If social security is not a form of socialism, then what is it, a form of capitalism?

reply to post by Jazzyguy

I wouldn't totally rely on the ATS gang to clear this up for you. Study up on the underlying issues yourself. You need to be clear on what "socialism" is and its possible alternatives.

We are in financial trouble right now, that's for sure. Normally this happens to an individual either because he stops producing or because someone stole something from him. More and more we are realizing that the latter is more true than the former, although a lot of us have had trouble producing, too. In other words, part of the situation is an unresolved crime problem. Some us call the "head honcho" criminals "The Powers That Be" (TPTB).

Socialism involves the state getting involved in doing things that were handled by local communities in the past. Thus, the federal government is expected to be "benevolent." This is a very rare quality in governments. Usually governments are set up to protect TPTB from the common people.

TPTB have facilitated the deterioration of traditional community institutions that in the past were expected to care for the aged, the infirm, the helpless. The last major example of this failure was the Great Depression. FDR decided to start setting up a "social safety net" at the federal level to fill the gap. This was unwise. Because it required that the federal government have direct access to individual citizens, which was never the plan of the Founding Fathers. They knew all too well how agents of a strong central government tend to lord over and intimidate citizens. They wanted a plan of government that would be decentralized in a lot of ways. They figured that if the Constitution was enforced on the states, that would be enough protection for individuals. But we were gradually bullied out of this plan by persons of questionable loyalties. We never really got a chance to establish fully functioning local governments throughout the country, though many would argue that we got pretty close.

So somehow the states were convinced over a period of time to give up their own rights and responsibilities to care for and protect their citizens in favor of federal programs.

There are lots of good arguments for having a strongly organized federal government. But that's not the same as socialism. The central government could have pushed back at the states and forced them to take care of their people. But in some crucial areas, like taxation, they did not.

Most people who are used to a good life do not depend on Social Security in any way to cover their asses when they get old. If they are wise, they save and invest so that they can take care of themselves when they can no longer earn a living. People who are less well-off can't always afford to save, so they will be hit the hardest if Social Security fails. As covered above, Social Security is a promise to pay, but it is NOT a "savings plan." I don't know how anyone was able to convince the public that they should trust the federal government to handle their retirement money for them. The main thing it accomplished was to force every citizen to register with the central government. This means they can keep track of each and every one of us from a central location. This is the ideal situation for anyone who wants to institute a police state, and is a sure sign that TPTB have taken over our federal government. So our own central government has gone criminal, as is amply evidenced by the fact that they have borrowed way over their ability to pay back their debts.

The most obvious solution at this point is to disconnect from the central government. Then see if you can find someplace that still has an honest government and do everything you can to keep it that way. But the infiltration of TPTB needs urgent handling. You can't have madmen running around in the streets and expect to be safe just be staying inside. So this is one of our highest priorities. Of course, rooting deeply-entrenched criminality out of an area causes a lot of turmoil. But it's the only option we have if we want to survive as a free nation and a free planet.

Originally posted by SG-17
There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism* anyway. Distribution of wealth is a good thing.




*When implemented in a social democracy.

"When implemented in a social democracy." You mean, when 51% of the poor people vote that all the rich must give their wealth to them, right?

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


No, when the top %2, who control something like 60% of the nation's wealth actually pay their fair share in taxes.

If social security is not a form of socialism, then what is it, a form of capitalism?

It's a form of humanity.

What's the matter here?

Votes.