, that's kind of like taking 12.4% and giving it to the needy isn't it?

.Helping the poor and those in need: what the Bible really says
Religion & SpiritualityAugust 22, 2009
By: Richard Bean0 Email.Get Western Religions alerts!
E-mail *
+Show do not change Contact Email Contact Email2 Contact Url Subscribe to Blog Remember my Info . .Jesus says that the poor will always be among us. God's Word is very clear that we are to be generous to those in need, and it outlines how we can and should help others. There are quite a few misconceptions about the Bible and its description of Christian generosity.

1) "For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always." (Jesus speaking in Mark 14:7 NKJV)

Jesus teaches us that the poor are always going to be with us. Poverty and need is not a temporary phenomenon where, if we just work hard enough, it will go away. However, the permanent nature of there being poor in the world does not lessen in any way the responsibility of Christians to be generous and to provide for their needs to the best of our ability. Until the end of the world, we will always be called by God to provide for the poor.

2) "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)

This verse helps show the distinction in Scripture between simply providing for someone's needs and biblical giving. If you give everything you have, but you have not love, it does you no good. Why does it say it profits "me" nothing, as opposed to "them?" This will be covered under the point describing why God has us provide for the poor. But here in 1 Corinthians, it is important to note that giving should NEVER be separated from love. It must be from the heart of the giver. This is how God designed biblical provision for the poor.

3) "Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'" (Matthew 19:21)

Here we see the purpose that God has in providing for the poor. Obviously, if God so chose, He could simply make manna fall from heaven like He did for those wandering in the Wilderness. God could easily provide every morsel of food, every drop of clean water, etc.. Why doesn't He? Two main reasons. The first is sin. Sin causes many of the conditions which cause starvation, famine, etc. God's solution for sin is faith in Jesus Christ. But this faith is not simply a belief in the mind, it involves sanctification (becoming more like Christ). God desires us to provide for the poor on His behalf as a means for us to become more Christ-like. Our sanctification is the primary reason that God commands us to provide for those in need. Look back at the verse, "If you want to be perfect." What does Jesus describe as the reason for giving to the poor? Does Jesus cite the benefit to the poor person? No. Jesus cites the sanctification and treasures in heaven. God commands us to provide for the poor for our own spiritual benefit first and foremost.

4) "The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up." (1 Sam 2:7)

Now that we have seen that the reason God asks us to give to the poor is for our sanctification, we also see in 1 Samuel 2:7 that it is God who makes both rich and poor. God either allows for and provides our success, or He allows for and provides in our need. It is not society which determines the blessings a person receives from the Lord.

5) "He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, and He will pay back what he has given." (Proverbs 19:17)

Another example of the spiritual nature of providing for the poor. We already saw that it is God who makes rich and poor, that we are to give for the purposes of our sanctification, and here we see that our giving is a spiritual investment with the Lord. It is entirely within the context of spiritual growth and blessing that we are to give.

6) "Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and not be heard." (Proverbs 21:13)

This one is self-explanatory, but to reinforce this text, I have chosen to include several others here as well:
* "He who oppresses the poor to increase his riches, and he who gives to the rich, will surely come to poverty." (Proverbs 22:16)
* "He who has a generous eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor." (Proverbs 22:9)
* "He who gives to the poor will not lack, but he who hides his eyes will have many curses." (Proverbs 28:27)
Our giving to the poor is a spiritual opportunity to align our wills with God's. We have the opportunity to bless the poor with the gifts bestowed upon us by God. It is our spiritual responsibility to help the poor, but it is for our own growth and blessing that God chose to allow us to be part of this process of helping the needy.

7) "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7)Perhaps one of the most important points. We are NOT to give grudgingly OR of necessity. The Bible explicitly rejects giving in the form of compulsion. No one should force you to give. No one should compel you. No one should make you give grudgingly. Giving in these manners lacks love. Remember above, giving without love profits nothing. Forcing you to give without your consent is devoid of biblical support. If you do not give from your heart, with love, then you are not working on your sanctification--which is why God allows us to be part of the process of giving to the poor.

The citations could go on all day, but these illustrate the main points that the Bible makes concerning biblical giving. There will always be poor that we are to provide for with a cheerful heart, with love, in order to be sanctified as the Holy Spirit works within us. We are to be generous to the poor from our hearts, as a loving spiritual investment and desire to follow God's plan for us. Most importantly, it must be of our own desire.

In some of my other articles, I have been accused of not having read what Scripture teaches on this matter. Some have claimed that government should be in the business of providing for the poor through taxation and progressive programs. While it is very biblical to desire to help the poor, that model of government provision is anything but biblical. The government redistributing wealth ignores that God is the one who blesses through us. The government model makes giving devoid of love because it is compulsory through taxation. The government model is impersonal and is unrelated to God's intent for giving to be for our sanctification. Instead of being biblical, the government model creates people who grudgingly hand over money--developing a dislike for the poor as opposed to a genuine love and care for them.

Jesus never taught that the poor are to be provided for by anyone but individuals who give according to their own love and choice to give. God, far from endorsing government programs, denies their validity as they violate nearly every biblical principle of Christian giving.

All taxation redistributes wealth. It takes from one and gives to others.

No, it was not meant to redistribute. Taxes are to pay for necessary federal duties. Paying a soldier is not redistribution. Giving welfare is.

Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

Your question is pointless. Whether one would or would not voluntarily participate does not mean it is any more or less valid in society.

No, it is relevant. It speaks to the quality of the program. The Government is not God, it is not all knowing or just. It also is no more relibale than the economy that supports it. To think that it will always pay its bills is rediculous. You appera to believe that no matter what happens, it will provide SS funds, which is ignorant of reality.

Would I pay any tax (income or sales) if it were voluntary? No.

I'm making a distinction between proper government taxation and improper taxation. Inome or sales tax is irrelevant, where the money goes is.

Does that mean I am against taxes? No.

Neither am I.

Taxes have their place in society. They serve a purpose, and I believe we should all pay our share of taxes. I am for taxes. But I would not voluntarily give my money to the government or anyone else if I didn't have to.

The question is would you voluntarily invest in SS?

So I am for something, that I would not voluntarily do. Thus, by a clear example, your question attempting to discredit the validity of SS by those who would voluntarily contribute, is pointless.

I believe the society should take care of the elderly, poor, widows, orphans and disabled. And in order to do so, they have to get money from somewhere. Taxation seems like a logical choice.

I have stated that I am not against a SS system, I am against the government managing it in a way that reflects Bernie with a gun.

I believe society should take care of them as well, but not by the federal government.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

I always wonder if these people calling for the privatization of things have ever actually worked in the private sector.

I happen to be a small business owner. BTW, I do not qualify for unemployment, yet I provide it for my employees.

I have spent the last 10 years working with over a dozen international companies all over the world and I can tell you these companies don't have much of a better sense of anything being done.

This pretty much disqualifies your opinion on the subject. The free market does not know what it is doing better than the government? Wow.

They only have to show a certain profit each year.

Making a profit in a competitive market place is a measure of efficiency. I'll bet you my life that the free market would produce a better tv and a better price than the government.

And they do it because, unlike the government, their driving concern isn't public roads, schools and providing services to their electorate, their driving concern is to MAKE MONEY.

As it should be. It is not the responsiblility of the economy to build roads and schools, it is the machine at which the government(state and federal having different duties) can tax to provide these infrastructures.

I would MUCH rather have an elected official, who I vote for every several years, who has to have a certain degree of transparancy be responsible for a portion of my retirement funds, than a private organization.

The Government is broke, it has 16 trillion in debt. What on earth are you talking about? Your SS taxes are held in worthless IOU's. In order to redeem them, they have to pile more debt on the future.

The thing about the issues the government deals with is that they shouldn't be about business, they should be about humans.

So, this gives the government the right to load massive debts on future generations just to make surer you get your status quo? Unbelievable.

Private industry has destroyed the American health system and took what could have been a decent system and made it into a monster.

What private system? Between medicare, medicaid, and improper government tax incentives, we have no free market healthcare.

People pay into health insurance for decades and are then denied coverage thru any loophole available, medical decisions are not made between patients and doctors they are made between doctors and insurance providers.

This is due to improper government intrusion and lack of proper regualtion.

Nah, I trust my government more. Tell me, do you want to privitize the military too? Because they are also run by those government crazies.

Do you want the government taking 100% of your earnings and telling you how you will live?

There are a few things we have to have a national government do. Defense is one of these, even though they do it at a huge cost due to inefficiency and corruption.

[jpg7n16]

Why is it that you think the federal government is the anwer to these issues?

I never said gov was the only answer. Just said that I believe part of the government's purpose to take care of the needy.

As they have taken this on, the country has been withering and is now near bankrupt.

Which as I remember it, was exactly the case before SS existed. The Great Depression was not caused by SS.

.Helping the poor and those in need: what the Bible really says
Religion & SpiritualityAugust 22, 2009
By: Richard Bean0

Wow. That's the best you've got? Some guy sent out a "Biblical" newsletter? What are his credentials again?

Richard Bean - Charlotte evangelical Examiner - Western Religions | Examiner.com

1) "For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always." (Jesus speaking in Mark 14:7 NKJV)

2) "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)

3) "Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'" (Matthew 19:21)

4) "The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up." (1 Sam 2:7)

5) "He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, and He will pay back what he has given." (Proverbs 19:17)

6) "Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and not be heard." (Proverbs 21:13)

This one is self-explanatory, but to reinforce this text, I have chosen to include several others here as well:
* "He who oppresses the poor to increase his riches, and he who gives to the rich, will surely come to poverty." (Proverbs 22:16)
* "He who has a generous eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor." (Proverbs 22:9)
* "He who gives to the poor will not lack, but he who hides his eyes will have many curses." (Proverbs 28:27)

7) "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7)

I'd challenge you to read through each of these passages (not just the verses) and see what context they were stated in. And then see how many were talking about personal responsibility versus government responsibility.

God, far from endorsing government programs, denies their validity as they violate nearly every biblical principle of Christian giving.

I disagree.